Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

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."[1] 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." [1]"
  • 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)

Your views please

Please use Agree, Disagree, Question/Comment style so it is clear to assess the result after the discussion is done. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you agree that Edelman/Richardson belongs in the "academic views" article, not here?

Comment: I believe the question is if the paper in Journal and Church and State should at all be mentioned in the main article, or only - in any part - in the "academic views" article. 11:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC) PerEdman (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. My opinion is similar to Maunus'. If she is quoted, just point out she is a controversial figure on the topic.
  • Agree. Reason: The Edelman/Richardson analysis is a riveting read in a notable journal, but Olaf and I both found it rather difficult to get a "sound bite", representative quote or describe in short. It is better to give the paper the attention it deserves on the "Academic views" page rather than try to compress it into the main article. PerEdman (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment I believe ·Maunus·ƛ· and the later unsigned comment above were misplaced? PerEdman (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No they were placed right. If there is no need for discussing Singer's credentials at length then there is also no need for Edelman/richardson.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The question 1. is "Do you agree that Edelman/Richardson belongs in the "academic views" article, not here?", question 2. is "Do you agree that Margaret Singer's credentials having been questioned belongs at the Margaret Singer's article, not the Falun Gong article?" and the comment was "I don't believe it is necessary to write at length about Singer's credentials but merely note that she is a controversial figure in psychology and sociology of religion." That does not follow. Can you clarify why you believe your comment is more relevant to 1. than to 2.? PerEdman (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I don't begin my comments by "agree/disagree" that is because I think the questions are leading and I am not going to answer them as such. I give my opinion o the issue instead. Since my opinion as stated below is that we do not need in this article a long discussion of Singer's credentials then it follows that we also do not need Edelman/Richardson in this article. Whether they be used in a nother article is not my concern.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I have merely noticed that I do not understand what your comments have to do with the questions asked. If it were a leading question, you could tell me how that is. Your behavior confused me, nothing else. Thank you for clarifying. PerEdman (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wherever the 'cult' allegations are discussed, that's where the quote belongs. By agreeing on its placement you are simultaneously agreeing on where to discuss these issues. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment the last statement above jumps to conclusions not justified by the content itself. I can see how saying that the government uses ACM techniques is worth mentioning in the article. It would also certainly be reasonable to describe or at least mention the specific tactics used if it can be sourced that the government uses them specifically. To however attempt to say anything like "The ACM is discredited in the US", "China uses ACM tactics", therefore "China is discredited," or anything along those lines, is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, agree with John Carter that the allegations by Edelman & Richardson that the CCP uses "ACM" techniques (and terminology) can be notable in this article (regardless of whether Singer is mentioned, and vice versa). PerEdman (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've read through the "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" by Edelman/Richardson as as the title of the article implies it mostly deals with the aggressive reaction of the PRC to "potential threats to its authority." The article attacks the Western ACM as being biased as it is full of theologians of larger established religions and that the ACM's research is not based on empirical data or accepted convention. The reference to the latter point references an introduction to a book elsewhere ([8]). This intro states that brain washing/mind control evidence against cultists, which the ACM uses as one of the defining qualities of cults, should be inadmissible in court as "it fails important required tests for expert evidence, including its lack of falsifiability ("or "testability"), difficulties in ascertaining a "error rate" when designating individuals as brain-washed or not, and also a failure to meet usual requirements of general acceptance in relevant fields of inquiry." He never specifically names anyone, but does name the group and the unscientific rationale behind that group and anti-cultists in general. Thus, to include them in this article after introducing Singer's point of view would only immediately discredit and dismiss the opposition and their views resulting in a stifling discussion. Theleike (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is already a {{main}} tag to the section. both Singer and Edelman paragraphs should be in précis form and not unnecessarily pollute the article, provided the detail is contained within the main article in a balanced manner. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Do you agree that Margaret Singer's credentials having been questioned belongs at the Margaret Singer's article, not the Falun Gong article?

  • I agree. Colipon+(Talk) 02:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that it is relevant that Margaret Singer's views about brainwashing in relation to new religious movements are no longer supported by the APA. I think if she is mentioned as an expert witness about the nature of Falun Gong as a cult she should at least be described as controversial. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree to remove any reference on questioning the credentials of Margaret Singer's as long as it has relevance to her assessment on Falun Gong. I think this is what Maunus said as well. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • hmmm... exclude altogether (at least leave that point as the last topic on "things to be discussed"... seems tricky)Seb az86556 (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Well, if we give weight to her comments in the article, we are then obliged to make clear what relevance or standing they have - aren't we? Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree entirely. She could be described as "controversial", I suppose, but I believe this can be better achieved by presenting the "anti-cult movement" whoever they might be in some more complete context to give a quick intro to why the "cult" term is hardly cut-n-dry. Such detail is better placed on Singer's page and the "academic views" article. We are NOT going to write short explanations of every person quoted in the FG article, so let's not start with Singer. PerEdman (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The primary sources concerning the court cases don't belong into this article. But Singer is a prominent member of the ACM, so she should be discussed in this context, along with criticism towards ACM's views on Falun Gong. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes based on current structure. The comments about her calling FG a "cult" and her saying she had been asked to assist in "depgrogramming" FG people do not necessarily involve any reference to her at all. In effect, the "cult" usage could reasonably be simply based on her being asked to assist in deprogramming, which to many people's eyes is sufficient to establish "cult" status. If that is the extent of the content regarding her, her own beliefs really don't enter into what is being discussed, and thus aren't really relevant to talk about. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. An introductory acticle on FLG should introduce the existence of and the arguments of the supporters and their opposition. Discrediting the opposition would require an analysis of the credentials of the supporters and then all thus would involve too much detail for an introductory article on the FLG.Theleike (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is already a {{main}} tag to the section. both Singer and Edelman paragraphs should be in précis form and not unnecessarily pollute the article, provided the detail is contained within the main article in a balanced manner. No, Singer's credentials do not need to be presented at all. a link to her article will suffice. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree - for the same reason concisely elucidated by PerEdman above: "We are NOT going to write short explanations of every person quoted in the FG article, so let's not start with Singer." Destynova (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Do you agree that David Ownby's writing that "Falun Gong is without a doubt controversial" belongs in the article?

  • I agree. Colipon+(Talk) 02:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that it is uncontroversial to mention that the Falun Gong is controversial - especially when it can be cited to a Reliable Source.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree to the strict wording of "Falun Gong is without a doubt controversial" per Richard's observation above, to attribute controversies, see copy paste from above: "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." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral (that's new, eh?) Just don't make it a dissertation-length coverage. (I think the crux here is the phrase "without a doubt" -- a compromise would be an indirect quote that excludes it. Just write the word controversial and give it a ref.) Seb az86556 (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Controversial can mean anything what people imagine it to be. This is why I think attribution is essential. Please let me know if you think otherwise. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's probably true ever since people started using it as a euphemism. To me, it still simply means what it means "contro-" against "-verse" side... if you're stuck on the word, you an use the long phrase "there are different sides of opposing views on it". That's quite wordy, but essentially means the same. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The "This word can mean a million things" argument does not hold water and assumes that we as editors will do a bad job, and I don't think we should, or will. As long as we clearly and concisely explain what the controversies are, there's little risk of misunderstanding. PerEdman (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. "Controversial" is a word that can be taken to mean a million things. He could very well have been referring to the CCP propaganda campaign against Falun Gong which created these controversies. We need to make sense of what the term implies in the larger context created by his writings, and convey that to the reader than simply blurt out : " Hey, Ownby says it is controversial."
  • Agree. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. I also agree with part of what HappyInGeneral is saying in hir first comment, but I agree with it only for style and structure. The structure should be as HIG writes: State that there are controversies, then list them. But I do not agree that certain controversies should be written as "some say this, but others say no". Instead write separate sentences, separate paragraphs, of who says what under what circumstances. Taken altogether, the image is made complete. Not every sentence needs a but. PerEdman (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Then I believe that it would be better not to use Margaret Singer as a commentator altogether. She does not constitute a neutral view and should not be made to look like she does.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand - why is Margaret Singer not a notable source? Because she is not a neutral view? We'd have to delete half of the sources in current use if we were to apply that qualification. Even with controversy, Singer is a more neutral and certainly more independent source of commentary than any Falun Info-conglomerate source. PerEdman (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: The article today uses several articles on www.falundafa.org, www.clearwisdom.net, Epoch Times and articles written by practitioners of Falun Gong. It's not "half", and it was incorrect of me to claim that it was. PerEdman (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I will answer this in its own section at the bottom of the talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. As long as Ownby's views on why Falun Gong is controversial are included, I don't see a problem here. I think the quote "Neither Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi were particularly controversial in the beginning" is a better reflection of his viewpoint; he admits that they are controversial now, but also thinks that they used to be relatively uncontroversial. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe Ownby's use of the word "controversial" is sufficient to provide reference for describing the group as "controversial". Having said that, I really can't see what purpose is served by saying anybody says something is controversial, so I would guess no. The information Ownby uses to reach that conclusion probably does belong in the article, but I think it would probably be giving Ownby's personal conclusions too much weight to ascribe the use of the word "controversial" to him. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

STRONGLY STRONGLY OPPOSE. Falun Dafa cannot be presented that way. It is not controversial at all! Falun Gong is not that way at all.--FalunGong Disciple —Preceding unsigned comment added by FalunGongDisciple (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree. Ownby's article is excellent as he attempts to critically analyze FLG and its nature and not sticking with just the PRC reaction towards the group. Omitting his criticisms, lessens the quality of his work. For example, he mentions the eccentricities of the founder, reverence towards his written and spoken word and also unsubstantiated eccentricities of the followers (e.g. refusing medical treatment & self-immolation), but also describes the appealing nature of its ideals and the historical context of the group. Note: Former post is hilarious. Theleike (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge criticism into main article

It seems Maunus and I have both read and liked the WP:Criticism essay but disagree on how and when to apply it to this article. But because I sympathize with the ideas of the essay, that would be good writing to integrate criticism throughout the subject article and I know User:Asdfg12345, one of the proponents of the current title, hirself proposed that the Academic views on Falun Gong article be deleted, twice. Therefore i put the following alternatives to you:

