Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Question for the Mediator

Is it possible for the mediator to conduct a thorough 3rd party investigation into what has actually taken place on this page and other FLG-related articles? Without any outside interference? This is really the only way to fix it. I understand this may be outside the jurisdiction of a mediator but something has to be done. Something third-party, thorough, serious, and conclusive. Issues have been brought to RfC, ArbCom, AdminNoticeboard etc. no less than nine times, and nothing seems to be resolved, or even in the process of being resolved. The same circular arguments are being rehashed over and over and over again, by the same group of pro-FLG users, over and over again (just read this page). So many NPOV-minded editors have reported their frustrations with this, yet nothing can be done. To the mediator, I must say, your help is greatly appreciated.

It's at a point where giong to Jimmy Wales himself on this issue may not be an unreasonable thing to do. After all, can anyone else name any other article on here that has faced so many serious disputes that have not been resolved through so many available channels? Colipon+(T) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I've mostly seen anti-FLG editors rehashing their circular arguments over and over and over again. The fundamental problem is still related to reliable sources and their relative weight. Personally, I have nothing against the inclusion of "critical" sources; but attempting to hijack the lede with red herrings, or failing to produce Wiki-qualifying references on demand, seems to be the norm among some ideologues in our midst. While sources like NYT, IHT, Time, and SCMP do meet the community requirements – mind you, I've never removed them, and I don't agree with the conduct of those who have – they are still less significant than peer-reviewed journals, and are not entitled to similar visibility or weight. And when anti-FLG editors really start digging the dumpsters (Rick Ross), and refuse to get the point in spite of third party discussion, that effectively poisons the atmosphere and weeds out any cooperative mentality at the outset.
The anti-FLG party has to accept the fact that the most reliable sources are actually taking a neutral outlook at Falun Gong, oftentimes seeking proper contextualisation and a hermeneutical understanding, and that's why they appear positive. Anything that aims at genuine understanding doesn't satisfy sensationalists, who perfer distorting the relationship between individual parts and the whole to suit their agenda. To me it seems that only a sensationalist "exposé" of Falun Gong could ever appear "neutral" to certain people. We will never let these articles degrade into something like that; if the legacy of Samuel Luo and Tomananda starts raising its deformed head, it will be pushed back into its boghole without delay. But I do agree with you on this: these articles need WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, we haven't seen too many editors with a disciplined approach to neutrality.
One more thing. Please stop calling yourself a "NPOV-minded editor". As long as you use words like 'alleged' in front of 'persecution'; and fail to evaluate sources based on their notability (i.e. academic sources are more notable than newspapers, peer-reviewed journals are more notable than non-peer-reviewed ones); and continue to lobby for people like Rick Ross; and fail to make distinctions between editors on the "pro-FLG" side, I don't see much NPOV-mindedness in that. You're not fooling me; you clearly have an ax to grind, and I see you as a moderate anti-FLG editor. You're not a fanatical extremist like Simonm223, but you are far too committed to a maligning discourse to call yourself neutral. In my eyes, you're only trying to angle for sympathy, as if paying lip service to some Archimedean point would hoodwink anyone. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Olaf Stephanos, which "anti-FLG editors" do you mean? There must have been an insane number of them judging by the reverts that have been performed, mustn't there? You have stated many times that you have nothing against critical sources, but when have you last let one stand, let alone included one yourself, even when directly asked to do so.
There was the question on Falun Gong's view of homosexuality which was brought up the last time I had the time and energy to edit the page. At that time, you responded with a veritable wall of text on how careful one must be when mentioning Falun Gong's view of homosexuality, but when asked, you did not actually add anything to the page, just cautioning everyone else. The same thing happened when we spoke of mixed-ethnicity marriages and Falun Gong's view of them.
The lowest point is still however how you will at one moment claim that you have nothing against critical voices, and at another you have no qualms about launching accusations of criminality against a source (Rick Ross in this case) as a method of excluding his statements from the article.
I really wish I had the time and energy to help improve this article, but I am so very tired of poorly-motivated blanking, combined calls for discussions and then reverts made without discussion and then, particularily from you, Olaf Stephanos, endless references to wikipedia guidelines which do not actually support your action. PerEdman (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My direct impact on the current state of the articles is not very significant. I have been discussing on the talk pages – probably way too much in proportion to the actual work that needs to be done. But I want to get involved without having to ward off constant harassment and ideological struggle, and foster an environment where only reliable sources, sound arguments, rational thinking, and a disciplined approach can stand a chance.
Oh, and Rick Ross can keep selling his snake oil on a private website. All your concerns were resolved here. This is getting old. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
By accident I stumbled upon this edit of yours on Samuel Luo's talk page. "I think we have a lot in common, and can work together in revealing the truth about Falun Gong. I'd like to know, aside from Wikipedia and having the initiative to start your own website, did you do anything else in this process of exposure? I am very interested. Get back to me when you can." So you're interested in a "process of exposure" and have "a lot in common" with Samuel. Good to know. This was written at a time when the articles were oozing with original research, weasel words, and ideological struggle that ultimately got Luo and Tom banned for life. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Colipon is nearly as radical as Luo. Please refrain from making connections. It is getting close to violating WP:NPA.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
He's not nearly as radical; like I said, I consider him moderate. I'm just pointing out that his NPOV-mindedness is extremely selective, and that he has sympathised with Luo's crackpottery before – even when the articles were failing miserably. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It's okay, really. I've gotten used to the personal attacks on this talk page. I have never been similarly attacked anywhere else on Wikipedia. I've been called a CCP agent numerous times already, Olaf even going as far as to scout out my user page history to find a phrase "political affiliations in the past", saying it is obviously a clue that I'm a Communist propagandist. To that, I say, go on. Discredit me all you'd like. No matter how much I am discredited, the article is still in a terrible state. Compare me to radical editors in the past, accuse me of being an agent, whatever you can think of. By discrediting me and alluding to my allged "connections" to people such as Sam Luo, Olaf hopes to paint my edits and comments, and indeed, my person, as someone who is not editing in good faith, someone who is part of a larger agenda. By disputing my neutrality, pro-FLG editors aim to give mediators and spectators the illusion that the conflict on the article is a protracted two-sided war with defined anti-FLG and pro-FLG interests, whereas this is more a case of neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV. If Olaf is a neutral minded editor himself, he would have no problems with asking for a third-party investigation into the state of the article and its disputes. If he were truly neutral, he would support my comment above, because neutral editors have nothing to lose if a third-party investigation is conducted.
The article's not getting any better. The state of the article and the nature of these disputes are extremely clear to any third party, once they have read this talk page, its 24 archives, or the article itself. Colipon+(T) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Colipon, I'm sure nobody has any problem with truly NPOV, third party contributors, I think Olaf was only trying to say that you are not one of those, as it could have been understood in your request, in which, you just request by painting a picture without any concrete and to the point information provided. I requested a few times and I will repeat here, please refrain from FUD techniques and provide concrete addressable issues (that is new issues, not ones that are repeated and discredited over and over again). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have never called you a "Communist propagandist". Moreover, I have explicitly stated that I don't believe you are an agent, nor do I believe you are "part of a larger agenda". I'd like to ask you to stop misrepresenting my words. I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly? "Yes, I have these careless remarks in my past, but I have learned my lessons; I am no longer interested in 'processes of exposure' and promise to collaborate in good faith."Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"...your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil." haha. I like it. :)Colipon+(T)
"Miss representing words" goes against one of my favorite policies on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and it is a disruptive technique. So I kindly ask for it to stop. In any case I will keep an eye on it anyway and bring it up whenever it happens to keep it as a reminder. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Colipon+(T) 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I must remind editors that my question above was intended for the mediator. I look forward to getting an answer from him/her soon. Colipon+(T) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Call for Investigation

I just read Archive No. 24 and the entirety of this talk page. Just a message to the mediator: reading these two pages alone (will take roughly 30-40 minutes) is enough to give you a good idea how serious the problem really is. Very self-evident - doesn't require much to be said. Seems like there are two users, namely asdfg12345 and Olaf, who have done most of the refutation/reverts of criticism, and they are intermittently flanked by dilip and HappyInGeneral. Olaf seems to employ argumentation at a more advanced level than asdfg, although asdfg seems more versed in invoking wiki policy. Dilip has been banned once for various abuses, and HappyInGeneral, as far as I can tell, is more "moderate". Anyway. Several blogs have already been written about issues in this article, from users like OhConfucius, Mrund, etc., after they gave up on their quest to present a neutral view. My view on this matter is that the only proactive way to solve the problems on this article is:
  1. Conduct thorough investigation from higher Wikipedia authorities.
  2. Ban the users they deem responsible for causing the problems on this article.

I am certain that I am not alone in these thoughts. Best wishes, Colipon+(T) 20:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have dissected many callow arguments and left them in bloody pulp, but my reverts have been sparse and few over the years. If you aren't content with our mediator, you can always take another route of WP:Dispute resolution. Prepare to do a lot of work; nobody's going to do it for you. I know, I initiated the previous arbitration case. It all comes down to whether the anti-FLGers have used WP:RS and given them due weight or not. Unreliable sources can be removed by anyone without further ado, not to speak of original research. Other problems have been caused by people who want to hijack the lede with some red herring. The same old story. I don't think you have a case, Colipon, but you can always try your luck. Hey, don't we all love gaming? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we please wait for the mediator to respond?--Edward130603 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agree with Edward and Colipon. Mediator please read thru the archived talk pages. I, like many others, have basically given up on these FLG pages; IMHO some editor's wangon circling has resulted in many facts unfairly removed/marginalized.
The same editors have also circled wagon and POVed it to death in this page.
On a personal note, I'd like to ask the mediator to reveiw this balnking of cite okayed by multiple administrators
Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Any fair-minded reader who looks at the past discussion will see that a few pro-FLG contributors are camping on this entry and removing all criticism, no matter how well sourced. The amount of passive-aggressive wikilawyering exhibited here is staggering. It's the same situation that recently led to the wholesale banning of pro-Scientology contributors from Wikipedia. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree on most points. I am not sure "higher Wikipedia authorities" should "ban users responsible for causing problems", but this article certainly bears investigating, but it cannot stand under constant surveillance of administrators for all time. The article needs skilled editors and I have lost the energy to be one of them. The article and the list of active editors needs to be much improved before I can participate constructively.
The article is poorly written (wordy, convoluted, contains too much name-dropping), poorly sourced (too many sources, many of them to Falun Gong webpages and liks to articles that reference each other) and gives a very whitewashed impression (very few critical voices, if any, are allowed and have even been removed through "minor edits" or by accusing the source of being criminal or being implied as agents of the Chinese government). When one digs into the sources, web-available articles will be linked by article name and publication rather than a weblink, or the link will go to a webpage collecting snippets of articles, created by Falun Gong members, rather than the first-hand statement.
I have tried to improve the article in these areas: by going through sources to verify that they support claims in the wikipedia page, by restricting references to ref tags (removing namedropping) to make lede more readable, remove references that build their content solely on the content of another reference that has already been used on the wikipage. Please see my talk page headings from 2 July 2009 for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Incorporating_criticism ff. PerEdman (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary. I am just discouraged because a) I have another life and do not have the time to keep monitoring this page and b) we have exhausted all of Wikipedia's dispute resolution channels. This is the reason I suggested "higher Wikipedia authorities" - although because I have never dealt with an issues similar to this, I really don't know where to go anymore. Colipon+(T) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths. The conduct of "pro-FLG" editors has been investigated during the previous arbitration case. I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me.
Grand talk without reliable sources; inability to present reasonable, logical, cool-headed arguments; blind ideological struggle; refusal to get the point; and complete avoidance of the real bones of contention, even when they are brought forth in discussion – these are the real problems we're facing. A lot of us just haven't read the friendly manual properly, have we? When I browse through the archives, I see something very different from what you're describing; me and Asdfg12345 have always asked for sources, sources, sources – and rational discussion. How many dozens of hours have we wasted debating something that unambiguously does not qualify, just because it's the best someone can come up with (and that says a lot). How many times have we seen someone insert some pungent red herring and insist on its placement in the lede, even if we would've agreed that the reference is alright in another location, as long as it's contextualised properly. We've encountered a myriad of agitators, pseudoskeptics, CCP-sympathisers, militant atheists, and a motley crew of other anti-FLGers who've never learned the details of how to edit Wikipedia properly. They realise they're dealing with a group of editors who're extremely aware of their rights, and they don't find a way around the fundamental requirements, don't know how to do genuine research, get extremely frustrated, and eventually say things like "I have never dealt with issues similar to this, I really don't know where to go."
Let me give you a piece of friendly advice. There are two ways we can proceed. The way that is probably the simplest for all of us is waiting and seeing if we can get ahead with our mediator. He seems like an experienced and reasonable guy. Another way is starting an arbitration enforcement case. You need to collect the evidence, present the exact diffs, elaborate on what policies they are breaching through direct references to the rules (something you've erroneously called "wikilawyering") – and be scrutinised yourself, as the accused parties will certainly gather countering evidence to prove your own misconduct. I've gone through this process. It's quite time-consuming, but it's the final step of dispute resolution. There are no "higher authorities" on Wikipedia who just show up on demand and conduct an investigation. You conduct your own investigation and present it to the judges. Tomananda and Samuel Luo, the two chums from Frisco, were banned indefinitely as a result of the previous arbitration case; until the very end, they thought they were the ones who had done nothing wrong. You should familiarise yourselves with their tragic fate. I see a lot of their hubris in some of you. Apart from User:Mcconn, who was placed on standard revert parole and hasn't been around for years, no "pro-FLG" editors were punished. Why? Because we're familiar with the playground. And we do research. And our sources are better than yours. (And because, in the end, we know what we're doing, while you are making the most serious miscalculation of your lives – but that's another story, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so let us stick to tangible issues and not give too much weight to correct personal opinions.)
Nevertheless, to give you some credit, I can say that I've seen some glimpses of constructive editing on these pages. You may indeed have the potential to learn and become mature. For instance, I was very happy with Colipon's wording "Falun Gong has garnered diverse public attention on several occasions." That is definitely true, and a neutral wording we should all be able to agree with. On the other hand, from your point of view, it may be unfortunate that the overwhelming majority of reliable academic sources are quite neutral towards Falun Gong – and what is 'neutral' will undoubtedly appear 'pro-FLG' to some of you, as it does not portray Falun Gong as some weird, incomprehensible, dangerous phenomenon that warrants further marginalisation. As a result, this article cannot give out the impression that the anti-FLG activists would prefer. There's no doubt we need to develop these articles by making them more balanced, more comprehensive, more diverse. But they will never turn into a frantic "exposé" of Falun Gong; you should realise this at the outset. I am aware of a large number of untapped, reliable, third party sources that are just waiting to be included here. I'm perfectly assured that any rational reader will be able to understand the real situation when we really get down to business; because even if Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, it will all be wonderfully transparent when the facts are laid out in an eloquent, systematic fashion.Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Olaf, it is because you are a "civil POV pusher". Please read WP:PUSH. I don't think that those of us arguing against you are gonna get banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. None of us have 24 sockpuppets and all of us edit constructively. For one, I'm not a single purpose editor. I don't spend my life on Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia. Happyingeneral, Asdfg, Olaf, and Dilip are all people that do nothing on Wikipedia except for editing FLG-related articles. You are familiar with the FLG "playground" because you are on it day in and day out. You eat on it, you drink on it, you "cultivate" on it, you even sleep on it.
Also, please don't try to scare us off by telling us to "familiarise" with Sam Luo's "tragic fate". I don't see anything I have done that would warrant an indefinite ban.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I completely disagree with your characterisation. I understand you can find no other accusations against me, so you keep calling me a "single-purpose account" (see WP:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors). I have plenty of other things in my life, as you can see on my user page, so I'm not going to bother using even more of my precious time for Wikipedia, even if I have other areas of expertise that would surely help building an encyclopedia. I am here, because in the real world, a near-infinite amount of renminbi and dollars have been used to denigrate and defame Falun Gong; because so many people are deluded by the CCP; and because using nothing but reliable sources and giving them due weight is the only way to keep this article from degenerating into another tool of oppression and propaganda. I am here as a defender of transparency, reliable sources, and the spirit of Wikipedia. I can write for the enemy, and I have done so in the past. I've swept the floor with hollow arguments over and over again, yet remained civil, even if my arrows are sharp and I shoot you straight. I can see several characteristics of "civil POV pushers" applying to anti-FLG warriors, such as:
  • They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
  • They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. ("cultic studies", anyone?)
  • They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. (Rick Ross, CCP propaganda in the lede...)
  • They attempt to water down language ("alleged" persecution), unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories - pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short). (why do you always have trouble producing academic sources on demand?)
  • They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors. (...and keep insisting on some sources even when they've been turned down)
Secondly, I did not say you would deserve an indefinite ban. None of you have surpassed Tomananda and Samuel in blind ideological struggle. But the road some of you are treading would undoubtedly lead to sanctions if you kept your attitude. Martin Rundkvist, Per Edman, and Simonm223, to say the least, all have incriminating edits in their past. A lot of this evidence is already collected, so it's easily available if our problems escalate. Talking about bans and their targets was a reply to Colipon's comment: "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary." Right, Colipon, wouldn't it all be so much easier without accountability? All those pesky 轮子 niggers, those no-good cult members being so awfully demanding? I mean, who would have the time and energy for that? But a wholesale ban, mmmmmm... yes... sweet....... ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I've only called you a single-purpose account once. The persecution of FLG exists so it is not alleged, but the word persecution is not NPOV. Also, FLG's couterattempt at defaming China is disgusting. In addition, in China (yes I have been there for extended periods of time before), civilians who want peace are harrased with leaflets that are sneaked in to them and bombarded with endless phone calls asking them to join FLG and/or donate money. Westerners only see the good side of FLG. (BTW, please don't say that that was WP:OR, I'm not trying to put it into the article.)
And who was calling you a "wheel nigger"?--Edward130603 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong practitioners do not make phone calls asking people to "join FLG and/or donate money". You've been lied to – or you have encountered an agent provocateur. However, I know Chinese who call their fellow countrymen and persuade them to renounce the CCP. It is not uncommon for more than half of the respondents to agree. (As for your other question, calling practitioners 轮子 is a common slur in Mainland China.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Over half of the people agree because the respondents are tired of harrassment from FLG.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If none of this is relevant, I really do request that you folks wait till Vassyana gets back. He's an extremely accomplished mediator. In the meantime, I hope you folks will abstain from this pro- and anti- talk about each other. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Our mediator, Vassyana, is "currently without regular internet service. This will be corrected withint 7 to 10 days. Apologies for any inconvenience." as it says on his/her talk page yesterday. Lets just wait for our mediator to return before we proceed.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That's a good idea. Colipon+(T) 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • First, I'd like to thank you all for your patience and understanding regarding my internet service issues. That said, what I will do in response to the request above is take a deeper look over the history of this article and the talk page archives, as well as those of related articles, and provide some honest feedback about what I see as the main problems and stumbling blocks. Does that seem appropriate and helpful? Vassyana (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf's comments

