Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 36

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 34

→

Recent edits

A generic section head, I know. I'll be meticulous in explaining my changes in reverse chron:

Firstly, this one because Colipon's personal complaint is not a reliable source we should link.
Secondly, adding in all that information from primary source materials is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. I noticed large parts of well-researched information removed with primary source material from FLG teachings added, including some rather novel interpretations. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so this is strictly not allowed. Drawing one's own interpretations is not allowed. If one wants to include such information one must show that it has been written as such in scholarship. You can't just dig through the teachings and present an analysis of your choosing, however closely it is sourced, because no single editor has the authority to determine how certain parts of teachings should be represented, what importance they should be given, what role they play within the larger corpus of teachings, their significance, etc. There's a big Internet out there for blogs of this kind. Wikipedia is in some ways a confined space, so what's here needs to be highly well researched and rather compact. Large wanderings on obscure topics--NB: "obscure" is defined as not having a scholarly interpretation, or several, to back it up, which goes for all the additions I am removing--don't have a space and are not in line with our content policies. There were two changes along these lines, both rather radical. The first on Jan. 16, which put the page from 87,073 bytes to 93,192 bytes, then again on Jan. 19, putting the page from 93,279 to 95,279 bytes (wonder if the timing reflected anything about Hu's US visit?). These are quite radical changes that reflect arguments that have been gone through over and over again, and where consensus has been formed already, more than just once. The sources used were also entirely primary sources, and filled with speculative sentences. Perhaps an overzealous FLG person was feeling lucky?
Thirdly, the pinyin. Some of these additions were incorrect, such as karma being pronounced as "Niè. As far as I know, karma is pronounced ye in Chinese. I find the pinyin symbols, the large brackets that accompany them, and their intrusions all over the text, quite distracting and unnecessary. I read a lot of Chinese articles on wiki and never see this. It doesn't look nice, and it gets in the way of the reading. If people want to study Chinese they can go ahead. There's no reason in an ordinary article of this sort for the casual reader to have to be exposed to diacritics and other esoterica. I have removed them, too. That meant basically just pulling the changes all back. But I've explained my reasons as above. The first is pretty watertight, though I would certainly change my view on the material in question if reliable, secondary sources were brought forth--then it would be a question of WP:UNDUE. Such interpretations, however, are not adhered to by the top scholars of Falun Gong, like Ownby or Penny, and that would have to be kept in mind. The page as it stands, if you'll read the long arguments above, represents quite a balanced compromise between the various factions; I suggest such an equilibrium not be too quickly upset. As for the pinyin, let's see what others think. If there's a majority that support it.... well, let's just say I'll be very surprised!--Asdfg12345 03:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the pinyin, I can't claim to have strong feelings, but the great care that is being taken to add pinyin transliterations on this page is something I have not seen elsewhere (though, in fairness, I once encountered a page filled with bopomofo, so it would be worse). I don't suppose there is a style guide concerning the use of pinyin?Homunculus (duihua) 06:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Anyway, would you mind expressing either your support or opposition to the changes? As you know, wiki works by consensus, and expressing your views one way or another will help in that process going forward. I've never seen a rule that because someone took care doing something, that it is necessarily a valuable thing to have done. Nothing against the Pinyin guy. [Update: I'm also going to be bold and ask you to take a look at my changes on the immolation page, and my explanation. Why do I ask you? You'll notice editing these pages is like walking through a mostly empty desert... except for the odd jackal that springs out. It would be helpful to have a critical but rational voice to test things against and beat out a consensus with.] --Asdfg12345 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aye...ok. I suggest that in the section describing Falun Gong's beliefs, the criterion employed should be that the beliefs feature prominently in Falun Gong's teachings. As a test of their significance and the orthodox interpretations of them, we should rely on secondary sources. Previously (that is, before last week), I believe that most things in the section met these criteria. I found the recent additions to be interesting, but I concur with your assessment that they were given inordinate weight, added much length, and represented the author's original interpretation of primary sources, with no supporting secondary sources. I suppose this is my way of saying I support your change. As to pinyin, the manual of style is most unhelpful. Homunculus (duihua) 08:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mystery editor reverted your changes this morning. I do not normally engage in reverting, but in this case, I decided to reciprocate. My suspicion is that we may indeed be dealing with a FLG person uninitiated in edit summaries and the art of consensus. Perhaps you can attempt to draw this fellow's attention to the existence of a talk page, so he/she does not become flummoxed by the repeated disappearance of their changes.Homunculus (duihua) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have gotten the point. We see a reasonable compromise here. --Asdfg12345 02:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just reverted again... Sir, I think you should become more familiar with policy etc. I could add ten pages of favorite teachings and chuck them on the page, but the key is scholarly research, third parties, etc., and crucially: neutrality and due weight. --Asdfg12345 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Very strong bias / propaganda after a decade editing this article

Hi again from a LONG time ago. I've noticed with interest that all the very strong pro-FLGers are still on this board with unabated force after this many years and after reading the Discussion history for this article, have essentially completely succeeded in driving out all the more neutral editors simply because they wanted a more balanced article. I'm actually surprised you drove out someone like Ohconfucius (whose political opinions I have reservations about because he is more sympathetic to anti-CPC movements and is thus not totally balanced) who could have got this article featured and/or included. Instead, a dogmatic adherence to one and only one tolerated opinion by FLG followers has resulted in this page reading exactly like a Falun Gong propaganda leaflet as handed out by the practitioners themselves. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the sheer bias in proportion by pro-FLGers (i.e. practitioners) contributing even on this Discussion page, compared to non-practitioners, should say something, let alone the fanatacism to a narrow, accepted doctrine (version) of the main article is/are the main stumbling block(s) to ever having this article featured.

Asdfg, having your more radical fellow accounts such as Dilip "contribute" by edit-warring to drive out even neutral observers will never promote your cause. Even back then I realised you wouldn't change one bit despite myself saying you had grown slightly more accepting of a slightly different opinion for the simple reason that your actions speak louder than words. What goes around, comes around. If you are so ridiculous intolerant of any other view other than the narrow one espoused by Li Hongzhi and the most senior in the FLG hierarchy, why should any non-FLG practitioner show tolerance to your beliefs?

Much like Ohconfucius, I have been permanently put-off editing this article forever, but note this well. Drowning out, or totally overwhelming (in volume) other "contributors" with your opinions even on the Discussion page or the main article page doesn't make your opinion more right or better simply by occasionally having other fellow FLG practitioners agree with that one doctrine. You can't preach FLG's three main tenets if you can show non-FLG people's opinions none of those three things - non-FLG people will realise the hypocrisy.

After all, criticising someone else for being wrong does not make you (more) right. A sect or cult (depending on your POV) built almost only on a hatred of a political party won't last, since in history, no political party has lasted forever, and then FLG will have lost its raison d'etre. Jsw663 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen this. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I was the only Falun Gong practitioner left on the pages. So most of those arguments are fantasy (with a good dose of vitriol). If you want a basis from which to judge the matter, it is suggested that you look at David Ownby's book on Falun Gong. The page in its current form does not differ too much on the key issues from his largely authoritative text. --Asdfg12345 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has a specific content issue they would like to raise with this article, I would be happy to discuss it. Vague allegations of bias from either side are not going to make this article any better. A more civil and constructive environment can be wrought by sticking to discussions of evidence and specific content, not politics.Homunculus (duihua) 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember Jsw663 from the period of Tomananda and Samuel Luo. He did seem quite content at the time the articles were reading like Samuel's personal website. Take a look at the archives from 2006. Nothing more to add here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this article does a good job in terms of quantity. I have found more information related to FLG on WP than many other websites. But the question remains, whether the information presented here is well-cited, and if so, whether the sources are balanced and complete. My feeling is that the article has added a lot more material on FLG before the ban in 1999. Still, I wonder if more can be added. For example, in the mid-1990s, there was a mysterious doctor who claimed to have healed many patients in rural China. The man, if I remember correctly, has surname Hu. I wonder if this man has anything to do with FLG? I also wonder if there are any Western sources that support the criminal prosecution of people such as Li Hongzhi while condemning the violent persecution of FLG followers at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Although this is already a pretty ponderous article, I do like the idea of adding some more on the background and Falun Gong in the 1990s. Another editor has been working on revising a timeline of Falun Gong's history, and perhaps their research can help inform some additions here.

Regarding your mysterious doctor, this type of thing abounds in China. Falun Gong emerged in an environment where folk and traditional Chinese medical practitioners, including qigong masters, were prolific. Li Hongzhi rejected the emphasis on healing that characterized so many of the qigong schools, and forbid the practice of healing among his students, so I doubt this doctor has any connection to Falun Gong (though perhaps there is some connection to the broader qigong phenomenon). As to "Western sources that support the criminal prosecution of people like Li"... what are you referring to? Prosecution for what? As I recall, Chinese authorities in 1999 tried getting Interpol to intercept Li, but they refused. China also reportedly tried getting the U.S. to extradite him, but the United States found that the Chinese allegations against him were politically motivated, not criminal. It's possible other qigong masters have faced some kind of prosecution, though none come to mind. Homunculus (duihua) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with the OP, the article is horribly biased and one-sided. I would recommend finding fresh eyes while tempbanning flg-followers. This way the heavy biased might get cleared up. Otherwise, articles like this will be used to show and proof why wikipedia is, not at all, an acceptable source of information. Which would be shameful, because articles that aren't written by people who are projecting their ideology are usually very good. I would hope somebody would step up and clear this one. 85.237.211.249 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I also think that this article is biased in the favor of Falun Gong. There does not appear to be any information on this page that is leans even moderately towards the view of the CPC nor any information concerning any complaints regarding the Falun Gong from government or non-government sources. Basically, I do not think that both the information and tone of this article heavily leans towards the anti-CPC side and should be edited for neutrality and different viewpoints. Matthias Lightbane (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Matthias_Lightbane

As far as I can tell the article reflects the preponderance of mainstream academic viewpoints on the topic. Read Ownby. That's the gold standard so far. The article broadly reflects it. The CCP's policies vis-a-vis Falun Gong are not looked upon favorably by many at all in the West. I suggest the tag is misplaced. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I read through the page again with the concern over bias in mind. It may be possible to achieve a greater level of detachment in the tone, and I was also reminded in the process of some areas that could use work. I had previously thought to add to some sections to reflect some underrepresented scholarly discourse. I would be happy to take another pass. I'm not sure my edits would assuage the concerns other editors have expressed, however, because none of them have provided specific examples of how the page falls short, other than vague (and somewhat facile) arguments to moderation. Again, specific suggestions of what to include would be welcome; for instance, I'm not sure what "complaints regarding the Falun Gong from government or non-government sources" refers to.Homunculus (duihua) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are genuine problems, those raising them should be able to point them out and propose remedies, and then we can work to fix them. It's been nearly a month and no one has done that. I'm going to remove the tag. I haven't read the page for a long time, but just state specifically what's wrong and how it can be fixed if there's a problem. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The cries of bias are absolutely pathetic. So in other words, those who claim this article is not neutral want the authors to include segments that perhaps could justify denying a particular group its human rights simply because of its beliefs. When we are done editing this article to include more pathetic rationalizations from those who run the most oppressive tyranny on earth, perhaps we can then jump on over to the entry on the Holocaust and make it "more neutral" by giving greater merit to Nazi Party claims that the Jews were behind Versailles, were in control of world banking, were vermin that put "real Germans" out of work and were essentially the root of all evil in the first half of the twentieth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice Godwinning there. I don't see how the "cries of bias" here are related to Nazism. What it boils down to with this article is how much weight is given to the question of whether FLG is a cult, and how much weight is given to the reports of cruel and violent oppression of FLG practitioners by the CPC. Those with a bias will either loudly insist that FLG is not a cult (and oppression by the CPC may be understated), or that FLG is strongly cultish (and CPC oppression may be exaggerated). And of course, that there is undue weight given to opposing side's viewpoint. The number and quality of references will be debated. What do you expect people to do? Destynova (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been drawn out far more than it merits. To Destynova, it seems you have failed to understand what the other editor was attempting to illustrate with the parallel between the Falun Gong/CCP dynamic to Jews under Nazism. In both cases, an authoritarian government sought to eradicate a religious belief, and employed a variety of rhetorical tools to legitimize the torture, imprisonment, and systematic killing of members of that group. In both cases, such abuses are well document (though they differ in degrees). And in both instances, the accusations leveled by the governments against the religions are held to be groundless works of propaganda. Now, given the sensitivity of analogies to Nazism, it is not a comparison I would draw. Perhaps it's more appropriate to compare the treatment of Falun Gong by the PRC to the suppression of the Bahá'í Faith in Iran. In any of these instances, it is both absurd and facile to argue that neutrality is achieved by giving equal representation to the unsubstantiated propagandizing used by authoritarian governments that persecute these groups. The article on the Ba'hai has achieved featured article status, and for those who are arguing that this article ought to contain more of the CCP's point of view, I suggest taking a look at it. Note, in particular, how little space it dedicated to explaining or legitimizing the Iranian regime's charges against the faith. I would also suggested reading the article on false balance. While you're at it, if you're truly interested in improving this article, I exhort you to actually read up on the Falun Gong in the scholarly literature, or read human rights reports from organizations like the UN or the CECC that deal with this issue. Finally, I hope we can stop treating this page as a forum for general discussion. Homunculus (duihua) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Swastika

Talk about a PR fail: Using a swastika in your logo. I know it's the left-facing swastika which is different from the right-facing Nazi swastika, but still the symbol evokes the wrong kind of feelings in the global crowd. 93.172.56.90 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_35#what.27s_with_the_symbol. Your global crowd probably isn't quite as global as you imagine. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have read through some of the recent changes and they seem to be in line with what this article has needed for a long time. The treatment Falun Gong gets here is now closer to that given to other spiritual and religious groups on the encyclopedia. But I have a few questions (will add to them as time goes on so no need to respond right away).

Where does this come from? "Falun Gong, in its early days, was a polytheistic belief system"??? I've never read that, anywhere. We should not be fast and loose with statements like this. Is the way this statement is dichotomized with the 'Lord of Buddha' quotes indicating that it changed from a polytheistic to monotheistic belief? That seems an absurd claim.
Are academic self-indulgences like this really helpful for the reader? "Cheris Shun-ching Chan consider cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred rather than collective worship..." etc. etc. Readers don't care for these theories. People know what a cult is. It's bad. It includes money, deception, a strict hierarchy and organization, control over the members, and so forth. Falun Gong clearly shares none of these characteristics. I'm unsure on what should be here. But given that this label originated in the demonization campaign led by the Chinese state, I wonder about the appropriateness of placing this as just another analytical category for classifying the movement. (It may be fitting to reduce this part and move it to the section that deals with anti-Falun Gong propaganda? I'm not sure.) Perhaps it would be fitting to simply state that Falun Gong has been called a cult by the Chinese state, and then provide the response of scholars or other relevant parties. Though that seems to have been done elsewhere. But since Chan's point here is abstruse and relies on actually defining the term, I suggest it be disposed of.
There needs to be something on how Falun Gong is actually practiced by its adherents in the post-suppression context, both inside and outside China. I suggest adding a paragraph on this in the "organization" subsection. We want to know what these people do, how much time they spend doing it, with whom, and under what circumstances. Some detail on the daily experience of Falun Gong practice would be welcome.
The last half of the article has no pictures. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A heads up

I just wanted to put in a heads up that I am gearing up to make some edits to the page. I’ll follow up with a detailed explanation of edits, but first, a general note on the objectives.

