Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 33

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

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Partial rv to intro.

Hello Colipon, it is not clear from your edit summary why you made the following revert [1]. Based on WP:LEDE "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." I think that the Teachings are important and it is a good summary to say "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure"^[1], and as being, at different levels, common to both Taoism and Buddhism." then to say that "Its teachings are influenced by both Taoism and Buddhism." which does not say anything about the teaching itself. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the sentence "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure"" is too esoteric and of excess detail to be in the lead. It might be a different matter if it was in plain English, but it ain't. Saying that its teachings are influenced by both Taoism and Buddhism seems to be clear and accurate, and probably sufficient for those interested to click on the respective links to find out more about Taoism and buddhism. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Which part of "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure"" is not plain English? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  - The bit within the quote marks. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the expression is extremely esoteric. To present something as a discourse is not strange. To present something "at different levels" is not strange in itself, though quite vague. But then "to be True, Good and Endure" is neither a discourse or a description of levels, it is some sort of encouragement. These are ideals, ideological concepts, not discourses and not levels. Therefore the quoted section is too long and lacks explanatory content. / Per Edman 08:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent deconstruction! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet, this is how Falun Gong is presented. So can we leave it at that? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mind that Falun Gong sounds pompous and vague, if FG doesn't care by being esoteric. I still don't think it belongs in the lead, if that's what you are on about... Ohconfucius (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} It strikes me as a weak attempt to position the Falun Gong as a morally positive force, making those who oppose the Falun Gong (PRC for example) a morally negative force. As such it seems like it edges on WP:WEASEL and WP:NPoV considering this I rather object to it's positioning in the lede. "Influenced by Taoism and Buddhism" is much clearer and more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"to position the Falun Gong as a morally positive force" => what I'm quoting is what practitioners consider the essence of Falun Dafa. If that makes it in your view positive, well fine. That quote is a sourced statement, short, fitting to describe the teachings. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, we're not running an advertisement-campaign with capitalized adjectives. If that were the case, you could just as well put True^TM, Good^(c) and Endure^(R) in the lead-section... Seb az86556 (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is putting a trademark on anything, those are the teachings (no trademarks present there), the quote is correctly attributed and relevant. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the quote is attributed and relevant. The question is whether it belongs in the lead. The capitalization of True, Good, and Endure is at best strange English usage. It is also far from clear what the exact meanings of those terms is in this context. On that basis, I would have to say that the quote seems to at least me be a hindrance to understanding the ideas it is putting forward. It would make much more sense to include a statement which does not have those concerns. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The capitalization is according to the source (it's a direct quote) and I'm sure that it has its reasons to be capitalized in the translation, basically because it is considered something very central to the teaching. Regarding your conclusion that "the quote seems to at least me be a hindrance to understanding the ideas it is putting forward." => actually you are talking about this: "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure", for me it is clear that the teaching is describing the nature of the universe which is in short (and at the highest level) considered to be True, Good, and Endure. Not sure why you say that this is a hindrance to understand. It is a well sourced short summary of the teachings in plain English. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, could you please address your point on the talk page, regarding your recent revert [2]? Even if the quote is WP:SPS (which was not an issue raised until now), it does not change the fact that this is how the teachings are presented by the author, and the quote is attributed. I think that it is good for this encyclopedia to include how the Falun Gong promotes its teaching. As for NPOV, I'm not sure which point is not included or how do you claim that it is biased. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Once this entire POV mess is sorted out it would be nice to be able to sum up some Falun Gong teachings in the lede. This is a very difficult task and using promotional jargon from a Falun Gong promotional website that is meaningless to most of our readership (and sound strikingly like BS:"discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure") is not the best way to go about summing up FLG teachings. Colipon+(Talk) 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Why? Which would be the best way to summarize it in your own opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV changes

I worked extensively over the course of today to make some major changes to the main article "Falun Gong" to eradicate some of the POV bruises that the article still suffers from. I also aligned, moved, added, removed, and reorganized content based on the skeleton at FLGNEW. Some copy-editing would be appreciated, as well as some more eyes to just assess the content.

There are some things that I am still unsure about and therefore have not been bold in editing. I would like to ask for input from other editors on the following issues:

The "teachings" section is still not very readable. Consider the phrase "Truthfulness (眞 Zhen), Compassion (善 Shan), and Forbearance (忍 Ren) are regarded as the fundamental characteristics of the cosmos—an omnipresent nature that permeates and encompasses everything. In the process of cultivation, the practitioner is supposed to assimilate himself or herself to these qualities by letting go of "attachments and notions," thus returning to the "original, true self." In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi said that "As a practitioner, if you assimilate yourself to this characteristic, you are one that has attained the Tao—it's just such a simple principle." This needs to be simplified or contextualized.
In "theoretical background", Falun Gong's influences from Buddhism, Taoism, and its scientific elements are still absent. The section Theories about the cultivation of elixir (dan), "placement of the mysterious pass" (xuanguan shewei), among others, are also found in ancient Chinese texts such as The Book of Elixir (Dan Jing), Daoist Canon (Tao Zang) and Guide to Nature and Longevity (Xingming Guizhi). Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. However, the definitions of many of the terms used differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions. Francesco Sisci says that Falun Gong "re-elaborated old, well-known Taoist and Buddhist routines, used the old vocabulary that people found familiar, and revamped them in a simple, persuasive way." seems highly irrelevant to me and needs to be contexualized.
Under "Growth in China", is the line "Over time, followers appear to find in the teachings an "intricate, orderly, and internally consistent understanding of the cosmos," he writes. Other qigong practices were unable to provide "clear, unambiguous explanations of life’s deepest mysteries" and such a "complete and intellectually satisfying picture of the universe," as practitioners see it, he says." really necessary?
The Zhongnanhai incident, a pivotal part of Falun Gong's history, is very poorly explained. It may deserve an article in its own right.
Under section "The ban", is it necessary to have blockquotes from Xinhua and Li Hongzhi in full?
Is the heading "Persecution" considered NPOV?
Using the skeleton at FLGNEW, the "organizational structure" section remains incomplete.

I am encouraged by the progress. Recently there has been much less disruptive editing on these articles. Hope to hear from editors soon. Colipon+(Talk) 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Once word gets out that sanity is once again returning to Falun Gong series of articles, and edit warring and tendentious editing things of the past, more and more ordinary editors will start coming. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong membership

Estimates of Falun Gong membership is extremely varied, and not what is currently being presented in the article. At the time of the crackdown in 1999, Falun Gong claimed 100 members (clearwisdom) while official state sources ranged from 30 to 80 million (People's daily). Post-crackdown numbers range anywhere from 2 million to Falun Gong's original claim of 100 million. The 2-million estimate can be reliably drawn from the number of regular Falun Gong practitioners who engage in "public" exercise and in proselytizing the "Fa", something they are required to do by Li. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the vast majority of Falun Gong practitioners are visible in public. 100 million would mean the number of FLG practitioners outnumber people living in Canada more than three-fold. Kavan estimates the number of Falun Gong practitioners in New Zealand (a FLG haven, out of just over 4 million people) to be a few hundred at best. The number for 100 million is simply not credible, given that Falun Gong claims to not have any organization and method of tracking members. NRMs are known to exaggerate membership, and my impression from scholarly works (especially Tong) is that as of 2009, a number like '100 million' is vastly exaggerated. Colipon+(Talk) 08:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that like their Nine Commentaries, I suspect there is likely to be quite a lot of double counting - probably including all those who followed the various schools of Qigong at some time or another before July 1999, and only updated for the recruits. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Kavan said "there are only approximately 100 Falun Gong members in New Zealand" Ohconfucius (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohconf, you are blatantly distorting the facts. Nine Commentaries are way better than anything the communists made!--FalunDafaDisciple (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we please ban this user? Colipon+(Talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What is Falun Gong?

That might sound like a stupid question, but David Onby indicates on page 4 of Falun Gong and the Future of China that there is "no consensus regarding the fundamental character of the group", and mentions as specific ideas put forward a "cultivation system", "heterodox cult", "spiritual movement", "new religious movement", and "a practice combining meditation and breathing exercises with a doctrine loosely rooted in Buddhist and Taoise teachings." Should the lede be adjusted to more clearly reflect that there is no clearly agreed upon definition of the nature of the group? John Carter (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes. This would be a good idea, so that we wouldn't have to label it as a cult (as China says) or a spritual group (as FLG says it).--Edward130603 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There was the line there is on-going debate about Falun Gong's classification as a religion, cult, or new religious movement. but that was suddenly removed by asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) a few days ago, and modified to say "there is debate about how Falun Gong should be classified". I just discovered it and put it back. Feel free to modify it as you see fit. Colipon+(Talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims vs. Estimate

Another thing reverted here [3] is the estimate wording. Falun Gong has no membership, so nobody can claim any number of practitioners, the best that it can do is to estimate how many practitioners there are based statistics like this: [4]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

~~So those people with yellow shirts who hang around on street corners AREN'T Falun Gong members... wow, could have fooled me.~~ Ok, perhaps that was too sarcastic. But my point is that even if Falun Gong's membership is informal there are still clearly people who identify themselves as members of the Falun Gong. Nobody buys the falun gong as exercise set argument here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Estimations are based on some scientific evaluation of data (such as extrapolation or interpolation), and this has not been demonstrated in any way. When one party is trying to talk up the numbers while another is trying to talk them down, we have a 'claim'/'counterclaim' situation and no longer an estimation. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, as with everything I went and actually checked:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/claim => the closest I found is: "A new statement of truth made about something."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/estimate => the closest that I found is: "A rough calculation or guess."

the links are here, please go ahead and double check. Based on this I'm sure that nobody did a headcount, that is not possible, so it can not be "A new statement of truth made about something.", on the other hand based on the research they did, like here, it is possible to say that they made "A rough calculation or guess.".--HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

“

Falun Dafa guides people to cultivate their xinxing to be good people according to the characteristics of the universe, Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, fundamentally eliminating illnesses, cleansing people's hearts, purifying their souls, and leading people on the path to returning to their original, true selves. Within seven years, Dafa had spread widely across China. More than one hundred million people practiced it.

”

Perhaps I am just being skeptical, but none of this chunk of text lends much credibility for an "estimate". It is a "claim" at best. One could even argue that within the context it is presented, it doesn't belong in the lede at all. Colipon+(Talk) 01:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but nobody collects the name and address of people who download the book and start to cultivate. So the number is a rough estimation. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between even thee wiktionary definition of the words, but it seems like we are really talking semantics here. "statement of truth" can equate to "statement of belief" of "assertion". I would argue that estimate is not a 'guess' but more like a calculation. Why else would people bother to coin the word 'guesstimate'? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

On this I would go on the term in that dictionary. And that number can not be anything else then an educated guess/estimation, based on various factors like the number of practice sites, and maybe download statistics, people showing up at events, etc. etc. It definitely can not be a "statement of truth" because there are no procedure in Falun Dafa to get the exact figures. Plus if we say that Clearwisdom a site run by Falun Gong practitioners estimates the total number of practitioners to be more then 100 million, then that is a correctly sourced and attributed statement. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster dictionary defines 'claim' to be: "to assert in the face of possible contradiction : maintain <claimed that he'd been cheated> b : to claim to have <organization…which claims 11,000…members — Rolling Stone> "; 'estimate' is defined as "to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of b : to determine roughly the size, extent, or nature of c : to produce a statement of the approximate cost of".
Thesaurus.com lists synonyms of 'claim' to be: "adduce, advance, allege, ask, assert, believe, call for, challenge, collect, declare, defend, exact, have dibs on something, hit, hit up, hold, hold out for, insist, justify, knock, lay claim to, need, pick up, pop the question, postulate, pretend, profess, pronounce, require, requisition, solicit, stake out, take, uphold, vindicate "; 'estimate' is defined as "approximate calculation; educated guess"; synonyms are listed as "appraisal, appraisement, assay, assessment, ballpark figure, belief, conclusion, conjecture, estimation, evaluation, gauging, guess, guesstimate, impression, judgment, measure, measurement, mensuration, opinion, point of view, projection, rating, reckoning, sizing up, stock, surmise, survey, thought, valuation". Ohconfucius (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so can we agree that the words are similar? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

They are as I defined earier above. Do you see 'estimate' being listed as a synonym of 'claim', and vice versa? I don't. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then do you agree that when Clearwisdom published this number it was done on "educated guess"? If not an educated guess then what is the base of their published number? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no basis really. NRMs are known to jack up the numbers of their followers to makes themselves look more credible. 100 million is just not believable. That's 1 in 12 Chinese. Having lived in China during this period I just cannot see how this is a logical conclusion. Colipon+(Talk) 11:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a total for 114 countries. And in China you will readily see self declared Falun Gong practitioners only in Labor Camps. Right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We've come full circle here. FalunGongers have been happily using 'say' whenever it comes to FG or a pro-FG source, and then 'claim' when it comes to a pro-Chinese government/CCP source. We've just been through what looked very much like a charade, trying to justify the use of 'estimate' for their claim of "over 100 million practitioners". Now, we hear that it was perhaps an educated guess. I felt some wool over my eyes. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, would it make you happy if I would drop the subject? Just because I updated the value based on source and now it says that they claim the number of practitioners to be over 100 million, which then is basically an estimate and not a statement of truth. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a very real question how reliable that source would be, unfortunately. It seems to be at least superficially almost self-published, in terms of the web page being one of FG practicioners/advocates/whatever. If it can be demonstrated that other more clearly independent sources have used the site as a source of information, then it might meet RS standards. As is, I think it can be used to indicate that FG advocates state that number, but, because it doesn't seem to indicate how the number was arrived at, particularly considering the source based on the information available is not necessarily the most reliable, I think personally that using "claims" would probably be better, because we are given no idea how the number was arrived at and there is at least potentially a very serious question regarding the reliability and independence of the source. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Claim" is quite the right word here. We wouldn't even have this discussion if everybody here had a dispassionate attitude to the movement we're writing about. COI. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Right then the word estimate would be just as good. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

<blank stare> It would appear that nothing I said got through. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2c worth... Could the right term be "asserts"? It seems that "one group (ccp) asserts x, FG asserts y" is the indivisible unit of knowledge here. 58.6.92.66 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)BadBob

Some IPs need gold medals for thinking outside the prescribed box. Good suggestion... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I would have no problems with that word, which I use interchangedly with 'claim', 'opine', etc. The word 'estimate' implies a greater accuracy than ought to actually be ascribed to how parties actually arrive at their numbers. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Altering the text to say that FG "asserts", "states", "says", etc., a given number of adherents works for me, although of the three I mention I would favor either "asserts" or "says". John Carter (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. Colipon+(Talk) 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult section

The cult section has been slowly unbalanced and turned POV. Editing has also left it downright misleading in parts. It now makes it appear that there the "cult" perspective on FG in academia is at least on par with the perspective that does not use the cult label which is grossly inaccurate. It also makes it seem like the reason for not using the label has more to do with politics than with scholarly veracity which is also innaccurate. Who calls them a cult other than Kavan (whose expertise has nothing to do with the classification of social groups) and Singer (whose theories are fringe)? To make matters worse the connection between Singer and the ACM has been categorically removed and now this misleading gem of a sentence appears

"However, most social scientists and scholars of religion reject "brainwashing" theories of the Anti-cult movement[82] and do not use the term 'cult' the way Singer does."

