Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 35

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 33

→

The Controversies Section: Notable problems

I have a few remarks regarding the Controversies section. For starters, the sentence "The principal controversies are its views on homosexuality and inter-racial children, and its claims of superpowers" was referenced to [1] and [2]. However, neither of these sources say that those are the "principal controversies". The first gives some quotes from Li Hongzhi's teachings; the second talks about how some people perceived parts of Falun Gong's teachings as "homophobic". Neither explain how those beliefs fit into the corpus of teachings as whole, how relevant they are, or how significant they are.

The next paragraph begins "Quoting Li, the New York Times said...". Li, however, does not state this in that lecture. Rather than getting into the absurdities of matching sources, representing the view that Craig Smith's view is disputed, and all that jazz, this can be fixed by simply finding another source. Ownby can be used to represent Falun Gong's teachings on interraciality. This cuts right to the best source on the subject, while maintaining mention of it (which seems to have become highly important for certain editors). In that sense, I don't seek to delete it, but merely make it respectable and put it in context. The reader should be presented with something that actually explains what practitioners believe, rather than something that is aimed at playing to the reader's stereotypes and that deliberately makes use of inaccurate referencing.

Given that the sentence "The principal controversies..." is a synthesis, I will simply remove it. I don't think any meaning is lost by doing so, because the "controversies" are still represented, and it is implicit that they are controversial.

Secondly, I have replaced Craig Smith's assessment with Ownby's. David Ownby is a much better source, avoids the obvious inaccuracy, fixes the undue weight issue (Ownby devotes a single line to the interracial issue in a book of over 200 pages), and provides the context that was otherwise missing.

I'm looking forward to some constructive discussion. Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the changes and the sources. A discussion of interraciality is indeed missing from the lecture in question, so the source is inaccurate. A similar thing happened with Ostergaard, above. The new formulation reads neutrally, and I think it's an improvement. Generally, however, that section reads like a pastiche of voices rather than an intelligent exploration of Falun Gong's controversial teachings. Further, it fails to explain how, exactly, those teachings are controversial, and to whom they are controversial. At the same time, I'm not sure where an introduction to this side of things is available in the literature. But I think the above is an improvement for now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to check out Richard Madsen's treatment in Current History, he discusses this. If I think of more I'll note it here. Ethan Gutmann notes a few points to consider, too. --Asdfg12345 06:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding material from several sources

I added some information from three different reputable sources: Patricia Thornton, Mark Palmer, and Fewsmith & Wright. I'm looking forward to a good encyclopedic rewrite of these sections; I urge other editors to take part in it. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take a closer look at the sections to which you added information. Some of it is poorly sourced, some totally unsourced, some of it is thinly disguised anti-Falun Gong propaganda (without a source). It needs a fine-tooth comb. Please consider putting some time into that, Olaf (or anyone else who cares for proper research). --Asdfg12345 06:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed a lot of the additions. Olaph, stop swelling the article with unnecessarily detailed propaganda. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I, too, found some of Olaf's additions excessive. In my view, the problem has always been one of undue weight. This is the main Falun Gong article - everything should be in summary form. Colipon+(Talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the only thing that was deleted was some detail about the media campaign ("thirty-minute evening news program aired practically nothing but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric in which academics, former followers, and ordinary citizens spoke about how the cult cheats its followers, separates families, damages health, and hurts social stability, according to China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith. "The government operation has been a study in all-out demonization."") and "Another 1,200 government officials were detained and required to study Communist party documents and to renounce any allegiance to the movement."

Fewsmith has been in the China studies game for a looong time, so he's a damn good source. I haven't read much of Wright, but I checked out a bibliography in a book and he has obvious credentials. Compared to some stuff in this document that has no sources at all, the above seems warranted - to me at least.

But after reading through this article and a few of the others, I think Colipon is spot on: there's too much detail on minor issues here already. But I don't agree that the insertions currently under discussion are about minor issues, or are too detailed. And Wright and Fewsmith are certainly not a "propaganda" source as Martin Rundvist says. Homunculus (duihua) 15:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Colipon and Runkvist seem to imply that they'd like to have the articles cleaned up. I agree, they don't seem very encyclopaedic at the moment. It's good to know that the kind of details that were brought forth in my edits are just unnecessarily swelling up the article. I'll take a look at some other extraneous details later tonight. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Martin Rundkvist has a very particular taste for relevant details. Olaf has a point. The articles need careful inspection and possibly rewriting. I am lamentably busy at the moment, but I seek to devote some time to this topic area in the near future. I used the PRC's anti-Falungong discourse as an example in my Master's Thesis on symbolic violence. I am not going to take part in your personal grudges, though. —Zujine|talk 00:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone prepared to explain why the stuff copied above that was deleted should actually stay deleted? Calling it propaganda and saying it swells up the article really doesn't cut the mustard, particularly when looking at the credentials of the people referred to, current WP:V noncompliance, and vast existing extraneities (yes, I made that word up I think. it's meant to be the noun for "extraneous"). --Asdfg12345 05:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many of Olaf's additions were extremely verbose and needed some serious trimming. I agree with Homunculus on the quality of the Wright and Fewsmith source, but there's nothing wrong with the expectation that contributors paraphrase and quote from their material more carefully. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Three issues in the lead are sticking out like a sore thumb

I tried to initiate discussion about these matters before, but nobody seemed to take it seriously enough.

Where does the word "proselytize" appear in the sources cited for the use of that term in the lead? What is the meaning of "Falun Gong groups have since moved abroad"?
Can the claim "Western academics generally describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement" be substantiated?
Why does the lead suggest that the 'persecution' is a series of claims by Falun Gong practitioners and not verified or discussed by third parties?

Any comments? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is something to take into consideration. Proselytize is a loaded word carrying connotations of religious pushing. And of course we know that foreign Falungong groups have existed well before the start of the persecution, and that most Chinese adherents are still in China. Per WP:WEASEL, "generally" may be a weasel word that aims at increasing the perceived credibility of the statement. Moreover, in light of research, postulating the persecution as nothing but a series of claims by practitioners seems appalling. Still I cannot propose a decent alternative just now. Do you have any suggestions? —Zujine|talk 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for the individuals who added the material to explain, rather than jump the gun. It's a trivial matter to recast disputed terminology anyway. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why this stuff is being handled with kid gloves. It seems like everyone is afraid of offending the anti-Falun Gong guys. Unsourced or just vague stuff like this wouldn't last 5 minutes if it was positive on Falun Gong. But if it's negative and cynical, it stays around until someone does a bunch of research and writes long analyses about why it's unsourced, poorly researched, or whatever. And when reasonable issues are brought forward by Olaf, people like Mrund dismiss them out of hand. It's just a poor environment. I just hope the editors who are newly taking an interest in this subject won't be intimidated. Be bold in cleaning all this up, I tell you. Pussyfooting around the issues will not help. The anti-Falun Gong agenda pushing, use of sub-par sources (or no sources) to support that agenda, and marginalisation of those who complain, has been going on to varying degrees for quite a while. Anyway, recent developments inspire me to resuscitate the Ethan Gutmann-Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu issue. It might actually get a fair audience, instead of random dismissals and claims that I'm trying to bait people. Sheesh. First stop: the RS noticeboard.--Asdfg12345 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, here's the RS noticeboard thing. I just repeated the only claims that were made against the reliability of the sources in question. Once it's established that they're reliable, and I am confident it will be, I will make a post explaining why I think the material is relevant and should be included. --Asdfg12345 05:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, you are coming across as a little militant. I suggest you have more faith in your fellow contributors. I didn't touch those issues above, but I did do an overall pruning and clean up. There were parts I didn't touch, but most of what was on the page got a haircut. I look forward to finding out whether these were helpful changes or not. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody had anything more to say about this, I fixed these issues in the lead and added a few words from a source that was already being used. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor revisions. Overall I think cleaning up those issues identified above is fine. I also deleted the last sentence, which seemed a bit of a stretch, and a bit like Falungong peacocking. I also introduced some remarks from a communications professor, some of the text that had previously been deleted because it was too wordy, and made a number of other changes. —Zujine|talk 23:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

All improvements, to my mind. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent big changes

This is a placeholder for any and all discussion related to all the removals and summaries I just made. This had been discussed on a few of the related pages (like the history page), and I thought I'd just go ahead and do it. Sometimes I simply removed things for later use elsewhere; other times I just trimmed, summarised, or combined.

Previously I have provided tedious explanations for each change, but in this case will opt for a less structured one: I just thought it would help. There was a lot of specific information about issues that aren't very important, and a great deal of verbosity, elaboration, and repetition. If the page is too long it becomes unhelpful to readers. If anyone misses anything let's discuss the value of it here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is that the changes seem pretty reasonable. I didn't have time to take a detailed look, though. Will get back to this ASAP. —Zujine|talk 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate the condensation. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sad to see go the details about the torture methods practitioners are subjected to. Apart from that the general tidy-up was a long time coming. --Asdfg12345 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That can be elaborated as appropriate on the page dedicated to that topic. It's not appropriate to give overly detailed descriptions of these practices, however ghastly, on the main page. As Colipon rightly observes, information here should mostly be in summary form. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes by User:PCPP

I object to some of the recent changes by PCPP. Here's why:

The source (Penny & Harrold) that is used in the lead explicitly says that Falun Gong belongs to the tradition of cultivation practices with at least 2500 years of history in China. This immediately sets the right context and is mandatory for a good understanding.
The protests in China were not only silent, but peaceful. There was absolutely no violence involved on the practitioners' side. Falun Gong's non-violence is a well-documented fact in research, and that is why "peaceful protests" is a more appropriate wording.
It is by no means only Falun Gong practitioners who are "alleging" that they are tortured, mistreated and killed in the PRC.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the same stuff over and over again. PCPP should be banned. 95% of his edits are destructive. All the recent ones here should be reverted. --Asdfg12345 22:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably mean 'disruptive'. There is a difference. I didn't like these recent changes though. They seem deliberately slanted and distortive, and I have undone them. I get the impression that this editor is pushing an agenda, and all his edits on these pages are about that agenda. Someone should do something about that. —Zujine|talk 12:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It comes from only one source, so I have shortened "traditional cultivation system". This is no need to give undue weight to a single source.
"Silent protest" conveys the same meaning as "peaceful protest"
The sentence refers specifically to Falun Gong protesters

To Zujine, I find it pretty hypoccritical for my edits to be singled out when I only changed several wordings. You seemed to have no problem with Olaf himself adding the material in the first place, especially this edit, where he claimed to have "fixed" the leads's "partisan wording" [3], amongst others [4]. --PCPP (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to merely the recent changes. I checked your history and the RfC. I didn't like what I saw. There was discussion about Olaf's suggested changes, and a number of editors gave broad agreement. You changed wording in a misleading way with no hint at discussion or observance of previous consensus. If 'silent protest' is the same as 'peaceful protest', why change it? The fact is that many sources use peaceful, and it's clearly an important point. David Ownby takes some time out to elaborate on just how peaceful the protests were. Is this what it's like editing Falungong pages? I may tire of this quickly. —Zujine|talk 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And why change back "silent protest" to "peaceful protest", unless you have an axe to grind? Your reflex reverts doesn't do any favors either, and reverted entire changes just because you don't like one or two additions.

A) Please tell me where has Olaf's additions has been discussed and "have broad agreement"?

B) Why was "Chinese government" changed to "Chinese Communist Party"?

C) What's wrong with adding "Since then" to "human rights" groups and give it context?

D) Why was the term "persecution" used, when they were disputes in this very page regarding the term?

E) And why was the term "alleged" removed?

What you're doing is exactly trying to claim ownership of the article and systematically revert every one of my edits, while ignoring the edits by FLG single purpose accounts that were banned for POV pushing.--PCPP (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is funny. Now you are being challenged by others, and resorting to the same tactics. Let me respond according to my understanding.

A) Olaf discussed his changes just above, in the section called "Three issues in the lead are sticking out like a sore thumb." You must not have read it.

B) It is the CCP that persecuted Falun Gong. The "Chinese government" is just another friendly euphemism to draw attention away from the fact that it's a communist regime. Academics use CCP, not Chinese government. There's no reason to bow to your political sensibilities.

C, D, E) I don't think adding "since then" matters or not, but saying "alleging" is the real problem here. These are not merely Falun Gong allegations, as you claim, PCPP. That's the deceptive part. They are testified to by numerous reliable sources. Trying to pretend that there is no persecution, that the persecution is somehow still a matter of dispute, or that the abuses against Falun Gong practitioners are merely "alleged" -- it's just another example of your POV pushing. Reliable sources say it's real, and call it a persecution. The page is called persecution of Falun Gong. Please stop trying to distort things.

It's very funny that you say Zujine is trying to claim ownership of the article, too. This is one of the first times he has edited it (judging by contributions), and he maintained several of your edits. Meanwhile, Olaf actually discussed his ideas and made changes accordingly. Your comment is a combination of misleading remarks and outright falsehoods. Regarding "peaceful," I totally agree; dozens of sources use this term, including in brief characterisations. It's the simplest, most accurate, and most telling single word to describe Falun Gong demonstrations. I know why you don't like it! --Asdfg12345 16:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Trying to pretend that there is no persecution, that the persecution is somehow still a matter of dispute, or that the abuses against Falun Gong practitioners are merely "alleged" -- it's just another example of your POV pushing." The term persecution is a matter of dispute. I am disputing it. I have provided empirical data demonstrating non compliance with mandatory policy. It's usage is inconsistent with sources. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of mandatory compliance with WP:NPOV by using the terminology used most commonly by sources. That word isn't persecution. A good way to reduce the fighting on this page and in the article is simply to comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, it's funny to see asdfg abandoning his so called principals on "truth forberance tolerance" and and conduct an all out attack. A) Yes I have read it, and nowhere he discussed anything relation to his edits. B) There is a very paragraph on this talk page on the terminology, which you self admitted to that "persecution may not be the best word". C) The paragraph specifically says FLG practitioners doing the talking, thus their allegations, not of third parties. And you even admitted yourself that the term is used pretty much interchangedbly. I'm going to ignore the rest of your trolling.--PCPP (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean, just replace the word "persecution" with your word of choice, whether suppression or repression, or genocide, or "campaign", if you really like. It doesn't matter. The place to discuss the name of the persecution is not here. The dispute here is whether the actions of the CCP against Falun Gong should only be described as Falun Gong allegations. I am saying that they obviously should not, since they are corroborated by third parties. PCPP, and Colipon before him, are seeking to misleadingly say that they are only allegations from Falun Gong, whereas there is a large body of third party use of this term and acceptance of the facts of the CCP's actions (call them persecution, suppression, or whatever). The term "persecution" is about as compliant as the term "suppression" or whichever other term. It is used. It may not be the most used term, but its usage obviously isn't contradicted by major sources. I hope we do not need to do another evidence marathon. That has been done over here, as I said. If we want to have another ho-down on the name, we can do that separately. For now though, that's not the locus of dispute. For the record, my view is that whatever term is used, there is no pretending the persecution is not happening. And if a group of neutral editors did a thorough look at the sources and decided "suppression" is more accurate, I wouldn't mind. But it should be done by the book, not tendentiously. I would never seek to use the word "persecution" if the article was called "Crackdown on Falun Gong", for example. Regarding your C), it's perfectly logical that Falun Gong practitioners can be doing the talking about a persecution confirmed by third parties. That's precisely what they're doing, in fact. --Asdfg12345 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Chinese government is more neutral than Chinese Communist Party. It is also more accurate.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand why it may be attractive to think that, but fortunately wiki editors don't decide what is neutral and what isn't, most of the time. we leave that to the experts. I have not encountered one book that consistently uses the term "Chinese government" instead of CCP. I think nearly every scholarly work I've read uses CCP. It is not more accurate, either. The Party is the entity calling the shots over what happens to Falun Gong. One refers to the administrative and bureaucratic organs of the state, one refers to the actual party itself, which controls them. CCP is both more accurate and the term used by scholars. Anyone who has read half a dozen scholarly works on China can tell you that. --Asdfg12345 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

China and the world: Chinese foreign policy faces the new millennium By Samuel S. Kim This book doesn't seem to use Chinese Communist Party much. It uses words such as: PRC, China's leaders, Chinese government, or simply just China. Would you recommend saying: "While China has declared Falun Gong to be an "evil cult"..."? I don't really see Communist Party/CCP.--Edward130603 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Chinese government" is a far more neutral term, and the CCP should only be when specifically referred to. The Epoch Times and other FLG media exclusively refers to Chinese government as the "Zhonggong/Chinese Communist Party" to imply that CCP is an illegitimate government of China. And I think "silent protest" describe the situation far better than "peaceful protest". The latter is too vague and can mean anything, including vocal protests with loudspeakers, when the FLG protest is described by one source as "very quietly and politely".--PCPP (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peaceful and silent convey more or less the same meaning. If the protest was quiet/polite, then I would assume that "silent protest" could be used as well.--Edward130603 (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This requires an objective analysis of sources. When the protest is described, how is it most commonly described? peaceful? silent? Or perhaps without an adjective. There may be other factors. Assertions without basis may bring trouble, as Sean_hoyland notes.