The changes I intend to make are intended to address a couple persistent complaints about the page. First, the article is huge, and suffers a few organizational problems. I have prepared a slight reorganization of some of the content, but am not making fundamental changes to the article structure.

Over time several editors have intimated that the page is too focused on the persecution of Falun Gong. I am inclined to agree, and further find that the emphasis on the persecution has produced the corollary effect of turning the article into a kind of battleground for debating PRC narratives vs. those of Falun Gong and the human rights community. Another suggestion that has been raised repeatedly—and this goes with the first—is to include more information on both the pre-suppression era, and on the practices and beliefs of Falun Gong.

Finally, there have been persistent charges that the article is biased. I do not know exactly what that means, because no one making the argument has convincingly elaborated or raised specific points of contention. Nonetheless, I decided to look for examples of good religion articles for a reference as to what an NPOV page looks like. The best example (and indeed, one of the few religion articles to achieve and maintain FA status) is on the Bahá'í Faith. This is especially fitting in that the Bahá'ís are also subject to persecution by the Iranian regime, yet the article’s authors clearly agreed that the views of the Iranian government do not define the religion. When the regime’s accusations against the faith are articulated, they are promptly refuted. Human rights violations are described at some length, but the section on persecution is not excessively long and is located at the end of the article. I am not suggesting we need to follow this format exactly, but I think there’s merit to it. Other religion articles that once held FA status include Christianity and Judaism, and they can also provide a point of reference.

Another page I found helpful is Wikipedia:Religion, which is a working draft of a proposed policy or guideline. Whether or not it is ever completed or approved, the draft in its current form struck me as a very reasonable way to avoid protracted disputes and personal attacks that have sometimes characterized this page. Indeed, the good religion articles I have found seem to embrace the spirit of the document. One of the main suggestions here is that “religious articles should be written to present the viewpoint of the religion and its followers, while making it clear that this is their perspective and that this is not a form of endorsement of any belief system.” The draft proposes this might be achieved through adopting an “in-universe” voice, similar to what one might find in science fiction writing. Rather than adopting a proselytizing tone, the religion’s views should be described in a neutral, matter-of-fact tone, and readers should be left to make their own assessments of them. The draft generally suggests that a good deal of sensitivity be exercised here, and that while criticisms of religions are fine, they should be worded carefully and thoroughly discussed (even in consultation with the religious believers) to ensure fairness.

All this is to say that my edits are the start of a process to bring this article more in line with the good religion articles. To that end, I am adding a few more subsections on Falun Gong texts, symbols, practices, social views, etc. I have also prepared a new section on its origin as part of the qigong movement, and an expanded history of the practice in the 1990s in China. I intend to remove most of the external links to better conform to the way external links are handled in other religion articles. That is, I will leave only the main Falun Gong websites, and a list of major scholarly books published by reliable sources on the subject. The views of the Communist Party, or “other critical views” parroting them, are out of place here, and the equivalents would not be tolerated on, say, the Bahá'í Faith article or the page on Judaism.

I did add some information to the persecution section, mostly elaborating on the rationale behind the ban. I integrated a couple more scholarly and journalistic perspectives there. I added a bit of information on the lawsuits launched by Falun Gong, including against Cisco. I might at a latter time write something about the lawsuits launched inside China by Weiquan lawyers on behalf of Falun Gong.

I hope these edits sound reasonable. I can provide a more specific summary as well.

After I’m finished, however, some major issues remain. Note that I tread very carefully when it came to deleting content (I moved some things around, reduced some redundancies, but ultimately deleted very little). The end result is the addition of around 2,000 words. It’s a pretty huge article, and while I think caution is warranted in reducing its length, it’s probably a worthwhile endeavor if we can reach consensus on how to do this.Homunculus (duihua) 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This sounds well thought out and quite time consuming; well done for making the effort. It may be worth consulting with Olaf Stephanos on matters of Falun Gong doctrine and faith, to ensure the information is presented as intended. Or, if you put in what you've got he can just change it if he sees improvements to make. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I took a look through the changes and overall I think it's a good improvement, though I would bet that we could continue editing this article forever and never please all the constituencies. Glad to see richer content on the practice and beliefs element, particularly the origins of Falungong. I think the approach to controversies is also good - I saw that you brought down some content that used to be elsewhere on the page and consolidated them in that section. Also, I agree with trying to cut some things down to size, particularly the persecution section. By the looks of it, you reduced its prominence only relative everything else, but didn't actually trim it down. In the future, I could try to help summarise it, and we can move the rest over to the persecution page. By the way, I don't know for how long this has been a problem, but looks like the footnotes could use a clean-up, if there's an enterprising soul out there interested in such tedious tasks. —Zujine|talk 03:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that my preemptive justification for edits is sufficient so far, and that I don't need to provide a further detailed explanation for each change. If any particular thing is problematic, however, I'm happy to discuss it. As to shortening things, if you could make an attempt on the persecution section, that would be excellent, but try to preserve the crucial information. At some point, it would also be nice to see a reduction in the amount of scholarly exegesis that is scattered throughout the article. I appreciate having this here, but the page sometimes read like a lengthly literature review, and may be prohibitively long for most readers. Maybe we can move some of the scholarly discussions into the endnotes, and just state the essential points as clearly as possible. This approach will not work for issues where there are conflicting interpretations, of course; I mean only to do this where there is a general consensus. Homunculus (duihua) 03:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit accuses Cisco of aiding Chinese repression of Falon gong

Here is something I think should be added to the page

From CNET:

Cisco Systems designed a surveillance system to help the Chinese government track and ultimately suppress members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, according to a lawsuit the group filed against the network equipment maker.

Link to read the rest of the CNET story

Mattsky (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - very interesting. Falun Gong has a record of filing lawsuits outside China to seek redress for alleged torture and wrongful imprisonment, though to my knowledge this is the first against a U.S. company. I have a list of things I had volunteered to do on this page, and I can add this to that list (unless someone wants to get to it first). In your view, should the allegations be folded in under the section on persecution, or should the lawsuit itself be noted in the section on Falun Gong outside China? Homunculus (duihua) 04:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This should not be just an allegation with 2 lines in the article. This is really a big case from a history and hi-tech standpoint. We really need editors with a law background on this one. Problem is that this is not even at the point of Group1 vs. Group2 yet with a court date. Benjwong (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to have a short description of the case in the article, presenting it just as has been done in the NYTimes, WSJ, Reuters, etc. This would include mention of Cisco's denial that it administers or customizes networks in China. Some of the evidence on which the case is based is also drawn from Ethan Gutmann's book Losing the New China, and we could refer to that. But otherwise I agree with you. When the discovery process begins, and more evidence is made public, it may be fitting to even have a separate article on the topic. If we can find an editor who is familiar with the alien torts claims act, that would be helpful. On a related note, a handful of other Chinese dissidents have filed their own case against Cisco with funding from the Laogai foundation, apparently hoping to piggyback on this one. So yea, it might very well merit its own article at some point. Homunculus (duihua) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We really don't need editors with a law background, actually, just editors who can access the material from reliable sources relating to the subject. I have found at least a few RS's so far on the subject, and personally believe that the subject probably deserves an article of its own, provided notability can be established, which shouldn't be a problem. I tend to believe in general that there is a reasonable basis for quite a few more articles on the subject of Falun Gong than exist to date, and would welcome seeing anyone make an effort to find sources for them. I am in the process of reviewing available literature myself, and might have a few suggestions. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding status of Falun Gong content on wikipedia

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group#Status about the existing status of our content related to Falun Gong on wikipedia. I would very much welcome the input of any and all interested parties. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

It seems to me that, maybe, we have not paid a great deal of attention to some of the more recent works on this subject. Revenge of the Forbidden City was a fairly well received book a few years ago about the Chinese reaction to FG, and the more recent Cultural Economy of Falun Gong, which has only been out a month or two and hasn't yet gotten a lot of reviews, is probably also very useful. Also, I note that Ownby and Palmer have both written and helped collect some articles for publication in Nova Religio, which seems to be the journal which has been selected for the publication of writings on the subject of FG as a movement in general. They would certainly be reasonable to be included. I can't e-mail books to anyone, but, if they were to want any articles, including the Nova Religio articles, and can't get them, I could e-mail those articles out. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe a few of these are already found in the article, including some Nova Religio pieces. Correct me if I'm wrong. Revenge of the Forbidden City is cited at length in the section on the conversion campaign. Tong not being an expert on Falun Gong as a religion (except, perhaps, its organization), I suspect his research will be more useful on the persecution page. But I would suggest being aware of the limitations of his research, which ended in 2005 and relied overwhelmingly on primary source, official literature (and zero field work, it would seem, or even interviews with former detainees and the like). I have not read Xiao Ming's book, but if you happen to have a pdf, send it my way. In my last round of edits to this page, I made a pretty feable attempt to incorporate some of the more recent scholarly and journalistic literature, including Vivienne Shue's excellent contribution to State and Society in 21st Century China. It's a worthwhile endeavor, but on the other hand, I worry already (as previously expressed) than the page already contains more scholarly exegesis than is useful to an average reader, so it needs to be balanced against the needs of brevity and clarity.Homunculus (duihua) 00:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

He and Luo, two years later.

I see that the issue with He and Luo is still basically unresolved. Did we just run out of steam like every other instance and let it be? See: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_35#RFC_on_connections_between_Luo_and_He, and my arguments prior to my departure from Falun Gong articles: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_34#Gutmann_deletions.3F. Colipon+(Talk) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for my edit on the Controversies section

1) PCCP's statement about non-scholarly anti-cult activists like Rick Ross is undue weight next to the opinions of numerous credible scholars. 2) The references were also messed up and misplaced in his earlier edit. 3) He included material that was taken out of context, like Palmer's quote about the "absolute centralization" of money, organization, and healing. The quote was explaining that local practice sites are not allowed to take money; it's not about Falun Gong being tightly organized. 4) He added in Craig Smith's quote saying that Falun Gong believes mixed-race people are the "spawn" of the dharma-ending period. The primary sources (i.e. Falun Gong's teachings, the sole corpus of teachings that determines what Falun Gong "believes") do not include such allegations. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit (or at least the one part that I was paying attention to). On the one hand we have a reliable secondary source, the New York Times, in an article about Falun Gong saying that Li Hongzhi "said interracial children are the spawn of the Dharma Ending Period, a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention." and on the other we have a Wikipedia editor talking about what primary sources say as the basis for the removal of the WP:V compliant material. Please could you explain how the removal of the material is consistemt with policy ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to reject the idea of including what Li Hongzhi has said about the the mixed-race issue; I'm talking about the opinionated, inflammatory wording in that article. There are no reliable academic sources contesting the idea that Li Hongzhi's lectures are the sole criterion for determining what Falun Gong "teaches". In fact, many sources explicitly state just the opposite. In this case, the primary sources are in no way ambiguous nor can they be dismissed when we evaluate what has definitively been said. Using another source is just like playing Chinese whispers—the further we get from the source, the less likely we are able to preserve the original meaning without distortion.

This is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the verifiability of sources. "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." [5] Craig Smith is very partisan; all his articles by this era had become propaganda pieces for the CCP, a fact we can easily corroborate by comparing them with scholarly accounts of Falun Gong. Given that his account is contentious (i.e. the "spawn" thing, and the idea that people of mixed race are doomed without Li's intervention), we should seek an additional source on it. And since no other sources make these same claims, it shouldn't be included.

Moreover, the idea is already touched upon in the Ian Johnson quote. If you think that more needs to be said about it, you should attempt to accurately present these beliefs by first checking them against Li Hongzhi's teachings, and then refer to credible scholars of Falun Gong for insight into how to understand them. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have written thousands of pages on Falungong, but that does not mean that everything they have said should be included in this article simply because their writing it is verifiable. In determining whether this particular quote should be included, we need to ask, first, if the quote attributed to a living person is accurate; second, if it is given due weight; third, if it is relevant.

The answer to the first question is disputed, and the most inflammatory elements of the NYT article are not properly attributed. On those grounds alone, I would be reluctant to include it. To the question of due weight, we currently have two quotes in this section (one from Smith, one from Johnson) that touch on this topic, but no response from Falungong, and no evidence that this is actually notable. Which brings me to the third point of relevance. I checked Ian Johnson and David Ownby’s writings to see if they say more on this subject of mixed races, and they do not. Both only allude to the issue in passing as an example of novel Falungong beliefs, but do not return to it. Ownby devotes a lengthy chapter to exploring Falungong’s teachings, but does not think that this one is sufficiently notable to warrant any further discussion. Furthermore, this section of the page is about controversies. Craig Smith was not reporting on a controversy caused by this teaching (if anything, it seems he may have been trying to manufacture one). Aside from the fact that Falungong’s views on mixed races are antiquated and idiosyncratic, there’s nothing notable here. The single reference by Ian Johnson is certainly enough on this topic.

There is a legitimate controversy that is not currently explored in the article, which is the question of Falungong’s teachings and impacts on health. Namely, the charge that it discourages conventional medical treatment. On this topic, quite a bit has been said—not only by Falungong and PRC sources, but more importantly by academic observers. I will work on drafting this section when time allows.

Regarding the David Palmer quote, I agree with Olaf’s assessment that it was quoted in the article to convey quite a different meaning than was intended. Palmer recognizes that Falungong is loosely organised, just as do Ownby, Tong, (Susan) Palmer and others, so his statement should not be used to present the impression of dissent on that particular issue. Information from that section of Palmer could be included in a discussion of Falungong funds, but his statements should be used to explain the issue, not dramatise it.—Zujine|talk 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that an editor attempted to restore his preferred version of the page, ignoring edits that have been made in the interim, and disregarding the discussion process. In so doing, he reintroduced edits that do not seem to comport with WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP, deleted source content, and mangled some references. I restored to the last version of the page, and suggest that any potentially controversial edits be discussed on the talk page.Homunculus (duihua) 05:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring the NYT reference, considering that none of you offered concrete evidence that why it fails WP:RS, and seemed to edit upon a personal dislike of the NYT article. The controversy section was distorted to read like an apology for FLG controversies and make as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the Chinese government.--PCPP (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

PCPP, I don't like being accused of bad faith in your edit summaries. It seems that you have fallen back into your old patterns of reverting without discussion. Other editors have offered sound reasons for removing the NYT quote. In addition, you have not provided any justification for your other edits, which are problematic. A controversy section should be balanced. That is, it should present actual controversies, giving due weight, and explaining the different perspectives on those issues in accordance with their importance and value. I suggest you cool off. Homunculus (duihua) 06:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who should cool off, considering that you continued in your own pro-FLG edit-warring and seemed content in removing all critical material. All I added are sourced and verifiable materials from third parties, and you have not yet offered any concrete evidence on why they shouldn't remain. As I said, Craig Smith's article comes from a reliable source that's easily verifiable. If Ownby or Johnson disagree, then add their viewpoints instead of reverting the entire section because you dislike one change.--PCPP (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in an edit war with you. I recommend you read the above discussion for reasons why your edits and reverts were problematic. For the record, my involvement here is minimal; since your series of edits in September, other editors made changes to the page. They have discussed these changes, and in my view provided sound reasoning for partially undoing some of your edits. They also contributed some new, sourced materials. I got involved when I noticed that you had begun to revert others' contributions without discussion, which is unfortunately a familiar pattern. Homunculus (duihua) 07:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You should stop trying to paint a false picture, because all Olaf (a known FLG activist) did was revert all of my changes on the controversy section. And all your reverts has been specifically targeting my changes regardless of merits. I asked for concrete evidence on why the NYT article should be removes, and so far you haven't provided any.--PCPP (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see there that PCPP made several reversions in order to restore his version of the page. It took some time, but I parsed through the differences between his version and the one that he kept reverting:

1.The most obvious difference is that PCPP’s version claims, without attributing a primary source, a disputed claim that Falungong believes people of mixed-race are the “spawn” of the Dharma ending period. The secondary source that is used as reference does not properly attribute this wording either; it is the interpretation of the author masquerading as a quotation, and thus fails verifiability policy for quotations from living persons. If it were changed to read “Craig Smith believes that Falungong teaches mixed-race children are the spawn of the Dharma ending period,” it would satisfy WP:RS, but serious questions as to its notability, neutrality, and compliance with other policies would remain.