Scholars reject brainwashing theories, in total, and not simply those "of the Anti-cult movement". The reference I provided specifically mentions Singer and her colleagues, meaning Singer and other psychologists who promoted these theories. And why was Kavan removed at the end of the sentence as well? they do not use the term the way Singer and Kavan do. Didn't I make it abundantly clear that Kavan's definition of "cult" has no resemblance to academic definitions outside the anti-cult leaning academic fringe? As I've said before, as long as this kind of manipulation of balance exists there will always be edit warring because even the pro-FLG editors are pushing back against POV. And you know what, at least their POV is obvious, open and easy to identify. I'm not going to edit this entry again as I said above, but it would be nice to at least hear someone refute what I have said instead of just ignoring then subtly pushing this anti-cult POV into the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PelleSmith: Could you please also make an assessment on my edit, and please let me know if it is WP:POV as Colipon states or WP:UNDUE as Ohconfucius states. As I see it the revert leads to a content loss because 2 well sourced quotes where removed and it leads to NPOV as you stated above. The edit was allowed 10 minutes of existence. Since I tried to follow the WP:BRD cycle strictly in the #Intervention section, but without an independent assessment I don't see any voice of reason there. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: more information on the cult label can be found here however this content now is available only in the archives. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As Colipon states the pro v. con structure you created is in fact misleading and I would not suggest using it. The "Academic views on Falun Gong" section about the "cult" label you linked to above is way too bloated in my mind and should not be replicated here as it was written, but it does exemplify something that others here appear to be in denial of -- that calling Falun Gong a "cult" is a fringe POV. Notably this isn't simply a matter of people who use the label at all vs. people who never use it although the general lack of legitimacy of that term in academic disciplines also factors in heavily. When some editors wanted to flat out label Singer's perspective as "fringe" and remove Kavan due to the fact that she is not a social scientist (both legitimate suggestions) I tried to write a version which was less harsh than reality is in this regard but apparently any suggestion that the cult label isn't mainstream just wont cut it around here. I'm also rather displeased at how subtely this was accomplished. In edit summaries PerEdman demanded verification of various items like Singer's association with the ACM and the fact that brainwashing is a fringe view among scholars. When I provided references to both, and even added a direct quote about Singer so that there was no room for ambiguity the quote about Singer was removed as "awkward" and the brainwashing statement was rendered misleading by claiming that only the ACM's brainwashing theories are out of fashion. Of course I think that in general pro-FLG editors have been consistently trying to POVize and bloat the entry with their perspective so I can't blame some for being reactionary. On the other hand I don't understand why anyone who is interested in a neutral entry would work this hard to twist the scholarly perspective. This is why editing here is just frustrating and I don't wish to do it again.PelleSmith (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On reading the critique of the changes above, I now realise that perhaps I did not fully grasp the pertinent issues in this debate, and how subtle bias can creep in. I am certainly responsible for some of the changes, and would work towards putting some of those more subtle elements back. I may well have removed mention of Kavan subscribing to brainwashing theories, thinking it would be alright because I removed her direct assertion that FLG was a cult. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the candid reply. In her essay Kavan specifically mentions "mind-control" as one of the characteristics of a cult. I'm not entirely clear how directly she claims this is an aspect of Falun Gong, but it certainly puts her in that camp. The larger issue here appears to be that the cult label is a minority perspective among experts. The very first sentence of this section should make the statement clear that most scholars do not characterize them as a cult. Then I suggest moving to the government use of the term, the anti-cult movement and then the minority scholarly perspective. When dealing with the majority perspective the weight given to that perspective should be clear. The rejection of brainwashing and anti-cult categories in general should also be clear (and not hidden as has unfortunately has become). I also highly suggest re-adding the link between Singer and the ACM. I sourced this more than adequately. I have no idea what people's motivations are here and am not accusing anyone of bad faith. But the more I point these things out to no avail the more cynical I become.PelleSmith (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to my original version may not be the best way forward since other productive changes are then also lost, but clearly I think this is preferable to some of the changes I described above.PelleSmith (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, all I can suggest is just to stick around. Just take a detached approach, don't worry about the outcome, and focus on the process and on taking each step well. It's clear that there is manipulation and POV-pushing here, and I've even done this in the past, like cherry-picking quotes, thinking that this is a good idea because it agrees with my philosophical proclivities with regard to the subject, etc.. I refuse to do this anymore. Anyway, it's plain to see who is doing it and when, and through the process of discussion, dissecting edits, and so on, people's consistency and credibility gets revealed. Those trying to game the system long term will fail, and they'll get banned. My advice is to approach things in a detached way, just keep doing what you're doing. The other side of the coin is not to always first assume ideological motivations when people raise concerns that would appear to fit in with what their suspected proclivities are. It would be easier if we were non-emotional beings.--Asdfg12345 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream vs. fringe

Below I suggest listing scholars who use the "cult" label to describe Falun Gong and those that do not. More explicitly those who use other descriptors instead. After this it may be helpful to break out those who do not into those who explicitly disagree with the label in regards to Falun Gong and why. I have started this for you. In case there is any confusion I put the sources in parentheses when I found them on my own outside of what is in this entry so they could be verified.PelleSmith (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Use cult

Kavan, Heather
Singer, Margaret

Don't use cult

Bell, Mark R. ("Falun Gong and the Internet: Evangelism, Community, and Struggle for Survival," Nova Religio)
Boas, Taylor C. ("Falun Gong and the Internet: Evangelism, Community, and Struggle for Survival," Nova Religio)
Burgdoff, Craig A ("How Falun Gong Practice Undermines Li Hongzhi's Totalistic Rhetoric," Nova Religio)
Chan, Cheris Shun-ching
Edelman, Bryan
Fisher, Gareth ("Resistance and Salvation in Falun Gong: The Promise and Peril of Forbearance," Nova Religio")
Irons, Jeremy ("Falun Gong and the Sectarian Religion Paradigm," Nova Religio)
Lowe, Scott ("Chinese and International Contexts for the Rise of Falun Gong," Nova Religio)
Lu, Yungfeng ("Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong," Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion)
Ownby, David
Palmer, Susan
Porter, Noah
Richardson, James T.
Wessinger, Catherine ("Falun Gong Symposium Introduction and Glossary," Nova Religio)

A couple of corrections here. It is not outright conclusive that Heather Kavan labels Falun Gong a "cult", nor does she necessarily imply it. I think she believes that Falun Gong has "cult-like characteristics" in its charismatic leader and manipulative doctrine, but having read her paper, I get the feeling that she was trying to take a more objective stance. So the only one on that list who explicitly labels Falun Gong a cult is Margaret Singer (and Rick Ross, who is not mentioned on the list).

On the flip side of the same coin, academics do not explicitly label Falun Gong a "cult" for a wide variety of reasons. One of the most important reasons is that "cult" carries with it extremely negative connotations, and another is that it would place these academics on par with the Chinese government, whose charges against Falun Gong are exaggerated and politically motivated. However, many academics who distance themselves from CCP views (including Ownby, Chan, Irons, Burgdoff, Rahn, etc) are critical of Falun Gong in its various aspects.

In retrospect, perhaps it was not appropriate to zoom in public debate on the "cult" question alone, but rather on the more broad question of Falun Gong's controversies in their entirety. To the average reader, a summary of who thinks Falun Gong is a cult and who does not does little to contextualize the views of Falun Gong's critics (i.e. academic criticism, not just negative criticism). It is for this reason that I propose the section be re-worked into smaller sections, renamed "Public debate", and if necessary, build an article for Criticism of Falun Gong. I realize that a section like this would lead to an uproar and POV wars, but it is not an excuse to not give Criticism of Falun Gong due weight in the articles. Colipon+(Talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then there should be a "controversies and criticisms" section and not a "cult debate" section. Using the "cult debate" in place of such a section is either lazy or an appeal to the anti-cult POV which would lump criticisms together with the label in ways that academics would not do. I started this thread in relation to the label specifically and not in relation to critical perspectives on Falun Dong in general. In fact the conflation of those two things is precisely what I worry about.PelleSmith (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree. That was the plan at FLGNEW as well. There was an entire article on "Criticisms and controversies of Falun Gong", but it was written mostly by anti-Falun Gong activist Sam Luo, who is now banned (however, the content is well-sourced and deserve to be given its due weight, but the tone definitely needs to be changed from its originals). Critical content on Falun Gong was then slowly modified, reorganized, whitewashed and eventually just completely removed by several SPAs. I would opt to restore and contextualize some of the old content and add some new content as well. Colipon+(Talk) 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree as well. The cult section is itself somewhat useful, as there is a question regarding whether the term is really appropriate, but the broader criticism and controversy content is very directly relevant as well. Personally, I would myself probably opt for making the cult question section a subsection of the broader criticism and controversies section, as it is effectively dealing with a single point relevant to that broader topic. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear why a name like "criticism and controversies" would be more desireable than "reception." The first is negative, the latter is neither positive nor negative. If there were a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies, to maintain a neutral point of view, would there then also be a section called "agreements and praise"? Silly, right? Why the proclivity for argument and criticism rather than consensus and praise? I don't understand, I think it should just be called reception, which includes all points of view, and let's get on with life. The list of cult/non-cult academics is useful; there may be another list of academics which disavow the cultic label in terms of Falun Gong. I think it would be longer and of a higher quality than the pro-cult list. This, to me, shows that it is a minority view as defined by wikipedia policies.--Asdfg12345 03:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

made some changes. I really appreciate how there are these different streams of debate going on in these pages now. the pro-FLG pov is being cleaned up, which is good. let's be wary of going too far the other way though as a reaction. i will really do my best to put aside time each day to come and edit and participate in discussion. if there are issues with my recent edits, for example, let's discuss them. --Asdfg12345 04:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just have to say that the constant removal of information about the persecution is really weird, even troubling. It's one of the most notable aspects of this topic, yet people constantly try to sideline it, all the while acknowledging that the persecution is real, apparently because they would not want to appear like CCP propagandists, but yet still forging ahead with edits that are inconsistent with this. Having no section here about the persecution, for example, is an example of this. I find it so disingenuous. It undermines the idea that we can have freewheeling and open discussion of all the issues on the pages. It's incredibly obvious that this is happening, and is a hugely notable aspect of the subject. I'm sure we could do some algorithms, searching through different media reports in large quantities and finding out how many have "persecution" and "torture" in them, for example. This would be an evidence-based way of establishing the notability and WP:DUEness of the various claims, taking it completely outside the scope of ideological stances. Who would be amenable to this sort of approach, in different circumstances? The only thing we'd have to discuss is the best ways to conduct the analyses and whta they should be. I could get a 10,000 source, 50meg html document and run some algorithms to compare how often different words appear, for example. I bet if I did this it would be clear the "persecution" turns up a whole lot. I'll put the section back later, and look at a lot of the other changes. I'm really pleased about some of the developments, but also concerned about others. The attempt to purge the pages of all reference to the persecution, for example, should be a big concern to anyone who upholds the principles of wikipedia, which most certainly does not cater to political censorship.--Asdfg12345 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't knkw what happened to the Kavan stuff. It seems to have got bloated in all the wrong ways, and was not properly attributed to her. Some of the stuff attributed to her (through citation) was not anywhere to be found from my reading of same, so that has been removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kavan said this about the CCP vs. FLG propaganda war. At the heart of the battle between the Chinese government and Falun Gong are two warring ideologies with highly committed protagonists. Both use the media as pawns. Both use the same rhetorical strategies: issuing blanket denials when accused, devising conspiracy stories, and redirecting allegations by accusing the other of the same thing. What is being played out is a conflict of intransigent beliefs. The Western media’s uncritical acceptance of Falun Gong’s version suggests that Li, by appealing to ideals of amelioration of suffering and freedom of religion, has produced a story that the West wants to believe. Ownby and Rahn make similar comparisons. Colipon+(Talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How do Ownby and Rahn express this comparison?PelleSmith (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was also the issue of the weasely worded 'academics' was used when there's only one reference, so if there are others, the references should be added accordingly. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Rahn or Ownby. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that Kavan quote. I think it summarizes the issue quite well and in a very neutral tone.Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Heather Kavan actually did an excellent piece of research, I recommend it to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it published online or in any periodicals available in Canada?Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)

Yeah, found the link, reading now, highly impressed so far.Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I can't say I agree. That a group would publicly promote a positive image of itself is pretty much common sense. That a group which is to some extent or another persecuted by it's government would specifically promote the image of itself as a victim of persecution is likewise commonsensical. It is in their self-interest to do so. Who expects Falun Gong's own PR apparatus to make the group look bad? Our own biases in the West are also obvious ... that we would side with the "persecuted" religious group against its "communist oppressors" is a given. What would have been useful is an analysis that contextualizes Falun Gong's own media efforts more thoroughly within the power dynamics that exist in China. Her comparison between a very powerful government and a minority group whose members feverishly believe they are being oppressed by this government is naive to say the least. And this is obvious to anyone remotely educated in the social sciences without any relevant area expertise. It really hits home in her prologue where she states: "This experience nevertheless highlighted for me the similarity between Falun Gong’s view of what constitutes fair media treatment and the Communist party’s model, which suppresses dissenting voices." She writes this after receiving angry phone calls from practitioners who mistakenly think she called their group evil. To react that way out of paranoia that Kavan is fueling Chinese persecution (however real or unreal the basis of that paranoia is) cannot simply be compared in this manner to the propaganda efforts of a world power in its attempts to maintain hegemony. Sure both sides may be engaged in misinformation of various kinds but to compare them like that is meaningless and misleading.PelleSmith (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that would ammount to asking Kavan to bias he work based on the fact that the PRC is stronger. So far Kavan's arguments seem convincing, reasonable and largely accurate. Of course I'm reading at work and so have to do so between job tasks so I've only read half of it so far.Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree. Falun Gong is actually a very unique phenomenon in China and in the greater context. Of course Falun Gong promotes itself, but it also goes out of its way to censor critical content. If you read a bit into Falun Gong's history you will learn that this is the reason the Communist leadership became afraid in the first place - that Falun Gong was able to control what was being said about it in the media (read BTV protest, Tianjin Normal University protest, Zhongnanhai protest etc.). Falun Gong lobbied many Chinese newspapers and TV stations to get rid of content critical of Falun Gong between 1996-99, before the government even got involved.

