Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Protection

Thought you'd all like to know that Vassayana has protected the page so that only admins can edit it. Presumably this might have been done, at least in part, to prevent anyone from engaging in conduct which could get them blocked or banned. Now that we are, as it were, stuck with the existing content unless there is substantial agreement on the talk page for a change in the content, I wonder if it might be possible to rationally discuss any proposed changes in advance, please? John Carter (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the idea. And a good one. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've protected the article for two weeks. Please hash out the disagreement in discussion. Refrain from personal commentary and focus on the content. The edit warring, accusations, and otherwise antagonistic conduct needs to stop. There is a mediator and new neutral editors attempting to help out here. The entire topic area is under arbitration probation. Participants should take the opportunity of the former and heed the warning of the latter. The protection should serve the purpose of preventing the edit war from becoming more entrenched and resulting in multiple blocks. Additionally, I hope that it will serve to focus attention on rational, polite discussion. --Vassyana (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The conduct that just went on, with mass deletions without consensus, then continual reverting the restoration of that content, is unacceptable. It's not an edit war. It's about the article getting gutted without any proper discussion; that simply should not be allowed. This is among the worst conduct that has been seen on the pages so far, and is most destructive to coming up with a decent article and having rational discussion.

Going forward, let's hear proposals for dealing with content section by section, and let's discuss the value of each sentence and each paragraph. What I think would be useful is if we agree to restore the content deleted from the body of the article, then start our discussion from the lede and work our way down. --Asdfg12345 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I would still like to see your opinions in the discussion above, about the material that was moved to the relevant subpages. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, let me rephrase that last part: No discussion until the 20kb of text in the body of the article is restored. It simply would not be right to acknowledge the above process, where a team of editors effectively decided among themselves, with no consultation with myself, Olaf, or others, to delete a third of the article. That text all needs to be restored, then we can start discussion. --Asdfg12345 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid issuing ultimatums (ultimata?) isn't a very good way to start a discussion. I doubt that such an attitude will get you anywhere - this is an issue of M:The_Wrong_Version.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If a clearly less-disputed version were available or a previous well-reviewed version (good or featured article), I would revert to such a version gladly. However, the common good practice is to protect it as you find it, which does often result in the wrong version being protected. In the absence of a clear relatively uncontroversial point for reversion, it will have to remain in the "wrong version" until some consensus is worked out about how the article should appear. --Vassyana (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I think the plural of ultimatum is just ultimatums, but to be honest, I like the ring of "ultimata." It's not an issue of the wrong version, not by any means. It may be difficult to appreciate the complexity of what just went on, if this is your first exposure to the subject. A group of what have been termed "anti-FLG editors" deleted one third of the page; this was supposed to be part of the BRD cycle. When this was challenged several times, instead of going back to discussion, Seb simply reverted again. I thought there may have been a misunderstanding, so I reverted again just to check. That's really what happened. So when we have people stamping all over the consensus-process, we need to address that. We can't continue pretending that that didn't just happen. It just happened and it needs to be fixed, then we'll move on.

update to vassyana: I didn't mean to restore the content in the protected version, actually. I see the article as effectively in stasis now. I mean when it is unlocked, that material needs to be restored, then we can start discussion about the value of paring it down, summarising parts of it, or deleting parts of it. The BRD cycle dictates this, which is one of the things you set down at the beginning of this. you said that failure to adhere to the BRD cycle would lead to arbitration enforcement. What we have now is a clear example of the violation of this cycle and a violation of the consensus-building process. That's all I'm bringing attention to. --Asdfg12345 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the material in question has not been deleted - it has been moved off into the already-created relevant subpages. I understand that you do not agree with this, but I still lack your arguments for that position. Please clarify. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, [1] this is the version before Ohconfucius's deletions. If editors wish to show their desire to build a rational and reasonable editing atmosphere, they can express their wish that the page be taken back to this version. After this, the 20kb was deleted bit by bit. --Asdfg12345 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you meant that the starting point for the discussion of the new structure should be the current protected version + the 20kb of removed text then that is something else entirely. Of course it should. What you will have to establish now is a consensus to remove those 20kb or not. Or to remove only five or ten. Or to reword it or move it. But get that consensus. it does seem that Seb Az86556 may have been a little to quick to see a consensus in the discussion and implementing it quickly without allowing time for opposing voices to make themselves heard. He (she?) can make amends for this now by making sure that whatever course the article takes is supported by a genuine broad consensus. Probably this will require both sides of the argument to compromise on their preferred solutions.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"What you will have to establish now is a consensus to remove those 20kb or not. " -- yah, exactly. And my point is that such discussion is meaningless while the 20kb is still deleted off the page. The process of discussion/deletion was very destructive to the editing environment here.--Asdfg12345 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: Seb Az86556 was the user who suggested the change, but Ohconfucius was the user who boldly implemented the change. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And continuing to discuss changes which cannot now be changed, rather than actively proposing how the content could be changed for the better, is something I cannot see is in any way constructive to the editing environment either. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just wanted to thank the mediator for placing the ban. This charade has got to end. OhConfucius is known elsewhere on Wikipedia as an extremely valuable contributer and his NPOV record is extremely solid. He has done extremely good work in other controversial articles. I fully stand behind his changes to the article by said user as they are clearly in good faith.

We have got to wake up. It should be apparent now that this is not a pro-FLG, anti-FLG see-saw "edit war". This is about curbing the Falun Gong promotional, advocacy, and propaganda material on this encyclopedia - which have been endemic ever since the anti-FLG activists were banned. That should be our task at hand, not discussing theology, "reliable sources", hurl personal accusations, and weasel to have our way. Honestly. Wake up. Colipon+(Talk) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Situations like this are a weakness of Wikipedia's consensus policy. How can there be consensus between contributors who wish to describe the subject fairly, and contributors who primarily want to describe it favourably? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There can be consensus, but only after non-NPOV, and WP:UNDUE have been ignored, as these cannot be given equal attention. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, that is your point of view; it is not shared by anyone but like-minded editors. I think we have already agreed to disagree, and that's exactly the reason we decided to have the mediator to help us get forward. I am here to describe this subject fairly and transparently, and I am strictly in favour of the approach suggested by User:Vassyana. But now, a group of editors have breached the WP:BRD rule and started an edit war after removing 20 kilobytes of the original article. Do you remember what we're supposed to do when no consensus is found? Right. Consult the community noticeboards.

In his comment above, Colipon seems to have revealed us his true motives with the words "not discussing [...] 'reliable sources'". He seems to be here as an activist; he does not have the patience to respect the mediation case at hand, and he tries to get around it by defining a major part of the articles as "promotional, advocacy, and propaganda material" (which is undoubtedly agreed upon by other anti-FLG editors). In some peculiar way he seems to assume that direct action can be taken, and he calls for others to join him – "we have got to wake up"; "that should be our task at hand"; "Honestly. Wake up." I wonder what the ArbCom would say about that, especially after he files the arbitration enforcement case against me and presumably gets a warning for misusing WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing how apparently all the involved editors have chosen to engage in petty meta discussion and namecalling instead of trying to move the article forward with positive suggestions i wouldn't be surprised if ArbCom were to issue TopicBans to all involved editors on both sides.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, everyone knows the problems are serious, but at least I had sincere hope in mediation. I have done my best to follow the mediator's advice, and I wish others would do the same. Seriously, I don't know if we have any chance of getting forward, as long as some editors openly affirm their support for direct action. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No one here is "anti-FLG". Martin's point can't be more accurate. Colipon+(Talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you expect to convince me, Colipon? Actions speak louder than words. In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull – but let's leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Whatever the case, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be welcome here, as long as you follow the rules.^{Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)} ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You giving your opinion on whether or not Colipon is a "raging anti-FLG bull" will not help to improve this article. Let's actually try to focus more on the content of this article.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Colipon to a young Robert de Niro is nevertheless quite flattering, don't you think? (-; Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol-Raging Bull! Seriously though, we need to end the namecalling and useless discussion.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. See next section. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys really don't have a sense of carnivalesque humour, do you? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I do like the way you skip out into that 'Who? Me?' and claim it is carnivalesque humour when it is pointed out you have engaged in a personal attack. Please get back to discussing the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That goes for you too...

and you too....

and you too....

and you too....

etc.

·Maunus·ƛ· 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Editwar

I encouage users to stop the editwar at once. I remind you that this article is on probabtion and that the disruptive editing that both sides are currently engaged in may result in topic bans.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And that those bans could, conceivably, be extended to all parties involved in the edit war. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I suggest that editors of the page take advantage of the timeout period in which the article is protected to undertake a more thorough survey of consensus about the proposed new structure of the article. It seems that at least one editor's opinions and arguments have not been taken into account. Please be sure that consensus is consensus before continuing the implementation of the new proposed structure. I suggest that during the next couple of days editors add their arguments for and against the new structure in an rfc format with "for", "against" and "comment" headers to make an emerging consensus more visible. You are of course welcome not to take this suggestion, but it has worked for me in other content disputes.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph discrediting ACM

Is this edit here necessary? What do third-party and mediators think? Is it necessary to put an entire paragraph discrediting the American Anti-Cult movement, when 1) it's already in the "Academic reception" article and 2) it is a direct response to the cult-related statements of the ACM and aimed at discrediting it? Colipon+(Talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that paragraph was needed when you insisted on the ACM's views as being valid. Now I think it would use a rewording. Perhaps Olaf can do it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In my personal view, when you present an argument or a claim, which has no standing in the academic community - it ought to be made clear. Otherwise, we'd just be deceiving and misleading the reader. And, as editors here, we ought to contribute in a responsible manner - not turn articles into a collection of random, cherry-picked statements. Since Singer's view is obviously fringe - either it should be mentioned with appropriate background, or not mentioned at all. If editors feel we are giving undue weight to a fringe perspective by discussing it in the main article, the entire section related to singer's statement ought to be moved to the respective sub-article.

Regarding the paragraph pointing out CCP's manipulating on ACM stuff to bolster it's persecutory campaign.. to claim the entire paragraph "discredits" the ACM is quite misleading. What it does is delineate the view of the academic community on an issue of central relevance to this topic. Even if it ends up "discrediting" anything, it is not the editor who added the material who has "discredited" it, but the mainstream academic community. And, hence, the material is obviously of relevance and deserving of the reader's attention.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism against the anti-cult movement should be in the article about that movement, not here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev, which wikipedia policy are you referring to in stating that "Since Singer's view is obviously fringe - either it should be mentioned with appropriate background, or not mentioned at all." Please note that I do not agree with the claim that Singer's view would be a fringe view, I am just asking you this as a matter of procedure. Since Singer's view is obviously fringe - either it should be mentioned with appropriate background, or not mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerEdman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By "fringe" I meant not-in-line-with / in-direct-conflict-with the perspective of mainstream scholars on the topic. Please see my edit below as well.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask why you believe Singer's view is "obviously fringe", but even so I do not agree that ANY opinion not in line with mainstream is automatically fringe. What I did ask was which wikipedia policy you are using as the basis of the claim that her opinion should either be mentioned "with apropriate background, or not mentioned at all". I'm sorry I was unclear. PerEdman (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The article in Journal of Church and State is named Imposed limitations on freedom of religion in China and the margin of appreciation doctrine: a legal analysis of the crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "evil cults". It is a Falun Gong related article that calls the ACM a "lackey of the party". What Edelman and Richardson say about the ACM discourse in relation to the 'cult' allegations is extremely relevant for this group of articles. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the court ruling is specifically about something called "Theory of Coercive Persuasion", and not about Singer's expertise in cults, and not about Singer's views in general, and not about his view of Falun Gong? I understand that Margaret Singer testified in some 200 court cases before her brainwashing theory fell in disgrace in front of the APA and then her testimony was no longer accepted? Also, those three sources are two primary (court reports) and one secondary. The secondary one is "Women, the Law, and Cults" which actually defends Singer's theory of "cult rape" and brainwashing, I quoth:

"But not all courts have accepted the premise that cults impose mind control. For instance, in United States v. Fishman, a California federal court excluded proffered testimony by experts, including that of Dr. Singer, because the Court was not convinced that the application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults was widely accepted in the medical community (...) The Fishman court recognized the historical underpinnings of the theory of coercive persuasion as having its beginnings in studies of American prisoners of war during the Korean conflict in the 1950s. (...) Nonetheless, the Fishman court did not accept the coercive persuasion theory in the context of cults. In addition, courts are reluctant to embrace the application of coercive persuasion theory to cults for reasons of freedom of religion under the federal and state Constitutions. (...) There are substantial hurdles to overcome in prosecuting cult-rape--such as courts’ emphasis on the use of force, despite the victim’s mental vulnerabilities (...) Nevertheless, law is always evolving and as more cult-rape cases are brought, perhaps changes beneficial to victims will occur." [2]

So, that text is using two primary sources to make a conclusion that the secondary source doesn't do. Also, it's unrelated to Falun Gong being identified as a cult, since it doesn't say anywhere that Singer can't recognize cults, quite the other way around, it says that she is an expert in cults. This should be removed from here and merged to the Margaret Singer article where it belongs. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that long quote of yours is related to the issues at hand, but I agree that these court case references aren't really that good and can be removed. Frankly, I haven't thought about this matter for a while, as I've focused on what is discussed above. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The issue that I am trying to bring to light here is that it is completely unecessary and unreasonable to bring in outside criticism of a source just make a critical source appear as though they are invalid. Colipon+(Talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a very real question how much information regarding the American anticult movement should be in this, the parent article, at all. Personally, I would think that most of that content should be in some more focused article. Having said that, I have to believe that inclusion of so much material is, at least to me, a fairly blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. Also, regarding the "reliability" of the AAM, it is our general policy that we don't duplicate material in multiple articles. I think most of that content should probably be included in some article directly about the AAM, as that is the most reasonable place to see it. If there is a link to that article, wherever it is, in this article, that should probably be enough, although it might not be unreasonable to add a simple clause regarding the group's reliably sourced apparent opinions on the matter. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% with John Carter. Do you think a sanction based on arbitration rulings is necessary here for these POV edits? Colipon+(Talk) 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with John Carter. The paragraph is out of place. Criticism of the "anti-cult movement", who they might be, who they might serve, is better treated in a separate article and should under no circumstances feature in this article in anything but a passing mention. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. As I said, I don't oppose to removing the references to the court cases. But there must be a subsection in one of the Falun Gong articles (probably "Reception of Falun Gong") discussing the 'cult' allegations – I assume we all agree on that. In that section, the quote from Journal of Church and State is perfectly valid, as it is not merely a general critique of the ACM, but directly points out how its discourse has been utilised to legitimise violations of international law in the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. I would also like to add that I see Colipon's comment above as an indication of extremely bad faith. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Edelman/Richardson article is now weblinked and can be read by anyone who wants to form their own opinion of what it is and is not. PerEdman (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Those who have taken time to research this topic must be aware by now that Falun Gong is not considered a "cult" in mainstream academia ( Ownby, Schechter, Penny, Kilgour Matas, Amnesty Reports, US Congress Resolutions, Congressional Reports - all address how the label is merely a manufactured tool of repression ).[ "by no means a cult", according to Ownby; "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2500 years " according to Penny, etc.] And I believe I can safely assume experienced editors here would have no trouble accepting the mainstream view on the topic.