David Palmer uses 'peaceful' three times to describe Falungong protests in his book:

"Falungong thus systematically held peaceful demonstrations against newspapers and government offices that 'attacked' Falungong and 'hurt the feelings' of its followers..." (one can't help but notice the same 'hurt the feelings of the Chinese people' the CCP uses now and then;
"Some people even had their wills written before going to Zhongnanhai to express peacefully their opinions."
"Another statement issued three days later explains, 'as a last resort, 10,000 Falun Dafa practitioners gathered peacefully at Zhongnanhai to present facts to the Chinese leaders..."

David Ownby uses it four times:

"It was also after Li's departure from China that Falun Gong practitioners developed their penchant for peaceful protest (later dubbed "civil disobedience")..."
"And indeed, when a peaceful Falun Gong protest in mid-April 1999 in the northern city of Tianjin, in response to a critical article appearing in a limited-circulation journal, was met with police brutality..."
"Thus, on 25 April 1999, some 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners staged a peaceful demonstration outside the gates of Zhongnanhai, the guarded compound..."
"As in the case of other Falun Gong protests, this one was completely peaceful and nonviolent; the thousands of practitioners collectively limited their consumption of food and drink over the course of the sixteen or so hours of their protest, so as not to overwhelm the capacity of the public toilets, an act of civic conscience rarely witnessed in China—or elsewhere, for that matter..."

David Palmer uses "silent" once to describe the protest:

"The demonstrators waited patiently outside the compound, forming three or four rows on the sidewalk. Some stood, others sat down, some read. The crowd remained silent, there were no shouts or slogans."

David Ownby uses "silent" three times:

"...some 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners in the capital "spontaneously" gathered outside one of the western gates to Zhongnanhai in an impressive and largely silent demonstration..."
"Everyone remained standing on the sidewalk on the west side of the street, waiting silently to be able to explain the relevant facts..."
"...on 25 April 1999, some 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners, including many "old ladies in tennis shoes," ... demonstrated outside Communist Party headquarters in Beijing in a stunning silent protest against media attacks—backed up by police truncheons—on Falun Gong in the neighboring city of Tianjin."

This brief search of two sources indicates that 'peaceful' is used more commonly than 'silent' to characterise Falungong's Zhongnanhai protest. For a more definitive answer further research would be required. Based on the above I would suggest the word on Wikipedia be 'peaceful.' Regarding CCP/Chinese government, David Palmer uses 'CCP' 78 times, 'party' 176 times, 'regime' 22 times, and 'Chinese government' 4 times. Surprisingly, David Ownby uses 'Chinese government' 43 times, 'regime' 20 times, 'party' (as in 'Chinese Communist Party') 102 times, and the acronym 'CCP' only once. From this, I would suggest using CCP or 'Party'. I would also note that I have read dozens of books on Chinese politics, and CCP is the default term. Homunculus (duihua) 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights in Contemporary China By R. Randle Edwards, Louis Henkin, Andrew J. Nathan

CCP: 11

Communist party: 40

Party: 75

Government: over 100

People's republic of china: 27

PRC: 42

A search for the term "China" would not be possible here because of the false positives.

The discourse of human rights in China: historical and ideological perspectives By Robert Weatherley

Chinese government: 55

Communist party: 11

Party: 46

PRC: 32

CCP: 21

China, the United Nations, and human rights: the limits of compliance By Ann E. Kent

Communist party: 15

Party: 55

CCP: 9

PRC: 17

people's republic of china: 46

Chinese government: over 100

Bridging the global divide on human rights: a Canada-China dialogue By Errol Mendes, Anik Lalonde-Roussy

communist party: 35

CCP:2

PRC:5

people's republic of china: 13

Chinese government: 57

Party: 71

Falun Gong's challenge to China: spiritual practice or "evil cult"? : a ... By Danny Schechter

Chinese government: over 100 times

CCP:22

Communist party: 59

Party: 88

PRC: 9

people's republic of china: 19

"Party" alone would reasonably generate a good amount of false positives, as would "governement" by itself. It appears that CCP is not the default. Per above, I would strongly recommend Chinese government or China.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of statistical arguments may not reap the most accurate result, simply because the Party and the government are, strictly speaking, different things; there's a distinction between 'The Party' (or Communist Party/Chinese Communist Party/CCP/regime) and the 'Chinese government'. The CCP refers to the group that controls the Central Propaganda Department, the Organisation Department, etc., and makes decisions through the Standing Committee of the Politburo, etc. That is, it performs the executive functions of the party-state. The government can be said to refer more to the apparatus that runs the country, including the regular bureaucracy etc. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, too.

But if we wanted to be precise, and I think we do want that, it would be more precise to say that the Party, or the CCP, made the decision to persecute Falun Gong. The propaganda campaign at the beginning of the persecution also makes it clear that this was a very 'personal' issue for the CCP, if it could be put that way. Falun Gong was said to have explicitly challenged the CCP, and it received a clear and sharp response ("Falun Gong is a political force opposed to the Communist Party of China and the central government"[5]) . In the CCP's own lexicon, often the persecution is referred to as a struggle between the Party and Falun Gong. I think that Edward130603 and PCPP's concern is that by using CCP it may seem somehow biased, or delegitimising to the CCP. I don't think that is the case.

The distinction between the party/government is partly borne out by, for example, the notes of Ken Lieberthal, who writes (p. 158 of the first edition of 'Governing China': "...the Chinese system is divided into three nationwide bureaucratic hierarchies--the party, the government, and the military.")

In Saich's 2003 'Governance and Politics of China', p. 112, we are told: "The reforms have changed the role of the CCP in significant ways even as it retains its all-powerful role in the system and is willing to crush any potential opposition. This was shown most clearly in the crushing of the student-led demonstrations of 1989..." It is this same impetus of challenge and response behind the crushing of Falun Gong. That is an attitude particular to the Chinese Communist Party, and using the term 'government' would be quite diffuse.

Another example is David Shambaugh's book 'China's Communist Party: atrophy and adaptation'. This is among the most recent scholarship from among the most distinguished of China scholars. From what I can tell, the term 'Chinese government' appears 45 times[6], and CCP appears 100 times [7]. Shambaugh is also quite explicit in addressing the fact that the CCP is a Leninist party that penetrates and dominates society (p. 127). Thus, the aspect that states this, without overstating it, is important for newcomers to the whole discussion of contemporary China and its political rifts. Using a term like 'China' or 'Chinese government' obscures the fact that China is still very much run by a Communist Party, adopting a Leninist organisational structure, that makes all the important decisions. And in particular, when it comes to something of such political sensitivity and significance as the repression of the Falun Gong, the CCP was firmly in charge, the decision coming directly from the Standing Committee. The government then carried out those executive orders, through the education system, the policing system, in state-owned enterprises, and everywhere else that Falun Gong was to be rooted out.

Thus, I think CCP/the Party is more precise language, and more suitable to addressing the decision to defame and persecute Falun Gong. In other places, it may be more appropriate to use 'Chinese government', depending on what was being discussed.

I might also note that I think the level of disputation happening here is surprising to me. Simple terms like persecution, regime, propaganda, Party etc. are routinely challenged, even though they are routinely (though, indeed, not singularly) used by scholars of Chinese politics and of the Chinese Communist Party. On the one hand, I suppose it's good to make sure Wikipedia is carrying forward the highest standards of scholarship. On the other, in some of these disputes one must wonder whether it's a waste of time to wring hands over these issues, and precisely whose interest is being served by changing these commonly accepted terms into ones considered more palatable by some - not that of the readers, in my estimate. But changing the discussion from 'the CCP persecuting Falun Gong' to 'the Chinese government banning Falun Gong' is a significant one, so I have given my input on why I think it is important that the debate stay centered on the proper terminology and mode of discourse to refer to the actors and actions in this conflagration. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

TheSound, this is a clearly reasoned and well-argued stance. I agree with it because of the precision it gives to each of the terms; the decision came from the upper levels of the Chinese Communist Party, not the general government apparatus. Some imprecision does not matter much in the body of the article, where speaking of the 'Chinese government' doing this or that would be permissible, at least to give the text some variety. But I agree that it is important to be truthful and precise in use of terminology when it comes to the key issues. —Zujine|talk 04:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 'peaceful', I don't think this needs to be emphasised too much. Making clear they were peaceful is sufficient, but over-emphasising it is similar to the allergic avoidance of 'CCP' in place of 'government'. The lead now describes the many protests launched by Falungong as 'peaceful', and immediately afterwards the Zhongnanhai protest as 'silent'. The meaning is clear. Similarly, the lead alternates between 'government' and CCP. I have to concur with both TheSound and Homunculus that in my experience, in academia, 'CCP' is a standard term to refer to the central decision making apparatus of the PRC (i.e., the Chinese Communist Party). Oh, and TheSound could not have been more spot on about the degree of disputation on things that in normal academic contexts (like writing an MA thesis) would not be disputed; it's incredible. —Zujine|talk 04:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read TheSound's greatly informative piece on how to distinguish the CCP and the government. Strictly speaking in a Communist state, there is not that much difference. Most party organs have parallel bodies in the state. Thus the term "party-state". However, I am not certain that in the intro "The CCP banned..." is appropriate. The ban came on orders from Jiang, apparently, and was undoubtedly carried out by legislative and executive government authorities - i.e. the State Council, the NPC, etc. The suppression afterwards was more or less carried out through the party apparatus - as party members had to "Pledge" to get rid of Falun Gong - while ordinary members of government (who were not party members) did not have this requirement (to my knowledge). Thus I have modified one reference to the CCP in the lead. I am not certain that the "CCP declared Falun Gong to be a cult" to be appropriate either. Again, this 'declaration', to my knowledge, came out of government documents, not CCP documents. Colipon+(Talk) 14:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the key point to this whole thing is that it was the central committee of the CCP that decided this. Someone needs to check Tong's book about the precise mechanics of decision etc., but TheSound makes the most salient point: this is a Leninist regime that hands down decisions by fiat. This is well-known to all, and articulated in the sources. By changing it to some more vague words like "Chinese government", this whole idea is lost, and it becomes like a regular civil government making a bureaucratic decision. That's obviously far from the truth. The idea of using CCP is simple, supported by scholars (like others have pointed out, I have not found one item of recent scholarship that does not regularly use CCP), and in accordance with the logic behind the crackdown and how it was carried out. It's certainly not controversial. And I fear the reason for wanting to see it changed to something else is, broadly speaking, the same as that behind wanting to see the picture of Gao Rongrong's disfigured face excluded. --Asdfg12345 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "persecution"

I'm just going to copy some instances here to show that this is not inconsistent with sources, as claimed. I just want to tackle that claim head on. My overall point has been that it is one of the words used, and it's the word that has been chosen by the wikipedia community to describe it, as shown by the page with that name, named that way for years. And here's some evidence from the sources (some are just randomly taken from that other page, a lot from JN466). The following is presented messily, and I apologise for that. This isn't a scientific analysis, but I just need to quickly dispel the idea that the word is inconsistent with the sources. It is one of a number of acceptable terms. It has been the word used for the page for a long time. The persecution is acknowledged and regarded as such by third parties, and is not a mere set of allegations from Falun Gong. --Asdfg12345 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of third-party news sources using the term. Examples:

- "China syndrome: the persecution of Falun Gong" in The Christian Century, an American mainstream Protestant source.
- US Department of State source containing multiple references to the "persecution of Falun Gong": http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/67820.pdf
- San Francisco Chronicle: "SF supes vote to condemn persecution of Falun Gong"
- June 2009 Boston Globe article: Perhaps nothing today so exemplifies the totalitarian implacability of China's rulers as their ruthless persecution of Falun Gong, a quasi-religious discipline of meditation and breathing exercises, combined with moral teachings about truth, compassion, and forbearance. By civilized standards, it is incomprehensible that anything so innocuous and peaceable could provoke bloody repression.
- Academic publication by Ashgate Publishing: [8]

Colipon wrote, No major media outlets explicitly refer to it as "persecution". That statement is not quite true, either. Here are some mainstream news organizations using the word "persecution":

Here is an interview in Deutsche Welle (the German equivalent of the BBC World Service) with a Professor specialising in Asian Politics... the headline is "Ten years of persecution of Falun Gong": google translation

Here an article in Der Standard, a major Austrian daily, speaking of "brutal persecution" etc.: google translation

Here an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, saying it is undeniable, even taking into account the massive Falun Gong public relations effort, that there is "massive persecution" of Falun Gong in China: google translation

I wonder though: if, as many of these reports say, people are tortured, arrested and put in labour camps without a trial, and not a few end up dying in prison, all because of their adherence to Falun Gong, what would be the difference between what is happening and religious persecution?

Our main book references on Falun Gong—Ownby, academic, Porter, academic, Schechter, journalist, Lewis, academic, Gallagher/Ashcraft, academic, Davis, academic—all say that there is persecution, using that word, even as they say that Li Hongzhi and his followers are media savvy and highly manipulative of the media in their survival of the persecution <

- parliaments of major countries like the US and Germany have called what is happening "persecution" and have condemned it,
- as have human-rights organisations like amnesty international and Human Rights Watch,
- as has practically every scholar who has written about Falun Gong (Ownby, Porter, Schechter, Lewis, Gallagher/Ashcraft, Davis).
- Further to what I said earlier about the BBC mostly speaking about "alleged" persecution, I have since noted a few occurrence of the unqualified term even on BBC websites (e.g. [9], [10]).