I think Kavan's paper sums up the Falun Gong situation very succinctly and accurately. Although she may not have the same academic credentials as Ownby, large chunks of the paper is highly sourced and she only takes a more subjective stance towards the end. Colipon+(Talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thorough scholarship does not equate to bias. Simon I'm a bit confused about your point. Scholarship should not be advocacy for one side or another period. However, adequately accounting for various social dynamics is part of understanding any social phenomenon. Kavan's comparison at the end of her paper is superficial and does not account for what are obvious differences in social context. Colipon even if Chinese government was 100% justified in how they treat the group that would have nothing to do with the fact that the two are simply not comparable in this superficial manner. What you quote is not a "summation of the situation" but a judgment of Kavan's and as I've stated a superficial one at that. A comparison is by definition a subjective act and I think this is particularly poor one. These two entities are working from very different motivations, are comprised of drastically different members and are achieving success in extremely different media systems (one Chinese the other Western) with their own predilections and biases.PelleSmith (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Finished reading now. Although her end statement may not be entirely rhetorically sound the body of the paper is a thorough and surprisingly neutral account of this religious group. I have to say that although I understand your concens with the postscript and phrasing I don't entirely agree with you. This is a much more reliable source than zhuangfalun.net and we use that.Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that source anywhere, did you mistype it? I see no reason not to find Kavan reliable for facts about Falun Gong. This does not mean that every piece of analysis or every judgment in her essay (e.g. showing how they can be categorized as a "cult", or comparing their propaganda efforts flat out to those of the Chinese) should be treated as fact or as particularly meaningful if she is the only one making it. I've asked Colipon to quote from the other two scholars he says make the same comparison. I'm rather curious about how they express this same issue.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Barend ter Haar also states: Commonalties are the focus on healing (at least in the early phase) and moral behavior as an explanatory paradigm for all kinds of personal and societal problems. On the other hand, we find a similar stress in pre 1976 PRC (Maoist) propaganda and political campaigns, which is when Li Hongzhi was culturally and ideologically formed (including a stint as an army musician). Colipon+(Talk) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they utilize rhetorical strategies which share common cultural roots is indeed interesting (though not unexpected given that they are all Chinese after all), but this is a far cry from the superficial comparison Kavan is making in either quote mentioned above.PelleSmith (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no revisionism going on, nor is there any attempt to expunge all traces of the word 'persecution', although I can imagine you feel that way. It's not a word to be thrown around like confetti, as has been the practice in the past. The article has become a POV nightmare because of over-reliance on jingoistic quotes, firebombing, misattribution, and other perversions. Stripping out instances of this jingoism is one sure way of neutralising the article's overt bias; so is removing 'persecution' when it has been incorrectly (not following source) or inappropriately used, and is properly attributed when used, is part of that work. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Persecution" can be used, but not over-used, and specifically not over-used to reflect a particular POV (i.e. to gain moral high ground for Falun Gong). Colipon+(Talk) 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Better

I have reverted everything to a better state. I'm sure that everyone except Ohconfucius will agree.--FalunDafaDisciple (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone ban this user immediately. Colipon+(Talk) 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW.....that was a massive trail of destruction!--Edward130603 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I 'd want this guy immediately banned as well. An obvious Joe job account - nothing more. He does nothing but make comments engineered to create a caricature out of the apparent perspective of supporters of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I saw there was a Photo of Falun Gong practitioners getting arrested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg in the article "People's Republic of China" and i thought that the photo would be more relevant here. But it got like immediately taken out again and after like a few months it also got taken out in the PRC article with the remark "Human rights: unnecessary and undesirable to use a propaganda photo to illustrate the article". And now i am like "WTF? why would this be called a propaganda photo?"

There actually thousands of picture like that (here are a example of a couple of hundred i found on a Falun Gong website http://photo.minghui.org/photo/Esitemap.htm) so there all propaganda? Why? Simply cause it's from a Falun Gong website? That's enough for categorically devaluing it as propaganda? So what they reenacted it all? Would be kinda hard to reenact it on Tiananmen square, wouldn't it? And the pictures of Labor camps there are fake too? You know they said the same thing about the holocaust... I am sorry but i am German an Germans tend to get pretty angry at remarks like that... (-:

BTW i am not the one who uploaded the picture or put it into the PRC article. --Hoerth (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Which photo of the four on the page linked to are you discussing. My own personal belief, for what little it might be worth, is that those photos would probably best be on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article, because they are all most directly relevant to that subject. But the nature of the photos, and the fact that they deal with something only really marginally dealt with in this article, might cause some to question whether they would be particularly appropriate here. Also, there is the fact that all those images are copyrighted, and by wikipedia's guidelines and policies, we try to use a public domain photo wherever possible if such a photo is sufficient for the article's purposes. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well most (not all but most) of the pictures where shot by Falun Gong Practitioners themselves - so i am pretty sure they are not gonna be against using them otherwise they wouldn't have put them on western internet anyway and put themselves in danger by having shot them. But of course i don't know them personally. There is only one picture on the Falun Gong website in which i do know the guy who shot it personally (and i know him very well and know that he is not opposed to it being posted on Wikipedia). It is this one: http://photo.minghui.org/photo/images/persecution_evidence/wuju/images/zhu_hang1_big.jpg http://photo.minghui.org/photo/images/persecution_evidence/wuju/images/zhu_hang2_big.jpg And this is the background storry:http://clearwisdom.net/emh/emhweekly/2005/12/11/2005-12-08-persecution.html#12 --Hoerth (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I am reluctant to use these photos is because they are all taken with the aim of advocating for a cause. They play on emotion and are part of a much larger public-relations campaign by Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. Initially, the page held a host of pictures showing people being beaten, harassed, reenacting torture, and all that. I do not doubt that the pictures are real, and as you can see, one remained ("reenacting torture"), but it gets out of hand when the article becomes a gallery of cruelties, esp. when the issue at hand is so divisive. I am extremely aware of the power of images, and I do believe that the words in the text, rather than the pictures, should "speak." To me, the current shape of the article is already a compromise. If it was up to me, I'd take out all the pictures. But we settled on this compromise to include a few of them, but not too many.

As a side, "propaganda" wasn't my rationale and word-choice when I reverted the inclusion. Colipon's word-choice of "advocacy" is the appropriate term. If at some other article, people accused you of propaganda, just ignore that comment. It's charged. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because Falun Gong, Flickr, [name your source] has a photo gallery doesn't mean we have to use them. Whilst images often help to put a subject into clearer perspective, some articles are best left without. IMHO, this is one of those. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Seb az86556: No you weren't the one who said "Human rights: unnecessary and undesirable to use a propaganda photo to illustrate the article". Ohconfucius said that when he removed the photo from the People's Republic of China page. But anyway I really don't care... I just thought the picture that i saw on the PRC article would be more appropriate here and i wanted to mention that if you guys want to have a picture relevent to the persecution that there is one where i know the background and have permission and that i could put up. That's all. --Hoerth (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Intervention

This bunch of unsubstantiated edits by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) are disruptive to the great amount of progress that has been made so far by editors from all different walks of wiki who have dedicated time into this extremely contentious article. As such I will now revert it. If there are any grievances or issues arising from this please discuss. Colipon+(Talk) 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Colipon, let me elaborate, then tell me which one of the edits is unsubstantiated and why:

20:03, 7 September 2009 Colipon (talk | contribs) (52,916 bytes) (rv SPS, POV, etc. Undid revision 312449859 by HappyInGeneral (talk)) => You did not engage yet in the talk that was started here. Please address them.
~~21:30, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (53,207 bytes) (›Membership) => I added a WP:RS regarding the number of practitioners~~ fixed.
21:31, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (53,189 bytes) (›Media branches and PR Strategies: remove WP:OR) => I changed PR Strategies into appeals, if you go through the sources in that section you will see that that is a Human Rights Appeal and not PR Strategy
21:40, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (53,173 bytes) (›The 'cult' debate) => here I split up the section into supporters and critics of the cult term, otherwise it is intermigled and it is not clear what is the WP:Due on the subject
21:53, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (54,696 bytes) (›Critics of the 'cult' term: amnesty) => in these revisions I added more informations correctly sourced and attributed.

Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In my eyes the only valuable NPOV-passing edit in that group was number 2. So you can restore that if you would like. Also, if you believe my treatment of the content was unfair, you can ask other editors if you would like. I merely reverted because I cannot assume "good faith" on these edits, sorry. Without directly speaking out against you personally, I would like to point out that your edit patterns and open advocacy are often in direct violation to the article probation and as such must cease. A recurring theme for pro-FLG editors on this article is to subtly "tip the POV balance" in favour of Falun Gong and these edits are a typical example. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we agree on nr. 2, then I restored that part. For the rest it is troubling that you are unable to assume "good faith", because that is necessary in order to have a constructive environment. Still it is not really relevant either, because we are discussing sources not opinions, so please address what is the problem with how the sources are attributed and presented on point 5, or with the structural change made for clarity in point 4. Point 1, is discussed in another thread above and point 3 is not that important. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing that we need to avoid right now is to make presentation of everything a "for" or "against" battle. The earlier "cult" section did this extremely well in that it put everything in a fluid context that a reader can easily follow. Adding headings and then restructuring everything to "pro" and "con" makes the presentation more black-and-white and therefore much more misleading. Colipon+(Talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"much more misleading" because? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the above points, I would comment as follows:

We have dealt with this before, and I definitely don't feel such detail and esoteric language is suitable for the lead.
agreed
it's all to do with the use of media to get the political message across. Although I don't find it misleading or POV, I will try and find a better term.
I have rearranged the section slightly. It was essentially rewritten from the previous problematic version by third party editor PelleSmith, and I agree that it is more neutral than any version we have had before. Splitting is unnecessary because it breaks up the flow of argumentation, and becomes an invitation for either 'side' to firebomb with quotes which favour their own arguments.
I believe you were trying to make a point with this edit. It is exactly the sort of disruptive firebombing which has blocked progress at this family of articles for so long, contributing to the significant bloat. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please state your opinion in the relevant section #Partial_rv_to_intro.
ok
"it's all to do with the use of media to get political message across." here is one point where your POV is showing because you are stating things that are not in accordance with the majority of WP:RS and is against common sense, because what practitioners are doing is a Human Rights Appeal. There is no political party favored in their message, there is only a call to stop the persecution.
OK, I'll go and check
What is disruptive in adding sources and balancing a blatantly POV version of the cult label? What is disruptive in this talk? Isn't it more destructive to have lightning fast reverts without proper discussions, basically owning the article? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No one person owns the article. In fact there has been a very large group of editors working in concert to improve the article. I would suggest that it is in fact you who might want to consult WP:OWN.Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral, there is no need to lash out at other editors for WP:OWN when a vast array of editors have finally begun to work on solid content on these articles and disassembling the Falun Gong POV fortress that SPAs have built in the past two years. To me it is not only ironic but also disrespectful to good faith editors. Colipon+(Talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I have absolutely no intention of being disrespectful. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I did. What d'ya think this was?

3. nobody said there was party politics involved. There can be politics without parties.

5. It appears that when you get to the point where it is in 'balance' for you, most of us have an issue with WP:UNDUE on our hands. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Singer

A look into the background of professor Margaret Singer and it is clear that if she has an agenda, it is an anti-cult agenda, not a pro-Communist one. I removed the reference to Singer being "sympathetic to [the CCP's] goals". Even if there are some sources that paint Singer this way, inserting an awkward quote like this is highlights an undue connection between Singer and the Communists, which is not at all necessary given the context. If, perhaps, Singer was a Maoist herself or has notably supported CCP policies on other issues in the past, we can make this connection valid. But Singer has not demonstrated much of an explicit support for any anti-Falun Gong measures taken by the PRC government. She merely criticizes Falun Gong in its own right. Singer's Falun Gong writings have been noticeably less inflammatory than the CCP. This is the reason that even if this phrase or anything along the same vein is sourced, it is a poor representation of who Singer really is. Colipon+(Talk) 10:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

One can be "sympathetic to [the CCP's] goals" for many reasons, and usually the most telling if somebody is or is not is their words and actions, right? So if there is a source saying that she is "sympathetic to [the CCP's] goals" then this statement when it is correctly attributed and sourced can be inserted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But then you would be ignoring the well-known fact that FG pracititioners call all their critics "pro-CCP" as a rhetoric device. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well aren't they usually "pro-CCP"? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your leaps in logic reminds me of those highschool reasoning questions : Nazi's always hate Gays, therefore all Anti Gays are Nazi lovers. True or False? Bedbug1122 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bedbug you got it all wrong. What's more, that comment was a smear. Kindly strike it out. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Margaret's Singer's agenda had nothing to do with being "pro-CCP". The idea that anyone critical of FG is pro-CCP is alarmingly paranoid. In the American context critical perspectives, especially in relation to the "cult" label, have little to anything to do with CCP propaganda. I'm not sure how anyone can believe otherwise. Most Americans distrust the Chinese government. Singer's agenda was an anti-cult agenda which has nothing to do with Chinese politics.PelleSmith (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with "Well aren't they usually "pro-CCP"?" - by that I mean you hit the nail on the head as to why we have problems with the way you approach virtually all these articles. Anyone who doesn't share your views is automatically "pro-CCP" in your world.