There seems to be a general lack of knowledge in even academics in regards to Chinese history and qigong history. Many people new to these subjects seem to allow themselves to be swept away by FG from a general anti-China sentiment and a desire for human rights for all. I do a agree Chinese authorities' treatment towards FG practitioners have been exceptional brutal, but the resulting resentment bias the analysis of the FG group itself.

Take for example Danny Schechter's book "Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or 'Evil Cult'?" It was reviewed by Patricia Thornton at the School of Oriental and African Studies and published by Cambridge University Press ([3]), which stated that it was not critical due to a lack of knowledge regarding the subject.

"...its main weakness is that it provides little, if any, critical reflection. Key questions about the history of the movement that are likely to be raised in a classroom setting, for example, regarding the reasons for the sudden dissolution of the Falun Dafa Research Society in 1995, Li's quiet departure from China in 1996 and his continuing reticence, are not addressed by the author."

"Schechter was approached by falun gong practitioner and spokesperson Gail Rachlin in 1999 because she perceived him to be a " 'friendly' and ::internationally-oriented media person"( p. 2)... Shortly thereafter, Rachlina and Schechter produced a video designed to win support for falun gong's ::perspective among a wider audience."

"Yet Schechter's sympathies and his unfamiliarity with modern Chinese history result in a lopsided and unsatisfying account. No serious consideration ::is given to the case made in the Chinese media against falun gong, nor is the movement placed in a larger context of other qigong practices, either ::past or present. The latter shortcoming is particularly noteworthy, given the author's stated concern with human rights:falun gong is by no means the ::only group targeted for repression in the current crackdown, yet virtually no mention is made of the other groups suffering the same fate. ... and ::the brief discussion of "What does falun gong believe?"offers only a superficial sketch of Master Li's ideas. The reader is left to marvel, not only ::at the vehemence of the official Chinese reaction, but equally at the throngs of loyal believers ready to risk their lives for such seemingly banal ::practices and simple beliefs."

User:theleike (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And this Singer stuff - I believe I can say, without fear of mistake, is fringe.

I am of the opinion a significant portion of the reception/academic views section ought not to be wasted for the sake of presenting and then countering a fringe view. Instead, we ought to give more attention to Falun Gong's reception in mainstream academia. We could look into many sources by experts in the field for this matter. And reception by academia certainly goes far beyond the refutation of an engineered 'cult' label.

My point being: Lets break out of this - 1. present a fringe view 2. use up a paragraph to counter it - style of editing and just directly convey to the reader the mainstream's perspective. Regarding the 'cult' label: its origin ( 3 months into the persecution when legislation was created to outlaw "cults" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong - effectively "legalizing" the persecutory campaign through use of the label ), academic perspectives on the label, etc., could be discussed in detail and with appropriate background and context, in the sub-article.

Also, presenting a fringe view to the reader without proper context is, in my opinion, to be avoided, if possible. We can't just present a fringe view as if it were something that has standing in the academic community. And if such a view has no standing, the question then is why would it be relevant enough to be presented without explanation, context or background.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are editors here who deemed it 'significant minority'. I would not go so far as to base my argumentation on excluding the viewpoint entirely. Let's see how the situation develops after we rename the "Academic views" article to Reception of Falun Gong. Giving due weight to sources, no more or less, is the only way out of this situation in the long term. The only thing I'm hoping now is getting into an efficient workflow. The (content reform : discussion) ratio is frustratingly low at the moment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilips' resequencing

The reason I reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&oldid=306632489 is that it put more text by Penny in a strange place: Penny is mentioned already at the start of the section, why he reappears further down in the text is confusing, especially when the reason for the edit was "sequencing". PerEdman (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason of the edit was not reordering alone. I thought the summary made it clear. It was also to expand a bit on the perspective conveyed by Penny. The start of the section merely says Penny has commented on the matter. I don't understand why it is a "strange place" to present an academic perspective from Penny - could you kindly clarify? I am restoring the material and will make things clearer in my edit summary.

The Change I made is:

• Addition of: "Benjamin Penny considers many aspects of Falun Gong "deeply traditional", at the same time, the system, "completely modern." According to him, "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2,500 years." "

• Swapping the position of two paragraphs. The purpose being to bring focus to the perspective of mainstream scholars.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The "mainstream scholar" Penny was, as I said, mentioned already earlier in the first paragraph. Adding him later on doesn't focus the perspective, it divides the comments of Penny into two segments. Also I do not understand in what way you "bring focus" by moving those segments around. Are you trying to move sources that have something in common closer together? Then why is Penny suddenly in two places? I still do not agree with this edit. Perhaps you can explain better why you did it? PerEdman (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Add what Colipon noticed below, with Dilip rajeev's version of the order, the word "cult" is first mentioned by someone stating that it is "not" a cult. This is a very odd order of events. If something has happened, and that something is first mentioned by quoting someone who says "This something has not happened", you would become suspicious immediately, I hope. PerEdman (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article should "cult" first be mentioned?

Dilip's reshuffle directed my attention to something funny. You have to read 2/3 of the extremely long article before you learn that anyone in the world considers FG to be a cult. This is currently mentioned for the first time when a person denying this characterisation is quoted. I think it should be mentioned in one of the first paragraphs that FG is considered a cult. Anyone got a suggestion for whom we should quote on this matter? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a majority view that the 'cult' allegation is an intimate part of the discourse that attempts to legitimise the persecution. It should be first mentioned in this context, no matter where we do it. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a small minority view, myself. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to see reliable sources to substantiate that claim. Personally, I'm unsure whether the inflammatory word "cult" should be used much at all, given its emotional impact and lack of clear meaning. Having said that, I do think that the reasons for that term being used should probably be at least allunded to in the lead section, which is supposed to summarize all the contnet of the article, and that the specific negative criticisms of Falun Gong should be discussed in the "Reception" section before the the apparent "responses" to those claims, because that seems to me at least to be pretty much inherently logical. We don't after all in wikipedia don't they "they're wrong" before going into detail about what they said that was allegedly wrong first. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of mentioning early on that FG is considered a "cult", repeated attempts have been made to call FG a "controversial movement". These attempts have sooner or later been reverted as part of the continuous whitewashing campaign. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see any problem with using the phrase "controversial movement", because (1) the controversy with the Chinese government is fairly clearly verifiable, and (2) the phrase itself doesn't indicate how well justified in fact the controversy is. There have been numerous controversies in Hollywood over less than well sourced allegations (lies), and I think most readers when seeing that phrase would not rush to any conclusions but rather see what the controversy is about in the following sentences or paragraphs before jumping to any conclusions. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "controversial movement" would be a good phrase to use here.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We should mention in the lead that there are a number of controversies related to Falun Gong, including most notably its suppression by the CCP. We could then add that its characterization as a cult is one of the controversies. Something like "Although some have characterized Falun Gong as a cult, the mainstream of academic opinion rejects this characterization." And then you better back that up with a bunch of citations to reliable sources. Actually, it would be better to find a really reliable source who says "the academic mainstream rejects the cult characterization" rather than providing citations to individual sources that reject the characterization. The problem here being that it is difficult to prove that 5 or even 10 sources represent the academic mainstream whereas one single reliable source saying that it is the position of the academic mainstream is a much stronger case. --Richard (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Richard's approach. There used to be a thread on this talk page where I actually defended using the word 'controversial' [4] (but for some reason, I couldn't find it in the archives – has somebody made a mistake? – so I had to link to page history instead). Martin's recent edit is OK with me. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Richard. State there is controversy, then list the controversies. Very good. PerEdman (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mrund, I beg to differ with you on your blanket characterization of Falun Gong as a "controversial movement." What is this "controversial movement" term meant to covey there in the lead? Isn't it in direct conflict the majority of recent scholarship? Why exactly do you prefer the term with vague connotations to say, The "peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China" ( House Concurrent Resolution 188 ) or "The traditional system of self-cultivation" ( Penny, Ownby, etc. ), or The "spiritual way of living" ( World Book Encyclopaedia, 2002)?

Such vague characterization is not only misleading but the connotations carried by it are in conflict with mainstream scholarship. Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It becomes really symbolic when we begin debating about where to place a few paragraphs, to show the extent of how far this subtle POV-pushing can go.Colipon+(Talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, saying that Falun Gong is "controversial" is clearly quite reasonable. David Ownby writes: "Falun Gong is undoubtedly controversial" to begin a dissertation that is endlessly cited in these pages. Olaf has read this document, but insists that "controversial movement" be left out. Looks like to me like an all-out attempt to just censor anything that would portray Falun Gong in a bad light, or even a slightly negative characterization is frowned upon by these users. Colipon+(Talk) 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, so then we'll have a to-and-fro in the lede, where Falun gong is first characterised as "controversial", then "a peaceful form of personal belief," then "a cult," then something that is so healthy and good, etc.. can't we just play it really dead-pan and not include value judgements without context (and the lede does not particularly allow for great amounts of contextualisation, as you might imagine...--Asdfg12345 21:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, if it's just the sentence "The Encyclopedia Britannica characterises Falun Gong as "controversial."" then I think that's not a problem; it's just when the word is used as a descriptor that the sentence loses its balance. It's like if we had "Falun Gong is a peaceful spiritual practice..." or whatever. Just don't use these kind of adjectives; if we ref the controversial thing, that's okay. We had that in before. I'm actually just going to put it right back!--Asdfg12345 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What about "David Ownby says Falun Gong is 'undoubtedly controversial'"? He seems to receive a lot of attention on this article. Colipon+(Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, regarding your comment about what I "insist", perhaps you'd better check your eyesight. I can't imagine you would say that on purpose. Wait. Or can I...?^{Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)} ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos, just say what you want to say without malice, or don't say it at all. PerEdman (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you don't consider his words "Olaf has read this document, but insists that "controversial movement" be left out. Looks like to me like an all-out attempt to just censor anything that would portray Falun Gong in a bad light, or even a slightly negative characterization is frowned upon by these users" just a wee bit malicious? Especially since that comment resulted from not even reading what I wrote above, but Colipon's automatic assumption that this must be my opinion? Especially while he is at this very moment preparing to lose his face by blatantly misusing the arbitration enforcement process against me to gain an upper hand in content disputes? And while you say disparaging things, such as "focussing on improving the article is still a better cause than putting too much weight on the opinions of disruptive editors" (and did not even understand what HappyInGeneral said below)? Alright, perhaps it is somewhat malicious. Sorry about that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That you again choose to criticise other participants does not alter the fact of your disruptive edits and discussion comments. Please, focus on the subject matter. I freely admit that I do not understand what you were trying to say at 22:14, 7 August 2009 and if it contains anything relevant to the subject, I urge you to reword your message. PerEdman (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I will try to make this easy for you. Read what I wrote at 20:11, 7 August 2009. Then read Colipon's comment at 21:03, 7 August 2009. Is there something you still don't understand? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it still makes no sense to me. I do not know what it is you "can't imagine" or whether you really can imagine that. It still comes across as some sort of vague, petty accusation against an individual participant, and that can't possibly be right. PerEdman (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that can't possibly be right. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that it was simply an innocent comment that I could not understand. PerEdman (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)

From Olaf: "There used to be a thread on this talk page where I actually defended using the word 'controversial' [5] (but for some reason, I couldn't find it in the archives – has somebody made a mistake?"

From Colipon: "Olaf has read this document, but insists that "controversial movement" be left out."