Olaf here wrote of critics that "Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths" and anything he writes after this point will be ignored by me. I cannot keep assuming good will against such a background.

I'm sure there are many stronger people than me here, but I cannot muster the energy to edit a wikipedia article on a subject as sensitive with this in a climate where such comments hail. I'm sorry. PerEdman (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Olaf Stephanos is the single most hostile Wikipedia contributor it's been my misfortune to come across either on the Swedish or the English site. Not to mention his tendency to write two-page wikilawyering screeds. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have not attacked you personally. The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose.Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Olaf wrote: "I have not attacked you personally. The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose.". Am I the only one that senses an incredible amount of irony and hypocrisy in that statement? -Colipon+(T) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Also reminded of Olaf accusing me that my "shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil." If these are not scathing, unacceptable "personal attacks", I don't know what is. Colipon+(T) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Difficile est saturam non scribere. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And in the mean time our mediator Vassyana kindly asked us to refrain from personal comments. So I think if everybody would mind that even when complaining or defending a state. As she mentioned it before, it does not really matter who starts a debate, probably what matter most is who is keeping it alive. So please no more negative personal comments and better stick to the content of the article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar Arbitration Case for Reference

If we choose to take the path of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, it certainly looks like a long road ahead.

Also, this archive gives a very good overview of what tactics users may resort to if a ban is placed. Also looks like the article on Scientology has a lot more admin attention and quite a few apologist editors. Colipon+(T) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what's the fundamental difference? Scientology, as described by numerous reliable sources, is nothing but a money-making pyramid scam for useful idiots. The overwhelming majority of academics are clear on this. The Church of Scientology IP addresses have gone to great lengths to keep the most reliable sources out of the article. The ArbCom did wisely by banning them wholesale.
On the other hand, in Falun Gong's case, the reliable, academic sources tell a very different story. A paranoid totalitarian government launched a vicious assault on a peaceful group of meditators who did not want to get involved with politics. The group has no official membership, no formal organisation, no leaders and subordinates, no monetary corruption, and seems to be composed of normal people with some unconventional beliefs. They've been imprisoned, subjected to forced labour, tortured and killed, and there are numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence about their organs being harvested. Some people are so committed to their anti-FLG beliefs that they are genuinely surprised to find obstacles in their missionary work. Their views cannot stand closer scrutiny and are handily dissected by fellow editors with sufficient mastery of the word. They find it incredibly difficult to prove their arguments with reliable sources; and they turn into wolverines, digging the outlying dumpsters to find one half-rotten red herring, and fiercely insist on showcasing it at the prime spot of the exhibition. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So claims the self-professed FLG practitioner. It's nice to see your hypocrisy in smearing other beliefs yet claim "persecution" yourself. There are good people in Scientology too, and people are free to come and leave. And before you attack my country, learn what "totalitarian" means. Jiang Zemin actually stepped down from power when his term expired. Would a totalitarian dictator do the same?--PCPP (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, just wait for the mediator. Colipon+(T) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims vs. Says

Hello Edward, regarding this edit [1] could you please elaborate why you think claim is a better wording then says? Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Happy. It was just to match the tone of Singer's statement, which used "claims". If you think that the original wording was better, please tell me and we can revert it back!--Edward130603 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Right, I read the source on Singer, and now I see that you made a 1 to 1 weight on the sources, although Olaf pointed out that these are rather fringe theories. BTW, what I don't understand at this point why are the critics in front? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure, but I think it is because the non-critics are refuting the critics.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Edward that it is most logical to put a claimant before whoever responds to the claimant. Rather than take Olaf Stephanos word for who holds a fringe theory and who is not, I suggest you take it to the noticeboard. PerEdman (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Destynova's Comments

[moved by Edward130603 from section Comprehensive Look]

Agreed. The English language version of this article seems to highlight Falun Gong in an unfairly positive light. Even at the start, it's referred to as a 'spiritual practice' when it is considered a religion by some (and a cult by others) - little to no mention of this is made in the article. This seems to be consistent with the way FG is described to the public as a form of exercises and meditation - any elements of FG practice or beliefs which would be regarded as unsavoury in the Western world (such as the views on homosexuality as amoral behaviour, although I did check the article on Christianity and found no mention either, which seems odd) are eliminated or toned down.
A search of the article for the word 'cult' turned up a first mention in the "Persecution" section, stating that the Chinese government had branded FG as such (note that "branded" in this context is kind of a weasel word). The next hit, in the "Reception" section is of interest, but completely fails to mention any of the reasons why those people consider FG to be a cult. Why is the "Persection" section seven times longer than the "Reception" section? That in itself indicates some bias in the article's current state.
Finally, I have to agree with a previous editor who mentioned that the Chinese language version of the article is much fairer and balanced than the English language one. It discusses some important issues which are completely omitted in the English version.
Destynova (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Where are the reliable academic sources calling Falun Gong a 'cult'? Just because billions of dollars have been used to attack and defame Falun Gong, and some people have been seriously mislead, that doesn't mean Falun Gong has anything to do with genuine cults. Nobody called it a 'cult' before the persecution began, so it is more than appropriate to mention the word in that section and explain its origins. We shouldn't give an air of objectivity to something that is, academically speaking, nothing but a fringe view. See my post here for some elaborations on this issue. Falun Gong's views on homosexuality and other such things can be mentioned in the article, as long as they are given due weight; they are a minor fraction of the entire corpus of teachings and don't have any impact on how Falun Gong practitioners act towards other people.
Why aren't these views given more prominence in the "Reception" section? Margaret Singer was so controversial that she was no longer accepted as an expert witness in her later years; her reports "lacked scientific rigor and an evenhanded approach" according to a court ruling. This should be mentioned whenever she's brought up. Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress [2] [3], who has nothing but a BA in political science (although she "studies modern and classical Chinese at the University of California at Los Angeles", according to the reference in the article). On the other side, we have David Ownby (Director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal); Livia Kohn (Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University and a scholar in Daoism); Barend ter Haar (Chair of Sinological Institute at the University of Leiden); and many other respected scholars. Per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, there's no way we can end up with a fair and balanced article by giving equal weight to people like Singer and Rahn and other members of the "anti-cult movement", whose partisan views and ideologies have been described in a peer-reviewed journal as "[lacking] empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community", as well as "useful tools, helping efforts by the [Communist] party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong." [4] As long as you don't give me an opposing peer-reviewed reference claiming that these are not fringe views, we will go by what is said in WP:FRINGE (emphasis mine):
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.
There are people who like to "struggle" against almost anything that seems irreal, untrue, and/or religious; there are those who are concerned about Falun Gong's incredibly strong peaceful resistance to the CCP and want to discredit the practice based on their personal sentiments; and there are other reasons. We have editors like that, such as Simonm223, whose entire Wikipedia history is somehow related to lobbying for secular materialism. These kinds of people undoubtedly see this article as biased, because it doesn't "expose" Falun Gong, blow things out of their proportions, and make the whole issue seem ridiculous and dangerously irrational. But don't blame me on the fact that most Western academics are taking a neutral outlook on Falun Gong. Giving due weight to reliable sources and taking extra caution at representing things in their relevant contexts is the only way we can get ahead, regardless of personal opinions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree. One of Falun Gong's defining characteristics is its extreme sensitivities to any outside criticism. It responds to criticism with ad hominem attacks and stylish apologetics. This is quite apparent even in your comment. Your logic runs that because Singer has been a controversial figure that her opinions are not credible - and then you also raise the ad hominem notion that because Rahn is a BA and used to be an actress that her publications and views should also be discredited. You then go on to brand the entire ACM as "ideologists". A read through Rahn's works and you will see that she actually attempts to take a very moderate view. Yet you posit Rahn and Singer on "one side" and Ownby, Kohn etc. on another, giving the impression that these scholars are opposed to each other - that academics who criticize FLG are against FLG, out to get FLG, running an ideological struggle etc. This argumentation is grossly misleading. In any case, the ACM is a controversial body - that fact is recognized. But the ACM will not publish material on say, the Lutheran Church, or moderate Presbyterian groups, or Ismaili Muslims, or Tibetan Buddhists. It publishes material on Scientology, polygamist Latter-Day Saints sects, and Westboro Baptists for a reason. It has also publishes material on Falun Gong. The fact that it has published material on Falun Gong already speaks volumes. But Falun Gong would have none of it. Anything critical of Falun Gong must be wrong, must be discredited.
I also find it questionable why your wall of text is necessary in response to a concern by a passing user who simply raised an opinion about the way the article is written. It's apologetics at best and a laughable insecurity on the part of FLG at worst. Colipon+(T) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I am not a representative of Falun Gong. I am here as an educated, argumentative person who believes in transparency and honest, rational discussion. I am well-read in the subject matter, and I want to make sure that no propaganda and fringe views override reputable academic sources. Do you know why I keep insisting on peer-reviewed journals? Because they are a good reflection of the scientific consensus among the experts of the relevant field. And because they rank highest in the Wikipedia hierarchy. Falun Gong and the persecution of its practitioners are extremely complicated social phenomena, and they warrant good, comprehensive research that keeps the ideological slant to a minimum. The Anti-Cult Movement is not only controversial; it is utterly refuted by Cultural Studies and related disciplines. I know this beyond doubt because of my own academic background.
Sure, the ACM may have published a lot of material on Scientology, polygamist sects and Westboro Baptists. I could write books about tuna, catfish, Baltic herrings, and blue whales, but that wouldn't make me an acknowledged expert on fish, nor would blue whales become fish just because I didn't know any better. No matter how you try to get around it, you need to find me peer-reviewed references calling Falun Gong a cult, if you want to dispute what is said in other peer-reviewed sources. Otherwise: fringe views deserve fringe visibility. Go change the policies if you think there's something wrong with them. Drop me a line when you pan out, will ya? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, the problem has nothing to do with whether or not Falun Gong is a cult. The problem lies with editors trying to hide and whitewash criticism of any kind.
David Ownby himself calls Falun Gong "undoubtedly controversial" as an opening to his segment published in "New Controversial Religions". Only after I had read Ownby's works have I seen how whitewashed this article truly is. It chooses part of Ownby's writings that present FLG in a positive light, but ignores, for example, Ownby's writings on Li Hongzhi's "eccentricity", the "holy" nature of Zhuan Falun, Li's claims of supernatural powers, and his apocalyptic rhetoric (which Ownby himself portrays as a very important part of the FLG doctrine). Colipon+(T) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Now we're talking. Let's incorporate that stuff. Can you offer some quotes, so that we can find start discussing their placement? We probably need to redesign the structure of these articles as well. As long as the sources are alright, the most serious obstacle has been removed, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with you. It's about time to move from discussion to actual work. I found the article you mentioned (I hadn't read it before), and the final paragraph nicely sums up Ownby's position: "In the final analysis, Falun Gong came to be controversial because of the extraordinary growth of qigong, and because of the eventual negative reaction of the Chinese state. Otherwise, Falun Gong is largely consistent with certain traditional popular religious practices well known in pre-Communist China." We should represent this viewpoint fairly.
As I've said before, my impact on the current state of these articles is not significant. I am not here to whitewash anything or defend status quo. I've said that I want you to come up with reputable sources, not some ACM mish-mash with no scientific value whatsoever. I don't stand in opposition to critical voices per se, as long as the material complies with the Wikipedia standards. When I talked about transparency, I meant it. A rational reader will be able to come to his or her own conclusions, as long as the articles conform to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: I will be away from computer until Sunday. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here has been quite encouraging, although I'm still a little bit concerned about this statement by Olaf: "No matter how you try to get around it, you need to find me peer-reviewed references calling Falun Gong a cult, if you want to dispute what is said in other peer-reviewed sources. Otherwise: fringe views deserve fringe visibility." My issue here is that peer-reviewed sources were already available that happened to contradict the view currently predominant in the article (that FG is not a cult and the Anti Cult Movement lacks credibility), and you attacked those sources not only in this discussion but in the article itself. It would be a shame if all critical viewpoints were quickly marked as "fringe" views. There have been good points made; the material by Ownby as quoted by Olaf is promising: "In the final analysis, Falun Gong came to be controversial because of the extraordinary growth of qigong, and because of the eventual negative reaction of the Chinese state. Otherwise, Falun Gong is largely consistent with certain traditional popular religious practices well known in pre-Communist China." - I think the relation to qigong practices and the persecution by the Chinese state have been covered quite well in the article, but the notion that FG is consistent with Chinese religious practices has not, and would be a welcome addition to the article which, as I mentioned earlier, describes it as a "spiritual practice" and is somewhat ambiguous over whether FG is a religion or not. Regarding the views on FG being a cult or not, I agree that such a contentious issue should not be treated lightly and quality sources should be found that treat the argument fairly.