  1. Keep Academic views on Falun Gong (under any name).
  2. Integrate the above content into Falun Gong.
  3. Other.

/ PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

  • I prefer 2. It is my long-term goal anyway, as pointed out by Maunus, it's good writing, even easier to find, and avoids the whole hullabaloo of what to name the article. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Change name to: Criticism of Falung Gong a criticism of (religion) page is a standard wikipedia structure. FLG should not get special treatment just because it's members are more active online than the members of other faiths.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer 2 as well, as I have stated. And this has nothing to do with giving FLG members special treatment, it has to do with making wikipedia better and more neutral. We'll neutralize the other article later, but now we're working on Falun Gong.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 2 at a pinch. Let's see how it goes for integration. I believe that there is a type of material, though, that can only be identified as what people have generally said about this phenomenon. We've had a procracted discussion above about what that might be titled. If this can somehow appear seamlessly in the article and not need its own section, then that's obviates the need to decide...--Asdfg12345 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 2, on balance. The information about Chinese "science" and the info on certain charges against FG might both deserve coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't know if can usefully make one term cover both issues. And something about the current fork article makes me think we should just delete it, placing the parts that warrant inclusion in the appropriate parts of the main article. Dan (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • 2, as I stated on the other page already. There is nothing standard about having "Criticism of ..." entries in the first place, even if the entries that do exist bare that name. The world's major religions have had centuries to collect notable criticisms. The criticism for almost all NRMs and other recent social movements can easily be summarized in a section of a main entry or else integrated throughout that entry. Otherwise we end up with extremely inflated Criticism of entries which are filled to the brim with meaningless details and names by POV pushers from both sides.PelleSmith (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

...but what would the SECTION be named? :) For now, let's call it whatever it's called now, the contents of it should be distributed among all other sections anyway. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to add the mergefrom-template to the FG page despite the protection? / PerEdman 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is not where to put the content but rather what to call it. The point is furthermore that there are certain people who are absolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to "Criticism" and they will stall the discussion into eternity until all goodwill-editors either leave or lose their sanity. You can wait until hell freezes over, those opposed to it will never falter, never waiver, never compromise, and never give in; no arguments, no reasoning, and nothing you say will convince them. Ever. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for moving part of your above comment, please move it back if you disagree. I think you may have misunderstood the gist of the WP:Criticism essay. If one follows the ideas in that, there won't *be* a criticism section because mentioning criticism would become a natural part of the flow of the entire text. So that in the history section, the text would mention the history as claimed by Li Hongzhi, including any criticism thereof. Do you see? Putting criticism in a separate section is in itself a way of separating it - unnecessarily - from the subject being criticized. It avoids the problem of what to call the article by *not having an article* and that's even better. / PerEdman 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you're going. Nonetheless, you can expect to get the duct-tape of partisan censorship strung over your mouth once again (regarding the use or mention of the word "criticism"). But we'll see where it goes. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see it that way and I'm sorry that it is my experience of the FG pages as well, but let's work to improve it. If there are solid arguments against using the word "criticism" or no reason to mention it, it doesn't have to be mentioned. If there are vague or no arguments against using the word, and there is reason to do so, it should be mentioned. / PerEdman 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think maybe we should just start writing the article integrating the criticism into the sections and then see how it goes. If it doesn't work we can always change the approach. We were working on the article at a subpage weren't we? Why don't we all select a section and start writing it up in this way? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I only wish I had more time, right now, to write one up. Instead I am relegated to these many but intermittent commentaries. I'll find the time. For now, if someone starts writing a section, could you please mention what section you're working on, and start integrating the "Reception" section and "Academic views" article's sources and claims into that section. To begin with, I'm sure the sections will grow somewhat, but it'll sort itself out. / PerEdman 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, I understand your criticism, but I also agree with the WP:Criticism essay (which is very good with regards to what makes writing great, highly recommended). To put criticism in a section of its own is to deny that criticism is a natural part of any subject, especially on wikipedia. To report neutrally on any subject, you must take criticism into account. There is no need for a separate section. But if there WERE such a section, I agree that it should be called "Criticism of Falun Gong". But (again) if we cannot gain agreement on that, let's do this another way. / PerEdman 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged example from main article

My attempt at merging content from the "Reception/Academic Attention/Criticism" section and page into the main flow of the text, this is the "Beliefs and teachings" section.

Please help by editing the text. When you do, read the content from the Falun Gong article, both from the section itself and from the "Reception" section; and also read the Academic views on Falun Gong article. Use claims and sources from all three to improve the synthesis. / PerEdman 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The teachings of Falun Gong cover spiritual, religious, mystical, and metaphysical topics. The introductory book Falun Gong introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises. The main body of teachings is Zhuan Falun, published in 1994.[2] According to the texts, Falun Gong is a system of mind-body "cultivation practice" based on the principles Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. These are regarded as fundamental and omnipresent characteristics of the universe.[3] In the process of cultivation, practitioners are supposed to assimilate themselves to these qualities by letting go of "attachments and notions," and returning to the "original, true self."
Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of Chinese alternative science. There is a debate in this field between "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory. Rational and metaphysical advocates disagree on whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng).[4] The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine.
Falun Gong draws on oriental mysticism and traditional Chinese medicine, and Li Hongzhi uses concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, which can make Falun Gong appear religious.[5] Li Hongzhi criticizes modern science of suffering "self-imposed limits" and views traditional Chinese science as an entirely different, yet equally valid knowledge system. However, when describing "cosmic laws" Li Hongzhi does borrow the language of modern science.

This is a rough edit and it's lacking in references; the point is to see if we can merge criticism into context today. I have basically taken what's in "Academic views" and the "Reception" and must say - the latter reads much more as a link repository than it actually adds anything to the content today. What do you think? Can we do it? / PerEdman 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

YES we can! ;)·Maunus·ƛ· 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, instead of "which can make Falun gong appear religious" we will find academic sources stating that Falun Gong is a religious movement and why and we will include the Falun Gong claim that they are not. "Li Hongzhi uses concepts" isn't informative we need to mention what and who says it looks religious.Both sources and statements will go into the latter paragraph. The claims about government encouraging science and chinese science being unscientific needs citations. I think the debate about naturalism and supernaturalism needs to be explicitly sourced - Who advocates what. And Falun gong needs to be put into either a naturalist or supernaturalist category (with sources) for that debate to be informative. That is we need sources that explicitly state that Falun Gong teaches that the practice can give supernatural abilities (to FLG literature or academic sources- or both). Possibly there is varying opinion on this within Falun gong? That would also be relevant. I would suggest a more explicit paragraph going something like: "While Falun Gong Maintains that they are a cultivation practice and not a religion (source) scholars have noted several traits in FLG practice that would fall under standard definitions of religion(a footnote about which definitions?). E.g X has noted that Y (source) Z has noted that W (source) and U has noted that Q"·Maunus·ƛ· 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I just tried to tidy the text up a bit and simplify things. Can we get some sources on x, y, z and the other odds and ends Maunus is enquiring about?--Asdfg12345 05:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Maunus, "Appear religious" came from Academic views, where it was sourced. Same with "concepts" and support by government, but not all claims there were sourced with refs, some with names only. I disagree that Falun Gong "needs" to be put in a naturalist or supernaturalist category. According to the claims in "Academic views", this is just a question on how to analyze Falun Gong and Qigong in general: To see natural or supernatural "explanations". I also don't believe we need to state, in text "X has noted that Y", the text can simply note "X has been claimed (Ref here to Y source)" where the ref gives the who and when and why, so as not to clutter up the text with namedropping. / PerEdman 10:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think that "appear religious" is too vague - I am sure we can find a better quote. Same for concepts. i think it is important to think about what the point is of writing something, to make sure that it gives relevant information about the topic. Thats my beef with the naturalism/supernaturalism thing for that distinction to be relevant it needs somehow to be put into the context of Falun Gong (and I think it is relevant that at least some practicioners believe that Falun Gong does give them supernatural powers). The mutiple instances of "has noted" was not supposed to be taken literally, has claimed, written, stated, observed all work equally well.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
We could use other phrasing along the lines of "Falun Gong incorporates beliefs from several eastern religions and philosophies. Because many of these ideas are themselves seen as being "religious", this has led to the conclusion by some that Falun Gong is itself basically "religious" in nature, although Li has denied that." The reasons for the denial could be elaborated on, but if sources were found I think they would probably include something like a statement that the beliefs themselves are not "religious" but based on a series of beliefs which are common across a number of religions. In this context, I think use of the phrase new religious movement might be appropriate, because that term does not itself necessarily refer to a new "religion" but can also be used to refer to new applications or practices based on not-so-new religious and philosophical systems. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(re-capitalized Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance per WP:MOS/Platonic or transcendent ideals.) Seb az86556 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
that is interesting.--Asdfg12345 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
If capitalization was missing, it was missing also from the "Academic views" page. I'm leaning towards Dan's idea, the "Academic views" page should just be scrapped and cannibalized for parts. / PerEdman 10:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, the text really does need simplifying. As you can see if you compare this to the "Academic views" text, I have skipped very large parts of quotations just to catch that little gist of concrete comment in the middle of a lot of pseudoscientific blubber. There's good material in there. Agree. / PerEdman 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy in describing members of this religion

Practicioners obfuscates the fact that FLG is a religion. I understand PerEdman's issue with worshippers as FLG doesn't worship a god (unless you count Mr. Li). So what term do we use? parishoners evidently doesn't work. Would adherents pass muster? Any other suggestions?Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with practicioners - thats the term used by most of the academic sources I have read thus far. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It strikes me of the typical strategy of this religion to deny that they are a religion at all and I don't think wikipedia should be party to helping a religion obfuscate what they really are.Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not about who they really are. It is about how FLG selfidentify. You telling FLG practicioners what they really are is subjective and POV just like it is also POV and subjective to use their own term for themselves. However we have a policy that says that when people or countries or groups selfidentify by a different name than what others call them we use their own name. Thats why Muhammad Ali is at Muhammad Ali not Cassius Clay. (I just cant find that policy right now, but I read it only yesterday)·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point about Mr Li, I hadn't thought of that. But even in personal cults, you only very rarely call their followers "worshippers". I think "followers" is more common. So far I have had no issues with "practitioners", but it is the word Falun Gong ...practitioners use of themselves rather than the words used by others. Is there a contesting term used commonly by scholars when writing of Falun Gong? Even if FG does use a "strategy" here, let's not fall into the trap of responding to that strategy. / PerEdman 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Unsure about the answer to your questions but I would have no complaint with followers PerEdman.

