Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

The Genomic Profiling Study

I was wondering why this study is not touched upon by any of the articles. Yes, am aware its a preliminary study but is one published in a leading peer reviewed journal in the field - The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine published by Mary Ann Liebert and the official journal of The International Society for Complementary Medicine Research . Further, I see many almost irrelevant stuff being mentioned in the article - for instance, a casual statement made by a late psychologist, one not based on any study, has been cherry picked and embedded into the article - a statement made at a time when many in the west were highly influenced by CCP's propaganda. This, the very least, is a peer-reviewed, scientific paper based on a scientific study conducted by scientists from leading research institutions - obviously worthy of attention. The results of the study also seem quite interesting to me.

I quote from the paper:

The changes in gene expression of FLG practitioners in contrast to normal healthy controls were characterized by enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation. The lifespan of normal neutrophils was prolonged, while the inflammatory neutrophils displayed accelerated cell death in FLG practitioners as determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Correlating with enhanced immunity reflected by microarray data, neutrophil phagocytosis was significantly increased in Qigong practitioners. Some of the altered genes observed by microarray were confirmed by RPA.[1][2]

Among 12000 genes tested in the Affymetrix chip, about 200 genes were consistently altered in the FLG practitioners, and we have discussed some of the changed genes...[3]

Ribosomal proteins are very important components of protein synthesis. Downregulation of 10 out of 11 genes for ribosomal proteins suggests that protein synthesis might also be lowered. Ribosomes are the molecular machines that manufacture proteins (Maguire et al., 2001). Downregulation of both genes for ribosomal proteins and genes for protein degradation may lead to reduced protein turnover. In correlation with downregulation of protein degradation and synthesis, the genes coding for proteins involved in DNA repair, cellular stress, and antioxidant enzymes are also lowered (Fig. 3C). Decreases of those stress-associated key enzymes, along with other stress-responsive genes, may implicate limited oxidative production and macromolecular damage...[4]

Any suggestions on how the results of the study could be summarized and mentioned in the article - perhaps in the academic perspectives stub? Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get that last paragraph. Actually, I don't really get any of that, to be honest. Could someone spell it out for me? By the way, another editor complained about this once, but I'm not sure what the complaint was. I think it surely belongs in the article though, judging from the source. The academic section would be the place for it, too, I suppose. If there is something notable here--which there seems to be--and the source is fine, whoever has the wits to understand that and summarise the message, they should go for it.--Asdfg12345 16:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Consummation

I noted (in hunting down misspellings) that at least /Archive 14 has numerous uses of the misspelled term "consumation". No harm on the talk page, but editors are cautioned that

1. The correct spelling has, for etymological reasons, a double M: "consummation".
2. The expression "a consummation devoutly to be wished" is a fairly well known expression, usually, i think, about something pleasant and unexpected, with the word "devout" in it sounding to modern ears like an using religious devotion as an ironic metaphor -- but to those who know Hamlet well, it refers to death, especially by suicide ("with a bare bodkin"):

   ... To die: to sleep:

   Nor more; and by a sleep to say we end

   The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

   That flesh is heir to; ‘tis a consummation

   Devoutly to be wished.

3. Although the senses that are synonyms of more generic words like "fulfillment", "completion", and so on are technically correct and quite understandable, "consummation" is both a legal and colloquial term for sexual activities, so that editors may at least want to be aware what the joke is that may be occasionally made (perhaps by vandals, in the accompanying article) about its use.

(Hmm, that may be the germ of a Consummation (usage) article.)
--Jerzy•t 20:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, dude.--Asdfg12345 00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it was Tomananda who always wrote the word that way. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2¢ from a reader

I know next-to-nothing about Falun Gong. I came to the article hoping for a brief summary of the movement, it's beliefs and the controversies that surround it, particularly in China. I read the intro and the first ("beliefs...") section of the article, and I found little in the way of illuminating information. Indeed, the article seems untrustworthy; it reads like a whitewash, even though I don't know what is being hidden. The intro should summarize the whole article, and in this case it should include some description of the controversies and politics in which Falun Gong has been embroiled, shouldn't it? I'm not going to get involved as an editor here--I'm just posting this in the hopes that a "reality check" from a reader with no axe to grind might be useful. Seems to me there's major change needed before this becomes a credible encyclopedia article. 75.79.57.162 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and the articles need more high-quality references in order to become even better. But they are already far more balanced than what some people suggest. Whatever popular myths are spread about Falun Gong have not stood in the face of academic inquiry, and we should be clear on that. If this were an article on Jews, you probably wouldn't say, "it doesn't mention the international conspiracy, so it seems like whitewashing". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

References are valuable, but I don't think lack of references is the problem. The problem is the way it's written. The article suggests whitewashing because it describes Falun Gong only in gauzy promotional-sounding phrases like "seeks to develop practitioners' hearts and character according to the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forbearance." The article also does a poor job of explaining the terms it introduces. When it jumps to protests against persecution, there is no description of any history that led to persecution or any attempt to represent differing perspectives on the group, their leaders, beliefs, etc. An obvious question emerges in a reader's mind when reading that the Chinese banned the practice: why did they ban it? This isn't addressed. Even if the basis for suppressing Falun Gong is outrageously false, as with the Nazis and the Jews, their stated rationale still needs to be described, and perhaps other perspectives on the Chinese government's motives could be introduced as well. In other words, the article (I'm restricting myself to the first couple of sections, nothing there motivated me to read further) does not read like it was written by a disinterested third party encyclopedist trying to explain the movement and their history; it seems more like not-very-slick public relations material prepared by the group itself. I'm just responding to the quality of the writing: truly, I don't know enough about Falun Gong to have any perspective on it or opinion of it, either as a political phenomenon or a spiritual practice. I was just disappointed that the Wikipedia article didn't seem enlightening. I suspect that virtually any article about Falun Gong from a major newspaper would be much more informative than the current Wikipedia entry. BTfromLA (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

pls finish reading and share your thoughts.--Asdfg12345 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I echo Asdfg12345. Please read through the entirety of Falun Gong articles. You'll find plenty of sourced material from top researchers. While I agree that none of the articles are extremely well written or structured, I'd argue that ample information on the issues you mentioned has already been added. Making the articles' style more encyclopedic definitely needs more work. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just another personal opinion from a slightly different angle. I have recently came back from Taiwan where I had multiple opportunities to meet and observe, over a period of years, some of the Falun Gong practitioners and their families from rather quite close perspective. For the sake of.. hmm, lets call it: "social responsibility" I feel strong urge to voice my support to various people who raised their concerns about the accuracy of the FG articles and the objectivity of the editors who seem to have taken over the FG articles. The reasons why it still hasn't found its place among such phenomena as Scientology is that it is still young and fairly unknown in the English side of the Wikipedia (which still lacks resources that could provide critical and objective analysis) and insurmountable amounts of personal time "practitioners" spend marketing the movement. I hope, and believe, that once the movement gets more attention from "non-practitioners" (which seems to be a primary way the FG "practitioners" partition people) the articles become more critical and more accurate as to portrayal of various external aspects of the movement. -- Tch77 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire article, indeed, looks like a piece of not-so-well-written marketing pamphlet on the group. I've noticed that since two or three months ago, when I've last checked on this article, even the slightest hint at criticism has been removed from the page. This article represents one of the fundamental and systematic flaws with Wikipedia. Third party editors have tried to make a more balanced view presented, but have been constantly discouraged by editors who will revert any critical information, sourced or not, within a few hours. It is interesting that with two distinct sides to the issue, those who are reverting do not come from the Communist Party of China side, but from the Falun Gong side. It is clear which side is trying to hide information.

However, if you look at the FLG article on the Chinese Wikipedia (which is edited by mostly HK and Taiwan editors), it does provide a more balanced look, with some academic criticisms of the practice. Colipon+(T) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Second that, in fact I was trying to edit this article few months ago but it is just impossible because these professional Falun Gong editors, I don't get paid by editing a Wikipedia article but they does, so I guess they won, and Wikipedia lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixingche (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. My salaries must be seriously overdue in that case. Where can I cash in? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I read everyone's remarks. I'll just quickly write my thoughts. I agree that it would be good to have a balanced, neutral, and intelligent treatment of this subject. I don't want to defend the status quo, but just to address things and make the article better; improvement is good.

BTfromLA: The apparently gauzy phrase "seeks to develop" was changed to "teaches", which is more straightforward. I can see the point there. About doing a poor job of explaining the terms--which terms? Finally, the explanations for the persecution, according to the Party itself, scholars, and Falun Gong, are addressed--maybe you did not read that far, though. It would be good for another assessment after you have read the whole article.

Tch77: It would be good if your comment was more specific, I think. For example, are you able to list some similarities between Falun Gong practice and Scientology? It would be good to substantiate a comment like that. I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. On a side note, such comparisons aren't anywhere to be found in the literature as far as I am aware of, and this particular comparison (along with the general claims of evil, murder, insanity, beggar-poisonings etc., about Falun Gong practitioners) first came from the Chinese Communist Party. It was part of the propaganda campaign. I've never seen it substantiated or hashed out in any depth. It's unclear what you mean by social responsibility, and the other remarks. That practitioners refer to people as practitioners and non-practitioners is often the case, but I have to ask, so what? Please help editors to understand in what way wikipedia could more accurately portray "various external aspects" of the activities of Falun Gong practitioners, or of the practice, as you indicate.

Colipon: It would be good to understand which parts of the article appear to be marketing for Falun Gong. Specific comments allow for improvement, whereas sweeping remarks makes it difficult to identify the problem. Also, are you able to provide a few references for some of the most prominent criticism you are aware of, coming from scholars or other high-quality sources?

Zixingche: That's not even a serious claim. You've swallowed the communist propaganda hook, line and sinker. Of course a neutral article on the subject won't conform to your tastes.

Finally, I have to also ask something else. The article currently gives a fairly routine and neutral presentation of the historical context of Falun Gong’s emergence, its beliefs, the persecution in China, and touches on the development of the practice outside of China. The information here is drawn from the highest quality sources; the article is basically a synthesis of the best sources available on the topic. I won’t even bother saying that the content of the article at the moment is simply true and historically accurate, but just emphasise that all of the information is drawn from impeccable sources. If you find it unsatisfactory, and not confirming to your prejudices, perhaps it is those prejudices that should be changed, rather than the sources? The sources here are the highest quality available, so who is right?

Finally, I remember reading a short remark on a UCLA blog from a Chinese student’s class. This is what one person wrote: Subject: Wikipedia on Falun Gong (and bonus link). “I hadn’t looked at the wikipedia entry on Falun Gong until this morning, and was expecting it to be heavily tilted in one direction or the other. The author is sympathetic to Falun Gong, but overall this strikes me as a useful, mostly balanced account, with reference to most of the scholars who have written on the topic. It is also up-to-the-minute, noting that Falun Gong appears in the lyrics of the new Guns N Roses album.” There is still room for improvement. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this article about Falun Gong is super good, however:

1, Why this article does not mention that Falun Gong claims that it can in fact cure cancer?

2, Why this article does not mention that Falun Gong claims that it is in fact an anti virus software?

3, Why this article does not mention that Falun Gong claims that it can in fact save you from car crash? Zixingche (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read this: [5] -- you should be absolutely clear about what you have signed up for.--Asdfg12345 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey will you stop playing this game? Chinese government sucks, however just because Chinese government sucks does not make Falun Gong rocks, they both sucks, they both kills! Can you please at least answer my question above?Zixingche (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's random, irrelevant information which is not notable. Please read the wikipedia policies and content guidelines. A key factor is how much attention things have received from media, scholars, and other reliable sources. I've never seen claims like that reported in third party sources; they are not notable. It's also an absurd claim to say that Falun Gong kills people. It feels dumb to even bother saying there is no evidence for it. I'm surprised that you do not realise that the communist party simply fabricated the large majority of its reports on Falun Gong after July 1999.--Asdfg12345 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, all those information are from either clearwisdom.net or minghui.org, they are CCTV of Falun Gong and are directly owned & operated by Falun Gong, and now these information become irrelevant? If we are talking 100 million practitioners believing that practicing Falun Gong can cure cancer, I don't think it is irrelevant!.Zixingche (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Li Hongzhi's new articles are first published there, Minghui is mostly a forum of individual practitioners sharing their experiences. You post your experience, it's published on Minghui if it qualifies -- there's no "central organisation" communicating some "official" Falun Gong stance through these articles. Besides, the Chinese government heavily endorsed Falun Gong because of its health effects. By 1999, Chinese officials went so far as to quantify Falun Gong's benefits. One official from China's National Sports Commission declared that Falun Dafa "can save each person 1,000 yuan in annual medical fees. If 100 million people are practicing it, that's 100 billion yuan saved per year in medical fees." The same official went on to note that, "Premier Zhu Rongji is very happy about that." (Source: U.S. News & World Report, 22 February 1999) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what, it is a pity that you are not a Chinese, and I assume that you can't read Chinese, Minghui is A FORUM, that's funny, sadly you don't understand the quote by Master Li: "重大问题看明慧网". Zixingche (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So Minghui is concerned about "major issues"? So what? Everybody knows the Minghui editors occasionally comment on some things, and they've issued warnings regarding fake jingwen and stuff like that. Call it a site for sharing experiences, or a forum, or whatever you wish, but a great majority of the articles you see posted there come from individual practitioners all around the world, including all the news on regional activities. The Minghui editors are just doing their share by taking an important role in running this particular project. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is missing an explanation of how Falun Gong practice is actually carried out (as in, carried on in three dimensions); maybe some of the information from the Overseas page could be transported here and a small section made. At the moment it seems unclear on that point.--Asdfg12345 17:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Zixingche. Regarding points 1, 2, 3, in which you say that Falun Gong claims that it can cure everything, could you please cite the only authority in Falun Gong, which is it's founder, where he is saying all these? Actually during this exercise you will find that there are no 100% magic pills, and you will find that he explains that only when your virtue ascends, by conforming to the principles of Zhen Shan Ren, can good things happen to you. In Christianity there are the 10 commandments for pretty much the same principles, and in ancient China these principles are even more pervasive, but for that perhaps you should ask a Chinese guy who did not change completely his mindset after German guy named Karl Marx. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong can save you from car crash

Reference: Directly from Zhuan Falun Lecture 3, by Master Li: a practitioner crossed the street on her bike. At a turn of the street, a luxury car came and knocked down this practitioner, a woman over fifty years old. It collided with her at once and hit her very hard. With the sound of "bang," it hit her head, and her head hit the car roof squarely. At that point, this practitioner’s feet were still on the bike pedals. Though her head was hit, she did not feel any pain.

Falun Gong can cure any disease

Reference: Directly from Zhuan Falun Lecture 6, by Master Li: One must truly practice cultivation and pay attention to one’s xinxing. Only by truly practicing cultivation can one’s illness be eliminated.

Falun Gong is an anti virus software

Sorry I can't find any references in Zhuan Falun about Falun Gong is an anti virus software, may be Master Li didn't have a clue what a anti virus software is when he was writing Zhuan Falun, however I can have another 100 funny story from Zhuan Falun, such as the Third Eye of a human being which has television ability.