2.He changed this sentence:

The view that Falun Gong is a cult, widely used as part of Chinese state propaganda against the practice and adopted by some members of the anti-cult movement, is mostly rejected by mainstream scholarship.

to this:

The Chinese government's view that Falun Gong is a destructive cult, widely used as part of Chinese state propaganda against the practice, is largely criticized by mainstream Western scholarship, while a minority of members of the anti-cult movement claimed that Li meets their definition of a manipulative cult leader.

These sentences essentially say the same thing, and both allude to this small minority of anti-cult activists who see Falungong as a cult (in the pejorative sense). Yet the sentence structure employed in PCPP’s version places emphasis on the views of the non-scholarly minority, while skirting over the academic consensus. Alone, this is a pretty minor issue, but it seems that PCPP’s version fails WP:UNDUE, and is part of a broader pattern to try to undermine scholarly consensus when it does not comport with the perspective of Falun Gong’s critics.

3. The previous version of the page included this sentence on the entomology and usage of the Chinese term “xiejiao,” or evil religion:

In the context of imperial China, the term "xiejiao" was used to refer to non-Confucian religions, though in the context of Communist China, it has been used to target religious organizations which do not submit to the authority of the Communist Party.[192][193]

PCPP has removed this three times now, without explanation.

4. PCPP rearranged the order and wording on two paragraphs discussing the issue of Falungong’s practice fees (or lack thereof) and how much money Li Hongzhi made. It looks like both versions are more or less the same in terms of content and references, though he did remove the sentence that, I think, provided a better introduction to the subject. I don’t think there’s anything untoward here, other than a preference for his version.

5. To a discussion of whether or not Falungong is organised, PCPP added several sources that would appear to support the Chinese government’s (mostly discredited) view that Falungong is highly organised, and deleted references that suggested otherwise.

He added the following from David Palmer:

Palmer writes that Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master, Li Hongzhi, "whose authority was strictly moral and ideological".[85]

These quotes are correct, they do belong to Palmer, and Palmer is a good source on Falungong. The problem, which myself and Olaf pointed out, is that the Palmer quote is being misused here. It is nestled between Falungong’s claims of having no formal organisation or hierarchy and the consensus of other scholars that Falungong’s organisation is minimal. By placing it in this position, it is made to give the impression that Palmer is dissenting. If you actually read this page of his book, however, you see that he is not. I actually think some more of this material from Palmer should be included on the page, but this wasn’t the appropriate place for it, so Olaf and Homunculus removed it, and PCPP thrice restored it without answering to the concerns raised by others.

PCPP’s version also added a description of Falungong’s organisation from the state-run People’s Daily, and added another source describing the increasingly “militant” (militant how?) nature of Falungong’s locally autonomous groups in response to an escalation of tensions from the Chinese state. The second source, like the Palmer reference, could be put to good use on this page, but probably not where it is now. The People's Daily source is not inappropriate here, as it is describing the Chinese government's position, but the decision to include it is again part of a pattern of POV editing.

His version did include a good summary quote from James Tong. But he also deleted a different, equally a important quote from Tong, as well deleting two other sources without explanation. PCPP deleted the very plain assertion from David Ownby and Susan Palmer (which is also supported by Tong, David Palmer, Porter, and others) that Falungong is not highly organised or hierarchical. That one sentence came the closest to encapsulating the scholarly consensus on this topic. By deleting these sources and adding in several others to support the opposing view, PCPP has substantially changed the meaning of this section in a direction that goes against the scholarly consensus. (On a side note, there is already a section in the article on Falun Gong's organisation. Isn't that enough?)

6). As described in point #1, PCPP added a disputed account of Falungong beliefs written by Craig Smith. I won’t repeat what I said above, but one thing strikes me as interesting here. Craig Smith’s statement included, within it, a properly attributed quotation from Li Hongzhi. It also included Smith’s own, inflammatory paraphrasing of Falungong beliefs. What is interesting is that, in his last revert, PCPP decided he needed to leave in Smith’s paraphrasing—which is considerably more offensive—but not the actual, attributed quote to Li Hongzhi. This does not seem like the behaviour of an editor interested in following policy or accurately presenting this topic, but rather serves only to sensationalise the group's beliefs.

7. The previous version of the page included the following:

In discussing the portrayal of Falun Gong as “anti-gay,” Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

It was hard to see from the diff what PCPP did to this statement, but I am always up for a good game of ‘spot the difference.’ He decided to remove “Buddhism”, leaving only Abrahamic religions behind. The original text to which this is attributed does includes Buddhism.

8. The previous version of the page included a request for citation from the following statement:

Li maintains that mankind has been destroyed 81 times, and, according to some interpretations, that another round of destruction may be imminent.

PCPP removed the citation request, but did not provide a reference. He did add in two other opinions on the question of whether Falungong contains an apocalyptic message (as the Chinese government purports, and Falungong denies), both of which indirectly seem to endorse the Chinese government position.

This is a pretty exhaustive summary of the changes PCPP has been edit waring to preserve. His current version is what is on the page now because other editors are evidently less willing to hit “undo” repeatedly. I hope this is helpful to anyone looking in on this discussion, and I hope that PCPP can—without resorting to personal attacks or accusations of bad faith—answer for each of these edits.—Zujine|talk 21:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1) The Dharma Ending Period statement is widely quoted and is not something made up by Smith and the NYT. For example, C. Schafferer "Understanding modern East Asian politics" P.94 - "Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading us to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the "Dharma ending period" of "the apocalypse", "the Great Havoc", and the "end times" (mojie).

2)So? If anything, my addition certainly improved the intro, and noted which cult crtics made the statements, whereas the previous version dismissed that any criticism of FLG are Chinese propaganda. Furthermore, the wording it complete inapppriate for a criticism section, and reads like a FLG apology piece. What you're doing here is simply lawyering with Wikipedia guidelines and synthesize a claim about "academic consensus".

3)The Xiejiao claim was moved because it covered in the speculation section.

4)More nitpicking. I don't need an analysis from you of ever word I change.

5)Since when is the FLG "organization" decredited? By you? Here's another source on FLG's organization: S. O'Leary, "Falun Gong and the Internet", "Yet, although the attempt to depict Falun Gong as a non-political, non-religious group appears rather convincing, the fact remains that it is a massive group that is organized, though perhaps not in a clear, structured fashion... One comes away from the various Falun Gong Web sites groups with a distinct impression of an effective global network that is indeed organized and connected by virtue of the Internet."[6]

6)Sorry, You still have not demonstrated how Smith engaged in "inflammatory paraphrasing" despite your empty rhetorics. NYT is a reliable source, full stop.

7)Wow, I removed an extra word! Alert the presses!

8)Li's '81 times' claim has been widely reported and sourced. B. Penny "The rast, present and future of Falun Gong", "Li says, ‘I made a careful investigation once and found that humankind has undergone complete annihilation 81 times’. Several times in his writings, Li says that we are living in the ‘last days of Last Havoc’, the last of three phases of evolution of the universe, and that he has chosen this time to make Falun Gong public."

I added the changes because the previous version is frankly contains no controversy whatsoever, and contains carefully plucked sources to paint a picture as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the Chinese government, which clearly violates NPOV. Furthermore, I am simply defending my right to edit Wikipedia, as Olaf has completely reverted the controversy section and Homunculus seems content in engaging in edit warring.--PCPP (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much stuff to review now, but for now:

1) secondary sources > primary sources. And oral quotes from Li are of course not going to appear in the written material, unless all his discourses are transcribed in that material. And, just like the sources, it should specify that those were things said by Li in discourses, not written down stuff.

3) the speculation section doesn't mention the original meaning of "xiejiao" anywhere, and the controversie section looks like the most adequate place for explaining the original meaning of that word, and it is important to distinguish between the traditional and the modern meaning of the word, PPCC, I think that either it should be restored where it was, or it should be moved to the speculation section, probably after the sentence that says "any group that does not come under the control of the Party"

7) errr, can't we simply restore "Buddhism" and get on with it? I mean, if it really appears in the source (which I haven't checked) then it should also be there. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have put back the "xiejiao" definition and readded "Buddhism" per Enric's suggestions.--PCPP (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ceding some ground here, but this solution does not address some of the more significant problems PCPP's edits introduced, such as the removal of three reliable sources, removal of the citation request (which referred to the second part of the statement, not the first, I believe), the misuse of the Palmer quote, and the disputed Craig Smith quote which, again, seems to violate verifiability policy for quotations from living persons (among others). There are some instances where primary sources are better than secondary sources, and quotations is one of them.

I don't expect that PCPP is himself going to make these changes, so I will prepare a version that I hope will be somewhat agreeable to all (or somewhat disagreeable to all, maybe). I also intend to move out the discussion on organisation, and put any valuable information into the main section on Falungong organisation where it was originally.—Zujine|talk 22:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is funny—I came here to say that I was pleased to see some earnest collaboration to resolve the issue, but then I noticed that PCPP reverted again.Homunculus (duihua) 05:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted that Zujine engaged in deceptive editing and reverted back to his preferred version while a discussion is going on. Again, he is trying to portray as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Poster in media campaign section

Do people want to keep the poster that is currently in the media campaign section ? If so, it needs a fair use rationale as the image only has one for the Persecution of Falun Gong article at the moment. I would like to replace the image with a color version too. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Attributing the Persecution

Hi Sean, regarding your attribution of the persecution to Falun Gong practitioners, as I understand that you did here [7], I wonder if it is fair. Because saying this would imply that Falun Gong practitioners consider the attitude of the Chinese government as being persecution, and not something that is objectively happening, while the "Amnesty International Report 2011" states: "The authorities renewed the campaign to “transform” Falun Gong practitioners, which required prison and detention centres to force Falun Gong inmates to renounce their beliefs. Those considered “stubborn,” that is, those who refuse to sign a statement to this effect, are typically tortured until they co-operate; many die in detention or shortly after release." [8] As I see it this amounts to both persecution and genocide. Don't you agree? Thank you in advance :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Who are we trying to be fair to, Falun Gong, the CPC or the readers ? I don't think it's Wikipedia's place (or consistent with NPOV) to takes sides and tell readers that it is "persecution" (or "genocide") as a matter of objective unattributed fact using Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice when those descriptions would be disputed by something a significant as the Chinese Government. Amnesty and other human rights groups (whose efforts around the world I wholeheartedly support by the way just to declare any possible conflict of interest on my part) don't define objective reality anymore than the CPC from our Wikipedia editor perspective. It's certainly been described as persecution amongst many other terms by many sources but we're supposed to be impartial and just describe disputes rather than participate in them. When we use value-laden labels like "persecution" without attributing the opinion I think we cross a line and start partipating in the advocacy efforts of Falun Gong, Amnesty etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind telling that to Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Copts, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of people with albinism, Persecution of Ahmadis, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and the editors of other similarly named articles on Wikipedia? After you've done that, whether Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted in China is still not a matter of opinion or viewpoint. Torture, severe mistreatment, extrajudicial punishments and the extraconstitutional "610 office" amount to that by definition. No serious scholar on Falun Gong has ever claimed otherwise. Yes, we're trying to be fair to the readers. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV compliance doesn't allow for the exclusion of prominent viewpoints in a dispute. The Chinese government would dispute that description and their view can't be ignored whether we like it or not. We're required to be impartial, it's mandatory. Attributing loaded terms is necessary and routine. It simply makes it clear who's using the term. The term is still there. Regarding the other articles, your request is duely noted although I have to say I don't really appreciate your tone. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The stance of the Chinese Communist Party is a fringe view that serves to advance their persecutory agenda. Yes, we can say that the Chinese government doesn't regard it as a persecution, but placing this viewpoint at par with more reliable (scholarly) views is just another instance of "he says/she says" type of unproficient journalism. [9] There are people who deny the Holocaust, including some high-profile Iranian authorities. Wikipedia does not work that way. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Chinese government's preferred term is 斗争 (struggle/battle, used specifically in the context of mass political campaigns to denounce a particular group). Other preferred wording adopted by the Chinese government with reference to the campaign against Falun Gong include "eliminate" and "exterminate." The process of extrajudicial imprisonment and coercion is "transformation through reeducation." Oh, and according to the Chinese state media, people who practice Falun Gong are not quite human; I believe they are, instead "like rats running across the street, in need of extermination." Should we be sure to give credence to this, lest we omit an important viewpoints? Probably not, just as the Iranian regime cannot be allowed to hold definitional power over Baha'is.

Let's not waste time with Orwellian language games. I'm pretty sure this question has been litigated before, with the conclusion being that we should describe things as they are described by the preponderance of reliable sources. In this particular case, it's fine to use "suppression" or "campaign," though alternatives can also include "crackdown" or "persecution", the latter being a common description given by neutral sources. These terms can be used interchangeably. We should stay away from genocide, unless we are discussing the views of specific sources who have used the term.Homunculus (duihua) 15:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The agenda of the CCP isn't relevant to content decisions like this but their stance clearly is because they are a prominent party to the dispute that can't be dismissed as fringe. I didn't say that we should put it on a par. I said that we are required to factor in prominent views to ensure NPOV compliance. I know how Wikipedia works. We are talking about the use of loaded terms in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Attributing loaded terms like "persecution" to ensure NPOV compliance is not the same as giving undue weight to those who deny the meticulously researched historical fact that millions of people were systematically murdered in the Holocaust. Should we be concerned about the use of loaded terms in this article. Let's look at the Amnesty report The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called "heretical organizations", a report by an organization whose only job it is to advocate of behalf of people facing human rights abuses. It has 17942 words with 3 instances of "persecu". This article, which is about Falun Gong in general in an encyclopedia with a mandatory neutrality policy, has 18066 words with 9 instances of "persecu" and another 5 if you include references. Seems odd, no ? Something is wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you check out the article Bahá'í Faith. It is, to my knowledge, the only page on a major religion that has achieved featured article status. Although it is considerably shorter than this page, the text of the article contains 11 unqualified instances of persecuted/persecute/persecution (2 more than this page!). Persecution is not necessarily a loaded term. It is a common word with a clear definition, and the treatment of Falun Gong by Chinese authorities very clearly satisfies that definition, according to more reliable sources than we can count.Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, actually if you recall I was contesting the fairness of your attribution, because done like that can be misleading, and that actually fails the spirit of WP:NPOV because it is introducing a bias, by assuming that it's only practitioners who view it as a persecution. So as I see it WP:NPOV requires fair presentation of all view points, so I would include both CCP's view point, that it considers Falun Gong practitioners to be subhuman worthy to be punished for their faith (please help me out here with a quote) as well as the fact that the Argentine judge Octavio Araoz de Lamadrid after studying the matter for 4 years arrived at the conclusion that the Chinese communist government actions are "The genocidal strategy" with “The designated purpose - the eradication of Falun Gong"[10]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

Yea, this is what happens when we obfuscate on simple matters. Now it's even more complicated. I am going to change to "suppression," and assume that's agreeable to everyone (correct me if I'm wrong).Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Persecution is the semantically correct, most accurate term to describe what is beyond any reasonable doubt happening to Falun Gong practitioners in China. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Olaf, it is still referred to as a persecution in several other places. As I said, I think these terms can be used interchangeably. Moreover, the persecution is described at some length on the page, so I don't think you need to be concerned that anyone will fail to get the point. I trust that most readers can tell the difference between state-santioned torture and a pleasant stroll through the park. Fair enough?Homunculus (duihua) 16:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Text

I would just make the change myself, but this page seems heavily contested. In the Falun_Gong#Organization section it has this text twice.