Manus, my main concern with FLG articles has been a culture of special treatment I've seen on Wikipedia, prior to the concerted effort made recently to clean these articles up (with thanks to everybody who has worked on that) of allowing editors who are FLG followers to have what ammounts to special priveleges to refute their point and insert PoV. The FLG does this in an attempt to get sympathy, concession and, ultimately, to help prostelytize their faith. This includes: denial of status as a religion, refusal to have a criticism of page, and inclusion of pro-flg pov in articles that probalbly shouldn't be considered notable!We don't let Buddhism get away with those sorts of things, nor do we let Catholicism. I just think that the FLG shouldn't be treated with kid gloves. Case in point: organ harvesting. Nobody disputes China harvests organs from death row inmates. Nobody disputes China suppresses the FLG. Although there isn't any clear evidence of this happening it wouldn't be a stretch to even confirm that some FLG death row inmates may have had their organs harvested. There is, however, no clear evidence of organ harvesting targeting the FLG because of their faith and yet there is still a large Wikipedia page devoted to the allegations of this that come directly from FLG owned newsmedia and a single inexpert report penned by an otherwise insignificant Canadian politician and a Canadian human rights lawyer, neither of whom is an expert of China.Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been working at Jehovah's Witnesses where the editors are pretty evenly divided between Witnesses, Ex-witnesses and outsiders. We have been able to build the article up untill the point where the only thing we can argue about is whether certain phrasigs about their beliefs should be stated as "has been called" or "is called". This was achieved by pro-witnesses, antiwitnesses and neutrals working together, respecting and listening to eachothers arguments and not trying to paint the camps into different spaces. When you write that the FLG does so and so to get sympathy or proselytize that is not helpful - it shows that you have closed yourself to their arguments and suppose that they are not made in goodfaith. It could be that FLG members are simply interested in wikipedia showing their faith in a way that is most consistent with the way in which they see it themselves? This is no crime - and as long as the FLG viewpoint is exposed as such and is not given undue weight relative to other viewpoints then there is no problem with including FLG views. This is not giving special treatment this is simply observing the standard article and neutrality building process of wikipedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I try to assume good faith on the part of FLG editors. However when editors do things like delete talk page text that disagrees with their position, when I need to RfC to get a neutrality tag on a clearly PoV article, when I have to fight tooth and nail to include a quote of Li Hongzhi because it might embarras the FLG, it gets hard to maintain that assumption of good faith.Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That editor has been blocked. I don't know what Li Hongzhi quote you were trying to add, but maybe it jsut wasn't that relevant or necessary?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Several of the involved editors in those disputes have since been blocked. The fact, however, that those disruptive behaviours occured from multiple editors causes me to remain apprehensive of the good faith of pro-FLG editors. As I said before, I do try. The quote in question is still debated by asdfg, it's the 'spawn of dharma end times' quote from the NYT.Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to do more than try. The fact that some editors who have been fans of Jon Bon Jovi have been disruptive does not mean that we can assume that all Jon Bon Jovi fans are disruptive. In my optics the fact that disruptive editors have been blocked means that the eeditors who are now left are not disruptive. try using that approach. or alternatively if you actually find an editor to be disrutive currently use the appropriate dispute resolution venues - and if she is diruptive she will certainly be blocked like the other disruptive editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Please Simonm223, just because you cannot harbor good will towards previous Falun Gong editors should really not be a reason to doubt the good will towards any OTHER or NEW Falun Gong editors. In my experience, it is too easy to fall into the trap of stooping to someone elses's low level where they will soundly beat me with experience. :( / PerEdman 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious that user:FalunGongDisciple was most likely an agent provocateur? He was parodying the apparent "Falun Gong viewpoint." Anyway. Regarding the dispute on the Teachings page, this has been taken to a noticeboard twice and on both occasions it was ruled that the Falun Gong website can be referenced. The disruption here isn't caused by me. We need to respect consensus and process even when we do not agree with it.--Asdfg12345 16:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea if that was an honest person, an agent, double-agent, triple agent or whatever. It was a disruptive editor who made very little difference and was handled promptly (for which I am thankful). I could speculate that the editor very quickly found the many articles over which our discussions are spread and was likely not new to wikipedia or the topic.. but what would those speculations get me? / PerEdman 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of this subsection, I would suggest terms such as "practitioners" or "adherents." The literature often users "practitioners," and this has become something of a default on this topic. It's not biased, and it's not treating the subject with kid gloves, it's just normal. See MOS:IDENTITY. I'm not sure if you have read some of the academic texts treating this topic, they often use "practitioners."--Asdfg12345 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's obvious at all that user:FalunGongDisciple was anything other than a disruptive pro-flg editor. If adherents would satisfy you I would consider that a fair compromise.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I should think the readability of the text could be improved if we had more than one term to vary ourselves with. "Adherents" and "practitioners" seem inoffensive and descriptive, was "followers" OK with everyone too? / PerEdman 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me.Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with what Maunus points out: "I don't see the problem with practicioners - thats the term used by most of the academic sources I have read thus far." As for individual views someone might consider it a religion, others may see it as a system of self-cultivation or 修煉 - but those are just personal views. Even if you prefer to see it as a religion, the term "pracititioner" does apply - as in "a Daoist practitioner", "a practitioner of Buddhism", "Buddhist practitioner", etc. Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly object to "followers"; I agree with changing it up, though. If a source deliberately uses "followers," then that's different when quoting that source. If we still find that varying between these two terms (adherents, practitioners) is getting a bit stale, we can use some other term as well--let's cross that bridge when we come to it. 2cents.--Asdfg12345 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the problem with "follower"? I can see the argument against "worshipper", but "follower" is often used in the same meaning as "adherent". / PerEdman 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I like more the "adherent" and "practitioner" terms over the "follower", because, although the difference is subtle, as I see it they carry the connotation of voluntary and of understanding what they are doing. In Falun Dafa people should understand what they are doing, it's not a practice of blind belief. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity I think it should be "practitioners" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it not a voluntary choice to follow something? If it was involuntary, I would definately not call it "follower", I would call it some sort of prisoner or devotee or recruit or something along those lines. To follow may not be to lead, but it is still a choice anyone can make or unmake. I don't believe ANYONE believes their own belief is a blind belief, but they can still believe that they follow some plan greater than themselves, or some principle they believe will come to good. I have no particularly strong reason to insist on "follower", but as I said before, I think it would be better writing if we had a few more words to use of Falun Gong practitioners; using the same word repeatedly stars looking strange after a while. / PerEdman 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose "followers" fails MOS:IDENTITY because it is not in common use. / PerEdman —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC).
I would tend to favor "practicioner" or possibly "follower". Part of that is based on the fact that it would certainly be possible for all I know, based on my comparatively limited knowledge, to perform the basic exercises simply for stress reduction or similar purposes, and that person might specifically use the Falun Gong exercises because of the ease of accessing information on them. I think the question ultimately becomes is whether we here will use the term "Falun Gong" to most specifically describe the exercises or the belief system behind the exercises. But, as it seems at least possible to me that someone might perform the exercises without necessarily believing all the philosophy attached to it, I would myself be inclined to not refer to all involved people as adherents of the "Falun Gong" faith. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with John Carter's argument that "adherent" is specific to those who ascribe to the faith/philosophy whereas "follower" and "practitioner" are relevant also to those who perform the practices only. / PerEdman 19:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
So can we call it a consensus on "practitioner"? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Support "practitioner". There are thousands of mentions each of "qigong practitioner" and "zen practitioner" on Google. If zen and qigong is practiced, then falun gong should also be. It doesn't strike me as cult doublespeak. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
We've had consensus on practitioner for a long time, I think. The question here is also what else practitioners can be called. John Carter's distinction is helpful, but I would have prefered a greater selection of words, to vivify the text. / PerEdman 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am still leaning toward adherents for an alternate word.Simonm223 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Love that word "vivify." Practitioners and adherents pretty good, maybe sometimes can throw in "Falun Gong students," even?--Asdfg12345 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Students of Falun Gong". Hm. Yeah. I like that. If it's okay, that is. :) / PerEdman 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page

Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359

A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.

I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.

Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All changes have been thoroughly discussed by all users making those changes over several days. You did not participate in the discussion. If you do not participate, you cannot now go and revert everything. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip just reverted the best part of two weeks' collective work. He did it at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident‎ as well. Disruption of this type and scale is simply unacceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).

I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.

The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.

I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.

  • Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [9]
  • Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [10]
  • Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [11]
  • Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [12]

I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.

As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Dilip, you know it's unacceptable to swoop in and undo people's good-faith work like that. It's vandalism. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Dilip, you bring up those comments about the emails a lot. You do realize that if we were trying to be sneaky meatpuppets, I would have removed the comment as soon as Colipon put it on my talk page so that others wouldn't see it. Anyway, bringing up such things would only hinder the progress that has been made recently to these articles.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, If you choose to revert two weeks of changes by several editors, you are at least expected to initiate a discussion, such as Asdfg12345 has done on the Talk page to that article. It is completely unacceptable that you would revert that much work, ignore the BRD procedure and "request admin attention" without having followed the expected procedure. Not that I mind admin input, but you are at least expected to discuss something before assuming that the discussion has already broken down. / PerEdman 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur, discussion is paramount in an article of this potential level of controversy.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Because of the breakdown in discussions, I have put the question of merging these articles up on the NPOV noticeboard, here: Organ harvesting in China: Weight given to Falun Gong victims. / PerEdman 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Karma