A Google scholar search:

Persecution yielded 1250 results

Crackdown yielded 1360 results

Suppression yielded 1350 results

Repression yielded 1740 words

So there is no definite concensus on the usage of the term. Falun Gong and its umbrella organizations such as the WOIPFG and CIPFG uses the term "persecution" exclusively, while the Chinese government refers to it as "取缔" which means ban.--PCPP (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no definitive best term. That's what I have said. But it's the term that has been used on wiki through the natural process of editing, consensus (or lack of) etc., and it clearly has some support from the community. In any case, the point is that there's nothing particularly wrong with the term. I just needed to address Sean on that. --Asdfg12345 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Um no. According to WP:LABEL,

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral...There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term.

--PCPP (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see how that would be applicable for not labelling Falun Gong a cult, but how is it applicable for describing the persecution? Is the persecution "a group"? This policy obviously has nothing to do with the present case. --Asdfg12345 13:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, where does it say that's it's limited to groups? Pedophilia is mentioned as an example, and it's not a group--PCPP (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are turning this into a joke. The label policy is obviously not referring to this, or there would be no articles called "persecution of..." and no articles called "genocide of..." It's just fundamentally nonsensical and illogical to apply a policy about not labelling people and groups to a description of a set of actions taken by a state against its people. Go to the page on Abu grhaib abuse, or the US's use of torture on prisoners and try telling them that would be "labelling." You would be laughed at, because it's obviously just silly wikilawyering. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You know what you're saying is just tendentious nonsense. --Asdfg12345 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Abu Ghraib article has a poll on the naming of the article [11], proper sourcing on the lead, and the case has received large media attention and has concluded. Per policy, Wikipedia name human rights articles "human rights in XXX", not "human rights abuses in XXX".--PCPP (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For the majority of reliable sources, 'persecution' is not a problem. To scholars and researchers, this is not a contentious or sensitive word to use. It describes in a simple way the actions taken by the Chinese Communist Party against followers of Falun Gong in China. The word 'persecution' is not related to the labelling of a minority group. The point of that policy is to stop stigmatising labels being slapped on non-mainstream groups; using a term like 'persecution' to describe a state persecution isn't the same thing by any means. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Persecution and "Allegations"

Some of the abuses that Falun Gong practitioners have been subject to in Mainland China are widely documented by third-party groups, especially human rights organizations. These should be presented in the article and given its due weight. I am curious to know, however, that since the initial crackdown of Falun Gong, how much more of this "persecution" is actually directed against Falun Gong in specific, and how much of it is directed against all qigong groups, all the groups that are considered 'heretical sects', or all the groups that oppose the Chinese gov't in general. Organ Harvesting is a case in point. You had two clueless Canadian politicians commissioned by Falun Gong going to "investigate" the allegations, and then Falun Gong jumping on it as a "third party corroboration" that the organ harvesting is occurring on a grand scale, and targeted specifically to Falun Gong. If this is not an "allegation", I don't know what is. Even Harry Wu, an expert on organ harvesting, and the first one to bring light to the issue and lambaste the Chinese government, severely criticized the Kilgour-Matas Reports.

Heather Kavan has a good piece detailing Falun Gong's deception tactics in its media outlets - outlining how it has managed its public relations war against the Chinese government. One of Kavan's points, which is echoed by Human Rights Watch, is that there is no doubt Falun Gong practitioners are being treated badly by the Chinese government, and subject to a wide range of abuses. But the scale and the magnitude of these abuses have been vastly exaggerated or twisted by Falun Gong to earn itself legitimacy amongst Western governments and people. Another reason for the Falun Gong 'counter-propaganda' is because the group has been slandered badly by the Chinese government, and, because it belongs to a similar culture of discourse, attacks the Chinese government back with even more slander. Both Kavan and HRW are careful in saying that they endorse neither Falun Gong nor the Chinese government's story, but conclude that regardless of what kind of deceptive products have come out of these media wars, people should not be persecuted just because they have a different belief system. These views of Kavan and Human Rights Watch sum up my position as well. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I will comment on this when I have more time; for now, I'm interested in knowing where Harry Wu has "severely criticized the Kilgour-Matas Reports". I know he criticized the initial news on Sujiatun, but this was before the publication of Bloody Harvest. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate substantiation of the statement: "the scale and the magnitude of these abuses have been vastly exaggerated or twisted by Falun Gong to earn itself legitimacy amongst Western governments and people." I was not aware of this, and had not found indication of it in my reading. Ownby notes on a number of occasions the credibility of Falun Gong-run human rights investigation groups. I did not know the Falun Gong had twisted or vastly exaggerated its reports of abuses by CCP authorities. Where can I get the full scoop on that? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. Once I get the time and resolve some of the other disputes that are on my hands, I'll get back to you with the exact sources. A good place to start is to read the HRW report on Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Towards a general tidy up

Amidst all the action recently I thought it would be a good idea to do a general tidy up. I don't want to create any disputes about points of view in this, but basically just consolidate, organize, and build slightly on what is already present. This includes combining redundant statements etc. I have just done so for the lead and teachings section. I will do it in chunks. Homunculus (duihua) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you still working on this? I think you forgot to remove the InUse tag. Anyway, I am going to follow up on those changes (which seem pretty good). —Zujine|talk 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My changes are basically along the same lines. I took note of the remarks above, and found the things referred to in David Ownby's study. I do not think I want to get too much into the polarising dispute on He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, but David Ownby's reflections on the Falungong's protests, and some of the backgrounds of the publications in question, are all worthy of mention, in my view.

I noted that the hagiographic Li biography was withdrawn from circulation, (presumably as a Falungong PR image thing).

I changed the subheading from 'Skeptics and critics emerge' to 'criticism and response' because firstly, I think that more accurately reflects the nature of the content in that section, and secondly, after having read most of this talk page, it seems that the other criticism of Falungong, such as from the Buddhist community and Sima Nan, was not particularly notable during this time. And neither was it related to the protests that precipitated the state's draconian response, which is the real main thread that should be articulated in this portion of this article. So it seems to make more sense to name this subsection based on the information it contains.

I also rearranged the introduction to Li Hongzhi and his doctrine slightly, and included some more context about his religious biography.

I have just compared the diffs now, and I think that's about it. —Zujine|talk 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell these all look like improvements. The controversies section still lacks thematic structure though, and so does the categorisation section. And 'Public debate' really needs more attention. But I agree that the above are all improvements. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article look great! Colipon+(Talk) 22:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Added images, and minor sundry

I made a few changes, including adding some images and recasting the part about controversies on the basis of the discussion at the teachings of Falungong page. If there's anything remiss, please note. There are more controversies than what is listed there - something that will need to be improved on later. —Zujine|talk 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the issue of the Falungong being blocked from entering parades, pointed out by another contributor on the teachings discussion page, is one missing controversy. —Zujine|talk 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Great work. There are surely more controversies, but it's often a matter of which are notable and which aren't. It's been suggested that consulting scholarly works is a good idea for establishing notability--something I'd agree with. --Asdfg12345 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image, I hope that is okay. The references were broken, ostensibly taken from the archives of another article. These references need to be checked, because some users have raised the issue that the majority of these images link directly to Falun Gong primary sources that have little credibility. I am not saying that this particular image of Gao Rongrong belongs to a Falun Gong primary source, but a potentially controversial image must be checked thoroughly. Colipon+(Talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the enthusiasm for good sourcing, I hadn't noticed that the citations were done improperly. I have properly cited it to the Amnesty 2006 Annual report, which has this to say:

"Gao Rongrong, a Falun Gong practitioner, died in custody in June after being detained in Longshan Reeducation through Labour facility in Shenyang, Liaoning province. Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, which caused severe blistering and eyesight problems, after she was discovered reading Falun Gong materials in the facility."

The image I will use comes from Faluninfo.net, which is indeed a primary source. It's natural that, of course, images of Falungong practitioners who have been tortured will come from Falungong sources. Her practitioner colleagues would presumably be the only ones with the means to sneak into a hospital and photograph her condition. I do not see this as a problem - you may have to elaborate on that.

The other source comes from Youtube videos which, while not much of a reputable source at all, serves in this case only as one piece of the corroborative evidence. The persecution itself, and treatment of Falungong is well documented, so we do not rely on Youtube or Faluninfo for that - merely instances of what has already been widely documented. Please clearly state any problems, and consider waiting until other editors have given their opinion before removing the image again. —Zujine|talk 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I want you to know that I hate to edit war. Thus unless I was reasonably sure that the image should not be on the article be it for sourcing or any other policy reasons, I would not have removed it. You may, if you wish, bring this issue to any noticeboard of your choice to gather some opinions. These noticeboards never provided much useful feedback, but it's worth a try. Or if you are confident of your own reasons of putting the image there, just re-insert it. I will not revert it. All Falun Gong sources amount to Self-published sources, whose use should be limited to describing the position of Falun Gong, not to describe any facts. The same applies for Chinese government documents - they represent the Chinese gov't, not the hard facts. We know that there is a propaganda war going on between the two sides, thus it is reasonable to dig deeply on any issue (such as organ harvesting) before we can reasonably conclude that their inclusion is warranted. Using Falun Gong sources to describe the ill-treatment of its practitioners is basically equivalent to using Chinese government sources to describe why Falun Gong is a cult. Both groups have an inherent agenda. Colipon+(Talk) 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case the content of the image is verified by at least Amnesty International, so I think it should be fine. —Zujine|talk 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the Amnesty Report. It does make mention of Gao Rongrong, but no pictures. I wanted to ask a few questions. Which third-party source actually verifies that the picture of Gao Rongrong on Faluninfo.net is actually a picture of the same Gao that appeared on the Amnesty Report? All Amnesty says conclusively is that Gao died in custody. When discussing torture, Amnesty only says that she was "reportedly beaten". Let's assume this is true. Where are these 'reports'? Do they come from Falun Gong websites, or do they come from recognized news organizations? And the YouTube video, well, that's just not considered a reliable source. You can try to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you don't believe me. Colipon+(Talk) 00:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on Colipon. You're not serious are you? The Amnesty thing says she was beaten with electro-shock batons, and AI New Zealand used to have a Q&A with that horrifying picture featured; it's no longer available from what I can tell. Are you saying you don't think that picture is Gao Rongrong? Who else do you think is going to get this information out, as Zujine says, than Falun Gong practitioners? Where does Amnesty get its information? Of course, these are all first and second hand accounts, the vast majority from Falun Gong practitioners themselves. That's not the point though, the point is whether third parties like Amnesty and media organisations believe them and report on them. And they have obviously done both. Further, allow me to defend the work of Falun Gong groups. Ownby says in his preface, for example: "These violations have been exposed and condemned by such well-known human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by numerous Falun Gong organizations whose quite professional publications have been generally accepted as legitimate and trustworthy by these human rights organizations." and in the first page of the introduction that "The ensuing campaign of suppression has been reminiscent of the extremes of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). According to information compiled by Falun Gong—which is generally accepted as accurate by international human rights organizations— since 1999, more than 3,000 practitioners have died in police custody." So I don't think the reliability of Falun Gong sources is an issue here. We have an expert saying they are reliable, and considered reliable by other human rights groups. The photo is obviously genuine, it has been reported by third parties, and unfortunately I think you are trying to wikilawyer its exclusion because you don't like it. For you it's just "positive propaganda" for Falun Gong. What can one say to that? I applaud Zujine's forthright approach here. I hope he is not discouraged by the response. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not reverting anything. I am certain that someone else will come onto this talk page and bring about other reasons for us to take the picture off. It's not just a WP:RS issue. It's also sensationalistic, given undue weight, and not given proper attribution. Since I am thoroughly tired of editing everything Falun Gong, I don't have much energy left to tell the community why the picture does not belong. I am confident the community will reach that decision sooner or later on its own. Colipon+(Talk) 02:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think it's sensationalistic? Again, I think that's just another argument for trying to exclude the image, but which, when you think about it, doesn't really make sense. Which picture of a Falun Gong torture victim would not be "sensationalistic"? Or should the pages be sanitised of all these unpleasant images because you think they are "senationalistic"? Take a look at the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse for example--we had better go and delete them, then, under this logic. Secondly, it's one image used to illustrate the torture meted out to Falun Gong practitioners. If there was a gallery on the page I would also think it inappropriate, but torture is a key part of the persecution, and having an image illustrating that seems quite legitimate. The other problem is that the source may not be reliable--it's attribution is clear, but there may be a complaint that it doesn't belong because it comes from a Falun Gong source. That's simple to respond to: basically any picture of a Falun Gong torture victim in China was taken by a Falun Gong practitioner or supporter, at great personal risk. I remember emailing Minghui to get them to release some of those images, and they refused, citing this. Those images belong to Falun Gong practitioners, they're the only people who could obtain them, and they are the source of these images. So... of course the image comes from a Falun Gong source. The real question is whether the case in question has been verified by third parties, and it has. The rest is just wikilawyering, and a continuation of the strategy of playing down the persecution. I wrote my thoughts about that elsewhere. Suffice to say, I'm not a fan. --Asdfg12345 03:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it's normal to have a photo of the abuse documented in the article. I think it's also normal that such images would come from Falungong groups. If third parties have somehow got these images, we could use them, but Asdfg's remarks about Falungong being the only ones able to obtain such imagery seem to make sense. I don't see the problem. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, Falun Gong is known to exaggerate and sensationalize "evidence" as part of its 'counter-propaganda' against the Chinese state. As such we must be extremely careful in using any image whose ultimate source is Falun Gong groups - they are not verifiable. The Epoch Times and other Falun Gong media have been subject to controversy in recent years for using images that are not actually related to the subjects that they describe. Colipon+(Talk) 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, the case in question has been verified by a third party, so I do not know what you mean when you say "they are not verifiable". You also didn't respond to the issues other editors raised. I definitely do not want to take sides in the age-old pro/anti-Falungong battle, but one must wonder whether your remarks are motivated by a genuine concern that the article be scrupulously verifiable. —Zujine|talk 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All the YouTube videos on this issue seem to ultimately source itself to a Falun Gong website. Amnesty has only ever said one small paragraph about the issue - even they are reluctant to present it as fact - "Gao Rongrong, a Falun Gong practitioner, reportedly died in custody in June 2005." (Emphasis mine). Amnesty does not verify the authenticity of the pictures, even if you argue that they verify Gao's case. I myself do not doubt that this is a case of Falun Gong-related torture. But when you put an image up like that, it needs to be readily verifiable to a third party. Just look at these search results - all belong to Falun Gong sites. Colipon+(Talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is no dispute that the image is authentic, and we acknowledge that the case has been verified by a third party, then what is the problem? As pointed out above, I believe the demand for a third-party image in this case amounts to a demand for no images. Who else would have this kind of image except a Falungong group? I think a dose of common sense and perhaps wp:iar would be appropriate here. We know the image is genuine, so what need is there for raising technical disputes like this? Isn't this a similar tactic to what Falungong editors are accused of? Do not get me wrong: if there was a legitimate concern that this image was not kosher, that should be raised. Or perhaps you could seek wider community involvement. These are just my views. —Zujine|talk 04:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a sensible perspective. If there is still a problem, maybe try looking at the Beyond the Red Wall documentary (you should be able to find it online). From what I recall, there are images of a practitioner who had his legs burnt. Editors can pick what they prefer: Gao Rongrong's disfigured face, or a guy whose legs were burnt with an iron rod. Either way it shows the despicable nature of the persecution. --Asdfg12345 06:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up an old discussion (Luo Gan)

It is a curious fact of these Falun Gong pages that many issues come up again, long after they were first discussed. Sometimes this is for legitimate reasons, sometimes for illegitimate ones. I believe what I present here is firmly within the former category. The issue is whether the alternative narrative of the lead-up to the Falun Gong persecution should be included on the page or not. The standard narrative is that April 25 lead directly to the persecution, as an action-response dynamic. The alternative narrative is that the persecution was already coming, and April 25 was either part of the overall scheme from inside the upper echelons of CCP leadership, or just another thing that happened on the way, possibly speeding the whole thing up. This alternative narrative is probably most clearly articulated in Gutmann (supportive of it) and Palmer (does not seem to believe it), and parts of it hinted at in Ching, Porter, Zhao (kinda). Part of this alternative narrative is actually already in the article currently, too--about how Zhongnanhai may have been orchestrated. Another part that has been the most hotly disputed, for continually unclear reasons (see the first dispute here, second here) is how He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan are brother-in-law. In saying this, I do not actually suggest much change at all to the article. Merely the note that they are brothers-in-law, and a clarification, of probably one or two sentences, that this alternative reading exists. The great difficulty in this debate has been obtaining a clear explanation for why the brother-in-law connection does not belong; first it was said that the sources were poor, something I recently sought a third opinion on; other "explanations" for why it shouldn't be included attacked me and my motives.