Well, truth says "no, it ain't". Accept the notion that one can be critical of and even heavily criticize Falun Gong without being a spy for or sympathizer with the Chinese government. If you find yourself unable to accept that notion, you will simply have to get out and leave. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You did do a great job in launching a smear campaign against me, I see. Although I can see your logic above, you do forget to put this into context and acknowledge how massive the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong is, which naturally makes most of the critics "pro-CCP". Sure there are some people who don't like Falun Gong just because perhaps they are born that way. But if you ask me, those are very, very few, when compared with the 70 million party members, who need to criticize Falun Gong just to remain in the party. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF???... What's up with the link to WP:NPA?... Alright, can we do a quick headcount as to who of the participants in these discussions is a member of the Chinese Communist Party?

Maybe no-one ever informed me of it, maybe my name is on some secret list somewhere, or maybe I must've stashed my membership-card into the back of my freezer and forgot about it... as far as I know, *I*, for one, have never been a member of any party. Or wait! Maybe, in fact, I *am* actually Chinese, was born in China, have been a member of the Communist Party since birth, but in order to hide that fact from everyone, including me, they surgically changed my face to Caucasian, implanted a new brain complete with new memories of my fake past, and now I am lying about it without even being aware of my lies, and... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that context should always be taken into account. In this case, when a 'massive propaganda campaign' is taken in the context of the PRC it is not so notable, because history has shown us that massive propaganda campaigns are the standard form of communication of the CCP, whether its anti-piracy, anti-corruption, anti-vermin, or anti-dengxiaoping. Campaigns don't even always reflect a true believe in the message, and certainly it still fails logic to label supporters of such topics as pro-CCP. Also in terms of Context, that 70 million CCP members are anti FLG is irrelevant in this case because a) they are Chinese, b) they live in China c) they speak Chinese. Associating an white western educated intellectual with them by default is pure silliness and ignores Context. Finally your comment "people who don't like Falun Gong just because perhaps they are born that way" is very much disturbing to me. Falun Gong is not eye color, fat women wearing thongs or ragweed pollen. Please be very careful about labeling those who don't agree with you as being 'born that way'. It leaves no room for meaningful discussion. Bedbug1122 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really glad to learn my 'dislike' of Falun Gong is apparently in my genes or because of my closet membership of the CCP, and not from meeting reactionary types in cyberspace who never accept they, or Li Hongzhi, can ever be wrong, as I had originally thought Ohconfucius (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me repeat it is funny how you take this so personally, your remark, if I guess correctly, relates to this statement of mine "Sure there are some people who don't like Falun Gong just because perhaps they are born that way." Again, both Ohconfucius, and Bedbug1122 overlooked the perhaps word, and you continue to insist that I just said that everybody who does not like Falun Gong was born that way or are CCP members. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your writing "presumably" only made it a veiled personal attack instead of a full-frontal personal attack. Anyway, you seem to have missed my use of the word "apparently". Ohconfucius (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Your writing "presumably" only made it a veiled personal attack instead of a full-frontal personal attack." => LOL, I see, how about if I say I'm sorry that I caused you that perception? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And Bedbug is right. Let's not forget the propaganda perspective isn't just to channel negative emotions... (see image added) --Ohconfucius (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but when it leads to torture, then I think it's safe to say that it is negative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I just proved it to you with the image above that it isn't always negative, and you start proselyting again! Ho hum... --Ohconfucius (talk)

Maybe because I failed to see why you needed to "prove" that is not always negative considering the context of this article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is funny how you take everything so personally, when this actually was started by a question, not a statement, and it is a discussion about the ratio of people who are self declared anti-Falun Gong and are also pro-CCP vs. people with no CCP connections.

To debunk a bit further:

"What's up with the link to WP:NPA" => Simple Seb, when you tell me "you will simply have to get out and leave." I will consider that as WP:NPA.
"surgically changed my face to Caucasian" => 1. I did not point my finger at you in person, 2. your statement shows up as a string of letters so I can not really assert if it is true or not, or if full context is given. Everything is possible, and all that is fine. Since we are on Wikipedia, WP:V asks us to show up the mainstream source when we edit pages. And that is all that matters, to keep focused on the text, right? Why do you want to put words in my mouth and make it look that it is personal? I can assure you I whole heartedly respect your face whatever color it may be. Your words try to portray me as racist, and I can assure you that I'm not, but I can also ask you to prove it if you insist on it.
"a) they are Chinese, b) they live in China c) they speak Chinese", d) they have a lot of money, e) they don't speak only Chinese, f) they try to influence the world with the outreach of embassies, media, Confucius schools, etc. => so my statement becomes relevant when speaking statistically, just a few sources on this: [6], [7], [8]
Again this whole discussion started from "Well aren't they usually "pro-CCP"?", it did not start from is Singer, Seb, Bedbug1122, etc... pro-CCP. Other then the fact that you made this to be a smear campaign against me, by extending my question in weird ways, there is no reason for any of you to take it personally. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no comment on 1),2)

3) e) The average CCP member speaks Chinese; perhaps some with knowledge of Russian. Yes there are those that speak English to some degree (e.g. Jiang Zemin), probably to the same scale as American democrats speak Chinese (i.e. insignificant). f) Sure they try, this is in line with the motives of any government, but what you had suggested was that their outreach by embassies, media, etc. was so influential that a western scholar who's academic view tentatively coincided with the CCP's on one isolated topic should be automatically thrown into their camp as a whole. Your sources are blogs that show to the contrary, their tactics are NOT working in the west, and they are perceived as threatening and bullying. In that light, if Singer indeed was influenced by the CCP it would be from violence and coercion?

4) I simply challenged the leaps in logic, and dualistic thinking as applied to suggest that Singer sympathized with CCP goals. This was not intended and I do not see it as a smear. In topics touching China, the nature of the beast is so enormous that it is very easy to loose perception of scale and fall prey to Reductio ad Hitlerum -esque arguments. That 70 million CCP members ordered the deads of tens of millions of unborn babies in China, does not mean that a western critic of the Prolife movement is inherently pro-CCP. Such should be true when discussing the FLG.

Lastly, I included 'perhaps' in quoting your comment, and I disregarded it because to me it does not change the intent of the sentence to suggest that those not holding your particular view are simply "born that way". If my concerned response to this has offended your sensibilities; I apologize. Let me re-word it:

'Please, perhaps be very careful about labeling those who don't agree with you as perhaps being 'born that way'. It leaves no room perhaps, for meaningful discussion'. Bedbug1122 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a point here. Characterizing someone basically independent of someone else as being "pro-" or "anti-" the goals of that other party through third-person material is at best dubious. I could easily be (as a member of the Catholic Church) symphathetic with the anti-abortion goals of Scott Roeder, but to indicate that makes me even remotely sympathetic to the assassination of George Tiller is, to my eyes, a preposterous leap of logic. Any number of people are, to varying degrees, sympathetic to the goals of many governments and other entities, but appalled at their actions. To selectively describe anyone as being "pro-" or "anti-" the position of someone else, without prsenting the full context, is probably not what we should do in any article, barring a clear statement from the party themselves, in this case Singer, regarding their views on the matter. Even then, unless their is clear evidence that the party in question, in this case Singer, supported not only the goals but also the actions taken to achieve those goals, and I don't see any real evidence to that effect, I think in the interests of neutrality and accuracy we would probably be best served by making any such value judgements based on anything other than clear, direct comments from the party themselves, or, in the irrelevant to this instance case of people who have been dead for some time, a clear statement in an academic work or biography expliciting making such a statement, and providing some degree of convincing evidence to subtantiate it. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I love your comment John, you debunk my question, in the proper manner, without starting a personal attack. I thank you for that! And yes, sure I agree that labeling is not the best tool in an encyclopedia. Here we should synthesize based on what reliable sources say, and no, I don't have at this moment any sources saying that Singer is pro-anything. So it's that simple. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on this discussion

This is a good example of the type of discussion you should try to avoid regarding this topic. As John Carter points out, unless there is corroboration from reliable sources for the claim that Singer was pro-CCP we have no business putting it in an entry period. There is no need to get into this kind of mudslinging over such a simple issue. I wish I had been more clear headed myself when I commented earlier but the pro-CCP claim is a violation of WP:NOR. My advice is to stop attacking each other and move on to greener pastures.PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. John Carter and PelleSmith make the points in clear terms and are the better voices of reason here. Moving on. Bedbug1122 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-immolation

Having copyedited that article today I feel that the event has very notable and warrants inclusion in the main article. From looking at the different sources I get the impression that Chinese public opinion did not turn decisively against Falun Gong until the incident occurred in February 2001. It seems to have played a pivotal role in the Chinese government's media campaign against Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the article's importance. I have completely restructured the article in recent days, and I aim to present it for WP:FAC very shortly. Any positive contributions would be most welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject is mentioned in the index of the Ownby book several times, unfortunately in the latter part of the book I haven't gotten to yet. If the candidacy is put off till, maybe, Wednesday or Thursday, I should have whatever I can get out of that book available then. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in any hurry. It can wait the outcome of your reading. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Karma and qigong

OK, this may be a bit of a reach as well. We know that Li said karma was a substance physically found in the body. T his of course sounds to many westerners rather, well, odd. In Ownby's 2008 book, page 10, he states that during the qigong boom some well-known Chinese scientists claimed to have found the material existence of qi. Having this information included somewhere, probably the qigong article, would probably be useful. It would maybe also help to reference it here, to establish that Li's claims are not unprecedented.
By the way, the PRC's record for science in this area is not exactly spotless. I know that in a collection of Skeptical Inquirer articles I read several years ago, as I remember a collection of Martin Gardner's pieces, there was one in which it reported how Chinese citizens were able to prove conclusively that they were able to identifiy hidden objects in sealed boxes. The fact that these psychics were allowed to take the boxes home with them at least overnight, and, in some cases, returned them physically damaged and with the seals open, was not of course something that the government saw fit to take into account in these studies. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem in Chinese Academe at the moment is actually a tendency to see a failed hypothesis as a failure. As a result if data tends not to support an hypothesis the research is generally shelved and not spoken about again; furthermore information that tends to support an hypothesis may, on occasion, be treated credulously. Even China Daily has reported on this problem (though don't ask me to cite a date and page number, it was a random copy I read one day on my break back when I worked over there).Simonm223 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The negative reporting bias is not isolated to Chinese Academia. In labs around the world research ethnics and the ego of individual researchers clash on a daily basis. Plus there is the very practical and well documented link between positive results and continued funding. The difference is, whereas in the west solid estimations can be made on the the rate of unreported failures due to its more transparent environment, in China, the added layer of government propaganda motivations make these figures hard to ascertain. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

POV editing again

I have removed this series of POV edits by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). I want to remind said user that this is not the first time such an edit has been attempted and it has been reverted multiple times by multiple users due to its selective quoting and POV nature. Please do not do it again, as it would certainly put your good faith into question. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a central piece of information sourced to the Amnesty International added to the article, and supported by a detailed citation - what is "POV" about it? The material is centrally relevant in that section as well. Could you please expand on why you label it "POV"? Am interested in knowing. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the tone of said addition sounded more like a lecture than an article-section. I do not think we should assume that all readers of wikipedia are dumb sheep that need to be told what/how to think. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is at least the second time said user attempted inserting this content. Colipon+(Talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the text, so I have restored the text written by PelleSmith. Either you guys don't realise that just because something is sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean it belongs (WP:N, WP:RELEVANT, WP:NPOV) or you're once again disingenuously attempting to firebomb the article and causing WP:UNDUE issues. Either way, this needs to stop.
I also have a problem with the repeated insertion and unsourced reference to the Nazi swastika. I am not aware that FLG has ever been under attack for its use of the symbol, and I would say that such paranoia is completely unwarranted. What is more, the infobox is the last place such commentary should be. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The conjecturing in the last 2 sentences do seem inappropriate, but I'm not sure the Amnesty International ref isn't relevant to show the classification differences in China. Bedbug1122 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it simple for me

Question: Since you reverted again, can you please explain in detail how is a something that is reliably sourced from Amnesty.org and American.gov is less WP:N = WP:RELEVANT, WP:NPOV here then "Chan 2004", "Irons, Edward. 2003", "Kaven"? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That clause explaining the Chinese gov't classifying Falun Gong as an 'Evil cult' was immediately followed up with "The government uses the term to classify groups deemed harmful to social stability in China." To launch into a very detailed explanation here is unnecessary. It is sourced content, yes, but placed in this context it is given undue weight. It seems to me like the implications of this edit is to say "The Chinese government says Falun Gong is an evil cult, but this is wrong". This also fails at WP:NPOV. As you say, we keep it simple, and the current revision does a superb job of this. Colipon+(Talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! So I understand that your problem is that this edit was WP:UNDUE, ok, I'll get back on that. Is there anything else I should be aware of? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

If the page on persecution of FLG is semi-protected, why is the main article free for new users and IP users to edit? This makes very little sense to me, especially in light of recent vandalism by sockpuppets of FalunGongDisciple. Colipon+(Talk) 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong symbol section

Hello,

I think there should be a good place where the swastika can be explained. Otherwise visually this symbol can be confused with the Nazi symbol, see here: [9]. I'll get more research on this, but as I talked with people that was their first confusion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you do that. In the meantime, please don't keep putting it back. By all means write some text based on scholarly remarks and put it in the body - the infobox is not where it belongs. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We try not to duplicate content too much, and the swastika article already covers the oriental usage fairly well. I think all that would have to be said would be something to the effect of the "the swastika, used as it is in Buddism, Hinduism, and other eastern religions as a symbol of [whatever]", would probably be enough. --Comment by John Carteradded by HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. See here: [10] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you moved it into the body and added 1/2 a sentence explaining the Nazi's plagiarism of the symbol it would help with the confusion. My first experience of seeing a group of Buddhist students with swastikas on their uniforms was one of utter shock. Bedbug1122 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "quick-note caption" in the infobox is a sufficient solution. I just don't know why it needs to be in bold print. Seems to be pre-programmed into the infobox... anyone know how to override that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Hello Simon,

I see that you reverted this edit the point of that edit was to remove duplicate content in refs and merge it under the same refid. Could you please merge them as you see fit? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

About Kavan in the cult label section

Could we exchange views on the value of Kavan's inclusion here? So far the only way I've seen it explained is that it's a good criticism of Falun Gong. I understood that the purpose of the section was to explain what reliable sources have to say about the cult label with relation to Falun Gong. Kavan is one proponent of the fringe theory that Falun Gong is a cult, and that it's doctrine and founder are manipulative. A similar sort of metric to the one above could be applied here. She appears to be one of two scholars who hold this view. Every other takes Falun Gong at face value: a free set of teachings, more or less. "Manupilative" is also a vague word in this context, and unfortunately Kavan never explains how it is that Falun Gong doctrine is manipulative, or what it means to have a manipulative doctrine. Does she mean that Falun Gong doctrine is untrue, but claims to be true, so it therefore manipulates people into believing it? Just guessing, not sure. I have read her study more than once, btw. For a view like this, which is without peers, how does its inclusion sit with WP:DUE? DUE calls for not representing minority views as though they were majority views--but not explaining that a view is minority, readers may mistakenly think that it's widely held. Perhaps, if we include her note, we could also have a sentence which explains that this view is not held by mainstream academics, and that most see Falun Gong as a (presumably non-manipulative) set of beliefs and teachings. We can use some language from Ownby or Penny. Falun Gong isn't the only group who regards Falun Gong as a "practice system." Most scholars of Falun Gong also believe that. As a temporary measure I just included Kohn's remarks about Falun Gong; Kohn is much more qualified than Kavan to comment on such issues. If everyone is happy, we can either remove Kavan, or include a couple of sentences to put her views in the context of most academic views on the subject.--Asdfg12345 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No.