And to all of you professional Falun Gong editor, your logics are all the same and simple: if anybody says Falun Gong is bad, then you will accused that he/she is supporting CCP, this is funny, is it? oh and another rules is: all information from CCP are fake, except those say Falun Gong is good. Excellent, you should all get a pay rise in 2009. Zixingche (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good quotes from Zhuan Falun :) . And if you are a CCP agent or not, I don't know, but it's not very much relevant anyway. Best wishes, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point, now even Zhuan Falun is no longer relevant anymore, great finding, congratulation! Zixingche (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, however that is your point of view, see WP:POV, that I will respect as such. Still I can assure you that Zhuan Falun is very relevant for me. Best wishes, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As Zhuan Falun is your bible, can you please kindly answer my question: "Can Falun Gong cure cancer?" A:Yes, B: No, please choose from A or B Zixingche (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To follow your logic, your question is similar to this one: People have babies, so in mathematics how much is 1+1? A:3, B:4, please choose from A or B :)

• Mathematics itself has axioms, so what I'm trying to point out that the answer is not as simple as you want to make it. Not everything is based on your axioms, that is on your version of truth. At this point I can only repeat what I told you before: study Zhuan Falun and you perhaps will find that there are no 100% magic pills, promised by Falun Gong. As I understand it, one of the main idea's is that when your virtue improves, by conforming to the principles of Zhen Shan Ren (Truthfulness Compassion Forbearance), the universe will let you ascend (in many ways), or more simply puz it will let you have good things, and that is not limited to healing.
• Based on your questions my impression is that you only want controversies, in that case I will point to wikipedia policies, like WP:SOAP, by which you should understand that discussions that are not aimed to improve the article, have no place on wikipedia. So in that light, I will also stop here and I will not answer provocations/questions. Because if I do that I myself would be breaching the policies. PS: we can always discuss on the user talk page which is more appropriate. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This answer is what I already expected, you just can't directly answer my question, because either way you are screwed, answer A and people will find out that Falun Gong is in fact a cult offering cancer cure, answer B then you are talking about everything on minghui / clearwisdom / Zhuan Falun are lies. So what you can do is just playing game, "well the answer is somewhat this and that, well.."

Not to mention your "People have babies, so in mathematics how much is 1+1? " doesn't make any sense.

I read Zhuan Falun more than 10 times already [redacted--Asdfg12345], Asdfg, stop editing my comment, to me, Zhuan Falun is a piece of shit!. Zixingche (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Take your squirming flamebaits to personal talk pages. Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please don't feed the trolls by responding to Zixingche. This user (judging by his contributions) does not spend any time working on articles or anything else for the project, and just comes here from time to time to pick fights. It's in the article's best interest just to ignore him and not respond. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you are correct, if you check my previous comments (which are already archived), I already said that I will not contribute to this article, it is not because I do want to, but because I knew that my English is not good enough to contribute, however what I can do is post SOURCED & RELIABLE references in the discussion page to help other sane contributors. Zixingche (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Video

Video collection of Li Hongzhi (Falun Gong sole founder) talking about curing all kind of diseases using the power of Falun Gong. These videos are taken from Li's presentation, many years ago, while Falun Gong was then still legal in China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1waDp9p6tU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujmepkAVBV0&feature=related

Zixingche (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Zhenyu21's comments

[moved by Olaf]

I have been pointed out by one of my friends to check out this article. And I have read through what I thought was in my opinion, a very biased article. I believe that both sides of the views should be given which is why I do not agree that this article should not have a controversy section dedicated to this specific topic. The views presented here solely lopside towards the pro-FLG section. With that (i have to say) very dedicated users editing/discussing (and in his case defending) this information with, in my opinion, a very biased view on the subject. I would like to propose that this article be given to a third party (with no affiliations what so ever to both sides) to edit and maintain. This I have to say, is one of the worse articles I have read on Wikipedia. Also, referencing from the Epoch Times is as bad as referencing Xinhua or People's Daily. It is very hard to dissect propaganda from the truth in all of these newspapers.Zhenyu21 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

These articles are full of references to high-quality, peer-reviewed academic publications. It may be that genuine research does not match your prejudices; this is not uncommon. While I agree that the articles need balancing, they are far from being "very biased"; actually, they are rather objective, provided that we're aiming for a comprehensive, hermeneutic understanding of Falun Gong in the appropriate context. No equality can be assumed between "both sides of the views" [sic]; there is the side that is based on research data, fieldwork and historical documents, and there is the side of the anti-FLG crusaders, many of whom resemble holocaust negationists in their ideological frenzy. This is all very transparent to those who have done serious research on the subject.

Using Epoch Times as a secondary source is problematic, but as a primary source it is OK. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). As long as its use complies with these policies, there shouldn't be a problem. You are welcome to point out any specific text passages you find distressing. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Another bad article documenting the failure of WP policies

[moved by Asdfg12345] There isn't any neutrality in this article where emotionally supercharged adherents of the cult have basically won the edit war and removed any kind of criticism towards their movement.

Falun Dafa is one of countless asian religious groups that merely stands out due to the lack of ethics of its leadership and its political motivation. The believers are exchangable zombies who do the will of their leaders, like in any psycho cult.

The only thing that makes Falun Dafa stand out is the massive money behind it and its political motivation.

Viande hachée (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is the only thing related to the article. The rest is simply slander and using the talk page as a forum. Your comments are also quite vicious and completely unfounded. It is acceptable for other editors to delete material not relevant to improving the article on talk pages. Please read the Talk_page_guidelines, respect wikipedia policies, and consider changing your post to reflect them. --Asdfg12345 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, You makle Xenu proud! 99.244.189.150 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you are not improving the article by deleting all edits to it that you do not like, including blanking reputable sources. That is not consensus, it is monopolization. PerEdman (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you know what, you are hopeless, the more you edit this article the more you are ruining wikipedia, again, let me make this clear: we don't want professional paid editor on wikipedia, thank you but no. Zixingche (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty broke at the moment, actually. Some extra cash would be nice. Where can I pick it up?--Asdfg12345 06:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That would also explain how you can spend working hours reverting any changes to this article. PerEdman (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A messege of hope to those who value NPOV.

Just a quick story to those of you who have tried to add any semblance of neutrality to this article.

I've been to China twice. The second time for the Olympics. When getting my visa, I saw a whole bunch of Falun Gong people with literature and stuff, but paid no attention.

Then one day, on one of my many Wikipedia nights, I decided to learn about them. How shocked I was! How could China do such things? How could they torture such wonderful, innocent people, with not a bad intention, only love and peace in their hearts?

I told my friends about it. I told them how I'd canceled my plans to go back to China for a third time.

But then I met a friend who gave me the best Wikipedia lesson of all: don't believe everything you read.

So after a few hours internet searches and talks with those on both sides of the story, I learned of the controversies surrounding the Falun Gong. Why, oh why, was that not in the Wikipedia article, I asked.

And then it was time for this naive Wikipedia user to glimpse at the dark side.

So to those of you who have silenced any mention of the Time interview, or the word "cult," or the word "controversial," congratulations, you have lost my sympathy. You have convinced me that the Falun Gong are, indeed, a cult, for only a cult would make such a concerted effort to silence anything that challenges that which they have devoted so much to. Does it hurt you to know that some people think the Falun Gong are a cult? Does it hurt so bad that you must delete it from the screen in the hopes of deleting it from your mind?

I can't wait to return to China.

I'm a Jew, and while I think those who deny the holocaust are either evil or stupid, I fully support their right to voice their theories here and elsewhere. So I say to you, Falun Gong, take a deep look in the mirror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.95.58 (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP, There's a lot of material outside of wikipedia you could look into to get the facts straight. Schecheter's research, David Ownby's research, reports from The Amnesty International, Kilgour Matas Reports, etc - to mention just a few ( perhaps you could skip a few of your "wikipedia nights" to go through them). Enough material and top-quality scholarship to bring your "lost sympathy" back and make you want to cancel your next three planned trips to China. Also note that academic perspectives on the "cult" label, what Kilgour and Matas refer to as "a manufactured tool of repression", has been discussed in detail in this and related articles. Note that leading scholars like Ownby state Falun Gong is "by no means a cult." They discuss in detail the origin of the term, how Falun Gong was first labeled a "cult" months into the persecution, how the label was used a tool of repression, academic perspectives on it etc. Have you really read these wikipedia articles?

Anyways, must admit.. easily the most theatrical of all comments I've seen to date on wikipedia!

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, Don't you yourself find your selection of sources somewhat one-sided? PerEdman (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Very dramatic, indeed. You spelt the word message wrong, but you have half of my agreement. Firstly, no one is running the article, certainly not the dastardly "organisation" you have in mind. Anyone is free to edit wikipedia, discuss changes, and bring sources to bear. The main issue, I think in the end, is that the "cult" argument isn't supported by reliable sources--wikipedia isn't a vehicle for communist party propaganda, nor for non-academics like Rick Ross and their agendas (to note, Ross is the main "Falun Gong critic," who claims Falun Gong is a cult, and frequently attends conferences defaming Falun Gong set up by the Chinese embassy). If there are actually reliable sources on these issues, they should be represented. Except for in the context of the persecution, the cult label really has no meaning. It isn't backed up by any research, studies, fieldwork, or even plain old reality. No serious academic supports it as a meaningful way of characterising Falun Gong. Check out the recent work by David Ownby called "Falun Gong and the Future of China" and see how much play the cult argument gets. He is a serious researcher and makes it clear that it was a furphy from the start.

With regard to the apparent controversies about Falun Gong, what are they? Where are the sources? Wikipedia has clear content standards for what should and should not be in articles. If there are high-quality sources dealing with these issues, then no one can stop them from being in the article--they just get summarised and relevant material grouped together, presenting according to relevance, notability, etc.. If something important is missing from the article, what is it? Let's put it in. My half agreement with you is that of course relevant and notable material should not be left out--but it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. Making a fuss that has nothing to do with wikipedia's content guidelines is a waste of time. Can't we see some quality sources?--Asdfg12345 09:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, that the wikipedia article doesn't match your expectations doesn't change the reality of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. The logic that "the wikipedia article does not match my expectations therefore I have no more sympathy for the people getting tortured to death for their beliefs" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. By the way, did you hear about Lawyer Gao? He defended Falun Gong practitioners in China. Consider reading his recently released open letter. Best. --Asdfg12345 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Again we have a personal experience from a brand new IP. Please keep in mind this is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, not "rumor pedia". See WP:V. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I find this quote, from the genocide article, very useful in this context: "Also required is a campaign of vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, HIG, this is the talk page, not the wikipedia page. Furthermore, I can't see how vilification and dehumanization of the victims by the perpetrators is at all relevant to the personal experience related to us by the anonymous poster. He certainly was not dehumanizing anyone by saying that he believes wikipage is unreliable and biased. (My interpretation of Anonymous IP's opinion would be that the wikipage is what we wikians would call "Whitewashed", but as this is the talk page, I hardly need a source to state my belief.) PerEdman (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

@anonymous IP: Well since you are jewish and made the comparison to the holocaust yourself, you must know the propaganda the Nazis spread about the jews at that time. All they did was just make them look like some kind of evil cult. That was it. That was more than sufficiant to de-humanize your people. Of course more specificly the National Socialist German Workers Party labeled the jews as an evil capitalist organization with the goal of exploiting it's members as well as the rest of the world, as having brutal satanic rituals involving self-mutalation and sucide and as simply being "anti-German", "anti-patriotic", and "anti-socialist". I wouldn't have mentioned it, but you are the one who is asking for it to be included - and maybe you are right. Maybe this Propaganda should get mentioned. Because after all this kind of propaganda still exists. And we could ignore - but that will not make it go away. Only by exposing this kind of smear-propaganda as what it really is, can it no longer play it's role in de-humanizing our people and thereby "justifying" their attempted elimination. --Hoerth (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoerth's comment seems to make sense. It is not about "exposing" anything though, but simply presenting relevant information to the reader. This is an encyclopedia, and the policies like WP:NPOV WP:V etc. are strictly procedural--you don't start with your objective then make the articles into that, but start with the sources and just fill things in. If anyone has some good sources on these things, please bring them up. Otherwise when I get some time I will go digging for some. What's needed are reliable sources detailing these claims against Falun Gong, preferably in specific terms and without vaguery if possible, and then to find the Falun Gong rebuttal, and some analysis by third parties. PerEdman, if you're reading, you may have some leads--this seems to be your field. --Asdfg12345 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a futile exercise, but I shall give it another shot. Others have quite convincingly argued that there are parts of the Falun Gong dogma that are being actively excluded from this article (see Talk:Falun Gong#"Outlandish" Claims of Falun Gong and Talk:Falun Gong#Zhuan Falun Source Material for 66.77.144.5's claims, for example). I don't think I can do much better (or care to spend my time trying) than them.

Is the Time magazine article not a good source? Is the fact that the leader of your organization himself has discussed levitation, alien races, alternate dimensions, in the primary literature of your practice? I say these things wihtout any intention to judge them, just to state that they exist, and they leave a deafening silence in the article. Again: some facts can be interpreted in a negative light, some can be seen in a positive light, some can be seen in no light, but the fact is that they exist, and they are being suppressed such that a naive reader (such as myself) does not get the full story, or even equally partial parts of both sides of the story, when reading this article.

I apologize for giving the impression that, since there are a few people trying to actively suppress some information about the Falun Gong, I have lost sympathy for those who are being tortured. This is certainly not the case. All torture is evil and should be abolished from the Earth. But I guess all I'm saying is that there are other ways to achieve your objective besides suppression.

And yes, Jews were dehumanized before, during, and after the holocaust. Yes, is it a common way of achieving genocide and torture. But I am not calling for the deletion of the organ harvesting article, nor have I challenged its validity. I have not called for any of your claims of torture to be deleted. It's just the facts that you omit (or delete) with bogus logic that disturbs me. Again, I reference you to the aforementioned discussion topics. I mean, why not mention them, and discredit them at the same time? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article is a great example: it's a featured article that calmly and academically rejects one of the fundamental arguements used by anti-Semites. The fact that you delete any of the aforementioned claims instead of taking them on raises my suspicion, and that may be doing your practice a great disservice.

My apologies for the emotion of my writing, and I thank you all for keeping a cool head. I'm a seasoned reader of Wikipedia, but am green when it comes to editing or talking. It blows my top when reality creeps in and tells me that not all Wikipedia articles are telling the whole truth. But let's not let my emotion cloud the main point:

If you believe in Falun Dafa, if you love it so and want everyone to know both its beauty and the trials it is facing, godspeed. But you are doing a disservice to your faith by supressing any sort of (referenced) material that could be seen as controversial, or out of the norm, or whatever. You are doing it a disservice by not taking those facets and expounding on them, discussing them, and giving them their fair shake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.95.58 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

@anonymous IP: No, your post was not futile, as at least I for my part can now understand you better and I tend to agree with you: having an entry similar to the entry on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be necessary. But i am not actually involved in any of this either and my english wouldn't be good enough for this task. There actually ARE many things similar to those protocols. Like the alleged 10. Chatper of Zhuan Falun published by the 610 office etc.. Or for example the Communist Party's claim that there would be only 2 million Falun Gong practitioners in China and that of those 2 millions 1600 would have died of their illness. And they use that to show that Falun Gong would harm people's health. But if you think about the number, you realize that it is propaganda and doesn't make sense as the national average death rate due to illness in China is way, way higher. There are many such things and they are easy to refute once you think about it - but of course ussually people DON'T think about it. So having an article that rationaly analyzes such claims without using any weasel words like "cult" etc. might be necessary and doesn't necessarily have to comprimize Wikipedia's NPOV. Some people might have not understood that so they just ignore those things, resulting in your having the impression you descriped. --Hoerth (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

@anonymous IP: the best article to read is from Falun Gong itself, the Zhuan Fa Lun, the bible for Falun Gong, inside the book you will enjoy at least 3 hours of fun reading jokes you will never read from other book, example like Falun Gong save from car crash, Falun Gong give you teleporting and television ability, Falun Gong cures every diseases in the earth including AIDS and cancer, and Li himself fighting with a Ming Dynasty snake ghost (or whatever). This is the story you will never read in Wikipedia, actually Wikipedia is a very good source in most of the time, but Falun Gong is just not the case, this article is totally ruined by these professional paid editors, as you may noticed, should you say anything negative towards Falun Gong and they will beat you in group. Anyway, welcome to China, though I can't welcome you in person as I am oversea, have a nice trip! Zixingche (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Zhuan Falun can be downloaded here. The Nine Lecture Videos (with voice over English translation), also cover the same content as Zhuan Falun ( a work described by the World Book Encyclopaedia as examining "evolution, the meaning of space and time, and the mysteries of the universe" and a best seller in China in before onset of the persecution). Both Zhuan Falun and the Nine Lecture Videos are comprehensive expositions of the Teachings of Falun Dafa. I would urge anyone interested in understanding the system to go through them first hand.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, just to list a few pages which to me are the funniest (I am referring to the PDF file here Zhuan Falun):

Page 104, a snake in Ming Dynasty (at least 400 years ago) toke someone's body and cultivated into human form, and Li with his super power called "Dissolving Gong", "melt its lower body into water".