Destynova (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
One short question (I really won't be able to take part until Sunday, this is the last thing I'm writing here): what peer-reviewed sources are contradicting the view that FG is not a cult and that the anti-cult movement lacks credibility?
@Olaf: I was referring to Singer and Rahn, who have both described FG as a cult, and whose contributions you described as not credible (e.g. "is a former B-class soap opera actress [92] [93], who has nothing but a BA in political science").
I should point out that I am undecided on whether FG is a cult (since there has clearly been a strong propaganda movement by the PRC to label it as such, whatever the truth is), which is why I came to the article in the first place (and quickly found that some views were under-represented there). That the relatively small number of sources in the article critical to FG have their opinions followed by a caveat which diminishes their credibility just seems dodgy.
Destynova (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You responded so quickly that I can still comment on this. Perhaps you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means.
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.
I have never seen anything by Singer and Rahn that has been subjected to formal evaluation by their peers. Instead, a publication that does meet these requirements (Journal of Church and State) has completely discredited the anti-cult movement ("most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community") and even said this: "By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [5]
This is what I meant. It's not the opinion of an individual writer; the peer-review process ensures that this is an accurate reflection of the scientific consensus in that field. Unless you find a peer-reviewed reference that disputes this claim, we have direct proof of Singer's and Rahn's views being subject to WP:FRINGE. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blatantly POV edits

I feel it is necessary to bring to light recent edits by Olaf. He attempted to explain these edits above in a very long-winded response against concerns raised by a passer-by user on this article. In this edit he goes on to very directly discredit Dr. Margaret Singer's statements and then also wrote an entire paragraph discrediting the American Anti-Cult Movement in general. The fact that these kinds of edits continue to happen is frankly quite alarming. While they do not seem to violate the letter of WP policies they unmistakably run counter to the spirit of presenting the material from a neutral perspective.

This is also the general trend in these articles - whenever critique is introduced a pro-FLG editor immediately comes in and either blanks it or refutes it. See for yourself at this revision.

In discrediting Singer, Olaf writes into the article the following, seemingly in direct response to Singer calling FLG a cult:

However, Margaret Singer's academic views have been deemed as "not accepted in the scientific community" according to a court ruling[1], and she was no longer accepted as an expert witness in her later years.[2][3][4][5]

He also inserts this long paragraph, clearly aimed at refuting any notions of FLG being a cult:

According to Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson writing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Church and State, China has incorporated many theories of the "anti-cult movement" into its campaign against the Falun Gong. "However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." Moreover, Edelman and Richardson argue that "the definition [of a 'cult'] allows the government to employ the restrictive anti-cult legislation to target a wide array of religious and spiritual organizations. The evidence suggests that this is precisely what has happened." As for the anti-Falun Gong legislation in China, "such infringements are not within the bounds of state discretion. As a result, they are in violation of international customary law. Furthermore, although China's discretion in relation to its restrictions on religious practice is greater, its actions also seem to overstep the bounds of the margin of appreciation. State edicts and legislation appear to be discriminatory in nature." The researchers conclude that "the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong."[6]

If these edits are to considered to be "in good faith" then there should be some serious review of wiki policies. Colipon+(T) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Each sentence I wrote has significance. First refute my arguments point-by-point; then we can discuss. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. No. I have not made any changes to your edits, nor do I plan to until the mediator sees this and decides for him/herself what to do. Colipon+(T) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to know why do you insist in using low quality and shaky sources? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I for one am glad that Olaf Stephanos actually wrote something on the wikipage, even though it took the risk of erasing misquoted reference to do so. I am confused why the article in Church and state is not weblinked; it really should, be for everyone's benefit.
For the moment I feel the segment is far, far too long and intricate, which speaks volumes of the original paraphrase. PerEdman (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what is the mediator's take on this issue? I have not made any changes myself because I wanted to wait for third-party opinions. If I went and edited myself I often get called names and hurled accusations. Colipon+(T) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic area review

While I am still waiting for the nice technician to come grant me the wonders of new internet service, I do have occasional trustworthy access to the internet still. I have taken a good chunk of time to review the article editing history, talk page archives, various noticeboard discussions, past administrative and arbitration interventions, and several user talk page histories.

  • Most of the problems can be described as "point of view pushing". Many editors, usually with good intentions, possess a clear point of view and advocate for it almost explicitly.
  • As a consequence of this "POV pushing" and an often antagonistic atmosphere, much of the discussion becomes sidetracked with speculative and accusatory personal comments.
  • Bad faith, uncooperative attitudes, and adversarial obstruction abound in this environment.
  • This is illustrated by conversations becoming sidetracked in accusations of bias, ulterior motives, and similar speculations on a sadly regular basis.

These factors have a heavy impact on the content, due to the positions taken as a consequence of the environment and individual opinions.

  • Primary sources, governmental statements, and NGO reports are overused, over-discussed, and often misused. The misuse comes as a consequence of selective quotation, mining material for a predetermined view, and ignoring how those sources are addressed by the best available reliable sources.
  • Reliable sources, especially academic/scholarly sources, are underused and often selectively chosen. The former is especially true of good overview sources that place Falun Gong in a broader context of new religious movements, Chinese religion, and so forth.
  • What appear to be clearly reliable sources are argued against on the basis of the view that it favors, or appears to favor. The reliable sources noticeboard is underutilized.
  • The neutral point of view is regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources.

I know this seems like a harsh assessment, and it is, but it is a set of my honest observations. It is important to be aware of the problems (and their chronic nature) in order to properly address the editing environment. There needs to be a willingness to collaborate without the speculative accusations of bias and agency. (Don't make things worse, but instead keep it calm.) More outside input needs to be solicited, and deferred to, in order to solve many points of dispute. (Be flexible and respect consensus.) Sources need to be examined as a whole group and their reliability fairly determined without resistance due to the source supporting the "wrong" point of view. (Sometimes you have to write for the enemy and accept that it's not about winning.)

In order to help move things forward, I would like to invite three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths to join us here. I believe their input and example would be incredibly useful in keeping discussion focused and moving things forward. I will generally remain available to provide feedback, help get through some of the more difficult disputes, and craft noticeboard requests and requests for comment to solicit outside input. I believe a core of active experienced editors, coupled with assistance in keeping things on-track and getting community feedback, could help counter the problems I outlined above. Does this seem to be an acceptable approach to attempt improving the quality of discussion and the overall editing environment? --Vassyana (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a good idea. I think it will help to improve these Falun Gong pages.--Edward130603 (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good points, at this point I think anything is welcomed that will keep the sidetrack discussion to a minimum and asses the relevance of the sources. Also I think it's great that you will help us get more feedback on this. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Vassyana. I see you've done a very thorough job and given us invaluable advice. I recognise and acknowledge all of the core problems you mentioned. I'm especially grateful that you pointed out how the community noticeboards are underused; moreover, I think it's a good idea to bring in some outsiders and hear what they have to say. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I also agree, and feel that bringing in some new people and making better use of the noticeboards is a good step, the noticeboards are populated by some pretty level-headed folks. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank the mediator for the work s/he has done in what looks to be a very complex case. I completely agree with the assessments of the mediator. That being said, I would like some clarification with the following: what is meant by "three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths"? What is considered "diverse views"? What is considered "experienced"? Another concern of mine deals with enforcement of these recommendations. Several decisions were passed in regards to the arbitration case dealing with the Falun Gong articles in 2007. Clearly, the rulings from that arbitration have not been enforced properly - much of the conclusions of that arbitration were supposed to deal directly with issues that are still recurring and on-going. Some of the decisions from that arbitration are being blatantly (and also subtly) violated. How do we ensure that a mediation isn't all talk and no real action? How do we enforce that the same circular reasoning not be used repetitively in future discussions? Colipon+(T) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Diverse views" means editors with a variety of perspectives and general outlooks. "Experienced" means the person in question has been around for a while, is very familiar with policy, and has some experience with related topic areas. With a bit more focus and structure with the involvement of a few experienced hands will make it much easier for uninvolved administrators to decipher what's going on and identify disruptive editors. If I can further clarify or answer any other questions, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean, then, that these "experienced editors" will be outside, third-party editors? Because there is nothing this article needs more than fresh, third-party perspectives. I was also wondering if the mediator could address the question about enforcement. Colipon+(T) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly right. A few fresh uninvolved voices to help steer things in the right direction is what I believe is needed here. Regarding enforcement, I am here in a capacity as a mediator, which means I will be unlikely to handle enforcement. However, as I mention above, the changes to the editing environment should make it easier for uninvolved administrators to understand the situation and identify disruptive editors. --Vassyana (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very hopeful about this, given that the Bold-Revert-Discuss strategy has totally fallen apart. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Certainly don't see BRD working at all. Especially the "discussion" part. We need third-party, relatively uninvolved editors to come here, give their honest opinions, and intervene when something is clearly going out of hand. Colipon+(T) 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Vassyana. Harsh and true. I believe there is much to be gained by combatting the angatonistic nature of the discussion here and hope that more editors could consider "writing for the enemy", basing their writing in available sources. PerEdman (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi. I think I'm one of the "experienced editors" mentioned above. I have some familiarity with religious/philosophical material, even if I'm not particularly knowledgable about this particular topic. To answer one of the questions posed above, regarding "circular reasoning", that's a problem fairly often, but doing so repeatedly is a violation of policy, and could be addressed by an administrator or ArbCom. That isn't to say that it may not still happen, because there are times, unfortunately, when the people engaged in circular reasoning have a point, even if they don't express it particularly well. But the best way to address is it to find sources which resolve the matter one way or another. I do have some access to scholarly/academic sources, and will try to help add some materials from them. Also, if any of you want material from JSTOR, but are not personally able to pull up the articles yourself from their database, let me know which specific articles you want and I can try to email them to you. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get some tangible examples of what Colipon is talking about. Nothing abstract – more like direct links to discussions on this talk page, and pointing out how they employ circular reasoning, and what would be the logical conclusion instead. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for being abstract. But I've mentioned that to any third-party editor, a lot of these "tangible examples" you are asking for are extremely apparent after a read through these archives. Basically the same idea as "The neutral point of view is regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources." Essentially my "abstract" commentary on these talk pages is very nicely summed up by our mediator in his/her analysis of the situation. I stand fully behind the mediator.
Best example on this page would probably be Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits, raised by Bobby Fletcher. The logical conclusion would be to restore administrator-reviewed edits. Colipon+(T) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, how come those exact words nicely sum up my concerns, too? The only thing I've been asking for are reliable (and preferably academic) sources, so that we can start discussing their placement. I've been pushing you to do research over and over again. We've argued endlessly about some cherry-picked quotes from private websites; and the disputes have become even more ridiculous when some editors have tried to insert these quotes into the lede. I know there are so-called pro-FLG editors (sorry, we should stop using these terms) who have removed stuff just because it's critical. I've always said that I don't agree with them (an example). I've seen anti-FLG editors (uh...) argue against reliable sources "on the basis of the view that they favor, or appear to favor"; and I've seen NPOV "regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources." I have nothing against building a honest, transparent, encyclopedic article. But when people just want to find shortcuts to push their POV, it has been extremely damaging to any hints of cooperative mentality on these pages. That said, I do believe we can move forward with the kind help of our mediator. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I trust that the mediator and third-party editors will help improve this article. Colipon+(T) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideas from a newbie

OK, these are just a few ideas from one of the requested newcomers.