Based on WP:AGF this must be a mistaken attribution.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It "must" not. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet, since it fails to assume the assumption of good faith if the perceived assumption of bad faith is not clear-cut. To continue to assume good faith from a person who writes about magic spells and checking others eyesight would be naive in the extreme. Focussing on improving the article is still a better cause than putting too much weight on the opinions of disruptive editors. PerEdman (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Richardson/Edelman; Discrediting Margaret Singer (cont'd)

We need to make a decision on whether or not to leave the paragraphs in the article. It seems neither Eric Naval nor PerEdman want to keep it in there (Mrund also said Singer's criticism belongs to the article on Singer, not on the FLG article). Olaf's justification and the defence of asdfg and dilip is unreasonable. The content is seen elsewhere, not to mention its sole purpose here is to discredit the ACM (discredit any sources critical of Falun Gong) so criticism can't stay alone. I propose the paragraph be removed or the content restructured by a third-party user to reflect NPOV. Colipon+(Talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that the references to criticism of the Anti-Cult movement belong in the article about that movement. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. They should be in the ACM article, not the Falun Gong article. Colipon+(Talk) 07:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the paraphrasing of Richardson/Edelman is far too meaty to be placed in an article about Falun Gong and I have the creeping suspicion that it has been readded in this manner just because the source "should" be included somehow. That it has been rewritten is a result of my earlier criticism that the Richardson/Edelman article did not in fact state what it was claimed in the Wiki as stating. The current version is Olaf's attempt to save the source from exclusion. But if it cannot be concisely stated what relevance the source has to Falun Gong, it makes for much better readability not to include that source. In my opinion, that is. Wikipedia is no place for essays. PerEdman (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kick it out, belongs into Academic views on Falun Gong Seb az86556 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The sentence discrediting Singer can be removed, while the Richardson/Edelman reference belongs to the same place where we discuss the views of the ACM. I'm not saying it should be here or there, as long as it's not removed from that context. It seems a bit bloated at the moment and should be rewritten (I can do that), but it is a) a more highly ranking source (peer reviewed) than the ones you suggest about Singer, Rahn, and others; b) directly related to Falun Gong, because the Richardson/Edelman article is specifically about how the ACM's unscientific discourse has been used to discriminate against Falun Gong. If you have any problems with that, consult the NPOV noticeboard, or write a request for comment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Colipon. It shouldn't be in the main article.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ownby (cont'd)

I would also like to bring to attention the fact that David Ownby is quoted endlessly on this article but the fact that he says "Falun Gong without a doubt controversial" somehow never makes it onto the article. Ownby also says Li Hongzhi is a "obscure former clerk" and "trumpet player" on the very first page of his essay. [6] Thoughts? I suggest we insert the "without a doubt controversial" line in the Ownby section of "reception". There's an on-going attempt to hide this and only show Ownby's "positive reflections" of Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, but keep it short. Anything beyond short goes into Academic views on Falun Gong Seb az86556 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ownby did write a lot of things. When you include something from him, please make sure that it is in it's proper context. For example he did explain what he meant in controversial, otherwise if you keep bare just the word controversial itself, it does not say anything actually, but it is a loaded word in the sense that people might imagine just about anything based on it. This is good only if we would like to write a WP:SOAP and would like to give a certain light and music to a painting. To avoid that, see Richardson's advice [7], so far this approach seems to be the most attributed and thus it is the most fare. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would a Wikipedia editor NOT use quotes in proper context, HappyInGeneral? PerEdman (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes or hidden agenda, would you suggest any other reason? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to assume a mistake or a hidden agenda in this case. PerEdman (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Choosing the most relevant quotes is always difficult. I suggest getting your hands on Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownby. It was published in 2008 and is therefore more recent than the article in question. I agree that saying "Falun Gong is without a doubt controversial" without elaborations on why Ownby thinks that way looks like cherry-picking, unless we write a honest, truthful summary of the article to accompany it. Case in point, Ownby has also said that "neither Falun Gong nor Li Hongzhi were particularly controversial in the beginning." ("The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306) I think that quote says a lot more; it admits that Falun Gong became controversial later (because of the CCP's reaction), but also points out what Ownby thinks about Falun Gong's initial reception. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Reception of Falun Gong (currently Academic Views) has to be made extremely long before we can start abridging it. Only at the point when we have a lot of different material from various researchers can we start to see how the article should be structured, what themes are prominent, which views should be presented together, and what is the most concise way to express what is said in a particular source. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we then remove also the barely-contextual quote "by no means a cult", without elaboration on why? I happen to agree and I am fully prepared to remove the quote for the very good reasons you list. The meaning of the quote about "the beginning" is most significant in what that quote does not contain. The article we are writing here deals also with what is today.

I find your theory on article-writing extremely peculiar. Do you have any guideline or policy sources for your idea that the Criticism against Falun Gong must be "made extremely long" before it can be rewritten as an efficient piece of WP:V writing? I certainly see no reason to bloat an article and then strip it. Better to stick with adding ONLY that which is WP:V to begin with. PerEdman (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Any quotation to the effect that FG is not this or that should be preceded by a well-sourced statement to the effect that it is. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman: I can find good references for David Ownby's views about Falun Gong not being a cult. He has never claimed otherwise. My point is that we can find so much verifiable, reliably sourced material on the reception of Falun Gong that the article will inevitably be longer than what is healthy. But since we don't know the full extent of all the various themes we need to cover, I consider it a lot easier to have a bloated article that is then abridged. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should intentionally bloat the article. However, in the future, we may have so many references that one study might have to be condensed into a very concise description to make the article readable. At this point, it is hard to know.

I did not mean to say that Ownby has claimed that Falun Gong is a cult. I merely responded to your claim that the quote "Falun Gong without a doubt controversial" should not be included, by stating that neither should the claim "by no means a cult", for the same reasons. You really should not go searching for quotes that support your opinion.

Again, please explain to me how your personal opinion on bloated articles is compatible with wikipedia policies. I would suggest you use a sandbox to perform such experiments, rather than experimenting with the live article in a manner inconsistent with policy. PerEdman (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, PerEdman, I am proposing something that I believe could work as an approach to write an article that is not too long, but still incorporates a diverse array of views. If you have a better suggestion, you are free to express it. In your next reply, I would also like to see the reference that backs up your words "in a manner inconsistent with policy". Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would then suggest that you take your belief and proposition to a sandbox rather than experiment with live articles governed by guidelines and policies. This is my better suggestion, freely expressed. PerEdman (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that I can open up the context for the words "by no means a cult" by writing more about Ownby's views regarding this matter. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good. While you are on it, could you also take the time to open up the context for the words "Falun Gong without a doubt controversial"? Thanks! Oh, and please keep it concise. PerEdman (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin: Wikipedia does not have such a policy or guideline. The relative weight of sources is guided by WP:DUE, and if we cannot reach a consensus, we will consult the community noticeboards. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue of Wikipedia policies. It's about how a well-structured piece of text is laid out. If I drop a sentence into the article about the squirrel saying "The squirrel is not subject to veneration among Coptic Christians", then the reader will be really confused and wonder if anybody's ever suggested that the squirrel is, and if so, who. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If that is what you mean, then alright. I misunderstood your words. By no means should we have a Reception article that only consists of yes–no interchange of views. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability of FG materials advertised

Currently the article's first paragraph advertises that "The books, lectures and exercise materials have been translated into multiple languages and are freely available on the Internet." This should be in the "Further reading" section, not up top, IMHO. Thoughts? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it belongs to the lede. The idea is to point out the cost-free availability of Falun Gong materials to anyone who's interested in them; it is really a core aspect of understanding the practice's decentralised nature, and that there is no revenue generation model in Falun Gong. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And why is the cost-free availability of Falun Gong materials to anyone who's interested in them relevant to an objective article in another cost-free medium freely available to anyone interested in it (Wikipedia)? Christianity also has cost-free bibles and the bible itself is featured prominently on the web, but no-one would think of placing that fact in the lede to the article on Christianity, nor is it in any way indicative of decentralization in that case. (I compare to christianity here not as another way of claiming that FG is a religion, but as a parallel to the "freely available" documents).

Is there any policy precedent for either? PerEdman (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

When I read up on an organisation in an encyclopedia I do appreciate a link to their core publications on-line. It's a really useful thing to have. But I don't expect the link to be in the first paragraph. It's a bibliography thing. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the content of the article. Right now, I don't see that the material is mentioned to any degree in the remainder of the article, so I'm not sure how including it in the lede "summarizes" anything. While I can and do understand that being able to possess the information for no cost may be somewhat important, I do very much question whether it is unique enough to be included in the lede. With the exception of Scientology and, maybe, of the Hare Krishnas, I think one can easily get ahold of any of the basic documents of any religious belief system for free. In fact, in some cases and situations, it's hard to not wind up being given copies of such documents, whether you really want them or not. That being the case, while it may be important to Falun Gong, it is not so unique that I think it necessarily deserves special mention in the lede. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The "further reading" section at the bottom is a good idea. Trouble is, there already is one such section, so it would have to have a different name ("publications by Falun Gong"?) A list like that could be worked out here, on the discussion-page and then moved to the article once completed (there could simply be a section on this talkpage that says "preliminary suggested list. discuss content of list in separate section(s), not here") Seb az86556 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The current "Further Reading" section links to FG's two core books. We could perhaps add links to one or two further works deemed important by FGers. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

About mentioning the cost-free availability of the books, it can just be pared down to a sentence "The books in multiple languages are available freely online." -- this isn't a big deal and keeps mention of it, because actually, a lot of qigong systems charge for exercise teaching etc., and as Olaf says, one of the key aspects of the phenomenon is its decentralised nature. Noting this briefly in the lede is a useful way of illustrating that fact.--Asdfg12345 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But surely not in the intro, or in the first paragraph. This is after all an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the sentence is informational: it provides the information that Falun Gong the books are available freely on the internet; at the same time, it quickly establishes other important aspects of Falun Gong, such as its decentralised nature. This could also be done with a sentence about how the practice is decentralised, but this does both. Being such a central aspect of the practice, too, and being so few words, what's the objection?--Asdfg12345 17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good -- so here we go....Seb az86556 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I dunno. I'm slowly coming 'round to Asdfg12345's angle here. A comparison to christianity may be unfair - it's common knowledge that there are free gideonite bibles out there, or that you can search bible gateway for all versions of the english translation, but if you instead compare to Scientology, where the material is NOT freely available, heck or even if you compare with an ordinary training or medidation regimen, you'll discover that the material is rarely free. It might be a significant enough trait that it could be mentioned in the lede. The alternative would be not to mention the main books at all, and that too would be strange. If one spiritual practice had a book that always was black, I would definately mention this in the wikipedia article. Same if it was free. PerEdman (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We are capable of rational discussion and consensus-building--this is encouraging. So we'll pare it down to "The books in multiple languages are available freely online," and PerEdman gets 3 Goodwill Points. (I've got a chart up on my pinboard tracking this stuff.)--Asdfg12345 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the intro

The intro is very long. I think the best way to trim it down to more reasonable length would be to remove a lot of the detail from the longest paragraph, the current fourth one, on post-1999 persecution of FG. Thoughts? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, you're right! You know what, let's just delete it entirely! /sarcasm. I hope you realise that the recent, huge changes to the article need to be first dealt with before anything else is considered. Continuing to edit the article now would probably be a waste of time, because massive changes were made without consensus, and it needs to be set back to where it was, and we need to discuss things one issue at a time. Olaf, one of the main contributors about now, is going to wake from his slumber to find a gutted article and a short note telling readers where to go, that's really not what wikipedia is about, you know. --Asdfg12345 15:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to guidelines, leads should be three paragraphs to five paragraphs, depending on the length of the article. At four paragraphs, the lead is rather long, particularly considering the comparative shortness of the article. Personally, the final paragraph, dealing with the difficulties with the government, probably is rather too long and too detailed. Having said all that, the lead, even at four paragraphs, still doesn't do that good a job, although part of that could be blamed on the rather remarkable, and I personally think unnecessary, shortness of some of the sections. WP:SS doesn't require that summaries only be a sentence or two long, and I have to think that the existing sections could be expanded. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The persecution stuff belongs in the persecution section and the persecution article, not the Falun Gong lead section. Colipon+(Talk) 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD if there is a persecution section that section must also be sumamrised in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The persecution is important as it's arguably FG's main claim to notability in the English-speaking world. But usually the intros of long articles don't contain that level of detail. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Martin. My comments were only about the amount of detail the lede goes into regarding the matter, which seems to me to be disproportionate. Given its current length, it seems to be about half of the total introduction, in effect implying that the persecution is as important to the subject as everything else about it combined, which I definitely think is probably not something that we want to be seen to imply. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mrund that the persecution should be mentioned in the lede, but not in any detail. I know what the guideline says, but from a style perspective I would really prefer if the lede could be restricted to three paragraphs of medium length. PerEdman (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried shortening the lede before, but was told that the current lede had evolved over a long period of time and should for that reason not be changed. I'm not sure how much of that shortening survived more than a week, as I lacked the energy to follow it up in the climate that reigned at that time. PerEdman (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguing about the length of the lead is a bit futile. Per WP:LEAD the lead must summarise the sections of the article, assigning them weight according to their relative weight in the body of the article - this means that if we can agree on which sections the article will have and how to balance them the lead writes itself (so to speak). ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, thank you. But we are in a situation where significant rewrites are possible and we could very well end up with an article where the persecution is part of some other section, which is why I tried to keep this vote as focused as possible on the one question. No part of the article is set in stone at this time (except it being about Falun Gong and being on Wikipedia, but you know what I mean.)

I am not expecting anyone to actually say "No!", so this is one part diplomacy, gaining agreement on the issue, finding a common ground to start from. It's very, very basic, I know, but I don't think we can move forward until we've established such a basic commonality between the editors. PerEdman (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the persecution in the lede?

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.

---

Do we all agree that the persecution of Falun Gong by the Chinese Communist Party is notable enough that it should be mentioned in the lede? I'm pretty sure we all do, but against the background of current events, perhaps a show of hands would be best, after which we can discuss the size and length of that inclusion.

• I agree myself. PerEdman (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that it should be mentioned. I think, however, that it should be shortened, as per Mrund's suggestions. Whenever I fix intros I tell people to look at the intro for Barack Obama as a good example. I maintain, however, that the organ harvesting allegations do not belong. As long as the sensationalism is toned down, I think it will be fine. Colipon+(Talk) 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree It is basically a non-issue. If there is a section about persecution then that section must be summarised in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree' same arguments as Maunus --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, but shorten it. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, but shorten the paragraph. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agreee, and condense. --Asdfg12345 16:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We have consensus: the persecution of Falun Gong by the Chinese Communist Party is notable enough that it should be mentioned in the lede. I'm sure most of you don't think this is anything like a big step, but YOU try to remember the last time all editors agreed on anything at all. To continue in this direction, please participate in the other votes on this page, where we try to build agreement on how to treat Margaret Singer, David Ownby, Benjamin Penny and of course David & David Kilgour & Matas as sources, and have a great week. PerEdman (talk) 21:46, 9 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.

Credible source?

I was just wondering, but does this qualify as an academic source? --> [8] --Edward130603 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies here, as it has not been published by a reliable source. Xys.org is a private website. If there is disagreement, let's take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok!

The bibliography seems to be in order, footnotes look OK, but I cannot say whether "Zixian Deng, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science" and "Shi-min Fang, Ph.D. in Biochemistry" are notable, reliable or reputable. I look forward to the results of the noticeboard post. PerEdman (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fang shi-min a.k.a Fang Zhouzi, is pretty famous, although I admit that I haven't heard of the other guy before.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should have googled first. :) Very well, if one author is reputable and published, that's a good start. PerEdman (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It is published org .cn/Feature/tflg/ here. I don't know if we consider "facts. org .cn" reliable in and of itself. My opinion is that within the context it should be considered reliable. Colipon+(Talk) 02:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know whether the anti-Falun Gong propaganda website run by the Party is reliable in and of itself? Confucius didn't even dirty his hands with "Two Tales." ... --Asdfg12345 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should treat one partisan source any differently than another partisan source. Even if it is reliable in one part it can be unreliable in another and vice versa... and any primary source can be used to verify the beliefs and opinions of that source, without judging on its veracity.PerEdman (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour/Matas in lede

I wish to pose a question to editors here about this segment:

In 2006, human rights lawyer David Matas and former Canadian secretary of state David Kilgour published an investigative report concluding that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners have become victims of systematic organ harvesting in China and that the practice is still ongoing.[29] In November 2008, The United Nations Committee on Torture called on the Chinese State party to commission an independent investigation of the reports and to "ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished."[30]

My view on this matter is that the organ harvesting are rightly, only allegations, and many third-party sources have debunked much of the claims made by Kilgour-Matas. They have been sensationalized by Falun Gong media outlets and their importance vastly exaggerated. In addition, the use of circumstantial evidence on the report makes it inappropriate for us to "conclude" that this is fact, and readily present it as such in the intro.