To start the section off:

"Falun Gong embraces a minimal organizational structure, and does not have a rigid hierarchy, physical places of worship, fees, or formal membership.[53] In the absence of membership, Falun Gong practitioners can be anyone who chooses to identify themselves as such, and practitioners are free to participate in the practice and follow its teachings as much or as little as they like.[54] Falun Gong also does not accept or solicit donations, has no initiation rituals, and no constitution or governing documents, aside from the teachings themselves.[55]"

And then in a paragraph below it:

"According to Anthropologist Noah Porter, Falun Gong embraces a minimal organizational structure, and does not have a rigid hierarchy, physical places of worship, fees, or formal membership.[53] In the absence of membership, Falun Gong practitioners can be anyone who chooses to identify themselves as such, and practitioners are free to participate in the practice and follow its teachings as much or as little as they like.[61]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booster4324 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch.Homunculus (duihua) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a dispute over inclusions of material in the Controversy paragraph. Specifically, should a New York Times article be used [11] on controversy over interracial children and the "Dharma Ending Period".--PCPP (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll summarise my previous objection again here. The problem, in my view, is that Smith's statement is part quote from Li Hongzhi, and part his own sensationalised paraphrase of Li Hongzhi. The former is properly attributed, and the latter (which you are pushing to include) is not. Another editor, who has a deeper familiarity with Falungong doctrine than either of us, has said that Smith's paraphrase is invalid, and does not reflect Falungong beliefs. He referred you to the policy on identifying reliable sources, which states "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source."

The part of the Craig Smith quote that you have been edit waring to include is not properly attributed to the primary source, is disputed, and is not corroborated by any other, neutral scholar on Falungong. Therefore, it does not appear to satisfy the above criteria. The way you have currently written it in the article does not even include an inline citation, let alone a rebuttal or anything else that could possibly redeem it as NPOV. If you wish to discuss Falungong's views on the Dharma ending period, there is a separate paragraph at the end of the section that addresses it, but you could certainly find higher quality sources.

My other concern, which I raised previously, is whether this is notable as a controversy. It seems to me to be merely an expression of novel Falungong beliefs, about which almost nothing is written in academic discourse on Falungong, and around which there are no real world controversies.—Zujine|talk 06:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. The "Dharma Ending Period" and proported apocalyptic messages of FLG has been debated since it was banned by the PRC government. Per WP:PRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

New York Times falls under WP:RS, and you have not demonstrated nor provided evidence on why the claim is disputed by other authors. An attribution to primary source, as you claimed, is certainly not needed.--PCPP (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Include Smith's statement. Correct preference is being given to secondary sources here. Zujine, if you have a "rebuttal" from a "neutral scholar" (implying that the NYT journalist is biased against Falun Gong is a BLP attack by the way), then include it, but a lack of such a rebuttal does not mean the information is false. Additionally, this information is appropriate for the controversy section because its premise is explaining the controversy about why some people think this group is "worth dying for" and why others think "its followers are misled and its leader deluded" with reference to relevant beliefs and teachings. Quigley (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The dispute here is not about the "Dharma Ending period", as PCPP is trying to claim. Li Hongzhi's teachings contain multiple references to that period of time, and it is a very well-known concept in practically all Buddhist traditions. The sole concern is whether Craig Smith has misquoted Li Hongzhi and/or placed his words out of relevant context. Wikipedia policies clearly indicate that primary sources are the best sources about these sources themselves. Of course, this should be self-evident to any reasonable person. Again, "the accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." [12]

As we can conclusively prove that the teachings of Falun Gong do not talk about interracial children being the "spawn" of the Dharma Ending period and other stuff like that, Craig Smith's words amount to none, especially since there are no secondary sources who would corroborate his claim. We cannot say that Falun Gong teaches something if it doesn't. There's no wikilawyering around that. This is not an analysis of Falun Gong's teachings but an alleged quote that can be easily checked against Li Hongzhi's lectures, meaning that the primary source takes precedence over any secondary source per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the lecture and question being referred to in the NYT article is "Question: Can you say a little more about the interracial children?" Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have no objection to accurately summarising what has been said there. (Our readers may also be interested in the fact that Falun Gong practitioners are in no way forbidden from marrying a person of another race and having children with him or her. This is also contained in the lectures, and I'll find you a reference. On a personal note, I've never met more Chinese-Caucasian couples and their kids than among practitioners of Falun Gong.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for providing the original source. As Olaf said, Craig Smith's wording that PCPP has fought to preserve (ie. "spawn") is nowhere found in the primary source. I'll propose a solution here (Olaf, please tell me if my summary is acceptable from your perspective). How about something to the effect of "Li Hongzhi posits in his teachings that there are distinct heavens for people of different races, and as such, "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." In a lecture to his students in Australia, Li describes interracial children as a phenomenon unique to the Dharma ending period, an era of moral decline described in Buddhist scriptures, but adds "If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault...If you want to practice cultivation, I can help." Homunculus (duihua) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Your version seems to accurately paraphrase Li's words in that lecture and leaves no room for (un)intentional obfuscation. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm glad that's satisfactory. The religion project has a draft policy proposal which, although not yet finalized, is helpful in the matter. With respect to criticisms of religions, it stipulates that "All critical comments should be thoroughly discussed on talk pages with both adherents and non-adherents participating to achieve the most neutral and fair wording possible. WP:Assuming good faith is as important during these discussions as anywhere else in Wikipedia." It also states that "Minor criticisms must be carefully considered before inclusion as to their notability and provenance and should never be afforded equal weight with more notable and substantial criticisms." I think this is useful when reviewing PCPP's dozens of other contributions as well, in which he added (ever without discussion) numerous other criticisms of Falun Gong whose objectivity and notability may be disputed. But I shall leave dealing with those for another day. What a saga.Homunculus (duihua) 21:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly just an ideological war, the same ideological war that has been fought in the last five years or so and never got resolved. I applaud all of you for your persistence, but I do suggest (with all due respect) that the involved editors all leave this page, pass this entire article to a totally neutral third party, and let them take it from here. Colipon+(Talk) 02:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, Colipon, but it's worth noting that the page was stable and the discussions civil for a good long while before PCPP returned. I have said in other forums, and I will say again, that the only way for these pages to be constructive and neutral is for editors to work in good faith, and engage in substantive discussions of content, not ideology or ad hominem accusations of bias. I continue to have full faith that this is possible.Homunculus (duihua) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Homunculus, conversations are bound to be stable and civil when everyone out of lockstep with the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" is driven away or banned at AE. Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war. Quigley (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Olaf's claims are completely invalid here, it refers to quoting people directly in Wikipedia articles, and not when the quote is mentioned in a reliable secondary source. What you're essentially doing is Original research.--PCPP (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How does "Democrat sympathy" turn into "lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies"? How has the U.S. government subsidised Falun Gong and what independent source has made such allegations? Of course, no neutral commentators have ever claimed that Falun Gong has an anti-gay social agenda, nor is there anything in Li Hongzhi's teachings that would support such claims. If the readers are left with that impression, there's foul play involved. How practitioners are supposed to act if they want to practice cultivation is another matter, and Falun Gong's outlook on some aspects of sexuality is definitely quite conservative, which makes it no different from many religious traditions.

I remember how the article used to be in a very bad shape because of ideological struggle. Apart from some very few exceptions over the past 5 years, there have been no "totally neutral third parties" involved. It is nothing but a pipe dream to wish that such editors would suddenly appear and edit these articles from some Archimedean point. I, for one, have not been actively involved for quite some time, and the article probably doesn't contain a single sentence I wrote. On the other hand, no matter who's been most active and whether they have been Falun Gong practitioners or not, I've always seen the same people complaining that the article does not read like a tabloid exposé of "the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's [alleged] teachings".

In addition to Falun Gong practitioners and NGOs, it is in the interests of scholars, researchers, students and philanthropists to keep these articles clean, informative and accurate. That's why only the best sources will do, and that's why we cannot make allegations about teachings that do not exist or are placed in a false context. That's why we are debating over and over again. I, for one, have a professional education in this field of studies, and many other editors probably have an academic background as well. Who thought it would be easy? It's not hard only because there are sympathisers and antagonists of Falun Gong, but because this discussion page is a microcosm of the corpus of Falun Gong literature debating with itself. The arguments need to be waterproof. No use complaining if there are pinholes all over.

And PCPP... no, it refers to the accuracy of the original quote and whether it has been used correctly. I ask you to read the bolded text once again. It's not ambiguous in any way.✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And no, I think YOU are the one who should reread the page:

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)

What you are doing here is Original Research, don't pretend otherwise.--PCPP (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This comes after the quote has been validated as correct. The Wikipedia policies do not function independently of each other. Craig Smith is not analysing or interpreting the material; he claims Li said this, whereas we can unambiguously check that what he said was slightly different. As I said earlier, I have no objection to mentioning the mixed race issue, as long as we don't distort Li's words. If all comes down to what he's said, there's no wikilawyering around the fact that we need to check what he's said and stick to that. (How many more truisms do I need to write today?) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to disregard the red herrings that now litter this discussion, and recap. The original Craig Smith quote was not a scholarly interpretation of Li Hongzhi's writing; it was a half quote, half paraphrase that Smith attributed to Li Hongzhi. PCPP did not appear to care about having the actual quote in the article; he was fighting to include Craig Smith's paraphrase, which was inflammatory and of disputed accuracy. Given that "the accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted", Sean and Homunculus referred to the primary source. The conclusion was that Smith's paraphrase was not accurate. Homunculus proposed a summary of Li Hongzhi's actual words, which Olaf (who is now our only resident expert on Falungong teachings) found agreeable.

PCPP has tried to argue that Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. In general, this is true, but an exception holds when a primary source is describing what the primary source says; in that case, primary sources are superior. PCPP then tried to argue that Homunculus's summary was original research. I would ask him to reead the original research policy; Homunculus was not offering an original interpretation of the primary source, but was quoting and carefully summarising it. This is not in violation of WP:No original research I would also note that the guideline PCPP highlighted itself recommends using additional secondary sources to ensure that there are no novel interpretations of primary sources (by secondary sources). Craig Smith's paraphrase was, evidently, a novel and sensationalised reading of Li Hongzhi's original statement, and his reading is not supported by Falungong experts (in fact, Falungong scholars don't seem to care much about these teachings at all). This is to be expected; Smith is a journalist with his own point of view, not a scholar of religion or an expert on Falungong. We do not have any other, neutral and scholarly sources who would corroborate Smith's paraphrase, and it has now been definitively shown to be wrong through a comparison with the primary source. It simply cannot be included.

Now, my comment: I am glad that Homunculus and Olaf tried to hash out a solution, and if it turns out that mine is a lone voice in the wilderness, I would support their proposal as a middle ground. But I still don't see the notability. PCPP appears to have thrown onto the page every critical statement he could find about Falungong (and rejects any attempt to discuss the neutrality or due weight that should be accorded to these things). Yet he has not explained why Falungong's views on race and heaven are a notable controversy. All religions have novel beliefs that some people will invariably find strange or unappealing, but the presence of these beliefs does not, itself, make a 'controversy.' If that were the case, the article on Judaism would have a lengthy criticism section about the implausibility of auto-combusting bushes. To Quigley, your first statement suggests that Smith's interpretation is germane because it illuminates the question of whether Falungong's leader is deluded. That is not at all the question here, and it is not the place of an encyclopedia article to weigh in on the validity of religious beliefs. WP:Criticisms emphasis the importance of not overemphasising criticisms or controversy, but that is exactly what is happening here.—Zujine|talk 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just been watching, not writing. I'll make one observation on the behavior of the editors. It looks to me like there are some neutral editors (Homunculus, Zujine, Sean Hoyland) who seemed to be engaged in substantive discussions and are willing to collaborate and compromise while being civil. They have different points of view on the subject, but their engagement with the discussion is fair, at least as far as I see it. Then, there are then some editors who are intent mainly on making attacks and accusations against others, which ends up derailing the discussions with politically and ideologically charged rhetoric, and remarks that don't seem to have anything to do with the content on the page (i.e. Quigley, Colipon, PCPP). Isn't Wikipedia meant to be edited by consensus? I would consider getting involved and editing if it did not seem so political. I'm not familiar with the policy, precisely, that decides what is included, but if there are serious and legitimate disputes about content, shouldn't they be discussed before changes are forced onto the page? That's all. --69.181.25.248 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes more faith than I have to handle the cognitive dissonance of denouncing the "political" atmosphere of the Falun Gong pages, and then immediately separating users into imagined cliques to attack one of the groups. There is no diversity in viewpoints among a group of users who agree that replacing clear secondary source analysis with such primary quotes as "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." improves the article. There's a good reason why Wikipedia doesn't allow Bible or Quran verses as direct references.