  • (1) It might be a good idea to create a separate discussion page, like maybe Talk:Falun Gong/Discussion, which could be used to raise points of concern regarding content in any related articles. Such a forum for centralized discussion generally helps.
  • (2) Like I said before, I have access to JSTOR, the online database of material from academic journals. Anyone can get the list of relevant articles from their website, at [6] but not everyone can actually access the articles themselves. I can. If you want to get a copy of one of the articles, e-mail me with the name of the article and the e-mail address you want it sent to and I'll get it to you.
  • (3) In addition to academic sources, there are other printed sources which might be useful. I went over the list of book reviews related to Falun Gong on JSTOR and elsewhere, and found that the following books related at least in some way to Falun Gong all received multiple reviews, which means that at least theoretically not only could they be used as sources, but they could also be made the subjects of separate articles. These multiple-reviewed books include:
  • Challenging the Mandate of Heaven by Elizabeth Perry
  • Falun Gong: The End of Days by Maria Hsia Chang
  • Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownby
  • Falun Gong's Challenge to China by David Schechter
  • Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution by Ian Adams, Riley Adams and Rocco Galati
  • Chinese Democracy after Tiananmen by Yijiang Ding
  • Chinese Society: Change, Challenge, and Resistance by Elizabeth Perry
  • A Comparative Sociology of World Religions by Stephan Sharot

If anyone has access to any of these books, I'm assuming they would be among the better sources of books out there.
I will myself try to access some of the JSTOR articles and at least attempt to locate some of the books, and I'm fairly sure some of them are fairly commonly available, in the near future. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will get back on this, but for now I suggest Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China, Noah Porter's fieldwork. Also look at the Yuezhi Zhao article which is reffed in this article. Finally, look for the book chapter by Adam Frank. Just google "adam frank falun gong" and see what comes up. His book chapter is actually an analysis of the scholarly discourse on Falun Gong, which is wonderfully abstruse, and really useful for us nerds.--Asdfg12345 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:PCPP edit warring

I am very much offended by User:PCPP's recent attempts to push his POV. Instead of adjusting his behaviour to meet the mediator's suggestions, he keeps blanking peer-reviewed material about the Anti-Cult Movement and calling it "irrelevant". I find it extremely hard to assume good faith towards him, if he doesn't drastically change his approaches. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The material about Margaret Singer would probably best be included in the biography of the subject. While it is not irrelevant to say that her judgement was more than questioned, and even discredited, later, it would have to be established through references to the book in question preferably that her opinions were less than well regarded at the time she wrote the book cited for the material cited from the conference to be removed altogether. Although I am not a mediator, or member of the WP:MEDCAB per se, this article is under existing ArbCom sanctions and I cannot believe that they would consider any removal of sourced material without prior discussion appropriate. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understood. Your reply is quite tortuous. What I'm concerned about is that Margaret Singer, and the entire Anti-Cult Movement she represents, has been discredited by an extremely reliable, peer-reviewed source: "most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." As I said before, the same source also states that "by applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." I don't think there's any room for ambiguity; the Journal of Church and State even leaves open the possibility that the ACM might not have acted "unwittingly."
Moreover, I have never seen a peer-reviewed source defending Singer's views. If this is not direct proof of her ideas being subject to WP:FRINGE, then please tell me what would be. I see only two choices: either we remove Singer and the ACM altogether, or we mention how the ACM has been discussed by reliable academic sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Those concerns however do not indicate that her own observations and personal experiences, which in this case include her claims that relatives approached her, are invalid. I have just read two reviews of the book in JSTOR, and neither was particularly positive. Whether her ideas do or do not meet WP:FRINGE is basically irrelevant to the statement in question, which is so far as I can see from the revision I have in front of me simply a statement by her that (1) she used the word "cult", which I'm assuming she did, and (2) that she was approached by members of the families of Falun Gong members. Considering she worked with "cults" and other such groups, and wrote on them, the first point, regarding her having defined the group as a "cult", seemingly based on her experience, is probably well enough sourced for inclusion, and the second point is something we would take the word of an academic on. I am not saying that there is any particular need for the word "cult" to be included, and certainly this isn't the best of all possible sourcing for such material, so WP:UNDUE might still enter into the matter. But it is sourcing, even if it could be improved, and the latter point doesn't relate to her personal opinions at all, so any questions of her personal opinions are basically irrelevant to that point. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
We can find a near-infinite number of people calling Falun Gong this or that. The point is whether they deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we couldn't give any voice to Singer, but her opinion of Falun Gong being a 'cult' has no practical relevance to the academic community. Besides, Journal of Church and State is considerably more reputable than any publication or conference of the Anti-Cult Movement, so I don't see how Singer's views can be left intact while the reference in question is blanked. Please see the following quote from WP:FRINGE:
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.
On a side note, I'd like to ask you not to use the term "Falun Gong members" and talk about "Falun Gong practitioners" instead. The former term is loaded, since people who practice Falun Gong have never assumed any 'membership'. It also subscribes to a discourse that characterises Falun Gong as a formal organisation instead of a loose network of voluntary supporters. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Olaf, you wrote "I am very much offended by User:PCPP's recent attempts to push his POV." I believe that if a person is so emotionally invested in a subject that an edit to the Wikipedia entry about it is enough to offend him very much, then that person should not take part in editing the article. Could an edit to the article about Vienna offend you? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I am offended by what looks like fueling the fire - a deliberate attempt to undermine our mediation case. If there were similar controversies in the article about Vienna, and I was one of the involved parties, then yes, such behaviour might "offend" me as well, in lack of a better word. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur with John Carter's thoughts. The edit has been mentioned above by myself at "blatantly POV edits". Olaf seemingly inserted the material on his own accord without any consensus anyhow. I wouldn't jump straight on PCPP and say that he is "edit warring". Colipon+(T) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As I see it John and Olaf where conducting a discussion based on substantiated Wiki principles. However if I see it correctly this is attempted to be "diverted" again by personal attacks against Olaf. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy, I'm sorry, but saying that Olaf inserted the material on his own accord without consensus is a reference to a fact, not a personal attack on Olaf. Colipon+(T) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Olaf inserted" WP:RS in context, true, but is that is not all that you and Martin said, is it? What do you hope to achieve with half quotes like this? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) Actually, I was just recently in a discussion on Talk:Bob Dylan where someone who has done a good deal of work developing the WP:RS policy said that a source, if it meets the standards of WP:RS can be included even if it would be seen by most neutral outsiders as being factually wrong regarding that particular point. Therefore, considering that the publisher of the book seems to meet WP:RS, and the author's beliefs regarding the possible applicability of the word "cult" is an informed one, even if less than objective, and the material was published in a reliable source, I have to say that it probably meets WP:RS threshold, although you are free to take the matter to the noticeboard if you so wish. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That still does not answer my concerns. I have not removed Singer and Rahn from the article; I am simply arguing that a peer-reviewed source discussing the Anti-Cult Movement should not be removed and is definitely not "irrelevant" in this context. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Response to John Carter: Yes. This article also frequently runs into issues such as, is the Chinese government an RS, even if everything it says is part of a nationwide propaganda campaign, should it still be considered relevant to the context of this article? Colipon+(T) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In response to Olaf, I never said it was irrelevant, at least I don't think so. I believe what I said was that it might violate WP:UNDUE to add all the material you wish, and I honestly believe that adding several sentences to discredit something which is itself only one sentence long is at best going into undue detail regarding a subject which is also covered elsewhere, in this case her own biography. You are free to take the matter to the WP:CNB or other page for outside input, but I doubt anyone would agree to that there is any reason to spend more space criticizing a person than we use in describing the person's comments themselves. And, yes, the matter of the government's material is a good one. It's clearly relevant, as it's the basis for the persecution, and including it would be important. It's objectivity is another matter entirely. Personally, I think by policy we should not be using the government's own material regarding their opinions, but rather try to find some other, independent, source, discussing their allegations. And, yes, considering that the subject of the government's repression of Falun Gong is one that was substantially covered in RS, there isn't much question that the material should be covered. To what extent it should be covered in this article, as opposed to Persecution of Falun Gong, is another matter. Personally, I don't myself see the need to have the quote regarding the government ban isolated as it is. But the material would be relevant to one article or another. Li Hongzhi's quote could also be more easily integrated into the text. In both cases there is a reasonable question whether the quotes themselves have to be used, or whether a paraphrase would work. Personally, I think paraphrases tend to be shorter, and they might be preferable for this, the main article. The quotes could reasonably be included in full in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, where WP:UNDUE would be less of a concern. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As the article stand right now [7] Singer's opinion may look as a highly reputable opinion to a reader who just happen to read that. As I understand you don't consider sourcing the credentials of Singer's as irrelevant and yet you consider that adding too much details is WP:UNDUE then how would go about it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope you all realize that the frequency of responses here have caused me to have to revise my statements as a result of other statements being made before I can post my initial responses, so I'm at this point not sure whether I said this on this page or whether I had to omit it as a result of edit conflict changes. Personally, I would say something to the effect of "Singer, a professional psychologist whose credentials regarding this matter were questioned, said..." I know I wrote that, I'm just not sure whether it made it through the multiple edit conflicts and subsequent changes or not. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, I'm sure we all appreciate it! As a best practice when an edit conflict occurs I copy out my statement in a document. On the other hand, if I would have always done that, perhaps, I would not needed to come back with that many grammar fixes :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not solely to discredit one sentence, but to offer a relevant context for all statements by members of the Anti-Cult Movement. The article in Journal of Church and State is specifically about how the ACM has postulated Falun Gong as a 'cult', even though the scientific community disagrees with their methodologies and sees them as a lackey of the CCP. Patsy Rahn is also one of them; correct me if I'm wrong, but she has never been published in any other journal besides Cultic Studies. And I agree with HappyInGeneral: if we don't balance their views with reputable sources, a casual reader might interpret these people as recognised authorities on the topic, and that would be terribly misleading. I suggest you read the article in question, if you haven't done that already; it's available here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not try to change the subject. If you want to discuss Patsy Rahn, fine. I can see how that section might be putting undue weight on the subject of the conference. But she is not the same issue, and it would make sense to try to raise that issue in a discussion of a separate one. Rahn's material on Falun Gong was also published according to this page in the journal "Terrorism and Political Violence", published by Routledge, which is a respected academic publisher, so I tend to think that her credentials, while not necessarily the best, are good enough to meet minimum WP:RS standards. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Re the Margaret Singer material, I find the material regarding court statements rather distracting. They have nothing to do with FLG or views of the itself. We don't need to dig up dirt on everyone that has an opinion on FLG.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Singer's comment

I'm creating a new thread just to keep things clean. I made this edit where I kept the bare minimum about Singer as John suggested. Hope it's OK. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Honestly, putting five references beside that one phrase (not even a sentence, a phrase) is a clear sign that it's dodgy. But the trend is really discouraging. It goes something like this:

  • Insert some critical content into the article, trying very very hard to make everything NPOV.
  • Content is unreliable!
  • Okay, we will source it.
  • Sources are unreliable!
  • They are clearly reliable, just look at [1] [2] and [3].
  • Okay, they are placed out of context. It's a fringe theory anyway.
  • Yes, but that warrants some degree of inclusion, in the very least.
  • Okay, let's insert a statement that discredits it.
  • The statement is too long and unecessary
  • 'Okay, make it shorter then.
  • Okay.

Three months later... the statement disappears altogether again, back to square one.

Does no one else see why editing this article is so frustrating? Sorry to portray it in such a simplistic manner, but this is the kind of stuff that turned many good faith editors away over the years. Colipon+(T) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with this edit." => Those are reputable sources showing that no, Singer's comments are not as reputable as it would be loved to be portrayed.
Okay, they are placed out of context. It's a fringe theory anyway. => This is what usually you insist on to introduce, even if reputable sources are present in their place. But don't take my word for it, now we have the mediator and John. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Also please let me mention that when you put essays like this on the talk page, if it's one, two or even five it's fine, it can be constructive and it can show a point, but when you do it over and over again, with the clear intention to discredit the editors of this page, that is WP:NPA in my view, and also as I see it is a FUD technique. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Stop playing a martyr, Colipon, and stick to the work at hand. I'm not going to get involved with your strawmen. Let's just agree to disagree. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am hardly alone. I just tend to be more frank when speaking out about it. A host of other editors raise the same issues (PerEdman, Edward, Ingsbrief, OhConfucius, Mrund etc. etc.). I can move these to my own userpage in due time if their presence here bother you. Colipon+(T) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do that. As for myself, after finishing my thesis in the end of August, I intend to write a rather comprehensive essay on my user page based on my comments here over the years. But I refuse to discuss anything but tangible issues from now on, unless I am really forced to. I have way too many other things in my life. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn

OK, new thread started. I'm not familiar with Patsy Rahn. For a start could you please provide the article you mentioned here? As I see that is only an introduction, if there is a full article, and I don't see it, sorry. One more thing, the "International Cultic Studies Association" (ISCA) as in http://www.icsahome.com/, is that a reputable source? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just asked the second question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cultic Studies Review, and the only response received to date is that it seems to be. I think the reference to Patsy Rahn is based on her being one of the subjects referenced at the Seattle conference, where she basically said that the popularity of Falun Gong in the US was in part fueled by the violations in China and that the truth of Falun Gong lies somewhere between Falun Gong being an evil cult and Communist China being an evil empire. The first comment is, at least to my eyes, fairly obvious (we in the US tend to do things to annoy countries we don't like) and the second is probably also fairly obvious, in saying the Communist Chinese and American press both tend to use more hyperbole than is required. Could you be a bit more specific regarding what exactly you're asking about Rahn? I don't find any of her articles on JSTOR, but they might be somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, basically you mentioned this article, and I was wondering if I can read more of it, not just the abstracts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well the article from 2000 is supposed to be at one of the local libraries, and I might be able to get a copy of that, but the local library with it doesn't list carrying anything after volume 17, although another local library says they have later holdings. WorldCat lists most of the libraries with holdings, and there might be one in your area. I can try to maybe make copies of them, but I'm not the best scanner user in the history of humanity. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Continue discussion on Talk:Falun Gong/Discussion - agree or disagree?