Therefore, we have a few options. Add the counter-claims to the report, which I am against, or remove it from the lede and place it rightly under its own section, in its own article, or its sister article "persecution of FLG". Of course, as the consensus may be, we can also just keep the revision as is. Lend me your opinions. Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: What do you think should be done about the "Organ Harvesting" section in the lede? (Please answer with Counter-claim, Remove, shorten, or nothing)

• I say remove. Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Remove from lede, place brief treatment in a section in the main article, and a fuller treatment in the separate article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• (Excuse me but I prefer to present arguments instead of snappy conclusions.) I think the claim is notable and should be in the article, most because it has been sensationalized and become widely prublicized in the media. It belongs in the Persecution section. Whether, and how, it should be mentioned in the lead is best to decide when we have a definitive draft of the articles structure and the persecution section, because the lead is supposed to mirror the general weight of the article's sections and their claims. In short I don't believe we can take a decision about how to structure the lead untill we know how to structure the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Maunus. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Shorten in lede, but I say that because I believe the entire article can be shortened. "Bloody Harvest", the David Kilgour and David Matas report must be referenced as it is notable. Its notoriety merits a mention early in the lede. The claims it makes are probably the second or third item of interest anyone would connect Falun Gong to either before or after the persecution by the CCP in total and FG's qigong practices. PerEdman (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Shorten in lede, a sentence on it in the lede should be enough, Ithink.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:06, 9 August

2009 (UTC)

• It's simply misleading to say the claims have been roundly debunked; the UNCAT reference is right there, even, which shows that important groups are paying attention to the topic. I'm not sure how it could actually be shortened from these two sentences, but would welcome suggestions--Asdfg12345 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I tried to find the UNCAT reference and found only reference 22 in the current article: "Since 1999, reports of torture,[22] (...) have been widespread.", but the reference didn't seem relevant to UNCAT or torture in general. So if you could just give me the UNCAT reference again, that'd be great. / PerEdman 18:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that the UNCAT reference used Kilgour and Matas as their reference material in turn and concluded only that the matter needs further research, but I may be confusing it with the statement from Congress. Please help. / PerEdman 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remove FLG organ harvesting has an entire article to itself. IT doesn't need to be in the FLG lede as well considering that the claims come from a single, highly dubious, report by people who are not valid experts on China.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable topic, and its inclusion is not based on Simonm223's personal feelings about the credentials of the authors or the quality of their report.--Asdfg12345 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The question regarding whether to include it in the lede or not is more or less predicated on another quetsion, specifically, what are the most important extant and yet-to-be-created articles relevant to this topic. Based on what I can see, this is a specific point within the broader matter of Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China, and that topic certainly does belong in the lede. Whether any specific example of such persecution belongs in the lede will be dependent on the length of the lede and the amount of material from other topics which has to be included in the lede. The above arguments regarding "notability" which also dismiss the opinions of others are not particularly useful, because, in large part, this is going to be a matter of personal opinion in any event. My own inclination, at this point, is that there is not sufficient cause to include anything beyond a possible subclause relative to the persecution in China in the lede if the article is structured to fairly represent all aspects of the topic, given that there is no particularly good reason for a long lede to a short article. As the amount of content in the article develops, and the length of the lede develops correspondingly, that would of course change. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to your point, talk, that organ harvesting can be included as a part of the persecution, and that a short article should have a short lede. But I am prepared to argue that the subject of organ harvesting needs to be treated with special care as it is not quite the known fact that other persecution and imprisonment of Falun Gong practitioners are, it is also an allegation by Falun Gong against the Chinese Communist Party. I'm not sure I'm making sense now, but if we include notable but poorly-sourced accusations from Falun Gong against other parties, then it is a short step to include notable but poorly-sourced accusations from other parties against Falun Gong, and I don't like where that's going. It's a slope, for sure. / PerEdman 18:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And talk is thankful that you agree him. Your point about it being at this point primarily an allegation, and thus perhaps not necessarily significant enough to the lede, is a good one. But that would probably still be an issue to be resolved at some point down the road rather than right now. I am of course absolutely certain that we will have a solid, coherent, and mutually agreed upon structure and content to this article real soon now. But until we reach that point, I'm not sure a detailed discussion about one specific issue in the context of not having a clear idea about the rest of the content will be particularly fruitful. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Oops.) Right. Let's focus on Talk:Falun_Gong/New for now. / PerEdman 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remove or shorten until it has other sources that support better the allegations. For something that is allegued in one report, it has a lot of space when compared to other stuff. Specifically in comparison to the short sentence "reports of torture,[22] illegal imprisonment,[23] beatings, forced labor, and psychiatric abuses have been widespread.[24][25]", which is sourced by a good bunch of strong sources that make strong assertions about the claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Review by uninvolved editor Snowded

I was asked by Vassayana to review the article and dispute as an uninvolved editor. My approach on this has been to read the article itself without looking at the controversies on the talk page. I should say that my knowledge of Falun Gong is limited to some material from Amnesty, the odd sighting of a protest in various cities around the world and general knowledge. I do have some knowledge of religions and other sects and a general concern about cults and pseudo-science.

My overall conclusions is the article shows al the signs of having grown piecemeal though multiple additions and edit wars and is in need of a radical rewrite. I have noted my comments by section below, but overall I would recommend that a small group of uninvolved editors be asked to do a basic editing job on it, to produce a sandbox version for comment and thus create a fresh start (happy to be involved in that). In my experience (and I speak as a sinner here) when an article gets controversial, a lot of words and phrases become symbolic battle grounds and its difficult or impossible for those editors to really stand back. Of course its preferable for the existing active editors to do that, but I don't see any evidence that it is likely anytime soon

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.

---

Lede

Excessively long, some of the material is dubious or inappropriate, for instance:

• The fact that the books, lecture and exercise materials are available on the internet free of charge is not suitable for the lede or the main body, it appears to be promotion.
• The statement that the spread and activism of the FG is the greatest challenge to state power, in China seems dubious, and the citation quote does not support it per se, it simply makes reference a contest over media power

The paragraphs on membership and the issues of torture and imprisonment should be moved to the body (section on persecution) with a single paragraph summary in the lede. The definition as a spiritual practice in the opening sentence is only supported by a newspaper article. Elsewhere the claims of the movement to be a new form of science would seem to argue for a different phrasing. The lede does not really summarise the history or properly set the context for later disputes with the government

Beliefs & teachings This section needs a radical rewrite. At the moment it reads as a series of statements from different scholars (including uncited claims such as “leading”). A lot of this section sounds like a sales document, rather than a summary of the movement. It could be easily reduced to about half its current length. The essence seems the mixture of ethics, science, mysticism, but it not fully differentiated from Qigong. Its not clear if FG is a sect or off branch on Qigon, or a whole new movement for which Qigong is one of the sources.

Theoretical Background This should be merged into Beliefs and Teaching. A summary of Qigong, in so far as it relates to FG could easily be an introductory paragraphs to the beliefs & teachings sections. There is no need for an elaboration of China’s experiments in science which belong elsewhere. Other sources for FG, such as the other Chinese Texts (the Tao etc) need citation to show that they were used, and any modifications or changes as a result (a generic reference has no real meaning other than as a claim)

Quigong & beyond As above, this needs to be split up between the history section (it originally surfaced in …) and beliefs & teaching where it has some good summary elements. The point that quigong may appear religious to western eyes is valid, but not relevant to a FG article (I could point to other

History, persecution and protest Beginnings needs to be summarised to about half the current length. Some of this material should be in an improved ledge (the origins in official practice and support from the government of China for example) The section on Ideological and social context is far too long. There is a lot of speculation as to the historical context which is hardly supported by references and where supported there are clear questions of weight. Most of the material relates to reasons for acceptance and “growth”, and there seems to be some confusion here between FG per se, and other religious and social movements in China. This could easily become one to two paragraphs. The section on Persecution contains material that should be in the history section, for example the ban itself (which does need a full quotation). The response of Li Hongzhi does not need to be quoted in full, and the speculation as to reasons (although cited) needs radical editing. In effet all of the first part of this section, down to methods of persecution needs to go, in shortened form, into the history section. A new section on persecution, can then take material from the lede (I think persecution is an OK term as it is cited but I am not sure it is a NPOV). There is a lot of repetition and verbiage in this section that looks as if it has grown willy nilly over the years. Organ farming should be a paragraph within the section on persecution. The protests section should also be incorporated into this section.

Reception

This seems to be a summary of academic and related writing about FG. We have the common practice on disputed articles of credentials being challenged etc. Overall this section just requires a new title and some tightening up but is informative and cited. --Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 9 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.

Invaluable input and very solidly done, too. Thank you very much, Snowded. The most surprising part for me was that the segment you appear to have thought best was the one I spend the most time worrying about. I'm sure I'm not the only person who grows a bit nervous over the suggestion that the article may need a radical rewrite, but I am sure it would be healthy and much easier than trying to forge splinters into solid plate. Thank you again. PerEdman (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this valuable input Snowded. I arrived here yesterday and your first impression mirrors mine closely. I think the best next step would be to outline a complete new article structure and fill in the blanks one by one through discussion. When the article structure and content is decided upon the lead and the sections basically writes themselves. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a very good review of the article. I also believe that it is a good idea to have non-involved editors draft the re-write of the article. Colipon+(Talk) 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there are some useful points here, too. Can make a longer comment later,--Asdfg12345 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of sticking a big box around this stuff??--Asdfg12345 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New section

Below is my draft for a new section detailing the different ways in which the word cult has been used in relation to Falun Gong. I see it as going in place of the "reception" section since it basically covers the same turf in a more coherent way, and with less propensity for simply stating "these guys think its wonderful" and "these guys think it sucks". I am of curse open to suggestions of combining the reception section with this section in some way if that should be judged to be desirable. And suggestions for improvements are more than welcome.

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.

---

Cult?

A returning issue in relation to the Falun Gong is whether the movement should be classified as a cult or not. The opinions about this usage has varied from time to time and from one discursive frame to another. Adam Frank has identified several frames of discourse about Falun gong that each differ in the way they describe the movement and also in their choice to label or not to label the movement as a cult. Frank distinguishes the discursive frames of the western media, the Chinese media, an emerging scholarly tradition, the discourse of Human rights groups and a symptathetic practice based discourse.

The issue goes back to the rhetorics used by the PRC government when imposing the 1999 ban on Falun Gong. In their statements the Chinese government repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, normally translated into English as an "evil cult"(Chan 2004, Irons 2003). The term has been used by the Chinese government since 1949 about groups classified as harmful to social stability.(Irons 2003) Arguing for the dangerousness of Falun Gong it asserted that Falun Gong mixed Qigong with superstition and doomsday fallacies, which threatened and damaged the physical and psychic health of the chinese people and the social stability of China.([9]) The statements compared Falun Gong to the Branch Davidian and Aum Shinrikyo, both New Religious movements that had recently received large amounts of negative media attention.

The movement itself of course denies being an "evil cult" and in fact denies being a religion at all, preferring to characterize it self as a "practice system" (source)

When the movement first attracted the attention of western media, largely through the chinese governments statements, it was widely described by the word cult. Often the term was combined with descriptions of Falun Gong practices that have been characterised as "vague exoticism"(Frank 2004:241). Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's succes at heart".(Frank 2004:243) Similar statements have also been common in the Chinese media's treatment of Falun Gong.(Frank 243-44) Western media however quickly changed this usage to less loaded terms.(Kipnis 2001)

Falun Gong has also attracted the attention of cult-watching groups in China and in the west. Cult-watch groups usually apply a negative definition of the word cult particularly defining it as groups that use "brainwashing" techniques and generally assert strong control of the personal lives of their indvidual members. Controversial psychologist Margaret Singer, who works for cult-watching groups in the US and has worked particularly on "brainwashing" phenomena and "deprogramming" of ex-cult members (Lewis 2004), has characterized Falun Gong as a cult, and mentioned that she has been approached by concerned family members of Falun Gong practicioners. Commenting on the general insistence of Cult Watching groups to classify most New Religious Movements as brainwashing cults, sociologists such as Eileen Barker have argued that labelling people as cultists serve little other purpose than to dehumanize certain groups in society, which may in turn lead to violence.(Barker 145)

In sociology the term cult has been subject to varied attempts at definition. At times it has been proposed that cults distinguish themselves by being culturally novel, that is by being culturally new phenomena, not drawing from the larger cultural historical background of their host society.(Bainbridge 1997) Whether or not Falun Gong qualifies as a cult on that account has been questioned, and it comes down to the importance assigned to Falun Gong's roots in the general Qigong tradition. Some scholars have stressed the movements ties to the Qigong tradition (Ownby 2008:163, Zhao, ) whereas others (Irons 2003) have stressed the syncretic combination of different philosophical traditions resultingly construing Falun Gong as a completely new phenomenon in China. At other times a cult has been defined as being characterised by a focus on the individual rather than the collective, or by having fuzzy membership boundaries, or a charismatic leader. In this way the question of whether or not Falun Gong qualifies as a cult depends on the definition used. For example, Chan (2004) uses the definition of cult as a new religious movement that focuses on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred more than on collective worship, and that is less demanding of their members than sects, and more tolerant of other religions, that has a strong charismatic leadership and fuzzy membership boundaries. Based on these criteria she concludes that from a sociological perspective Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a New Religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics.(Chan 2004:682)

For the sake of objectivity, however, many scholars choose to avoid the term cult altogether, arguing that "the term cult is useless, and should be avoided because of the confusion between the historic meaning of the term and current pejorative use"(Richardson 1993, Bainbridge 1997:24) Often academic studies choose to employ less loaded terminology like "spiritual movement" or "new religious movement" when describing Falun Gong, both to avoid the negative connations of the word cult and because the movement does not fit easily into standard definitions of the cult category.(Frank 292) Another reason scholars sometimes avoid the word cult is its possible, unintended political ramifications: By classifying certain religious movements as cults or sects rather than religions, governments may be able to deny them the special privileges and legal protection that are normally offered to religious denominations.[10] Or they may even, as in the case of the Chinese government's relation to Falun Gong, use the classification as a justification for agressively persecuting a religious movement's members. (Edelman & Richardson 2003:321)

• Barker, Eileen,2002 "Watching for violence: A comparative analysis of the roles of five types of cult-watching groups" in Cults, religion, and violence editors David G. Bromley, J. Gordon Melton Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052166898

• Frank, Adam, 2004 Falun Gong and the threat of history. in Gods, guns, and globalization: religious radicalism and international political economy editors Mary Ann Tétreault, Robert Allen Denemark, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004, ISBN 1588262537

• Bryan Edelman, James T. Richardson‌ 2003, Falun Gong and the Law: Development of Legal Social Control in China, Nova Religio Vol. 6, No. 2, Pages 312–331 , DOI 10.1525/nr.2003.6.2.312

• Lewis, James R. 2004 The Oxford handbook of new religious movements, Oxford University Press US, 2004, ISBN 0195149866

• Kipnis, Andrew B. 2001, The Flourishing of Religion in Post-Mao China and the Anthropological Category of Religion, THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY, 12:1, 32-46 Anthropology, Australian National University

• Bainbridge, William Sims 1997 The sociology of religious movements, Routledge, 1997, ISBN 0415912024,

• Irons, Edward. 2003 Falun Gong and the Sectarian Religion Paradigm Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 6, Issue 2, pages 244-62, ISSN 1092-6690

• Zhao, Yuezhi, 2003 "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China", pp209-223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran, Rowman & Littlefield publishers,

• Richardson, James T. 1993Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative, , Review of Religious Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 pp. 348-356

• Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective. The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665-683

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.