No proposals have been put forth to discuss the metaphysics of the Dharma Ending Period, so Zujine's burning bushes analogy is inappropriate. There is only a proposal to include (to restore, really) a conservative amount of secondary source analysis of the doctrines that make Falun Gong controversial. If any of you have relevant rebuttals by "neutral scholars" who you say help vindicate your cause, then include them. But to suppress or obfuscate this essential component of a thorough encyclopedic article on the movement is only a recipe for more edit-warring. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I provided the primary source above because I wanted to verify for myself that the quoted material in the NYT article, "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven", was accurate. It was accurate or at least it was consistent with that source. It doesn't mean I care about the primary source or even regard it necessarily as a reliable source for what Li said. The secondary source takes precedence, that is the source being quoted and the NYT is an RS for what living people have said. It's use is consistent with mandatory policies WP:V and WP:BLP no matter what the content guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says about quotations. When editors argue at length to exclude a report in the New York Times from an article covered by discretionary sanctions because they disagree with the way the journalist interpreted and presented the information available to them, even describing it as a propaganda piece for the CCP, inflammatory, not notable etc, there is a problem. Would any of us have written the article in the NYT using the same terminology and interpretation ? Probably not but it doesn't matter, we aren't RS. We can discuss details about wording, attribution, rebuttals etc but excluding material from the NYT is not an option that policy minded editors have available to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows that NYT is a 'reliable source' by Wikipedia standards. It all comes down to the fact that we're dealing with an inaccurate description of what has verifiably been said by a living person. Moreover, the relevant policies state:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." (WP:BLP)
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." (WP:V)
"Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: [...] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended" (WP:V)
"Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." (WP:V)
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:NPV)

Of course, we could write, "Craig Smith claims Li Hongzhi says... [...] Li Hongzhi says...". In my view, that wouldn't make much sense from an encyclopaedic perspective. While I do not personally oppose the inclusion of the subject matter as long as it's handled accurately, other editors have discussed its significance, and I would also like to see authoritative Falun Gong scholars mentioning the mixed race issue as a notable controversy. I'm not talking specifically about this case, but in general terms, if we wish to have a stable article in the future, we ought to take care that the isolated views and opinions of individual authors or journalists are not given disproportionate weight. So much has been said and written about Falun Gong; it simply would not work if we littered the page with quotes and analysis and views from anyone and everyone, necessitating massive quantities of inline citations and point, counterpoint, counter-counterpoint arguments. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an argument when a newspaper obviously gets a quote from a religious person wrong, and you can prove it to be wrong. Use the correct quote. How do you think the NYT reporter got the quote? Did he attend the lecture in person? Obviously he also got it online, but didn't pay enough attention and made his own interpretation. The correct source should be used. What's happening on this page is strange. Noting the below restriction on anonymous IPs, I am now going to create an account and begin directly participating in the proceedings. By the way, according to the history, editor PCPP made a series of changes that appear to be related directly to the current controversy. Should they not be reversed while this is discussed, or something? Why has no one done that? --69.181.25.248 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm somebody. I believe the appropriate weight to this could simply be discovered from how much it is mentioned in academic papers and books on the subject. One of you will surely have copies of the books listed there, or other books. How many times are Li's racial views noted, how much? Why doesn't the page just look at that and roughly follow it. Argument solved? And for the actual question here: Why is this journalist's sloppy interpretation being used, rather than a reputable scholar on the subject providing a disinterested analysis of Li's views?? Are we saying that this does not exist? Can anyone fill me in? Just drop Smith and use the best professor on the topic. The information gets covered, the needless controversy avoided. Unless I'm missing something. Help.--CommunicatorExtraordinaire (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement that is currently in the article, which PCPP has been edit warring to defend, reads as follows: "Falun Gong's conservative moral teachings have attracted some controversy in the West [...] as well as its views on interacial children, which are described as the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period'... This clearly violates the WP:RS guideline as well as multiple policies, as Olaf pointed out. Even if it had an inline citation and was qualified as the opinion of Craig Smith, if it was presented conservatively and fairly as WP:BLP requires, and even if it was compared with the actual statements from Li Hongzhi as WP:V suggests it would have to be, it would still fail WP:NPV. So would almost all the other things PCPP has added to the page without discussion. No one has yet demonstrated that there is a substantial controversy over the issue of Falungong's beliefs on race, and mainstream scholars of Falungong do not ascribe importance to this issue either as a controversy or as a part of Falungong's philosophy. I really don't know what more needs to be said here. The quote is not properly attributed, it is being given inordinate weight, and it is demonstrably incorrect when compared to the actual primary source it purports to be representing. —Zujine|talk 16:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you continue to lawyer and yet still haven't pointed out the relevant policies. New York Times is a major newspaper and is a reliable source, and you still haven't provided any contradicting evidence on which they are described otherwise. And this article isn't under WP:BLP, as the comments aren't personal attacks on Li, but relevant controversies relating to the practice.--PCPP (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Olaf has clearly stated the policies and guidelines that you contravened with your addition of this and several other items, yet you appear to be refusing to get the point. For your convenience, I will post some of the relevant policies and guidelines below. Given that you are the one insisting that the content be in the article, it seems to me that the burden of arguing for its compliance with policies is on you. Per the policies below, I am going to provide a proper inline citation, and a rebuttal, in order to bring it in line with WP:V. The NPV issue of due weight is still likely going to be a problem, however, as it is for much of the other content you added from marginal scholars and journalists.

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." (WP:BLP)
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." (WP:V)
"Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: [...] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended" (WP:V)
"Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." (WP:V)
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:NPV)
"The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source."(WP:RS)

The statement that you put in the article 1) does not have an inline citation, in contravention of WP:V. 2) It is a statement made by an isolated reporter, and is neither corroborated by or found to be notable by reputable scholars on the subject. Inclusion, therefore, seems to contravene WP:NPV. 3) It does not present the statement by a living person in a responsible, impartial tone, contravening WP:BLP; and 4)It is a paraphrase of a quote attributed to a primary source, but the primary source does not contain the wording. The WP:RS guideline says it should be quoted directly from the primary source. Is that clear enough? Can you explain now why this statement should be considered notable? Homunculus (duihua) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we missing the point a bit ? When Smith says "He said interracial children are the spawn of..." it's just Smith's interpretation not a quote. It's his version of the actual quote "All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period."[13] We don't have to use the word "spawn" (although it's harmless and presumably just means a large number of offspring in the case). It seems to me that the more pertinent points in the NYT article, pertinent to this article, were the actual (and accurate) quote The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven.[14] and Smith's interpretation "As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention." I assume that is derived from the lecture statement "This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved." Again, we don't have to use Smith's words but we should be able to convey the same information, Smith's interpretation attributed to him. It's the NYT. It's inherently notable. I've never seen an argument to exclude an NYT report in all of my years editing Wikipedia. I don't buy the arguments being made here because I don't see this material as particularly negative. It's just interesting and pertinent information from a prominent RS. It's not even presented in a negative way in the NYT article. It's presented as "this is how it is" according to Smith. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sean, what did you think of my proposal earlier in this thread to actually just quote Li Hongzhi (see my proposed wording above). This would seem to accomplish the goal of conveying the meaning, and is furthermore is in keeping with WP:RS while avoiding the problems Smith's wording raised with respect to WP:BLP and WP:V. (By the way, in response to PCPP, quoting from Li Hongzhi and judiciously summarizing his statement is not original research, because it is not an original interpretation. A primary source can and should be used to explain what the primary source says about itself). That solution would be at least satisfactory to myself, Olaf, the new guy (CommunicatorExtraordinaire), and maybe by half of Zujine.

As to WP:NPV, however, Zujine does make a good point that this is not considered to be a notable teaching by mainstream scholars on Falun Gong, and there does not appear to be a real controversy, either. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the NYT is inherently notable. Surely, we are not going to put in everything that the NYTimes has ever written about Falun Gong in this article, nor are we going to write a Wikipedia article for everything its reporters have ever said. There is a vast sea of literature on Falun Gong. It is a huge topic, and we need to exercise judgement on what opinions, ideas, and analysis are actually notable against that whole body of literature. As WP:NPV states, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Furthermore, in response to the question "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are 'always unreliable'?", the reliable source gods proclaim "No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."[15]

Anyways, I wrote about this a long time ago, but I think I'm going to write an informal proposal for how we might go about determining notability and consensus views on this topic; that seems like it might help keep this page stable in the long-term. Without that, we'll continue having folks trying to force marginal opinions by third-rate scholars into the page, even though their opinions conflict with scholarly consensus.Homunculus (duihua) 19:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Really so much fuss over nothing. Go ahead read the teachings you'll see how important this issue is, I found the word interracial it only in 3 questions/answers, and it was talking from the point of view of how heavens are structured (as far as I understood). Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Include Smith's statement; the New York Times is a reliable source, and for us to decide which Times writers are more "reliable" than others is cherry-picking.--Miniapolis (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but that doesn't answer to the set of arguments above and does not address the real bone of contention. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the question raised by the RFC, after reading the cited source.--Miniapolis (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some commentary on the internet about Falon Gong attitudes towards homosexuality and race, and some reliable sources such as the New York Times and The Independent also comment. It is appropriate that these concerns are mentioned in the article, though mentioned as neutrally as possible. It is better to avoid inflammatory language, such as "spawn". It can be helpful to include quotes if the issue is complex, notable or questionable. The current wording is:

Falun Gong's conservative moral teachings have attracted some controversy in the West, particularly its views on homosexuality, which is described as "degenerative behavior, on par with sexual promscuity,"[210]as well as its views on race. Craig Smith of the New York Times wrote in 2000 that Li Hongzhi says interracial children are "the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period,' a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration."[138] The Falun Dafa Information Center rebukes Smith's claim, stating that "no such language appears in Falun Gong's teachings."

Possible wording: Falun Gong's moral teachings have attracted some concern in the West, such as its views on homosexuality, and the children of inter-racial marriages;<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-enemy-within-the-story-of-falun-gong-475128.html |title=China's enemy within: The story of Falun Gong - Asia, World - The Independent |author=Paul Vallely and Clifford Coonan |work=[[The Independent]] |date=22 April 2006 |publisher=[[Independent News & Media|INM]] |location=[[London, UK|London]] |issn=0951-9467 |oclc=185201487 |accessdate=28 October 2011}}</ref> [138] during a lecture in Sydney Li Hongzhi said, "Things such as organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human", and "I can also save a person of mixed blood."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lectures/1996L.html |title=Lecture in Sydney |author=Li Hongzhi |work=falundafa.org |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=29 October 2011}}</ref>

I don't know how well Li Hongzhi speaks English, so it may be that he is struggling to communicate effectively - however, we have the words he said as published by Falun Gong, and two reliable and notable sources which have responded to those words. We don't need to pass judgement, or to over-emphasise the words, or attempt to explain them. Readers can follow the cites and go direct to the three sources. We remain as neutral as possible. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of solution I was aiming for. If we deem this to be notable, it could just state something like 'some journalists have noted, in particular, Li Hongzhi's teachings regarding interracial children (cite references),' and then proceed to provide a short summary of Li's teachings on the subject. I don't know if you saw my proposal above. It's more thorough than yours, but is also quite a lot longer, which may not be necessary or justifiable based on due weight:

"Li Hongzhi posits in his teachings that there are distinct heavens for people of different races, and as such, "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." In a lecture to his students in Australia, Li describes interracial children as a phenomenon unique to the Dharma ending period, an era of moral decline described in Buddhist scriptures, but adds "If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault...If you want to practice cultivation, I can help."

The official Falun Gong site here[16] gives their own summary of these teachings, which is probably more accurate than my reading. I will leave it to you to decide if you wish to modify your edit accordingly, but if you don't I think it's fine for now. One other point, though, is that you may also wish to fold the Ian Johnson quote from that paragraph into the general category of journalists who have noted this aspect of the doctrine.Homunculus (duihua) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, and the way forward is always open discussion - as civil as possible, but uncivil if that's necessary to get at the truth. It is better for us to argue bitterly among ourselves in order to hammer out a neutral, honest and accurate article, than to allow an article to remain biased out of politeness.

We are not here to put forward the case for Falun Gong; nor are we here to decry it. We simply sum up what reliable sources have said. The sources report that there is concern about Falun Gong's attitudes toward race and homosexuality. We report that, and we cite the words by the Falun Gong spokesman/leader which have given rise to that concern. It's not our role to interpret what Li Hongzhi is saying. The problem with my suggested wording, though, is that it is so short it may not fully explain the context, and may be seen as potentially negative. The explanation by Falun Gong of the situation may be considered for citing in order to provide that context, though with limited summary. Perhaps - "Falun Gong have responded by saying that they welcome homosexuals, and that many practitioners have interracial children.[17]" SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SilkTork here regarding the general issues. There seem to be two distinct questions. One of these is FG's opinions regarding interracial births, and another is about FG and homosexuality. Honestly, the position taken by FG (and as I remember stated by Li himself) is that FG is open to homosexuals, so long as they are not actively involved in homosexual activity. That position is, basically, similar to any number of other religious groups, including many Christian denominations of which I am aware. I personally don't see that the material regarding homosexuality necessarily is due any greater weight in this, the main article on the topic, than it has in similar main articles on other religious groups. The second point, about interracial children, is a bit more problematic. Based on what I have seen in the sources, I get the impression that Li is, basically, saying that individual races/ethnic groups/cultural groups each have their own "heaven"/"afterlife"/whatever, and that the specific such goal of each individal is more or less "assigned" on the basis of ethnicity. Individuals of multiethnic heritage as I remember have been said by Li to not have any "assigned" destination, and can only get one through practice of FG. I will try to find the quotes to verify as much. But, even that seems to be less about "ethnicity" than an attempt to accomodate all the multiple disputed "afterlifes" in a single faith. Their sole hope, as I can remember, is to become FG practitioners voluntarily. Doing so apparently gets both the "highest" results and it seems Li has said that FG is not weighed down by "ethnic" elements, and so it is open to all, regardless of ethnic heritage. I honestly don't know, based on the sources I've seen, whether it crosses the line of OR/SYNTH to perhaps address the matter in the article in the way I do above. I will check. But, as a general idea, I have no objections myself to SilkTork's proposal above. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Falun Gong website cited above makes an interesting distinction between the corporeal and spiritual self as it relates to this issue.Homunculus (duihua) 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose I am alone in arguing about the notability. Again, it is nice to see people working together to arrive at a solution. This section is reading much better now, but the paragraph goes back and forth between the race issue and views on homosexuality. I am going to separate the two lines of controversies. Please let me know if there is anything disagreeable in the result. On an unrelated note, PCPP added a sentence that seems to depict a conspiracy involving the 'Rachlin media group,' and cites a poorly sourced conference paper given in New Zealand. On inspection, it appears this organisation does not exist, except in the writings of this one person. It's all so strange.—Zujine|talk 14:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Include - As far as whether or not Craig Smith's article should be included in this article regarding Li's controversial statements about interracial children, clearly it has great relevancy here. Allow me to list some statements from Li's lecture that led to Smith's reasonable paraphrase, He said interracial children are the spawn of the "Dharma Ending Period":

I have already talked about such interracial children. I have only mentioned the phenomena [of interracial children] in this Dharma-ending period. If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault. Anyway, it is just such a chaotic situation brought about by mankind, in which such a phenomenon has appeared. (In other words, interracial children have caused/created/brought about, i.e. "spawned", the chaotic situation known as the Dharma-ending period, through no fault of their own, however.)
All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period. People are not to be blamed for it, because everyone is drifting in the tide, and nobody knows the truth. (The situation of mixed races is a regrettable one that people are not to be blamed for, but is simply the nature of our current situation)

According to Li, the biosphere[s] of people of different ethnicities are so incongruent that a rift is created within interracial children which can only be amended through Li's help: I can help, and I can take care of it. It cannot be done to a non-practitioner. And so, Li tells his followers that the chaotic situation brought about by mankind, that is, the situation of interracial children that are a sign of the Dharma-ending period is a solvable issue. It is wholly appropriate for the wikipedia article to make mention of these views, as we have both primary and secondary sources that describe them. Care can certainly be taken to not paraphrase Li towards any particular bias and there is no compelling reason to avoid mentioning his statements. Ender and Peter 21:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the material is certainly relevant for inclusion in wikipedia. FWIW, my own opinion is that there is probably too much attention paid to this single article, and the article itself may well be made unduly combative by a variety of people trying to get their own preferred material in the main article. I tend to think myself that, in most situations, maybe the best way to go would be to see what kind of information is placed in the main articles on a given subject in other reference works, like encyclopedias, overviews, etc., and using that information to determine what material belongs in the main article, and what in the offshoot articles. I don't know that such has necessarily been done in this case. Would anyone be interested in maybe checking to see what reference sources contain such articles, and what they do and do not discuss in their articles? John Carter (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: As I have I think said elsewhere, I have a whole slew of articles from newspapers, magazines, journals, and what have you on this subject. Somewhere around 1000 or so, I think. If any interested parties would wish me to do so, and were willing to trust, to some degree, my judgment about what articles relate to which topics, I would be more than happy to e-mail those articles to anyone requesting them. I have to stress that all of this would be, basically, dependent on my own judgment regarding the relevance of the articles to particular topics, but I have read them all and have made at least personal notes as to which of these published articles seem at least to me most relevant to the various extant and yet-to-be-created articles in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I ended up adding a portion to this article that referred to Li's lecture in Sydney which contained the contentious material Smith spoke of. I'll leave it to others to decide if they want to integrate any of Smith's other remarks here. In fact, some parts of the article already do this. I do find Smith's writing wholly relevant to this article, but his paraphrasing of "spawning", although not inaccurate, may be too negatively charged to include here. Quoting Li's views about interracial sources straight from him and neutrally reporting the nature of the controversy is a better way to go, in my opinion. As far as what "type" of sources other Wikipedia articles on religion use , it will vary widely. Since any and everyone edits good ol' Wikipedia, you'll find a diversity of approaches. The guidelines have been extremely effective in making the project an incredibly useful compendium of knowledge and information. The spirit of verifiability has been the project's greatest asset in the quest to archive scholarship. Feel free to add any information you have access to if you feel it hasn't been mentioned in this article already or you feel you can improve what's been contributed.
Ender and Peter 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Eight thousand words later, shall we call this RfC as resolved?Homunculus (duihua) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. As far as I can tell, it seems resolved. Smith's NYT article is referenced in many places (including in regards to interracial children-gate) and Li Hongzhi's words from his Sydney lecture are shared here to shed more light on where he was coming from. So, if there are no other objections, I nominate you to pull the RfC plug :-) Ender and Peter 02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Organization section