It has already been stated that reliable sources as mentioned in the #Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Joens section above indicate that Falun Gong has a very physical conception of karma. Does anyone know of any scientific studies which have addressed whether this conception is supported by any real scientific evidence or not? John Carter (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just hit the Skeptical Inquirer website, the only piece they have archived which mentions Falun Gong is an article on the history of qigong, which contains only a passing reference and would be of no use for this purpose. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean research into
a) FG's beliefs about karma, or
b) the physical properties, if any, of karma?
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he is looking for c) research into the FG's beliefs about the physical properties, if any, of karma.Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Basically (c), yeah. Information like whether the black or white substance referred to in the Encyclopedia article has ever been detected, where in the body it might be located, how substantial it might be, any other physical properties it might have, that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read my question again, John. If the karma substance exists, then it has nothing to do with FG in particular. Do you want to know if there's research about a) FG's beliefs, or b) karma substance? Don't tell me you believe it exists!? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there are any studies specifically about whether FLGs conception of Karma is physiologically sound - I think most scholars would agree that this is indeed irelevant and that it is the existence of the belief that is interesting.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In response to Mrund, yeah, my apologies, I was asking (B). In response to Maunus, the lack of evidence might not be particularly relevant, although if it has been noted that would probably be worth including. If there were any evidence of its tangible existence, I think that would be very relevant to the article. Also, if there were clear evidence (and I mean clear evidence) that the "official" statements were in any way altered, or no longer repeated, after it was shown that there might not be any physical evidence of the substance's existence, that might be worth including as well. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{undent} As I pointed out at the Rational Skepticism project page you are essentially looking for proof that the sky is not, in fact, puce. If Karma were a blackish substance that builds up in the body it would have been observed and reported on. As it is not (it's just an indian word meaning "consequence" with metaphysical connotations) there is no information confirming the absence of it.Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The physical manifestation of karma in Falun Gong is a testable, falsifiable claim made by Li Hongzhi. As such, it is interesting. But would we be mentioning it to make a point, perhaps? I believe that if the article mentions the "blackish substance", and if this belief is central enough to Falun Gong that it should be mentioned, then it might also be prudent to point out that such a substance has never been detected except in heavy smokers...  / Per Edman 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we would necessarily be adding it to make a point. However, as indicated, it is something that was considered important enough by Ownby to describe it with at least a little length in the article in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Personally, I think that if other encyclopedias include information in what are their often somewhat short articles (in this case about three pages), then there is reasonable cause for us to include it here. I acknowledge that without a clear source stating "no one's seen it" it would probably be a violation of WP:SYNTH to join any other statement which doesn't specifically address it directly. But if there is any sort of documentation anywhere to the effect that it was looked for and not found, or perhaps found, that might well be worthy of inclusion as well. And I do believe, like I said, that if it's significant enough for what is probably the most respected religious encyclopedia in the English language to include, we should probably include it here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ummm, these aren't scientific claims. They aren't testable, aren't falsifiable, aren't empirically verifiable. Not scientific. Just to clarify.--Asdfg12345 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Regardless if why one would claim it, if you DO claim that karma is a physically manifested black substance present in the physical body, that is indeed a testable claim. I'm well aware that it's not scientific, but not because the claim isn't testable, but because if you do test it, you'll find that the claim finds no support what so ever.  / Per Edman 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

James Randi as a reliable source?

This page contains some information which rather clearly compares Falun Gong to Scientology, and it is written by one of the best known and most respected "debunkers" in the world today. Some of the information, such as how Li changed his birthday, probably couldn't be sourced from this page, but some of the other material in the article, considering it is coming from an expert in the field of pseudoscience, seems to be at least potentially relevant. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally have deep respect for the inestimable Mr. Randi. However his areas of expertise could be said to be the application of the scientific method to testing of supernatural claims and stage magic. Exercise caution with Randi comments.Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed the article in question I would say that it would not constitute a valid source. The information offered is quite clearly Randi's opinion and is not sourced. Sorry.Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, the only things I was really even thinking of considering "sourced" from that article, maybe, would be saying that Falun Gong has been compared to Scientology, Church Universal and Triumphant, etc., in terms of some of their claims and activities. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You could say that James Randi compared Falun Gong to the Church of Scientology because he claims that falundafa.org does not contain information on the core theology of the religion and attempts to frame the religion as a non-religious movement. However avoid "has been compared to" as unattributed references fall under WP:Weasel. And you will still abutt against the fact that Randi is not a recognized expert in comparative theology.Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't like it either it seems a bit like citing Penn and Teller for comparing Alcoholics Anonymous to a cult.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And like the latter it's not necessarily that I disagree... it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who originally cited that page here. I think Randi is a good example to refer to if you wish to point out that many people without any connections to the CCP see FG as a cult, which was what I tried to get into the article at the time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know it had been used here before. I just found it while looking for information regarding Karma like I mentioned above. :) John Carter (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's cool. Wikipedia's standards are something that take some getting used to. My personal opinion regarding AA is rather more strident than my opinion regarding FLG and yet I would contend that Penn and Teller, who share my opinion, are not an appropriate source on that subject. Likewise Randi, although in line with many of my personal sentiments, is not appropriate as a ource on this subject. Hope this helps.  :) Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

James Randi is a reliable source on his own opinion. Randi is certainly notable enough, the question is his relevance to this particular article. I suppose we could mention his opinion, in context, if we have such a context as he would fit into, but let's not create one just to get him in there. :)  / Per Edman 22:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS also comes into play here. --Asdfg12345 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, we shouldn't rely on sources published e.g. by Falun Gong sympathisers. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really, no. James Randi is more than a self-published source, he's an authority and a prominent figure of the skeptical movement. You could just as well delete Li Hongzhi quotes with WP:SPS as a reason (I'm not saying you should, because you really should not).  / Per Edman 22:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Source concern

As an outside observer I'd like to caution against using the Kavan source as a good example of an academic reference to Falung Gong as a "cult" (scare quotes used by Kavan). The source has several weaknesses: 1) The paper is not peer reviewed -- conference papers are low quality academic sources, 2) while Kavan seems to have been researching religion for some time as a journalism professor she does not come from a methodological field which uses coherent and precise definitions for groups like "cults" and 3) the definition she does use reflects this problem in that it reproduces popular misconceptions about these groups to the extent that it is virtually meaningless. Regarding this last point read her working definition of "cult" (on page 12). In religious studies or sociology this definition would be a perfect example of "popular definitions" that have no practical utility ... one could just as easily apply this definition to the Catholic church for instance. Now I understand that per WP:V we report what reliable sources say and don't judge the merits of their content by our own standards. However I think it is prudent to keep these things in mind when assessing the usefulness of what is already a low quality source (per #1). Just something to consider.PelleSmith (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence and perhaps even the name of the subtitle somewhat obfuscate the real issues in this. David Ownby states that the cult label was a red-herring from the beginning, and Ian Johnson also dismisses it. It is not really a debate in many, many sources on Falun Gong, it is dismissed and understood merely as a very clever propaganda move. This may have been neglected while assembling these things. I think that while some of Kavan's writing may be relevant in some contexts, she is a communications professor, right? I don't see the religious expertise coming through. --Asdfg12345 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my dismay at witnessing how asdfg1234 has turned the carefully crafted neutrality of the cult debate section into a pro Falun Gong opinion piece. Then I am off for an extended wikibreak. Falun Gong is off my watchlist. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict. I will respond to Maunus] Here's my general thinking behind my changes, I'm sure there will be some discussion. Firstly, Kavan is not an authority on the teachings of Falun Gong etc., she is a communications person. I'd also point to the above concerns by PelleSmith, which I share. Basically if we are just going to be repeating low-quality sources and vague arguments here, the section could be 2000 words, and each of us could wheel out an absolute bunch of them. Secondly, I felt there was too much padding in between words, making for hard reading. Thirdly, I felt that as a consequence the actual things that people were saying about the cult label were being obscured to some extent. Fourthly, the genesis of this "debate" are important to clear up at the beginning. Fifthly, that it has been rejected by serious researchers is highly notable, and this isn't a matter of how they engage in the analysis of Falun Gong necessarily, and then choose one way or another of approaching the cult label, it's that they are directly calling out the CCP on the cult label--this is a matter of WP:DUE. Sixthly, Edelman and Richardson was too long. Seventhly, that paragraph in the middle, I felt, didn't reallly say much of anything. Eighthly, Adam Frank doesn't seem to mention the cult thing too much, at least not in the quoted passage, but his insights are relevant, so maybe they could go elsewhere.

Summary of changes in paragraph form, I suggest using this diff to compare. first paragraph: the lede acts as a summary of the origin and notable reception of the cult claim, the later paragraphs elaborate more on the discourse surrounding those issues. second: moved up third: shorten things a bit, remove Kavan per above remarks, not to mention relevance fourth: shorten, remove explanatory sentence about what the anti-cult movement is, add context regarding the way in which the cult label appeared fifth: delete because it didn't say much and was quite wordy; this is tangentially related to the issue, I felt. Definitely not a criticism of the writing or who wrote it. (You don't know how many thousands of words I've written on these pages that were useless. I even tried to delete them myself once but got in trouble for it (on the academic page)) sixth: just tighten it up a bit, delete some parts of the edelman and richardson quote.

Please click the diff open in another tab (I actually prefer to use another window and alt-tab) and compare my comments with the changes and assess whether they are sensible, fair, reasonable, and importantly, reflective of the sources available. By the way, I think there may be some meta-argumentation here, about, for example, the notability of certain claims and the reliability of certain sources. I'm prepared to have that discussion. All of the above, I humbly submit --Asdfg12345 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[Update]. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be accused of bad faith. I've reverted the edit. I suggest the same: check the diff, check my explanations, and let's discuss.--Asdfg12345 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

'Cult' section

Reading the merged content in context of the main article, I contend that it is too windy and esoteric for our purposes here. The entire section is convoluted gobbledegook, and should be pared down and rewritten. I would say that this is the same applies to the Psychiatric abuse section in the 'Persecution' article, only that it privileges two sources only, and is much worse there. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The current cult section shows clear signs of being written one sentence by a FG apologist, the next by an anti-FG writer, the third by an innocent bystander etc. It needs rewriting by a clear-headed and neutral person. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the current cult section in one piece - do you suggest I have multiple personalities? it is the same section about which you wrote:[13]. There was a wide consensus to include it at the time I wrote it. (aug 10) and nobody found it to be longwinded convoluted gobbledygook. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a rewrite below. Please do not take offense to the section that singles out possible OR. My concern with those statements is simply that as presented they are not clearly about the specific subject matter at hand. Maybe there are better ways to include the material. This rewrite is just a suggestion from an outside party.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The passage with the kavan source and Li Hongzhi (the part you call Or and i agree) was the only part I didn't write - but was inserted later. I wouldn't object to striking that altogether.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Apart from that I think my version is better :) - I think you are boiling the complex issues too much down. Mine is longer and more informative and accurate. Also there is no citation needed for the aum shinrikyo and davidian comparison - Frank mentions that the government made that comparison if i am not mistaken.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I simply tried to eliminate text that seemed unnecessary. Some of it is simply stylistic (making no content changes), but some is also content based. I don't think you need all the longer explanations of more general sociological issues in the entry. Good wikilinking and succinct tidbits should suffice. Regarding the comparison to Aum, etc. that's fine, it simply isn't clear unless the reference follows the statement. I also agree about Kavan in general as per my comment below. Unless everyone thinks my suggested changes are useless I would suggest discussing specific issues like the sections I moved to the possibly OR section below and/or any information that my shorter version removes that is deemed vital to the entry. I have to say that in general the section seems way too long. I commented before that from my brief overview of this topic area there seems to be a lot of overwriting (too much unneeded text) and I think this is an example. That should not be taken to reflect upon the writers. I overwrite myself all the time.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to object if you condense it - I just had to say that i wrote it that way because I thought that was the best way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite

Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others.[6] Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English[7][8][1]. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China.[8] They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo.[9] Scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group.[10][11] Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.