And just to allay the fears that I'm rehashing something that has already been totally debunked, let me just comment on the last two responses to when I brought this up.

The first is here. The only disputes presented here, not including the run-around I was given, are that the sources are bad (proposed by Colipon, supported by Enric Naval), and that when sources discuss the brother-in-law connection, they do not explain how that connection was significant (Ohconfucius).
In the second one, it was said that the inclusion "still presents no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters" (proposed by Colipon after Ohconfucius, tacitly supported by Enric Naval and Simonm223)

It may be worth noting that the vast majority of those two discussions are lamentably unrelated to the actual dispute. Anyway, by the second dispute the sourcing was no longer presumed problematic. The RS post linked above also probably puts that to rest. The only other contention is that the sources "present no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters."

My response to this is that it's quite irrelevant whether the sources which mention the connection between the two men do not present evidence that they did what they did because they were married to each others sisters. That is a very obscure point of contention: that the sources do not explain why Luo and He did what they did because of their familial connection wouldn't make sense at all, because who on earth would orchestrate a persecution merely "because" you are brother-in-law with someone. In any case, my response is that it doesn't matter that the sources are not precise on how or why Luo and He planned their activities, merely that a number of sources note the connection and draw attention to its possible significance. Their familial connection implies that they knew about each other's activities, and it implies that their activities were coordinated. It would be original research to include a direct statement of that order, but this is the implication given by Gutmann, Porter, and to some extent Zhao. I will copy, again, what they have each written on this:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

It may also be worth noting that the individual who responded to my recent notice on the RS board said: "...I'm no expert in the controversy being written about, but a brother-in-law is pretty much immediate family, and if they are involved in the same political matters it's pretty hard to deem that as unencyclopedic. I mean, if this were a biography of a musician, whose brother in law was in the record business, we would certainly mention that in the article."

Right now I do not propose any specific way this information should be included. But I propose that 1) The He-Luo connection is obviously notable and has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources. 2) The reason that has been given for keeping it out so far doesn't make sense. 3) I believe this article should briefly include the fact that they are brothers-in-law.

Further, missing also are notes that make more clear the role of the state in the lead-up to the persecution (such as Ownby's statement that Beijing TV is an official mouthpiece, which was repeatedly deleted also with no good reason), that Falun Gong practitioners were responding to what they considered to be the start of a political campaign, and the general idea that there is a school of thought which considers the persecution premeditated. I expect that in total all this should not add more than 100 words to the article; maybe 50. And it would be sourced to top scholars, views which are so far conspicuously absent. Whatever the case, the Luo-He brother-in-law connection is perhaps the most outstanding issue. And I hope by now it's clear to Colipon that I'm not trying to game the system or bait him. I do not appreciate those remarks. --Asdfg12345 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point of contention. I would prefer to wait for further explanation about why the note about their relationship does not belong - getting 'the other side of the story', so to speak. From the above, however, it seems quite appropriate. But I could be persuaded otherwise. Homunculus (duihua) 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Prima facie I would also say it seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't trespass due weight. I don't think it's irrelevant that they were brothers-in-law. —Zujine|talk 06:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it sounds reasonable the way Asdfg12345 presents it - his side of the story. As Homunculus indicates, I am keen to know the problem with the inclusion from the other side. It would also be understandable if previous effective discussion was stymied by personal issues; in that case, if no one can point out what's wrong with the inclusion, it has my 'vote'. I notice Zujine already included some of the peripheral issues mentioned above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Asdfg12345 presents a very good reasoning for the inclusion of this fact. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no causal link between the two suggested in any reputable sources. The selective few RS that talks about this issue has simply said that the relationship exists, none of them provide any substantial reason for anyone to believe that He Zuoxiu wrote his critical piece because of Luo Gan, nor does it suggest anywhere in reliable sources that the two ever 'collaborated'. This relationship is also notably absent from some of the more notable Falun Gong works, such as Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China. If it is so significant, as Asdfg claims, why doesn't Ownby mention it at all? He Zuoxiu is a scientist who has railed against, among other things, traditional Chinese medicine, supernaturalism, and all sorts of Qigong. Luo Gan works for state security, not the propaganda department, nor did he have any role, it seems before 6-10. Some sources contain a few speculative lines or two about this issue (such as Schechter), but no source can substantiate that this relationship had a causal effect on any events that took place. It's fine if we want to include this reference in either Luo or He's article, but inclusion of it here would be nothing more than a synthesis of the events - i.e., postulating that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan did what they did because they were brothers-in-law. Archive is here for previous discussion. All of this, in other words, is speculative, not substantive. I am not responding to Asdfg's essay because I have had terrible experiences in the past that has convinced me that this user is only on this encyclopedia to edit in favour of Falun Gong, and is currently banned for 6 months on these articles for doing just that. If other editors agree with him, that's fine with me, but to me, this is just more 'balancing the POV' tactics to make the article more favourable towards Falun Gong. Judge for yourselves. Colipon+(Talk) 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add on to what I said above, there also seems to be no Chinese language source that actually confirms that He and Luo are even related to begin with (although I am happy to be proven wrong on this). The only sources I can find that discusses this relationship at all appear on Falun Gong websites - such as this one. This is not to mention that I can't even find the reference on Chinese Falun Gong websites that they are actually brothers-in-law - they only charge that He and Luo "collaborated" on the BTV incident, which has also never been verified. Colipon+(Talk) 22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Asdfg12345 show above that there are reputable sources discussing the case? As I see it, the sources that mention their relationship intend to highlight the fact that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan may have well been aware of each other's actions, thoughts and plans in regards to the Falun Gong issue. This has nothing to do with an original synthesis, as long as we don't assert a causal relationship. Postulating that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan did what they did because of their family ties is different from disclosing their intimate connection in general terms. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

After reading Colipon's note, I have two concerns. One is whether this would be continuing to push an agenda that Asdfg12345 was banned for; the other is, while it may not wander into direct synthesis, of stating that their relationship influenced their behaviour in the Falungong case, doesn't it certainly imply that? And might not that aspersion be a kind of original synthesis? Those are two objections in my mind. Homunculus (duihua) 03:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to suggest that my arguments are invalid because Colipon accuses me of pushing an agenda. Colipon himself believes Falun Gong is an illegitimate belief system, and is dedicated to giving it an unfavourable portrayal on wiki. He has done so for as long as he has edited the pages. He is unapologetically opposed to Falun Gong, in both his speech and editing. So I think the various claims should be assessed on their own merits, and not be implicated in these ad-hominem struggles. I mentioned that fact about Colipon because newcomers to this may not realise that he is not a neutral knight in shining armor, but a partisan editor with a clear agenda. I say no more on this. Aside from the agenda claims, the only issue is whether including this would be a kind of original synthesis. I do not see how. Homunculus, you are right that including the information certainly implies that they were aware of each other's conduct. But that is precisely what the sources do, with Porter even stating that more directly. We are not saying that here. If we said it, it would be OR. Just mentioning it, as it has been shown several sources do, is quite legitimate. This is just narrating the debate more or less as the literature has done. It is clearly part of one narrative of the lead-up to the persecution. And forgive my skepticism with Colipon's appeals to Chinese media. I feel confident that if he had found Chinese Falun Gong websites trumpeting that claim, his argument would have been that I only want it included because it's part of the "Falun Gong line." Since Chinese Falun Gong websites don't mention it explicitly, the argument is instead that it's probably not true. The point is that mentioning their connection is different from making some claim about that. --Asdfg12345 06:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the difference you are making between directly stating something and allowing an implication to stand, as it does in reliable sources. It seems logical. If that is a legitimate interpretation of policy, then I don't see a problem with the inclusion. Homunculus (duihua) 14:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could Colipon also explain why he changed 'symbolic violence' (an accurate term and the one used by the source), and removed the BTV-propaganda remark? There was a good source for that. I am interested to know. —Zujine|talk 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

'Symbolic violence' sounds like a new-fangled term popular among academicians. The point is that these groups were attacked/criticized in the media. Colipon's change gets that across fine. Homunculus (duihua) 06:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Response to these appeals has been mixed."

I have previously edited the above statement in "response outside China" to include what was stated in the citations. To me this statement alone is ambiguous and lacks the detail that this article should contain. It was reverted once by User:UncleBubba that :"The uncited additions really seem to violate WP:NPOV. Disagree? Let's discuss on Talk page.)" My response was: "It's not uncited and not againt NPO, it's precisely what is stated in the references following this statement." It has now been reverted by another user (User:Mrund) without any explanations. Can someone please explain why was this edit was continuously reverted? Sjschen (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "response has been mixed" is better, because it summarises both types of reception to Falungong activities. I think elaboration on how the Falungong and its practitioners' activities are received and interpreted would be good, but not in a crude way - either totally praising or condemning them. A group like this is bound to attract a range of responses. I think that should be represented with some awareness of the complexity of all the views, what is behind them, who holds them, etc. Adam Frank and Richard Madsen have written about that.

The bit you inserted was the opinion of a theatre critic in the Daily Telegraph, about one of the performances hosted by Falungong (right?). That doesn't mean that Falungong's activities are generally seen as propagandistic, or that that point of view should not be broadly summarised. Mainly it sounds like more of a label to me, which begs an explanation. I think we would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader, rather than giving them a convenient 'box' in which to place the subject. That would be my approach, to this and other subjects. Homunculus (duihua) 06:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. —Zujine|talk 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While what I have summarized from the cited articles is decidedly short, I would not say that it's "crude", or much less an attempt at labeling. To be fair, most of this article effectively "boxes" Falungong as being a solely religious organization under the persecution of the PROC, when it is much more than just that. Though I definitely agree that my addition "...would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader...", the same statement could be easily applied to the original pithy summary of the criticisms ("Response to these appeals has been mixed."). A fuller extent of the organization's activities outside of China and the response to it (be it positive or negative) needs to be plainly stated from the sources without the editors' zealous filtering. Sjschen (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is already a good discussion of Falungong practitioners' activities outside China, including how those activities and strategies have been interpreted. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the FLG activities outside China have been discussed, however I am not convinced that these discussion are done in a "good" way. Criticisms directed at FLG in this article seems to be nacred to the point of being imperceptible. Meanwhile the article has been edited to largely show FLG off as an organization of immaculate conduct and intentions which has been endlessly and brutally persecuted for its beliefs. Fact is the FLG is a complex and multifaceted religious and political organization that engages in a whole slew of activities, some prettier and some less so. As wikipedia, an articles on FLG should discuss all aspects of the organization without attempts to cover up the criticisms (or move them to sub-articles) while emphasizing only it sympathy inducing parts, or vice-versa.

Even if there is already a good discussion on a topic does not mean that a statement should be so diluted of content. To that, I can also argue that since good discussion on the history, system of belief, and the oppression experienced by the members of FLG already exists much of this article can be removed and condensed without much loss. At the end the fact is, I wrote one cited sentence. Unless you are championing a particular "side", I don't see why you would object to the inclusion of founded statements criticizing the organization... Sjschen (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I am the original writer of statement "Response to these appeals has been mixed." Although I do agree that this area of contention should be further expanded, I do not agree with your edit to "Falun Gong events have have been noted by some as been laden with propaganda or politically motivated." I am not going to agree or disagree with the general premise, but I intentionally made the statement to be as moderate as possible. Your statement without further expansion is incendiary and would have been the target of vehement pro-FLG edits. Hmm... (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see how my edit could have incited the wrath of certain editors and I assure you this was and still is not my intention. Nevertheless, as much as I do believe in being moderate, I believe that a statement can be made too moderate to the point that it loses its content (anything will have mixed "appeals"). From the articles cited, the journalists reported the opinions and reactions of individuals who have seen and know of the show. They also state more or less that the show pushes the agenda of the FLG through advertising itself as an event about Chinese culture, hence the p-words in my edit "propaganda" and "political(-ly motivated)". Yes, perhaps there are less incendiary way of stating this, but if one has credible citations to back their statement one has the responsibility to state them as such without dilution for the sake of being "moderate". Sjschen (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any responses? If not I'll proceed to edit this portion of the article in the next few days. -- Sjschen (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

laughably skewed article

Totally fails to mention that Western academics have repeatedly referred to Falun Gong as a cult; simply reading the titles of works on the subject of Falun Gong in the citations section reveals this fact. Why do they call it a cult? Because Falun Gong is a dictionary definition cult, whether you like it or not. You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.129.24 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it: why does the article make you sympathise with the government of communist china? --Asdfg12345 13:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list which Western academics you refer to? I understood that this was a 'fringe theory' (as previously argued by Asdfg12345). There was a list somewhere, but I don't have the time to pursue that now. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china.", marvelous, I might save that quote. Yes, better to give specific sources as examples. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This from the BBC in 1998 doesn't look very fringe "World: Asia-Pacific Falun Gong: A new cult emerges" Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "dictionary definition of cult" and that's the whole point. See any good dictionary gives you at least 3 totally different definitions of a cult ranging from ritual practices to a group with theist beliefs that aren't mainstream to an authoritarian and exploitative organization resorting to violence and forced labor. If you just say "cult" and then back it up with references of scholars that also used the term cult, then that's no good cause those scholars might have simply meant "a group with theist beliefs that aren't mainstream". So instead you should always use clear terms. Of course the Communist Party uses the term and means it in an extremely derogatory way. But it's made clear in the article that they mean it in such a derogatory way. Whereas in your BBC article for example it's not clear at all which of the definitions is meant and it's not even necessarily meant in a derogatory way at all. Actually the only time the BBC article says something negative about Falung Gong is when it quotes the Communist Party. --Hoerth (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoerth identifies the issue properly here. It should be obvious that a BBC article soon after the Zhongnanhai demonstration, mostly quoting official sources, is not nearly as authoritative as a decade of scholarship. Homunculus (duihua) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Suspected WP:NPOV violations?