No it's not fringe.

No we are not deleting Kavan.

Just... no. This debate is getting a bit long in the tooth and those of us who edit non-FLG articles on occasion are tiring of it.Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the work. However, if in fact the only way it's been explained is as a "good criticism of Falun Gong", then it would seem to have received scholarly approval, and things that have received scholarly approval or acceptance are not fringe. By the way, it would help if the "ibids" about her work actually came after the original presentation of her work. Right now, notes 83 and 84 are "ibiding" note 97, which probably should be corrected. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had it to just about here with the constant attempts to phase out or otherwise sideline everything which is even remotely critical about FLG, but this is not remotely surprising. The purpose of Kavan's study was not to determine whether it is a clut - the discussion there occupies exactly one paragraph, in which she says if the definition of cult is such and such, then FLG does seem to fall into the classification, full stop. I was therefore reticent to push for wording which put her in the Singer camp, but she seems to have been lumped in with her anyway. In addition to her discourse about cults, there are tens of pages of other valid observations, and I see no good reason to remove her study from the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Another thing is that Kavan is s apecialist in another field (communications), so naturally she would offer a different perspective to the Sinologists, social scientists, NRM-ologists and China historians. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As a social scientist I find that Kavan's research is consistent with good practice using a participant observer methodology. It really does pass scholarly muster. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the explanations are understandable. Keep in mind, however, that Kavan is expressing a fringe theory, and what she says should be taken on that basis. If you are saying that she has a different stance from Singer, then that makes her the only academic to hold her views--I had thought she was birds of a feather with Margaret, which at least gave them safety in numbers. It's unclear, then, why each academic gets a sentence to spout their personal theory, when DUE clearly explains that mainstream views should be explained more prominently. Two things remain: that minority views are not being presented as minority views; and that majority views are continually being pulled out of the article. Let me read what's been written above.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no monolithic thing called 'the academia', as it embraces plenty of disciplines as far as this subject is concerned. So one might just be able to say that Kavan's views are in a minority as far as sociologists who study religious groups are concerned, it is yet to be demonstrated that her views are in a minority as far as communications/journalism are concerned. And my gut feel is that her study comes sufficiently from left field to be close to what lay-observers believe, which is quite remote from the involved observers and possibly scholars who have "gone native". Ohconfucius (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But we don't need to resort to this vague armwaving of what we feel "lay-observers" believe when we have access to the academic sources available. Let's just go with what we can. The data is imperfect, but it's pretty good. We have access to just about most things academics have said about Falun Gong. Part of it is listed above. I don't understand the continual deferral of the question. It just seems like it's so obvious this is a fringe theory but no one wants to admit it. --Asdfg12345 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories are something like belief in a flat earth, not controversial and debated issues such as cults. Asdfg's attempts to remove the critical material in question amounts to WP:CENSORED, and makes it look like that the majority of academics embrace FLG, which is not the case.--PCPP (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does Kavan say outright that FLG is a cult, and the instance in the article where someone has written erroneously that she did has now been corrected, so what question am I dodging? I just choose not to participate in the 'fringe or not fringe' discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are saying that you do not want to participate in the discussion, that itself is a problem, in my view. It begs the question of how you are approaching the cult label with regard to Falun Gong. A stack of sources and policy are being presented to make the case that it's a fringe theory--and you have no response, one way or the other. Yet, you edit the article including this information, or, at least, have some understanding of the relative weight to give it... but won't participate in a discussion attempting to give an objective assessment to how much weight, given the apparent fringe nature of the label...? I don't want to make this a personal commentary, but we are trying to resolve content issues, and when editors refuse to participate in a legitimate discussion of that content, it makes the whole consensus-building process all the more difficult, in my view. Anyway, not a big deal, I just wanted to point this out. I'm sure there will be plenty of future opps for cooperation.--Asdfg12345 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I backed out of editing FLG articles for the very same reason I'm getting cheesed off again now. I felt the 'fringe' discussion was pointless as it wasn't going anywhere. As I already explained my position on the issue above (a few days back), I also backed the text proposed by PelleSmith as a reasonable starting point. I said earlier that I would not comment until there was a paradigm shift at WP, and I mean it, so I hope you don't blame me. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am awed

This bunch of edits make it seem awfully obvious that Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) has made it his mission on this page to whitewash the article of critical content, and has done so now for about three years. Whenever there is reliably sourced critical content, he resorts to firebombing the section with content singing praise for Falun Gong. His paranoia of erasing all content with a hint of criticism on Falun Gong is perhaps best represented through this edit summary. Note that all of his edits dealt with sections that contain criticism of FLG. As these edits so obviously fail WP:NPOV, I would like to revert to an earlier revision. However, reverting specific edits is no longer possible because of intervening edits. As you can see, this is severely discouraging and it would seem to be a mistake to waste my valuable hours on trying to fight Falun Gong adherents editing Falun Gong articles. As I am running out of energy here with all of these bullshit circular discussions, WP:AE would seem like the best path now. Colipon+(Talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have I violated any wikipedia content policies? Anyone is free to edit these pages. There are guidelines for how to do so. I don't believe I've violated any of them. I've made very, very few edits to these pages over the last couple of months. Nor have I characterised your or Ohconfucius's, or anyone elses edits, the converse of how you describe mine. We have our own perspectives on this issue, and this comes through in how we edit the pages. The key is to engage in proper discussion, cite our sources, cite policy, and just be rational, fair, and assume good faith. You are free to make modifications to my modifications. Wikipedia is an ongoing, evolving thing. No one version is absolute or the best. It's all a process. Feel free to make a positive and constructive contribution to the article--that's all I'm trying to do.--Asdfg12345 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps a bit naive of you to think that I or other editors will buy your explanation. Colipon+(Talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, what you violate were behavior guidelines, which I notice you don't even mention in your rather self-serving response above. Such violations of behavioral guidelines might themselves be seen as grounds for seeking remedial action. You have an obvious conflict of interests regarding this subject as per WP:COI. As per that page, you should not edit any articles relating to the subject about which you do have a clear conflict of interests without outside supervision, to ensure, at the very least, that the article does not itself clearly violate WP:NPOV. I beieve you have been told this repeatedly by several different people. I very strongly urge you to read those pages and seek to have your conduct become more in line with them. Otherwise, people may have no choice but to seek other means to end disruptive editing. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:COI "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.", can you show such examples? On the other hand, I can show lots of such examples that would take these pages and turn it into PRC propaganda piece clearly against WP:NPOV (the latest is the one with the cult section which even PelleSmith noticed). And all these happen while not one of the editors admit that they are working for the PRC propaganda department (which is huge). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

asdfg's recent pattern of editing appears to me to be unusually aggressive highly partisan, using pretexts for addition or deletion which no other editor here buys any more. Compounding that serious problem is that, if I recall correctly, Bobby Fletcher has named him in the past, and identified asdfg is an Epoch Times journalist in RL. Should that be true, then it would be beyond reasonable doubt that asdfg is acting with a conflict of interest. asdfg has always sidestepped that issue and had that 'outing' oversighted. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence of any sort to support that, then I believe that it would be of the greatest possible relevance to raise the issue to some appropriate administrative body, particularly given the nature of that party's recent, often I believe problematic, editing. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I found these three links 1 2 3 where he was outed. However, I doubt we will ever find the link with the email address. According to asdfg himself, it was oversighted by Fred Bauder almost immediately. Maybe Colipon can help here - I seem to recall asdfg left a message on his talk page, signing the post 'Matt', but I can't find the diff at the moment. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? What is problematic about what I wrote?--Asdfg12345 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

btw, about the image complaint, I think that's fair enough. Ohconfucius removes images based on his impression that they are promotional; I think it's fair to remove them based on their giving a misleading impression to the reader--particularly when an image in that section isn't even particularly conducive to the reader understanding it. --Asdfg12345 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that the rationale given was contrived at best, and I don't like asdfg fingering my removals because this is quite different to using images from clearwisdom or minghui. Anyhow, I would have cited a different reason for removing that image: front covers of papers and magazines fail fair use rationale, as it does not cover use when use in an article which is not the direct subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right that is a good reason. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a personal comment, dude, I was trying to draw a reasonable parallel that is understandable for people.--Asdfg12345 14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, another trail of destruction to the hard work of a very diverse group of editors over the past few months. I don't even know what to say. Colipon+(Talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do whole sale reverts without explaining why

Hello, this revert is an example of a blind revert. Please don't do that anymore it is not productive. If you have some problems with a particular change, phrase or paragraph, you can highlight your issues on the talk page. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Going for the moral high ground, perhaps??? It strikes me there is a lot of 'pot calling the kettle black' here. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm proactively trying my best to be as honest as possible so sure, you an say that I'm aiming for the moral high ground. Now as far as 'pot calling the kettle black' goes, I would like you to tell me where did I just did whole sale reverts like PCPP without engaging in discussion? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The cult section has been reverted back to the last consensus version - a version of txet by PelleSmith amended for inaccuracies about Kavan. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well the good news is that you at least left a sort of explanation on the talk page. The bad news is that per WP:CCC you still did a blind revert without explaining which edits you found as being wrong and why. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus version? But you refused to engage in discussion about what weight to give those views. This is not right. You cannot just avoid discussion then call it consensus. It's very clear that the cult view is a minority view. The page should reflect that. Wholesale reverts are the worst way to engage in this. I'm putting the version back; if there are changes, please discuss them, make them incrementally, and actually engage in the discussion at hand, please. Or what are we meant to do? You refuse to discuss, then have a monopoly of the content? Please reconsider.--Asdfg12345 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

also added in the Li quote again, and made clear that that part was Kavan's opinion. I really don't see the problem with this stuff?--Asdfg12345 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the Kavan sentence you put it? I couldn't detect a difference..?--Asdfg12345 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Most recent edits

Regarding asdfg's most recent edits, I can hardly call "not cool, not wiki" as per here an even remotely useful edit summary, and frankly I do not believe that he is himself in the position to make such determinations in any event, for the reasons that have been stated repeatedly. Regarding the second and thankfully last in the most recent series of edits by that party, here, I see both reasons given as being, at best, insufficient. First, the sedtion about Kavan's study is obviously about Kavan's study, not "fact". Very few people familiar with most any academic studies come to the conclusion that all studies necessarily report factual information. That being the case, I have to see his addition there as being, basically, an attempt to weaken the material, possibly in accord with his frequently commented upon bias in this matter. And it should be noted that not all things frequently commented upon are fact, either. Regarding his second point, I cannot see how a statement of Li to his followers is even remotely relevant to a statement about what Kavan found in her study, uncless Kavan herself was a follower, which has not been discussed. It could, of course, in an unlikely way, be the case that the addition of the material could be seen as an attempt to persuade any individuals who are followers of Li to abide by his teachings, and that statement in particular, if they are ever asked to take part in such studies, but I doubt very many people at all would be paying so much attention to this article that such a possible attempt at persuasion would be effective. In any event, however, I cannot see how that quotation is even remotely relevant or appropriate to that section. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This disruptive edit warring must stop. I have placed a warning on asdfg's talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You mean you don't see how the quote from Li is relevant? What he says is about how the practitioners should run the media, the way they should do it. Kavan's comment is about the same thing. How are they unrelated?

About the changes to the cult section, here is what was outright deleted:

The characterization of Falun Gong as a cult, however, is dismissed by leading researchers in the field. David Ownby argues that "The entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun gong and the effectiveness of the group’s activities outside of China."^[2] Ian Johnson also rejects the label, writing that it "put Falun Gong on the defensive, forcing it to prove its innocence, and cloaked the government's crackdown with the legitimacy of the West's anticult movement."^[3] Practitioners of Falun Gong say they are engaged in merely a "spiritual discipline." According to the United States, State Department, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."^[4]

The majority of scholars who have done fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners come to different conclusions than Singer and Kavan.

Journalists in China who used the cult label would be ensured continued media access, according to Gutmann.

Then there were other changes, like:

refactoring the CCP response, slightly;
swapping the order of the Western media/scholar paragraphs (so it follows a more logical structure..?)
some other changes, can't think right now.

Can you please tell me why the information cited above was deleted? Secondly, can you tell me what was wrong with those changes (in numbers), and could you tell me why there was a need for outright reversion rather than incremental changes, or doing some modifications in a step-by-step way, like I did?