Comments

This is a very good write-up. Very well sourced and examines the subject from a neutral perspective without resorting to the chronic wiki issue of "she said this but here's why she is wrong". With a few mechanical fixes I think it definitely belongs in the article once the edit protection is lifted. Good work, Maunus. Colipon+(Talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, Maunus. Let's get this into the article ASAP. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not bad, but a reference to the Edelman/Richardson article that we've discussed extensively is more than relevant for this kind of treatise. It is mentioned in the sources, but not made use of in the body text. Also, David Ownby's views should be mentioned here, as long as we choose which quote to use. Ownby says in the preface of his book Falun Gong and the Future of China: "The entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong and the effectiveness of the group's activities outside of China." (p. ix) Apparently he considers this issue so important that he advices his readers about it before they even start reading the rest of the book. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The edelman/richardson article was already in the bibliography I had just forgot to actually insert the citation. I have done that now. The quote by Ownby goes towards the proposed section's final statement about the label cult being used for political reasons. We can insert a citation there with no problem.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the citation you chose ("governments may be able to deny them the special privileges and legal protection that are normally offered to religious denominations") is way too mild to be truly representative of their views. It fails to mention the discourse that has been employed; it talks vaguely of "governments", while the article is specifically about the Chinese government; and it speaks of passive discrimination ("deny them the special privileges and legal protection") instead of active persecution. The summary of their article states: "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." [11] I doubt these would have been chosen as the final words of the entire article, if the authors didn't feel that they sum up their point better than anything else. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can follow that point.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the points about the American Anti-Cult movement's role in the Chinese Governments construction of a negative image of Falun Gong, belongs in the history section. It doesn't really add extra information about the differentt usages of the term as both the ACM and the Chinese gov's dfinitions of "cult" are already mentioned. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus. ACM's role of being used by Chinese gov't as a form of legitimacy certainly belongs in the history section, not here. This is a very thorough analysis of the cult issue. Inserting Richardson/Edelman in this context is awkward. Colipon+(Talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Where does it say that the Chinese government has exploited the discourse of the Western Anti-Cult Movement to justify violations of international law? That is the key point of the article and highly relevant in this context. The currently selected Edelman/Richardson quote can be replaced with a summary of their conclusions. Moreover, academic discussion of the 'cult' dispute should not be spread over several articles. One more thing: the word used in the study is not "classification"; it is "label". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Edelman and Richardson are very relevant for the "cult" question since they give the political rationale for avoiding the term. But the specific ways in which the government has used the cult label belongs in the history section because it is too important to be mentioned here. It is a significant part of the history of persecution against Falun Gong that the Chinese government has used the anti-cult rhetorics. But it doesn't directly concern the different meanings with which the term has been used which is what i write about here. Oh, and of course it should be spread over multiple articles - in fact it should be mentioned whjerever it is relevant. I suggest that this section appear in the Falun Gong article and that it has as its main article the article that is currently named academic views of Falun Gong or possibly a new article we could write called Falun Gong cult debate.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree; your draft is a good start, so let's return to this issue when the other sections are taking shape. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the section perhaps mention, in relation to China's treatment of Falun Gong, that the sanctions have been applied retroactively? To me, that's a serious breach of natural law (if that's the term), but it might get too wordy if we start including too much of China's specific actions into THIS section of the article. Oh, and Five stars! :) Edelman & Richardson in Journal of Church and State make some good points on the Chinese adoption of western cult definitions into their vocabulary of oppression, but looking at how Olaf already attempted to bring these arguments to light, I think it must be better to put such an exposition in the relevant subpage rather than on the main. Hm. I think I've said this a few times already. PerEdman (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Maunus, a good start; I can think of some obvious changes etc., and it seems to me there are some prominent academic views on the subject that are left out, but this is quite useful. Seems a good copy for the Reception of Falun Gong article.--Asdfg12345 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Colipon; this is a much more neutral treatment of the status of the FLG as a cult or non-cult. Good work.Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New Revision

I have gone bold and put this here: /New. :) Hope no one disagrees for easing the work. Colipon+(Talk) 23:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Interesting to see how organically the new skeleton gains shape and flesh. PerEdman (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Index for consensuss building: Agree, Disagree, Comments discussion points

I think that the threads that have Agree, Dissagree, Comments style entries are the most relevant to working toward consensus (personally I even feel that all other threads are redundant), so I think that these threads deserve to be tracked more closely. For this I created the following table. Feel free to update it and to add to it from all Falun Gong related pages and archives.

Section	Summary of topic's discussed	Outcome
Talk:Falun Gong#Your views please	Edelman/Richardson belongs in the "academic views" article Singer's credentials "Falun Gong is without a doubt controversial"	Ongoing
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group#People: Critics of Falun Gong	Should there be something similar to Category:Critics of religions or philosophies?	Needs input
Talk:Falun Gong#Mentioning the persecution in the lede?	Should persecution be mentioned in the lead?	Consensus, answer is Yes
Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China#Requested move	Should the page title be renamed to Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong?	Consensus, answer is No

Also perhaps this table might warrant a special place on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/Falun_Gong_work_group workspace, please suggest the best location for it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Colipon+(Talk) 05:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it'd be better if we put this at the top of the page? Colipon+(Talk) 07:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I even thought about making it a template, so then it can be included on more talk pages. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's bloody brilliant work regardless of what you choose to do with it. I'm certain it can be of use to many others. PerEdman (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A great job, Happy. It think it just requires one more column: "Outcome". For instance, we decided not to rename the Persecution article "Policies...", but this is not apparent anywhere. Also, it should read "topics", not "topic's". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. That's so obvious I hadn't noticed it was missing. Good find, Olaf! Of course the status field needs to mention what the consensus agreed on. :) PerEdman (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll rename the column Status into Outcome. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How to use non-neutral sources

In an article like this many of the sources that will be used are inherently non neutral. For example the sources published by Falun Gong itself. Or adversely the sources published by its detractors such as the Chinese state. However non-neutral sources can be used as long as they are used with the greatest care. It is a basic mistake to think that a reliable source is just a reliable source. Some sources are reliable for certain claims while they are unreliable for others.

I have been working with dispute resolution and maintaining neutrality at the articles about Jehovah's Witnesses which presents most of the same challenges that this article has - mostly partisan sources for example. In fact in my opinion there are only two completely neutral sources about Jehovah's Witnesses, both written by sociologists of religion. But even those have certain problems. The first was written nearly fourty years ago - obviously a lot of what can be said about JW has changed since. The other presents certain errors in its description of JW history which can be shown to be simple mistakes made because the writer is a sociologist not a historian. Obviously we did not discard those sources but instead use them for to source claims within their area of expertise, JW in the seventies and JW current sociology. Other, partisan, sources are publshed by the JW-society itself, clearly not neutral. But still they are useful when we want to make claims about JW's beliefs - since they are the one's who can actually express those beliefs precisely. Other Partisan sources are written by ex-JW's and should not be used to make claims that JW is such and such, but rather to show how and by whom they have been criticized and for what. Using partisan sources requires making it clear in the text that this view comes from a partisan source and which side. E.g. "Jehovah's Witnesses believe/claim/sustain" if the source is JW's own. Or "Ex-JW's have criticised/claimed/stated" if the source is ex-JW.

Now, what has this got to do with this article. Well, we have the same source problems, partisan sources form several camps and a few neutral sources (I count Ownby as such) that are not broad enough to be used to source every issue of Falun Gong activity. The solution in my opinion is the same. We can use Falun Gong's own publications to source the falun gong view. We can use the chinese state to source the chinese state view. and we can use Margaret Singer to source the Margaret Singer view. When I state that it is important to clarify to the reader that the Margaret Singer view is controversial this is because I think fewer readers will have sufficient background knowledge to realize that she is also writing from a partisan perspective and not from a neutral academic perspective unless we clarify that. Margaret Singer's view does not represent the views of the wider academical establishment within Psychology or Sociology of Religion (although there was a time when they probably did) and this should be clear to the reader.

I find it a bit odd to have a separate article about Academical views of Falun Gong - to me the main thing that is supposed to be an encyclopedia is the academical view, since to me the academical view is the one that is closest to be neutral, objective and decriptive. This is not always the case though, and Margaet Singer is an example of an academic that crossed from being a neutral observer into being a passionate partisan for a cause. We should never forget that in order to achieve neutrality we have to weigh and analyse sources to find out which statements they can support. And we should help the reader identify the sources so that she can also do such an evaluation for herself.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure; this seems like a reiteration of wikipedia policies? I mean, it's useful. I've suggested the Academic views page should be either be expunged, or changed to "Reception of Falun Gong."--Asdfg12345 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope it is in line with WP policies, but some editors seem to have an idea that a reliable source is a reliable source and anything it says is ok to put in an article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Actually, this has come up before. It's a subtle point, in some sense.One example: an anthropologist's investigation of Falun Gong is a reliable source to comment on his fieldwork with the practice; but he's not a reliable source to comment on the inner workings of the communist Party, which he may also include commentary on in his research. This has come up. It's good to point out. --Asdfg12345 16:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, I agree with you 100 %, and hope you will be able to take part in developing these articles in the long term. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Olaf. Maunus, please stay here for the long run! Colipon+(Talk) 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I intend to stick around and see how we can get a positive result out of this conflict. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also caution against characterizing Falun Gong as similar to JW for a very simple reason. JW is promotional about its own religious doctrine and is openly evangelical for religious reasons. Falun Gong, on the other hand, is involved in a head-on propaganda war against the Communist Party of China. In the "Nine Commentaries of the Communist Party" written and published by Falun Gong devotees FLG media outlet Epoch Times you will see that Falun Gong actually attempts to label the party a "cult" as well. Does this belong in the article? In addition, in direct response to a documentary published by CCTV (Chinese state media) about Li Hongzhi (李洪志其人其事) attempting to disparage Li's character, Falun Gong groups respond with an almost identical piece on Jiang Zemin (even with the identical title: 江泽民其人其事). Should this also be included in the article? What this says is that there is a back-and-forth exchange of attacks between the two - all of these see-saw attacks should be mentioned in the article, but only in their proper context. As the article lede already mentions, Falun Gong is extremely sensitive to 'outside criticism'. It seeks a 'right of reply' for any groups, people, or organizations that portray it in even a slightly negative light (see Quebec court decisions about "Falun Gong does not accept criticism"). This will make the article a farm for they-said-this-but-they-are-wrong scenarios. Colipon+(Talk) 17:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply any similarity between the two topics other than having the effect of attracting editors of their wikipedia articles with widely differing opinions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understood Maunus he seems to have experiences similar to the ones going on here. No likeness were made or interpreted between Falun Gong and Jehovas Witnesses as such by me. In my opinion, all Falun Gong-associated sources can be used in the manner suggested by Maunus above - to source the Falun Gong view. As long as all sources are properly labeled for what they are, the reader has a much better chance of getting a balanced view. PerEdman (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sources from Falun Gong related groups are to be used only to represent the view of Falun Gong, not to state a fact - this is often done on all Falun Gong related articles. Colipon+(Talk) 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Colipon, but it is a fact that they have that opinion, and that's what we should document. :) Verifiabiltiy, not truth. PerEdman (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I am only saying that in the future it is probably reasonable to avoid characterizing Falun Gong-affiliated media as "truth" and writing them into the article to be presented as "fact" (as in, Chinese government tortured FLG practitioners on June 6 and it was condemned globally [source:Epoch Times] is not a good way to cite a Falun Gong source). I am fully supportive of using Falun Gong-affiliated media as sources provided they are in the proper context. Colipon+(Talk) 05:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And the same for the CCP news service? PerEdman (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Same applies for People's Daily, Xinhua, CCTV etc. But CCP sources were completely eradicated from this article over the past two years anyhow so I didn't think that was even an issue. Colipon+(Talk) 20:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