Page 32, teaching and explain the ability of Remote Vision, or tele-vision, which allow you to view Beijing or Washington, live, from your human eye, or Third Eye.

Page 67, telling about Li's Law Buddy, which will protect you from any danger (Quoted: you have my Law Bodies protecting you, so you won’t run into any danger.), in this case, car crash, a 50 year old female practitioner got hit by a moving car at her head, because Li's Law Buddy is protecting her invisibly anywhere, the practitioner is completely fine without any injury after the crash, however, the car's bonnet is broken.

Page 67 - 68, Quoted: "There was also something that happened in Changchun. A building was being built near a student’s home. Nowadays, buildings are built so high, and the scaffolding is made up of steel rods that are two inches thick and four yards long. The student was walking not too far from home when a steel rod dropped from that tall building, and it was coming straight down toward his head. Everyone on the street was petrified. But he just said, “Who patted me?” He thought that someone had patted him on the head. Then, he turned and saw that a big Law Wheel was there rotating over his head. The steel rod had slid down along the side of his head and stuck into the ground, sticking up. If it really had hit somebody, think about it, it was so heavy it would have gone all the way through his body, like a skewer through marshmallows. It was that dangerous!"

Well, to me, if this is not a joke, then it is a cult. Zixingche (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

@Zixingche, Gross distortions, exaggerations, cherry picked stuff presented completely out of context, outright lies, etc. are not likely to interest editors here the least. One could pull random statements from Buddhist Scriptures and claim Buddhism is about whatever. You could pull statements from The Bible to characterize Jesus Christ's teachings the way you want. But such meaningless distortions are not what anyone here is interested in nor does it contribute, in any way, towards improving the article. Even facts can be made to sound ridiculous: One could make a big brouhaha and go around claiming Aikido and Tai Chi practitioners are so silly that they really believe they can overcome an aggressive opponent without resorting to aggressive physical force; that quantum physicists are really so absurd they believe a particle can simultaneously exist in two places at the same time or that Einstein really 'believed' that time passes slowly in a moving body. But could such out of context characterization of things help rationally understand or appreciate any of these sciences? To understand any tradition or science, you need a holistic perspective on it. Presenting things without the appropriate background and context serves little purpose - especially when we are all here to contribute to an encylopaedia.

Falun Dafa is a Xiu Lian tradition for mind-body cultivation - and it is repeatedly made clear in the teachings that it is not to be understood as something to be used for the purpose of healing one's illnesses. Yet, mind-body cultivation practice, rooted in cultivation of one's Xin-xing ( heart/mind nature), can have the effect of gradually achieving a state free of illness. Medical science researchers in US have published the results of preliminary research.org/node/154 into these and their conclusions are quite interesting. If the teachings interest you try to understand things in their appropriate context and substantiate your contributions on talk with quality academic scholarship - but this kind of incessant hatred-mongering serves little purpose.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say, those quotes do interest me. They look very much like the outlandish statements you can find in most religious literature, and if I really wanted to, I assume I could download and read the PDF file and find out the context. If I find the same text in there, it can hardly be an exhaggeration, could it? PerEdman (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, a quick question to the ip guy who first raised this issue: which articles did you read about all these things you say weren't included in the article, which you thought should have been? Could you give some links or details of the specific sources? I'd like to take a look at them. --Asdfg12345 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I plan to archive this talk page and start the new one with a note for brainstorming ideas on how to move forward, and looking for some of the sources that people keep referring to. The more specific the better, and it would be good to get something done about this.--Asdfg12345 22:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, That's an honorable cause, but how is it going to work? People who used to try to inject criticism are hardly going to come back out of the blue just because you archive the current talk page. We can hardly canvas wikipedia to inform them of this New Deal and that they should come back. Are you and I going to go back and reverify old edits to see if there's anything in them? I suppose I could help with that, but it seems like very much work. PerEdman (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, I have a very important question to you, and it is important because you are constantly asking for a "actually reliable sources, backed up by research, studies, fieldwork or even plain old reality", that Falun Gong would be a "cult". The question is this:

What, in your mind, would actually constitute an "actually reliable source backed up by research, studies, fieldwork or reality" that Falun Gong is a cult?

If you can think of no material that could be used in this manner, you should immediately cease to request it. This is the scientific principle of falsifiability. PerEdman (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I just meant cause the page is so long already, and it would be great to get some clarity and work out what needs to be done. Doesn't matter, I'll just let someone else take the lead there. About your other question, it's not my responsibility to actually find the sources. It's possible that they exist, I don't really know, but until someone brings them out then we can't put them in the article. Despite that, it's not like the cult label shouldn't be addressed, there are some sources on it, for sure. What I've maintained is that the sources refuting it (David Ownby, Benjamin Penny) are better than those putting it forward (Rick Ross, the CCP). I'll assume this is true until there is evidence to the contrary.--Asdfg12345 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Practice vs Cultivation

Why use such a obscure and agricultural term as "cultivation" when you are really trying to describe the practice of a religion/spiritual excercise?Sjschen (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think thats how the term 修 煉 - Xiu(修) Lian(煉) got translated from Chinese. The sense is not the agricultural one :)...is, in my understanding, a bit closer to( but not the same as) the meaning the word coveys in :

It matters little whether a man be mathematically, or philologically, or artistically cultivated, so he be but cultivated.

— Goethe

Talents are cultivated in solitude; character in the stormy billows of the world.

— Goethe

Translating from one language to another is no easy thing.. a culture would have forged, over thousands of years of tradition, an understanding of a certain concept ( for instance The Buddists and Daoist 修 煉 traditions of ancient China) .. while another culture would have no equivalent concept and naturally its vocabulary becomes inadequate to convey the exact meaning conveyed by the original term.

Perhaps the best way ( in my opinion, the only way! ) to really comprehend what is meant by term cultivation(修) in Falun Dafa is to go through these lectures: http://www.falundafa.org/bul/audio-video/audiovideo_9video.html

Dilip rajeev (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To me the term simply seems a bit too linked with moral associations and to me seems a bit non-encyclopedic and non-neutral. I'm sure its not intended but somehow reading "cultivated" in terms of the rest of the text seem as if it is proselytizing the religious instead of just providing facts... Sjschen (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dilip rajeev because throughout the article, the word "cultivate" and "cultivation" are used either within quotation marks or in a context where it is clear that the word is being described in the context of Falun Gong. I do however agree with Sjschen that the way parts of the article has been written, carries proselytizing forms. It is just a bit too explanatory, just a bit too apologetic, to be considered encyclopedic, but I have too little time to devote to one single article about one single religious expression and will have to be content with returning every now and then to find that all my revisions have been raked over with salt. Not particularily cultivating, if I allow myself to use that term. PerEdman (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

6-10 Office

In the article, it says that "An extra-constitutional body, the "6-10 Office" was created to "oversee the terror campaign,"[57]", but when i looked at the source cited, http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/09/falun-gong-china_cz_rm_0209falungong.html it said that "The Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong followers is allegedly run by the notorious Office 6-10,". But the sentence in the article states it as a fact. I propose it be changed to this: "An extra-constitutional body, The "6-10 Office" was allegedly created to "oversee the terror campaign," as I feel this would be more accurate, as the source says nothing about the office being extra-constitutional or even if it actually exists, it just notes hearsay from Falun Gong practitioners. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we could easily source to Kilgour Matas, or Amnesty International Reports - with no need to introduce "allegedly. " These reports carry entire sections on the 6-10 office. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be cool if you got a Amnesty International Report source that explicitly says that the 6-10 Office exists and is a extra-constitutional body. However, I wouldn't be happy with Kilgour/Matas because they agree with anything Falun Gong says. They are heavily biased towards Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners lean heavily on these two guys for credibility. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..I remember reading a rather detailed discussion of the 610 office in Amnesty International reports... but here is another source I could find: Congressional-Executive commission on China Annual Report 2008:

“An extrajudicial security apparatus called the 6-10 Office monitors and leads the suppression of groups that the government deems to be `cult organizations,' including groups that self-identify as Christian. ”

"On June 10, 1999, former President Jiang Zemin and Politburo member Luo Gan established an extrajudicial security apparatus called the '6-10 Office.' This entity was charged with the mission of enforcing a ban on Falun Gong and carrying out a crackdown against its practitioners, which commenced on July 22, 1999, when the government formally outlawed the movement. Falun Gong practitioners describe it as a `traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature,' which consists of `moral teachings, a meditation, and four gentle exercises that resemble tai-chi and are known in Chinese culture as `qigong.' ' Tens of millions of Chinese citizens practiced Falun Gong in the 1990s.. "

"Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong..."

"6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From.. Congressional-Executive commission on China Annual Report 2008

Gao Zhisheng, a lawyer who has defended various Chinese activists, exposed numerous forms of torture and violence employed by the 6-10 Office against Falun Gong practitioners. Gao describes the 6-10 Office as a "Gestapo-like organization" with "powers that no civilized state in the world would even consider trying to obtain." He further notes that "of all the true accounts of incredible violence that I have heard, of all the records of the government's inhuman torture of its own people, what has shaken me most is the routine practice on the part of the 6-10 Office and the police of assaulting women's genitals." Gao went missing in September 2007 following the public release of a letter he sent to the U.S. Congress and remains in detention at an undisclosed location.

Gao Zhisheng and his family, including children, suffered extreme persecution at the hands of 6-10 office after this.. you can read about it online.. his family managed to escape to US recently. This persecution is very real friend, none of this is "alleged" .. even top journalists like Ian Johnson didn't dare continue in China after writing reports on the persecution .. concerned, in his own words, that the Chinese authorities would have made his life there impossible. The extent of brutality involved and how widespread it is just shocking. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the US government is a good source, can you replace the old source with the new one? And would this be OK for a new sentence: "An extrajudicial entity, the "6-10 Office" was created to head the suppression campaign against Falun Gong. which was allegedly driven by large-scale propaganda through television, newspapers, radio and internet." I think this would be more accurate and succinct. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add the new source. Just to point out - the large-scale media propaganda is a verifiable fact - you get to see, read and experience it every day if you are in China and Human rights organizations have reported extensively on it. I'll be contributing on that section of the article, later today after looking into the Amnesty reports as well. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that really is a much better source for the 6-10 claim. I am very happy that this comment could result in such an improvement of the article. Keep it up! :) PerEdman (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know man, it sounds better and is way more concise this way because they already mention the media thing earlier in the paragraph. I don't deny that the persecution is happening, but Falun Gong practitioners have kind of turned this article into a very pro-Falun Gong article. The persecution has been magnified by Falun Gong and they claim that things are a lot bigger than they are. The number of deaths in the first year of the banning of Falun Gong is 10 people. This is because most of the arrested Falun Gong practitioners are sent to "reeducation camps" where they work in a attempt to get them to renounce. The Government makes money that way. The Falun Gong media outlets such as The Epoch Times and New Tang Dynasty Television regularly produce propaganda and ad-hominium attacks against the Chinese Government. The Nine Commentaries of the Party is a farce. I'd be happy to debate about it. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Might be time to archive pre-2009 threads, this page is getting rather long. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

About the Qigong and beyond section.

HappyInGeneral just restored this section after it was removed, stating that there was nothing on the talk page about it. Now, I don't know why it was removed either, but I can say that I did not miss it. Look at the page in its entirety. Notice anything in particular about it? What I first note is how incredibly long it is. The section about "qigong and beyond" read like a handbook to me, it was unencyclopedic and somewhat rambling. I'm not entirely in favor of removing it wholesale, but I am in favor of shortening the entire article to make it more readable. I'm currently going through the refs, so I won't have time for such a massive rewrite any time soon, but if anyone has any ideas on sections that may be duplicates, that may contain too much quoted material, or is just too wordy, I encourage you to Be Brave and try to remove those sections to see if the text is better, or worse, without them.

Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all those looking to restore NPOV

Let me be clear. There has been 24 archives of this talk page, the discussions around this article have largely remained consistent through the ages, and the controversies surrounding it are not going away. Falun Gong is a controversial movement. The fact that they distribute pamphlets, put on artistic productions, solicit people on streets, run newspapers, etc. is very well known. The internet propaganda battle between the Communist Party of China and Falun Gong is not one on which Wikipedia should take sides, but should examine from a reasoned, calm, and impartial perspective. Both sides have been shown to disrupt edits on Wikipedia, with the CPC apologists hovering around articles dealing with Tibet and the Olympics last year, and with Falun Gong supporters whitewashing almost all pages related to themselves. A scan through Wikipedia, and you will find some amusing results. The CPC's propaganda campaign has evidently failed on Wikipedia (see article on "Tibet"), but Falun Gong's propaganda campaign has been vastly successful (see article on Li Hongzhi). So successful that today, this very article, clearly biased in favour of Falun Gong, has not a mention of the controversy surrounding it, and does not even have the elusive Wikipedia tag of "This article's neutrality is disputed".

I want to remind the editors that wish to insert material onto this article to present a neutral point of view. It will be deleted or altered, often without you knowing. Either that or someone will come onto this talk page and attempt to use some kind of intellectual argumentation to stall the edits, and then tire you out until you give up. Whatever sources the neutral editors provide, the Pro-FLG editors will dispute, ad nauseum. To see whether or not what I am saying can be substantiated, take a good read through the vast archives of this talk page.

For all the neutral-minded editors reading this, it is clear that more concrete action needs to be taken. I am not a big expert on Wikipedia policies, but if anyone has any suggestions on anything that can be done, please point it out here. The state of the article is so clearly in need of attention that simply further editing the article in the hope of a compromise would be naive; it would be justified to approach Wikipedia's top administrators. For now, I am adding on the tag that the neutrality of this article is disputed (really, I should be adding the tag "this article has multiple issues"). I will be surprised if it is not taken down within a few hours. All the best. -Colipon+(T) 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Some food for thought: [6] [7] Colipon+(T) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity and neutrality are methods, not end goals in themselves. These articles do not become fair and balanced by giving equal weight to low-ranking (or substandard) and high-ranking sources. The most reputable sources usually try to understand Falun Gong without resorting to sensationalism, and that's why the article may inevitably seem biased to those with skewed notions.

I know your history on these pages, Colipon, and you have never come across as a "neutral-minded editor". In several instances, you have been unable to defend your position on this discussion page; perhaps you have grown bitter. I hope I'm not offending you, but I agree you are "not a big expert on Wikipedia policies". I honestly suggest you devote some time to familiarise yourself with them. If you really do that, I'm sure we can find a way to get along and cooperate. I am planning to get more involved with these pages once again, and my stated objective has always been to eventually make this a featured article. We need people with all kinds of perspectives, as long as they are willing to play fair.

I don't agree with the conduct of some pro-FLG editors, but the most severe problems have been caused by those who have tried to use these articles as an ideological platform for anti-FLG struggle. Some of them have been banned indefinitely by the Arbcom. We have repeatedly asked other editors to take advantage of peer-reviewed journals and other first class references, and we'll absolutely not let these articles turn into a dumping ground for personal websites and half-truths that have been refuted and exposed by considerably higher ranking academic sources. That said, we should certainly incorporate different viewpoints in proportion to their true relevance. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, from having had past discussions with you, Olaf, I really don't need to refute what you are saying. What you did in that last comment was to resort to the "stall-argumentation" (they call it "Wikilawyering" here.) technique used by various pro-FLG editors on this page, and then attack me for being "not neutral". To that all I have to say, let someone else who is on neither side of the debate, let a third-party administrator come on here and preside over the editing of this page. Anyone who is third-party can just look at the history of this page to see what has gone on. Do a thorough investigation. It is really sad that the pro-FLG editors understand wiki policy a lot better than the people that come on here to try and curb the FLG agenda once in a while.

This is the sign of an editor who has exhausted his options, and asking those who are looking to restore NPOV to think of more concrete ways of doing it. Colipon+(T) 17:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

The pro-FLG editors clearly fit all the following criteria of Wikilawyering, specifically #2. To substantiate this claims really all I need to do is look for someone that is a third-party expert of this policy to come onto this page and just read the discussion.