As suggested by User:John Carter, creating a separate discussion page for all Falun Gong related articles would make things a lot easier for all of us. This would make the current talk pages redundant; I suggest archiving them and placing a link to the discussion on a blank page. Also, we could copy some current threads to the new discussion page.

  • Agree ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Partial Agree, I agree that it would be nice to have a separate page where the discussion is going on only based on WP:RS and the other fundamental policies of Wikipedia, but I also think that separate talk pages are nice, because they each can address some page specific issues, like how to improve that wording, what sources to include, etc... These things did not work until now (I hope they will in the future) because usually the discussions where "diverted" from constructive to personal characterizations and attacks. Those are not useful, and I think with the mediator and the experienced wikipedia editor here, it should become close to in-existent, which would make the talk pages useful again. So you can take my partial agree to abstain, because I think both approaches are fine as long as civility is maintained. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Everyone should also put it on their watchlist. Also, we need a list of the articles in question. Do NTDTV and Epoch Times also qualify to be under this discussion? Colipon+(T) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wouldn't personally remove any of the talk pages, although this one could sure use archiving. They can be useful for any newcomers or occasional editors who want to add something or comment. I was initially thinking of trying to create a WikiProject or work group for the subject, whose talk page could be used to provide a place to leave notices on all the articles. With only 16 articles in the category though there probably isn't enough content to call for a work group. It does make it easier for people to see be able to comment about subjects which cross single articles to have a single place to comment on those cross-over subjects. Also, I left a message on the talk page of the Religion WikiProject asking for new eyes, partially because that might be the only related project which I personally do much with. It might be possible to get additional eyes from WikiProject China and/or WikiProject Philosophy as well. In response to the last question, I was thinking that all the articles in the Category:Falun Gong were relevant. Oh, and just on a side note, the Portal:Falun Gong could conceivably face some questioning. A portal is generally supposed to have about 20 articles without cleanup tags to draw from, or at least potentially face the possiblity of deletion, as per Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. That's one of the reasons I proposed creation of articles on the books. Conceivably, articles on proponents or opponents of Falun Gong, as well as any other directly relevant articles, could be included as well. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be easy enough to creation a Falun Gong working group or collaboration under the auspices of WikiProject Religion. If I'm not mistaken, Falun Gong is listed as a potential working group already at the project. It would serve to attract other WP Religion participants and provide a location for centralized discussions. It would also be an appropriate vehicle for discussing topic area/WikiProject guidelines, which could help bring everyone on to the same page. Just some thoughts. --Vassyana (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm actually the one who created the list of potential work groups, as per here. The problem is the number of articles. In general, a group like this is supposed to have at least 100 articles to be viable in the long term. Right now, there are about 15, not counting the portal, and it is a bit of work to create the page, the various categories for the banner, etc. Given the rather unusual circumstances of this subject, I could probably do the needed work to create the group anyway, but it would be nice if the amount of content were a bit greater. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the need for some centralized discussion and collaboration is good justification. I can help with setting up the project. Falun Gong has a lot of reliable source material and I'm sure we can split and create new articles as we go along. I will try to allocate time towards setting up a project page, the templates and so forth this evening to get the ball rolling. --Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! A work group attracting other religion-focused contributors with no particular axe to grind with respect to FG would be great. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group. The page is more than a bit rough still, but the beginnings are there. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
*Agree with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, this totally makes sense. Also if I may, Martin you surprised me, in the very best sens of the word :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree--Edward130603 (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - Why does using a subpage make things easier? I would make two alternate suggestions. First of all, subpages are good for compartmentalizing discussions on a specific topic. For example, if there is a debate about whether or not Falun Gong is a cult then Talk:Falun Gong/Cult status would be a good subpage to have that discussion. Secondly, if you want a centralized discussion, consider starting a Wikipedia project on Falun Gong. This makes most sense if there are at least 5-10 articles related to Falun Gong. You will need the support of 5-10 editors but I think that should be easy to get considering the support indicated above. --Richard (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Richard had an excellent proposal here. Having a page where a topic is discussed will serve as a stable reference where we can point that a subject has been discussed, so this way we can avoid discussing the same issue over and over again. Great idea! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We do not have enough motivated editors to maintain 5-10 good articles on Falun Gong. The current main article is bloated and wordy in my opinion, lacking in original content and can be drastically condensed into a more readable form. PerEdman (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Currently I believe the compartmentalization has allowed fringe views and blanking on some of the subpages and only very few editors (2-4?) have been able to get an overview of all the subpages, which may have caused an over-representation of these few editors' materials on these pages. The Criticism of Falun Gong page is the absolute worst example here: Content moved off into subpage, subpage renamed, subpage drastically reduced in size, subpage link removed from main article and then twice proposed deletion? Let's not further a situation where things like this can happen. PerEdman (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've heard about a relatively low-level magic trick that makes any erased content mysteriously reappear. Poof! The revert spell! But some elderly folks whisper of chaotic necromancers who refrain from using that spell just because they would lose a measly trump card against their lawful adversaries. As for myself, I just can't take those old wives' tales that seriously.Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion.--Edward130603 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
PerEdman wrote: The Criticism of Falun Gong page is the absolute worst example here: Content moved off into subpage, subpage renamed, subpage drastically reduced in size, subpage link removed from main article and then twice proposed deletion? . I absolutely agree with PerEdman that this is absurd. Any way the mediator can investigate the history of this page? To my understanding much of the content modifications were the work of two very specific users. Colipon+(T) 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I would honestly prefer reverting to this revision and I hope some level-headed editors here agree with me. This will almost certainly face opposition from Olaf though... Colipon+(T) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Colipon, that was one of the most preposterous suggestions I've heard on this page in a long time. You are endorsing a version that has been written almost entirely by Samuel Luo and Tomananda – the only guys who've been banned from editing this article for life. Seems like it wasn't inappropriate to point out this comment of yours after all. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Olaf, did you not yourself suggest that revert could bring back the erased material? Were you being entirely facetious? PerEdman (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that that version should have some of its content placed on the current page. Reverting it to that might be a little too much but incorporating a little more of the content would be good. Of course, pointing out something that Colipon wrote over 2 and 1/2 years would be so explain so much about him. Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion. --Edward130603 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Edward. Sam Luo and Tomananda were banned for disruptive editing and I oppose all forms of disruptive editing. It does not mean that none of the contents they wrote have no validity. As for Olaf constantly zooming in on my edit on Luo's talk page, that's purely an ad hominem attack, and I respectfully ask for these attacks to cease. Colipon+(Talk) 23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There's simply no need to go replacing articles, is there? I mean, that would be under normal circumstances. In this case the previous article is chock full of original research, lengthy quotes of Li's lectures, and is basically an anti-Falun Gong essay that S&T cobbled together in their spare time. It violates every wikipedia content policy. It doesn't strike me as a serious idea to just revert the article to that version. Realistic suggestion: pull out some of the reliable sources, if there are any, and appropriately incorporate them into what I assume will be the Reception of Falun Gong article, given the overall weight of scholarly research and fieldwork.--Asdfg12345 21:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Colipon, that is not an ad hominem attack, because you have never retracted your words. It is a reference to something you wrote on Wikipedia. When I first pointed it out, I asked you to say that you no longer think you have "a lot in common" with Samuel Luo, and that you're no longer interested in "processes of exposure". Before you do that, I consider this your stated intent. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Edward and Colipon. That users Samuel Lo and Tomanda have been banned is no reason to delete all content they have added. Focusing on the person rather than the subject, or confusing the two, will not change this. Asdfg, I find your image of the Falun Gong article very interesting to read. I feel the same way about the way the article is written today. PerEdman (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note. John Carter created the project page and set up various bits for a Falun Gong working group under WikiProject Religion. I have updated the page and made a few other contributions. Editors are encouraged to sign up and contribute to the development of the project. --Vassyana (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is over 500 kBs long, which is way too long for most pages. Any objections if I archive any threads which haven't had any new comments since the beginning of July 2009? John Carter (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a good suggestion and archiving should be uncontroversial. It is easy enough to restore a particular thread if someone had further comments they wished to add or want to revisit. --Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's archived to the first of July, and still about 340 kB long. That'll probably require additional archiving later, maybe around the end of the month, if not sooner. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've went ahead and pared it down by about another third. --Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments

  • I have specifically requested that PCPP join us in discussion here.
  • Margaret Singer, Rick Ross, and other "anti-cult" individuals represent a significant minority of reliable sources. While they should not be given undue prominence, neither should they be shrugged off as a fringe view.
  • This article is about Falun Gong. The sources should discuss Falun Gong. Off-topic material, however well-intentioned, is simply inappropriate.
  • Edit-warring to remove sourced material, unless it is an extreme case such as a copyright violation or a "BLP" violation, is also inappropriate (especially while this topic area is subject to arbitration probation).
  • Views about "cult" defenders and critics are significantly more diverse in academia than presented in this discussion. It is a very heated discussion that (even in some of the better sources) often becomes disparaging, dismissive, and even downright unprofessional. Here are a few sources that help better illustrate the nuances of the scholarly situation:[8][9][10][11]
  • People from both sides are returning to the pattern of personal accusations and arguing against reliable sources on the acceptability of their views. We should be focusing on a productive review and discussion of what the general body of reliable sources reports about this topic. Partisan bickering will not get us to that goal.

Please:

  1. Do not edit war.
  2. Refrain from personal comments.
  3. Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion.
  4. If there is an impasse about the use of a source or its appropriate balance, defer to the content noticeboards and opinions of outside editors. I will be glad to craft neutral requests for the noticeboards and outside comment.

If 1. and 2. are repeatedly violated despite the best efforts of myself and outside editors, I will neutrally and politely request review from uninvolved administrators at the incidents noticeboard and/or arbitration enforcement. Without 3. and 4., the arguments here will simply go in circles with little to no progress being made. I have to leave for the moment, but when I return later this evening, I will gladly post a request to the appropriate content noticeboard(s) about the reliability and appropriate weight for M. Singer (as well as the additional material regarding her credibility) to solicit a bit of further outside input to settle the matter. Please try to stay positive and help us move forward productively. If we all do that, we can find consensus for changes and improvement. This article could even become a good or even featured article, if we find that spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia-building. That should be the goal of everyone here. I see movement forward, but we still need more of the new and less of the old. Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One question: what reliable source represents Rick Ross? How has this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard been overridden? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
According to his article, Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona and has testified as an expert witness in court cases.--PCPP (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That does not mean anything. Universities rent their lecture halls for various purposes. A lot of biblical creationists have also lectured at universities; does that mean they should be automatically included in articles about evolution? In addition, what reliable source says that Rick Ross in an expert on Falun Gong? See the discussion on the RSN:
  • "Rick Ross appears to be his own self-contained cottage industry."
  • "WP:SPS is very clear - Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Unless you have RS that shows Rick Ross is an established expert on Falun Gong, his self-published blog is not acceptable. If you disagree, then get the policy changed."
  • "Definitely only use something from him on any topic if he's been quoted by reliable source and where relevant mention he used to be a "deprogrammer" to make his POV perfectly clear. Preferabbly where WP:RS say that that person's efforts have someone influenced the outcome of events. Being a paid professional smear artist who happens to get a lot of media should not necessarily make one a good source for an encyclopedia."
✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
But it's just a one or two sentences isn't it? Rick Ross is used elsewhere on WP in similar contexts without editors invoking all of these wiki policies over and over again. As far as NPOV goes I really see no issue with providing a one or two sentence Ross insight. Colipon+(T) 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Expertise is not a requirement per se, notability, as per WP:NOTABILITY is, and it seems that Ross is notable enough to merit inclusion somewhere. I also notice that the comments above seem to ignore the fact that, having read the discussion, it seemed to me to indicate that Ross was a usable source as indicated. I can't imagine why that wasn't mentioned above. To me, the more relevant question would be where to include such content. We don't have as yet, that I can see, a Criticism of Falun Gong page, which is rather standard for any religious type organization. Nor, for that matter, can I see a History of Falun Gong, Beliefs and practices of Falun Gong, Falun Gong in China, Falun Gong in the United States, or any number of other articles which it seems to me to be more than sufficiently notable to merit content. Why that would be the case, I have no idea, but maybe if there were less effort spent by people trying to question inclusion of material, and more effort spent on trying to include it somewhere and then later on arguing how much space to give it in the main article, the problems here, and less than congenial atmosphere, might reduce a little. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
So, do you mean that we could basically take anything Rick Ross says on his private website about Falun Gong, even though he hasn't been published by reliable sources? Sorry, but I need a better explanation. How does that fit with what is said in WP:SPS? "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Expertise is not a requirement per se, but self-published sources are subject to this policy, no matter what. Therefore, in order to use material from Ross's private website, a) Rick Ross must be seen as an established expert on Falun Gong; b) his work in the relevant field must have been previously published by reliable third-party publications. If he has said something about Falun Gong in another source that is otherwise acceptable, then we should evaluate the situation again and perhaps give him due weight. But his private website still doesn't qualify as a usable source, nor does the discussion on RSN indicate that it would.✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
In terms of including Rick Ross, I've never seen anyone get around the whole SPS thing. Contradicting policy is a dealbreaker, right? He's a self-published source, not a reliable source for this subject. Notable as he may be, he's not reliable. Michael Jackson was famous; if a few years ago he said something on Falun Gong, would that be relevant for inclusion? He's got no expertise on the subject of Chinese religion, just like Ross.--Asdfg12345 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read and the second paragraph of [WP:SPS]. This has been brought up before, multiple times. He is notable and reputable in this field (and no other). To say, now, that you have never seen anyone "get around" this argument is difficult to believe. PerEdman (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Another thing is, Colipon's remark didn't address the issue; the source was ruled out by the noticeboard. If that decision is contested, let's start another post there referring to the old one, and explaining that some editors are not satisfied with the previous consensus. Then we can hear more opinions and debate. Right now we've got a strike-down from the RS noticeboard on Ross, so unless we start another one, it should stay that way if we want to respect the rules. Am I right?--Asdfg12345 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Falun Gong

Moved discussion of Academic views on Falun Gong to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group#Criticism of Falun Gong. Please continue discussion of the article there. --Richard (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New third-party editors - where are they?