In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[12] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion.[13][14] Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. "[15] The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart".[16] However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.[17]

Most social scientists and scholars of religion reject "brainwashing" theories and do not use "cult" definitions such as Singer's or Kavan's. For example, Cheris Shun-ching Chan considers cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred more than on collective worship, that are less demanding of their members and more tolerant of other religions than sects, that have a strong charismatic leadership and that have fuzzy membership boundaries. She claims that Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a New Religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics.[18] Other scholars avoid the term "cult" altogether because "of the confusion between the historic meaning of the term and current pejorative use"[19][20] These scholars prefer terms like "spiritual movement" or "new religious movement" to avoid the negative connotations of "cult" or to avoid miscategorizing Falun Gong as a "cult" when it doesn't fit mainstream definitions.[16] Yet other scholars argue against using the term "cult" in relation to Falun Gong and similar groups because classifying these religious movements as cults or sects rather than religions often allows governments to deny them the special privileges and legal protection that are normally offered to religious denominations.[21]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference pennyharrold was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Zhuan Falun, Zhuan Falun, accessed 31/12/07
  3. ^ Characteristics of Falun Dafa, Zhuan Falun, accessed 31/12/07
  4. ^ Xu Jian stated in The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999)
  5. ^ Porter 2003, pp. 38-39. Available online: [1]
  6. ^ Frank, Adam. (2004) Falun Gong and the threat of history. in Gods, guns, and globalization: religious radicalism and international political economy edited by Mary Ann Tétreault, Robert Allen Denemark, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004, ISBN 1588262537, pp 241-243 Adam Frank has identified five generalizable frames of discourse about Falun Gong that differ in the way they describe the movement, including the use of the "cult" label. These frames are
    1. the Western media,
    2. the Chinese media,
    3. an emerging scholarly tradition,
    4. the discourse of Human rights groups, and
    5. a sympathetic practice-based discourse.
  7. ^ Chan 2004
  8. ^ a b 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
  9. ^ The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ownbyfuture was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Edelman and Richardson, Imposed Limitations on Freedom of Religion in China and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: A Legal Analysis of the Crackdown on Falun Gong and other "Evil Cults", Journal of Church and State, Spring 2005, Vol. 47 Issue 2
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference wildgrass was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Lewis, James R. 2004 The Oxford handbook of new religious movements, Oxford University Press US, 2004, ISBN 0195149866
  14. ^ Don Lattin, Falun Gong Derided as Authoritarian Sect by Anti-Cult Experts in Seattle, San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2000.
  15. ^ Kavan, Heather (July 2008). "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?" (PDF). E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington.: 13. [Cults characterized by] an idolised charismatic leader who exploits people by letting them believe he – and it usually is a 'he' – is God's mouthpiece; mind control techniques; an apocalyptic world view used to manipulate members; exclusivity ('only our religion can save people'); alienation from society; and a view of members as superior to the rest of humanity. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)
  16. ^ a b Frank, Adam. (2004) Falun Gong and the threat of history. in Gods, guns, and globalization: religious radicalism and international political economy edited by Mary Ann Tétreault, Robert Allen Denemark, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004, ISBN 1588262537, pp 241-243
  17. ^ 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
  18. ^ Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective. The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665-683
  19. ^ Bainbridge, William Sims 1997 The sociology of religious movements, Routledge, 1997, page 24, ISBN 0415912024
  20. ^ Richardson, James T. 1993 "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative", , Review of Religious Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 pp. 348-356
  21. ^ Richardson, James T. and Bryan Edelman. 2005. Journal of Church and State, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p265-267, "Over the years, the CCP has also become more sensitive to international criticisms concerning China's human rights record. In this context, the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong. The social construction of the cultic threat posed to Chinese society and the rest of the world, the subsequent government's response to that threat, and its lax definition of the term 'cult' has armed the CCP with the weapons necessary to attack any religious, qigong, or sectarian movement its sees as a potential threat to its authority. By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance."

Maunus' original version

Maybe we should just restore the original version by Maunus? It seems someone came in to this section and added various statements to tip the POV in favour of Falun Gong again - much the same pattern as before. I just tried reverting some of these obviously POV edits. Colipon+(Talk) 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a fairly good version by Maunus. Colipon+(Talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The above version was an attempt to trim that version. PelleSmith (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Edits

Wasn't going to accuse anybody of bad faith but was going to do the same revert that Asdfg just did himself. I'd suggest putting a draft of major overhauls like that and getting some discussion first.Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, though I have some problems with some of the material staying on the page now (like Kavan), which I'm going to remove. I'll post my suggested edits below, I'm unsure of the correct procedure of discussion and debate.--Asdfg12345 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BOLD -> Revert -> Discuss
But when you do a big edit and immediately do a couple of small edits it makes reverts problematic, so that's why I suggested discussing major changes like that first. I don't know enough about Kavan to comment and will leave that for others.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest working on a draft on the talk page, which is why I tried kick starting this for you all with an edit version above. I wouldn't accuse anyone of bad faith either, but I think the net result of the recent change is as Maunus describes it. For instance the way that the Rupert Murdoch section was written makes it seem like currying favor with the Chinese government is the reason why initial media coverage utilized the term "cult". I have a hard time believing that is true. Of course the issue with media coverage of NRMs in general is a complicated one. I am not sure I see why changes can't be suggested on the talk page first to avoid any confusion and to collaborate to reach NPOV before changing the entry. Regarding Kavan, I want to reiterate that I don't think she is a reliable source on "cult" classification in general and this is evident in her working definition. The fact that her essay is a conference paper does not help it either. People get away with the very sloppy stuff in conference papers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yah yah, I'm with you. I actually have to go right now. I'm already late for meeting someone, very bad. I believe that my changes are actually far from controversial, and really the only thing is that lede paragraph that is going to be disputed. The other changes aren't big, they probably just look big all together. The meaning is of course not that Murdoch's currying favor was the impetus for the initial "media coverage" (used broadly, seriously, we have to be careful using these kind of terms when they are printing demonstrable lies and villification, over 300 reports in the first month, 24hr marathons, etc., but yes, our writing should be still sound intelligent and neutral.), but that his son's remark was seen as "Pimping for the People's Republic". It's nothing but bringing the context with which these remarks were received into play, which I would presume is reasonable given that the comments are going to be mentioned in the first place--they certainly don't exist in a vacuum, and the section is about the reception of the cult label. Anyway, really sorry I have to run right now, I'll make some other changes and delineate things in a bit more straightforward way later. By the way, I hope no one is attached to their own writing prowess around here, everyone agrees that their stuff can be "edited mercilessly," and there was a lot of redundancy in that passage. Peace out.--Asdfg12345 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reasoning for my recent changes: one was to remove "threatened and damaged the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and the social stability of China" -- if this was to be included I guess it could be done so in quotation marks, but it strikes me as problematic to level the accusation of Falun Gong causing physical and mental harm to people without any context for how that claim came about. The CCP actually said all kinds of things, like practitioners killed themselves, killed family members, and so on, all of which is obviously straight up lies and propaganda. My concern is making such statements here without context. The view of the CCP should be expressed though, I also think it can be done so without dragging in these wider issues of how those claims were rebutted etc., which isn't part of the point of the section. These claims could go in a longer section about the anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. The other was to add Ownby and Johnson, which are high-profile figures when it comes to commentary on Falun Gong. I believe their dismissal of the claims is highly relevant and gives clear context as to how the cult label was received by those who make it their business to pay attention to and comment on these issues. stay tuned.--Asdfg12345 15:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Confucius, what is your response to the concerns articuled by PelleSmith, above, about the reliability of Kavan here? We've got a source already saying it, I don't see the need to give this woman's opinion's so much space. Are we then going to "balance" it with some pro-Falun Gong stuff? She has a highly negative interpretation of Falun Gong, and her criteria for regarding Falun Gong a cult are really rather different from that normally used: usually it's an organisational, objective definition, not a definition based on ideology. She is a communications professor, and has no background in religions. I'm just not sure how relevant she is here. Her definition of "cult" is also quite problematic. --Asdfg12345 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I take Pellesmith's point that she is not an expert on FG in the anthropological sense, and that her classification of FG as a cult is not 'traditional'. This is why I only reverted your one edit. Kavan remains a serious academic, and her paper succeeds in delivering a professional expertise 'applied' to the matter. Without discussing the weight we attribute, I believe her lay perspective mirrors what outside people generally perceive about FG and its practitioners. Sure, it is an essay, but so are the vast majorities of academic papers in sociology, so don't see anything which challenges her reliability of the rest of her findings because she seems to have adopted a 'scientific approach'. Someone will have to explain to me what the problems are with conference papers... I'm not sure I get. Surely, it depends on the academic - are we to dismiss everything which even Ownby says in conference? It's infinitely better than the usual sloppy journalists' fare. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I would not dispute her specific expertise regarding Falun Gong and she is clearly a serious academic. However, I would dispute her expertise in classifying any social group as a "cult". Her working definition of "cult", in this paper is unrecognizable in academic disciplines which one can take seriously for such classifications (e.g. the social sciences and religious studies). Or to phrase it differently it is recognizable as a lay definition associated with ACM and media stereotypes. The type of definition that has been explicitly criticized as meaningless by a very long list of scholars. I would caution against using her academic credentials to lend scholarly authority to the "cult" classification. Regarding the essay itself ... we should be weary of conference papers regardless of who has authored them and that is a general rule and it applies to Ownby, Kavan, and anyone else. If the conference papers have been published by an academic press in an edited volume or in a peer reviewed journal then its a completely different story. Being weary does not mean dismissing ... but it does mean thinking twice about using a lower quality source for a controversial claim.PelleSmith (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I am happy to concur. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Dr Kavan confirmed to me that the conference proceedings are peer reviewed, but they're published as proceedings rather than a journal. The full reference is:

Kavan, H. (2008). Falun Gong and the Media: What can we believe? In E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That increases the quality of the source quite a bit. Published conference proceedings are not quite on par with other peer reviewed work, but much more reliable than unpublished conference papers. Reference should be made to the published paper when used in the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing cuts many ways

Recent edits like this one are troubling. The edit summary read in part: "they do not need to be constantly refuted just to make FLG look favourable". Both of the pieces of information removed are pretty informative facts about the information they describe ... and not some Falun Gong propaganda. Singer's brainwashing theories are literally fringe views in the social sciences and Kavan's cult definition (see extensive conversation above) is not representative of any mainstream academic theoretical perspectives either. You should question the use of the fringe type material itself and not the disclaimers that are added to make sure people understand the material's reliability or notability in scholarship more generally. When a subject area is plaugued by POV edits from people who identify with the subject it is not helpful to push POV in the opposite direction, or assuming good faith here, it is equally unhelpful to rush to judgment that everything added by the member editors is always propaganda. If POV pushing happens in both directions then you'll always end up with these ridiculously bloated see sawing entries written by editors who justify their own POV pushing as reactionary to that of others. It has to stop somewhere if progress is to be made.PelleSmith (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that the manner in which these two facts where inserted is perhaps not preferable, but simply removing them does not solve the problem. My personal view is that the Kavan "cult" classification is a poor addition in the first place, and the Singer piece could to be written so that her background is clearer. In fact it could contain much less text than it does even now. I would cover the ACM with something like this:
Appropriate wikilinking is often the answer. Singer is notable, but readers should have access to the appropriate information regarding her perspective. I would also go with the scholarly category "anti-cult movement" over the in group preferred "cult watching groups". This is in line with the references as well.PelleSmith (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I restored the deletions that Colipon made of that content. I also think it was relevant and not a tit-for-tat kind of game, which I rather dislike also.--Asdfg12345 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is odd because it seems very much like a tit for tat game. Why don't you figure out a way to improve the quality of the text by conveying the necessary information without simply adding disclaimers?PelleSmith (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be ideal. They are distinct claims, so apart from a sentence like "Margaret Singer, who is controversial and whose theories are regarded as unscientific by her peers, says that Falun Gong is a cult because of this reason and that reason." -- or not including Kavan at all, I'm not sure of another way of representing the distinct claims. Ideally we would not have to resort to these sub-par sources, but people insist on them. I guess Singer is good to have. Anyway, in whichever way the context for these claims is given, I think it's okay. I didn't think it was too much of a problem to keep it how it was. The issue is when it gets out of hand, with this counter-claim being refuted by that counter-claim, and so on and so on. If it's grouped logically and everythign doesn't take up too much space, and the key things are gotten across, I think it's fine. I don't think Kavan's unorthodox, and basically misleading (in my view) interpretation of cult should go in the article at all. Failing that, the only thing to do is just to note that her definition of cult is different from normal. Welcome ideas.--Asdfg12345 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at my proposal above (recently modified)-- Talk:Falun_Gong#Suggested_Rewrite. I'm not saying it is perfect, but what I would suggest is to group Kavan with Singer in this manner. One could add something in the last paragraph about the rejection of the brainwashing hypothesis specifically by mainstream social science. This way, the information isn't being used to refute the above sources but to report accurately on scholarly perceptions, and to do so where the information is most appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) I removed Kavan's reference to it being a cult, leaving the other bits. How does that work for you? As Pelle believes it is a sub-par source as far as 'cults' are concerned, I would eventually favour removing it so as to de-escalate the bloat. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think removing Kavan in relation to that piece of information is a good idea. Her unfortunate "cult" definition only detracts from the perceived quality the more reliable information her work may contribute to this entry in the eyes of someone like me at the very least.PelleSmith (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. --Asdfg12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

fine tuning the Lede

[ec] WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." -- Falun Gong practitioners response to the persecution is obviously a notable aspect of this whole topic. Yuezhi Zhao, a communications professor from Canada who has published a number of books about Chinese media and society, and who is not some Falun Gong flunky but, rather, gives a fairly neutral analysis of Falun Gong, wrote: "Falun Gong's spread and sustained activism against persecution may be the greatest challenge to Chinese state power in recent history." Can we discuss the relative merits, or problems, with including this in the lede. Could we also discuss how this aspect of the topic may be otherwise represented in the lede, if it is felt to warrant representation. David Ownby devotes a chapter in his latest book to this topic, called "David vs. Goliath" (if I remember correctly), and in much of the literature of the topic the fact, and significance, of Falun Gong sustained resistance to persecution is brought up and discussed. It strikes me as obvious that this is a notable aspect of the topic. I also think the Zhao quote basically sums it up. Another suggestion would be that her and the Penny quote (about "important phenomenon") are similar, and could be linked to the idea of resistance to the persecution and combined somehow. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • For me, it doesn't matter who he is. I would firstly presume that the paragraph is an accurate paraphrase. Certainly, the actions taken by the Chinese government have greatly contributed to FG's notability, but I fail to see how one person's view -essentially speculation - as to how this impacts the future government of China, to be worthy of inclusion in the lead section. To do so would give primacy of his views without any proper analysis of how China perceives it other than the reams of propaganda which it chucks out on FG. I would still have some concerns to it appearing in a subsequent section as it is for the same reasons. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything these people write is or could be considered "speculation." I mean, it's just their thoughts on the topic a lot of the time. If we are going to make these articles only contain descriptions of actual events in the world, that is another approach, but I don't think it would work. I'm not sure how what you say fits with WP:RS and due, since what these people say is precisely how notable something is, isn't it? If mainstream scholars on the issue all talk about this, doesn't that simply mean that what they say is part of what makes the subject "interesting or notable" and one of the "important points"? I may be missing something. if it is an issue of how China perceives the issue, well, they set up an agency and put someone in the politburo directly in charge of it, and you've read the rest of the story (or have you?), I mean, we don't need to even bother talking about that side of things, it's just like, if these people say this, is it not notable and relevatn?--Asdfg12345 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You seem to be primarily concerned to establish notability, but I think the lead section does that quite well enough without the text I removed. If you want the text in the main body, it will need to be expanded to give it its proper context. However, I don't see that we need it because the facts speak for themselves. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to raise a new discussion about the lede. I have special concerns about this section:


Now let's look at what this section actually says.

  1. April 1999: Falun Gong protests against "Beatings and arrests" in Tianjin... this is wildly exaggerated. It was actually because some local media in Tianjin gave publicity to Prof. He Zuoxiu, who was critical of Falun Gong - that spurred a series of protests and arrests. The Communist Party was not running an organized campaign against FLG at this time.
  2. "Massive propaganda campaign". This is fine, but could probably be shortened to just "propaganda campaign". No need to say Amnesty International said it. Just present it in the source.
  3. illegal imprisonment, torture etc. This is a central part of Falun Gong's own propaganda campaign. It must be more neutrally worded.
  4. Organ Harvesting: Again, I question whether or not this belongs in the lede at all. Anyone whose done a bit of research into Kilgour/Matas would find that there is little evidence to suggest that organ harvesting is specific to FLG practitioners. That article just got merged with "Organ harvesting in the PRC". I would suggest that this be cut from the lede altogether as it is not directly notable to Falun Gong, but notable as a subject in and of itself.

Those are my thoughts. I have not yet made any bold changes. Colipon+(Talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. sources? Is there a dispute that practitioners were beaten and arrested in Tianjin? I didn't think that was in question.
  2. Again, is it disputed that the propaganda campaign was massive? It's not a deal to say one way or another, I guess, but I'm just wondering, there are mild propaganda campaigns, and there are big ones. This was a big one.
  3. "illegal" doesn't seem necessary here. It's unclear how repeating the claims of torture, which have been widely discussed and for which there is a mountain of evidence, is biased.
  4. How is this not directly notable to Falun Gong? The claims of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners are directly related to Falun Gong; doesn't the fact that there was such a strongly worded UNCAT submission regarding it only highlight its notability?

2c--Asdfg12345 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult cont'd

Current revision of the cult section as edited by User:Pellesmith is a good summary. I hope it will become relatively stable. Colipon+(Talk) 07:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong media

The fact that Falun Gong practitioners have began a media empire is not mentioned in the article at all. I think we had a good outline going at FLGNEW to discuss how to incorporate that into the article. Please lend your expertise. Colipon+(Talk) 07:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think discussing their media empire should be incorporated in a discussion of their broader PR campaign which also include parade insertions and streetside demonstrations.Theleike (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow Down

Three editors, including myself, support the new cult section version. Asdf can I suggest you slow down a second and discuss the matter here before barging ahead. I also want to add that the more general "reception" section you added is entirely unencyclopedic. It is a resume of studies done about the group. We don't list studies done about a subject matter we get information from such studies and integrate it into the entry. Please do not add it back and if you insist on having it please discuss here first.PelleSmith (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, I thought about that and thought a summary of what people have said would actually be useful. That section is in itself about how Falun Gong has been received and commented on; including notes about how it has been received and commented on struck me as normal, once I thought about it. Of course, if we don't want to do that I understand as well. There were complaints about how long things were. To actually say what those people said rather than just say they said it would take far more space... Thougths?--Asdfg12345 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue here is. Any pertinent and notable information about Falun Gong gets integrated into the entry text. That's all. No need to list studies done about them. That is a waste of space.PelleSmith (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The section is actually not about Falun Gong per se, it's about how Falun Gong has been commented on and what people have said about it. Or not?--Asdfg12345 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

discussion of cult section continued 2

Okay, here are my issues.

Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others.[70] Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English[71][72][7]. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China.[72] They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo.[73] Some scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group.[41][74] Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.