The last edit of section "5.2 Controversies" (diff here) by Mangosour(Talk) appears--at least to me--to completely change the meaning of a couple of paragraphs. The change is significant enough that it seems likely the cited refs are no longer applicable. This seems to be a hot/controversial topic and, while I sure as heck don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR in my travels, neither am I willing to let POV-pushing or spin doctoring go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure, though, there is another editor or admin that will help me look at it. Thank you! UncleBubba (Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously a troll. —Zujine|talk 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added about five references to substantiate the point that the cult label is not part of mainstream scholarship. There are many more, I am sure. This is not a controversial point. —Zujine|talk 10:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This article still does not express total neutrality. There is pro-Falun Gong bias and not enough attention to the opposite point of view. 97.65.1.140 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Points of view should be presented in proportion to their representation in the most reliable sources. In light of this, are you able to substantiate your argument? What should there be more of? Homunculus (duihua) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide documentation for the assertion, after the link to the Rick Ross site, of the site being mainly communist part sources. Just saying that they are communist party sources is inflammatory and without documentation to back it up, it could legally be construed as slander. You need to delete this assertion or provide positive proof, cited correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.1.140 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

what's with the symbol

A big swastika is there symbol? I don't claim to understand the culture. But the Nazis reached pretty far during ww2. Is it just a coincidence? I think this deserves clarification. I guess it seems unfortunate from a public relations standpoint. Is it partly responsible for their persecution? 98.250.99.163 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See swastika. Seeing the swastika as a Nazi symbol is a Western thing. I see swastika's very often in my part of the world on temples etc as do hundreds of millions of other people where it retains it's original symbolic meanings. As it says in the article "Swastikas can be found practically everywhere in Indian and Nepalese cities, on buses, buildings, auto-rickshaws, and clothing." and that is a pretty big understatement about their geographical distribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The extent that citations are needed

What is the extent to which things need to be cited? I can't help think that this[12] is a FLG practitioner's overly exacting demands for sources for things that are well known. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good if things can be cited properly. In other news, how is this part relevant to the history: During its anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign the Chinese authorities countered these claims, asserting that Li was merely a former army trumpet player and grain clerk at the Changchun Cereals Company, having plagiarised Falun Gong from existing qigong systems.-- this appears in the history of the practice section? Doesn't appear to be relevant here. I haven't removed it in case it's controversial. --Asdfg12345 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more points:

Li made statements that activism to defend Falun Gong was an essential aspect of Dafa cultivation, and, according to David Palmer, adjunct professor of anthropology and religious studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, "would separate the false disciples from the true ones." -- The way this sentence is structure is misleading. Why quote a professor on what Li said, rather than quote Li directly? If we quote Li directly, it would show that he is not saying Falun Gong practitioners must become activists, lest they not be considered true disciples. He was saying that practitioners’ response to criticism showed something of their heart, but he was not saying that right thoughts needed to manifest as activism.
Needs info on the studies commissioned by Luo Gan and friends to seek evidence that Falun Gong was xie jiao. Nor is the mounting surveillance or discrimination against practitioners mentioned.
Jiang’s April 25th letter not mentioned
Not much description here of the Zhongnanhai protest or other protests themselves. I suggest drawing on James Tong for this.
There’s nothing here about the conclusion of the negotiations, where Falun Gong representatives were assured that the government was not against them, etc.
No information about the evolving counter-narrative about how the Zhongnanhai protest was a set-up
In the discussion of the banning, info between April and July is entirely missing.
Elizabeth Perry wrote about the very early CCP rhetoric against Falun Gong, noting that the Party was positing there was a dichotomy between religion and science, and that Falun Gong undermined the CCP’s narrative of history. It’s interesting stuff. Could be included.
Suggest adding a little more meat to the analysis of the causes for the persecution. I.e. Falun Gong was the largest independent civil society group in China. It undermined the CCP’s sources of legitimacy (not deliberately, but implicitly). Jiang was jealous, etc.

There are more issues, but here are some ideas for now. --Asdfg12345 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair points to raise, but you need sources for your additions. I won't remove them now, pending your providing sources. If you don't source some of the more controversial statements, I will remove them. Particularly after you emphasized the need for rigorous sourcing to TheSoundAndTheFury. —Zujine|talk 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate the civil discussion and the chance to figure this stuff out. I will certainly add the references you suggest. No Problem. Right now I will just make one more tentative edit that may be bold and need some tweaking, but which has been discussed extensively and is important or even crucial: providing the "counter-narrative" about Zhongnanhai, which suggests that the persecution was not an action-reaction type thing, but was rather a deliberate build-up on the part of some elements in the Party, who orchestrated the whole thing against Falun Gong. There are some reasonable sources on this. I'm just going to add a framework narrative now, and we can discuss, refine, etc. After this, I need to go. --Asdfg12345 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Gutmann's presentation of the counter-narrative on Zhongnanhai. It is compelling (as far as conspiracy theories go), but it feels like undue weight to give this narrative its own sub-section. Moreover, while I commend your attempts to write out the theory, it is lacking in citations and involves a fair bit of conjecture. I propose splitting the difference by folding this into the body of the main section by including relevant, verifiable facts within the chronological narrative. Scholarly interpretations of the event, the individuals involved and their motives can be summarized briefly at the end. In the interest of being bold, I took a stab at doing this, and would welcome further edits/discussions to improve it. Homunculus (duihua) 06:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe Asdfg put back allegations that He and Luo are related, despite an extensive discussion months ago. No reliable sources actually proved that these two are actually related. This seems like another attempt to discredit FLG's critics.--PCPP (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, this question was already resolved. numerous credible sources note the familial connection between the two. Please do not assume ulterior motives. If you would like to pursue this further, the burden of proof that Luo and He are not related lies with you. Homunculus (duihua) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, neither the articles on Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu mentioned that they are related, both in English and Chinese. The "sources" provided only had passing mentions - there's no concrete evidence on their relations.--PCPP (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose next you’ll be demanding to see He and Luo’s birth certificates?? The point is that this information is in other reliable sources. It does not strike me as unusual that their short Wikipedia biographies do not make mention of who their relatives are. If you believe it is relevant information to include in their biographies, however, I am happy to remedy this and note the connection on each page. I suspect, however, that this may appear to be giving undue weight. In any case, even the incorrigible Colipon assented to this edit, and now we have an outside editor paying attention to the page and finding the claims veracious. I'm not sure what more there is to say? --Asdfg12345 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool heads, please. This discussion need not deteriorate into birther comparisons. PCPP, again, if you wish to challenge the familial connection, I suggest that you find explicit evidence that they are not related. If you can find this, then we can revisit this discussion and include the conflicting evidence in the article. In the meantime, let's more on.Homunculus (duihua) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The hell? I think you're the one that needs to find explicit evidence that the are related. None of the sources you provided does this. Adding unsourced conspiracy theories about how He is responsible for starting the FLG crackdown is not in the spirits of NPOV.--PCPP (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided explicitly state that Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu are brother-in-law. Moreover, sources are provided relating to the counter-narrative of He and Luo's collusion. I suggest you read the Gutmann article on this topic.

I also noticed a series of reversions occurring between yourself and Asdfg. I do not wish to get involved in this edit war, and will not myself attempt to resolve the problematic points in contention; I trust other editors can work them out. Asdfg did make a number of unsourced edits, and he discusses them above. He was asked to provide citations to support these edits, but has not yet done so. Asdfg, I suggest you get on this.

PCPP, your reversions to Asdfg's edits did not, in all cases, remove unsourced material as you claim. To the contrary, some of Asdfg's edits were in fact correcting improperly attribute sources, and others were correcting grammatical problems. For instance, you reinstated the following statement:

The Falun Dafa Information Center disputed this [the self-immolation]...and further alleged that the event itself never happened... (emphasis mine). I have never seen Falun Gong sources alleging the event itself never happened. This therefore seems like a straw man argument. Asdfg removed this, and you returned it to its place. Please explain.

Asdfg also removed the following statement: "Human rights activist Harry Wu also voiced doubts about conclusions of the Kilgour-Matas report." He did so on the grounds that the source cited (a CRS report) did not, in fact, make this statement. It is therefore unattributed. Moreover, Harry Wu has not expressed concerns about the Kilgour-Matas report; his concerns surrounded the earlier Sujiatun allegations. In any case, you reinstated a falsely attributed statement. Please explain why.

Your blanket reversions also removed references to the Luo-He familial relationship against the apparent consensus that has been reached on the talk page.

I should stop here. Asdfg, please make a concerted effort to provide sources for new material you introduced. PCPP, I suggest you allow Asdfg to do this, and retract your reversions. I would be interested in seeing what other editors recommend as a solution. Homunculus (duihua) 06:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edit and looked at this discussion, and it is clear that PCPP is behaving inappropriately. I would remind everyone that editors of these pages are subject to discretionary sanctions. I have no interest in entering into this particular dispute, but I would like to see that the rules of the road are followed by all parties. Those rules include engaging in meaningful discussion on points of contention, and refraining from blanket reversions. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am going to make some edits to tone down or remove some of the more excessive or problematic edits that Asdfg made. If you would like to dispute my edits, please don't hesitate, provided you can give citations this time.Homunculus (duihua) 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I am about to add the references for the stuff I added previously. I haven't edited wiki for a while so I have gotten rusty. I am usually scrupulous in providing references for my additions. In half an hour all the additions I made will be referenced. -- Asdfg12345 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the supposed family connection of Luo and He reads like a conspiracy theory at best. A number of editors has already objected to the insertion of these material, and what you're essentially doing is laying low and sneakingly inserting them back. This material doesn't fly on their own articles, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.--PCPP (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, I linked above to several sources where this connection appears. Let me recap:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

This connection may appear in more sources, but at least, it is explicitly stated in the first two above. So, what are you disputing exactly? You are here opposed by at least two (myself and Homunculus) and possibly three (TheSound, though I will let that editor speak for him/herself) other editors. I do not see how I am laying low and "sneakingly inserting them back"? I put the information in, then another editor themselves looked into the matter and fixed it up a bit. I will await your response before undoing your edits. Since we here have two reliable sources on the matter, you are required to provide reliable sources showing that they are not brothers-in-law. Your position here seems quite indefensible. I await your response, and will certainly not revert war with you on it. -- Asdfg12345 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier when this issue came up, I agree with the inclusion. Noting the familial connection and its relationship to how the persecution got started is obviously important. —Zujine|talk 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, this is clearly disputed in the last discussion by several editors [13]. The dispute regarding the validity of the source still stands, and you coming back after disappearing for 5 months won't make it go away. You only provided three sources making only passing mentions, the first one comes from a known conservative magazine, the second from a Porter's PHD thesis, and the third source doesn't even specifically mention this. None of the other FLG experts eg Ownby even mentioned this quite significant claim, and none of the three sources even made the claim that Luo specifically targeted FLG because of He's claims, as you're trying to portray. This is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.--PCPP (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please identify specifically which editor is opposed to the material, except you? Why should the political persuasion of the magazine the information appears in matter? Porter's thesis has been published as a book. It is not a synthesis to present the information as it appears in the sources. There is a growing consensus on this, and you are the only one opposed to it. You are also just repeating the same short, stock phrases, like always. Since three editors now support the inclusion, I am going to put it back. You need to provide reliable sources that back up your perspective. -- Asdfg12345 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BS. I challenged the validity of these tree sources and you've yet responded. Writing a book based on a thesis doesn't not warrant automatic inclusion. You're taking these three claims at face value, and somehow that because they said it then it must be true. The claim is a serious allegation not supported by FLG scholars (Ownby et al), nor any available Chinese sources. Furthermore you're using the claim to synthesis a conspiracy theory claiming that He is somewhat responsible for Luo's crackdown on FLG.--PCPP (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Note that after three editors have all supported the inclusion of this information, as well as the other discussion where Colipon even says "If other editors agree with him, that's fine with me," about including this material. Then over on that discussion four editors came to support the inclusion, after the evidence was presented and we had a discussion, and now, it has been brought up again, and three editors support it, and it has good references. Now you are denying it and have no sources, and are opposed by everyone. I strongly recommend you don't edit war on this. (UPDATE: in response to the above: 1) I did respond to your challenge of the validity of the sources. I said that the political persuasion of the magazine does not matter--it is you who didn't respond to that. Secondly, I said Porter's thesis is published in a book and is and was a reliable source. You also didn't respond to that. It is true that no source warrants automatic inclusion, but I'm not arguing for automatic inclusion. Myself, and others, are suggesting that this information is reliable and pertinent, and all agree that it should be included. The allegation is indeed supported by relevant scholars. It does not matter if it is not supported by Chinese sources--since when was that a requirement? Finally, the claim has not been used as a synthesis, because everything in there now is merely a direct reflection of what is to be found in reliable sources. There is no synthesis. Indeed, the meaning that is drawn from these three (Porter, Gutmann, and Zhao) is that the connection between He and Luo was relevant to the persecution. This is what the sources say. Again, I invite some other editor to revert, and if PCPP again fails to produce a source to support his views, and continues to revert, other things can happen. -- Asdfg12345 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP is editing against consensus. I reverted to give him time to think about it; maybe he is too invested in these Falungong articles. In any case: please provide sources for your points, PCPP. —Zujine|talk 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] I see Zujine has in fact already done this. -- Asdfg12345 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm opening a RFC on this--PCPP (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is already a consensus forming on this topic here, over two rounds of discussion. Nevertheless, you can seek outside input for ideas, though they are not binding. The key thing is reliable sources, and you do not have any of them. When you write the RfC, be sure to provide the citations I have above, and try to write it as neutrally as possible. -- Asdfg12345 17:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember this? [14] You've yet brought up the "reliable sources" you were saying you are going to find months ago. This sounds like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me.--PCPP (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have presented three reliable sources, two which directly mention it, one which mentions it indirectly. This is the same forum. The outcome of the last discussion was to insert the material. The outcome of this is to insert the material. You have produced zero sources to support your views. z e r o . -- Asdfg12345 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation and list of changes, Nov. 24

I have added references in all cases. I am now going to explain each change, in number form. It is assumed that people consulting this list will have open on one side of their screen this diff, and on the other my list here. You can then easily compare, point by point, each change I made and see its rationale.

demonstration > peaceful protest -- it is important that these activities are described both accurately and precisely. Please check Ownby, Tong, and Palmer, who all use the word "peaceful" a number of times. It is not biased to describe a peaceful activity as a peaceful activity. Nor is it gratuitous. It is a matter of historical fact that needs to be properly recorded. I intend to add further information on this point, actually (about how well behaved the individuals were in these protest actions. Several good sources have spent some paragraphs elaborating on the specifics of this, if you would believe that.)
thus claimed by Li to be... -- it's not necessary to say it was claimed by Li. Of course this is according to Li. It's the same difference as saying "Falun Gong says it is based on Zhen Shan Ren", when clearly it's better to just write "Falun Gong is based on..."
nationalism -- I changed this to Chinese culture, because that's what the reference I could find supported. I had misremembered this. If I find support for the nationalism claim, I will fix it. Please see the Ownby document: it is a good read, and will give you some better background on the topic.
operated outside the official sanction of the stage -- I have elaborated on this slightly and attributed it to Palmer. Context is crucial here, given all that followed.
tone began to shift to curb growth of the groups -- this is simply a well known fact of the period. I don't know what particular source or page states it. It's in Palmer, for example. Have you read that book? He describes the whole process. Citations are needed when something is controversial, this isn't particularly controversial.
Allegations > reports -- let's just say they reported it, which is a fact. Is there reason to doubt what they said? If so, allegations may be more appropriate. If this point comports with the rest of the information (which it surely does), then I see no reason to use language to make it seem more dubious.
long-term, complex, serious struggle to eradicate... -- referenced both points.
those who died were not actually Falun Gong -- I've referenced a Pan article, I believe it is this one.
number of torture cases -- it was less than I had said. This was a good catch. I have attributed it.
whether the torture was officially prohibited or not -- this detail I found facile. I simply removed it. Of course it was part of the official structure of the campaign. Read Johnson's account? They are linked on the main page. It is clear that torture was part of the whole process. Tong is being typical Tong, and not every minor point he makes needs to be repeated here, but mainly the broad, important points that comport with the wider body of research. It is not news that the CCP publicly says it doesn't believe in torture. The point is to get at the fact about how this persecution is conducted and report that, according to relevant sources. If we want a part here saying how the CCP denies what it does to practitioners, that is fine (though I think it would be largely irrelevant).
anti-Falun Gong campaign -- this was an error on my part. I misread the context. I've clarified that this is referring to Falun Gong's media response, not the persecution campaign.