So far, the only new editor we have seen on these pages is User:John Carter. Our mediator said that he would invite "three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths to join us here." While I find User:John Carter a very polite, civil and reasonable person to work with, I would also like to see some new editors with a generally sympathetic outlook on religions and spirituality. Now, I can't be sure about User:John Carter and his views; I only know that he has listed things like Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Xenu and Space opera in Scientology scripture on his user page – things that are widely considered either as parodies or otherwise ridiculous topics. I understood that the mediator's intention was to bring in "editors with a variety of perspectives and general outlooks", which is definitely a good thing. I am just pondering whether we are getting there in the near future. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think John Carter is a perfectly reasonable editor. That said I do believe there needs to be more third-party editors. But Olaf raises that he would like to "see some new editors with a generally sympathetic outlook on religions and spirituality" and then points to the things on John Carter's user page... seems to me like a subtle ad hominem challenge to John Carter. Colipon+(T) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I know two others who were contacted by Vassayana declined, I don't know about the others. Regarding me, I tend to work almost exclusively on religion content, being the current lead coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and having before then worked to help develop the WikiProject Religion and the other religion projects. I'm sure User:Cirt, one of our top editors and one of those contacted, would really appreciate having some of the content he works on regarding Scientology considered "ridiculous", particularly considering at least one of the article mentioned above is an FA. And, considering the userpage starts with a picture of a constipated-looking cat calling himself an "admnim", I would have thought that it was obvious the userpage wasn't supposed to be taken too seriously. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing in my comment that was intended as a subtle ad hominem. I did not even insinuate that John Carter would not be welcome to edit these articles. I was only pointing out that Vassyana promised to invite several editors with some diverse views and strengths, and if several have declined, I wonder where we could get some more. I may have drawn too hasty conclusions about John Carter's user page – maybe it has nothing to do with his views on religion – it's just that things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are usually brought forth by those who want to highlight its ridiculousness. Whether that is the case or not is irrelevant, and it has nothing to do with my point. I think Colipon just wanted to make me look discourteous. I'm getting used to that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have thus far invited: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)[12], Jclemens (talk · contribs)[13], EastTN (talk · contribs)[14], Dan (talk · contribs)[15], John Carter (talk · contribs)[16], Cirt (talk · contribs)[17], Blueboar (talk · contribs)[18], Storm Rider (talk · contribs)[19], Snowded (talk · contribs)[20], and Sephiroth storm (talk · contribs)[21]. This is a varied lot of experienced editors. I am inviting editors in small groups of roughly 3 to 5 editors, as I do not want to add the chaos of too many new voices at once. I will invite further rounds of editors periodically until we achieve three to five new outside editors accepting the offer to participate. If you have further questions or concerns, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I have now also invited Zenwhat (talk · contribs)[22], Viriditas (talk · contribs)[23], and Richardshusr (talk · contribs)[24]. Vassyana (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Vassyana that is truly appreciated. If I may, I would also add a few words, hopefully they will be regarded as positive, because negative personal characterizations did indeed abound, sadly, on these pages, and naturally they proved unproductive. First of all I do like the cat on John's page! I read the user page a couple of days ago and I wished to compliment on that, but it might have seen that I'm trying to score points, so I refrained. As I see it the user page is saying a story on how ridiculous is when somebody is stating something that can not be probed absolutely. (This happens pretty often both in the "Evolutionist" and the "Creationists" teams, but what is most funny I think is that "Evolutionist" don't consider themselves believers, when they are actually are doing their science just as the "Creationist" do, failing to see that they only operate on different axioms (on something that is unproven and can be called, yes, a belief). That being said it would be nice if we would all state our axioms, and respect the axioms of others. :) ). John certainly has an impressive experience User:John_Carter/Articles, and an INTJ personality is the best we can hope for a Wikipedia article. In this case I think that will allow him to see behind our words and detect every major contributor's true reasons and true tactics. That being said, I agree with Olaf as well and I would welcome also experienced neutral contributors, if there are any available, who have a proven respect for spirituality. That addition right now is lacking and I think it would be necessary for keeping a truly balanced article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Listing specific user's "axioms" would be the direct opposite of putting the focus on verifiability. PerEdman (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that it's best to have verifiability, but unfortunately we can not have it always in life. And for the parts on which we don't have verifiability, there are usually endless debates. Instead of having endless debates, wouldn't it be better to just accept the things that are not verifiable as such? Even if that means that the uncertainty left behind can generate potentially completely different views on life. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not all things in life. For the parts where we do not have verifiability, the content should be removed from Wikipedia. Focusing on a user's "axioms" does not change this. PerEdman (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Olaf Stephanos, you don't have to be sure about User:John Carter and his views, you just have to follow wikipedia policy. PerEdman (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Olaf's remark was fair enough. I'd say the same thing if someone with a close interest in mystical or metaphysical was the first contributor, and you or Martin wondered aloud whether we could also get someone with an atheistic background. Let's not make harsh remarks to one another.--Asdfg12345 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not see that I commented on you, too, Asdfg12345: "Listing specific user's "axioms" would be the direct opposite of putting the focus on verifiability." Obviously you would agree that Olaf is right in focusing on the person writing rather than what they are writing, but that only means that you are both wrong. Nothing harsh about the truth, is there. PerEdman (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I shouldn't have said anything. Have a good day.--Asdfg12345 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Joining the discussion at Vassyana's request

Hi, I've been on Wikipedia for almost 3 1/2 years and an admin for over 2 years. My interest is in historical topics especially governmental, military and religious history. Recently, I've spent a lot of time on articles related to the Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses.

With some hesitation, I am tentatively accepting Vassyana's invitation to participate in editing this article. Aside from the natural reluctance to take on the chore of working on a contentious article, my hesitation is also based on the fact that I know relatively little about Falun Gong. On the other hand, coming to the table knowing little helps provide an NPOV perspective in that I don't have a preconceived bias for or against the group.

First of all, this Talk Page needs to be archived. Archiving everything before the RFC would be a good start.

Secondly, it would really help newcomers like myself if someone could compile a list of contentious topics. Scanning over this Talk Page doesn't give me any easy way to get my arms around what the issues are. A scan of the edit summaries for the last 500 edits to the article identified the following issues:

  1. how many members? (if such a question is reasonable for an organization that has no definition of membership),
  2. is Falun Gong a cult? (what is the definition of a "cult"?)
  3. which sources are "reliable"?

If anyone can improve on this list, I would appreciate it your comments.

--Richard (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, Richard.
Building on your list:
  1. Controversial views of Falun Gong. Their views on homosexuality and mixed ethnicity should be explained for the benefit of those targeted by them, for the sake of apologetics and for the sake of completeness. It helps no-one to blank these issues.
  2. Falun Gong's connection to chinese tradition. The movement has only existed since 1992, but claims ancient roots.
  3. Validity of "organ harvesting" claim. Currently, the same second-hand sources are quoted through third-hand parties as if they were unique sources.
PerEdman (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You can always look at this, my attempt at summarizing the issues pertinent to this article. There is also this list of pervasive issues in the FLG family of articles. I will put a disclaimer here that these are purely evaluations from my perspective, and because of the opposing POVs here there may be different ideas of what is considered an "issue" and what is not. Notice, too, that this page has 27 or so archives. The disputes are extremely serious. Vassyana also did a good summary of the issues related to editing (issues about issues).
In my view, the major issue is not actually about the content per se. It's disruptive editing and severe POV-pushing. A contributor wrote an entire rant about these pages, and another contributor wrote a a blog about this article.Colipon+(T) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
We can't change the disruptions in the past, but we can work for a better article, so let's focus on how to resolve the current issues with the content. PerEdman (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish I shared your optimism. Plainly put, if you track edits on the this article and its talk pages, it's clear that the problem is the users, not the content. Colipon+(T) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(response to Richard)The question regarding "cult" is a good one, as that term has no specific agreed upon meaning. I think in recent times, it has been used to refer to groups who tend to be socially isolated from the greater community, and to include those groups from which people have been sometimes seen as needing deprogramming. Having said that, given the lack of any clear meaning of the term, I would prefer to avoid it except in those cases where the sources themselves specifically use it.
I have seen sources so far saying that Falun Gong incorporates aspects of other faiths, including Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. Right now, I'm reading a 60-page book review(!) about "dissent" and haven't really gotten to the other sources I've copied, most of which have been other book reviews I've found.
Regarding reliable sources, I listed above a few books which have been fairly well received by academia, and which I'm going to on that basis conclude are reliable. That's the main reason I went for the book reviews first, actually. There are others reviewed, but like I said I haven't gotten to them all. There is a real question about how accurate descriptions by one's perceived opponents are, and Falun Gong and the Chinese government I think both see themselves as opponents by this time. Particularly for a group this young, there won't be as big a collection of outsider evidence one way or another. In such cases, I tend to think that most sources which meet WP:RS in general could and should probably be used and referenced, although it would make sense if the material or source is clearly potentially controversial or dubiously reliable to indicate at least who the source is, so that readers can come to their own conclusions about the source's neutrality or lack of same. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's no real dearth of material on this subject, really. We don't need to lower our standards for sourcing. The idea of checking disputes through the noticeboards is great. --Asdfg12345 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents

More editors are getting involved and I think it’s a great thing. :) And I’d like to welcome all of them here :).

I might not find a lot of time to contribute in the coming few days.. so here are my two cents on how the issues here could be resolved (and I also mention a couple of aspects on which, I believe, the article could be improved upon ).. :

  • Ensure that the view of the mainstream academia is what the article, as a whole, conveys. Make sure every line presented is highly sourced, with the perspective of the source accurately reflected. I think this article is rather commendable, already, in this particular aspect.
  • I’d like to request admins here to please help keep discussions focused on the article- and its aspects that call for improvement. If there are specific issues with article – poor sourcing, a topic given attention to by the academia but not covered in the article, etc. - All of them need to and should be appropriately addressed. But, at the same time, users, I am of the opinion, should be discouraged from employing tactics of creating fear and chaos : attacking contributors on the project, drawing baseless analogies with certain groups( views held by the academic community on whom are the anti-pole of how Falun Gong is perceived by the academia), blanketing entire articles as "NPOV"(while failing to point out specifics - say issues with sourcing, conflicts with perspectives of mainstream academia..), etc. Such talk page commenting not only takes the focus away from real issues on the article, but ends up forcing those editors who are at the receiving end of such diatribes to counter or clarify the allegations raised – again, taking the editors’ focus tangentially off from where it ought to be. As for me, I have made it a policy to ignore and to not respond to personal attacks unless absolutely forced to clarify.
  • This is a topic on which more material/data becomes available, almost every day – especially regarding the human rights violations - and some of the information presented can quickly become obsolete. The material on the persecution in the article is currently quite dated and requires update. There are more sources, updated statistics etc. available. US Congress annual reports on China 2008 being one of the many newer sources we could look into ( this particular source carries material of central relevance on some issues, including the ‘6-10 office’). More sources are available on the issue of live Organ Harvesting as well, than are currently being made use of in these articles. Also, when the perspective of the latest, mainstream academic research supersedes that which is carried in early material, when little information was available to the academic community and journalists other than CCP propaganda, the former, obviously, ought to be given focus to.
  • A minor thing, but I’d like to, for the sake of comprehensiveness, see this covered in the article. There have been some pilot studies conducted into health benefits of the practice as a system of mind-body cultivation – but these are not touched upon by the article. These, though published in peer reviewed journals, are just pilot studies - but they certainly deserve a passing mention at least.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from sources other than Chinese gov't

Can third-party or mediators look at this edit and decide if it is good? Is it appropriate to say there is "criticism emanating from sources other than the Chinese government"? Colipon+(Talk) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As perhaps it's fairly obvious from the edit summary, I considered that wording as WP:OR and redundant, but please check. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Redundant, in my perspective.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Haha, this is a really blatant POV edit. Suggesting that everybody who criticises FG may be an agent of the Chinese government! It's an instructive example of what we've had to deal with around this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For once, I agree with Martin, the edit and the edit summary aren't really that appropriate. But they are alright per WP:BRD. I reverted, but don't take this to mean that I am endorsing the original wording. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see suggesting anywhere that Singer has ties with the CCP, I have no WP:RS on that. But I really don't see why is there a need to emphasize that Singer does not have ties with the CCP without WP:RS. Do you see my point now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really, no. Colipon+(Talk) 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding "from sources other than the Chinese government" -it is quite unnecessary when the reader can see for himself what the sources are.

2. The edit summary makes sense to me - all these "criticism" followed CCP's labeling of the practice a "cult", three months into the persecution ( a manufactured tool of repression, and not its cause, according to Kigour Matas, Ownby, Schecter, etc) . So, these early criticism as from Singer , it is reasonable to assume, could have, at least indirectly, been influenced by CCP propaganda.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is that reasonable to assume, Dilip? Because one happened after the other? I'm not even convinced that that is correct. PerEdman (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The sentence was redundant, so I removed it. There is no reason to state, inside the section of the article dedicated to academic attention and criticism, that "there has been criticism", and then who and what that criticism is. It is perfectly satisfactory to just include the criticism itself. PerEdman (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius' deletions

[25] -- seeking discussion/clarity on this. Confucius deleted those paragraphs, citing talk page discussion. I wasn't aware of a consensus to have this material deleted, did I miss some discussion?--Asdfg12345 14:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraphs have not been deleted, they have been moved to the relevant subpage as per discussion under the heading "Innocent concerns from the univolved" on this talk page. PerEdman (talk)
Also read the dab: This article is a basic introduction to the beliefs, history, and reception of the group. For an in-depth coverage of these and related topics, please use the navigation box or follow the main article-links. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[ec]::These vast changes seem to have been decided in the last 24 hours by a select group of editors. I'm all for the bold-revert-cycle, and this was one of the guidelines set down by the mediator. You made the bold change, now I'm reverting it. There's no precedent for just ramming through vast changes despite protest or calls for greater discussion. It takes more than a few people agreeing and then deleting half of the article (or moving it to other pages; it's still deleting it from this page). What I might do is just restore the last version, before all these changes, and see what happens. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, but if the processes are being disrespected that should become clear.