About the word Cult

Reading the past discussions I have noticed that there has been some debate about whether and how the word "cult" should be introduced in the text. Here I will briefly give the rationale for my perspective on th word. The word basically has two usages: a specialised usage used mostly within the academic discipline of socilogy of religion and a laymans use. the problem is that these two usages are partially opposite and that using the word "cult" with out defining which of the two meanings is used may lead to serious misundertsandings. Within sociology of religion a cult is usually defined as a religious group that defines it self as something new rather than a return to somethng original, it also usually centers its beliefs around the individual rather than the collective and usually it does not have strict boundaries for membership nor do they make many demands of their followers, they are often centered around a charismatic leader, a cult in this sense is opposed to a sect which is authoritarian, maintains strict boundries between itself and the outside world and often defines itself as returning to some original truth. The sociological usage is purely neutral and describes a certain kind of socio-religious organization - falun Gong does fall rather well within the sociological definition of a cult, but we would need a good reliable source to mentio that in the text. In the laymans usage cult corresponds better to the sociological concept sect because it holds elements of authoritarianism such as brainwashing and members living in isolation from society. Another aspect of laymans usage is that it is purely negative and often used simply to label any minority religion that is disliked by the larger community. This means that if we are to use the word cult it must be made painstakingly clear to the reader which of the two definitions are used. And frankly I don't think the fact that someone has used the laymans definition to describe Falun Gong is notable - pretty much any new religion gets to be called a cult at some point by people who dislike it. Christianity was also once called a cult. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the key issues are: in what sense the word has been used to characterise Falun Gong? What discourse does it partake in? Can we find separate discourses on Falun Gong that use the label in different ways, or do they all subscribe to the same meaning? What do the reliable sources say on the subject? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus. Cult should be mentioned only if it is used in the proper context. It is a very sensitive word, and like Olaf says, has been used as a label for the persecution. This, however, is not enough to warrant for its non-inclusion altogether; it is also not an excuse to say that the cult label is only used in the context of the persecution, as though it is only the Chinese gov't has labeled Falun Gong as such. I think Maunus hit the issue dead on. Would you mind drafting a section based on what you just said? Colipon+(Talk) 16:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. We had a discussion about this the first time Margaret Singer was introduced into the article. Some wanted to specify what use of cult she intended, others wanted to leave it be. As you can see, that discussion never reached consensus. PerEdman (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of building a section tentatively titled "Cult?" to line out how the word cult has been used in relaton to Falun Gong. I will present it here when i feel it has reached a readable state.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. I look forward to it, particularily that you chose to build a new section rather than stitching something from pieces of the old. Bold. :) PerEdman (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have to say that the title is a great one, as it establishes the ambiguity regarding the matter up front. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Addition

I, too, am an uninvolved infrequent editor of Wikipedia articles and would agree that the entire article needs to be rewritten possibly with view froms both sides: pro-cult and pro-spiritual group sides. There also needs to be a mention of the unique promotional strategies that FG employs that I do not see in other organizations. Other than street-side demonstrations where they hand out pamphlets and videotapes emphasizing their prosecution, I have noticed that FG has been active in inserting themselves in parades around the world. They have been in Independence Day parades in various cities around the United States including the one in Washington, DC, and Philadelphia, PA. I have seen articles where they have been barred from parades due to their political nature.([12])([13]) There also many cases in which FG organizes cultural performances, but does not advertise their involvement.([14]) ([15])FG has also been active establishing College chapters. I also find it confusing when there is no mention of The Epoch Times as being set up by FG practitioners and that a great deal of pro-FG articles floating around the internet are from this paper.

What notability is there? / PerEdman 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their door-to-door solicitations, FG seems to promote their group through street side demonstrations and parade insertions. This is a unique PR strategy belonging to FG that deserves some mention. The only group that I have seen this from is Greenpeace or PETA and even then, they were never as organized as FG and did not have floats in parades that were nationally televised (e.g. D.C. Independence Day Parade). Theleike (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the contrary opinion, there does not seem to be any mention of the more wacky aspects of FG. There is no mention of homophobia and the negative sentiments towards interracial people promoted by the founder.([16]) There is no mention of how their founder thinks that earth is being gradually infiltrated by aliens and that he is the only one who sees them. ([17])There is also no mention of how the practitioners believe that they can fly, become invisible and walk through walls.([18]) There is also no mention of how, like Christian Scientists, FG practitioners believe that FG cures people of medical illness and natural ailments. ([19])

There are some articles at http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2346 that voice the pro-cult point of view that may be helpful in the overhaul of the article and http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong1.htm that also discuss contrary opinon. User:theleike (User talk:addition) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be very cautious about incorporating material from cult-watching groups. I would much prefer to stick to what is covered in academic sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult-watching groups cannot be considered "neutral". I would agree with Maunus here. Their statements and beliefs can only be presented as their view, and if warrants inclusion in the article, should be given only this treatment. It should not be presented as fact. Colipon+(Talk) 02:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "wacky" beliefs and some of the "wackier" statements by Li Hongzhi should be included if they can be sourced to academical sources (it should be possible).·Maunus·ƛ· 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, the statements and beliefs of such groups should be labeled as their views, but should not be immediately dismissed. They do have some valid points. The ideology of the group has been described as "an amalgam of spiritual doctrines to supplement the qigong practice, spiking it with a strong dose of apocalyptic millenarianism and supernaturalism." ([20]) I believe that this should be further investigated and not ignored as FG ideology should be further explained in an article about FG in addition to their brutal persecution.

theleike+(Talk) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I also think that some interviews with mainstream media (i.e. TIME) of Li's should be included, but given a neutral treatment. He did most of these interviews before his seclusion in suburban NYC. Colipon+(Talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The "wacky beliefs" could also be sourced with first-hand quotes from Falun Gong webpages, but unless they've been made notable there's no reason to list anything that might be considered "wacky", nor any reason to refrain or filter out "wacky" beliefs from more traditional ones. I for one believe that the section on Beliefs of Falun Gong could do with some further descriptions of what Li Hongzhi believes Falun Gong can help a human being achieve, presented in a neutral manner. PerEdman (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is material about the apparently "wacky" beliefs of Falun Gong on the Teachings of Falun Gong page.--Asdfg12345 16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you can't just start adding beliefs you yourself think is wacky, that'd probably be giving them undue attention. Nor would I recommend anyone to "go looking" for a source that says Falun Gong has wacky beliefs, because that could easily find you some fringe view authors. I am myself interested in knowing what HBT interest groups or the Anti-Defamation League has reacted to Li Hongzhi's opinion of mixed-ethnicity children (and marriages), but even if there are such reactions, that doesn't mean that these reactions are notable enough of mention in the FG article. PerEdman (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The material regarding the beliefs of the founder probably does not deserve mention in this article unless there is clear evidence that those beliefs are a part of the formal system. Both Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young apparently believed that they, as well as any number of other people, were linear descendants of the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. However, there has never been any official LDS church statement indicating that is a belief of the church itself, and it would thus not be relevant for inclusion in the article of the church. The same would doubtless hold for any particular beliefs of the founder of Falun Gong. And, considering there is no formal body to decide what is and is not doctrine of Falun Gong, I can't see how his mere saying of them would qualify for inclusion in this article. His own article would, of course, be another matter. Any particular statement about flight and similar "mind-over-matter" type powers, while some might call "silly", are probably simply examples of how the mind, soul, or whatever can be shown to have the ability to effect matter, and are I think generally regarding other groups first mentioned in that context. If that is also the case here, that would probably be the most reasonable way to include such content. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good division between founder and movement, I approve. If any "wacky beliefs" of the founder should be mentioned in the article, it would be those which may have been publicly misattributed to Falun Gong as a whole, if such exist. Notability should be the key, I think. PerEdman (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'm skeptical is that Li Hongzhi essentially embodies the Falun Gong doctrine by himself - this is made quite clear in his teachings. This is why comparing him to Joe Smith and B. Young is not necessarily appropriate. People should not go hunting for "wacky beliefs" and resort to sensationalism, but beliefs that have garnered enough media/academic attention is worthy of inclusion as per WP:NOTABILITY. Colipon+(Talk) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some legitimate debate as to whether or not teachings on homosexuality and interracial marriage deserve mention in the article. I would like to hear everyone's thoughts. My view is that "wacky beliefs" like the 20,000-old nuclear reactor in Africa is not worthy of inclusion. Colipon+(Talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Mormonism/Joseph Smith have similar stuff thrown at them, yet nothing about that in the main article about Mormonism. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the FG view on homosexuality, mixed ethnicities, even cancer treatments deserve mention as I find them reprehensible and offensive. But that's also exactly the reason why I should not participate in a decision to add them. I'm biased against those statements, they make me react emotionally and that doesn't make for a good article. (Colipon, you don't "believe" in the Oklo natural reactor?) PerEdman (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

that's why I brought up the Mormonism-example. they, too, have some pretty outrageous stuff, but it's only treated in a child-article. So in the interest of equal treatment, "wacky" stuff should be somewhere else. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the FG view on homosexuality, mixed ethnicities, even cancer treatments deserve mention as I find them reprehensible and offensive. Can't you see this as more ammunition for some editors to resort to ad hominem personal attacks? ;) Colipon+(Talk) 00:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If I should be attacked for something it should at least be something I believe in, rather than vague allusions. Let's leave that subject. PerEdman (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is legitimate reason to believe a link to the article, whatever it's called, about the "reception" or "criticism" of Falun Gong, should be linked to the main article, probably with some text in the form of a summary section. I would think that the summary section should include links to the points of criticism, good and bad, which are most relevant to the society in which Falun Gong, in its rather short existence, has existed, as well as those points which have received the most public attention. Flying, and beliefs of individual practicioners, do not deserve mention. Whatever points regarding Falun Gong, which are seemingly held by a significant percentage of the practicioners of Falun Gong, which have been most frequently or prominently discussed by the outside world should be included. My own guess in this regard would be to find some of the books regarding world religions in which Falun Gong is mentioned and see what aspects of Falun Gong are discussed there, and use them as the basis for determining what to include. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which we still haven't addressed the "Reception" and "Criticism" issue. Colipon+(Talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

True indeed. Seems like everyone's avoiding that for now. I have already given my statements, I could re-iterate them... Seb az86556 (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing on the project page[21]. PerEdman (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Joens

This book is actually available to subscribers at the Gale Virtual Reference Library here, for those who have access I guess. The book itself was published by Macmillan, but it's on the Gale Library. Go figure. Anyway, it contains some information which I don't find in the article yet, and which I assume should have to be mentioned at some point. Items in quotations are in fact quotations from that source. It should be noted that what follows is not intended to be taken as a complete review of the content of that article, although it is reasonable to expect that wherever possible and not otherwise contraindicated by subsequent reliable sources or not otherwise sourceable all the information could reasonably be included. Certainly, other information regarding the oppression of Falun Gong was included, but I am not sure whether previous discussion may have already decided to place that material in other articles, for instance. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Most Western scholars would describe it as a new religious movement - Personally I think this is information which should reasonably be included in the lede, considering this is written for, basically, Western readers.
• There is substantive information on Qigong, but that would probably be more appropriate to that article. It is noted that Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong became prominent in the "qigong boom".
• Falun Gong is described as being different for Li Hongzhi's condemnation of other qigong movements for "crass materialism", "in effect accusing them of fraud", and for those other movements having what is described as "an unhealthy obsession with healing and supernatural powers" which came "at the expense of the deeper spiritual orientation". Falun Gong itself could heal illness and confer supernatural powers, but its primary objective was to physically transform the body and one's understanding of the universe and one's role within it.
• Falun Gong emphasizes the writings of the master, as well as the "miraculous, godlike powers of Li Hongzhi", its master, in a way different from other qigong schools.
• Karma is presented in Falun Gong teachings as a black substance present in the body, which can be transformed by suffering and virtuous activity into a white substance. (The meanings of the colors is not expalined in the article, I'm afraid). This transformation occurs at the molecular level, and is part of the reason for the better health of practicioners.
• Li has said the world has been destroyed and re-created 81 times, and that there is evidence to indicate that another destruction/recreation cycle is imminent. This idea was not however stressed by Li until after the government's suppression of Falun Gong.
• Zhaun Falun "teems with references to spirit possession, the destruction and recreation of the world, extraterrestrial interference in the affairs of human kind, ... a host of references unlikely to please Chinese authorities", which is used as evidence that Li was not particularly worried about the response this work would receive.
• North American practicioners of Falun gong are generally highly educated and reasonably wealthy, partially because immigration laws tend to favor such individuals over others.
• Falun Gong was more of a threat than other Qigong movements to the government of China because of its "proposentity to react quickly and vigorously to perceived slights from the media". More than 300 incidents of such reactions have been reported by opponents of Falun Gong since 1996.
• Li is credited passim with the demonstration of April 29, 1999, and it is indicated he thought it might cause the Chinese government to back down.
• After this, in Li's addresses in North America and Europe, Li began to depict the suppression as part of a "final trial", and seemed to imply martyrs for the cause would receive instant "consummation" or enlightenment, completing their efforts.

Source citation:Ownby, David. "Falun Gong." Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 2978-2981. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale.

This looks like an excellent source. Incidentally I think that when writing the lead the summary of the "cult" section should definitely state that scholars prefer the "NRM" classification.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is a very good source and handles things from a rather neutral and insightful perspective. I also support the "NRM" characterization. Colipon+(Talk) 04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are these direct quotes from the source, or summaries of the points it makes?--Asdfg12345 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The material in quotation marks are direct quotes, the rest is basically more of a paraphrase of the points raised rather than a summary. The print version should be fairly easily available, and several academic libraries seem to have an electronic version accessible through their catalog. By the way, it also includes its own reference list, if anyone wants to see if there is additional information the author of the article left out. Those references are:

• Despeux, Catherine. "Le Qigong: Une expression de la modernité chinoise." In En suivant la voie royale: Mélanges offerts en hommage à Léon Vandermeersch, edited by Jacques Gernet and Marc Kalinowski, pp. 267–281. Paris, 1997.
• Li Hongzhi. Falun Gong, rev. ed. (English version). Hong Kong, 1998. Originally published as China Falun Gong in 1993. Available from http://www.falundafa.org/eng/books.htm .
• Li Hongzhi. Zhuan Falun. 2d ed. Hong Kong, 1998. Original Chinese edition published in 1995. Available from http://www.falundafa.org/eng/books.htm .
• Madsen, Richard. "Understanding Falun Gong." Current History 99 (2000): 243–247.
• Nova Religio 6, no. 2 (2003). An entire issue devoted to Falun Gong.
• Ownby, David. "A History for Falun Gong: Popular Religion and the Chinese State since the Ming Dynasty." Nova Religio 6, no. 2 (2003): 223–243.
• Palmer, David. "The Doctrine of Li Hongzhi." China Perspectives 35 (2001): 14–23.
• Penny, Benjamin. "Falun Gong, Prophesy, and Apocalypse." East Asian History 23 (2002): 149–168.
• Tong, James. "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing." China Quarterly 171 (2002): 636–660.
• Vermander, Benoît. "Looking at China Through the Mirror of Falun Gong." China Perspectives 35 (2001): 4–13.
• Wong, John. The Mystery of Falun Gong: Its Rise and Fall in China. EAI Background Brief, no. 39. Singapore, 1999.
• Zhu Xiaoyang and Benjamin Penny, eds. "The Qigong Boom." Chinese Sociology and Anthropology 27, no. 1 (1994).
• John Carter (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, appreciate the efforts.--Asdfg12345 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"theological"?