I hope this is enough. -- Asdfg12345 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that I made more edits here, but I accidentally pressed enter when writing the edit summary. The summary would have been something like: "miscellaneous additions; sourced; should not be controversial; mostly elaborations." or something. If there's any problem with the diff please advise. -- Asdfg12345 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested/planned edits

In the interests of utmost transparency and collegial editing and discussion, I am going to note here some of the changes I plan on making over the next some time. This is just meant to be both a friendly indication of intent, and an invitation to dialogue for any other interested party.

Add brief info on the studies commissioned by Luo Gan and friends to seek evidence that Falun Gong was xie jiao, and on the mounting surveillance or discrimination against practitioners.
Jiang’s April 25th letter to politburo
Zhongnanhai protest and details.
Brief detail on period between April and July.
Briefer and more meaningful introduction and discussion of the propaganda campaign (and suggest changing the section head from "media campaign" to "propaganda campaign"). For example, Elizabeth Perry wrote about the very early CCP rhetoric against Falun Gong, noting that the Party was positing there was a dichotomy between religion and science, and that Falun Gong undermined the CCP’s narrative of history. Seth Faison also looks at the propaganda themes. The important point is the evolution of the propaganda tactics; the cult label came at some point during this evolution. It was not the initial rationale. This context can be brought out more and thematised.
Some more meat to the analysis of the causes for the persecution. I.e. Falun Gong was the largest independent civil society group in China. It undermined the CCP’s sources of legitimacy (not deliberately, but implicitly). Jiang was jealous, etc. (All this needs sources of course).
What did the ban actually look like, to begin with? (trucks with speakers, book burnings, etc.; a few lines on that only)
Quotes from actual victims of the conversion programme on what it means to be subjected to those techniques (a few lines).
More proper explanation of the structure of Falun Gong practice inside China (a lot of this information is in fact on this talk page).

We can discuss and refine any of these ideas. Let's all work together. -- Asdfg12345 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article not neutral or academic

In my opinion, the current article does not provide a neutral enough perspective in Falun Gong. I agree with the above poster and Ohconfucius's enforcement motion, that the article is pro-FLG.

I would also contend that this article seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials and heard from my personal encounters with FLG practitioners in that there is a heavy focus on their prosecution by the CCP rather than the overall nature of FLG. There should be a greater exposition of the beliefs and practices unique to FLG, and of the FLG organizational structure. This opinion, of course, by no means is meant to lessen the seriousness of the the atrocities committed by the CCP against FLG followers.

I would also contend that after the year-long domination of this article by pro-FLG editors (asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos and HappyInGeneral) with the edits by FLG practitioners (Dilip rajeev, FalunGongDisciple, etc), the results of their dominance still linger. With the degree of controversy surrounding this group as evidenced just by this talk page, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the controversial nature of the group in the intro. Even under the controversies section, the section seems to white-wash the arguments used by opponents of the FLG by not including the details of the conservative nature of the group (eg. regarding mixed-raced couples, rock music, etc), omitting the more fanciful claims by the leader (eg flight, walking through walls, etc) and dismissing the controversy as a cultural misunderstanding while emphasizing the gentle nature of the group. I also find the omission the the controversies surrounding the health claims, particularly those surrounding FLG cancer patients being urged not to receive chemotherapy particularly egregious. Hmm... (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read David Ownby's book on Falun Gong? I think it's a good place to start. The arguments you make here are interesting, but the question is how much weight real scholars give the issues you raise. Does Ownby (or any other scholar, for that matter) find Falun Gong's teachings on medicine to be extremely important? Could you please provide references to substantiate that? Also, in Falun Gong there is no such thing as urging someone not to receive chemotherapy if they have cancer. I practice Falun Gong and if someone who practiced it got cancer I would suggest they get treatment, if they really had cancer. There are no rules about what people have to do, it is without form. Also, I think the arguments are documented clearly in the article already. Falun Gong is not against mixed-race marriages, as evidenced here. Finally, cherrypicking statements the "leader" of Falun Gong has made and highlighting them may be undue weight, if it couldn't be shown how third parties consider such things so important. I also do not see how the fact that people have a lot of ideas about this practice automatically makes those ideas important. Sure, they ought not be ignored, but that's not what the article is primarily about: it should be more factual rather than a stream of opinions. And I think the current set-up, where there is an opinion then another opinion, is quite fair. Or, should we delete all the opinions that try to make Falun Gong understandable? Do we seek to, rather than illuminate and help people understand the topic of the article, have them form negative ideas about the subject? My view is that the purpose of the article is to provide information about the topic, not to try to persuade readers that it is good or bad. Explaining what people find problematic about Falun Gong, then explaining how Falun Gong responded to that, and what other people think--this is fair, isn't it? Marriage is controversial, too. The article on marriage doesn't leap into the controversies associated with it in the introduction. --Asdfg12345 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Western Academics and Press is overwhelmingly sypathetic to thier religion persecuation, thus we have a slight bias as most western sources are in either english so that is possible Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7's assessment strikes me as about right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, though this is to be expected in an English article especially with so many practitioners contributing to this article. Overall it's improved though I feel ~ at least all opinions are backed with sources, even if they may be biased. My main issue and I think many have brought this up in the past is that the entire article still seems to focus on FLG and it's relationship with China. The whole theme is surrounding the persecution and acceptance of the practice; it's image rather than it's substance. For spiritual/physical practice I think its is lacking in addressing the following as it's central topics 1) What is the theory behind this 'gong' 2) How is it actually practiced, what forms or methods are performed 3) How is it applied to relevant aspects of life (i.e. health, strength building, socializing). With so many practitioners contributing, I'd hoped these would be easily covered. BTW, Marriage is not controversial, a more suitable comparison would be gay marriage. Bedbug1122 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. I find it particularly interesting that most of the falungong activities in other parts of the world and well as the sometimes negative responses to them have been quite diligently hidden or obscured. Jeanpetr (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hidden or obscured in what sense? CCP officials trying to hide them? --Asdfg12345 22:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the CCP would most likely try the opposite. For the most part, this article reads something like: " Falun Gong is immaculate and a persecuted symbol of human rights and freedom. All who criticize Falun Gong are members of the CCP or unfairly influenced by them." At best, this is a bit tiring, at worse, it is an attempt at white washing. CCP is persecuting Falun Gong, everyone knows, but Falun Gong with its numerous publicity campaigns, voice boxes, and sometimes exaggerated reports, is not exactly neutral either. Jeanpetr (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to how many of the editors on this page fall into these following categories: One, you have lived in China prior to Li Hong Zhi's flight to the United States. Two, you have personally attended Li Hong Zhi's public seminars while he still resided in China. Three, you have relatives or close friends who practiced Falun Gong. In my experience regarding this subject, if you do not fall into all 3 aforementioned categories, then you have no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. If you did not personally hear Li HongZhi speak, then you cannot have an educated opinion regarding whether he was an enlightened individual or a nutcase. If you cannot understand Falun Gong's texts in its native Chinese form (not one of the badly translated English copies), then you cannot form a proper interpretation. If you were not in China to witness the rise and fall of Falun Gong, and your only source of information are articles written by Western Authors (Or the CCP Media), then you do not have even the slightest clue as to what really happened. Having personally witnessed many aspects of Falun Gong while it was still practiced in China (protests, lectures, watching relatives practice), I can attest to the fact that much of the information on the articles related to FLG are either misinterpretation of facts or flat out lies.

In response to the comment made by Asdfg12345, The controversy regarding Falun Gong practitioners refusing medical treatment is no myth. It may not be written specifically in the teachings of Falun Gong but it did not stop the less educated public in China from interpreting it as such. You cannot pretend a controversy doesn't exist simply because you do not perceive it as one. Falun Gong caused many adverse health issues while it was in practice in China, with the most extreme cases documenting practitioners slicing their stomaches open with a steak knife looking for the "Fa Lun". Zkevwlu (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong in my view. It would be better if editors had no opinions about or experience of either Falun Gong or the CCP but had 100% fidelity when it comes to complying with Wikipedia policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Then there wouldn't be much to write about, would there? However it does seem as if Zkevwlu's comment above is inviting original research in the article - in fact literally suggesting that anyone without direct experience with the subject has "no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality" which is quite ridiculous. It seems that Zkevwlu has misunderstood the fundamental premise of Wikipedia - to explain topics impartially, giving notable references that you did not create. Meeting his listed preconditions should perhaps even preclude an author from editing FLG-related articles on Wikipedia due to the inherent bias from being too close to this contentious subject. Destynova (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ownby's book mentions at least a few cases where FG practitioners have refused medical treatment. If I remember rightly, that refusal was once in a while related to other factors, like cost of treatment, as well, but they did indicate one of their reasons for such refusal was their belief that Falun Gong would save them. And, for what little it might be worth, I myself have not found that the published books in English on Falun Gong are necessarily overwhelming biased in favor of FG, although there is the problem that a lot of the editors who themselves are so biased might cherrypick material for their own purposes. In general, though, I think all this material would benefit greatly if there were fewer editors involved who supported either the CCP or FG. Unfortunately, while there are a few such editors, like, well, me, we tend to have other matters to deal with as well. And I have noted that some other editors have indicated that they have been, effectively, driven away from the content because of their perception that some editors, including the pro-FG editors, create more drama and trouble when changes are proposed or made than those other, uninvolved, editors really think is required, and that such actions drive some of them away. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, John Carter, the situation is not quite so simple. The editors who support either FLG or CCP represent only a part of the bias. I think everyone here believes that he or she is the one acting most rationally; this is nothing new. Any commitment to a belief system, including secular materialism or some social theory, has ostensibly lead some "uninvolved" editors to varying degrees of ideological editing. On the other hand, among the "involved" editors there are some people, including myself, with a post-graduate academic background in the study of religions and cultures. Overall, looking at the world's phenomena from an Archimedean point is hardly possible for a human being. Some of what you call "drama" and "trouble" has frequently been brought into play when the proposed changes have indeed been problematic and called for a careful scrutiny on the talk page, even if their proponents would rather have had it their way without much ado. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My view has always been that the less meta-discussion the better. Just focus on the nuts and bolts of editing the actual article. --Asdfg12345 06:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the initial comment that the article places too much emphasis on the relationship between Falun Gong and the party-state, and that insufficient attention is given to the practice and beliefs, organizations, and related issues such as demography. Moreover, while much of this information is present in the article, it is not coherently organized; the article jumps abruptly from a general overview of Falun Gong's philosophy into a historical narrative, followed by accounts of state suppression, and then back into organization of the practice. I am willing to volunteer myself to try to consolidate this information, and give somewhat more weight to matters of the practice, including its very socially conservative morality, etc. On another note, that an article "seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials" does not mean that the article lacks neutrality or is not academic per se. Neutrality is not achieved by striking a perfect balance between two competing narratives. It is achieved by following the evidence and engaging in thoughtful analysis of the best information available.Homunculus (duihua) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response at the end of this page. The persecution is one of the most notable features of Falun Gong, so naturally it would occupy a large portion of the page on the topic. If this logic is wrong, please correct me... typing out loud here. -- Asdfg12345 04:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reorganized