Update to seb: that's fine, it's one idea, but it doesn't mean you can just assert that and then push through all those changes. We need to talk about these things. As I say, I'm restoring a previous version and let's see if we can go through this one step at a time. A series of discrete decisions about each section need to be made, rather than a general discussion and mass blanking. --Asdfg12345 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't really have any great numbers of editors required for a "great discussion". As you can see, there has been discussion on the talk page and your revert seems to be in the minority. Please add your voice to the subheading above rather than going against the previous consensus with repeated reverts.
Again: This cannot be blanking or deletion, as the material has been moved to the relevant subpages. It has not been deleted. It has not been blanked. It has been moved to its correct place to avoid a monolithical article page divided between subjects already duplicated on dedicated subpages.
What is your main argument against? PerEdman (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
[ec] All: please keep in mind that there are a lot more eyes on this right now, and mucking around with the discussion process, deleting 1/3 of a hotly contested article based on a brief discussion that didn't involve some editors, etc., I'm sure will be looked upon dimly. I'm not going to revert, by the way, but I'll see what wikipedia allows for to deal with this sort of thing. Maybe another AE case? What choice would there be if, in this circumstance, you guys revert me again and we don't discuss all these issues? We can't have that discussion after the changes have already pushed through.
Update to peredman: this needs to be discussed. One third of the article has been removed from this page. Each section needs to be looked at independently. It's not so much my problem with the edits, it's my problem with the total lack of consensus in the process. Were Olaf, myself, Dilip, and HappyinGeneral included? I'm happy to change the article up, but I want it to be looked at clearly.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not "push through" anything. I suggested, many agreed, it was implemented. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving that material out to the subpage improved the article IMHO. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Seb: now I'm saying I disagree. I didn't get a chance to agree or disagree before. The bold revert cycle means that you don't revert again after your bold change was reverted, you know.--Asdfg12345 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg, you reverted the paragraphs in question at 14:24, then again at 14:28 and finally, as what you marked a minor edit you reverted the entire document back to 306673080 at 14:40 today and you have yet to participate in the discussion above. Please stop and consider your next course of action. This is not a discussion relevant to the decision, this is a discussion regarding the lack of discussion about the decision. PerEdman (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I explained clearly what I was doing. I had not even seen the discussion above. 20kb of text was removed from the article within about five hours, resulting from a brief discussion which did not involve all editors. "bold" changes are subject to being reverted. If this isn't respected something is mistaken. I don't know why it was marked as a 'minor' edit. I used twinkle. It wasn't a minor edit. It was restoring 20kb of text.--Asdfg12345 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that you have seen the discussion I suggest you participate in it, rather than keep this meta-discussion and reverting the document any further. Hrmph. PerEdman (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be realistic

Blanking out a third of a stable article with no consensus on a hotly debated topic like this is but making a travesty of the efforts of other editors to improve the article through discussions and consensus. Further, these sections carried content which were not in any of the sub-articles.

"eb az86556"'s was certainly a good-faith comment, and the right response would have been to discuss, weigh its merits/de-merits and then decide whether to implement it or not. If we decide to implement it, we'd need further discussion to decide what to keep in the main page and what not to keep. Blanking 1/3rd of the article with no excuse other than "boldness" and a casual comment on talk - borders on being disruptive. Particularly, since it is a hotly debated topic. It ends up making a farce out of the efforts made by editors here on talk, the on-going discussions, and of the efforts of editors over the past couple of years, the end result of which the article was.

I don't think there is an issue of a 20k blanking made such being "discussed." We restore the material blanked out. And start where we ought to have started - weighing the merits/de-merits of such a structure.

In short: Respect the efforts of other editors. Before blanking anything out on an actively debated topic like this, please: 1. Discuss 2. Form a Consensus.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Even shorter. BRD. Bold, Revert, Discuss. I'm trying to seek discussion and consensus right now, but as long as editors expend more energy on discussing the discussion or lack of discussion, rather than participating in the current subject matter-oriented discussion, there's nothing one person can do. PerEdman (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Long rambling text is never helpful, and it is especially the case when there is a {{main}} tag on a section. It is longstanding practice to keep sections concise and in summary form. Articles go through growth and consolidation phases, and the time appeared ripe for a top-down approach. Seb reminded us of that, and as an editor whose editing skills and objectivity I have gained respect for while editing July 2009 Ürümqi riots, I decided to act on his recommendation as at least one other editor agreed that it should be shortened. With me, that made three, so I believe there was enough of a discussion. However, the balance of what was left and what was removed was with the aim of maintaining a good flow within the article. Of course, it was never my intention to change the emphasis of any section where there were deletions, and I apologise if that happened. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would be okay to move/delete some of the stuff, summarise others, and keep others. The real problem was the disrespect for the discussion process. Protests were ignored and reversions were themselves reverted, multiple times. That's the travesty. There are always improvements to be made in terms of content. I just think we should fix this, put it behind us, and get on with the work of building the article.--Asdfg12345 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're not referring to me, I hope? You and I have edited enough to know that the discussion also centres around proposals for mutually acceptable text, usually in an iterative manner, rather than blindly reinstated deleted text, or insisting that it be reinstated before there be any further discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Innocent concerns from the univolved

Why are there so many spin-offs to this article, the content of which is regurgitated in this article?

What this article needs is

  • Lead with infobox at top
  • History
    • Origin with link to "Teachings"
  • Reception with link to "persecution"
    • Membership
  • References
  • navbox

Everything else is completely redundant. Slash it. What concerns me the most is that parallel universes are evolving, either conflating everything or creating contradicting entries. You guys can fight over "cult" or not in the persecution-article, over the organ-thing in that article, and over the beliefs in the next. Keep it separate. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is standard practice for any subject, particularly religious groups, which have received significant coverage in the reliable press regarding their teachings, history, conflicts, etc., to have separate articles on those matters. It is also generally the case according to WP:SS that the most important of those articles should be spun off leaving a summary in its place. I have every reason to believe that such was what was initially intended here. The fact that the articles have perhaps suffered in terms of content for whatever reason is another matter entirely. Regarding the use of the word "cult", I tend to agree that that is a rather low priority for this article, and regret that it gets as much attention as it has. However, whether for good or ill, such discussion is not infrequent in articles about controversial subjects. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that extremely lengthy 'cult' discussion is completely unecessary. But there's been endless discussion in the 29 or so archives for this page about all of Falun Gong's controversies and content critical of Falun Gong, and for some reason none of them ever seem to stay on the article for longer than a couple of hours without being removed, moved, shortened, discredited, "restructured" or minimzed. It's completely unreasonable. Colipon+(Talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My point was not against the existence of those spin-offs. I am for it. My point was the excessive length of this article. It's almost becoming so detailed that the spin-offs are redundant. Almost everything that's in the spin-offs has now been fudged into this one. I say cut this article to the bare minimum and then let interested readers go to each in-depth coverage. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
At 69kB, this really isn't that long. I've seen other articles, like Catholic Church, which weigh in at 187 kB. If the subject is one which has a lot of information about it available, and if a lot of that is meaningful enough to be covered in the main article to at least some degree, then articles get rather long. I'm not disputing that the article could use some serious editing, but at this point the article's length probably isn't one of the highest priorities. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That is true. My goal is to keep the edit-warring and endless rants compartmentalized where they belong. I would advocate the same approach if this was 200AD and we're writing about emerging Christianity. I would transform this article into a sort of "portal" with a pseudo-dablink on top
This article is a basic introduction to the history and reception of the group. For related topics such as beliefs and controversies, please use the navigation box or the main-article links.
That would save us a lot of trouble and keep things apart. I know it's a bold suggestion, but after 29 pages of rants, someone needs to give a different approach here. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've said elsewhere that I myself agree that there seems to me to be a bit of an effort to try to cram too much material into too few articles, so I'm not sure I disagree with you particularly. The question there is whether the different structure would itself create more disagrement, and possibly cause, god help us, even more problems. I would like to see more effort made on what seem to me the more obvious child articles, though. History of Falun Gong in particular seems to me to be an obvious article that could cover a lot of this material which doesn't yet exist. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed here. I'm merely concerned about structure. I have no interested in these (often childish tit-for-tat) discussions. I look at everything with the eyes of an uninvolved reader who wants to actually learn something. A guiding structure would help. Right now, it feels like you walk into a room where everyone wants to be the first to yell meticulous details into your ear. That can come later and in the child-article. The larger picture has to be the "welcoming ceremony." Seb az86556 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I have now boldly implemented these. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly support this new structure revision for these articles and agree with Ohconfucius' edits. Now the article will be easier to work with. Colipon+(Talk) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with the new structure in the hope that only one or two articles can focus on the points of contention among us while perhaps the Falun Gong article can gather such information that we can gain consensus on... HOWEVER... I would like to point out the Jimbo quote in WP:Criticism again, which I happen to agree with. Putting all your criticism (or "reception" or "review") in one segment or article, rather than making it a natural part of the ongoing text, inherently means that you are being conciously uncritical in the rest of the text, and that's hardly NPOV. But.. I think we can still include all angles in all articles. PerEdman (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see my remarks below about these suggestions for the article.--Asdfg12345 14:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just in case it wasn't clear, I disagree with deleting 20kb of text from this article and having a sentence at the top directing readers elsewhere. Such a large change to a hotly contested topic obviously needs to be hashed out in more depth, and the discussion needs to include more editors. It isn't to be decided by a few then forced through. It's fine to be bold, but when reverted, the cycle is not to revert back, it's to discuss.--Asdfg12345 14:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the project pages in the right-hand side box? What is the use of those pages, if they do not contain content relevant to the subject matter that take up too much space in the main article? Should we perhaps integrate the pages on Li Hongzhi, Beliefs and Teachings, Persecution of Falun Gong, Reports of organ harvesting, Falun Gong outside China and Academic views on Falun Gong into the main article again? I'm not saying I'm against that, but we would have to delete quite a lot of text to make that fit into a readable article. What do you propose? PerEdman (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of new structure

I find the new structure to be completely inline with WP:SUMMARY. We have subpages, let's use them. If we duplicate the information that should be on subpages in the main page, we gain nothing but possible content forks by having the subpages. PerEdman (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the "new structure" would only be meaningful before the article has instituted it. I'm unwilling to continue discussion until this situation with these reverts is resolved. It's unprecedented to radically alter the article without consensus, then ask to discuss it. Discussion goes before the changes, or it's obviously meaningless. i'm going to look at the mediator's four points that we should all follow now, and see what formal channels there are for dealing with this.--Asdfg12345 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, Discussion comes after Revert, which comes after Bold. You know this already. So discuss.
In passing, it is hardly unprecedented to radically alter the article matter without consensus[26]. PerEdman (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's like this. Seb made some suggestions. Confucius 'boldly' implemented them. I reverted them. Now it's time to discuss them. What we're discussing is the original changes, the deletion of 20kb of text. Maybe you aren't clear on this point, so I just want to make sure. I'm actually going to restore the article, to before the bold deletion of 20kb was made and see what happens. If it's reverted again, then I know we have a deadlock. If it's not, then we can actually continue discussion about the merits of the changes.--Asdfg12345 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there was a third alternative. I'm still waiting for that discussion, though. Please, your arguments. PerEdman (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Rather unimportant side-issue from the design-obsessed

This is simply a matter of "visual preference," so if people disagree, just say no: that infobox hangs kinda lost-in-space in all the articles... many other articles present related topics as navboxes... any strong feelings about keeping the infobox? Or can I make a navbox? (I could simply make one as a test) Seb az86556 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what is the difference, since the page is protected, could you present your idea in a sandbox? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Non-controversial edits can be requested via the {{editprotected}} template. --Richard (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
the box is an unprotected template, has nothing to do with the page. navbox is across, like this, can be any color, like I said just something minor. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current Falun Gong box looks very aesthetically pleasing. I honestly don't see a need to change it. Or I guess we can have both. I think they do at Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i etc. Colipon+(Talk) 07:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the current style better. I'm just a little confused that it's so far down on the page. PerEdman (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind then... Seb az86556 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Please enforce WP:BRD

Just been away this whole 10h, so now I come as an observer.

A quick summary on WP:BRD. I can see bold here, I can see Revert here and here at which point BRD is broken, then enforced to be broken here ironically by the same person who suggested to work by the BRD model. Of course not intentionally to his credit, but because this is standard procedure on stopping a revert war. However under these conditions, we are at the mercy of the people who managed to force their change in to now go and discuss their changes point by point, which is not even easy with a complicated diff as this. So at this point I am requesting the mediator to enforce WP:BRD, only because that is the correct thing to do as I see it. If I'm wrong please explain why you think I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the BRD process broke down, but not because of the lock but because there was never any discussion. There was the bold edit, there was the revert and afte that there were five or six revert and discussion about the reverts but not about the bold change. There are several headings above hanging with my name as the last power, pleading for arguments for the discussions. I still have hope they they will come, however, because how can we have discussion with one side only?
The only way to "enforce BRD" here is to D to reach a consensus. As long as this is a META-discussion, we are not moving forward. Please find, in one of the sections above, such as "Innocent concerns from the uninvolved"[27], "Discussion of new structure"[28] or even the heading created when the changes were reverted, "Confucius' deletions"[29]. We don't need to create more new threads on the subject of past change when we could spend the time discussing the subject matters. I am yearning to do so now, but as nobody is actually bringing any arguments to the threads above I can hardly do that on my own.
There is only one primary change: Material that better belonged on the already existing subpages/sibling pages were moved to those pages. The reasons are listed in the threads above. Please direct your energies towards that discussion. PerEdman (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
When someone wants to talk about the merits of his/her edits it should be posted on the talk page, like there is now a section here: Talk:Falun_Gong#Your_views_please --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, but that is what we (all) are doing, aren't we? PerEdman (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seek consensus on a new starting point

IMHO, it is not necessary for all editors to reach consensus on an agreed state of the article in order for protection to be lifted. I think it would be sufficient if enough editors agree that there is a state of the article from which they think we can collegially and collaboratively discuss and edit forward.