I have read the quote/foonote, but to me, it does seem somewhat misleading to use the word "theological". Strictly speaking theology implies that followers believe in a God/deity (θεός/"theos"), which is what I think most people would understand. I find nothing of that in the article. How reliable is this quote? (ABC?) Seb az86556 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got a point. I note there isn't a Buddhist theology article either, and, maybe?, that Buddhist cosmology might be the effective equivalent. Maybe in matters relating to Falun Gong "cosmology" would be a more neutral word to use. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support either and defer to the majority or consensus. / PerEdman 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I still have trouble following the dispute(s) here, but I see multiple quotes about "theology" in some version of the article. One qualifies it as "apparently theological", whatever that means. Another describes certain doctrines in a little more detail and says he would call them theology, but does not insist on the term. The part about calling Falun Gong a religion seems more important to his point and also of course more justifiable. As to Seb's question, I only know that an offhand mention of theology does not help me to evaluate the source. Dan (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Turns out falundafa.org has a translation of a lecture by their founder that includes this: Also, there are many gods from high-level dimensions who have fled down here to avoid Fa-rectification, and there are many gods in various dimensions inside the Three Realms who don’t know about matters that are higher than their realms, and so they too are in delusion to some degree. But their behavior toward human beings is relatively benevolent. That sounds like theology. I agree that it sounds more Buddhist than Christian, in the sense that theology or doctrine about gods appears secondary to the system as a whole. Dan (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That quote seems better than the ones we have right now. "Theoistic" worldview can at least be implied. thanks. I'll add it to the repository. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The question, I guess, is about the relative importance of the gods, and thus "theology", to the group. Based on the quote above, I have to assume that they aren't considered particularly important, and so a word like "theology", which seems to stress them, is probably inappropriate. The Jains believe in the existence of gods as well, but they don't consider them particularly important to their belief system. I note that Jainism uses the word "cosmology", like in Jain cosmology, as well. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Jain comparison appears prudent. I am leaning towards John Carter's arguments here. / PerEdman 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

john Carter's idea seems wise.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Final decision on "Criticism of Falun Gong"

The attempt to take the question of what title should be used for the current Academic views on Falun Gong page to a noticeboard[22] has resulted in no new input and no new editors commenting on the issue. I want a reboot, I won't accept that discussions just stall or are abandoned without a decision. Keep arguments short, to the point. If you want, vote on these alternatives. If not, write Comments, kept short. / PerEdman 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Leave the name "Academic views on Falun Gong".
2. Rename the article "Academic attention on Falun Gong".
3. Rename the article "Reception of Falun Gong".
4. Rename the article "Critique of Falun Gong".
5. Rename the article "Criticism of Falun Gong".

Opinion

• I think Reception of Falun Gong is the best of the ideas voiced. Maybe a title like Falun Gong public debate or Public debate about Falun gong might be even better.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly strongly strongly agree with Maunus. He is clearly a wise person.--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I choose 5. as it is the defacto standard for articles of this type, there are 72 of them already. There are some 3 and 4, but 1 and 2 are unheard of. Criticism can be positive and negative and the article itself will make clear all notable criticism, positive, negative and whatever. / PerEdman 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 is the choice most in keeping with existing standards. An RfC might be possible, if one wanted to go that path, but I have very serious difficulty in seeing how, based on the rather weak reasons for opposing the most standard option available, anyone coming in to comment from outside would choose any other option. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) -
• 5 is the choice that matches with existing religious pages. I strongly support choosing option 5.Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 is the best choice here. It is the standard for religious pages, as Simon said. I support option 5.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5, as per above. Colipon+(Talk) 17:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 I fear that when the actual article becomes editable again, this title will encourage partisan edits but of course, that is what the ban hammer is for.Theleike (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 in line with similar articles for other religions. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

There is little discussion here. The clear choice would be to choose Reception because it is obviously the best!--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to what logic?Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it not obvious?--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No.Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointedly avoided putting in any "Other" category because this discussion and these articles have taken too much of a beating, too many sidetrackings, too many metadiscussions for any more brand new branches to be added. Please choose an option that most closely agrees with you. If you cannot be courteous enough to do that, please avoid involving yourself in what is already a very unstable discussion. This article is on probation for good reason, and has been for a good long while. Please help. / PerEdman 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By not putting in an "other" category you obtain the effect that only your personal suggestions are viable options. I am not going to conform to that - if there are better suggestions anyone is free to make them and to argue for them. That is not a matter of courtesy. I don't think you are helping the debate by restricting the number of possible solutions to the ones that happen to have occurred to you. I also don't think the argument used by several editors about making the title conform to those of other similar articles is tenable - because other articles do it that way that does not mean that this article has to, or that those other articles did the right thing in the first place.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

These are not my suggestions. My suggestion is number 5. That other pages do it this way is one reason for this article to do it as well, as it would follow the expected standard, it would become easier to find for someone searching for it, and would contain content one expects to find in such an article. Aside from that, I also believe "criticism" is the exact term for the content it holds. I do not believe "public debate" is appropriate as it excludes mass media that do not feature debate. What are your arguments in favor of your suggestions? / PerEdman 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put my own suggestions in my statement of opinion. I don't think criticism is good because it gives ideas of a POV-fork, and because I don't think it is true that criticism can be positive. Criticism can be cosntructive - but its still not positive, criticism is nearly always understood as the expression negative opinions about something - we don't want an article containing all the negative viewpoints on Falun Gong - we want all the relevant negative perspectives to be in the main article. If there are to many relavant opinions to fit in the main article we can make a spinout article with the same name as the section that also includes only relevant opinions disregarding whether they favour or criticize Falun Gong. Public Debate does not exclude those media that doesn't debate - a public debate to me is understood to go across media and platforms and simply involved the public voicing of opinions and counteropinions in any form. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether criticism can be positive is a matter of fact rather than opinion. Whether criticism is constructive is a matter of presentation together with suggestions, not whether the central criticism is perceived as positive or negative. If the criticism is valid I would say it is always positive, though you might not feel it at the time. But this is not the place to expound on the meaning of positive and negative, or even criticism. Where you use "debate" above, I would use "discourse" as it includes more forms of communication (but not in this article). The article will not be exclusively given to those opinions that have counteropinions - the existence of both being a requirement of a debate - but also to spontaneous reactions that have resulted in little feedback. / PerEdman 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Maunus here. Although I would be open to "Public debate on Falun Gong", "Criticism" is basically the standard for all religion-based articles. So in order to establish that Criticism is not a viable option, an editor should be able to prove how Falun Gong is so unique to all these other 72 articles to not have a criticism article of its own. If this means a "negative POV fork" then there is certainly a problem with all 72 wikipedia articles with that title - but those articles seem to be doing fine as it is, even Criticism of Christianity, and especially Criticism of Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The normally negative connotations of "criticism" is not a matter of "fact" it is a matter of usage - and the usage of the word is ovewhelmingly about expressing negative opinions about something. And there is a problem with those 72 articles - the same problem that lead to deletion of the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article. Relevant criticism belongs in the main article not in separate articles. I would agree with "falun gong in public discourse" as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are aware of the fact thatm depending on usage, criticism can indeed be positive. Do you believe there is a specific and meaningful risk that the usage of the word criticism in the title will lead readers to assume that the contents of the article cannot be positive?

As a long term goal I agree with you and Jimbo Wales in the Criticism essay) that a really good text integrates criticism naturally into each section where relevant, but I do not believe we can reach consensus on that at this time. It is a suitable goal for FA-level, and we're not even near that now. Baby steps. / PerEdman 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why long term and short term goals should differ in this case. You seem to dismiss out of hand the possibility that we can make Falun Gong live up to the policy expectations of an NPOV article. That's sad in my opinion. I am sure we can make this article portray both the relevant negative and positive views on Falun Gong in a neutral, detached manner and that we can do this through the process of consensus making. A good start in working towards this goal would be for editors here to take a stand and demand that criticism be integrated into the article and that any spinoff articles function merely as repositories for excess material (that is material that is too detailed to be in the main article) - both negative and positive.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and I am jaded by the article's history thus far. I'd like to believe that we can make the article FA status right away, but I don't. I also do not believe that using the title "Criticism against Falun Gong" in any way breaks the policy expectations of an NPOV article, as I do not believe that "Criticism" is inherently negative or positive. What others may interpret cannot always be accounted for. I AM however sure that relevant positive and negative criticism can be gathered, today, under the title of "Criticism against Falun Gong". For now, it would give a breather's pause to not have it inside the main article. Baby steps again. / PerEdman 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that by insisting on baby steps in the wrong direction we are laying out snares for ourselves that we will not realize untill later. The reason I stand against the word "criticism" is that I feel that it might well be a roadblock towards integrating into the constuction of consensus those users who feel that other editors are too bent on "criticising" the falun gong movement. I believe that if we were to choose a more neutral sounding title working with those editors might prove easier.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not enough of a reason to not have a "Criticism" page though - the reason for having a "Criticism" page is not so we can criticize Falun Gong, it's so we can talk about people and groups who have criticized Falun Gong from an objective light - and contrary to what some users suggest, criticism of Falun Gong is not only from the "fringe". Besides which, as far as I can tell no one here is bent on "criticizing Falun Gong" - people here are trying to rescue the articles from the dreadful Falun Gong promotion that they used to be; but that is a meta-discussion that I would rather not delve into right now seeing how much these articles have improved over the past month. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that these baby steps are "in the wrong direction". "Criticism" is the standard and there is both a section in the main article and a separate article dealing with such criticism. Building that content up to a healthy standard under the name that would be expected by an outside reader will still work towards the "right direction" of encompassing all forms of criticism be it public or private, academic or newsworthy, political or religious. Choosing another name, now that would be a step towards obscuring the article from casual readers, which would be in the "wrong direction". / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the possibility of reaching a compromise is always a good reason to kill one's darlings. Especially when there is no compelling reason to let them live. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the compromise? (Or was that just sarcasm?) I am getting confused.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise is not necessarily a middle ground and it is not necessarily an action one takes in every single topic. It is accepting what one does not believe to be the perfect solution now, to include more people in the process. Such as, say, renaming the page "Criticism" and building its content neutrally, towards the real, future goal of a Featured Article where the content from the "Criticism" article and section will be spread evenly and relevantly throughout the article. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't use sarcasm. A compromise would be a solution of the naming dispute that is acceptable to all editors. My suggestion of naming the article "Falun Gong in public discourse" was an attempt to suggest a road towards compromise. However at this point the editors whom I believe will be critical (in the negative sense) of naming the article "Criticism of Falun Gong" are not participating in the debate and so it makes it appear that there is no need for a compromise. I may be wrong and maybe every editor finds the ccriticism title to be the best - in which case I will of course kill my own darling and conform. But I would like to note that it was the premature assumption of consensus that created the editwar that lead to the page currently being protected.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. Only those who participate can be accounted for, and of those, only those who argue their point can be weighed into the decision. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: more arguments in favour of naming the article "reception" can be found in the here where it is also suggested that "criticism" is indeed usually thought of as negative views and that sections combining negative with positive views are suually called reception. It also states that "reception" has been suggested to be the future standard of this kind of section for all major WP articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That part of the WP:CRITS essay deals with section headings rather than article titles. The essay's expressed opinion on the word "criticism" and its usage as article titles is being discussed above. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

it also sattes that: "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky"."·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your views. I do wish to make note of the fact, however, that this is the third time these arguments have surfaced and it is a little tiresome presenting the same material over and over again. I will have to refer you to discussions over at WP:FLG, and then after that at WP:NPOV/N. Colipon+(Talk) 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That fork has already taken place. We are now discussing the title of that fork. I repeat that for the long term, my goal is to integrate the content of the fork into the main article. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they keep resurfacing could point to an underlying problem that may not be fixed by simply doing like we have done the previosu times, could it not?

