Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan

I have raised this issue several times before, as early as 2007, and it is just incredible how it continues to get evaded. That He Zuoxiu is related to Luo Gan (or more specifically, the claim that he is the 'brother in law' of Luo Gan), is sourced to two places: one of which is the National Review, and the other is Palmer's ethnographic study. At Palmer's study, we see the passage: "He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan’s relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 2000g), perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited." The National Review also evidently does not provide any sort of back-up to the claim, merely speculation. Furthermore, not only is the claim presented as fact in the article, we are also presented with outright synthesis via the painfully tenuous phrase, "Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." Anyone who examines the parts in detail: the totally unsubstantiated and unverified idea that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan are related and colluded to bring down Falun Gong, would not choose to leave such a claim in the article, and the fact that the origin of the claim happens to be Falun Gong sources just makes the case for their removal that much stronger. Those who insist on sourcing the article to the teeth cannot possibly look at this claim and regard it as authoritative. I call upon the passage about "brother-in-law" as well as the entire passage about 'familial relationship' between He and Luo to be removed. Colipon+(Talk) 14:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a synthesis on Wikipedia's part. It has an in-line citation and is qualified as an alleged familial relationship; the claim was found credible & notable to three reliable sources. I don't see what the problem is. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are three sources that claim is referenced to. Porter directly cites Falun Gong sources for this claim, which makes it highly problematic. I looked at Zhao's "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China". Nowhere can I find a reference to He and Luo's 'familial relationship', "alleged" or not. That leaves us with just the National Review, the only source to insinuate that such a connection had any substantive effect on the crackdown of Falun Gong. And I point out that NR does this in a totally speculative manner. You put everything together and it makes the current claims ( 1. the relationship between He and Luo, and 2. that the relationship had an effect on FLG's crackdown) totally unsubstantiated and inappropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that the relationship is appropriately qualified. Although one mention of the two says "Porter, along with Gutmann and Zhao, highlight an alleged familial relationship between He and Luo Gan to suggest...", another mention in section "1996–1999", reads "In June 1998, Tianjin professor He Zuoxiu, brother-in-law of security tsar Luo Gan^[66][112] and an outspoken critic of qigong..." This seems to be another case where a source (Palmer) is quoted out of his area of expertise to give poorly-sourced claims about living persons an air of authority. Shrigley (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The most obvious problem is that the 'brother-in-law' claim has only a single source - The National Review, the Palmer source says "relative", and that is cited to Clearwisdom. The Zhao source says nothing at all. If we are to scrutinize sources like Maria Chang and Gallagher and Ashcraft to the teeth, I just cannot comprehend how we let problems like this He-Luo connection, which has much more problematic sourcing, be presented as gospel on the article. The only explanation, and I am quite certain non-involved editors will concur, is that the contention of sourcing is not actually rooted in the problems of the sources per se but in the POV-balance that the source reflects. This is what has made editing this article so problematic in the past, and the continuation of such patterns should be alarming to anyone who wants to achieve NPOV on this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 03:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally I think the only thing more helpful than accusations of bad faith is sarcasm. On factual level, does anyone here dispute that Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu have a familial connection? If there is countervailing evidence, or if this is really in dispute--i.e., specific counter claims have been made--then that throws the whole thing into question. Can one of you do some searches in Chinese? If there are no non-FLG Chinese sources on a familial connection between the two, then it is probably an artefact of the propaganda war and can be swept into the dustbin of history. I assume it's factual though. However, it should be qualified wherever it appears--right now it's stated as fact in one location, and shouldn't be. I'm fixing now. The Zhao quote should not be used to substantiate or forward a factual claim about a specific familial connection between the two, but her reference to a familial relationship clearly shows that this is a notable piece of information. Gutmann's analysis is also notable; he was in Beijing on April 25 and done his own research on Falun Gong and the politics leading up to the ban. Since it's notable, I think that as long as it's qualified we're fine. I don't know for sure, but perhaps in the other issues above there is counter-argument from stronger sources, which I haven't seen in this case. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the He/Luo "familial connection" at face value when I was editing Falun Gong articles. But now that the precise question being asked, and the supposed proof and dubious sourcing, I am beginning to question it too. Although this is a legacy issue, it is rightly challenged. I must say that all these defensive tactics are reminiscent of the "good old days" of Falun Gong cabalism, and I'm hoping that this isn't a sign of its resurrection. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My response here is going to be long, maybe, so bear with me. There are several points to address.