I have done some Reorganizing to harmonize with WP:NRM.MOS, No content has been removed or added. Some further work can be done like Trimming the Persecution Section as its nearly half the article and some of that can be more appropriately used in the history part The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A major determinant of what is to be included and how much space it is to take up is about notability, right? I mean, what the topic is notable for. If this assumption is correct, then I would think the persecution information should occupy a substantial portion of the article, since that is one of the most notable features of Falun Gong (i.e., its being persecuted). If either of these assumptions are not the case (notability influencing quantity/focus, and persecution being particularly notable) then I stand corrected and we should do something about that, after establishing the truth of both those claims.-- Asdfg12345 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We have its own article so it can be covered adequately covered in detail. [[Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles]We really only need a short summary]] of the main article. The Family International is a "sex cult," Scientology is known for suing people and Xenu. These are popular and important topics centered around these groups but are only one aspect of the group itself. Thus We have a summary here and give it the full monty elsewhere. I am not advocating the topics removal or negating the importance of the topic. Merely pointing it out it has undue weight as its own lengthy section. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. You didn't say much, but you write persuasively, and I think you make a good point. Let's see what we can do about that. The article is too long, as it is. Not just about the persecution, but some of the other sections. They spend a lot of words to get where they are going. -- Asdfg12345 05:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the persecution is the longest so that is what I am most concerned about. I agree other section need trimming too and others need expansion. Most sections here can be adequately covered in maybe 3-5 paragraphs at most. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. It takes five paragraphs just to adequately explain what happened around Zhongnanhai, though. And if you look at some articles like Holocaust, you are in for a long read. This is a massive and important subject. It seems hard to balance the demands for complete coverage and those for brevity and ease of access. For now my strategy is to try to help construct a coherent and complete account of the key points on this page, and then when that is mostly done, start farming it out to the daughter articles, leaving the key parts here. It is hard to get an idea of what is the crucial information required here and what is tangential when it is not all here. I wanted to write more into the persecution section and many other sections, and then start taking it apart again. I just wrote the same point twice in different ways. I think you know what I mean. I can see the sense in the direction you are proposing. Asdfg12345 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah lol Perhaps your right, I was over optimistic with a 3-5 paragraphs but I am glad you follow my reasoning as I follow yours. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the need for a reorganization of sorts as well to achieve a similar effect. That is, placing more emphasis on the practice itself (practice and beliefs, organization, categorization, demography, etc.), and consolidating some of the information that had been scattered on the page. So I applaud the effort. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the manner in which this organization was done. There is now a great discontinuity from the history in China to the ban; sections that used to lead into each other (Zhongnanhai -> the statewide suppression) are now separated by vast amounts of text. Moreover, the suppression of Falun Gong does not constitute a controversy in the conventional sense, and I don't think that's the appropriate header. I would suggest that the order of sub-sections might look something like this: 1) Practice and Beliefs 2) organization 3) categorization 4) public debate 5) History in China 6) Statewide suppression 7) Response (outside and inside China) Homunculus (duihua) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that We should follow the manual of style for of style for these movements. The State wide suppression mostly should be trimmed and included into the history section. I agree The cohesion right now sucks and It needs clean up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless I'm missing something, the manual of style offers very loose guidance on the article's structure, stating only that it should include, at a minimum, the beliefs and teachings, history, and reception. In what order, with what emphasis, and what additional sections appears to be left open-ended. While this article is certainly imperfect, frankly I'm not too concerned about its ability to conform to the requirements of the style manual. In any case, if you are generally in agreement over the proposed order, I can attempt to implement it as such. Whether the suppression is its own section or is folded into the history section is up for discussion. I'm not very partial, though I should note that at present, both the History of Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong have their own, fairly extensive articles. It might therefore make more sense that they have their own sections within the Falun Gong article. Homunculus (duihua) 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wp:summary style explains how articles of this sort should be broken up etc. I agree with Homunculus' proposed reordering, though I would put categorization and public debate somehow under the same rubric, or maybe even combined, and change the subhead from 'statewide suppression' to just 'suppression.' Also, it's unclear how relevant the NRM manual of style is here: Falungong is not necessarily an NRM, though there are some writers who consider it such. Primarily it should be understood in its indigenous context, as a traditional Chinese gongfa, not a "new religious movement." Homunculus, do you want to get onto that reordering? I might also add that I think the controversies, categorization, response, all can be shortened. I agree with Asdfg12345 that they are verbose and take too long to make their points. The non-crucial information can be shipped out to sub articles. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a new reorganization now. It may take a couple days, so hold tight. I will provide explanation on the changes, which I'm sure will prove to be a wildly entertaining read. Homunculus (duihua) 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to this next attempt, and I hope it is better than the first. I am sorry to report, ResidentAnthropologist, but I found your changes utterly confounding and I am about to reverse them. I hadn't looked until now. I disagree with nearly everything about the changes. I appreciate the attempt to fix the article and be WP:BOLD about it, but I think it was much better how it was (it was logically sequenced, to a large degree, at the very least). So I'm putting it back, and I hope we can all wait for the new attempt that Homunculus is going to make. I will also say that it's great to see some other editors engaging seriously in this topic. -- Asdfg12345 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am equally sorry to report that WP:COI indicates that editors who have a clear conflict of interest are not supposed to make unilateral changes to content about which they have a clear conflict of interests. On that basis, I am reverting the last changes made to the article, and feel required to warn any individuals who have such conflicts of interests that they may be eligible for sanctions if they engage in such unilateral changes again. If they honestly oppose such changes, I believe they would be best advised to file an RfC to get the perspectives of more neutral editors before making such changes again in the future. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is most bizarre. The last change made by Asdfg did not change content, and was not unilateral. He was, instead, reverting a previous unilateral edit which saw the content of the page reorganized. Asdfg reverted to the previous version of the page only after both myself and TheSoundAndTheFury agreed that the attempted reorganization missed the mark. Please explain, specifically, how this violates a conflict of interest policy, because I simply don't see it. Homunculus (duihua) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't look at the history, obviously, and screwed up big time in so doing, for which I apologize. Having said that, I have to believe that there are serious questions about how much space to give the material on persecution in China. I do note that the online Britannica (I think that's the source - I haven't checked lately) does have a separate article on the persecution, but that is only one of several outside generally reliable sources, and even that source has, as I've seen elsewhere, at times a bit of a bias toward Western (English-speaking and European) perceptions. Having said that, I would myself think the following changes would be in order:

1) Having a "History in China" and a separate "Statewide suppression" section seems to give the two aspects of the history equal weight. Also, there is no indication of "history outside of China", which is I think relevant. I cannot see how we could not have, reasonably, a single "History" main section, with three subsections, pre-crackdrown, post-crackdown, and history outside of China. Certainly, there are multiple books which deal with the external history of Falun Gong, but no section of the article as yet. Why?

2) As far as I know, there is only one FA class article about a religious faith, Bahai Faith. That faith, also, has been the subject of somewhat extreme persecution at times. In that article, the repression comes as the 7th major heading, not the 3rd. I can see no particularly good reason why this article would require a completely separate form and structure than that article, particularly considering the number and degree of similarities between the two.

Having said all that, however, I do have to apologize for my early edit, which was done without clear thinking and with obviously incomplete review, and thus apologize again. Feel free to revert my own action, although I myself would honestly like to see discussion of perhaps following the format of the Bahai article first. Also, it would probably help if we consulted any other extant encyclopedias or other works to see how they format their articles on the subject, because I have a feeling that they might be useful templates. But, yeah, I screwed up. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a still an issue here, however, with Asdfg's previous insertion of a large amount of uncited material[15], in particularly claims of family links between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu which was clearly disputed by previous discussions.--PCPP (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

John, No worries. I can see how what looked like a very significant edit by Asdfg would raise some flags. To your other points, I think your suggestions are valid. See my discussion here on plans for reorganization. I will take your recommendations here into account, for sure. Homunculus (duihua) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here: the organisation of the page and the He/Luo information.

Viz. the organisation, I think we are safe putting it back to how it was before TheResidentAnthropologist's changes, which seemed deliciously bold; this was Asdfg12345's edit which has just been discussed above. I will make this change presently on the assumption that Homunculus and John Carter just formed that understanding. If I am mistaken, and in fact, it is thought that TheResidentAnthropologist's reorganisation of the page is desirable, then please do not hesitate to revert me.

The second issue is the He/Luo connection. That is still under discussion. PCPP, I don't believe the problem is that the material lacks citations. There are several sources cited. For the record, I see no reason that the sources brought forth so far should be excluded—though I could be convinced by new information.

Also for the record, I agree with John Carter's assessment on the Bahai comparison. Looking forward to the new reorganisation that Homunculus comes up with. —Zujine|talk 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I myself might favor something like the following structure: (1) beliefs and practices, (2) texts, (3) history, (3A-3?) subsections on persecution, FG outside China, etc., (4) demographics, (5) organizational structure (or lack of same - related entities, like Epoch Times and Shen Yun could be mentioned here), and the standard ending sections. The relevant questions that might impact this include when the texts were created, and whether the history prior to them was involved in their creation. If yes, then maybe the texts section would appear after the history. Maybe. In the Bahai article, texts precedes history, but that subject has a longer history since the texts were written, so it makes sense to have the bulk of the history come after the texts section, because that reflects the historical reality of most of its history being after the texts. If FG is expected to last for a considerable time, we should probably follow that lead. If not, and from what I know of some of the Chinese NRMs over time they do somewhat regularly disperse after the deaths of their founders, that might be different.

Also, I have gathered together at least a few reviews and similar works on the various extant books in English which discuss FG to a significant degree. I think that this subject, like a lot of others, would very much benefit from having a clear section or separate article on Bibliography of Falun Gong, with either separate articles on the books included therein or separate sections of the Bibliography article discussing the books. I will myself work on the bibliography article and individual articles as time permits, but there are very few of them even extant at this time and Falun Gong not being at the real beginning of the English alphabet, it might be awhile before I get there. If anyone would want the material I have gathered together to work on themselves, send me an e-mail and I will go on the sites in question and have them send to that address the citations, reviews, etc., I got from them. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC on connections between Luo and He

Should the three disputes source be used as evidence that two individuals mentioned in the article, He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, are related?--PCPP (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging an attempt by Asdfg to add information claiming that two individuals mentioned in the article, He Zuoxiu (a Chinese pseudoscience critic) and Luo Gan (Chinese politician responsible for the ban of FLG), are related, and thus He is partially responsible for the crackdown of FLG. Asdfg is based his claims on three sources mentioned below.

These material has been disputed by several users previously[16] [17]. Source 1 derives from the National Review, a known politically conservative publication based in the US. Source 2 derives from Noah Porter's PHD thesis which has been published as a book, and which Asdfg previously said wasn't a viable source[18]. Source 3 doesn't even specifically mention He and Luo. These sources should not be used to establish a fact that Luo and He are factually related, especially since no other FLG scholars such as David Ownby even mention this, and no Chinese sources establish this claim either. Furthermore, there is a problem of WP:SYN, as Asdfg is attempting to use the above claims to synthesis a conspiracy theory on how He is responsible for instigating the FLG crackdown [19].--PCPP (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that these are the three sources on which the information is based:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

In case it wasn't clear, I support the inclusion of the information. -- Asdfg12345 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I support it only in the sense that I support all good research and relevant argument/information. I could be persuaded otherwise--for example, if we had a top scholar saying that the connection is simply bogus and was a clever piece of Falungong propaganda that got its way into the circulation system. But I don't see any such source forthcoming. Thus, I support the inclusion until proper evidence can be presented as to why it is inappropriate. So far I am distinctly unconvinced by PCPP's arguments (if they could be called that) and his aggressive reverting behaviour, over which I hope I do not have to intercede again. —Zujine|talk 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at Gutmann's article and there is another small piece of information that is relevant. He talks about how video cameras were already set up at Tianjin to monitor the protesting adherents. This indicates that the Party already had something in mind--or why would they set up that kind of surveillance? It is a small point that bolsters the relevance of this general conspiracy narrative, though it is not directly related to the He/Luo connection. —Zujine|talk 17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why would it be relevant if they were related? If one of the two men did something on the advice of the other man, then that should be said directly. Otherwise, it looks like synthesis and petty insinuation. Quigley (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned by PCPP's arguing that the sources previously listed in support of this familial connection may not be reliable, and did some searching for other sources that would either confirm or refute the claim. In the process I found another piece of what appears to be original research, published by a graduate student at the University of Southern California:

"For example, the Zhengqing Net is an anti-Falun Gong website and operates under the name of He Zuoxiu, who is the academician of the CAS and also known as the husband of sisters with Luo Gan. The later is condemned by Falun Gong followers as one of the main executioners during the Falun Gong persecution. This point matches the information from the insider which indicates that the Zhengqing Net belongs to the 6.10 Office headed by Luo Gan and founded in June 10, 1999 after Falun Gong’s Zhongnanhai Demonstration in April that year."(Jia, Minna. "Impact of Internet on Chinese Authoritarian rule during SARS and Falun Gong Incidents,")

This supports not only that they are brother-in-law, but also serves as evidence that they are/were working very closely against Falun Gong. Homunculus (duihua) 03:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing new here. The essay Homunculus gave [20] has no evidence of being peer reviewed either, and did not actually provide a citation on the relations claim. All of these sources has been reviewed by editors here before and overwhelmingly rejected before [21]. In fact Asdfg was asked to provide better sources to prove the He-Luo relations, which he never did, and resurfaced months later with the same old.--PCPP (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It must be becoming clear to everyone that it is almost impossible to have a rational debate with PCPP, because he brings up every kind of specious, even contradictory argument, simply to try to win the discussion. Language and argument is just another weapon to try to get the desired result on the page. Anyway, while we still must abide by the fiction that this is actually a debate--that is, until this user oversteps the boundary, does one too many reverts, and finally gets banned from these pages--let me just respond to what he has said:

The "this discussion has been had before" argument -- Firstly, yes it has been had before, and the consensus was to include the material. Here is the latest discussion on it. Editors agreed to include it then, and agree again now. Secondly, even if the consensus then was not to include it, new consensuses may be formed. So that is irrelevant.
The "no Chinese source/no proof" argument -- this is irrelevant. Since when did something have to appear in a Chinese source? What kind of source would be reliable? Chinese sources, except primary ones, are among the most unreliable on this topic. In any case, the info appears in multiple reliable sources, and we do not require to prove the truth of the claim, merely that it has been made.
The "not in Ownby" argument -- this is facile. So let's delete everything off the page that Ownby doesn't agree with? Please.

Did I miss any? He has been saying the same three meaningless arguments the whole time, by the way, in case anyone didn't notice. One final amusement: PCPP says that the recent source Homunculus brings up has not been peer-reviewed... but clearly this is not his standard anyway, because Porter's is a peer reviewed thesis/book, and he still rejects that. Clearly this user does not even follow his own standards. At this rate, I suspect that PCPP is rapidly putting himself on the shortlist of editors to ignore. I'll say no more on this unless PCPP brings more actual evidence to light on the topic. I mean reliable sources, not just specious argumentation. -- Asdfg12345 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg you're wasting your time here and learnt nothing from your 6 month ban. I already provided my reasons as why your "sources" are not sufficient enough to establish a fact. You previously stated that Porter's thesis isn't a reliable source, [22], that his discipline is not on religion, and now turned around and say it is.

No, Chinese sources aren't "unreliable" because you say so. In fact He's campaigns against traditional Chinese medicine has been controversial amongst Chinese media, whereas the Chinese government has long harped about the benefits of TCM.
Ownby's study on FLG has far more weight on the subject that the sources you provided. Not only him, but none of the other sources provide speculative evidence on the relations between Luo and He, and that He is somewhat responsible for the FLG ban. You've yet proved that the majority of FLG scholars agreed that He is related to Luo.
The source bought up by Homunculus is nowhere new. It was a university essay that did not provide attribution for these claims at all [23]. And guess where did Porter attribute the relations claim? [24] Clearwisdom.net/Faluninfo.net, mouthpieces for the FLG movement.--PCPP (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

... and the fact remains that we have three reliable sources saying this, and several editors supporting the inclusion. If you find some research contradicting the claim, please let us know. -- Asdfg12345 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completely skipping the debate and all arguments. I've already made my statements on why the three sources does not provide sufficient conclusion on why Luo and He are related, which you have yet answered, and now you ask me to provide evidence on how they're not related? Oh please.--PCPP (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't claim a direct relationship between them being related and the persecution of Falun Gong. The original sources were all Falun Gong websites (see Colipon's comment on old discussion, about how it only appears in English language websites and it's misteriously missing from Chinese language websites). I had heard before of He Zuoxiu and I had never read that any of his acts and success was due to being related to a certain politician. He Zuoxiu is a Chinese skeptic and Falun Gong is his natural target, he doesn't need any special reason to go after them. This is just trying to smear a source in order to reduce its credibility. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But the sources do, in fact, say that there was a connection between their relationship and the persecution. I'm not going to paste them again, but just read what I posted above: both Gutmann and Porter state it directly, while Zhao says it indirectly. Why is it unusual that you had heard of He Zuoxiu, but not read of his connection with Luo Gan? And how does that relate to the relevance of its inclusion here? And, in fact, it is not mysteriously missing from Chinese language websites: it is all over Chinese websites, though most of them are Falun Gong ones, so I didn't quote them. How would that even bolster the credibility of the claim, since Chinese websites are so notoriously unreliable to begin with? And in what context would such familial relations be published, except as a way of criticising the two and showing the incestuousness of CCP officialdom--so would a mainland source boast of such things? I think not. The demand for a Chinese language source as some kind of independent corroboration for what appears in several English-language RS seems to me a furphy meant to throw us off the scent of what is right in front of our noses. It is the first time such a demand has been made, and what is its basis in policy? Do we need to scour the Chinese Internet for each piece of information, and only then will it be considered truthful? Finally, the idea that this is trying to "smear" a source in order to "reduce its credibility" is also unreasonable and inaccurate. There is no attempt whatsoever to smear Mr. He--in fact, for that all we would need to do is quote his own words about how he supports the incarceration and brainwashing of practitioners, made to the New York Times after the persecution began (though that would not be properly called smearing, merely relaying the man's own views)--but it is an attempt to explicate what several reliable sources have said about the origins of the Tianjin protest and its relation to Zhongnanhai and the origins of the persecution. What is on the page now is in fact not all of it. There were surveillance cameras set up at the protest site before the practitioners arrived in Tianjin, for example, indicating that the security apparatus was already quite prepared for it and was collecting information on these people. There should be a sentence on that, with a good source. -- Asdfg12345 16:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He Zuoxiu explains in an interview why he attacked Falun Gong.org .cn/views/200801/t75537.htm. At that time, Zuoxiu had already been attacking pseudoscience for years, and he was one of the scientists that prodded the Chinese government into starting a campaign against pseudoscience in 1993. All those sources are just speculating with no proof.