I just updated the organization section of the page, adding in a sub-section on organization within mainland China. This is one facet of Falun Gong that has been thoroughly expounded upon, and we have available to us a number of high quality, peer-reviewed academic sources that discuss the topic. Also fortunately, there is very little substantive disagreement among these scholars on the features of Falun Gong organization (reading the previous version, one might think there is a lively scholarly debate. There is not). On account of that, there is no reason why the section should rely so heavily on selective quotations and inline citations; this is not a literature review, after all. Instead, it is possible for us to make neutral, widely agreed-upon statements of fact. I hope that is what I have done here. In addition, I added a new paragraph expanding on Falun Gong organization outside China (here, I mainly drew on Burgdoff, Porter, Palmer, Ownby, and some others), and also expanded the discussion of the organizational evolution within China in the 1990s (James Tong being the authoritative source here). There is now considerably more content, but I think it's also tighter and more clearly stated than before, so the length is actually quite comparable. If anyone has a divergent interpretation of the sources or other feedback, I would be grateful to hear it. Homunculus (duihua) 05:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1RR/week restriction

Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG#Discretionary sanctions, pending final disposition of a related AE request, this article is placed under a 1RR/week restriction. All editors are restricted to one revert per rolling 168 hour period, excluding reverts of IP edits and clear vandalism. Violations of this restriction will be dealt with by escalating blocks, starting at 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The AE request has now been closed, so this restriction is lifted. T. Canens (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suppression picture

I ~~have removed~~ would remove the suppression picture if there are no objections:

While it is important to put "a human face" on the horrors of the Falun Gong suppression by the Communist Party, the photo used could not be taken as neutral; neither would just one picture be fair.
The number of secondary independent sources who published this picture is not impressive.
If the caption text is important, it should be worked into the article in text form with the Amnesty International Report 2006, China, page 90 cited as a source.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you did so I would disagree. I would reinstate it. Obviously the suppression is an important part of this story. Why should it be removed for political sensitivities? No single picture of anything would be fair. The point is that it is a representation of the subject. I'd like others' views. Your arguments don't make any sense to me. I doubt it would get you far to delete pictures of genocide on other pages, claiming that they are not neutral. Might as well delete all the descriptions of the torture etc., because that's all "not neutral." So, I disagree. --CommunicatorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute---I reread your note and my note and the page. Sorry. Your point is that there could be a better image, not that no image need be there. No one would disagree with that. Do we have a better image? PS: I put Professor Ownby as the lead reference. --CommunicatorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Falun gong in new york city.jpg - an image of Falun Gong practitioners enact torture scenes in New York City appears as a good substitution, and definitely more appropriately licensed. Would anyone object using this image instead of the current one? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's important to include images from both sides of the propaganda war. I think the current image is a good example. It comes from one of the parties involved but unfortunately it's presented as the truth via the caption. I have to say, too many people editing this article (who haven't been topic banned yet) seem to have difficulty resisting the urge to advocate on behalf of Falun Gong as far as I can tell. It's worse than the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. If that same picture were from an Amnesty/HRW report or a source like Reuters/AFP etc I would prefer to keep it (ignoring license issues that might arise). If we keep the current image sourced from the Falun Dafa Information Center I think it should be presented for what it is, part of a public relations=propaganda campaign, and attributed to source rather than using the currently synthetic connection to the Amnesty International source cited. Ideally I think it should be replaced with something similar that comes from a reliable source, something that shows the brutal reality according to Falun Gong supporters and it should be presented in that context but licensing is usually an issue. I don't have any objections to the proposed replacement though. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Sean's view. I have only seen that picture on Falun Gong websites and Falun Gong promotional pamphlets. Colipon+(Talk) 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The image is sourced to Amnesty International. Are there any objections to its being restored? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the image sourced to Amnesty ? Can you provide a link to the Amnesty source that contained that image ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My phrasing was imprecise. I should have said that Amnesty has used this picture. They made a point of highlighting Gao Rongrong's case in 2005, apparently. See the report here: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/014/2005/en and search her name. Their image function may have gone funny, because while there are spaces for her images, they are not visible (at least on my computer? YMMV?). I have seen the photo on an AI website before, though. The caption for the second invisible picture says "Gao Rongrong ten days after she was hospitalized in May 2004." Presumably it's the same image. In either case, the image is of a high-profile persecution case and is perfectly suited for exhibition on this page. Hope that helps. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that report already. The only reason I agreed to the image being replaced is that we couldn't directly connect it to an RS like Amnesty rather than just the FG advocacy site which I don't regard as an RS by itself. I can't see the images in Amnesty's PDF either. However, I can see them here in an Amnesty USA document. Here is the Wiki page in May so you can see the deleted picture. It's not exactly the same image but it's clearly the same subject in the same place showing the same injuries. That seems close enough to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the caption will need to be changed to reflect the various narratives rather than presenting the FG narrative as the truth. The other thing is perhaps we can get the exact picture AI used from the FG site so there is an exact match. I haven't looked but I assume it's available somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick point: when it comes to issues like these, FG's narrative accords with that of third parties, and third parties regard Falun Gong human rights monitoring to be more or less accurate (albeit difficult to corroborate in individual cases). It is intellectually lazy to suggest that there is an equivalence between FG and CCP narratives; what matters is truth, not false balance. When it comes to this photo, the suggestion that we need to qualify it as part of FG propaganda implies that there is reason to doubt whether the photo is real. In other words, you're essentially suggesting that there is strong reason to believe that Falun Gong (or AI, in this case) is doctoring photos—a claim that no reliable sources have made, and that we shouldn't unduly imply. Homunculus (duihua) 14:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

...But if you are simply saying that we should cite the source of the image in the caption, without our own editorializing, there can be no objection. Is that what you were aiming to do with the propaganda poster by naming the artist? If so, the artist's name is less relevant than the department that commissioned and released the image (similarly, the name of the person who photographed Gao Rongrong is less important for our purposes than the fact it was published by AI). Do we have that information? Homunculus (duihua) 15:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that anyone is doctoring photos nor am I being intellectually lazy. I'm saying that there are multiple narratives presented in the source to explain the evidence represented by the image. I'm saying that we need to comply with NPOV, a mandatory policy. When there are several narratives presented by the secondary source, which in this case there are, we need to allow the readers to see them. We can't present one without the other. As for the name of the artist, I added that simply because I think an encyclopedia should include the name of the artist when it presents their work. It's not all about the FG vs CCP wars. We're still an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will not press you on the definition of art ;) Best, Homunculus (duihua) 15:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, okay guys. Let me get a little practical. In the end we're going to have Gao Rongrong's disfigured face and a photo caption saying that this is an image taken of her after ten days in hospital, right? What are the other narratives as to how the woman's face got disfigured? In any case, the picture accompanies a report in AI that she was shocked with electric batons. I think that's sufficient. Readers will join the dots. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the AI report. AI are clearly making an effort to be neutral by using words like 'according to', 'reportedly', 'claimed' fpr both sides rather than stating things as fact. We need to use a similar approach if we are going to say anything about the injuries. In summary from the report

According to reports, ...subjected to seven hours of torture ...using electric-shock batons on Gao Rongrong’s face and neck and reportedly caused her severe blistering and difficulties with her eyesight...reportedly attempted to escape by jumping through the window of the first-floor room where she was being held, breaking several bones in her foot, leg and pelvis...According to some sources, officials at the hospital...claimed that the injuries ...were sustained when she jumped from the first-floor window

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you compare the caption that was used here "Gao Rongrong, in hospital after being tortured by Chinese security forces. Amnesty writes that officials had reportedly beaten her using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, causing severe blistering and eyesight problems. She was recaptured and died from abuse in custody" with the way AI write about it you will see why so many people were recently topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the Falun Gong activists did not see the need to provide the fig-leaf of "reportedly" whenever the torture incidents were discussed; but we should of course do that. When you stick a woman's burnt face there in the context of a known religious persecution, the term "reportedly" obviously does not mean much. But yes, we ought to keep up these appearances. (It's reported that Sean Hoyland is going to restore the image.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rwityk edits

I have reverted edits by user:Rwityk. Those changes appear massive and substantial, so might require gaining a consensus on the article talk page first. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some recent edits that involved matters of judgement about the relative importance of matters of how Falun Gong is presented in an encyclopedic treatment. Such decisions are always fraught with caveats and second-thoughts. As far as I can tell I was cleaning up some of the mess from a recent POV-war about how Falun Gong's beliefs are represented. Some of the information was incomplete or oddly sourced, leading to a skewed presentation. At least, that is the impression it gave me, and going by my memory of reading everything on this subject some years ago. My memory is not extremely fresh. One could consult with Ownby on it, I suppose, but I tried to prune what I thought were gratuitous details that had been inserted as part of making a point. I could be wrong. If there's a problem we should discuss it (said to the invisible reader). Overall a very professional treatment synthesizing a vast number of sources. People I work with get paid a lot of money to do that--and here Wikipedians are, giving it away for free. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I flipped him back as well. We should discuss the changes. I think some of them are good but that's a whole lot of new material and there are standards for inclusion; much of the information was lacking in sources, seemed a bit editorialized, or was attributed to primary sources, which are generally avoided on Wikipedia. But clearly this user is a serious contributor and I think we would all welcome a discussion of the proposed changes, and could even assist in the locating of quality secondary sources to that end. Does anyone disagree with my action and response? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I am a grad student doing a semester Wikipedia project on Chinese propaganda. I picked the FG controversy as a case study. My aim is to describe the CCP's propaganda campaign against FG, which is why I used official press releases and academic research as sources. I'm not here to make an anti-China or pro-FG point, nor am I interested in a Wiki war. I'm going to repost my changes because I'm doing a presentation tonight on my research, save a PDF of that version, and send it to my professor. So feel free to delete what I wrote after 9:30 pm EST 12-1-11. Until then, I will continue to reverse your edits. Discuss away, and Cheers! Rwityk (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your approach is baffling. Why would you insert your work into Wikipedia and then save it as a PDF and send it to your professor? Are you going to say: "Look, Prof., I got on Wikipedia!" That's not what the encyclopedia is for. Since you did not explain the problems I raised with your edits, I will assume that you do not disagree, and will revert you. Your remark above indicates that you are not interested in following the norms of this community, either, and I do not think anyone investigating an edit war that you consequently initiated would rule in your favor. In fact, tell me your professor's email and I'll let him in on this little scheme of yours. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Go easy. Rwityk, I you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, and it is apparent that you have done some good research. I think it's great that there are professors out there encouraging students to contribute in this forum, but I hope you can appreciate that your professor's likely intent is not merely to have you demonstrate that you are capable of doing some research and having it (briefly) added to the page. Rather, I'm sure he/she also hoped that you could learn about the processes, standards, and norms that govern Wikipedia. If you can successfully navigate these and add content that makes a long-term contribution to the encyclopedia, then you deserve kudos. And if you can do this on an article as historically contentious as this one, you deserve an A.

So here are a couple pointers: first, be mindful of giving due weight (see WP:NPV). You added a great deal of information to one section of the article. Doing this may be seen as giving disproportionate emphasis to one aspect of the topic. In this case, I would recommend trying to condense and summarize your contributions. You'll also want to be very picky about the quality and applicability of your sources. Your representations of the topic were rather accurate, actually, but you used quite a lot of primary source information, which should be used sparingly. To that end, you might want to see WP:V. Best of luck with your project. TheSound, if you have a chance, you might want to look at doing some general edits to the prose in that whole section. If you don't have time I'll get to it one of these days.

Oh, and a last note, there is an easier way to show your prof what you did: [18] Homunculus (duihua) 04:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My directions were to create a Wikipedia page or contribute to an existing page, on the topic of foreign propaganda. I believe I have satisfactorily completed the assignment. I'm getting the feeling that the biggest problem with my contribution is that I invaded some editors' "territory" and didn't consult with anyone before posting. So, I extend my condolences for anyone's pride that was bruised during the process, and wish the offended luck with their control complexes. Conversely, I also appreciate the sincere advice I've been given here, and if I ever get the urge to update a Wikipedia page again, I'll keep your comments in mind. 96.231.119.96 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Rwityk

No, it's because you didn't bother to check Wikipedia rules before driving your grad-student car in and doing donuts over the pages. Best wishes with your assignment. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, seems like I went from "serious contributor" to "donuts." Putting my contributions in the context of an academic assignment was an attempt to extend a courtesy to those who reverted my edits, to explain why I had to undo the reverts quickly and unceremoniously, without allowing time to observe the usual discussion protocol...especially considering the zeal with which this page is checked. I felt that to simply undo reverts without explanation was implying uniform disregard for others' opinions, which is not the case; I only mean to disregard the opinions of the unnecessarily hostile. 96.231.119.96 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Rwityk

Don't worry about it. TheSound actually didn't revert all your edits; you'll notice that quite a lot of what you contributed is still there. In the future, if you plan to make major contributions to a page—particularly one that is heavily watched or contentious—you may want to preemptively provide an explanation, and (ideally) attempt to gather consensus or suggestions. I think your edits were undone because you did not partake in this discussion for quite a long time after making substantial changes, which may have given the impression of a rogue contributor. In any case, I hope you don't let the experience sour you on Wikipedia, and if you do choose to continue to contribute, I'm happy to provide advice if you desire it. Homunculus (duihua) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

In 1992, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong and along with teachings that touched upon a wide range of topics, from detailed exposition on qigong related phenomenon and cultivation practice to science and morality. In the next few years, Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity across China to become the most popular qigong practice in Chinese History.^[1] Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science."^[2]

According to academics, Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of alternative Chinese science, not religion. The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable amount of literature. Xu Jian stated in The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999): "Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists — so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted. In it, two conflicting discourses became identifiable. Taking “discourse” in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own “truth” about the “reality” of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena. The controversy centers on the question of whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng). The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its super-normal mechanisms or which causative factors which go beyond wht canbe explained by presentday scietific models, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge present day modern science." The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine.

David Aikman has written in American Spectator (March 2000): "Americans may believe that qigong belongs in a general category of socially neutral, New Age-style concepts that are merely subjective, not necessarily harmful, and incapable of scientific proof. But China's scientific community doesn't share this view. Experiments under controlled conditions established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and early 1980s concluded that qi, when emitted by a qigong expert, actually constitutes measurable infrared electromagnetic waves and causes chemical changes in static water through mental concentration. Qi, according to much of China's scientific establishment, for all intents existed."^[3]

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

"Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community. But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role."