Fair enough, but I honestly still don't see why Falun Gong is so unique it needs to be differentiated from 72 other articles. Colipon+(Talk) 18:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with differentiating it from those - it is choosing the best, least POV suggestive name for this article. The names of the other 72 articles are irrelevant in my opinion. I don't think there is any reason that the mistakes made at those pages shpould be repeated here if we can avoid it. I appear to be outnumbered here and of course we can have a good article with the title "Criticism of Falun Gong" - but I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

How is following an expected standard irrelevant? We cannot always account for suggestion or possible bias. / PerEdman 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[Reply to Maunus above]: We should be absolutely clear what we're dealing with here. The original article name was "Criticism and controversies of Falun Gong". Then the article was moved to "Third Party views of Falun Gong", without much discussion and under dubious reasoning, by Olaf. Then it was moved again to "Reception of Falun Gong". And now we are proposing to move the article back to where it originally was, while omitting the word "Controversies". Colipon+(Talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what influence the history of moves would have on my arguments?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been quite interesting to follow. I support any of the non-POV names, such as Representations of Falun Gong, Falun Gong in Public Discourse, Public Discourse on Falun Gong, Discourses Surrounding Falun Gong, etc., but most of all Reception of Falun Gong. Maunus has no axe to grind and his opinions have been heeded before. "Criticism of..." is a POV magnet and runs the risk of looking like a POV-fork, and it tries to pretend that "criticism" doesn't mean negative commentary, when it obviously does; other religious articles so-titled are mostly POV-forks of negative commentary (judging by the few I looked at). These arguments were all raised. The latter option of "Reception of Falun Gong" is recommended by the essay on criticism, it's clearly neutral, and it clearly defines the scope and content of the article. It does not, inadvertently or otherwise, project a point of view as to the content of the article, and this is the most important point.--Asdfg12345 05:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Manus: "The history of moves does not matter." Fair enough. Let's just move it, without any consensus, and then claim that the history is irrelevant. That's what happened, is happening, what should be happening again. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is irrelevant in how many locations it has been - what is important is that it becomes located at the best title for which we can reach consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There won't be consensus, ever. At least not if you define consensus as unanimous which has apparently become the assumption for this discussion. That's why I have stayed away and only followed it from a distance. If your goal is unanimous consensus, you can give up. It's not going to happen. At some point you will have to realize that some people here need to be flat-out ignored, not in the sense of not listening to what they want to say, but in the sense of not incorporating their views into a final decision. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If that is your view then I see no point in trying to work on this page. If you have already decided that some editors' opinions are not worthy of inclusion then you are the problem for achieving consensus not them. I can't be bothered to try to help out here unless everybody starts assuming good faith from everyone else and listening to arguments instead of just creating and widening divisions. I have better things to do with my time then.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong. :) To have consensus is not the same as being unanimous, so we can continue working on the page, but not if our goal is to please everyone. That is impossible. And some editors opinions, just as the opinions of some sources, are indeed not worthy of inclusion. It is for example not enough to just say no to a suggestion, as the process is not democratic, either. WP:What is consensus / PerEdman 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not said that consensus needs to be unanimous. But I have said that if someone decides out of hand that certain editors opinions invalidate their arguments, with out need to consider them then there will never be consensus. I happen to think that we can come very close to a unanimous consensus on most of the content of the article - this is a belief that has been reinforced by seeing asfdg and olafs sensible approach to discussion. There is a difference between stating that some editors should be ignored (which is how I understand what Seb Az86656 is saying) and saying that any opinion that is not well argued or in line with WP:Policy should be ignored. The second is the correct way to achieve a consensus, by evaluating arguments - not editors. The first way only leads to further polarization and animosity.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus already exists, and it is in fact official policy for articles on wikipidia: neutral point of view. That is one of the main tenants we are to uphold. That is the basis for all our endeavors. That is the life-blood which sustains wikipedia.

A neutral point of view, first and foremost, entails equal treatment for everybody. Throughout history and into the present, there have always been groups who claimed special status and different treatment for themselves, asserting that only they are not as all the others, and that therefore they and only they must be given consideration for their rightful place, a special vocabulary, different titles, as well as immunity from certain views or discussions. The Israelites claimed to be special ("עור לגואים"). The Nazis claimed to be special ("Herrenrasse"). Scientology claims to be special. Those who favored segregation claimed to be special. Henrik Verwoerd, prime minister of South Africa, introduced apartheid and called it "good neighbourliness" for special people.

Only one groundbreaking decision by the Supreme Court of the United States stands out: There cannot be "separate but equal." If anyone wants to launch a discussion on the general merit of having articles with the title "criticism of..." for religious denominations, I am willing to join that discussion as it would definitely be an interesting one to have. As it stands, the word is used throughout wikipedia; singling out any one group for special consideration would be as absurd as separate but equal, and would support those who claim the throne of enlightenment for themselves.

This cannot be. It cannot be that those who support the neutral point of view policy are suddenly "the problem." It cannot be that those who adhere to our mutual pledge and agreement are "the obstacle." It cannot be that a consensus will override that neutral point of view. It is even policy that consensus cannot change policies. That is why I say that those who favor a breach of policies must be ignored. Those who claim that "their" group deserves a special status must be ignored. The neutral point of view must be upheld. That is what we are here for. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly that neutrality requires that all topics be treated equal. The fact that you stoop to using analogies with apartheid and Nazism are simply saddening. I also disagree very strongly with the notion that users with certain viewpoints have to be ignored. I am not going to attempt to work on this topic if this is the prevailing attitude of the selfproclaimed neutral editors. With this uncompromising attitude you will be repeating the same disputes over and over for eternity, I am not going to be part of that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way. However the concensus here leans strongly in the direction of suggesting that the FLG should be treated the same as other religious groups. If rhetoric occasionally becomes inflamed it is in part because of the obstacles we have reached in achieving this goal because of the actions of devoted pro-FLG editors. No strong and cohesive argument has been put forward for why the FLG should get special treatment.Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:OTHERSTUFF is a pretty cohesive argument that malpractice in other areas of wikipedia is no argument for doing the same in other articles. It is simply not about special treatment and continuing to claim this is a huge red herring. If anything EVERY topic deserves special treatment - we can't just make a template for religions and make them all fit. Go ahead and work with your one-sided "consensus" wikipedia will be losing for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If the goal is to brand defenders of the neutral point of view as "self-proclaimed" then people like Simonm223 and myself will have to leave. My comparisons were absolutely accurate with respect to the point I was making. Therefore: Do you want me to leave? Yes or no? Seb az86556 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not want you to leave. But if you are unable to realize that every view point is valid and that it is possible to collaborate with any goodfaith editor no matter what their view point is then I am going to leave. There is no such thing as neutrality - we all have biases, the trick we are trying to accomplish is to make the article not reflect those biases. This cannot be accomplished by ignoring those who have a bias that we do not share. My bias is in the sociology of religion, for example but that doesn't mean that I think people looking at religion from another viewpoint, say the AntiCultMovement viewpoint should be ignored. Their views should also be included, with sources and their viewpoints should be described as coming from that particular camp and assigned weight according to notability. it really is that simple - but it requires a will to cooperate form all parts.

Every viewpoint cannot be valid, logically, but also specifically in Wikipedia. A viewpoint may very well be "valid" by a completely different standard, but if the viewpoint is used as an argument towards putting something on or taking something off Wikipedia, then the viewpoint also needs to be valid within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That the viewpoint has merit outside of that framework may be true or not, but is hardly relevant here. / PerEdman 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My point exactly. This discussion is not about the content of the article, where there is ample space to consider all possible sides and gives extensive coverage to different views. This discussion is about the title. There can only be one title. And as such, there is only one point of view that warrants consideration: the neutral one. Everything else is irrelevant.

(As a side, I do not wish to be put into any camp, or given any label. Feel free to do that for yourself, Maunus, but do not tell me what I think or what my beliefs are.) Seb az86556 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the "selfproclaimed" comment was in esponse to you referring to yourself and simon as "neutral editors"·Maunus·ƛ· 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it safe to assume that was a poor phrasing of the fact that they are third-party, uninvolved, neither for or against Falun Gong, the PRC or anything else. Against the backdrop of rather recent insinuations and ad hominem attacks on these talk pages, it may seem funny that anyone would need to call themselves neutral, but you'd have to understand it within the context of the climate that has existed. (Well, you don't have to but I'd believe it wise to avoid upsetting anyone unnecessarily.) / PerEdman 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman has, as usual, hit the nail straight on the head. The truth is that I don't particularly like any religion that much. But that being said I also don't like capitalist-authoritarian single-party governments like that of China very much either. I am not invested in bringing the FLG nor am I in propping it up. I approached this actually because another editor brought it up on one of the message boards I frequent and when I first came to the FLG pages they were a total mess. I have simply been trying to make neutral articles. This is why, you will find, that when edits have been made that reinforce neutrality, even when they are edits that deleted material I put in, I have been happy to let them stand. So yes, I proclaim myself neutral. Because, at the end of the day, I'll be happy when I don't see FLG all over my watchlist every day and I can get to some of the real crazy fringe stuff that is still on other sections of Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do't subscribe to that brand of logics. Every viewpoint is equally valid - because we all have one and there is no way to objectively choose one over the other. But when I say viewpoint I am talking about editors inherent biases - which are not supposed to go in the article. To say that an editor is disqualified from contributing because of his viewpoint is not objective, not in-line with policy and does not contribute to building articles. In the context of wikipedia however, arguments are not equally valid, because we have policies that arguments must conform to. This is why it is possible to objecively choose what goes in an article and what doesn't - and how. What I mean is that editors are not disqualified by their viewpoints - because we do not discuss editors - we discuss arguments. If arguments don't conform to policy we can disqualify those arguments - but that doesn't mean the editor proposing the argument is disqualified form putting forth other arguments. I am reacting here to the notion that some editors are inherently neutral and others are inherently partisan. That is a view that leads nowhere. Judge arguments, don't judge editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I had gathered that you are not an adherent of logic. Sadly this means that your arguments - building as they do on causality - become contradictory and cannot be taken seriously. To put it in another way: Your arguments do not conform to the "policy" of causality. Just as there is a framework for wikipedia, so there is a framework for human communication. That it cannot be subjectively determined if objectivity can be achieved doesn't enter into it.

I think you have made a mistake in this notion you are reacting to. Does that notion really exist outside yourself, or are you just warning others of an artefact of your own interpretation? / PerEdman 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard many statements in these pages trying to differentiate between "us neutral editors" and "those pro_FLG editors". So no it is not an artefact. What I said about logics means that I don't believe that all viewpoints cannot be valid - because viewpoints are not governed by logics and no one here has better claims to absolute objective truth than anyone else. If you find my arguments selfcontradictory please point out how so that I can explain.

All viewpoints cannot be valid as viewpoints can be contradictory whose equal validity would lead to paradoxes which cannot exist under a logical system. But the existence of the word "neutral" on these pages has nothing to do with poststructuralist philosophy, it is a reaction to more or less blatant promotion and non-NPOV editing that has gone on. Outside editors were invited and they were called "neutral". It has nothing to do with believing oneself to be perfectly objective, it is a term used in contrast to previous partisanship and conflict on these pages. / PerEdman 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. So let me replace the word then: "certain arguments must be ignored." Seb az86556 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Manus: If your argument is that criticism of... articles are malfeasance (as this is the main "template" related issue at the moment) than that would be an interesting discussion. But the Falun Gong article talk page isn't the best place for it. The FLG should be held to the same standards as other religions. This, of course, applies to titling conventions and other template matters. It also, however, has large amounts to do with the extent to which PoV material is allowed into the articles and what costitutes a reliable source.

Again returning to the Organ Harvesting issue, there is a significant issue with the K&M report on which nearly the whole aricle is based. Experts on the FLG, such as David Ownby have said that the K&M report provides no evidence of organ harvesting specifically targeting the FLG. David Kilgour and David Ownby are not experts in China, Chinese Law or the ins-and-outs of organ donation in China.

The other major source in the article is the Epoch Times, a newspaper OWNED by the FLG which is the original source of the allegations.

A report came out from the PRC which actively disproves the K&M allegations. The FLG fought hard (and IIRC successfully) to have the PRC video report removed, claiming it was not an RS. And yet they fight equally hard to have the Epoch Times and the K&M report considered to be RS despite the fact that they have just as clear a bias as the Pro-PRC material.Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Using biased sources is not a problem as long as the source is identified with its bias and all relevant views are included weighed according to notability. Of coursw the PRC response to the allegations must be included in the article anything else would be unthinkable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy that suggests that because x number articles follow y naming convention every other article about similar topics must do it as well. The agument for conformity has not basis in any wikipedia policy. The decision of what names Falun Gong related articles should have is made by consensus at those Falun gong related articles, not at any other articles. other than actual policy decisions taken in other areas of wikipedia may have a guiding function but nothing more. I of course agree that if the scientific consensus is that Falun Gong is not specifically targeted by organ harvesting then the article should state that, but this is not the present point. The present point is whether to name the section and article about the views of Falun Gong expressed in the public discourse should be called "criticism", "reception" or something else. WP:CRITICISM makes strong arguments in favour of either integrating negative and positive views into the general treatment of the topic or in case of the consensus deciding to isolate those views in a specific subsection to call that section "reception" or something similarly neutral that oes not give emphasis to negative views. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy saying that editors shouldn't edit wikipedia articles drunk. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to edit drunk.

In an encyclopedia, in any written work, internal consistency is a very good idea With regard to "Criticism of Falun Gong" it is that internal consistency I am pursuing. Furthermore FLG should not be treated differently from other religions.Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have adressed both of those points several times now. Consistency cannot be used as an argument that "criticism" is a preferable name. And it is not treating FLG ~"differently" either. For all wikipedia topics that are not directly covered by the naming policy discussion of which name is preferable is done locally. What other articles decide is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a standard encyclopedia and the advantage of having consistency in entries doesn't apply - anyway consistiency should only be applied when there is a conscious decision to impose consistency -in this case it is just mindlessly following the practice of others. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Consistency can be used and has been used and is a relevant argument that Criticism is a preferable name, if there is to be a separate article. It is the same reason building floors should be numbered in sequence, regardless of what that sequence is. Usability. That still applies. Nothing "mindless" about that conscious consideration of best practices and their results. / PerEdman 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You should assume "mindfulness" by everyone. I don't think any of us could sustain these long discussions mindlessly. See your own comments above ;) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that was a bad word choice, I am sorry for that. Fact is however that no one has made any arguments about why we should follow the practice of "criticism of x" other than because 72 other articles do it. It may not be mindless but it is short of a rationale.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this actively sidesteps the discussion about the merits of the name, which is what the discussion should actually be about. --Asdfg12345 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As a writer and an educator internally inconsistent documents irk me personally. It is untidy and unprofessional. Although wikipedia is a hobby and not a profession I still think we should strive to a level of professionality in our structure and policies. Regardless I do not believe that any adequate justification has been provided for not using criticism. And in the absence of a valid reason not to treat the article this way the move to structural consistency becomes a perfectly valid one.Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to address Seb: Colipon points out above that Olaf's moving the article met with no discussion at the time. That isn't the same as moving the page without consensus; since it was undisputed, there was no "consensus" to achieve.--Asdfg12345 05:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Metadiscussion and history of topic

·Maunus·ƛ·, Stop. Fine. Insert your own suggestions, I can't even stop you. I hoped this could be a focused discussion on the suggestions given thus far. If this issue could possibly reach a consensus through lengthy metadiscussion, it would have been resolved months ago. PS: If you do insert your options, could you at least do so at the end of the numbered list? / PerEdman 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiEttiquette

Never before, in my entire time on wikipedia have I EVER seen somebody go into a talk page and delete opinions that disagreed with their own over an issue being discussed in the manner I saw today. I ask that FalunGongDisciple cease and desist with such actions immediately.Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest ban from topic matter, supported by ArbCom probation. I believe they can be invoked directly by a present administrator. / PerEdman 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

John Carter has been bold and effectuated an indefinite block on FalunGongDisciple.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)