  • Does not make clear the origin of the term at the start, instead saying it is basically a matter of debate depending on context. I believe this fails to satisfy WP:DUE, which requires that arguments and sources be presented in line with how they are represented in the most reliable sources. When we have major scholars making clear the origin of this term and refuting it as a legitimate descriptor for Falun Gong, I'm unsure why this should not be established clearly at the start. (Apart from it being a simple historical fact). That is, the status of the cult label is describing Falun Gong among mainstream academia on the subject is quite unclear to the reader.
  • Leaves the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda comparing Falun Gong with violent groups, and that the claim that the practice somehow "damages the physical and mental health" of people, largely unresponded to. Readers might as well conclude that these were accurate descriptions, since it's only some scholars who have "suggested" this was a political stunt, rather than the reader understanding that this is in fact basically widely held among commentators on the subject.
  • "Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind." --> suggested just to say "they call it a practice system." saves space.

In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[19] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion.[75][76] Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. "[77] The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart".[78] However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.[79]

  • Does not make clear that Singer is a fringe scholar, is highly controversial, and that her theories are disputed to the hilt.
  • Leaves the claim of "brainwashing" and "psychological coercion" in describing Falun Gong, without any mention of the different views, and the criticism of these views as unscientific and wildly inapplicable to Falun Gong.
  • Kavan's reasoning is in fact different from Singer's, as far as I can tell. She talks about the whole idea of a savior-figure itself being cult-like.
  • The Western media's response was actually similar to that of the CCP, not of the anti-cult movement. This is a mistake. Or, to put it another way: we have a source saying that western media took their lead from the CCP, and as far as I know no source saying they took their lead from the ACM. That's the first time I've heard of such a claim.
  • Unclear of the usefulness of the Murdoch inclusion here. It's in fact inaccurate. He didn't say it, his son said it. How is it currently relevant? The context for which Frank discusses it is: "Murdoch's explicit vilification of Falun Gong might be viewed as one of the several smoking guns that contextualise the practice within a global marketplace. Indeed, even as he condemns Falun gong, Murdoch's statement reaffirms its impact on the globalization of media." -- personally, I think this is a valuable observation, but that just noting that Murdoch said it (even eliminating the inaccuracy) it not really helpful.

Next paragraph:

  • Not so many problems here. I think the point that the word can actually have vastly different meanings, (as evidenced by Chan, who gives a meaning almost opposite to that usually given) may be useful to point out, along with Chan's take on it.
  • The statement of Edelman and Richardson, which relates the use of the term by the ACM with the campaign of the CCP is wrapped in tooo many words and is not even clear. All those words. it would be simpler to just quote them and be done with it. The final paragraph would kind of exemplify the different ways the word "cult" is taken up among scholars.

That's about it. I'm going to add a few sentences addressing the most acute of my concerns above, and I ask that you do not delete them, please, while we discuss whether the concerns I raise above are legitimate, and then wheel out sources and discuss them as necessary. --Asdfg12345 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me a second to try to address some of these issues.PelleSmith (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. I have altered the first paragraph to reflect origins in Chinese propaganda and strengthened the commentary on this by scholars.
  2. It is plenty clear where Singer is coming from. Anti-cult movement and brainwashing are wikilinked and the following sentence exists in the next paragraph: Most social scientists and scholars of religion reject "brainwashing" theories and do not use "cult" definitions such as Singer's or Kavan's. This is followed by a lengthy discussion of why the cult label is not used by most scholars. Do we need to start bolding some text so its sticks out more?
  3. Kavan's cult definition is a classic anti-cult influenced popular negative definition that hinges upon the idea of a charismatic leader and mind-control techniques. It is most certainly similar to Singer's.
  4. The western media is already pumped and primed for groups that are supposedly "cults". There is a huge body of work on this. If they take the label from the Chinese government it is one thing. If they actually parrot the specific claims of China, as opposed to fitting the group into their own "cult context" that is another. Can you please explicate your claim about following China's lead some more? What do your sources say directly?
  5. I only condensed the Murdoch bit from what was already there. Perhaps it is not a good example to use as it is.
  6. The fact that the word means different things in different Western contexts is of primary importance to debates happening in Western countries about its utility for Falun Gong.
  7. If the wording of the Richardson bit is unclear we can change it, but the quote was absolutely too long. Another addition of dramatic flare which is not needed here. I just reread it and it makes perfect sense in English. Perhaps a bit long but perfectly clear as far as I can tell. I'd like a third opinion on this.PelleSmith (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2. We can't expect people to click through links to see the status of these theories. Why don't we have something stating that other scholars consider such theories unscientific, which would make things a bit more clear?

3. I've always thought that this term "cult" should mean something more than just an ideology, it should refer to some kind of organizational structure and concrete actions that people take to do bad things to other people, wrapped up in an ostensible belief system. Just identifying ideological aspects (like the savior concept) and extrapolating this out to mind control seems so silly. Further, Kavan makes so many logical leaps, like "an apocalyptic world view used to manipulate members" -- how is an apocalyptic worldview used to manipulate people? How do Falun Gong practitioners suddenly become members? etc.. These are the problems I see in Kavan's definition and characterisation. They oversimplify, they jumble a whole lot of things together, they give wildly imprecise definitions and leave so many things unexplained. She also lists "alienation from society," when it's well known that there is no such thing among Falun Gong practitioners. Or to put it another way, the definitions she provides and the statements she makes directly conflict with a large body of fieldwork and other academic sources. However this relationship is expressed is fine. Maybe something like "Most scholars and those who have done fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners do not draw the same conclusions," or whatever it is. But DUE requires making differences between fringe and mainstream views clear. This is all.

4. The claim is only that they took the remark from the CCP, not that (as far as I know) they adopted their own cultic discourse for Falun Gong. See Penny's lecture, paragraph beginning "Before I go further", for one example. Anyway, the point here is just that this language was first adopted and then not used later.

5. I think it's too wordy and watered down as it is. Let me find a key sentence and it will be less space and convey their meaning better. (I think)--Asdfg12345 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • by the way, you only responded to some of my concerns. Could you please have a look again and respond to the others? If you don't know which ones, I can repeat and number them. I should have numbered them in the first place, to make things easier. I'm usually a big promoter efficiency, sorry.--Asdfg12345 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[19] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion." ==> How can anyone perceive practitioners be "influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion."? What is the methodology for that claim? I see this very weird because the practice is extremely open. Can't see how it could be anymore open. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Academic views"

The current section on "Academic views" seems completely irrelevant to me. It is useless saying "Scholar X did this, Scholar Y did that, but we're not going to say what significance they truly have." As a result I will now remove that entire section as per WP:BOLD. If there are issues resulting from this please discuss. Colipon+(Talk) 08:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

These types of sections are unencyclopedic. Scholarship should clearly be integrated into the entry itself and not moved to some odd "academic opinion" type section. However, that means making a good faith effort to integrate it and not simply slashing and burning. Of course if there is nothing worth keeping then so be it.PelleSmith (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Colipons assessment. It does not even include the most important parts: WHAT did scholar X say, WHAT was Scholar Y's conclusion. The sources should be kept, some of them are very useful, but the fact that the sources exist should already be obvious by their use elsewhere where relevant.  / Per Edman 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe its time to discuss them?

Asdfg, maybe it is time to discuss some drastic changes to the cult section. You reverted OC saying that they have not been discussed. I put my suggestions up so that they would be discussed on the page. Perhaps you should articulate what about the trim version OC tried to add is not preferable. It is my opinion that this section, like many of these entries, is entirely too bloated.PelleSmith (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will open two browsers, compare them, write some notes, get back in 6 minutes. Man, we need to be discussing with google wave.--Asdfg12345 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of the version I just changed seconds ago on the talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

oh right. i actually jsut deleted a bunch of stuff. My concern is mainly to make clear when and how exactly the cult label came into currency. The context of the discussion is firmly within the CCP's propaganda campaign, and it was made three months after the persecution actually begun, as a way of justifying it retroactively. It was later adopted more widely. This dynamic is important to represent for readers. This is just one thought. let me get back. did you see the chagnes?--Asdfg12345 05:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen the changes you made. You certainly cut a lot of text, however I don't agree with your basic assumption, which seems to be a product of not seeing this issue outside of a very narrow perspective on what is going on. Margaret Singer and Heather Kavan are not patsy's of the PRC government, nor are they taking their lead from them. There is an entrenched negative use of the term "cult" (and "sect") in the West and sure the PRC government may have triggered the association between Falun Gong and this term but I'm afraid this goes way beyond Chinese propaganda when it gets picked up by anti-cult groups and the western media. To me it looks like POV pushing to focus on the PRC propaganda to this extent. The "cult" debate is legitimately happening outside of PRC propoganda in various venues, even if most scholars reject the label.PelleSmith (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
sure, but this isn't my opinion. it's simply a fact that the cult label first came from the CCP. it was picked up by Western ACM groups only after the CCP's propaganda, for example, in Johnson:

"Still, the government's use of the “cult” label was useful. In the West the anticult movement had been losing steam since anxiety over cults peaked in the early-to-mid 1990s. By the turn of the century most anticult activists were confined to adherents of established religions—in other words, people with a vested interest in attacking new groups.... But China's claim that Falun Gong was a cult gave the western anticult movement a new cause. Many outsiders fixated on the cult label and spent their time debating obscure definitions of Master Li's works, trying to prove that the group was potentially dangerous. One western academic wrote a paper pleading for an understanding of the government's concerns over Falun Gong's teachings, saying it had a legitimate right to fear the group. This even though the government had only interested itself in Falun Gong because of its demonstration in downtown Beijing, not because of its teachings. And most fundamentally, what was often forgotten in the learned discourse was that the government, not Falun Gong, was killing people."