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Colipon+(T) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Gross misuse of the term

It does not help your case to dig up a term and appropriate it in a way that's explicitly described as its misuse on the very same page [8] (emphasis mine):

As any pejorative, the term is easily misused. As any pejorative, it is an offense towards a fellow Wikipedian. At the same time, the notions of offense (in a debate) and insult should not be confused. While there is a blurred gray zone between offense and insult, the major distinction is that an offense in a debate is argumentative, while an insult is ... an insult, i.e., an act of demeaning an opponent. An offense is always specific, i.e., addresses a particular argument or reasoning, while an insult is generalizing and dismissive. For example the phrase "You are wikilawyering" is an insult. On the other hand, the message "Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern.

In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I really applaud you, Olaf, that you have the audacity to Wikilawyer my suggestion that there is wikilawyering on this page. I have to say, it's quite well done. For now let's just say you are correct in your assertion, and let us wait a 3rd party observer or another NPOV minded editor to enter this discussion. Colipon+(T) 20:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The disputes on this article has been going on for some 24 archived talk pages. It is clearly not NPOV, and many non-aligned editors have mentioned this with posts such as "This article is hopeless", and also, another earlier piece about a person who genuinely believed the FLG article gave him a false impression and now feels no sympathy for the group (under the heading "A messege of hope to those who value NPOV."). This is from this talk page alone. Then scan through the other 24 talk page archives. The NPOV tag is an understatement, and asdfg12345 has taken it down twice within the space of the past few hours. One more revert would be against the "3R rule", wouldn't it? Colipon+(T) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just asking you to follow wikipedia guidelines. What is your understanding of the purpose of such tags? I do not think the purpose of them is to score points. Here is a note from WP:TAGGING:

When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory.

Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed.

Emphasis mine. What do you say?--Asdfg12345 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just a word about all these disputes. I've noticed that at no point have the apparent problems with the article been identified. I'm not going to make a personal rant about the topic, but I just want to actually be clear. As far as I am aware, every source in this article is reliable, and most are references to academic journals. What, precisely, is the problem? How can it be fixed? Often, talk page discussion has revolved around things like putting "controversial" in the first sentence, trying to include sources like Ross, and similar nonsense. Just because there's a lot of talk page discussion doesn't necessarily mean anything about the article. A large portion of the total discussion is probably from the time of Samuel and Tomananda (and their sockpuppets), too. I'd just like to know specifically what's actually defective with the article, if anything, and how that could be remedied. Is it just like, "put more negative things on Falun Gong more prominently and we'll be happy," regardless of the sources?--Asdfg12345 06:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple actionable issues on this talk page. Just look at what hasn't even been archived yet. The repeated attempts of pro-FLG editors to block any attempt to bring this article into line with WP:NPOV is something that has to be addressed. The article is most certainly not neutral by any means of the word!Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Name them. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My real point is that just editing this article and pointing out "issues" in this article is no longer effective. It's a little naive, in fact. The tag is there because numerous users report neutrality-related disputes, source disputes, disruptive editing, and various other attempts to wash the article free of any criticism of Falun Gong (as far as I can see currently there is only one line of criticism in this entire article, and by its tonw its made to sound not-too-credible - "the late psychologist Margaret Singer derided it as a 'cult'.").

I have one suggestion to fixing this issue, and that is bringing these multiple issues to an administrator, who will conduct a thorough investigation of the article without third-party interference. After that it should be very, very apparent what has gone on in this article over the past few years, and what measures need to be taken. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs serious Admin intervention. Is there a notice board or something to alert Admin?Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You can start with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In my perspective the NPOV tag is necessary because of two reasons: 1) the use of pro-flg language throughout all FLG-related articles. This issue is pervasive. 2) Sourcing. Pro-FLG editors simultaneously remove valid sources (including Time Magazine, New York Times, and Rick Ross) while promoting the use of biassed sources such as falundafa.org and the falun gong owned Epoch Times. Until these systemic issues are resolved the NPOV tag remains.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For #1 you need to be more specific give examples, for #2 if I recall correctly every edit was discussed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have to remind you that all references to Rick Ross were disqualified by third parties. See this discussion.

I welcome administrators to observe our conduct and comment on the current state of the articles. Such an approach hasn't lead to any bad results in the past. Quite the contrary — the crackpots were predictably rapped on their knuckles. I can only answer for myself, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines have never ruled against what I am doing here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like the same vague arm-waving that has always gone on. You need to muster high-quality sources to support your points of view. That is the bottom line. If you cannot bring them to bear, it may indicate that they don't exist. The fact is that the cult argument is a fringe view, and it's not just that it has weak support among scholars of Falun Gong, but it's directly dismissed by them as an inaccurate approach to understanding the phenomenon, and one that came about only because of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda. As far as I'm aware, Singer is the most high-profile proponent of this view aside from the CCP itself. Falun Gong sources are not used in any way that violates wikipedia policies; if this is the case, point it out and we'll fix it. What I suggest is that Simon223 and Colipon actually read some of the literature on Falun Gong that we are referring to in this article, to get an understanding of how high-quality sources treat this topic, and therefore how the wikipedia page on the topic should look. Don't keep ramming your head against the wall with these tired prejudices. You could start with Ownby's "Falun Gong and the Future of China." He's the most notable scholar on the topic, and his work is the most recent and complete on it.

On the other issue, what you seem to be requesting is mediation. There is a formal wikipedia process for this. You can read about it. I hope you know, they're still going to ask what is the problem?, though, and I imagine anyone doing the job seriously would ask for specific examples. Colipon, for example, do you have a better suggestion for how to present the cult label in relation to Falun Gong? Simon: can you give some specific examples of "pro-flg" language? Let's fix it! Why doesn't one of you just go through the article one section at a time and write what is wrong with it, how it could be improved, what your sources are, and then let's see. As I see it, this is all still a bunch of vague and sweeping remarks, not backed up by sources. I also have a fairly good understanding of the body of scholarly literature on Falun Gong, so I'm not surprised. The article at the moment broadly correlates with the analyses of Penny, Ownby, Zhao, Porter, and others.--Asdfg12345 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

An Occurrence on Fuyou Street

Anyone interested in this topic would do well to read this article: [9]. We can even do a "I'll read yours if you read mine" sort of deal. This is my first nomination, and I would very much like Colipon and Simon223 to read it, because I believe it is necessary to be aware of such things to make a meaningful contribution to this topic.--Asdfg12345 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Kilgour to be an expert on China, Chinese religion or anything else of relevance. He's a rather trumped up conservative politician who vascilates between Canada's conservative party and Canada's really Conservative party.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Gutmann wrote the article, not Kilgour. Kilgour is an expert on human rights in China.--Asdfg12345 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that I am afraid I can not remain appropriately civil for Wikipedia talk pages while remaining entirely true to my personal opinion of the man. Needless to say he has no credentials to make him an expert on the human rights of anywhere except within the confines of his own mind.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that ..." while your opinion is of course your opinion, I would still wonder what faults can you find in him, that you allegedly have such an unexplained low opinion. Also please note that this is the Falun Gong talk page, and we do want to avoid breaching WP:SOAP --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that Falun Gong practitioners like I suspect you to be lean too much on Kilgour's political position and stance to prove your point. As for myself, I stopped reading when the author said that Falun Gong was "the most Chinese" movement...--Ilivetocomment (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See my user page, I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. You don't really need to suspect anything :). Can you substantiate with some WP:RS that we lean too much on Kilgour's political position? I can tell you for sure that I don't need any politician to feel the seriousness of the persecution. To illustrate my point see here: [10] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to point at a Kilgour report to prove points repeatedly...practitioners rely on him and Matas for credibility all the time. Direct proof of that would be difficult, but indirect can be just as good. Try searching Google Images the terms "David Kilgour" or "David Kilgour Falun Gong", and check the links below the images. About half of them turn out to be linked to obviously pro-Falun Gong sites and such. Personally, I've noticed that Falun Gong practitioners always point to Kilgour for proof, as they say on their posters. One example of this is a giant FG poster I saw on Parliament Hill during the Tulip Festival, which said: STOP Organ Harvesting in China NOW as proven by Kilgour and Matas reports! and a very graphic image of blood and gore right next to that message <.<. PS: I watched the video, and frankly, I'm a little disbelieving that she could actually be interviewed. I agree that torture and corruption often exists in China, but generally they keep it top secret, right? I did some research, and found this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-20/29680.html, which isn't very convincing. If that video is from NTDTV, then I know my answer, IMHO.--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing. Could anything be convincing to you?

On the other hand this is wikipedia, you know what, it does not need to be convincing, it needs to be sourced with WP:RS, so next time when you are feeling the need to complain (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX), please do it under the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. The enormous amount of third party commentary that came after the Kilgour/Matas report makes it clear that it's a credible document and more than enough a reliable source. It's also not a question that Kilgour/Matas are reliable sources; the latter has won a series of prizes for his law achievements. Kilgour attends and regularly gives speeches at conferences on human rights, in China, Darfur, etc.. I'm not familiar with or interested in his politics, but he's reliable to comment on this topic, particularly in terms of the persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, Kilgour/Matas have been referred to in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, which is one of the UK's leading medical, peer-reviewed journals. You can freely read the article on the website of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. [11] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kilgour/Matas report is a perfect example of the fact that if you shout hard enough about something people know nothing about they will believe you. Those of us who demand things like dispassionate third party verification tend to look at it as a spurious report of misinformation, lies, mistakes, assumptions and flawed detective work assembled by a non-expert with a political axe to grind. Also I find it ironic that you call WP:NOTSOAPBOX on me for impugning the expertise of Kilgour and then turn around and say "So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing". Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas more than pass WP:RS. End of story.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, that article says that his allegations are credible due to a series of indications, it doesn't state that there was actually organ harvesting happening. I see that this already correctly reported in Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_in_China#Corroborative_reports (I saw other issues on that article and I posted there about them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to be off wikipedia for a while now, for a period of months. I'll be able to check infrequently. I'm moving countries and will not have any opportunity to make serious contributions for a while. Best wishes everyone.--Asdfg12345 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree over the reliability of the Kilgour / Matas report. As I said it is based on a whole lot of factual errors. Whole rooms of hospitals that appear to have vanished, etc. At best it was a sincere effort gone astray. At worst it was self-serving propaghanda. Good luck on your move. It's highly likely we will speak again. Until then, regards.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia: reliable sources are not determined by personal opinions, but by cold policy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there weren't FLG activists pumping for propaghanda to be considered a reliable source this wouldn't make the cut.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Simonm223, I don't understand you. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have never seen you refer to a policy page when you argue on these talk pages. If an investigation is considered plausible by a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing in the policies that would keep it off Wikipedia. If you played by the rules and clearly pointed out why you think others are wrong (I'm talking about direct quotes from the article, or references to proposed reliable sources, backed up by direct policy references), I wouldn't consider you breaching WP:SOAP all the time. Actually, it would be agreeable to cooperate with you towards a mutually acceptable goal. But you seem to have adopted a different attitude, perhaps out of frustration, or perhaps you never learnt Wikipedia style to begin with — I cannot say. I've encountered both kinds. This makes the situation rather tense. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An Occurrence on Fuyou Street

Anyone interested in this topic would do well to read this article: [12]. We can even do a "I'll read yours if you read mine" sort of deal. This is my first nomination, and I would very much like Colipon and Simon223 to read it, because I believe it is necessary to be aware of such things to make a meaningful contribution to this topic.--Asdfg12345 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Kilgour to be an expert on China, Chinese religion or anything else of relevance. He's a rather trumped up conservative politician who vascilates between Canada's conservative party and Canada's really Conservative party.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Gutmann wrote the article, not Kilgour. Kilgour is an expert on human rights in China.--Asdfg12345 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that I am afraid I can not remain appropriately civil for Wikipedia talk pages while remaining entirely true to my personal opinion of the man. Needless to say he has no credentials to make him an expert on the human rights of anywhere except within the confines of his own mind.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that ..." while your opinion is of course your opinion, I would still wonder what faults can you find in him, that you allegedly have such an unexplained low opinion. Also please note that this is the Falun Gong talk page, and we do want to avoid breaching WP:SOAP --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that Falun Gong practitioners like I suspect you to be lean too much on Kilgour's political position and stance to prove your point. As for myself, I stopped reading when the author said that Falun Gong was "the most Chinese" movement...--Ilivetocomment (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See my user page, I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. You don't really need to suspect anything :). Can you substantiate with some WP:RS that we lean too much on Kilgour's political position? I can tell you for sure that I don't need any politician to feel the seriousness of the persecution. To illustrate my point see here: [13] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to point at a Kilgour report to prove points repeatedly...practitioners rely on him and Matas for credibility all the time. Direct proof of that would be difficult, but indirect can be just as good. Try searching Google Images the terms "David Kilgour" or "David Kilgour Falun Gong", and check the links below the images. About half of them turn out to be linked to obviously pro-Falun Gong sites and such. Personally, I've noticed that Falun Gong practitioners always point to Kilgour for proof, as they say on their posters. One example of this is a giant FG poster I saw on Parliament Hill during the Tulip Festival, which said: STOP Organ Harvesting in China NOW as proven by Kilgour and Matas reports! and a very graphic image of blood and gore right next to that message <.<. PS: I watched the video, and frankly, I'm a little disbelieving that she could actually be interviewed. I agree that torture and corruption often exists in China, but generally they keep it top secret, right? I did some research, and found this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-20/29680.html, which isn't very convincing. If that video is from NTDTV, then I know my answer, IMHO.--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing. Could anything be convincing to you?

On the other hand this is wikipedia, you know what, it does not need to be convincing, it needs to be sourced with WP:RS, so next time when you are feeling the need to complain (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX), please do it under the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. The enormous amount of third party commentary that came after the Kilgour/Matas report makes it clear that it's a credible document and more than enough a reliable source. It's also not a question that Kilgour/Matas are reliable sources; the latter has won a series of prizes for his law achievements. Kilgour attends and regularly gives speeches at conferences on human rights, in China, Darfur, etc.. I'm not familiar with or interested in his politics, but he's reliable to comment on this topic, particularly in terms of the persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, Kilgour/Matas have been referred to in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, which is one of the UK's leading medical, peer-reviewed journals. You can freely read the article on the website of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. [14] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kilgour/Matas report is a perfect example of the fact that if you shout hard enough about something people know nothing about they will believe you. Those of us who demand things like dispassionate third party verification tend to look at it as a spurious report of misinformation, lies, mistakes, assumptions and flawed detective work assembled by a non-expert with a political axe to grind. Also I find it ironic that you call WP:NOTSOAPBOX on me for impugning the expertise of Kilgour and then turn around and say "So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing". Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas more than pass WP:RS. End of story.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, that article says that his allegations are credible due to a series of indications, it doesn't state that there was actually organ harvesting happening. I see that this already correctly reported in Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_in_China#Corroborative_reports (I saw other issues on that article and I posted there about them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to be off wikipedia for a while now, for a period of months. I'll be able to check infrequently. I'm moving countries and will not have any opportunity to make serious contributions for a while. Best wishes everyone.--Asdfg12345 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree over the reliability of the Kilgour / Matas report. As I said it is based on a whole lot of factual errors. Whole rooms of hospitals that appear to have vanished, etc. At best it was a sincere effort gone astray. At worst it was self-serving propaghanda. Good luck on your move. It's highly likely we will speak again. Until then, regards.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia: reliable sources are not determined by personal opinions, but by cold policy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there weren't FLG activists pumping for propaghanda to be considered a reliable source this wouldn't make the cut.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Simonm223, I don't understand you. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have never seen you refer to a policy page when you argue on these talk pages. If an investigation is considered plausible by a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing in the policies that would keep it off Wikipedia. If you played by the rules and clearly pointed out why you think others are wrong (I'm talking about direct quotes from the article, or references to proposed reliable sources, backed up by direct policy references), I wouldn't consider you breaching WP:SOAP all the time. Actually, it would be agreeable to cooperate with you towards a mutually acceptable goal. But you seem to have adopted a different attitude, perhaps out of frustration, or perhaps you never learnt Wikipedia style to begin with — I cannot say. I've encountered both kinds. This makes the situation rather tense. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating criticism

Hello fellow co-editors. Please, as I just have, read through the page Wikipedia:Criticism and discuss it. The current "Academic attention" segment is to me a clear "Criticism" section and just changing its name to "Academic attention" instead, which is then used to refuse to include non-academic sources of criticism, is just not an acceptable state of affairs.