Andrew P. Kipnis is quoted as stating: "...to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; bur Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific [in China], but was mostly insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries"^[4]

The term 'qigong' was coined in the early 1950s as an alternative label to past spiritual disciplines rooted Buddhism or Taoism, that promoted the belief in the supernatural, immortality and pursuit of spiritual transcendence. The new term was constructed to avoid danger of association with ancient spiritual practices which were labeled "superstitious" and persecuted during the Maoist era.^[1] In Communist China, where spirituality and religion are looked-down upon, the concept was "tolerated" because it carried with it no overt religious or spiritual elements; and millions flocked to it during China's spiritual vacuum of the 1980s and 1990s. Scholars argue that the immense popularity of qigong in China could, in part, lie in the fact that the public saw in it a way to improve and maintain health. According to Ownby, this rapidly became a social phenomenon of considerable importance.^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 August 2009‎ (UTC)

Membership and finances

Sociologist Susan Palmer writes that, "...Falun Gong does not behave like other new religions. For one thing, its organization - if one can even call it that - is quite nebulous. There are no church buildings, rented spaces, no priests or administrators. At first I assumed this was defensive [...] now, I'm beginning to think that what you see is exactly what you get - Master Li's teachings on the Net on the one hand and a global network of practitioners on the other. Traveling through North America, all I dug up was a handful of volunteer contact persons. The local membership (they vehemently reject that word) is whoever happens to show up at the park on a particular Saturday morning to do qigong."

Finances

In his thesis, Noah Porter takes up the issue of Falun Gong and finance in Mainland China. He quotes and responds to some of the allegations of the Chinese Communist Party that Li benefited financially from teaching the practice. Porter writes that when teaching seminars, there was an admission of 40 yuan per new practitioner and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners--with the repeat practitioners making up for 50-75% of the admissions. He goes on to say with respect to the CCP's claims: "...but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong's first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses..."^[5]

Ian Johnson points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg.^[6]

James Tong writes about the competing claims by Falun Gong and the Chinese government in 'The China Quarterly' journal, 2003. He writes that the government has attempted to portray Falun Gong as being financially savvy with a centralized administration system and a variety of mechanisms for deriving profit from the practice. He also looks over Falun Gong's claims of having no hierarchy, administration, membership or financial accounts, and that seminar admission was charged at a minimal rate.^[7] Tong writes that it was in the government's interest, in the post-crackdown context, to portray Falun Gong as being highly organised: "The more organized the Falun Gong could be shown to be, then the more justified the regime's repression in the name of social order was."^[8] He writes that the government's charges that Falun Gong made excessive profits, charged exorbitant fees, and that Li Hongzhi led a lavish lifestyle "...lack both internal and external substantiating evidence" and points out that that despite the arrests and scrutiny, the authorities "had disclosed no financial accounts that established the official charge and credibly countered Falun Gong rebuttals."^[9]

Li Hongzhi stipulates in his books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun that practitioners should only voluntarily help others learn the exercises and that this could never be done for fame and money, and also stipulates that practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return for their voluntarily teaching the practice. According to Falun Gong, Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced. Li subsequently withdrew from the organization.

Falun Gong website often state on their pages that "All Falun Gong Activities Are Free of Charge and Run by Volunteers"^[10]

In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, mentioning his financial status, Li said : "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars." ^[11]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Falungong as a Cultural Revitalization Movement: An Historian Looks at Contemporary China." Professor David Ownby, Department of History, University of Montreal, , accessed 31/12/07
^ The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001, [1], accessed 31/12/07
^ American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2
^ Porter 2003, pp. 38-39. Available online: [2]
^ Porter 2003, p 197
^ Johnson, Ian. Wild Grass: three stories of change in modern China. Pantheon books. 2004. pp 23-229
^ James Tong, "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing", The China Quarterly, 2002, 636-660: p 636
^ Tong 2002, p 638
^ Tong 2002, p 657
^ Learning the Practice, [3], accessed 21 July 2007
^ Li Hongzhi, Lecture in Sydney, 1999, [4], accessed 21 July 2007

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 August 2009‎ (UTC)

Questionable source: death toll of 65,000/70,000?

I found a citation at Falun Gong#Death Toll, where an article "According to Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies" suggests "a likely death toll based on refugee testimony is approximately 65,000"(The number in the original article is 70000). After checking this article, I was doubtful about the validity of its opinion on the death toll: firstly, the main focus of the article is not Falun Gong but the overall Chinese political situation; secondly, the article provides neither citation of the "refugee testimony" nor any possible sources of them. Though this article provide some useful opinion, I think this article is not enough credible for claim of such a great number.--Inspector (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The source provided does somewhat glance over the topic, but Gutmann is probably the most prolific writer on Falungong today, and this article is one of many that he has written, which together, I think, show the depth of research and corroboration he has conducted. Here’s the quote from the article currently cited followed by some more relevant information:

Beginning in the year 1999, the elimination of Falun Gong became the most potent issue in China, as reflected in the incarceration rates of Falun Gong practitioners (about 450,000 to one million in any single year) and it did not officially subside from that position until the middle of the next decade. At this point, the true casualty rate started to emerge from refugee testimony—approximately 70,000 fatalities, mostly through organ harvesting in military hospitals.

An explanation of how Gutmann arrived at these figures is here, and one example of the refugee testimonies he is referring to is found here. It’s worth noting, as Gutmann does in his personal blog, that his figures are fairly consistent with those of Kilgour and Matas, both estimates being arrived at independently of each other. The number, in my opinion, is valid and certainly notable. —Zujine|talk 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the validity matters. The accuracy is unknowable anyway. We should probably just treat statements by Gutmann the same way we treat official statements by the CPC. That seems to be essentially how it is handled now in the Death Toll section via attribution. I think the issue is more whether reliable non-partisan mainstream/academic sources or respected sources like Amnesty and HRW report Gutmann's estimates. I don't know but I don't think sourcing to the likes of highly partisan sources such as inFocus Quarterly, The Weekly Standard etc help to establish how much weight, if any, we should give to the claims. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. So does Gutmann's method differ greatly from that of Kilgour and Matas? And also, the blog article gives the low and high estimations, so should we use that range instead of the number in the other article?--Inspector (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

When the death toll of a particular incident varies so widely, as from an estimation of thousands according to the NYT to tens of thousands according to Gutmann, it is rational to cast a doubt on either number. I wonder if we need a disclaimer such as "none of the death toll numbers quoted above as well as the alleged causes of the deaths are presented with reliable evidence". This is not to negate the crimes done by the CPC, rather, it is a way to make the article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph already begins with the caveat that "Due to the difficulty in corroborating reports of torture deaths in China, estimates on the number of Falun Gong adherents killed under persecution vary widely." It is assumed that, given the political environment of China, independent verification is not always possible, and some cases are almost certainly never reported. I don't know that this needs to be emphasized further, and I have reservations about making the assessment (without knowledge of their methodology) that the researchers making these estimates lacked 'reliable evidence.' As to the handling of Gutmann's estimate, I just edited it to note that 65,000 is the median estimate he produced.

On another note, Gutmann is a reliable source on Falun Gong. He has published a well reviewed book on contemporary China in a mainstream press, has testified before U.S. and European parliament, and published numerous articles on the topic in reliable sources. One of his latest articles on organ harvesting was cited by David Brooks of the New York Times[19] as one of the best examples of long form journalism of the year. His comments are in no way of equivalent value as statements from the Communist Party, so let's avoid falling into a False balance fallacy again. That said, in the case of citing death toll estimates, all should be given inline citations. Homunculus (duihua) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, we might want to consider depicting these estimates within a table, which would cite the numbers, source of the estimate, publishing date, and a brief account of the methodology employed (if available).Homunculus (duihua) 03:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess Gutmann should have published his research more formally and specificly somewhere, which would be better than that article just mentioned a bit about the persecution of Falun Gong and the death toll. And should we use the range 9,011-120,150 as shown in Gutmann's approach to be more specific?--Inspector (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see Ethan Gutmann cited on question of Falun Gong death toll by secondary sources. Such secondary scholarly citings would not be that hard to find, if he is the most prolific writer on Falun Gong today. Source watch defines his area of expertise broadly though as recognized authority on American business involvement in China's Internet and an advocate of Chinese democracy. If we give his words on death toll weight equivalent to statements from the Communist Party we should make sure that reliable sources do the same. I'm currently, after doing some Google search homework, quite sceptic though that the equivalence tendency could be demonstrated. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Sorry, I forgot about this until now. Inspector, after you raised this issue I edited the page to make clear that 65,000 was the median estimate. I suppose it would be just the same to give the range, however, so go ahead. Published articles in which he mentions this number (but doesn't describe his methodology) are here[20] [21] [22] Describing one's methodology is not the kind of thing that one would publish within the body of an article, obviously, which is why we're left with Gutmann's blog. AgandaUrbanit, I don't understand. Are you looking for sources that cite Gutmann's estimates side-by-side with Communist Party estimates? If so, you'll have a hard time indeed; the Communist Party does not publish estimates on Falun Gong deaths in custody. At most, they occasionally deny that deaths were caused by torture in individual cases. It would probably be prudent for us to make a note of this phenomenon. Case in point: [23] Here, an old woman is "imprisoned... without charge. Officials demanded that she recant her faith. She refused, was beaten unconscious and, on Feb.21, died, according to prison inmates and family members." Her body was found by family members to be bruised and burned from torture, and officials claimed the death was the result of natural causes. It is hard to know just how representative this is, but in the absence of statistics, anecdotal evidence like this is probably all we'll get to represent the official position. Homunculus (duihua) 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if I was unclear, Homunculus. I'm not looking for false balance between the Communist Party and Falun Dafa. Wikipedia is ideally a tertiary source. The references that are being cited, are primary, i.e. by Ethan Gutmann ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4], last reference specifically How many harvested? - is a self published personal blog. Those sources are weak. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Secondary sources, books, academical peer-reviewed research papers, major news providers like NYTimes or BBC citing Ethan Gutmann numbers are required to establish weight and encyclopedic value of Ethan Gutmann material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Weekly Standard, Jewish Policy Center, and National Review are not primary sources. They are solid, reliable sources, and Gutmann's articles within them would have needed to pass muster with some strict editorial boards. I included the blog because Wikipedia policy permits the use of self-published sources when the author is an established expert on the subject on which they are writing, and the blog provides a detailed explanation of Gutmann's methodology. If you want yet more sources that cite Gutmann's research, I suggest you check these: [24][25]. I'm very curious how you are defining a primary source. Homunculus (duihua) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I'll elaborate: I assume you're defining Gutmann as a primary source because his conclusions were based, in part, on his own investigative research and interviews. He is a journalist. Conducting interviews and publishing the resulting findings is what journalists do. Gutmann's research has been reliably published on multiple occasions by reliable sources, cited in U.S. Congress, and lauded in the New York Times. Where his findings are provided on the page, they are given an inline citation. I'm really not clear on what you're objecting to.Homunculus (duihua) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for new references, Homunculus. I dont have access to CQ source, but Thomas Lum is a great source and currently being used as ref #8 at Kilgour-Matas report article. Weekly Standard, Jewish Policy Center, and National Review materials are not self-published like EastOfEthan, though the material is clearly by Ethan Gutmann, thus primary. I've tried to look for secondary sources books, academical papers or news articles saying something like: "according to Ethan Gutmann the death toll is 65,000" or talking about median estimations, but failed to find any. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, you have to pay for the CQ researcher. Here's an excerpt: "At least [Falun Gong practitioners] 62,000 were victims of organ harvesting operations from 2000-2008, according to Matas and Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist. Matas and Kilgour, who were nominated for a Nobel Prize for their investigation, say the organs were then “sold” to foreign transplant tourists." I appreciate your diligence on this, even though we clearly don't see eye-to-eye on the use of sources. In any case, even if one were to concede that reliably published journalistic findings like these are primary source (and I'm not prepared to make that concession in this case), primary sources can be used in wikipedia articles to describe themselves: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them....A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That is, Gutmann's reliably published research can be used to describe the content of his own research. His notability an an expert on the topic has already been established. Homunculus (duihua) 22:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I could see the "at least" Sarah Glazer's quote here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

References for above

References

^ Ethan Gutmann. The China Conundrum. inFocus, Winter 2010, Volume IV: Number 4
^ Ethan Gutmann, ‘The Xinjiang Procedure’, Weekly Standard, 5 Dec 2011.
^ Ethan Gutmann, Reluctant Dragon, National Review, Nov 2011
^ Ethan Gutmann, http://eastofethan.com/2011/03/10/how-many-harvested-revisited/ "How many harvested?"], March 10 2011.

Gallagher and Ashcraft source

I noticed that an editor added to the section on teachings a paragraph about Falun Gong's understanding of the current "apocalyptic" period.[26] There is no academic consensus on whether Falun Gong's message is apocalyptic, in what respect it might be, or what the implications of that are. This is why that discussion is currently represented in the controversies section. Gallagher and Ashcraft appear to have written a reference work on Falun Gong, and as far as I can tell, did not do field work or serious textual analysis to come to their conclusions about Falun Gong's teachings. Furthermore, Eugene Gallagher also lacks a background in Eastern religions, and I can't even find a professional affiliation for Ashcraft. As long as they are making generally accepted statements, they're a fine source as a reference work. But given that they have no Falun Gong-specific expertise, I would suggest they are not qualified to be treated as the authoritative source on Falun Gong's "apocalyptic" message. As far as I'm concerned, Benjamin Penny is the closest thing to an authoritative source on this aspect of Falun Gong's teachings; he is an expert in eastern religion, and has published prolifically on Falun Gong, including on this subject specifically. I recommend putting the paragraph that was added into the broader discussion on this aspect of Falun Gong's teachings, which is at the end of the page (but condense it to come closer to due weight).Homunculus (duihua) 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gallagher - Eugene V. Gallagher Rosemary Park Professor of Religious Studies. BA, La Salle University; MA, PhD, University of Chicago

"One of the fundamental purposes of education in the liberal arts: to situate students’ experience in the “here and now” in terms of multiple instances of “there” (other cultures) and “then” (other times). The comparative study of religion aims to fulfill that purpose by inviting students to entertain a variety of “what if” questions that can provide multiple points of entry into the religious worlds of others. That process of entertaining seriously how others make meaning of the world through their religious acts and convictions, much more than the factual knowledge it yields, is the beginning of religious literacy." - Eugene Gallagher