this makes an explicit connection between the CCP's propaganda and the ACM. I'm not calling for a particular interpretation of this. It's just a matter of getting the historical context right, according to reliable sources. The second point is that the views of Singer and Kavan are not mainstream views of Falun Gong, they are minority views within academia. Kavan's definition is incredibly broad, to begin with, and Singer is a controversial figure to say the least. It's fine, since they are speaking on this particular topic, but 1) the context within which this debate even came to exist has been neglected (and I don't mean what we think, I mean, like, according to Johnson and the CCP itself), 2) the fact that the label has been rejected by leading researchers in the field also appears to have been neglected, as with what they say regarding the usefulness of the label for the CCP. There could be more. I'm not calling for anythign else except a representation of the views of the reliable sources that are available. My argument extends nothing beyond that.--Asdfg12345 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I went through it again, trying to preserve aspects of both approaches. There are thousands of words from relevant scholars and groups basically saying the cult label was just a clever propaganda technique of the CCP--this is basically the consensus view among mainstream scholars on the topic. It is widely understood how the CCP controls and manipulates the media, and how it uses propaganda to further its political ends. The cult label definitively came from this context. This dynamic is the first thing to note. Insofar as there is discourse besides this use of the term, of course, this section is the place for it, and it clearly exists, (like, Singer for example). But the simple amount, and also quality, of material on this side of things, on this subject, is far, far less than that about the cult label as a propaganda tool and the response to this. This may not be so for other groups known as new religions, but in terms of this subject, if we dispute this point we can just gather all the sources and rate their quality and count them, to establish WP:DUE (though I think it's clear). The section needs to be short and sharp, and it needs to get the key points across and it needs to establish the origin and context of the terms and narrate the debate about them quickly. Open to ideas. There is more to put in "Reception," not just the cult label section.--Asdfg12345 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It does do all of those things. You are lobbying for a POV version. The historical timeline is accurate, and the minority status of the "cult" views is also presented. The point is that after the Chinese government labeled them a cult and this label made its way to the West the debate has changed significantly and has little to do with the PRC anymore. Please address this fact directly. I've stated it several times now.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how I am lobbying for a point-of-view version. Let me take another look at things. By the way, it's untrue that the debate has little to do with the PRC anymore; the label was and always will be related with the discourse that attempts to marginalise Falun Gong, and this is directly related to the CCP's campaign. Scholars also make this clear. I can find a bunch of sources arguing for just this point. The label in relation to Falun Gong mostly exists in the context of the persecution; the CCP reprints anything these ACM scholars say on its websites, and it cooks up Anti-Falun Gong propaganda videos featuring Margert Singer. These are completely isolated things. I know the CCP's direct use of the term is different from how it has been analyzed by scholars, I'm not disputing that. Let me read it again. By the way, how do you set up columns here? It would be useful to place two blocks of text below, in two columns, to compare them side-by-side.--Asdfg12345 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me start a section below to outline my thoughts and problems and I look forward to your thoughts in response.--Asdfg12345 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

a situation outside of my control forces me to leave my computer in about 3 minutes. It's probably a good thing. anyway, I wrote some points above, I didn't get a chance to look at your wording and share my thoughts. Please compare and see what's most fitting. We want plain english and a clear and simple narrative of the main movements and sources etc., and the historical context is important to preserve. If it does all this then in my view it's great. I always prefer starting with what we have and organically changing it rather than instituting a whole new thing, though, generally. sorry, people are forcing me to get off this computer in a minute.--Asdfg12345 05:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, I read it quickly, (still got like 2 minutes), I would suggest that it fails to acknowledge the context with which the term came to exist in referring to Falun Gong, and that this is actuall vital in terms of getting to grips with the meaning of the term in relation to the subject. --Asdfg12345 05:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345's revert as of 04:43, 1 September 2009

Asdfg12345, You performed a revert of numerous significant changes since 311212231, your change comment being: "these changes are so extensive and we didn't even discuss them? what's with this... can we just take things one step at a time?". As I know you are familiar with WP:BRD process, I wonder what you want to discuss. If you believe an edit has been made in error, you discuss that error. By reverting a large number of edits, what is it you want to discuss, specifically? All of them? Were really all edits since version 311212231 something you objected to?

You see; by performing a large revert of many different changes, you are really saying "I oppose to all of these changes, now let's discuss them", and the people who are interested in keeping the material you reverted, should do so. Now... in your case, that means participating in the discussion of PelleSmith's version; mentioned on this talk page: Talk:Falun_Gong#.27Cult.27_section. Please do so now.  / Per Edman 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now that Asdfg12345 did eventually involve hirself in the discussion, but I take note of the wording "I jsut deleted a bunch of stuff".

Reducing Bloat vs. Removing information

Some good faith changes have removed important information and muddled the meaning of some other information. Here are the relevant problems:

  1. The first reference in the cult section is about the differences in use between "social contexts" or "cultural contexts" not individual people. It is also specific to how Falun Gong is seen and whether or not it is or is not classified as a cult and not simply about the meaning of cult more generally.
  2. Regarding In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. vs. Among scholars, calling something a "cult" depends on how you define the term. Many scholars refrain from using the label for various reasons.[citation needed] The tidbit about "most scholars" is a fact easily attained by reading up on this subject (even the little I have recently done) but I'm willing to go to "many" if wikilaywering over WP:V and WP:NOR is going to take place. It does not need a citation however since it sums up what is written in the last paragraph. The rest of this change is more problematic because once again the section is about Falun Gong specifically and not simply the cult label more generally.
  3. Margaret Singer is absolutely "associated" with the Anti-cult movement and this is extremely pertinent and can easily be ascertained by editors here by reading about her, about the movement or about the brainwashing controversy. Making this statement is also more NPOV than the alternative which Asgf is promoting -- adding a statement about her views being fringe scholarship (which they are).
  4. Regarding "the perception" that the group is authoritarian it is "their perception" specifically. "The" in this instance is extremely weasely.
  5. I'm not entirely sure why the Branch Davidians and Aum need to be mentioned. I kept both in my version and someone deleted one of them but why do we need to mention both? This seems like sensationalistic pile on to me. Something I am more used to seeing from the pro-Falun Gong side, but nevertheless.

By the way categorizing this group as a "cult" does not fit within mainstream scholarship ... only within scholarship willing to 1) adopt fringe definitions of the term cult and 2) willing to assign attributes within these definitions to Falun Gong even if most other scholars do not. From the brief overview I have undertaken it seems more that clear that a vast majority of scholars don't use this classification to describe the group. Some of the changes above distort this reality rather unfortunately. I'm afraid that reactionary measures against the pro-member POV pushing at times overreaches, and I've expressed this concern before. As a point of information I use scare quotes (they are not "ironic quotes") around "cult" because it has become common practice in scholarship at this point in time. I will not argue over this in the entry however. You can chose to follow other style conventions.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from this article and Wiki for a while. I also didn't want to get to into this page in the first place. I hope some of the more positive collaboration on this entry continues and I hope you consider some of my points regarding the "cult" issue as you plow ahead. It is not easy to edit here by any means. Best of luck.PelleSmith (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a couple of corrections and added two references. I really will try to stay away from now on. It would be nice to see some more good faith here regarding my edits (that is not directed to you Ohconfucius) which are all neutral unless people consider scholarly consensus POV. Best of luck once again.PelleSmith (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

'Ideological and social context' subsection

Just want to make the observation that the above section is dominated (more than 50% of content) is sourced to one academic, whereas another 2 academics make up another 40%. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of it was just academic jargon and a quotefarm. That said, the academic treatment given is more or less accurate, in my view. It just needs to be re-written with more sources. Colipon+(Talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Or pared down to a more balanced distribution between the current sources. It should not be left the way it is.  / Per Edman 08:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I just made some changes to the introduction to fit more appropriately with recent changes made to the article. I made these changes while attempting to strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, and I also cut down significantly on undue weight. Please be bold and make corrections to my syntax or make it better organized as a few more sets of eyes are needed to make a good lede. Please do not revert these changes without any discussion or sound reasoning. Colipon+(Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

References, please double check

Please when removing material:

  1. Make sure that you don't remove relevant third party references
  2. If still you removed it please check the page again and see if those references where not used somewhere else in the article thus braking the article. Like in this revision (which now is current).

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of cult section continued 3 (sources)

I'll add a few sources, hope you will find it useful and incorporate it (or I might do it after a few hours of sleep).


--HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


--HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


--HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


From: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=146197&archive=24,27,2005 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


--HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


--HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll stop here, this should be enough material for a substantiated encyclopedia entry. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
They all seem to deal with the question of persecution rather than the definition and discussion of what constitutes a cult, don't you think? We do have a section on the persecution as well, so that would be where these sources could do some good. But on the other hand, that section is already significantly sourced.  / Per Edman 09:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't think this dwelling on the definition or label of 'cult' is at all helpful in taking this article forward. We should just comment on the fact that the Chinese govt has used it, some experts agree while others disagree, is sufficient. The whole thing doesn't warrant more than a single paragraph of 'normal' length. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, but see: Falun_Gong#The_.27cult.27_debate --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I integrated some of the sources, and now I see that there is a lot more information here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

small note re anti-Falun Gong propaganda

Please see Regimenting the Public Mind: The Modernisation of Propaganda in the PRC by Anne-Marie Brady. I expect there will be no problems with using this term to describe the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda.--Asdfg12345 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which term?  / Per Edman 09:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, I really don't think this dwelling on the definition or label of 'propaganda' is at all helpful in taking this article forward. We should just comment on the fact that the Chinese govt has used it, and Falun Gong used it, is sufficient. After all, the CCP and FG are both cut from the same cloth - the similarities between the two are really becoming clear to me. The whole thing is just both sides playing semantics. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Controversial New Religions, The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China, David Ownby P.195 ISBN 0195156838
  2. ^ Reid, Graham (Apr 29-May 5, 2006) "Nothing left to lose", New Zealand Listener, retrieved July 6, 2006
  3. ^ Danny Schechter, Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or Evil Cult?, Akashic books: New York, 2001, p. 66
  4. ^ (23 March 2000) The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations, Amnesty International
  5. ^ Thomas Lum (2006-05-25). "CRS Report for Congress: China and Falun Gong" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
  6. ^ Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (March 8, 2005)
  7. ^ United Nations (February 4, 2004) Press Release HR/CN/1073, retrieved September 12, 2006
  8. ^ Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784
  9. ^ Sunny Y. Lu, MD, PhD, and Viviana B. Galli, MD, “Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China”, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 30:126–30, 2002
  10. ^ Robin J. Munro, "Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses", Columbia Journal of Asian Law, Columbia University, Volume 14, Number 1, Fall 2000, p 114
  11. ^ "House Measure Calls on China to Stop Persecuting Falun Gong". US Department of State. 2002-07-24. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
  12. ^ Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: MISSION TO CHINA, Manfred Nowak, United Nations, Table 1: Victims of alleged torture, p. 13, 2006, accessed October 12 2007
  13. ^ International Religious Freedom Report 2007, US Department of State, Sept 14, 2007, accessed 16th July 2008
  14. ^ Matas, David & Kilgour, David (2007). Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China
  15. ^ United Nations Committee Against Torture, [CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION: Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/CAT.C.CHN.CO.4.pdf], Forty-first session, Geneva, 3-21 November 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_32&oldid=1278584323"