Instead, read the Wikipedia:Criticism article, in particular the parts that deal with using a separate criticism section, and what Jimbo W means to be the better alternative: Spreading positive and negative criticism throughout the article, so that a neutral point of view permeates the text and we avoid the "troll magnet" we have in the section today... by first pushing all criticism into the section, then moving the section out to a separate article, then wanting to delete that article, then re-adding some of the material to the article... and so on. Let's instead integrate the text in the "Academic attention" section, into the rest of the text. Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit, they're really good at what they do. Their way to weasling through Wikipedia policies is truly textbook. Someone should write a book on how to crawl thru wiki policy just on the verge of violating it, but using some seemingly logical argumentation to sustain a clear agenda masked by "neutrality". Everything from "controversial" or "criticism" was deleted, the only critical phrase under "academic attention" is immediately discredited, and every time something criticizing FLG in the slightest way is removed, with or without supporting arguments. One really doesn't have to look far to find the truth behind Falun Gong thru the eyes of third-party observers. Simply do a search on Google with the right keywords. Colipon+(T) 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search with the "right keywords" and found this page. I may be getting personal, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit on the words "I am currently not affiliated with any political organizations, but have been in the past". You are a native of Nanjing, so can we deduce that you have been a member of the Chinese Communist Party? Why are you linking to Shanghai Expo, Xinhua.net and other CCP sites? This is just something I'd like to know. I'm playing my cards openly. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I am an agent trying to perpetuate propaganda. Why else would I be here day and night?

In all seriousness, Olaf, you can discredit me all you'd like, I really don't care. With the state of affairs here I don't even plan on editing the article, so discredit me all you like. I just want a third-party editor, admin, organization, whatever it may be, to come and inspect the state of this article. If you are so confident that this article passes the NPOV test you should easily agree to this proposition.

I'm calling to attention the fact that NPOV in this article is absolutely non-existent, and the FLG-POV flavour is to an extent unseen anywhere else on Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you are an agent; I've seen them before, and they generally behave in a way that's very different from you. But I believe you may be someone who's had strong CCP sympathies in the past, and I know that recently you have chosen to link to Xinhua from your user page — all the while "a neutral-minded editor" has become your catch phrase. Honestly speaking, it doesn't matter who you are and what you think, as long as you play by the rules. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentlepersons, please discuss the suggestion under this heading, rather than whether one of you is an agent of either organization or googling one another's names. Olaf, I believe you are out of line. PerEdman (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman's new, shorter Lede

Dilip Rajeev, you wanted to talk to me about the new lede and my choice of removing the explicit references made to sources throughout the lede? I started by going to WP:LEDE guideline which suggests that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." and I felt that yes, we were doing that already, but we were taking up much too much space in doing so, breaking: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.". We HAVE all the source we need for our statements, there is simply no reason to inject them into the text as well. I see for example that you re-added the paragraph that starts with '"Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises, and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance"', which I had chosen to incorporate into the lede itself, like this:

"Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion and forbearance (眞，善，忍) as set out in the main books Falun Gong"

I thought that was an excellent idea, but you apparently did not agree, and not only re-added the paragraph itself, duplicating data, but also removing my version of the paragraph. Now, I have no prestige over this, but I sincerely still believe that my version was a glimpse of a new, more accessible Falun Gong article, easier on the eye. And I did not really remove anything, I just rearranged it and let the references stand for themselves rather than be completely duplicated within the text. So for these reasons, Dilip, and waiting for your comments on the matter, I will revert back to the version I had written, so that others can comment as well. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed that I was wondering where that paragraph disappeared.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you slow down a bit and discuss your changes on talk - that would very much help avoid such confusions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am doing this as slowly as I can while still actually doing something, Dilip. If I do it any slower, there will be no changes made, and we won't be Bold in editing. I'm very confused here though. I make an edit and a Talk page post to discuss the new lede, and all you're worried about, the only thing you bring up to discussion, is that you wondered where the paragraph went, or that things are moving too fast? Does that mean you approve, or that you disapprove, or that you have no opinion on the new, shorter lede? If you have any relevant criticism, I'm sure you can anchor that criticism in guidelines. If there is a guideline that states that paragraphs should not be rewritten if they've been up for a long time, or that discussion on a talk page about a change must take place before the very discussion about the change, or that slowness is a virtue in Wikipedia, by all means, baffle me!

I haven't dared look since 2 July 2009, but I will just assume that you, HappyInGeneral or ASDFG12345 chose to remove my new, shorter lede without even trying, as you did, to actually discuss it first. Please tell me I am wrong in this, before I go look for myself. PerEdman (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs or a "copy/paste" on what your version exactly is. For example I really don't see any problem with the sentence you provided above. "Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion and forbearance (眞，善，忍) as set out in the main books Falun Gong". Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, just look at the history of the article for the date of my change (00:07, 2 July 2009, my timezone). Not sure how to link to a diff page, but try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=next&oldid=299789898 and then there's the revision by Dilip: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=299801370&oldid=299800875 - Hope those work.

My edit did not deal with that specific sentence alone, it incorporates the paragraph that STARTS with that sentence, into the first paragraph of the lede. PerEdman (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The diff's are quite complex, it's hard to follow because there are too many changes. But if you could break down the changes you would like into short point by point statements, it would be a lot more easy to follow and to discuss. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That would double the workload of any edit. I'm afraid I won't do that. PerEdman (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Richardson/Edelman

I am removing the claims sourced to James T Richardson and Bryan Edelman article "Imposed limitations on freedom of religion in China and the margin of appreciation doctrine: a legal analysis of the crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "evil cults""[15] in Journal of Church and State since I have now read the article and found that it does not support the claims made on the wikipedia page. The Falun Gong page used to read:

"the cult label applied to Falun Gong has no "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and is merely a label that has been conveniently used to ban the practice."

Whereas Edelman and Richardson's article reads on page 11:

"As described above, ACM ideology assents that the cult threat poses a serious danger to society. However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community. (73) However, China has incorporated many ACM theories into its campaign against the Falun Gong. The China Association for Science and Technology concluded that (emphasis added):"

...where ACM is the authors' initialism for "the Western Anti-Cult Movement", defined on page 8 as:

"According to state representatives, the Falun Gong and other groups targeted by the government are "cults," not spiritual or religious groups. (54) As discussed below, Chinese authorities appear to have borrowed heavily from the Western Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) to support the claim that such groups are not entitled to legal protections. (55)"

Because the article sourced does not agree with the claim made in the article, I felt it best to remove the claim entirely rather than try to reformulate the claim to fit the source better. Besides, doing so would likely have been original research.

Having sourced claims that are not actually supported by the sources is a very, very bad situation for any Wikipedia article so I am glad that I was able to find the original source for this reason. PerEdman (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe a good faith approach on your part would have been to, as you see it, correct the explanation of Edelman/Richardson's view, rather than simply delete it. Of course it wouldn't be original research to do that. I don't have time to argue for the original formulation, or come up with a new one. Hope to be able to do my part to remedy it in a few more days, when I have time.--Asdfg12345 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this remark of yours above: "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)" -- to be blunt, simply deleting this reference therefore smacks of hypocrisy.--Asdfg12345 17:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I did try to think up a way of incorporating the actual Edelman/Richardson view, but it would not have improved the article as it would have become too convoluted. What Edelman and Richardson criticise is not the application of the cult label on Falun Gong; their criticism is rather that something they call the (western) Anti-Cult Movement is incorrect in assenting that"the cult threat poses a serious danger to society". So you see it is not the application of the label that is false according to Edelman and Richardsson, but the assumption that cults are serious threats to society.

In the end I argued that it is much more important to remove a possibly false reference than to build a new paraphrasing of an article that is much more complex than it has been referenced as. Should we devote a whole section of the Falun Gong wikipage to describing what Edelman and Richardson think of the Anti-Cult Movement, or who they believe the Anti-Cult Movement are? Of course not.

If you do not have time to argue for the original formulation or come up with a new one, then I hope you on 2 July 2009 did not in fact revert my edit while you waited to come up with such a formulation. In fact, when I returned here on 25 July, the OLD formulation was back, with a reference to "the conclusion" of the article. I fail to see how I was being hypocritical there. I made an edit and I brought it to the talk page. How should I have done - please reference wikipedia guidelines here - to avoid being "hypocritical"? PerEdman (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, if the cult label was "borrowed" from ACM and ACM lacks "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and the CCP "borrowed" this "to support the claim that such groups are not entitled to legal protections" then as I see it

"the cult label applied to Falun Gong has no "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and is merely a label that has been conveniently used to ban the practice."

is a good and honest summary. If you see this as WP:OR, please provide an alternative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find incorrect information in wikipedia you can certainly decide how to proceed by correcting the information or removing it until such a time that it can be corrected, but I cannot accept that incorrect information should let stand in the article until someone else deigns to make alterations. It should be removed rather than kept. Now Olaf Stephanos has made an edit, making a perfect mastodon of a summary and I'm not satisfied by that either. It's too long. Too wordy. And still not using a web reference so that third parties can verify its veracity. PerEdman (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No using Rick Ross

In previous discussions, it was clearly established that rick ross is not an acceptable source for the article. Peredman, before you repeatedly add such stuff in, please make clear your rationale and attempt to get consensus. In my opinion the source is, in no way, acceptable. Here is about rick-ross from a webpage:

".. a review of his educational background shows that quite apart from being anti-Christian (he refers to Christians as “Bible bangers”) has no religious educational credentials whatsoever. To the contrary, his only formal education is a high school diploma. Self-aggrandizement and personal financial reward seem to be Ross’ primary motive for his attacks on Christians and members of other faiths... an unbiased review of Ross’ activities overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Ross systematically engages in anti-social and often illegal activity" [16]

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think that www.religiousfreedomwatch.org does not really qualifies as a RS for who is a good experts in cults, what with being sponsored by the Church of Scientology to bash anyone that has ever criticized the church[17][18].

Second, after reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Rick_Ross_on_Falun_Gong, which seems to be the most recent discussion in WP:RSN about Ross, although Rick Ross (consultant) is a "cult expert" and that should qualify him for opinating here, I reluctantly have to agree that we shouldn't use his opinion unless he gets mentioned in some RS as being an expert or a notable opinion in Falun Gong. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. Dilip should keep himself to the same standards he requires of others.

As for Rick Ross and the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard — sorry, I just have to say this, but I told you guys. Way too many of our editors don't seem to have the faintest clue about the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and what they entail. Some of us have been editing these articles for almost five years, and it gets rather tiresome to see people attempt the same old stuff over and over again. Keeping the disrupting editors in check takes time, and I'm sure everybody has plenty of other things to attend to. Please get acquainted with the rules from now on. Thank you.

(On a side note, it is interesting how the words of these complete outsiders and Wikipedia experts — who cannot be argued to have any conflict of interest in this topic whatsoever — greatly resemble what I and Asdfg12345 have always said about acceptable sources. I encourage you to read the original WP:RSN thread. Did you notice how User:PCPP made no attempt to bring the content and result of this discussion into our awareness, even though he directly named three editors, including myself?) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The RSN doesn't seem to share your opinion of Rick Ross, Olaf Stephanos. Not once did they mention his criminal background or that he is an agent of the CCP, so I do not believe you did tell us. I'm sure it must be tiring to edit the same old stuff for five years, I know how tiring it gets in just five weeks. PerEdman (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is WP:RSN not sharing Olaf's opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC tag

Some editors have expressed concern over the neutrality of this article and have suggested that the overall tone and certain editing practices of devoted editors have damaged the neutrality therein. In a good-faith attempt to draw attention to this and work towards improving the neutrality of the article several editors have put up the pov tag at the top of the page. Other editors have removed the pov tag, arguing that the concerns on neutrality are baseless. The request for comments in this case is on whether the Wikipedia policy on neutrality tagging has been adhered to correctly in the case of this article and whether the tag should be placed on this article until substantial changes to tone and content are made.Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way "Some editors" is WP:WEASEL, if you want the POV flag, follow the guidelines for Wikipedia:TAGGING#Constructive_tagging as also highlighted above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't argue that the page was neutral or not-neutral. I just asked you to explain how it was not neutral and how we could fix it. I asked for specific examples, and said I would like to work together to fix any problems in the page. You never gave examples of problems with the page, you have not brought up any reliable sources or major viewpoints that are missing. I removed the tag because there was no explanation for it, only that the page was "POV". But when I asked how it was "POV" you didn't respond. Just go through it and point out the problems, like weasel words, or whatever, and let's fix them. That's all I've said. Other thing is, having an RfC about a tag is really abstruse. Especially under the condition that it stays "until substantial changes to tone and content are made," when you haven't even pointed out what problems there are with the tone and content, I mean, what is this? Can't you just say what's wrong with the article, specifically, and let's fix it?? --Asdfg12345 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet whenever the neutrality issue is brought up on the talk page you have denied it. I understand you may dislike me putting up a policy RfC on tagging but, honestly, there is a serious policy disagreement between two blocs of editors over what constitutes a POV concern. Wikipedia should not be a soap box for alternative religions to proselytize and yet, all too often, we have seen this behaviour on the FLG articles. It's not how other religions are handled on Wikipedia and it's high time that it not be how the FLG was handled. Now I would honestly rather NOT have FLG on my watchlist. I genuinely don't care about the religion very much. I do care about Wikipedia being a valid place to get factual information... this is not the case with FLG. So, yes, I intend to be somewhat activist here for a while. Until it's cleaned up. One page at a time, one issue at a time. And I will tag, revert and RfC as necessary to see that this system of articles ceases to be one-sided propaganda and becomes, instead, good articles on a controversial new religious movement. And, when that is finished, hopefully I will not have to exhaust another valuable pico-second of my life dealing with the Falun Gong. And HappyInGeneral, seriously, you are complaining of weasel words? On a talk page? For this article? Over the phrase some editors? Seriously? Have a good weekend, talk to you again on Monday.Simonm223 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How slickly you avoid answering to Asdfg12345. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't know that I have denied that the page is biased, or argued that it's neutral. I don't mean to be the one denying or advancing anything. I'm just asking you for some non-general commentary on why this page is apparently biased. I want examples, and if there are problems, some specific ideas for how to improve. Sources would also be helpful. Wikipedia's policy on placing tags requires as much. I am looking forward to the scrutiny of a wider audience.--Asdfg12345 07:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, wikipedia requires that you respond to this. The tag will be removed, again, if the problems with the article can't be specifically identified. I am interested in improving the article, not carrying on these arguments--so please walk the walk.--Asdfg12345 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How to improve? Total tear-down and rewrite with strict administrative controls. Inclusion of information from experts on cults. Inclusion of information from the Chinese state to balance against the Epoch Times, Clearwisdom.org and other FLG websites. Elimination of the undue weight given to the single Montreal academic (who is likely considered expert by a reasonable definition) and to Kilgour and Matas (who are less expert than the banned-by-the-FLG cult experts). Oh and a little bit less of the poorly informed, frequently mistaken, wikilawyering from certain editors would be nice. It's ludicrous that I needed to RfC to keep a neutrality tag on such a clearly biassed article.Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I post here the opinion I posted in the NPOV/noticeboard.