Just as a test, I'm going to put the Ownby/Johnson/USDOS stuff back, and see if it gets deleted. If it does, I think there might be an arbitration enforcement case afoot. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a test, it is provocation, pure and simple. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[ec] by the way, I just want to suggest to Ohconfucius, Colipon and John, to take a step back and consider your conduct. I opened up a discussion about whether the cult label is fringe or not, presenting most of the sources we have available. Two of you refused to engage in the discussion, dismissing it. John said "no" then well PelleSmith took him to task, he changed the subject ceaselessly and eventually broke off the discussion. There is a long list of how different sources treat this issue, and it's clear that the cult label is a minority view. Now, information from the majority view--that Falun Gong is not a cult, and that the label was primarily a propaganda tool--has been repeatedly pulled from the pages with no real justification. Indeed, the discussion about this has been obfuscated again and again. This is just really unreasonable. Please see WP:DUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." and "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view" and "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

A partial list of academic sources on the cult label has been presented, the overwhelming majority do not use cult as a way of characterising Falun Gong, and a good number explicitly reject it. If the information I added again is deleted, we'll see what happens.--Asdfg12345 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: how is adding sourced, mainstream views to wikipedia provocation? You need to play by the rules. Everything I'm doing is trying to make the page conform to the content policies. I just quoted them. You're refusing to engage in the bones of contention and instead accusing me of bad faith. Disappointing.--Asdfg12345 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that asdfg has given no good reason to make this edit, and frankly, it seems to deal with his bete noire, the cult issue, which frankly isn't that important to this article. I have to say that the addition of so much material on what is, for those who are not particularly involved with Falun Gong, even remotely within the confines of WP:DUE. And I have to say that making the kind of edits he seems to prefer, numerous quick edits in quick succession, which, ultimately, can be and has been seen as others as perhaps being an attempt to hide some particular aspects of it, such as the removal of the "cult" word, is probably worse than making a single edit at once, because at the very least a single edit is, well, more honest. I cannot see any good reason for this edit, nor do I believe that the individual in question has received any sort of consensus for changes, or, for that matter, whether he even sought them. Regarding the request for others to "consider their judgement," I cannot believe that this party, who has such a clear WP:COI problem, is even remotely in a position to even be commenting on the judgement of others. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it a violation of WP:DUE, John? Please be specific.--Asdfg12345 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And just so I'm not letting your other issues hang. Doing multiple edits: I actually thought this was easier and what people preferred. Ohconfucius edits like this. It makes it easier to know what each change was, because you see it with each edit summary. If making 10 changes, you don't have time to explain each one in a single edit summary. I try to keep one change per edit most of the time, just for transparency. If we have a consensus on the preferred editing approach, I'm happy to go along with what people prefer. The other thing, about seekign consensus: yes, I started a discussion about whether the cult label was a fringe theory or not. We know how that went. Several people refused to respond, a couple of others said it wasn't without explaining themselves properly, and apparently in the face of an overwhelming majority of sources which don't use the label or criticise it, opposed to two which uphold it... yes, I did seek consensus. Now I'm just adding sourced, mainstream material, and I believe that's what I'm supposed to do.--Asdfg12345 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You made changes without any sort of consensus about a contentious topic. I believe virtually everybody else believes that qualifies as disruptive editing as per WP:DE, which as the template at the top of this page has said for some time, is grounds for someone to be subject to administrative sanctions. I really can't see how your apparent belief that you are entitled to make the changes you want even though, having sought agreement, you received none, is somthing almost anyone else would consider proper conduct. The fact that you have a demonstrable conflict of interest in this subject, as per [{WP:COI]], and still believe that you are somehow uniquely entitled to make the changes you want anyway is I believe a significant cause for concern. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: those who refuse to participate in this 'fringe/not-fringe" issue are merely giving up on this round, having exhausted what they had to say about it previously, and being fed up with the ad nauseum self-flagellation. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pasting the discussion below, which I think is quite indicative of the current situation. Please take a look at it, John, and think about who is violating WP:DUE and who is being disruptive. By the way, we are now getting into mostly pointless meta-discussion. The real question is why the elephant in the room (the cult label being a minority view) is being constantly ignored?--Asdfg12345 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from talk page

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

dude, that's a bit unreasonable. You guys are refusing to engage in discussion about how the cult label is a minority view, even when it's proven to you that it is by the sheer number of sources supporting/ignoring/opposing it. Then, when I try to add in sourced, relevant information from impeccable sources, it's repeatedly deleted from the article. And the only reason I had to add it like that is because you guys wouldn't budge on how to frame the whole section, basically insisting on making a minority view the dominant interpretation. The whole thing is poor behaviour, in my view. If that paragraph is deleted again, I'm going to start an AE case.--Asdfg12345 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are unreasonable to accuse me of not discussing the issue, as I have done plenty of that, I also wrote a further explanation last night. There is no point discussing the 'fringe/not-fringe' issue, as it is irrelevant as to whether we talk about the issue at all, and whether it should be in the lead. You appear to want to sideline the whole 'cult debate' thing (including repeatedly changing the title to 'cult label' - which I have a major NPOV issue with), hence, IMHO, weakening the raison d'etre of the whole family of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is whether the cult label is a fringe theory or not irrelevant? This is precisely obfuscating discussion. It's a perfectly legitimate question. In assessing how to treat the topic in the articles, one of the main questions is its prevalence in the literature. If it's very clear that it's a minority view, then why isn't it being treated as such? I don't want to "sideline" the issue, I want the articles to conform to NPOV, and specifically, WP:DUE. The neutral point of view is derived from the literature on the subject, not from editor's brains. And WP:DUE discusses the majority/minority thing. How can you say that by refusing to discuss whether it's a minority view (same as fringe, essentially, and blindingly obvious by looking at the sources), that you are being reasonable? That's just wacky, don't you think? (and noting that the cult label is, in fact, a label, which is how the mainstream sources regard it--a label applied by the CCP to Falun Gong as a way of deligitimising the practice--also conforms to WP:DUE.) You seem to think that you decide what is neutral and what isn't. You don't. The sources decide that, and our debate should be grounded firmly in what they say. But when I try to take the discussion in that direction it's "irrelevant." What gives?--Asdfg12345 01:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, please do not take this personally. I don't understand why we can't just dispassionately look at the sources and policy, and just go from there. This just gets swept up in personal rubbish and the whole thing gets turned into something else. That's not what it's about. This is like solving a maths problem or playing chess. The raw material is there (sources), the policies are there, it's just like a jigsaw puzzle. Minimal creativity required. You just do the basic processing function of turning academic articles into summarised sentences, then line them all up in the article, along with some other stuff, like delinking dates. Really.--Asdfg12345 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, It is unfotunately becoming increasingly clear to me that you are so blinded by your own obsession iith the word "cult" that you are at this point completely unable to make any sort of rational judgement regarding this subject. Therefore, I very strongly urge you to, possibly for the first time, abide by WP:COI and refrain from any further edits to the article without receiving consensus first. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I would really appreciate it if you laid off the personal stuff and just responded to what I'm writing about the content of the article, the sources, and the policy. I just want you to respond to that.--Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have learned a lot from my past experiences here and try very hard not to take anything here personally any more. I told you I accepted PelleSmith's version as the consensus version, and I sincerely believe this to be the case, although perhaps it could be even more concise and more objective. You and Happy are clearly outside this consensus as you keep on trying to introduce stuff which counters it, or take stuff out which is not favourable to FLG. I have little time to dedicate to this today, but will try and prune this PelleSmith version down on Monday. Furthermore, I feel your attempts are increasingly disruptive, as you are clearly not going to change any opinions by your edit warring or your filibustering on that 'fringe/not-fringe' issue. Take the dispute to AE if you will, but I feel that you are unlikely to be vindicated. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." -- who is pushing minority views, again? It's not me.--Asdfg12345 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is also funny: "Does not engage in consensus building:

repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."

Who is doing this?--Asdfg12345 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I pull the plug on the fruitless discussion on my talk page, and it moves here within a flash. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(What's the point in copying this from a talkpage/private conversation? Personal war? Blackmail? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

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

To keep things germane, let me ask a final time: is the regarding Falun Gong a cult a minority view or not? I propose that it is, and I gave a long list of sources about it above. Does anyone disagree that it is a minority view? (note, the word has changed from "fringe" to "minority"--maybe this won't meet with such resistance). Can we get some views? for now, I'm going to do other stuff and will come back later. I'm feeling like this whole thing is a bit twilight-zoney. --Asdfg12345 02:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington File

Quick question, if Singer/Chen/Kavan is notable and reliable enough here, even though they are sustaining a fringe view per scholars, then how is it that the following source: " According to the United States, State Department, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."^[4] " is being reverted for the third time now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So far there is only the following explanation in the revert summary: "Cherry picking: The act of selecting words that support your PoV in a manner that distorts the text it is derived from. Gain consensus on talk before restoring please." Well, judge for yourself, here is the full quote:

"

Birkle also noted that the Chinese government labeled Falun Gong an “evil cult” in July 1999 and has engaged in a harsh crackdown of its members.

According to the State Department official, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."

Birkle also expressed concern at "overly broad and arbitrarily enforced" laws and regulations that make it "difficult for citizens seeking to express their political or religious views peacefully to ascertain the line between the permissible and the illegal."

"

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth does this distort the original meaning of the source? I don't understand what you mean. Did you read the original source? I'm restoring it, and I'll assume it was just a momentary lapse of judgement.--Asdfg12345 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If the added material said "US State Department," and not "US State Department official," based on the information above, that is a distortion. I haven't read the source, because it wasn't actually clearly linked to, but unless the official were clearly officially speaking with the voice of the State Department, at an official State Department event, it would be a misrepresentation to label the statements as coming from the State Department. Otherwise, he would be seen politically as speaking only for himself, and, personally, I rather doubt any individual state department official's opinion regarding this matter is significant or notable enough to merit inclusion in the article. The same would hold true for most other lower-echelon government officials as well. It can be and often is the case that individuals, for whatever reason, will mischaracterize a statement of a government official or employeed as being an official statement of the body that individual works for, when in fact it was not. As someone who used to work with the government here, I can say the government itself knows the difference quite clearly, and often makes it a point to make it absolutely clear whether the individual in question is speaking officially or not. However, in general, just because a statement is from someone associated with a government or any other body doesn't mean that the statement should be construed as being from the body for which that person works. Trust me, the diferentiation there, however slight, is a very significant one to the governments and other entities who make such differentiations. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

did you follow the link? It's on the USDOS website. The statement was def made under the aegis of the USDOS, as far as it appears. Contrary evidence welcome. It should be linked though, and you can take a look. I don't know what grounds there would be for disqualifying this source?--Asdfg12345 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the comment which originated this thread, you will see that there is, in fact, no link there that I can see, just a citation. Given that you personally have made at least several edits since this thread was begun, and the comment which started this thread didn't include a specific link to a particular revision, I wasn't myself sure whether what was available to be seen know even remotely resembled the revision that was altered. Also, given the previous discussion regarding whether a statement mentioned in a partcular press release were a statement from the UN, the NGO the lady worked for, or the lady herself, it seemed reasonable to me to make it clear that there was such a distinction. It would help to include links to specific revisions questioned in the future, given the number of times this article seems to be edited in quick succession sometimes. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, I think if you look more closely you will see that I started the thread with the original text removed, and that contained the citation to it as well. Also after 15 minutes, I added a second text where the revision link to the revert was provided and the full quote from the source was also provided to increase visibility. For time and date and exact diff see here. Is that the information you where looking for? Can I make it anymore visible? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could make it more visible like so. Now, the quote comes from a State Department official testifying before a House Subcommittee, apparently to explain for them the policy of the State Department. (Almost immediately after the quote we see: In light of these problems, the Department of State has taken various steps to promote increased respect in China for international human rights standards and democratic principles, according to Birkle.) I don't know if you want to call that the USDOS position, but it has more legal significance than an official government press release and I doubt China considered it the view of a private citizen. It clearly belongs in the article. Dan (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

resources regarding Falun Gong in China

This is some of the material I can most quickly find regaring this matter, of course, at this point, all from Ownby, as that is the source I have most readily at hand.

Pp. 162-164 "[A]s a researcher, I find myself before a mountain of evidence produced by the Chinese state (much of it extremely repetitive) and a mountain of evidence (equally repetitive) produced by Falun Gong. Both mountains of evidence are full of names, pictures, and various other "facts," and most Western journalists writing on Falun Gong have tended to take some "facts" from each pile of evidence in an attempt to write a "balanced story" - thus producing their own mountain of "analysis" which, more often than not, is of questionable value (because the journalist could verify neither the claims of the Chinese state nor the claims of Falun Gong, which means that the "balanced story" is largely a matter of conjecture or convention.)"
Although I tend to accept much Falun Gong documentation as trustworthy in its broad outlines, not all of the organization's reports stand up to strict academic scrutiny. Footnotes in such reports, for instance, often cite journalistic accounts which, in turn, cite Falun Gong sources; for Falun Gong practicioners, this is a way to enhance the credibilty of their claims by saying, in effect, "Reuters believed us," but the circularity of the chain of evidence remains problematic for the scholar. In addition, such reports often refer to other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations or media without acknowledging that affiliation. ... The evidence put forward by Falun Gong concerning the crackdown in China is more convincing than that put forward by the Chinese government. ... That being said, thre is for the moment no "proof" of the numbers of those tortured or killed in China, or of the means of torture employed, which goes beyond the record produced by Falun Gong practicioners."
(regarding qigong) P.166 - "(In early 1994) an internal state council document entitled "Recommednations for Strengthening Our Work in the Popularization of Science"... launched a campaign against "pseudo-science." In parallel, Sima Nan, a well-known anti-qigong print and television journalist, argued in books, articles, and documentaries that qigong was nothing more than dime-store magic, and influential intellectuals like He Zuoxiu, Zhang Honglin, and Zhang Tongling jointly penned an article published in the People's Daily on 2 june 1995, which likened qigong to the feared Aum Shinri kyo sect in Japan... Later that month, Southern Weekend, an important weekly newspaper with a national profile, published the results of the report of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal... a highly negative report."
P. 168 - "In June 1996, the influential national newspaper Guangming Ribao (Enlightenment Daily) published an article denouncing Falun Gong, condemning Zhaun falun as a "pseudo-scientific book propogating feudal superstition," deriding Li himself as a "swindler," and calling on all right-thinking people to join in the arduous fight against superstition. Some twenty major newspapers followed suit... In January and June 1997, the Ministry of Public Security authorized two nationwide investigations into allegations that Falun Gong was carrying out "illegal religious activities," and then concluded on each occasion that no such problems existed. In July 1998, the same ministry carried out another investigation into charges that Falun Gong was a "heterodox cult" ... the outcome again was inconclusive."
P. 169 - (possibly interesting) "David Palmer argues that the roots of Falun Gong's "militancy" are to be found in this period [going so far as April 1999], protests and demonstrations having become a part of Falun Gong practice, just like reading Zhuan falun and doing Falun Gong exercises. My sense is that, while Falun Gong's contentiousness does indeed date to this period, it overstates the case to see protests as having been elevated to a form of cultivation practice."