Ashcraft Wm. Michael Ashcraft Dr. Ashcraft at Truman since 1996. He holds his doctoral and master’s degrees from the University of Virginia. He received his Master of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and his bachelor’s from the University of Tennessee at Martin.
Both appear to be editors of Nova Religio
I'm not an expert, but the source in question appears academical and decently sourced also in Falun Gong section. Gallagher-Ashcraft cited widely Though, you are absolutely right the material should be attributed, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying their affiliations, but you don't address the main points I raised. These researchers do not have an expertise in Falun Gong or Eastern religions specifically; the focus of their research is on Western religions. They wrote a survey book on new and alternative religions in America. As I said, it's fine to use as a reference work for generally accepted statements, but there are many more high quality sources available on Falun Gong. Noah Porter or Craig Burgdoff have published the results of their extensive field work, and are quite good. Even better are experts on Eastern religion and Falun Gong like David Ownby or Benjamin Penny. Given that there are superior sources, and that they do not have a consensus on the question of the apocalyptic teachings, I'm saying that we shouldn't elevate the Gallagher / Ashcraft reference work to such an authoritative position in such a prominent place in the article. I recommend putting the substance of their writing into the relevant section on controversies. I'm not trying to disparage this book, but the views of the scholarly community should be presented according to their notability and prominence. Gallagher and Ashcraft, simply put, are not experts on Falun Gong teachings.Homunculus (duihua) 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not clear. I don't have problems with David Ownby, for instance, which is also published by Nova Religio, according to sources in this article. I believe schoolars in comparative study of religion would be an appropriate source. Their work is decently sourced. Though you could take it to WP:RSN if you believe Eugene V. Gallagher; W. Michael Ashcraft (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: African diaspora traditions and other American innovations. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-275-98717-6. Retrieved 4 February 2012. is unreliable for Falun Gong specifically and should be excluded from this article. Though I doubt such a move would be accepted, since Wikipedia needs to be balanced from multiple points of view. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that I believed the source to be unreliable. I said twice that I think it is fine as a reference work, particularly for statements that are generally accepted. The problem is that scholars disagree about one of the key statements Gallagher and Ashcraft made — that Falun Gong espouses apocalyptic teachings. There is currently a section in the article that describes that debate, and it is in the 'controversies' section. My argument is that, given the presence of this debate, we cannot regard Gallagher and Ashcraft's word on the matter as authoritative, which is what you have done. That is why I recommend that it be moved down into the relevant section in controversies, and shortened to reflect the weight that should be given to Gallagher and Ashcraft's views. I recommend this precisely because "Wikipedia needs to be balanced from multiple points of view." You cannot have non-expert scholars (non-expert on Falun Gong, I mean) saying definitively that Falun Gong is apocalyptical, and fail to note the divergence of views among scholars who actually have conducted field work or possess expertise in eastern religion. Do you follow? There is a hierarchy of sources. People like David Ownby and Benjamin Penny are considered experts on Falun Gong, and Gallagher and Ashcraft possess only general knowledge of it in the context of a new religious movement in America. I can make this change if you're not sure what I mean. Homunculus (duihua) 14:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no one takes Gallagher and Ashcraft as authoritative, that's why we have attribution. I've added more sources to reflect the controversy and Li's denial, per ref name="Schechter2001". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think you understand what I was saying. There was already a section in the article that describes the academic debate around Li's views of the apocalypse. As such, that is where this material belongs. It should be stated using the views of the best and most notable sources, and should not be given undue weight. Please understand that this article would be unreadable if it became an indiscriminate repository of everything that every scholar has ever said on Falun Gong. The section on "core teachings" should reflect the most essential teachings, as agreed to and as noted by the best sources on Falun Gong. It should not become a place to cite at will every scholar's views on every aspect of Falun Gong morality and cosmology. I will revisit this later to try to clean it up more.Homunculus (duihua) 19:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main body of the article is not the a place to hash out debates on Falungong's views by quoting a handful of academics selectively (by the way, I recognized very few of the sourced AgadaUrbanit used; most seemed, like Gallagher, to be survey works on contemporary China or new religion). The body of an article should present clear summaries of the most important practices and beliefs that scholars generally agree upon. If you read Ownby, Porter, Palmer, Burgdoff, Penny, and others, I think you'll find that it does a fairly good job in its current form. To that end, Homunculus is right that the debate about 'apocalyptic' teachings, if it exists, should be in the controversies section. My own view is that the debate is at least partly imagined, because people are fixating on the classification as apocalyptic or millenial, rather than the substance. Ideally, we could use superior sources to tell us in simple, uneditorialised terms, what exactly Li says about this subject. I will also note that 'Fa rectification' is an important aspect of Falungong teachings, if a poorly understood one (Ownby makes no attempt to veil his confusion. At least he's honest). It's not as prominent as the more basic teachings, but has become more important since 1999. I would suggest that Penny's latest book is the best source to describe it. When I have a little more time, I can try to write something, and will propose it first on the talk page before trying to put it in the article.—Zujine|talk 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Something on Fa rectification can be included, but yes, let's agree to it before making unilateral changes to the page. I took issue with AgandaUrbanit's edit because 1) I embrace in nuance, not sensational labels like "apocalyptic," 2) I once spent a lot of time cleaning up all the soundbites and scholarly "debate" on the page, when more often than not, it was totally unnecessary and served only to make things unreadable, and 3) I believe in only using only the best sources for controversial subjects, and hold that different sources have different uses. Homunculus (duihua) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus,

A Please don't remove sourced material without explanation, with misleading edit summary: "Moving this into controversies, where it belongs. Will revisit to clean up more later." Please restore:

According to Dillon, philosophical vision underlying Falun Gong teaching is that humanity is moving towards apocalypse, only true believers would achieve salvation. per Michael Dillon (2009). Contemporary China: an introduction. Routledge. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-415-34319-0. Retrieved 15 February 2012. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)
According to Schafferer, Li predicts that human kind will be destroyed, because people have mutated (bianyi). Li said that he established Falun Dafa "to provide salvation to mankind ... in this final period of the Last Havoc". per Christian Schafferer (2005). Understanding modern East Asian politics. Nova Publishers. pp. 94–05. ISBN 978-1-59454-505-4. Retrieved 15 February 2012. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)

B Please don't distort what sources say using neutral factual Wikipedia narrator voice. Please restore attributions:

Please fix A and B

Let me make it clear: from looking at logical structure of this article the location under International reception -> Controversies is bit strange, when multiple sources provided discuss the controversy under Falun Gong teaching topic. Wikipedia editors are just citing monkeys and should comply to sources.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidently we have different understandings of the role of Wikipedia editors and the desirable presentation of information. My belief is that we are not simply monkeys quoting any and all scholars—regardless of expertise or notability—at will. In my view, it is our job to provide coherent, clear narratives for the reader, based on careful readings and summaries of the best reliable sources available. These sources should be used in proportion to their quality and prominence in the academic discourse. This is why I removed some of the sources you added: they are not notable experts on Falun Gong teachings, their contributions did not add anything new that would actually enhance a reader's understanding of the subject, and providing a lengthy paragraph in which scholars are quoted indiscriminately ended up giving this subject undue weight on the page. I meant no offense in removing some of your research, but really, I hope you can appreciate my point that articles should not just be a repository of quotations that fail to actually illuminate the subject. If you refer to articles that have achieved good or featured article status, I think you will find that they would never have paragraphs that do that.

As to the charge that I distorted sources, I don't know what you mean on the Schechter one. I could see how my change to the use of the Gallagher source might be construed as original synthesis, though, so will fix it. As to the organization of the page, you raised a good point: the controversies section should probably stand on its own, rather than as a sub-section of international reception. Homunculus (duihua) 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple more points:

The Schafferer source is actually a chapter by Maria Hsia Chang. Chang has published on Falun Gong before, though her research was not very well received by peers in the field (Ownby eviscerated her work, as I recall). In particular, she was out of her depth as a political scientist trying to interpret religious doctrine. I tried looking through the chapter she wrote in Christian Schafferer, and found it consistently contradictory. On one page, she says that Li predicts that mankind will be obliterated, and on the next page, she quotes him saying the opposite—that human society will exist forever. In one place she says that Li teaches good people will survive the ‘apocalypse’ (a liberal translation of the Chinese; it should be ‘calamity’), and elsewhere says otherwise, and so on. This is why we need to tread carefully with this material. I can put in something to reflect her views, but it pains me to quote sub-par scholarship for the sake of it. AgadaUrbanit, would you still like me to do that?
Zujine, I just realized the Penny book I sent you is not going to be publicly accessible until April (I've been sitting on a review copy, knowing it would be published in 2012. I didn't realize it's not yet available to the masses, and as such, may fail WP:V). We should probably wait six weeks before citing it in the article, which is unfortunate. Maybe I'll ask an admin if there is a loophole for premature use of exceptionally good sources. Homunculus (duihua) 06:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We’re really talking about two things here: writing a section on “Fa rectification” as a central teaching, and revising the discussion of Falungong’s views on apocalypse (or lack thereof). I will wait on the first, since that should really rely on Penny’s explanation. But for the second item, I think we can at least improve it.

A couple notes on sources, etc.:

As Homunculus noted, Maria Hsia Chang is not a great source for analysing Falungong teachings. Her style of writing in the Christian Schachfer article is such that it necessarily takes Li’s words out of context. Good scholarship would put this into context. I’m not saying exclude her entirely, of course, but just to be aware of her limitations.
I don’t find Gallagher and Ashcraft to be worthy of inclusion, personally. They did not do their own fieldwork or textual analysis, as Homunculus points out. Their analysis of Li’s teachings is derived from two sources: Maria Chang (mentioned above), and Patsy Rahn, a critic of Falungong who, as I understand it, was an undergraduate student when she published in the early 2000s (the latest information says she is an MA candidate in Indiana). So, not only are Gallagher and Ashcraft not experts on Falungong, but the sources they sued are not very good either, which is why they are not used as references in the more serious literature. I tried to capture some of the overall ideas they expressed, but using better sources. AgadaUrbanit, I hope that’s alright with you.
I am sort of annoyed by the revelation that this controversy over ‘apocalyptic’ teachings might be produced, at least in part, by a lazy translation of the Chinese “jienan,” onto which some scholars (or readers?) have imposed Western meanings and implications of apocalypse.

Anyways, on reading through the sources that describe this, it becomes clear that this is not a simple issue to describe. But here’s what I propose. It’s a bit long maybe:

Opinions among scholars differ as to whether Falun Gong contains an apocalyptic message, and if so what the consequences of that are. Li situates his teaching of Falun Gong amidst the "Dharma-ending period" (Mo Fa, 末法), described in Buddhist scriptures as an era of moral decline when the teachings of Buddhism would need to be rectified.(Ownby) The current era is described in Falun Gong teachings as the "Fa rectification" period (zhengfa, which might also be translated as "to correct the dharma"), a time of cosmic transition and renewal (Penny). The process of Fa rectification is necessitated by the moral decline and degeneration of life in the universe, and in the post-1999 context, the persecution of Falungong by the Chinese government has come to be described as a tangible symptom of this moral decay.(Burgdoff) Through the process of Li’s Fa rectification, life will be reordered according to the moral and spiritual quality of each, with good people being saved and ascending to higher spiritual planes, and bad ones being eliminated or cast down.(Burgdoff). In this paradigm, Li assumes a messianic role of offering salvation.(Palmer).

Some scholars, such as Maria Hsia Chang and Susan Palmer, have described Li’s rhetoric about the “Fa rectification” and providing salvation "in the final period of the Last Havoc," as apocalyptic.(Chang, Palmer) However, Benjamin Penny argues that Li’s teachings are better understood in the context of a "Buddhist notion of the cycle of the Dharma or the Buddhist law."(Penny in ABC) Richard Gunde notes that unlike apocalyptic groups in the West, Falun Gong does not fixate on death or Armageddon(Gunde), and instead “has a simple, innocuous ethical message.” Li Hongzhi does not discuss a “time of reckoning”(Penny); to the contrary, he has rejected predictions of an impending apocalypse in his teachings.(Schechter).

How’s that?—Zujine|talk 17:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fine with me. There's one dimension here that isn't explored, though. Craig Burgdoff (and, to a lesser extent, Susan Palmer), expressed concern that these teachings could be a possible area for exploitation. I mean, the notion that the Chinese government's actions are essentially a manifestation of this cosmic struggle could lead to the martyrdom of Falun Gong practitioners. Susan Palmer wrote about this concern in the early 00s, and her fears were never realized in practice (as Li's language became more "apocalyptic," Falun Gong practitioners became less audacious in confronting authorities, not more). Burgdoff also raises this concern, then basically dismisses it later in his paper for various reasons (ie. lack of dogmatic orthodoxy or totalistic control, and also the fact that, well, the persecution is real and not an abstraction or imagined dilemma; it required a real world response). We don't want to flesh all of that out, of course, as it gets complicated and/or speculative fast. But might be something to consider. Anyways, I think your proposal is an improvement over what's currently there.Homunculus (duihua) 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading this discussion just puzzles me: the article is already sourced to the teeth, and the sourcing to Gallager and Ashcraft is being questioned again on the grounds that 'they are not scholars of Eastern religion', despite the fact that their publications appear in all the peer-reviewed journals and meet all the criteria that many editors on this article ask for ad nauseum. I find a degree of irony that Danny Schechter, who is about as far removed as one can be from being an expert on religion, China, or traditional eastern culture, is sourced so heavily in the article without any sort of careful scrutiny. Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What is your point, Colipon?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what's being pointed out is the tendentiousness of, on the one hand, fighting to exclude Falun Gong-skeptical sources like Maria Chang on account of their focus being more on politics rather than religion, while basing this article on Falun Gong-sympathetic sources with similarly (ir)relevant credentials, such as Danny Schechter. Now I'm not sure how much of a role Homunculus had in promoting Schechter, but he definitely added, for example, Ethan Gutmann's exoneration of Falun Gong on charges of homophobia, based on comparisons to "traditional religions" that Gutmann (of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) has no scholarly credentials on religion to speak about. Shrigley (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So, you are essentially protesting an attempt to use the highest quality sources to describe a contentious matter of theological interpretation. That's not very helpful. Zujine, seeing as no one has raised an actual objection to your proposal, I would say go ahead. As to other issues raised: 1)This is not a question of pro- or anti- Falun Gong sources for me as it is for you. I don't consider Maria Hsia Chang "anti-Falun Gong," I just consider that she's not an expert on religion, did not do any fieldwork, and was criticized by other scholars, partly for cleaving to simplistic narrative tropes. I've used her before as a general reference to support statements about Chinese history or politics, for example, so am not opposed to user her in principle. 2) I have never attempted to argue that Gallagher and Ashcraft are not reliable sources. My argument is that they are not experts on Falun Gong. They wrote a chapter on it in a survey of new religions, did not do any of their own field work or textual analysis, and employed sub-par sources. They are certainly not cited in other serious scholarly literature on Falun Gong. As such, they could be used as a general reference at best. But when it comes to a complex theological issue on which there is no scholarly consensus, we can and should use sources of a higher caliber. 3) As to Schechter, he is widely cited by scholars on Falun Gong, though with a caveat: while folks like Ownby acknowledge he's a valuable source, he is a journalistic and a partial one, and shouldn't be used too liberally. There are a handful of references to him on the page (mostly legacies from earlier versions). From the looks of it, though, all statements sourced to Schechter also appear in Palmer, Ownby, Tong, etc. I can add those references if desired.Homunculus (duihua) 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[Ownby-1] "Falungong as a Cultural Revitalization Movement: An Historian Looks at Contemporary China." Professor David Ownby, Department of History, University of Montreal, , accessed 31/12/07

[Fellow-2] The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001, [1], accessed 31/12/07

[3] American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2

[4] Porter 2003, pp. 38-39. Available online: [2]

[5] Porter 2003, p 197

[wildgrass-6] Johnson, Ian. Wild Grass: three stories of change in modern China. Pantheon books. 2004. pp 23-229

[7] James Tong, "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing", The China Quarterly, 2002, 636-660: p 636

[8] Tong 2002, p 638

[9] Tong 2002, p 657

[10] Learning the Practice, [3], accessed 21 July 2007

[11] Li Hongzhi, Lecture in Sydney, 1999, [4], accessed 21 July 2007

[12] Ethan Gutmann. The China Conundrum. inFocus, Winter 2010, Volume IV: Number 4

[13] Ethan Gutmann, ‘The Xinjiang Procedure’, Weekly Standard, 5 Dec 2011.

[14] Ethan Gutmann, Reluctant Dragon, National Review, Nov 2011

[15] Ethan Gutmann, http://eastofethan.com/2011/03/10/how-many-harvested-revisited/ "How many harvested?"], March 10 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]