Tags are legit as long as there is a perceived NPOV issue with the article and there is an ongoing discussion in the talk page or if no consensus is reached as to the resolution of the NPOV issue. It is difficult to give opinions without concrete examples but editors must be mindful not to engage in WP:TAGBOMB and follow the recommendations of WP:RESPTAG

It seems that some POV concrete examples are given in the above comment and thus to me at least the POV tag is warranted until a genuine effort by all editors concerned is done to bring the article within WP.--LexCorp (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is a Religion

Scientology is not called a "spiritual practice" and neither should Falun Gong. It's a religion. That IS the neutral compromise between "spiritual practice" and "dangerous cult"Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong has nothing to do with Scientology. But we can have both definitions. I am mostly concerned that people would confuse it with organised religion (churches, denominations etc.) But you can find me a reliable source calling Falun Gong a 'religion', I'll find one calling it a 'spiritual practice', and we should agree. I'll settle for 'religion' for now, but you must still find a source for it if you want to keep it.

The 'illegality' of Falun Gong is explained in the fourth paragraph. First we must explain what Falun Gong is per se, and then we can briefly describe other notable things. There are guidelines for how to do this right, see Wikipedia:Lead section. But adding the words "...through the auspices of the divine intervention of Li Hongzhi..." is a textbook example of how not to edit Wikipedia. Not only are they intentionally ironic in tone, they never appear in any published source − you just made them up. Please explain yourself.

I pointed out on Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong that you seem to be here to right what you perceive as great wrongs, but I may be wrong. Could you answer:

• Are you here to edit constructively, taking all the policies and guidelines into account in everything you do?
• Are you ready to discuss each and every edit that is legitimately challenged (i.e. with policy references and explicit arguments)?
• Will you provide counterarguments, based on direct references to policy, when other editors accuse you of breaching the rules?
• Do you understand what it means to back up your edits with reliable sources, and do you acknowledge all the criteria put forth in WP:RS?

I would like to have a straightforward, unambiguous reply to these four questions. It is of vital importance to our cooperation. Thank you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I agree that the crackdown on Falun Gong should be mentioned earlier, preferably in the first chapter, if we want to adhere to WP:LEAD. It is one of the most notable issues surrounding this topic. But it has to be done after briefly explaining the essential characteristics of Falun Gong as a spiritual discipline (or religion, if you prefer). Therefore, regardless of its notability, the persecution is less important than the fact that Falun Gong has five qigong exercises and books discussing cultivation practice. Without establishing this context, everything else is out of question. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK for Falun Gong being a religion. And, honestly, Scientology is the very best analogue for the FLG that one can find. Very simmilar in structure and behaviour.

As for the "divine auspices" quote I could reference the same NY Times article that we have been doing the RfC for over in Teachings of Falun Gong that the children of interracial marriages only get salvation if Li Hongzhi intervenes. If you want I can add that quote in there... or we can leave it just mentioning that salvation only comes with intervention of Mr. Li without a specific quote. Either is fine by me.Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That should resolve your WP:OR concerns. Nicely cited from a valid source.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer my questions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've answered every question you have asked except for those that warrant no answer but silence.Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

of course Falung Gong may be called a religion. Hell, football may be called a religion. The point is that "religion" is a term taylored for the western (strictly, Roman) and there can be lengthy debate as to what extent any of the "Far Eastern religions" can properly be called religions. With this in mind, yes, Falung Gong is a religion, but like Buddhism it may also meaningfully be described as a "spiritual practice". --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any religion with an engaged congregation could be called a "spiritual practice". Pentecostalism could certainly be called a "spiritual practice". The fact is that FLG have tried to diastance themselves from the term "religion" to avoid the easy paralels to Scientology and Raelianism that would otherwise arise. It's just PR. And Wikipedia must not be a PR point for any religious group - it is an encyclopedia and should be based in reality.Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, mister based-in-reality. Originally this difference comes from how 'religion' is understood in the Chinese context: a religion (宗教) has churches, denominations, temples, officials, and a hierarchical structure. Falun Gong does not have any of that. The Western understanding of religion is arguably quite different. In addition, Falun Gong is clearly something that's practiced through concrete efforts, not only believed in. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Falun Gong doesn't call itself a religion. But if people regard Falun Gong as a religion and wanna call it that, than i guess that's fine. But is that really what you want? Wouldn't you rather be much happier if it where labeled an "evil cult" not only by the Communist Party but also by the west? But an "evil cult" actually isn't the same as a "religion" at all. Doesn't an evil Cult exploit it's members, glorify it's leaders, make false promises to gain members and deceive the public, brainwash it's members, kill those who want to quit or think differently, practice forced labor, intimidate members with violence etc.

Anyone who really looks at Falun Gong for himself knows that it does none of that. Yet the Communist Party itself employs all of these methods and more. Many in my family died at the hands of the Communist Party and yet i am not trying to get them labeled an "evil cult" on Wikipedia. So what point is there in your trying to label Falun Gong an evil cult even though we both know that it doesn't do any of that? What would be achieved by labeling it that? At best it could only fuel the persecution. --Hoerth (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth Hoerth. I have never used the word evil to describe Falun Gong. When I did use the word cult it was preceeded by the word dangerous and was within the context of pointing out that Religion was a neutral term as opposed to that obviously POV slanted term and the equally POV slanted spiritual practice term. So next time you try to accuse somebody of labeling a religion as an evil cult you would be well advised to actually make sure they really did so. Since you FLG types insist on bringing up my personal politics I am a democratic socialist and am thus opposed to real and verifiable instances of oppression. I have been heavily critical of the Chinese state for abandoning socialist principles in favour of free market capitalism without providing democratic political reforms. I am not a bloody mouthpiece for the CCPC, so you can drop that angle right here, right now. What I am is somebody who doesn't like to see religions using Wikipedia to advance their own agenda and somebody who thinks it is harmful to lie about being oppressed to drum up popular sentiment for a controversial religion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like some people feel it's harmful to "lie" about the six million Jews who "supposedly" died during the Second World War? Right. You choose what you believe, Simonm223, but the hubris is your own. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time, I suppose, before you started alluding to the nazis. The differences between the FLG case and the Holocaust are so extensive that they could not be enumerated but the core is this: there is real proof that the nazis killed six million jews. There is no real proof that the People's Republic of China has systemically exterminated any number of FLG members.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is. You just don't believe it, which may reflect on some underlying issues, as you also failed to read and comprehend the article you were linking to. End of discussion. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? In the extreme case, let me allude to this. Somebody decides to overthrow the Chinese government over the Falun Gong issue. In the process, untold millions die in the carnage. In the end, it is proven that no or very little Falun Gong persecutions actually take place. Who will go to the International Criminal Court? J'accuse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that anything like this is going to happen or that is even likely to happen. So then what you are actually doing here is the spreading of FUD Fear, uncertainty and doubt. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, please start by getting familiar with Wikipedia spirit and policies, here is a good place to start Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, you fall victim to passion again. If you use reason, you can probably understand the issue more. If there is or was really a genocide going on against Falun Gong, it would be natural that more and more witnesses will come out from China testifying of the crimes simply because there are more people living there. But as days go by, the only tangible witnesses come from outside of China. To the contrary, the number of people saying the opposite of what the Falun Gong has been claiming is actually growing. You don't see the same momentum going on with the Falun Gong group though. In the years before Holocaust concentration camps were discovered in 1945, the amount of evidence claiming the same is happening were much larger and ever growing. Consider that war is going on in the early 1940's and very few travelers can freely travel between Nazi Germany and the Allied world, while comparing the same with modern China and the West, one can feel that if something so great and horrible is happening, then there must be a SOLID evidence testifying of it. After all, before the ban, Falun Gong practitioners were limited to rural and undeveloped areas. They are all over the cities. How can such a great amount of evidence suddenly disappear? I have been to the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. and heard tales of the abhorrent and unimaginable things that are backed up by evidence. A people slaughtered like animals, a culture completely gone, and this is about six million individual stories. Olaf, I understand your horror at the question, "What if I do nothing when a genocide is going on?" But, as a man of reason, will you feel the same thing with dread, "What if I do this thing for lies and propaganda?" Very possibly, a war may break out, and many more people are going to perish, this being a nuclear age. The entire Chinese civilization is at stake here. Will you not feel the same dread that you felt for the Jewish people? With much evidence I collected, I can roughly form this picture in my mind: Most Falun Gong practitioners in China were probably driven underground, with some totally giving up the practise. Their situation is not unlike what happened to the underground Christians in China. They were indeed oppressed, or you may say they "disappeared", but it is unimaginable for you to compare this with the situation of the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that I can not produce a mirror that when it reflects a person, reflects not his shadow, but his faith and truthfulness. But I can responsibly tell you that neither the CCP nor the FLG actually tell you the truth. The only truth that you can get is when you visit China and see for yourself. Are you ready for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are really just unclear about the facts, I can recommend you to watch the documentary series made by NTDTV, http://www.adecadeofcourage.com/. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

99.244.152.119, let me tell you that I know dozens of Falun Gong practitioners who have been imprisoned and tortured in labor camps. Many of them are my friends. What they've told about their treatment in China is very consistent, and some of them still have scars on their bodies. Direct comparisons with the Holocaust may not be appropriate in the sense that millions of Falun Gong practitioners haven't been killed. But the severity of this persecution and some of the criminal acts are part of the same continuum – the unimaginable totalitarian nightmare, the Fundamental Issue of the 20th century.

An older Chinese lady, a Falun Gong practitioner, who used to work as a plant manager in a large oil refinery before 1999, was granted a UN asylum in my home country. Before she managed to escape China about four years ago, she had been arrested nine times. More than 20 different methods of torture had been applied to her; she was tortured to the brink of death four times; once she was bound into a bed for 58 consecutive days and became partially disabled (though she later recovered through Falun Gong practice). Her sister died in the persecution. Another friend of mine was kept for two months in a small, windowless cubicle of less than two square meters. She was also beaten up and tortured with electricity. Some of my friends haven't seen their relatives in years, nor do they know their whereabouts. The wife of a friend of mine was sentenced to a labor camp for an indefinite number of years because of driving a truck loaded with leaflets describing the persecution. You don't seem to understand; we know this is happening and will not be stopped by people who fail to discern the facts from the fiction. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

Mediation assistance was requested with the general Falun Gong topic area (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun Gong). I understand that this can be a complex topic area with a heated editing environment. I have looked over the history of this article and its talk page, as well as those of several related articles. I am generally familiar with Chinese religious and cultural traditions. I have experience with several religious and cultural mediations. I formerly served on MedCom and as a coordinator for MedCab. I believe with my experience, and after looking over matters, that I will be able to help the editors here reach some agreement.

Just to address it upfront, while I am an arbitrator, that role plays no part in my participation here. I am here to help purely as an informal mediator. On a similar note, I will not take any direct administrative actions on this article or its editors, except to use article protection in case of edit warring or heavy vandalism. So please, do not ask me to block or otherwise sanction any editor to this article. I will post conduct reminders or ask an uninvolved administrator to review the situation if things start devolving too much.

Mediation is purely voluntary. On that point, we will need to forge some agreement on the basics before moving forward. First, those participating need to indicate whether they accept me as a mediator. Second, we need agreement on some basic behavior points:

• No personal attacks, insults, or otherwise rude comments. Intelligent and respectful conversation is impossible with such negative commentary.
• No accusations of ulterior motives, extreme points of view, or so forth. Guessing about motives and questioning the basic honor of editors only results in a poisonous editing atmosphere.
• Stick to the bold/revert/discuss model. If an edit is reverted, take it to the talk page. Do not revert back and trigger an edit war.

Third, we need to agree to stay focused on the content and reliable sources. A major portion of my presence here will be keeping the discussion focused in this direction, with an eye towards improving the article and developing consensus on how to handle some disputed issues.

So, do the editors here agree to accept my assistance as a mediator, follow the basic behavior ground rules, and focus on developing the article according to the most reliable sources? Any additional comments, questions, or concerns? Let's not jump into describing the disagreements and article issues quite yet. Please just indicate if you agree with these three points and ask any related questions. --Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You sound like a reasonable and experienced mediator, Vassyana, and I agree with your demands on the editors. Let me thank you in advance for your time and efforts. Welcome. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the points you listed are very reasonable, and now I see that the point you mentioned in the second bullet might have been broken by me here [19]. At this point I think you are perfectly right and we need to concentrate on "Third, we need to agree to stay focused on the content and reliable sources.". So, Welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree to the mediator. Colipon+(T) 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here, I agree to the mediator.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to agree as well, the entire topic needs Mediation. I apologize for my accusations against User:HappyInGeneral, made previously. I would like to point out, however, an attempt by User:Olaf Stephanos to discredit me with how new my account is. Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If it helps any I see Irbisgreif as a user familiar with Wikipedia policies, so I would not brand him/her as new contributor to Wikipedia, only the account. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against new editors; but writing "Fulan Gong" into the official rename proposal means you didn't even have time to proofread what you wrote, and it conveyed an impression of hastiness and overexcitement. When combined with the fact that your account is very recently created, it aroused some concerns in my mind. As HappyInGeneral said, it seems you are familiar with Wikipedia policies, so I apologise for my premature judgment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. For the mediator, I consider that issue closed and needing no further worry. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome Vassyana's mediation. I think it will be salutary while he is around. But I am pessimistic about his long-term effect on the article. Historically, the influences on the article that I consider harmful have taken the form of an continual pressure for change in a certain direction. And the moment Vassyana departs, that pressure will in all likelihood resume its unbridled action. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence there. If you hadn't noticed, a few other editors, me included, are hopefully going to try to do something with this material, and I'm hoping at least one of us, probably including me, hangs around a bit thereafter as well. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"I'm hoping at least one of us, probably including me, hangs around a bit thereafter as well." => Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

List of current issues

Firstly, I thank you for choosing to mediate one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. Secondly, I agree with your policies and guidelines as listed above. Now I will raise my concerns:

• Undue weight: beyond the body of what is ostensibly a well-sourced and well-written article, lies serious undue weight. The alleged persecution of Falun Gong in China, for example, is an important issue, but it is being given undue weight.
• Neutrality: The article may appear like it is written in a neutral tone, but many pro-FLG editors have abandoned the basic spirit of neutrality and have only made the article sound neutral. This practice must end.
• Criticism of Falun Gong: A "criticism" or "controversy" section must be part of this article. To any objective person FLG is a controversial movement. Whether it is a religion, a spiritual movement, or just a harmless qigong group, it has generated significant controversy. A browse through these archives, and it will be apparent what the controversy surrounds. While many people agree it is morally not justifiable for the Chinese government to have "banned" Falun Gong and persecuted practitioners, many reputable sources (NYT, IHT, Time, SCMP) have also acknowledged Falun Gong manipulating the persecution, "prey on the naivete and lack of knowledge by Western governments and individuals", to serve what looks like Falun Gong's own propaganda campaign to further their "agenda". There is undoubtedly enough controversy about FLG to warrant an article all by itself (users have previously attempted this at "Third party views of Falun Gong" - now "Academic views on Falun Gong" but criticism there has also been gradually silenced - see the article's history).
  • The idea here is that the article makes it look like the Communist Party are the only ones who have ever criticized Falun Gong, and that they are only doing so to serve the purposes of the "persecution". This is the crux of the issue: that this is not just a FLG vs. Communists propaganda war. Many third parties have been critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Nature of Li Hongzhi: He is also a controversial figure. There's really little discussion here.
  • There are rather strongly enforced wikipeida policies when it comes to BLP. Even as regards talk page comments. "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." The material presented must be directly related to the individual's notability. Here is the Britannica Encyclopaedia article on the subject: [20]. The person is also the recipient of several hundred awards world-over. Britannica touches upon the recognition received in US. The wikipedia article, in fact, does not even cover a tip of the recognition and awards the Individual has received from various governments and international bodies. -- :Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've found a brief article from TIME magazine here. It gives a general picture of the ridiculous things Li Hongzhi claims. More importantly, it also shows that FLG could be but is not neccesarily a cult (50/50% in terms of criteria). I have added it as a external link.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before, numerous times. This article, in fact. This is a classic example of where pro-FLG editors allege that TIME is a "unreliable source" when they are critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am yet to see a single editor claim TIME is not a reliable source. But certainly, as Wikipedia requires us to, we might need to give academic and scholarly sources a higher priority. And things presented, in BLPs, Wikipedia requires us, should directly be related to the Individuals' notability. Please see my comment below.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources: what is a reliable source? If CCP publications and Chinese government-sponsored media be branded as "pure propaganda" and unreliable, does the same apply for Falun Gong-related websites? Do Minghui, Falundafa.net, Epoch Times etc. serve as reliable sources when it is clear they are owned and operated by Falun Gong practitioners? Can one source be considered reliable when it is praising Falun Gong, but unreliable when criticizing it? The trend here has been that every source, no matter reputation, if critical of Falun Gong, has been derided as "unreliable". Rick Ross, for example (see debate above), has been quoted many times in many other controversial articles, but it doesn't make the cut here, according to several pro-FLG editors.
• Political nature of Falun Gong: Persecution or not, Falun Gong is clearly politically-oriented. The Chinese article (written mostly by Taiwan and HK editors) points out that although initially Falun Gong appeared to have no political allegiance or beliefs, it is apparent that contemporary Falun Gong groups outside of Mainland China have become "unmistakably involved in politics", particularly in their dogmatic opposition to the Communist Party of China. In fact, Falun Gong appears to be the most effective overseas anti-CCP force to have ever emerged. These points get no mention in the English Wikipedia article due to claims by FLG practitioners that Falun Gong was "never political".
• "Wikilawyering": I have pointed out before that a few pro-FLG editors engage in acts of Wikilawyering. Pro-FLG editors often invoke Wikipedia principles and policies when they remove well-sourced content critical of FLG. Although they have denied this, I urge the mediator to go and read some of the past discussion to judge for him/herself whether or not this has taken place.