Still working on finding other relevant information. Not all of the above might be particularly useful, but I thought it all at least worth bringing before everyone. Give me some time to finish tagging and assessing for the UAE and I'll see if I can find any more in Ownby, or in the Chiang book which I can try to mine for information as well. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think much of what was written above can be used to support current writings in the 'Skeptics and Zhongnanhai' section. Colipon+(Talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

John, can you state which book these quotes are from? Colipon+(Talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. David Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China." John Carter (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mind control is fringe

Kavan uses a definition for "cult" in her work that includes mind control techniques in it as an aspect of such groups. Mind contol theories are fringe in the relevant disciplines (sociology and psychology). Suggesting that they may not be fringe in other disciplines is entirely irrelevant. Specific disciplines claim expertise in specific areas of study and other disciplines have no purchase on such expertise. This brings me to the point I tried raising some time ago: why is a communications professor sporting a fringe theory on "cults" being used in a discussion about how to classify a social group? Her fieldwork methods may be sound and the information she has gathered on this group is valuable but these facts are quite seperate from the cult label issue and I mean that both ways. Her emperical research is in no way invalidated by this nor does the strength of that research change how out of her element she is when classiying social groups.PelleSmith (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. I do have one question however, which isn't intended as a criticism of the above. Having not myself read the piece in question recently, would Stockholm syndrome and similar forms of indirect "control" potentially be included in or maybe even be what is being referred to? I acknowledge that even Stockholm syndrome hasn't apparently had any proven cases, as per that article, but I'm not sure if it is counted as "fringe" or not. It and other articles are, apparently, at least included in the Category:Mind control, though. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the study of "cult" recruitment and member retention mind control refers to various related concepts like brainwashing, thought reform, etc. It does not simply include any/all forms of psychological manipulation or coercion. The theories in question are those that follow Singer and Lifton predominantly. Neither the APA nor the ASA consider them scientifically sound and a vast majority of scholars agree with them. Scholars who actively associate with anti-cult institutions as well as non scholarly anti-cult writers still maintain versions of these fringe theories. Kavan either is unaware of the situation or agrees with these writers despite it all. Either way in this context mind control refers to fringe theories.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The cult label and WP:DUE

I submit that:

The cult label with regard to Falun Gong can properly be considered a Fringe theory;
It should be treated as so in these articles, according to WP:DUE;
Including it in the lead, between two words which are not fringe theories, and having a section which does not detail how it is a fringe theory, according to researchers, violates WP:DUE.

Can we discuss these points? I think it's just the most upfront and simple way to go about this. I know it's been brought up before, but this is just silly, to some extent, when David Ownby is repeatedly pulled out of the cult section, and the sources which clearly say that it's a fringe theory are pulled out. I'm adding Ownby and Johnson back now--it's clear that both of them are exemplary sources, and their statements on the topic are highly notable and warranted. Let's discuss the other aspects. Please remember that reliable sources are king here at wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your exclusion of the word cult from that particular part because it clearly says "There is a debate"; it thus doesn't make any claims about the truth or merit of that label. Within that one sentence, it cannot possibly mislead anyone into assuming or inferring anything other than what it says: a debate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll find a far more sensible way of resolving this when we address the real issue: is it a fringe theory or not? This is the locus of debate, really. It was not actually resolved last time when PelleSmith began the discussion. Here's the link he compiled:

Use cult

Kavan, Heather
Singer, Margaret

Don't use cult

Bell, Mark R. ("Falun Gong and the Internet: Evangelism, Community, and Struggle for Survival," Nova Religio)
Boas, Taylor C. ("Falun Gong and the Internet: Evangelism, Community, and Struggle for Survival," Nova Religio)
Burgdoff, Craig A ("How Falun Gong Practice Undermines Li Hongzhi's Totalistic Rhetoric," Nova Religio)
Chan, Cheris Shun-ching
Edelman, Bryan
Fisher, Gareth ("Resistance and Salvation in Falun Gong: The Promise and Peril of Forbearance," Nova Religio")
Irons, Jeremy ("Falun Gong and the Sectarian Religion Paradigm," Nova Religio)
Lowe, Scott ("Chinese and International Contexts for the Rise of Falun Gong," Nova Religio)
Lu, Yungfeng ("Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong," Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion)
Ownby, David
Palmer, Susan
Porter, Noah
Richardson, James T.
Penny, Benjamin
Wessinger, Catherine ("Falun Gong Symposium Introduction and Glossary," Nova Religio)

Reject the cult label

Ownby, David
Porter, Noah
Edelman, Bryan
Richardson, James T.
Johnson, Ian
US State Department[11]
Amnesty International [12]

NOTE: Very often, actually, in all the cases above, a rejection of the cult label goes along with a statement that it is essentially a propaganda tool. I didn't put that in the sub-section name, just to keep things simple, but I'm noting it here.

Another issue is, the "reject" category includes all those in the "don't use" category. I would think that an overwhelming majority of "don't use" compared to "use" would be enough to conclude that the "use" pile is fringe (particularly when the credentials are questionable, such as Singer, and when Kavan is trained as a media professor--the case against Kavan here is not as strong, but at the least, she carries far less weight than people like Ownby on this issue)--Asdfg12345 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. Looks like a "debate" to me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a fringe theory?

Here, it says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

On the WP:NPOV page there is some related language about WP:DUE, related to the fringe guideline:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Is it clear by now that the cult label is a minority view, a fringe theory? I'm not asking whether there is a "debate," and "debate" isn't the metric wikipedia uses to evaluate arguments and sources. There's a "debate" between Darwinism and creationism--but one is certainly a fringe theory and the other not. There are also a bunch of other theories. The proponents of them call it a debate; the mainstream calls them fringe. What we're interested in here is the preponderance of the term in mainstream sources, and how it is treated in them. I'm showing that it's 1) not used by mainstream sources as a descriptor of Falun Gong, and 2) often rejected by mainstream sources as a propaganda tool. I believe this makes it clear that the cult label in relation to Falun Gong is a fringe theory. Any dispute?--Asdfg12345 09:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"any dispute?" is mere rhetoric on your part. Apparently, there are other opinions; if it was so clear-cut, people would not have included it in the first place. You don't need to wiki-lawyer me into getting a brain, I already have one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just another point: It just dawned on me that the list of "don't use the cult label" is every academic article which is not in the first list. That's a tautology, obviously, but the point is that that "don't" list can already be considered to be maybe another couple of dozen names long, since it is only a very few, specific academic sources (like Kavan and Singer) which use the cult label with regard to Falun Gong seriously. --Asdfg12345 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for your response, Seb. Would you like to elaborate on what you mean further? You seem to be suggesting that you disagree that the cult label is a fringe theory, but you don't explain why, or offer any sources in support. Please note that you are required to justify your stance with reliable sources.--Asdfg12345 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It is a known fact that the Chinese government incessantly uses the words 'evil cult' to refer to Falun Gong. It features prominently in all statements issued from state media, and a very large number of mainstream sources report that. Whether they necessarily agree with that is another matter - actually, most just cite it these days e.g. 'Falun Gong spiritual movement, which the government refers to as "an evil cult"'. SO whether we like it or not, it is a prominent element in that debate, even though the concept is largely deprecated in academic circles. Personally, I think that academics have gone utterly 'politically correct' (meaning soft) in this regard because there are/have been undoubtedly manipulative/destructive cults, but I digress. Again, I'm not saying FLG is a cult of any sort. The 'cult' in the lead asdfg objected to is merely a placeholder for the debate which is in the cult section of the article, and it is clear enough there is absolutely no endorsement for what FLG should be classified as, be it cult, NRM, or just spiritual movement. I really don't see what the issue is, and what WP:UNDUE has to do with anything in this context. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen. I was waiting for Ohconfucius to -- once again -- express it in a more civil manner, because I am about to lose it here. (and just like you don't have to wiki-lawyer me into getting a brain, I don't need advice on sources) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We are attempting to establish whether the cult label is a fringe theory or not. Neither Ohconfuncius's comment nor Seb's addresses, or even attempts to address this. You don't see what the issue is? But I've spelt it out several times: is the theory that Falun Gong is a cult a fringe one or not? I've presented policy and a pile of sources suggesting that it is. If there's no attempt to argue with this (that it's a fringe theory that Falun Gong is a cult), then we have nothing to discuss, and we can conclude it's a fringe theory and deal with it accordingly in the article. Or, do either of you seek to disagree?--Asdfg12345 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to list all sources, give a number in weight, then based on that mathematically decide how much weight (mention) one or the other deserves. Sounds fair? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are so fond of policies, read Ohconfucius' rationale again, and go to WP:N. It's not like just some wacko came up with it, it's te Chinese government, one of the major players in this whole debate, controversy, dispute, pick your wording. If some jerk on the street came up with a fringe-theory, nobody would give a damn. The CCP's using it makes it notable, whether you like it or not, and there is no endorsement of this anywhere in the sentence. Fringe theories are by definition held some loon who sits in his office and dreams up junk without influence. A government with an army and a police-force isn't a fringe theory anymore. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We may be getting somewhere. You seek to dispute that the cult label is a fringe theory on the basis that the CCP was the first to use it, and promotes the term as a descriptor of Falun Gong? That's an unexpected argument. Just so things are clear, Ohconfucius, do you support this assessment? Seb, are you arguing that the CCP is a reliable source on Falun Gong, and on evaluating the cultic or non-cultic nature of religious beliefs and practices? Or are you saying that regardless of the reliability of the CCP as a source, the cult theory is not a fringe theory, simply because the CCP has an army and a police force? I'm not sure if I follow your exact argument. If you gave me some policy to chew on it might help. What you're saying seems odd to me right now...--Asdfg12345 10:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You understood me. I am neither endorsing nor disputing the word. I am not saying the CCP is a "reliable source", just like I would not argue that Hitler was a "reliable source" on Jews, or Verwoerd was a "reliable source" on black people. Fact is: CCP (with a lot of influence) uses the label; therefore, it is notable, under whichever specific policy you want to dig up, and it deserves being mentioned in this article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you may have linked the wrong policy. WP:N is specifically about what qualifies for an article. It's in the "nutshell" and the first sentence: Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article...--Asdfg12345 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you're not disputing that it's a fringe theory then there's no dispute. The cult label is a fringe theory. It should then be treated in the article as such. This is about WP:DUE, which says things like "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." -- if you're admitting that the CCP is not a reliable source, that also makes sense. The real thing is how academics have taken up the cult label. And we see above how. If you are not really disputing that it's a minority view, there should be no problem amending the article's current condition to reflect this. Here's another: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." -- there are more. It's all over there at WP:NPOV. Just to sum up, so the state of this discussion is perfectly clear:

a list of academic sources which use, don't use, and reject the label was presented. -- you did not dispute this.
the policy about fringe theories was presented, and I argued that the label was a fringe theory in light of the policy and the sources -- no clear dispute here, either.
I repeatedly asked if there is a dispute that it's a fringe theory -- no clear dispute, no sources produced, no policy referred to.
You keep saying that the term is notable. Not arguing. It's notable insofar as it's a fringe viewpoint.