In essence, all I would need as an admin is a general agreement not to edit war. Discussion about how to improve the article could follow afterwards as long as there was a sense that the edit warring would not resume as soon as the protection was lifted.

Of course, since Vassyana put the protection on, I would defer to her judgment but I would hope she would agree with my philosophy on this.

That said, Asdfg12345 has proposed this revision as the one to discuss.

I propose that we revert back to that revision if we are not already there.

We can then discuss PerEdman's assertion that the 20kb of material was not so much deleted as it was "spun off" to subsidiary articles. The issue, as it seems to me, is how much of that 20kb must be in the main article and how much of it can be reasonably spun off to a subsidiary article with only a summary in the main article per summary style.

Does anybody object to reverting to this revision followed by a lifting of the protection and a civil discourse about how to move the article forward.

--Richard (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Objection, alternative: I suggest the reverse. Let the discussion begin before the protection is lifted. I need to see with my own eyes that such a constructive discussion can take place between us editors present before I am prepared to vote for a removal of the protection from the article.
Clarification: It doesn't have to be the specific discussion about the 20kb of material being spun off; any constructive discussion of the content would make me ... glad. PerEdman (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that Richardhusr's suggestion makes a lot of sense. What happened here was a hasty decision and a hasty implementation it would be a valuable sign of good faith to revert back to the +20kb version in order to begin a discussion about how to trim the article down. This does not involve lifting the protection - Vassyana can do this reversion with the protection in place. A good way to start a discussion is to lay out viewpoints instead of expressing doubts about whether the opposing side is capabale of constructive discussion. You (both sides) need a lot of good faith in the other side's ability to work constructively in order for this collaboration to succeed. You simply cannot build a colaboration on bad faith. Rjanag expressed this very well on Seb Az 86556's user page[30]·Maunus·ƛ· 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see, the protection would still be in place. I can agree with that. I still don't agree that we're dealing with a bipartisan arrangement here, but that is a whole new metadiscussion to avoid. PerEdman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Posed three questions to editors at "David Ownby cont'd", in an attempt to seek consensus. Please lend your opinions. Colipon+(Talk) 02:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Colipon, this is the way to go, see my comments here: Talk:Falun_Gong#Your_views_please --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent work, Colipon+. PerEdman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC).
What's the upshot of this? The idea that we cannot build consensus on bad faith is spot on. All faith in the discussion process was shattered when the 20kb deletion was rammed through despite protests and reversions; once it's put back, we can proceed. It's a simple formula. The idea that this kind of behaviour is part of the process needs to be firmly rejected. What if it happens again? So this step needs to be retaken, then we can continue. Do we have consensus here?--Asdfg12345 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't realise that making ultimatums about under which conditions you will be willing to discuss is also a bad faith move and not conductive for a good editing environment? When you demand that the other side show their good faith by reverting to your version you are showing that you currently assume that they acted in bad faith when they made the change. You also remove any reason they might have had for actually reverting to your version because then the gesture of goodfaith will be useless as such since they would basically cede to coercion. Since I arrived at this page yesterday I haven't seen much more than a bunch of pots and kettles competing in blackness.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
What you say seems useful. I want to understand the third sentence, but I don't think I do. Just so it's clear: 20kb of text was removed from the article without consensus; this was made according to the WP:BRD cycle, as set out by the mediator; in a case where a 'bold' edit is reverted, the process is to discuss the merits of the changes, rather than revert again. What happened was that the 20kb removal was disputed, but instead of being discussed, it was forced through by multiple reverts. What I'm saying is that dissenting views were ignored and changes were forced on the page outside of the consensus process. So that created bad faith in the consensus process, didn't it? Then to restore ourselves to when we were just equals discussing things, shouldn't it be taken back to that point? I think that's all I'm saying. I'm not necessarily making any commentary on other people, I hope, just pointing out the need for us to play fair and adhere to the objective processes that were established at the beginning. Not doing so would make the process meaningless, wouldn't it? Sorry, really trying to not get caught up in calling people this and that, but it seems the basis of moving forward constructively is respecting processes. Have I clarified anything here?--Asdfg12345 16:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • or let me put it this way: if someone was saying this to me I'd agree right away and want to do my best, and show that I had done my best, to restore good faith in the discussion process.--Asdfg12345 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Look at it this way. It doesn't matter at all what version of the article is in place now. What matters is the version that will be put in place when the discussions are over and the protection is lifted. It will not be your version and it will not be their version it will be a compromise between the two that we will start constructing now through discussion. IF, and only if, the group of editors who put the current version in its place want to they can decide to ask Vassyana to revert to your version as a sign of good faith, they are not obliged to do this. And if you try to oblige them to do it then it will no longer be an act of good faith. It is like an apology - if someone makes you apologize it doesn't count anyway. Now, obviously the starting point for the discussion is this: We had a big article. Some editors expressed concerns that there was a lot of material that was beside the poutn and the article could be trimmed down by removing superfluous contents. It seems that actually we all agree that there were passages in the article that were longer than necessary. They removed 20kb and other editors objected. Now we just have to find out which parts of the 20kb should have stayed and which can be removed without problems. It is completely irrelevant for the discussion which version is in place - that is just a question of whether at the end of the discussion we will have to remove or add content to the article, since in all likelihood the 20kb that were removed will be reduced to less than that (but more than 0kb by both sides compromising on a version on the golden middle. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not want the article changed in any way at all until this group of editors has shown that we can build wiki material from constructive discussion. Sorry, Asdfg12345, but changing the article again before we discuss the subject matter would be no better than continuing an edit war. PerEdman (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is a "this group of editors" who needs to show that we can build wikimaterial from constructive discussion, then you are also part of that group PerEdman.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I am, so are you. This is why I say "this group of editors", "editors" and "we" rather than "some editors", "you", "their version" or "sides". I mean to say all of us editing the Falun Gong pages. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. There cannot be consensus any other way. PerEdman (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with this now actually. I realised when I got out of the shower today that the article doesn't actually need to be reverted for things to move forward. One thing is, however, that sort of conduct should never be allowed again. The other thing was, the way to condense that content etc. can be figured out before the article is unlocked and then just instituted directly--which is I think what you were saying. --Asdfg12345 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Just wanted to inform everyone here that I have began an arbitration enforcement case for User:Olaf Stephanos here. All of your opinions would be valuable. Colipon+(Talk) 07:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that no discussion about such a case should take place on this talk page. If you're interested, head over to the case. PerEdman (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

anti-FLG?

As somebody who had barely even heard about Falun Gong until yesterday, I would like the opposing editors to point out how and why the current version of the article is "anti Falun Gong". I read it for the first time yesterday (both long and short) and got away with a very positive impression regarding FLG. So list some points that you think would lead a disinterested reader who knows nothing about te topic to get a negative picture of the group. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current version of the article is particularly "anti Falun Gong"; it's just not very good as an encyclopedia article, and the direct action that was taken to modify it drastically violated our mediator's recommendations. I'm afraid that any discussion on other matters (apart from improving the article) is bound to carry us further away from our goals. It might only lead the regular group of editors to hurl accusations at each other of misrepresenting the difficult issues, i.e. 'whitewashing' or 'denigrating' Falun Gong. If you read through this talk page (and the archives), you will find a lot of this stuff. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
OhConfucius was clearly attempting to make this article more neutral - it was a good faith attempt to reorganize the article because recently we've only had all talk, no action. All of his changes are reasonable and only aimed at making the article more neutral. It is unreasonable to say this "drastically violated our mediator's recommendations." Colipon+(Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:BOLD does not violate anything. Breaching the WP:BRD model in a delicate environment with an ongoing mediation case certainly does. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how BRD was "breached". We haven't even had the discussion yet. Please see relevant threads above. Please participate, I beg you! PerEdman (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're talking procedures again. My question was with the intention of finding out where the claim that these changes were implemented by a group of anti-FLG users comes from. If the result is not anti Falun Gong (but merely a bad article), where would anyone get the notion of "anti-FLGism"? Seb az86556 (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

From a long and stormy marriage. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain your satirical reply?--Edward130603 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly. After barely 24 hours of following this, it was easy to see that you guys are washing laundry that's been bult up over, what? -- the past 2 years?... There's no place for this here. Check your egos at the door and make this article better. Give reasons like "it's a bad article, because..." but not "anti-FLG pig" "raging bull" "Progaganda machine" and all the other stuff I've been winess to. It really sucks. You chose the marriage analogy. Fine. I'd say kindergarten, all of you. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) At first I thought this heading was another one of the endless rows of accusations, but stepping back and trying to put myself in the shoes of other editors, I realize there's a very real possibility that there are readers and editors who believe there to be only two "camps" among editors: For or against. I don't believe it's that simple, but I am willing to try to imagine how such a view affects the view of the article. What type of content should be in the article, if one believes there to be only pro- and anti-Falun Gong editors? How should one proceed to gain consensus? Is it at all possible? IS there anyone here who feels that the current structure or content of the article is "too anti-FLG" and for that reason should be edited somehow? Point it out to me, please, and make me see your point.

As I say, I do not believe there is anything like one camp for and one camp against. We all have our sets of impressions of religions, cults, skeptics, anti-cult movements, gymnastics, spirutualism. We all have our own experiences, our own goals, opinions, influences, histories. We're born in different parts of the world - Me and Olaf in two of the ones closest to each other, believe it or not, and even though we might not agree on whether or not Margaret Singer is the right person to ask (nevermind that she's dead) if Falun Gong is a cult or not, we can at least agree that we want an informative Falun Gong article on Wikipedia. If we did not believe that, none of us would be here. Right? So for those points we CANNOT agree on, let's not touch them. For those we can, let's work together. If I feel that there is some detail of Falun Gong that I feel that I "cannot allow" to be one way or the other, I should definately not edit that detail in the article, because my point of view would be anathema of consensus (Unless I should be so lucky as to hold that one opinion that we all already agree on, heh heh) and I should abstain from any votes on the matter.

But this is all still Meta and I want us to move forward with the subject matter, the wikipedia article, the content and structure. Because it caused the protection to fall, I thought the most pressing issue should be what we all think of the basic idea of moving content off from the main namespace to the many subpages we are already furnished with, but I can imagine there are many other points of contention aside from that. What I do not want to discuss is whether or not person A or person B is a "pro-FLG" or "anti-FLG". Not when it comes to sources, and certainly not when it comes to specific editors. Please remember to Edit while you are at your best. Thank you, all. PerEdman (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with PerEdman about this: "I realize there's a very real possibility that there are readers and editors who believe there to be only two "camps" among editors: For or against. I don't believe it's that simple, but I am willing to try to imagine how such a view affects the view of the article."
I must emphasize this, not because I want to drone on this "meta-discussion", but because it affects the editing process in a very real way. The flurry of reverts and edits in the last 24 hours seem to paint the picture that this is the typical "two side" content dispute issue, and we are all given the impression that some people here are "anti-Falun Gong", some are "pro-Falun Gong". This is an absurd notion. No one who has participated in the discussion of late has been "anti-Falun Gong". Everyone who is "Anti-Falun Gong" has been banned, or have left due to frustration. As it stands we have an article that is unquestionably favourable towards Falun Gong in almost every way.
I must stress this: We cannot move forward on any edits if we continue to have this notion that one neutral-minded edit in good faith has the same standing as an edit that is clearly looking to counteract that neutrality. In my view it is very clear that OhConfucius' edits was in good faith and aimed at neutrality, but the reverts of these edits are given the same legitimacy, as though we need to seek a middle ground between them. What you are seeing then, is no longer a content dispute with two clear sides, it is users trying to deliberately prevent this article from becoming neutral. And the end result is the article state that has went back and forth in the last two years. This is what needs to stop. Colipon+(Talk) 01:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Colipon+, I don't want to discuss past history. I want to reach an agreement on SOME point of the content, any point of it, within the week. Not content from two years ago. Not someone's edit comment two weeks ago, or some thinly veiled insults from singular editors. There are other processes and probably other pages to handle those things, not this talk page and absolutely, positively not now. I mean this sincerely and respectfully, without malice.
If there are users who do see the subject as bilateral, monochrome, or who believe there is an "enemy" who is the cause of all sources and claims of a certain category, be it "for" or "against", I would very much like to hear from such an editors on how we should proceed, to see if there is any way of reaching consensus. PerEdman (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
While I am not as hopeful as you that we will be able to "reach a consensus" on much anytime soon, I am willing to try. Your point is well taken. Colipon+(Talk) 02:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, let's not use anti-Falun Gong and pro-Falun Gong. Done deal. Also, let's not violate the consensus-building approach again.--Asdfg12345 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "APA Brief in the Molko Case". Center for Studies on New Religions. 1989-07-11. Retrieved 2009-07-29.
  2. ^ District of Columbia Court of Appeal, case 853 F.2d 948, Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council.
    "Kropinski failed to provide any evidence that Singer's particular theory, namely that techniques of thought reform may be effective in the absence of physical threats or coercion, has a significant following in the scientific community, let alone general acceptance.
  3. ^ Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, District Court of California Appeals, August 1989, case cited in Lewis, James R. The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, pp.194, ISBN 0-19-514986-6
  4. ^ Boyle, Robin A., Women, the Law, and Cults: Three Avenues of Legal Recourse--New Rape Laws, Violence Against Women Act, and Antistalking Laws, Cultic Studies Journal, 15, 1-32. (1999) in reference to United States v. Fishman, United States District Court of California, CR–88-0616; DLG CR 90 0357 DLG
  5. ^ Jane Green and Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi, US District Court, Washington, DC, 13 March 1991, Case #87-0015 OG
  6. ^ Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson, "Imposed limitations of Freedom of Religion in China: A Legal Analysis of the Crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "Evil Cults," Journal of Church and State (Vol. 47, Issue 2), pp. 243-268
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_30&oldid=1278584308"