I will not engage in any kind of unproductive debate by pro-FLG editors that attempt to deny that these issues exist, or that I am looking at this from the "wrong angle", or any other type of argumentation for the sake of argument to stall actual edits. Again, I welcome the mediator to this discussion. Colipon+(T) 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I 100% concur with Colipon. Most of the FLG articles need to checked/reviewed for NPOV. --Edward130603 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, you will notice that on this talk page alone, there has been four editors (myself included) from very different backgrounds who have written of the article as being "hopeless" under three separate headings. ("This article is hopeless", "2 cents from a reader" and "comprehensive look".) In fact, almost in every heading we see some kind of dispute about the neutrality of the article, and almost all seem to be concerns in good faith. The extent of discussion on these talk pages is a sober reminder of just how big a problem this article has become.

I will also add another issue to the ones that I have already raised above:

• Chinese government ban: As user:BTfromLA explained above, the reason and motives for the Chinese gov't to ban Falun Gong are never explained. Surely, the Chinese gov't are not saints when it comes to human rights, but what was their rationale for banning the practice? Doesn't it at least deserve some mention? Shouldn't it be explained? Colipon+(T) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ensuing Discussion

Colipon, when did any editor say TIME is not a good source? Of course, editors could have pointed out that academic studies must be given a higher priority. As regarding the facts of the persecution - the authoritative bodies: Amnesty International, HRW etc ( and all major governments and human rights organizations, according to David Ownby) make the reasons clear. I am not sure what you imply by "involved in politics." Is it that practitioners have exposed the persecution that makes them "political?" Anyway, if there are 3rd party, reliable sources, vetted by the academic community and their claims are not superseded by latest scholarship, then certainly it merits inclusion - the Falun Gong outside of China Page should be right place to present the material. Am yet to see an academic study make such a claim though. I think these pages mention how the Nine Commentaries were made by Epoch Times, has resulted in around 50 million quitting the CCP, etc. Whether that makes Epoch Times "politicized" is a subjective thing. We present the facts. If you can find academic sources making such claims ( am yet to see, and, in fact, whatever scholarship I have come across tells the straight opposite. Falun Dafa is best understood as traditional qi gong cultivation practice according to almost all academic sources - Ownby, Schechter, Penny, etc. )

As for the "why" behind CCP's murder and killing of innocents, including women, elderly and children - it is covered by scholarly and human rights sources and is covered in the article(s). Details of the mechanics which drives the persecution is also covered, all highly sourced. In the main article, the statement the chinese communist party issues as its "rationale" for persecuting Falun Gong is presented in block quotes:[21]. If you ask me, thats overkill. We need to stick strictly to quality sources, on a topic like this. I quite dont understand from your concern that it deserves "at least some mention" stems.

Falun Dafa related website are only used sparingly in these articles, as far as I see. And they certainly merit inclusion as primary sources - when the perspective presented doesn't conflict with mainstream academic perspectives on the topic. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 50 million quitting the quitting the CCP is the most blatant lie from FLG ever. The only sites to report that are pro-FLG sites. Since the FLG ban in China, FLG has directed just about all of its efforts into spreading lies about China. Plus, over 1,000 practitioners died because they followed Li's "teachings" and refused to seek medical treatment for their illnesses. Is that just propaganda from the Communist party or should the FLG practitioners actually refuse treatment? After all, Li Hongzhi says that the mankind has been destroyed 81 times, that the earth is about to explode very soon, and that he is the only one to rely on to prevent the explosion.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is from Times:

Li's rambling dissertation, Zhuan Falun, has only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes "humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere"�extraterrestrials are everywhere, too�and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly.

--Edward130603 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This might come as a shock to you but see here: Natural nuclear fission reactor. And about the rest, well if it's written in Zhuan Falun you can quote that directly, correct? As a side note: if you want to make Albert Einstein with it's Special relativity look wacky, I think that is also possible, at the extent that you can phrase it wacky. But still if placed in the proper context it becomes a scientific theory, well some say (me for example, but I think Ethan Guttman also said it, just need to find the source for it) that the same is true for Zhuan Falun. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that that was quite surprising. As for the rest of what you said, could you be more specific. Albert Einstein's theories may seem wacky because of the little information we know on that topic. However, I'm sure that Li Hongzhi being able to fly is just nonsense. No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wander if there is any point in discussing your opinion that "No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.", because Wikipedia is not about your opinion or my opinion, it's about WP:RS and WP:V and not WP:SOAP. But here we go. Li Hongzhi did not say anywhere that he can fly, you can look up all of the books. CCP said that Li Hongzhi said that he can fly. That is the correct attribution. Regarding levitation, Li Hongzhi presented a theory explaining the mechanics of levitation. He also explained why people can not see anyone flying and why is the whole human race in illusion. And in the spiritual/religious/qigong/meditation community this is not something wacky. In their eyes as I often times heard is something experienced first hand. So if they could experience this first hand in a consistent/repeatable manner, doesn't this make levitation a reality, even a scientific reality in their eyes? See definition of Science: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also the way TIME magzazine puts it. And no, I don't write for Time so it is not what I said, nor is it what your opinion is. It meets WP:RS and WP:V. Of course, this article shouldn't be a soapbox. It shouldn't be the battleground where FLG propaganda is, apparently, dominating. I checked out Zhuan Falun myself today. It wasn't as the CCP put it to be, but it does mention flying. It says that if you release all the locks in your body, you will be able to fly and levitate. People don't show it to other people because they can't levitate, but Zhuan says that it is because others need cultivation. --Edward130603 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if just by accident you misunderstood me, I meant that WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOAP fails your statement of "No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.". I never said that about the Time magazine article, that is a separate discussion as I see Olaf has addressed it bellow. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because these issues are the laughing stock for (pseudo)skeptics worldwide, that doesn't warrant undue weight in a Wikipedia article. But not mentioning them at all wouldn't conform to WP:NPOV. Time Magazine meets WP:RS and WP:V; yet again, "the choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources." If secondary sources rephrase primary sources incorrectly, we should report this discrepancy.

I'll take a brief step into WP:SOAP by saying this: it seems rather unfair how Falun Gong is blamed for every supernatural claim that was ever made in qigong. There were so many "qigong masters" in China who openly boasted with their gongfu, encouraging their followers to pursue these abilities, and so forth. In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi was addressing an already existing discourse that had been embraced by extremely large numbers of Chinese. The failure to acknowledge this historical context, as well as the portrayal of Li Hongzhi as some random guy out of nowhere who came to subvert reason and state power, is preposterous to anyone who knows what was really going on in Chinese society. Unfortunately, historical revisionism and even negationism are an essential part of any totalitarian ideology; history must be reinterpreted to suit the needs of the ruling class. A large part of the more "outlandish" claims made by Li Hongzhi have been made by others before him; these include the natural nuclear fission reactor in Gabon, the existence of aliens, levitation, prehistoric civilisations, plants with emotions (they actually tested this on Mythbusters in 2006 and got similar results with a polygraph [22]), and so forth. It's just that a lot of this stuff is considered pseudoscience, and there's an organised opposition to these ideas. I'm not going to start an argument about how supporting evidence is systematically rejected – people hold strong opinions about this, and we're talking Falun Gong and WP:RS instead of debating the structure of scientific revolutions. This is just something I wanted to point out. Compared to some other 'masters' in China, Li Hongzhi was quite moderate in his claims, and always emphasised that becoming a kindhearted person while living a normal life in society is the only thing that matters. If you read through Zhuan Falun, you'll know what I mean. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually undue weight here that's the issue. It's that skeptics are not being given any weight. Again, the only phrase in the entire article that is slightly critical of FLG is Maragret Singer derided Falun Gong as a "cult", with cult being placed in quotations, without any explanations as to why, and with a paragraph after it extensively refuting Singer. Just look at that section. It's extremely obvious POV-pushing. Colipon+(T) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea that Falun Gong is a 'cult' just doesn't seem plausible to academics, so why should we claim otherwise? What reliable sources are you suggesting? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit telltale to any ordinary reader that even though there is "no academic evidence" suggesting FLG is a cult, that an entire paragraph is spent defending the fact that it's not a cult. Clearly there is a debate. Margaret Singer's theory should be explained in its own right. Colipon+(T) 15:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you could provide diffs or chapter links, so at least we are all on the same page, and know exactly what the 2 of you are talking about. Thank you! PS: I'll be leaving for a couple of days shortly. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you refer to this edit, but still please confirm. Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Earth is abould to explode very soon?!!! lolss.. not worth commenting.. but still.. several academics, including Ownby, make it very clear that there is no doomsday stuff in Falun Dafa.. though it is mentioned a period of renewal will be there..the teachings explicitly say prophesies of major catastrophies etc. are true.. and as for cycles of civilization mentioned ,in passing, in the lectures.. its part of every tradition.. Hindu( read this article:Yugas .. and thats what every Indian believed/understood, for thousands of years, till Darwinism and Western education became mainstream.. now are you gonna say every Indian who believes there might be substance to his traditions need to be persecuted to death?.. or till he recants his beliefs? ) , Buddhist, South American, Jain..

An increasing number of scientists are starting to hold the same view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wox3SfzBA8. And the discovery of what are labelled "out of place artifacts"[23][24] have lead many scientists to hypothesize a model involving cycles of civilizations. Why? You'll accept things only when they are 100% in-conformity what your school teachers taught? And it becomes a "sin" to even discuss anything not in conformity with the school-text-theories framework? Perhaps, it is so in CCP's rule. Not here.

We don't need hackneyed communist propaganda on our discussions.. do we? This is an encyclopedia, not CCP's propaganda ground. And it really serves no purpose. And it is not gonna fool anyone outside of mainland China, where media is censored and people are forced to swallow whatever the state controlled media says.

Regarding the 50 million statistic.. I meant: according to Epoch Times.. Well, there is no reason for many to suspect the numbers... Since all signatures and names are made available online. Anyway, someone claimed in a post above something like the Nine Commentaries by the Epoch Times and its powerful impact on exposing CPP's real nature has not been covered, or at least I thought thats what he meant when said he said "political...". As far as I can see, its an award winning editorial series, very well researched, well structured and well written. Personally, I really dont know what would make it any more "political" than another study on CCP. Anyways, isn't this stuff related to the Epoch Times page? Am for even having a separate article on The Nine Commentaries - certainly meets WP:N.

Cities throughout US and Canada Honor Falun Dafa for the benefits it has brought to the society practitioners live in. Over 900 awards and proclamations have been issued in the US alone.

Regarding medicine. You may want to look into this study, published in a leading peer reviewed journal in the field - The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine published by Mary Ann Liebert and the official journal of The International Society for Complementary Medicine Research .

The changes in gene expression of FLG practitioners in contrast to normal healthy controls were characterized by enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation. The lifespan of normal neutrophils was prolonged, while the inflammatory neutrophils displayed accelerated cell death in FLG practitioners as determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Correlating with enhanced immunity reflected by microarray data, neutrophil phagocytosis was significantly increased in Qigong practitioners. Some of the altered genes observed by microarray were confirmed by RPA.[25][26]

Among 12000 genes tested in the Affymetrix chip, about 200 genes were consistently altered in the FLG practitioners, and we have discussed some of the changed genes...[27]

Ribosomal proteins are very important components of protein synthesis. Downregulation of 10 out of 11 genes for ribosomal proteins suggests that protein synthesis might also be lowered. Ribosomes are the molecular machines that manufacture proteins (Maguire et al., 2001). Downregulation of both genes for ribosomal proteins and genes for protein degradation may lead to reduced protein turnover. In correlation with downregulation of protein degradation and synthesis, the genes coding for proteins involved in DNA repair, cellular stress, and antioxidant enzymes are also lowered (Fig. 3C). Decreases of those stress-associated key enzymes, along with other stress-responsive genes, may implicate limited oxidative production and macromolecular damage...[28]

( Also could someone please add the above material , summarized, to the article? If no one else does it, I'll be doing it - later today or tommorrow. This piece of research certainly merits mention. )

And also you find this article, written by an MD, an interesting read: http://www.pureinsight .org/node/154

Btw, these - straight out of CCP's propaganda sheet- claims you make above are things have been repeatedly proved baseless by independent researchers, human rights organizations, journalists and scholars. Raised only by editors who have since been banned. Even judging by common sense, 1000 people out of 70 million ( China's own statistic, according to the New York Times, as well as academic sources) in a 8 year period.. with a significant portion of practitioners being the elderly would imply a death rate manifolds lower than in the most developed of nations. In fact, it is plain to see that the Chinese Government itself was promoting Falun Dafa. For instance, the first Lecture outside China was upon direct invitation of the Chinese embassy in France. In American Universities, Falun Gong was introduced through embassy channels. And several awards were given by state qi gong orgaizations ( ref: ownby). Pre-persecution state sponsored research in China concluded Falun Dafa saved hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of health care costs etc., each year and, further, profoundly improved the health and productivity of practitioners.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do a bit of mathematics, sourced with reliable statistics, to substantiate Dilip or Edwards claims. Actually I always wanted to do this computation, but never got around it, the result actually surprised me. Here are the facts: Based on this figure [29] death rate in China multiplied with the number of practitioners 70 millions over 8 years would have mean a total of about 3.9 million dead people. Now out of those 3.9 million, well about 1 thousand actually died. Hmm, if you ask me it means that Falun Gong just saved around 3.9 million peoples lives in China and yet the communist party was so desperate in finding faults on Falun Gong that it used this figure. Now of course there is the problem that in China these figures might not be publicized, only the state party propaganda makes it to the press, Internet, Radio, TV etc. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must admit multiplying with 8 might be a bit exaggerated, because the 70 to 100 million practitioners figure (according to the Chinese Communist source) was made in 1998, and it was not stated that is a constant/average number from 1992 to 1999. So let's get it minimal and let's compute the death rate for 70 million people in 1 year [30], that is 489 thousand, which statistically speaking compared to the 1 thousand mentioned it's still quite good (miracle?). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "over 1000" statistic is from those that refused medical treatment in the case where it is needed.

• According to Zhuan Falun, "no medical help is needed" for practitioners is an important part of the teachings.
• According to China Falun Gong "Taking medicine while practicing Falun Gong means not believing that Falun Gong is able to cure illness. If you believe, why do you need to take medicine?"
• According to Zhuan Falun, "One of our students went to the hospital and had several syringe needles bend on him, ... but the needle still couldn't go in. Then he caught on, 'Wait, I'm a cultivator! I don't want any more injections.'"
• According to Sickness Karma, "Once ill, the person takes medicine or seeks various kinds of treatments, which in effect press the sickness back into the body again."