Other sources say nothing at all of this connection, and some mention that he has attacked qi gong and other pseudoscience before. For example, Time magazine[25], and about every source that mentions Zuoxiu's interview. Apparently Ownby never felt necessary to mention any such connection. Zuoxiu himself says that he criticized Falun Gong in other occasions before a specific interview that caused protests.org .cn/Feature/fgti/200708/t60813.htm. A Lynne Rienner Publishers book gives another reason for ZuoXiu's attack against FG: "The He Zuoxiu anti-qigong article that originally sparked the Falun Gong protests came partly in response to Li's claims that Falun Gong had proved that modern science was inadequate to explain the universe (...)" page 245 [26]. From Columbia University Press book, Zuoxiu had already been "a leading role in the anti-qigong polemic of 1995", page 134 footnote 84 [27]. In other words, all sources of high quality say absolutely nothing about any brother-in-law or about ZuoXiu's collaborating with the Chinese government to bring down Falun Gong. The weight of sources is against any mention.

See also John Carter's comment below about this polemic not being important enough to appear in the main article. (He Zuoxiu‎ looks like an adequate "child" article to include this info) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Enric: even John Carter thinks the info is OK as far as NR is concerned. The Porter thesis has been published in book form, and has been called "excellent" by Ownby and also praised by Palmer, so it is a very good source. I will respond to the logic of the points you are making. One is that other sources say other things, and that not all of them mention this. But I don't know since when what was said in a few reliable sources had to be said in all reliable sources to be admissible. For example, Ownby also says little about how practitioners jammed satellites in China--does this mean that wikipedia should not mention this? Also, Ownby himself says that his book is mainly about Falun Gong and is not a detailed history of the persecution. He is not interested in a thorough discussion of the inner politics around what happened, whereas Gutmann directly researched and wrote about that aspect. Different scholars have different focuses. Ownby, for example, does not mention the Iceland incident once; but a scholar has recently published a whole book on just that incident, and it would certainly be relevant to include some of that on this page. Secondly, the other source you cited, a "Lynne Rienner Publishers" book, is a chapter written by Adam Frank, the only chapter that author has written on Falun Gong--it is explicitly about the scholarly and media discourse on Falun Gong, not a thorough examination of the origins of the persecution. Finally, your point about He Zuoxiu already being predisposed to attacking Falun Gong is well taken. But this does not conflict with the documented statements about his connection with Luo Gan, and Luo Gan's leading role in the persecution. They are complimentary pieces of information, not contradictory ones. Again, if you had a source which said explicitly that the brother-in-law thing was simply irrelevant, well, then we could say how others find it irrelevant; at the moment we have several reliable sources talking about its relevance. There is not a conflict between one source not saying it therefore meaning we shouldn't say it; Wikipedia is a composite of the best research on a given topic. -- Asdfg12345 03:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Noah Porter's thesis should not be used, considering that he sourced the claim directly from the FLG mouthpiece Clearwisdom. Here's the direct passage from his book [28]:

He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 200g)

And nowhere else in his book does Porter comment on the supposed relations between He and Luo, or speculate that He was responsible for the crackdown.--PCPP (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the religion RFC tag as well. I think a few points are relevant here:

1) How is the material in question directly relevant to the topic of this article? This article is about Falun Gong, the movement. So far as I have seen, there is one source which states that these two individuals may be in some way cooperating to the detriment of Falun Gong. There are serious questions about whether that synthesis of material is necessarily of such importance that it has to be included in the main article.

2) Please see WP:SYNTH. I note that none of the sources indicate specifically state that there was any form of cooperation between the two individuals. If the purpose of the material is to imply that there is such a cooperation, then that purpose, however good, would be a form of synthesis not permitted by SYNTH.

3) Are these individuals alive? If either is, or even potentially if their direct families are, WP:BLP would very possibly be a serious consideration here. The idea seems to be to indicate that these two have cooperated actively in some way, and, honestly, the evidence presented does not make that a clear and necessary conclusion. Insinuations of things which cannot be clearly documented by reliable sources are very possibly unacceptable per BLP.

4) National Review, which I myself don't necessarily think is that good a magazine, is a good source for this comparatively straightforward information as per WP:RS. A PhD thesis, unless cited as a source by other independent sources, probably isn't. The third source, as mentioned above, doesn't even mention the individuals by name or in any other way clearly and explicitly, and is, on that basis, not really admissable evidence regarding this subject.

So, on the basis of the above, we have one generally reliable source which mentions that these two individuals are related, and other sources which include information which supports that conclusion, but without making clear and forthright statements to that effect. In all honesty, the National Review, on its own, is probably sufficient for the information to be included, if the material is to be included. The question becomes whether the material is of sufficient importance to be included in this, the main article on the topic. Honestly, I cannot see how it is, based on the clear and non-SYNTH information provided. Now, there are other questions involved.

Are these two individuals notable enough in their own rights to have separate biographical articles? If yes, then reference to family is certainly appropriate for such biographical articles.

Is the material, perhaps, of sufficient importance to be included in one of the "child" articles? Maybe. That would depend on a number of matters, including the degree of material in the article about the two individuals themselves. Even there, BLP might be a consideration.

Hope these answers are clear enough. If there are any doubts about what I said, please indicate as much below. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to give my comment on this. I'll get back to you in a few hours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick word. The material in question is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong. It bears virtually no significance in the biographies of these persons. There is ample research on the significance of the Zhongnanhai manifestation and the preceding Tianjin incident; among the competing narratives on the pre-crackdown era, this version of events is directly supported by many important sources, even if not all of them mention the family relationship between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu. Gutmann in National Review believes the connection is important, and he is not the only source talking about a melange of science, ideology, politics and personal affiliations. Since this context and narrative already exists, we are not synthesising material, only providing the readers with reliably sourced remarks on the circumstances leading up to the crackdown. As far as I see it, there is no encyclopaedic reason to keep this information out of the article. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the passages cited are directly from these sources, certainly not an original synthesis of them. -- Asdfg12345 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to read WP:SYNTH again, asax it seems to me that you have rather clearly misunderstood it. It is a violation of SYNTH to link together statements in such a way as to cause them to apparently say something that none of them specifically say. The attempt to introduce this material is based on individual editors' interpretation that other texts, which do not specifically refer to this individual by name, are in fact referring to him because of his relationship to another party. Such attempts to get an article to say something that is not said by any of the sources is a very clear violation of SYNTH. Olaf's statement that the material is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong is, to my eyes, completely unsupported by policy and buidelines. And I do not see any sort of direct response to the possible violation of WP:BLP. To be specific, there has been nothing clearly established explicitly from reliable sources which links the relationship of these two individuals to the suppression of Falun Gong, and attempting to get multiple sources to state something that no source presented to date has explicitly said is a violation of SYNTH. According to BLP, we cannot allow such material to any article. If, and I believe only if a reliable source explicitly says that these two individuals have, in some way, colluded or conspired to act, then, perhaps, that might be relevant to the article about the suppression of Falun Gong in China, and, I suppose, an argument could be made that it is relevant here. But I have not yet seen the sources which make the statements which would be required by policy for this material to be included. If those sources exist, than I very strongly suggest that they be produced and that others be allowed to review them to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines are not violated. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Reorganization

On the assumption that I had everyone’s blessing, expressed or implicit, I have just updated the main article. A summary and explanation of changes is below. I know I previously promised this would be riveting, but now I’m simply hoping that I don’t offend too many people’s sensibilities. As we all know, this is a contentious topic, and I don’t expect that these changes will be universally well received, but I do hope that those who are particularly invested in this topic can appreciate what the edits attempt to accomplish.

The main changes are a reorganization of the sections, and the paring down of the entire article. I also attempted to add, in some cases, summary paragraphs at the beginning of some of the sub-sections, as they previously followed a somewhat ad-hoc, stream-of-consciousness order.

The new sections are as follows:

Beliefs and Teachings

Categorization
Organization and Structure
Demographics

History

Criticism and Response
Tianjin and Zhongnanhai Protests
The Ban

Suppression

Media Campaign
Conversion Program
Coercive Measures
Response Inside China

Falun Gong Outside China

Reception

Controversies

The rationale for this reorganization is based largely on persistent suggestions that the article gave too much emphasis to the persecution of Falun Gong, and insufficient attention to the practice itself. I attempted to shorten the suppression section by consolidating information and removing extraneous and redundant analysis by human rights groups and academics. There is more that can be done in this respect, but I am not sufficiently bold to make further cuts to the content. I suggest that the content that was removed, if it is deemed relevant, be placed in the persecution article. I also moved the suppression section down, relative information about the practice itself.

Some editors have suggested that the suppression section should simply be folded into the history section, and then be followed by a discussion of Falun Gong’s organization, demography, etc. I attempted to do this, but ultimately concluded that it may be better to keep the most relevant information about the beliefs, organization, and composition of practitioners together, rather than breaking it up with a long and complex history about suppression in China. I therefore kept all the information about the practice under the same heading.

I also attempted to bring the suppression section under the History heading, but encountered two problems: First, as TheSoundAndTheFury pointed out, convention holds that the sub-headings should correspond to daughter articles, and both the suppression and the history have their own daughter article. The second problem I encountered is that I found it rather difficult to organize the suppression section as part of a chronological narrative (it is currently organized thematically). In the end, aside from reducing the total length and adding brief section summaries, I did very little in the way of changing the content of this section. In the future, however, I recommend that some effort be made to combine a chronological and thematic approach to the suppression. It should include more recent information, as the article currently says very little about the suppression from 2005 - present. Hopefully this information can be added without greatly expanding the size of this section.

Other notable changes:

I broke up the “Public Debate,” moved “Categorization” into the “Practice and Beliefs” heading, and “Controversies” into the “Reception” section. Speaking of...

I created a “Reception” section, and wrote some additional content, including a summary overview. Much of the content here was culled from other sections, where it was out of place (namely, ‘Public Debate’ and ‘Falun Gong outside China’)

The ‘Controversies’ section now also includes the discussion of Falun Gong’s ‘cult’ status which was previously found elsewhere in the article.

The section ‘Falun Gong outside China’ was messy and without direction. It discussed both the practice and activities of Falun Gong outside China, as well as its reception. It now discusses only the former. I also added an overview for this section and a brief history of the practice outside China, then transitioning into a discussion of how overseas Falun Gong communities have responded to the Chinese government’s campaign.

I wrote a section on the demographics of Falun Gong practitioners both inside and outside China, drawing mainly on research by Ownby and Palmer, and some research cited by Porter.

The categorization section includes content previously found in ‘Public Debate,’ as well as content that was previously in the Practice and Beliefs discussion. I also reduced the length here, as much of the content proved to be redundant when it was pulled together.

The sections on organization and structure are pulled both from the previous version of the page, as well as contributions by Asdfg on the talk page regarding finances

Added more information on Falun Gong beliefs, cosmology, and practice

In the interest of reducing length, I tended to summarize instances of talking heads who were simply going back and forth on an issue.

All told, I think I reduced the length by about 1,500 words. I also made a number of other minor changes – removing the Gao Rongrong photo, for instance. I am happy to discuss any and all these changes at greater length, and hope that subsequent discussions will be constructive and in good faith. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am of two minds about this... these are certainly big changes, and many of them undiscussed. I disagree with what you call the "extraneous and redundant analysis" about the persecution, since it is one of the most notable aspects of this topic. I have changed a few subheads and re-added one of the important images regarding the persecution. I didn't look at the changes thoroughly but I will over the next few days, and probably have more comments. I do appreciate the work that goes into this though, at the least. -- Asdfg12345 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reorganization is excellent. Asdfg, do you feel you have a tendency to own the page? It was agreed by several of us that the information about the suppression (I am about to revert your changes to those subsections) needn't be so prominent or extensive. Homunculus is to be applauded for the rigorous scholarship and painstaking research that obviously went into this rewrite. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, though I hope no one will object to my putting back the picture, at the least. - Asdfg12345 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

At some later point I would like to open a discussion on the "propaganda campaign" or "media campaign" question. I do not think it is biased to refer to it as the former, since there is no disagreement among sources that we are talking about anything but propaganda. I could find dozens or more references. -- Asdfg12345 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my final point, in response to Homunculus's changes, is the notion that people in the West actually think that Falun Gong is a "cult": this is quite an assertion. I give Westerners more credit than that, and in my experience it's not actually the case. Very few people hold such views, and mostly it results from a lack of information. I am wary of Wikipedia inadvertently perpetuating these vague stereotypes (someone reads "people think it's a cult" and then by osmosis start thinking "that Falun Gong, is it a cult?"); my point is not from the standpoint of advocacy, but in terms of how an encyclopedia should inform readers. Practically, I would have thought it would be better to explain the whys and wherefores of the cult label in more depth (i.e., explaining its irrelevance as a legitimate categorisation and its utility as a propaganda label) rather than just say which stereotypes exist. Anyway, a thought. I appreciate the serious engagement with this topic by other editors, even when I don't always agree with the changes; serious consideration of the topic and meaningful editing from "outsiders" has, unfortunately, not been seen for a long time. -- Asdfg12345 04:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A lukewarm reception, but I'll take it. I'm glad the changes are generally acceptable. I encourage people to add or remove info as appropriate, as there remains much work to be done in raising the quality. Bear in mind that these changes mainly represent a reorganisation and more research on a few points more than anything. Asdfg, regarding the propaganda vs. media issue, let's see what the Wikipedia convention is re: propaganda. On the cult issue, I will be a tougher sell. Some Westerners do view Falun Gong as a cult, even if the view is not well supported. Ownby says as much when he notes that the Chinese government's portrayal of Falun Gong as a cult has undermined sympathy for the group. And the article does contextualise this claim, though perhaps not quite as much as it used to. Basically, I'm not really sure what more you want. If you have an edit that will improve the article, I won't object, and I won't claim my edits are necessarily correct, but I hope you can temper your sensitivity some. Homunculus (duihua) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Homunculus, this reorganization is much welcomed. Asdfg, to some extent I share your concerns about the significance of information about the persecution, and that is something that could be better explored going forward, perhaps. —Zujine|talk 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes by Homunculus seem reasonable to me. Regarding the cult information, please read the article published earlier this year, "Falun Gong: Ten Years On" in I believe Pacific Affairs, which states that the government's calling it a cult has led to some individuals outside of China mentally linking it to Aum Shinrikyo and/or the Branch Davidians, and that such comparisons are in fact to the detriment of the group. We really don't have any conventions about "propaganda", other than maybe WP:AVOID regarding possible use of the word to the exclusion of other more neutral words. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)