My conclusion, based on the policy, sources, and lack of response, is that the cult label in referring to Falun Gong is a fringe theory. We all know that the article should reflect the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject, as NPOV and DUE make very clear. Now we also know, it would appear, how reliable sources treat the cult label with regard to Falun Gong. The article is quite far from reflecting this at the moment. I'll make some changes that I think will remedy this now. --Asdfg12345 11:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the master at reading with blinders. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seb, you didn't respond to any of the points I raised, what am I to think? I can only conclude that you simply have no response. If you have something substantive to bring to the table, in terms of a policy item I've missed, or an interpretation of policy, or some sources, please go ahead and bring it forth. Those are the germane issues here.--Asdfg12345 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded, you are blind, not my fault. Go ahead and change whatever you want to change, it's not worth my time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please quote the relevant part of your response or provide a diff, so it is clear which response are you referring to? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, we've been through this. The PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'" whether you like it or not. And journalists say 'PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'"' whether you like it or not. It's immutable and notable fact, and one that people looking up 'Falun Gong' will expect to see addressed in this article. If it's such a reader doesn't see it there, xhe will probably say 'WP is crap because it doesn't even have the basic fact but instead harps on about some boring farty academics saying nobody uses "the c word" any more', and they would be right. If it is an editor, xhe may well insert it, and they would be right. It may be a theory which belongs on the fringe, but it sure ain't a fringe theory any more. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"The PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'"", right nobody is disputing that, however the question is just how much of the academics and media say that the PRC is right. When there is a debate, then it is actually questioned whether that branding is correct or not. Right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point we keep going over is that we are only after verifiability not truth. Its pretty clear that Wikipedia does not share a paradigm with FLG, so I would advise you guys to stop trying to apply or force your paradigm onto Wikipedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia policy on truth vs. WP:RS. It is just interesting to note, how a different page requires a different standard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have very serious difficulties not jumping to the conclusion that this whole discussion is some form of POV pushing. The use of the word is at least discussed significantly by the Chinese government, and by the sources independent of the government. The index in Ownby lists for "cults" pages 3-5, 19-20, 23-24, 43, 127, 161, 164, 168, 173, 176-182, 195, 223, 226, 229-230, and I can verify right off that most of the later items listed above deal specifically with the term as it applies to Falun Gong. I have no reason to believe that the word should be, in some form of censorship, excluded from the article. Exactly how much attention should be given to it, however, is another matter entirely. It is clearly among the most often used words used to describe Falun Gong by the government, however, and very reasonably should be included in the material describing the government's later reactions to Falun Gong. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I always have a chuckle to myself when I'm reading the archived press articles on Clearwisdom where the word 'cult' is systematically replaced by [slanderous word]. It strikes me that some are trying to push us in that direction. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have certainly exhausted my assumption of good faith from a select few COI users on this article, I did what I must. Noting all the opposition to asdfg's changes I reverted the article to an earlier revision. These edits are completely discouraging and I must yet again remind the users that this article is on probation. The Wikilawyering is painfully obvious to any third party, and the editing habits are growing to be rather offensive. I am in pain every time I look at a discussion like this. Enough is enough. Colipon+(Talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to have it on record again, I do not want the word excluded from the article. But to quote John "Exactly how much attention should be given to it, however, is another matter entirely.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If we were to apply the 'Ownby index of "cultability (sic)"' to the issue, I would guess it comes pretty high on the scale that it would merit a mention in the lead of the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and did I mention page 3 is in fact the first page of real text in the book, so, in effect, the question of FG's status as a "cult" is almost the first thing he talks about? John Carter (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We all know that the CCP uses the word a lot to slander Falun Gong, but that's unrelated whether it's a fringe theory or not. No one has directly come out to respond on that. Let me just clarify that it was never my thought for the term to be removed from the article--I was calling for whether we have a consensus that it is a fringe theory or not. In the article currently, it is not treated as a fringe theory, it's made out to be an ongoing debate within the academic community on Falun Gong. But it's just not, and the article shouldn't portray it to be. It's fine that the issue is brought up by Ownby on his first page, and that Reuters and AP always use it--this shows that it's not such an insignificant minority viewpoint as to warrant exclusion from the article. It shows that it's something like a minority viewpoint as outlined by Jimbo, above. We can name a prominent adherent: Singer. But the term doesn't have traction among the academic literature, and it's mostly rejected and understood as a clever label from the Central Propaganda Department. Since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources which discuss this issue seem to take this stance, this is how it should be in the article, right? Let me quote this piece of NPOV again: 'Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.' -- at the moment, nothing has been shown which would suggest that the cult label isn't a minority viewpoint. --Asdfg12345 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And, as I referenced directly above, if you read it, Ownby begins to discuss the question regarding Falun Gong's cult status on the first page of his book. I am glad to see you referencing something other than WP:NOTABILITY, but I cannot see how a subject referenced on the very first page of the most recent reliably sourced book on the subject does not qualify as sufficiently notable for reasonable inclusion in this article. I believe that, ultimately, your arguments are completely unconvincing to anyone taking part in this discussion who may not have a preexisting bias in favor of Falun Gong. That being the case, I believe there is very little point in continuing this discussion in the current form. A posting to a relevant noticeboard or a request for outside comment through RfC might be reasonable, but, considering this is evidently far from the first time this discussion has been made with no satisfaction, I cannot see any purpose to be served by continuing the discussion in the current fashion. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, regarding: "but I cannot see how a subject referenced on the very first page of the most recent reliably sourced book on the subject does not qualify as sufficiently notable for reasonable inclusion in this article.", do you mean that the cult word, having it's own subsection is not reasonable mentioned in this version? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable label, that's not in question. I just want to get a consensus on whether it's fringe or not. It's fine that we take it to another forum if we're at a deadlock, but the question I've raised is actually a very simple, very straightforward one, and we can establish an objective metric for weighing it up. It's actually got nothing to do with preexisting bias in favor of Falun Gong. By saying that you are effectively painting yourself into a corner. Apparently, then, PelleSmith must have a pro-Falun Gong bias, simply because he's suggesting that the cult label in terms of Falun Gong is a fringe theory in academia? (the label, by the way, is a fringe theory in general. In terms of Falun Gong it is doubly problematic, given its uptake in communist propaganda.) Anyway, you've said you think it's not a minority viewpoint, so that gives some way for a start to the discussion. Since it's fairly important to make clear how the cult label will be treated in this article, if we cannot agree to how it will be treated on this page--and agreement for how it should be treated on this page is unrelated to how we personally feel about it--then sure, let's take it to another forum and get other people to decide for us, so we can get on with it. It's good to bring these issues out and just get things real clear.--Asdfg12345 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

I'm not even sure what the problem is. The labeling of the group as a cult is both 1) notable because of the Chinese government's political rhetoric while being 2) fringe/minority in the academy. As long as the "cult" label is used contextually in the entry there is absolutely no problem with it being there. Does anyone object to the current version? I believe this is a more accurate reflection of the "cult" issue with a couple of minor exceptions. The Frank reference could go back in to neutralize it a tad, but it really does seem at this point that academic consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of not using the word at all and we should reflect this more clearly than it was in the version I scaled down a while ago.PelleSmith (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Content

As far as I can see, a balanced treatment of the cult issue now goes something like this:

Chinese gov't labels Falun Gong a cult, but that is wrong because Ownby says so.
Social scientists and everyone else reject the cult theory.
Richardson and Edelman see political ramifications - cult label is exploited by the Chinese gov't.

We also notice that the following was removed:

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 rather than collective worship; that cults are less demanding of their members and more tolerant of other religions than sects are; that have a strong charismatic leadership and that they lack clear boundaries of membership. Chan claims that Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a new religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics.^[5]

I have no more energy to run these circular arguments. ASDFG's edit summary was misleading, and makes it seem like a 'consensus' was reached at the talk page, when really he is just inserting content favourable to FLG and removing content that criticizes it. This is absolutely unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 18:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. The fact is that scholarly consensus has nothing to do with what is or isn't favorable towards Falun Gong. You make it sounds like Ownby is alone in calling Chinese political rhetoric what it is or in rejecting the cult label when his position seems entirely mainstream. I've said this before but this entry needs less knee jerk reactions coming from both sides. Your position seems to be that if certain editors are making an edit it must be completely exaggerated nonsense meant to push a POV. Provide a reasonable argument based on reliable sources please and if you think content that has been deleted should be re-added then find a way to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if we argue endlessly on WP:UNDUE and WP:N, we notice that in ASDFG's edit, much reliably sourced material was removed. And if we go into this edit and see which parts were removed, we notice handily that parts portraying Falun Gong in a negative light had disappeared. Then, if we go into ASDFG's history on this very talk page, we notice almost everything he has written is about getting rid of content critical of Falun Gong. I frankly don't give a damn about whether or not Falun Gong is a cult. What I am concerned about is these users with a clear conflict-of-interest in the subject constantly editing to advance Falun Gong's case. If you disagree with my analysis, so be it. Go make some bold edits if you must to make the content more balanced. I am sure you are a good faith editor just trying to take a neutral and just perspective. As for me, I am just too fed up with these SPAs. Colipon+(Talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) I think it should also be pointed out, believe it or not, according to Ownby, that there is a mountain of material in China critical of Falun Gong, and he doesn't explicitly state that he believes all of it is necessarily generated by the government. By the way, I really wish someone else had some of the other books to cite. I think I can get hold of The End of Days, but that might take awhile. I also indicate again that I have copies of all the articles stored on JSTOR available to anyone who asks for them. Just send me an email and I'll send them to you. I haven't had the chance to read them all, but it could well be that some of them relate to this as well. And, as an addendum, if you believe disruptive editing has taken place, such editing is a violation of the ArbCom sanctions. I don't think anyone who actually edits here would see themselves as being uninvolved enough to take action, but the sanctions were put in place to prevent anyone from making disruptive edits. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, could you upload it to mega download or other temporary upload download site, so we can all access them?

Yes, I believe disruptive edits happened here and here, just to mention a couple of them. But since the discussion is ongoing, I did not want to take it further, just yet.

Also John, since I see that you read some about this subject would you like to take a stance and express which one of the edits you think is good, or perhaps if there is a third version you would seem more appropriate? Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a violation of JSTOR's terms of use to upload the material, which more or less states it is for private use only. Regarding the content dispute, Give me a few days to finish finding articles about the UAE and tagging them, and ask me again later. I'm not trying to be evasive, but I really can't do as many things at once as I would like. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"I really can't do as many things at once as I would like" => It's OK, don't worry, I totally understand. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I have read some of these pre-1999 critiques of Falun Gong but unfortunately much of it is not available online, and when it is, it has always been labeled as just more Chinese gov't propaganda. Sima Nan is one of Falun Gong's strongest critics within China before the crackdown. Sources are very scarce. I am trying to get through some of these JSTOR articles but unfortunately real life is catching up to me. Colipon+(Talk) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In China the Government controls all form of it's media and historically any persecution is first prepared with critics in the media. Against Falun Gong this started since at least 1996. I know this from the documentary A decade of courage, part 1, made by NTDTV. Let me see if I can find some other sources saying similar stuff. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries made by yet another FG subsidiary. I think I'll go along with what the JSTOR articles say. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure JSTORE is fine, but is good to have a starting point, right? Otherwise information is just hidden in a billion of pages. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Through his reorganisation of the secton, asdfg apparently removed Frank and Kavan. This resulted in non-sequiturs/lost context and broken references in the text. I have reverted the section to an old version. I am beginning to feel rather frustrated by this constant unproductive battle. I feel that this removal of two key paragraphs may be related to his wanting to remove the [slanderous word](sic) from the lead - the possible logic being if we banish the cult debate in the article, there is no further need to mention it in the lead. Of course, this is going about it all the wrong way. Verifiability over truth is the way of WP, not "truth compassion and forbearance". As time goes on, my forbearance is approaching its limit. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius please note your POV is clear as well. And since nobody is owning the document isn't it normal to establish what is fringe in the academia and what is not? If you would answer the questions directly, the whole thing would be a lot quicker, so just who's patience should run thin by now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You and asdfg are the only people who are pushing for this. Everyone else believes it is necessary to mention the "c-word" in the lead. Whether the existence of "cults" is fringe or not is not what's at issue. Something can be fringe and still merit a mention in the lead, and this is the perfect example. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pushing what to be more exactly? Did I ever say that the cult word can not be mentioned? The question to which the answer is being avoided is if the cult label of Falun Gong is a fringe theory or not between the western academia. If it is a fringe theory, then it should be portrayed as such in the cult section. Right?--HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I will further continue in this discussion in the event of a paradigm shift at Wikipedia. Failing that, I feel that we are done. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Same here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new in your reaction. This is EXACTLY avoiding the question presented above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of things. The first is that I'm most interested in making this article conform to the content policies. I think PelleSmith's compromise of putting "cult" in quotation marks works. The second thing is that I noticed Colipon's discussion sets up a kind of pro-Falun Gong and anti-Falun Gong dichotomy. I won't speculate on why, but I'll just say that I think this is a counter-productive way to approach things. Let the conversation revolve around sources and policy instead, and we'll get away from this stupid pro/con discourse. It's not about a bit of salt outweighed with some pepper. Ideology isn't the driving factor in content, it's sources and policies. Not much else to say for now. I hope we can get everyone's views on whether the cult label is fringe or not.

oh, and about my edits of the article. I removed Chun (is it?) because it just seemed to take the discussion in yet another direction. That was a single source, a few hundred words. Her theory is distinct yet again. Do we accord each source space to state their own theory, or are we supposed to use some judgement and convey those they are the most common? I don't mind, as long as there is some logic to the process. The western media section was yet another non-sequitor. Finally, I'd urge people not to do blanket reverts, but instead make changes to supplement and improve the changes of others. This will create a much more collegial environment, I think. Of course, use your judgement, if something is really inappropriate, then revert, or do as you feel best, but when someone has taken time to change wordings and really weighed things up, in terms of the clear consensus of sources presented on the talk page, and you come along and pull it all down with one click, that doesn't help to create a feeling of "working together."--Asdfg12345 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Ohconfucius, please be sure to give your stance about whether it's a fringe theory or not.--Asdfg12345 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seem this cult issue is one of the central points of debate on this topic. Would I be correct to assume that there is not a large body of scholastic work or extensive schools of thought regarding this issue available? If this were to be true, wouldn't it in the spirit of inclusiveness and diversity, be acceptable to allow coverage of whichever academic that has given input on the topic? Why is there the need to condense and distill this particular sub-topic when it's obviously generating much discussion and contention? I see above a list of pro/anti authors; wouldn't this be a much better illustration to have in the actual body than resorting to subjective labelling? To me, seeing such a list lets me draw on my own an impression that there is a general consensus on the issue. But when the word 'fringe' is used I immediately reflect that by scientific standards, when a topic is fairly new and only contributed by a few dozen sources, it is wholly inappropriate to label any one theory as 'fringe'. Of course the dualistic way to classify each scholar's interpretation and their own definitions of what a cult is, is another issue. Basically, I'm trying to say - be more inclusive. 136.159.169.6 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where to ask this, but why do we have the Cheris Shun-ching Chan reference? On the surface, Chan seems to use an entirely different definition of "cult" and doesn't seem that relevant. Dan (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

^ ON BUDDHA LAW, from Zhuan Falun, the main book of Falun Dafa teachings
^ Cite error: The named reference Ownbyfuture was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (8 March 2005)
^ ^a ^b Katie Xiao, China Continues To Persecute Religious Groups, State's Birkle Says, United States urges systemic reform and human rights improvement in China,State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs, US State Department, 22 July 2005, accessed 2/10/09 Cite error: The named reference "USStateDepartment" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective. The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665-683

[Lunyu-1] ON BUDDHA LAW, from Zhuan Falun, the main book of Falun Dafa teachings

[Ownbyfuture-2] Cite error: The named reference Ownbyfuture was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[wildgrass-3] Johnson, Ian, Wild Grass: three portraits of change in modern china, Vintage (8 March 2005)

[USStateDepartment-4] Katie Xiao, China Continues To Persecute Religious Groups, State's Birkle Says, United States urges systemic reform and human rights improvement in China,State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs, US State Department, 22 July 2005, accessed 2/10/09 Cite error: The named reference "USStateDepartment" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[chan2004-5] Chan, Cheris Shun-ching (2004). The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective. The China Quarterly, 179 , pp 665-683

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]