Here are a few examples of the deaths:

• Zhang Jinsheng aged 21 in Liaoning Province burnt his arm incautiously. But he refused medical treatment because he thought this was his master was eliminating karma for him. Consequently, he died of septemia in November 1998 caused by the wound infection.
• Li Qiaoying (58 years old) felt sick in October 1998. But she refused to be treated at hospital and died of cerebral thrombosis in December of that year. Two days before her death, she was suffering from paralysis and lost the ability of talking. Her husband said to her, "It is Falun Gong that has brought us misfortune. If cured earlier at hospital, you would have been saved." Li kept nodding her head but too late to repent.
• Falun Gong practitioner Hu Guangying, a retired worker in Shanghai aged 59, caught an ordinary dermatosis in January 2001, but she resolutely refused to accept medical treatment, and finally died caused by purulent infection on the affected part.

There are many more, although I don't think I need to go on.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases of these - unfortunately because the Chinese government has launched a propaganda war against Falun Gong, it is very easy to FLG practitioners to just label everything here as "CCP propaganda", regardless of whether or not the above cases are true. If nothing else, FLG is extremely sensitive to outside criticism. That's why we saw the first protests in Zhongnanhai, that's why they started their own PR campaign, and that's why we are now having issues with this very article. Colipon+(T) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One simple reason that allows for this to be dismissed as CCP propaganda is that these cases can not be checked independently. The Party does not allow it + this documentary shows the extent the Party goes with the lies and theatrics to deceitfully incriminate Falun Gong. See stages of genocide step 5 Polarization. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One other reason is that most of the quotes used above are taken out of context or simply do not exist in the Falun Gong teachings, see here: "Taking medicine while practicing Falun Gong means not believing that Falun Gong is able to cure illness. If you believe, why do you need to take medicine?". This quote is taken directly from the CCP propaganda machine. When quoting please always attribute it to the correct source, see WP:A. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that is exactly where I found it. However, that doesn't mean it is false. By the way, it was originally in a book Li Hongzhi wrote: China Falun Gong.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You do need to attribute your source, if CCP said it, then the CCP said it. If it's really in China Falun Gong, you need to quote it correctly from there. I saw for example a documentary how the CCP changed the video cut one word from "the world is not going to end" to "the world is going to end" then heavily promoted this footage claiming that Falun Gong is a doomsday cult, while they cut the Chinese nations access to the original/genuine Falun Gong materials. So please don't rely on the fact that you think it was in China Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it as I was browsing through Falun Dafa's online version of Zhuan Falun:

We have a practitioner who broke a few needles at a hospital. In the end, the liquid medicine squirted out, and the needle still would not penetrate. He came to understand: "Oh, I’m a practitioner, and I shouldn’t have injections." He just realized that he should not have an injection.

See...A few sentences afterwards, Li Hongzhi says that he doesn't allow his practitioners to go the hospital. You can find it at about 70% down the page on [31].--Edward130603 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you what I think about the discussion above:

• To test the validity of the "Quit CCP" campaign, I decided to see if I could "quit the CCP" myself on their website. To date I have quit the CCP three times. During these three times, I claimed to represent 65 people in total. Once I even used the pseudonym "Zhou Enlai", thinking the Epoch Times might catch on that I am not being serious. But a day later I found my "quit party testimonial" on their website. The "Quit CCP" thing is a joke, and everyone knows it. At its current rates over 80 million CCP members would "quit" by 2010. This also means that since the beginning of their campaign, 75% of the CCP have already quit. Doesn't look like it to me.
• Dilip responded to my contention that Li Hongzhi is a controversial figure with a note to Britannica. Here is what Britannica says about Falun Gong:

[...]On a more esoteric level, Li also teaches that demonic space aliens seek to destroy humanity and, since their arrival in 1900, have manipulated scientists and world leaders. Critics of the movement not only ridicule such claims but regard its reliance on Xiu Lian as an alternative to official medicine as hazardous to the members’ health. Indeed, the Chinese government claims that 1,400

Falun Gong devotees have died as a result of this alleged rejection of modern medicine.

Curiously, the same content has never made it onto Wikipedia.

• In response to the "research" above, it's an attempt to stall edits again, not to mention your math is quite plainly wrong, and is very clearly WP:OR.
• Need mediator here now. We're straying again. Constantly debating the same things is useless and unproductive. Colipon+(T) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Math is "plainly wrong?" Why May I ask? And OR? It is talk page discussion! Then, dont you think what you end above with "Doesn't look like it to me"... is OR?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is plainly wrong? I have graduated Computer Science, and for computation I did use a "computational knowledge engine", made by the creators of Mathematica. So please Vassyana can you please confirm that the the mathematics used above [32] is correct? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

About: "To test the validity of the "Quit CCP"", a campaign like this is at the moment the single best way in which you can quit the party and not loose your income, freedom or perhaps even life. The potential number for the Quit the CCP campaign is 1.3 billion because it includes even those who took an oath in school to be little red guards. Anyway the fact that you did quit post many times there, well that is just wrong. Let me put it this way, given the conditions do you know a safer/better way to, at least in principle, Quit the Party? One more thing the whole story about you quitting the party is WP:OR. Also please be reminded that Wikipedia is not a SOAP box WP:NOTSOAP, please keep to WP:RS and WP:V + refrain from using FUD. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really quite impressed how much Wikipedia policy you can pull into one small discussion about the validity of the Epoch Times Quit CCP program. The entire Epoch Times "Quit Party" campaign is clearly a fraud. If I can quit the CCP three times on behalf of 65 people, the next guy can do it ten times and represent 10,000 people. Honestly, even in Taiwan and HK they see the whole thing as a joke. Colipon+(T) 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Happyingeneraly, pulling all that WP policy still doesn't make the Quit CCP campaign reliable, at all. Anyone can go on there and pretend to quit CCP. I could even if I don't have any affiliation with CCP. It's about the same as asking everyone online to leave a signature and join me on my mission to reach Pluto by December of the next year...okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I could debate extensively with you, but that would be useless because we are on wikipedia. What is relevant is exactly, what you are impressed about: "I'm really quite impressed how much Wikipedia policy you can pull into one small discussion". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, you may want to read the Archives of discussion.

This is the article from Encyclopædia Britannica Online(2009): http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338603/Li-Hongzhi

In July 1999 Li Hongzhi became known to the world when the Chinese government condemned the practice of his Falun Dafa system, a cultivation of five meditation exercises (known as Falun Gong) that were based on ancient Chinese methods of spiritual healing and enlightenment. Li and his system came under attack on April 25, when more than 10,000 followers protested against being called a “superstitious cult” by the Chinese government. Li, allegedly unaware of the ensuing events, left China just one day before the protest, traveling to Australia for a presentation. He did not return. Three months later, Chinese Pres. Jiang Zemin declared the practitioners of Falun Gong a threat to the government and issued a warrant for Li’s arrest while detaining thousands of his followers, some of whom were officials for the Chinese Communist regime. Millions of Li’s books and cassette tapes were destroyed in the crackdown.

Li was born into an intellectual family on July 7, 1952, in Jilin province, China. He studied under masters from the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. With the surge in China in the late 1980s of Qiqong-related activities—from which many Falun Gong exercises descended—Li decided to synthesize his techniques in order to establish a synergy between the mind and nature. He compiled many of his lectures into a book entitled Zhuan Falun, which served as the main text for his methodology. In it, he called for spiritual enlightenment through meditation and the striving toward a high moral standard of living. Falun Gong became popular in the 1990s largely because many followers claimed to be healed from diseases that traditional medicine could not treat. By the end of 1999 Li estimated there to be around 100 million Falun Gong practitioners throughout the world. Zhuan Falun had been translated into nine different languages.

Shortly after publishing Zhuan Falun, Li announced that he had completed his teachings in China. He began to travel extensively, making guest appearances at conferences in support of his techniques. Li became a U.S. citizen in 1997 and moved to New York City in 1998. He called for dialogue with the Chinese government to resolve the crisis that had resulted from the use of his system. His teachings continued to be relayed in books and on audiotapes throughout the world, and such cities as Chicago, Toronto, and Houston, Texas, had honoured him by proclaiming “Master Li Hongzhi” days in recognition of the positive contributions of Falun Dafa.

DeAudray Brown

The article on Falun gong in the encyclopaedia is extremely dated. Not a single reference going beyond 1999/2000 - when CCP was the only available source on the topic to many in the west and no third party research was available. This has since been superseded by latest academic research - Refer, for instance, David Ownby's 2008 research. Even the 2002 World Book Encyclopaedia article is entirely positive.

In a topic like this, a field of active academic research, and where more information is available almost daily, latest scholarship, vetted by the academic community, certainly deserves more merit than 10 year old articles. See earlier discussions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Every one of these topics have been debated ad nauseum on the 24 archives of this talk page. Can we just refrain from writing things and await the mediator?Colipon+(T) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the mathematics presented above [33], which although it's very simple and straight forward, you state is "quite plainly wrong, and is very clearly WP:OR", is new :-) But I do agree that everything was discussed before, and it's best to keep to WP:RS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Singer

As a side discussion from above, why is it that Margaret Singer's labeling of Falun Gong being a "cult" not explained at all? She mentions in her book that "cult" is not even meant to be a pejorative term, merely descriptive. I find it interesting that the fact that she believes FLG is a cult is presented, and then not described at all. Why does she think so? If she thinks so, there must be a reason, right? Why isn't the reason presented at all? She is clearly a very reputable source who has published in many peer-reviewed journals. She even wrote a book (See here on Amazon) called "Cults in Our Midst" that details some of what she considers "cult characteristics" of Falun Gong. She has also published a well-referenced journal article here. I'm sure this has probably been discussed before. But why isn't this part of the article at all? Colipon+(T) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment, her comment isn't explained. It is given a short sentence and is overshadowed by all of the pro-FLG statements.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it in context. David Ownby - the professor at the University of Montreal, has his name all over every article that deals with Falun Gong. But Margaret Singer, who is equally if not more qualified from UCLA, and renowned for her cult studies works, was given one line. Both scholars ostensibly do not want to promote any agenda, CCP or FLG. But one somehow goes on to appear much, much more than the other. It doesn't take much to see that there is very obvious POV tampering. Colipon+(T) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit on "Reception" section

I have made this edit on the "reception" section: [34]. This is the first edit I have made on the page for ages. Please discuss first if there is any plans to revert. Colipon+(T) 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Falun Gong has garnered diverse public attention on several occasions." Although I will not change this statement for fear of reverts, to me it is clearly just a way to avoid saying "Falun Gong has generated public controversy". Colipon+(T) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Colipon, I changed to "Falun Gong also was also critiqued on several occasions." and reordered the paragraphs, see here: [35], because this way it starts with the scholarly reception which should be the most NPOV. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zhuan Falun

Earlier in the discussion, User:Bdentremont pointed out direct primary source Zhuan Falun.

He stated:

Why do we need reliable secondary sources regarding beliefs of Falun Gong when primary sources are readily available?[...]

He then gives the following pages for reference:

• Prehistoric nuclear reactor - Zhuan Falun, pg 10 (pdf pg 15)
• The 81 cycles of civilization- Zhuan Falun, pg 11 (pdf pg 16)
• Spinning Law Wheel in the lower abdomen, Zhuan Falun, pg 21 (pdf pg 26)
• The Third (Celestial) Eye - Zhuan Falun, pg 24 (pdf pg 29)
• Degradation of human society and recent development of homosexuality - Zhuan Falun, pg 181 (pdf pg 186)
• The "Dharma-ending period" and loss of morals - Teachings of Li Hongzhi at the Zhuan Falun Publication Ceremony, Beijing, January 4, 1995, pg 2.

He goes on to point out "To reiterate, these are from the authorized English translations FG's fundamental literature. Some, particularly the "Law Wheel" and Third Eye appear to be very important to the FG belief system." and that "I think that most readers would consider inconsistency with mainstream western science to be an important aspect of FG, and thus worthy of inclusion in the article. Obviously, many would consider this inconsistency to reflect negatively on FG, which is why FG promotional materials highlight less controversial aspects such as the exercises. Having read both the translation of Zhuan Falun and some FG promotional materials, my opinion is that that the current article follows the promotional materials too closely approaching something of propaganda piece..

This is a very well-argued concern in good faith from what looks like a very neutral-minded editor. We have yet to receive a response to this. Colipon+(T) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

These issues belong into the article Teachings of Falun Gong. They can be nicely added alongside the larger context provided by the secondary sources. But their relative weight in the teachings must be taken into account: deliberate cherry-picking of anything that sounds or smells controversial is not the point. While some things, such as the spinning Law Wheel, celestial eye and the moral degradation of entire humankind can be easily perceived as major issues in Li Hongzhi's talks, things like "recent development of homosexuality" (an original interpretation), the prehistoric nuclear reactor and the 81 cycles of civilization are a lot less important, based on their prevalence in the entire corpus of teachings. Other major issues (in my own words) are the supernatural aspects of ancient Chinese traditions; non-pursuit as a core concept in cultivation; the structure of dimensions; physical transformation of the entire being through xiulian; insistence to conform to the ways of ordinary society; Fa-rectification; and saving people from imminent destruction by making them understand the true nature of the CCP and this persecution. In my view, all this should be included on the Teachings page to some degree.

A few of words regarding the "FG promotional materials" and how they highlight "less controversial aspects such as the exercises". The truth is that a lot of these issues, such as the supposed existence of aliens or 81 cycles of civilisation, do not bear any practical relevance to Falun Gong practitioners. Essentially, the practice consists of doing the exercises, studying the books, and disciplining one's moral character. All of the lectures and books are very easily available; there have been no attempts to hide any of their content. Just think about it: if Falun Gong promotional materials would discuss these things, a lot of disinterested people on the street would consider it an assault on their worldview. Besides, in our activities, we're primarily trying to spread the message about what's happening to practitioners in China. It's not missionary work. We don't want to push any of this stuff; if a person finds Falun Gong appealing, it's up to him or her to digest it and see if the unconventional claims become insurmountable obstacles in his or her mind. But now that the promotional materials are more considerate towards different opinions and avoid provoking people too much, practitioners are accused of cover-ups. You just can't please everyone, can you? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article at Teachings of Falun Gong. If you notice, much of it (and the entire section on "Falun Gong's views on science") was written from one source - David Ownby. I will eagerly wait for third-party assessments. In any case, it's fairly clear that the main article reads like a promotional piece for Falun Gong, as User:Bdentromont has pointed out. Colipon+(T) 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just ask anyone to read the following, word for word:

Leading Falun Gong scholar David Ownby sees Falun Gong as first and foremost "concerned with moral purpose and the ultimate meaning of life and death."[34] Falun Gong practitioners consider their practice "profoundly moral," according to Ownby, where "the very structure of the universe, according to Li Hongzhi, is made up of the moral qualities cultivators are enjoined to practice in their own lives: truth, compassion and forbearance. The goal of cultivation, and hence of life itself, is spiritual elevation, achieved by eliminating karma—the built-up sins of past and present lives which often manifest themselves in individuals as illness—and accumulating virtue."[8] Through cultivation, Falun Gong promises "personal harmony with the very substance of the universe." Ownby says that Li's teachings do not focus on "lists of dos and don'ts or 'sophisticated ethical discussions.'" Falun Gong teaches instead that followers should "rid themselves of unnecessary ‘attachments’, to do what they know is right and hence to return to ‘the origin’, to their ‘original self,’" he says.[8]

This is considered encyclopedic? Colipon+(T) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that quote from Ownby's book is a good description of the phenomenology of Falun Gong practice. In the school of thought that emphasises understanding (the hermeneutic phenomenological tradition rooted in German philosophy), that is considered good science. If you've been formed in an environment of Marxist sociology and scientific positivism, perhaps you don't see its value. Ownby's overused in these articles, though. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

China Falun Gong

Does anyone know where I can find an online copy of the book China Falun Gong by Li Hongzhi?--Edward130603 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that book was later renamed simply Falun Gong, so see here [36]. It is considered an introductory book, the main text being Zhuan Falun. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)