• I would submit (and I think everyone would agree) that any time the familial relationship is noted, it should be qualified appropriately as a "purported" or "alleged" relationship, and/or given an inline citation. Also, it is certainly not necessary to note this every time that either character is mentioned. In the paragraph that discusses this relationship, it may also be worthwhile to note that, in addition to Porter and Gutmann, Falun Gong sources frequently highlight this connection.
• Regarding the Zhao source, she does not specifically name either Luo or He, but does allude to "scientists-cum- ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders" who helped precipitate "the shift in the state’s position [toward Falun Gong]." I assume that this is a reference to He Zuoxiu, but it's not clear. Zhao shouldn't be used as a source on the specific connection between the two, but could potentially be used elsewhere to explain the role of unspecified interpersonal relationships in leading to the crackdown.
• Regarding Porter's use of Falun Gong sites as primary sources to support the connection, it doesn't inspire great confidence, but also can't be dismissed entirely. Eminently reliable sources on Falun Gong have used some Falun Gong websites as sources uncritically, not because they are lazy, but because they deem that the information contained in those specific articles is credible, plausible, consistent with the available evidence, and so on. Barend ter Haar has also noted that Falun Gong websites frequently write about this connection. He couldn't see the significance of it, but wrote that although some of these Falun Gong sites are propagandistic, their facts are "not necessarily unreliable" (here he is referring specifically to the He / Luo issue). Is Porter in a position to make the judgement call on whether this claim is true? I am not confident; he is not an expert on Chinese politics. But if the claim is true, then the fact that Porter notes as significant it provides notability. I know this is not conclusive or especially helpful. If Porter were the only source on this claim, I would have very serious reservations, but he is not.
• At the end of the day, the inescapable fact is that Gutmann — who is pretty well positioned to have insight into these things — wrote about the familial relationship and the significance, and it was reliably published.

Now, to address TheSound's question on the veracity of the claim, it is unusually difficult to find information on Chinese websites about who Luo Gan's wife is. Maybe someone else would have better luck. But I did find several sources. Apparently one of He Zuoxiu's ancestors was a big shot in Yangzhou. There is a garden there, I think owned by the family, which is a tourist attraction. In the garden is a family tree, which include He Zuoxiu and his sister or cousin (not clear to me) He Zuozhi. She is shown as having married Luo Gan. Several tourist accounts—none of which appear to have any political motivations—have made note of this.[2][3][4] So, He and Luo are either brothers-in-law or, um, cousins-in-law. I'm just bringing this up for our own reference. The claim of a familial relationship seems to be true, and a few sources have found that it may have played an important role in the events leading up to the crackdown, so it would seem to satisfy notability requirements. I hope this is a satisfactory response. If not, I think the only recourse left is to solicit the opinion of an uninvolved third party. Homunculus (duihua) 17:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are great finds. While they are not necessarily RS by any means, they do give a name to He's cousin who is supposedly the wife of Luo Gan. Tang Mei means that He Zuoshi merely shares the same recent ancestor with He Zuoxiu - so she could be a cousin, second cousin, or even third cousin. The burden of WP:N and WP:UNDUE means that not only do you need to demonstrate that such a familial relationship exists, that it is verifiable using reliable sources, but also that such a relationship is relevant.

In addition, I'm fully aware that Zhao talks about 'scientists-cum-ideologues'. But that this refers to He, and is an allusion to He and Luo colluding, is just pure speculation. This quote is taken totally out of context and synthesized with the other two sources in the article to support the point that there was some sort of state conspiracy against Falun Gong prior to April 1999, capped off with the phrase "Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." Long story short, no reliable source provides any evidence that He and Luo's familial relationship has anything to do with the two colluding on Falun Gong. A simple passing mention in two sources is not enough to lend it the due weight as it currently appears in the article. Inviting an uninvolved editor would be great. Colipon+(Talk) 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Two reliable sources do suggest a kind of conspiracy in the events of April 1999 involving Luo and He, and the familial relationship is noted as having possible significance. To wit: Luo began using his influence in the Ministry of Public Security years earlier to launch "investigations" into Falun Gong, seeking evidence that it needed to be banned. At the same time, He Zuoxiu began publishing articles critical of Falun Gong. Luo's investigations failed to supply a sufficient pretext for suppression, but Luo did not appear to give up. In April 1999, He published a critical article in Tianjin. Falun Gong's response was by this time predictable, and they picketed the media offices asking for a retraction. A retraction was offered, and then the offer was rescinded. At the orders of the central Ministry of Public Security (where Luo's influence lay), public security agents beat and arrested 45 of the picketing Falun Gong practitioners. Authorities told them that the orders to do so came from Beijing. Days later, 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners show up in Beijing to demonstrate, and Luo is the first person to sound the alarm, alert Jiang Zemin, and demand a harsh and decisive response. The protest in Beijing results in Luo being given a plush position as head of the 610 Office, and He's star also rose as a result. The sequence of events is suspicious enough, and if Luo and He are related (the RS say they are, unrelated primary sources say they are, and there is no evidence to the contrary), it's not unreasonable to speculate that they may have colluded to bring about this outcome. This is essentially what Ethan Gutmann's article is saying, and also what Porter is insinuating. Anyways, your understanding of the burden of proof seems prohibitively high. I can concede that this paragraph can be written more clearly and improved to reduce the possibility of original synthesis, but maybe we can deal with one thing at a time.Homunculus (duihua) 18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What we need is the marriage certificate! Right? The Sound and the Fury (talk)

Funny. Unfortunately I don't share your views on the virtues of sarcasm.Homunculus (duihua) 18:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

All of that is your deduction from circumstantial evidence. Inviting an uninvolved would be good. Colipon+(Talk) 18:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a longterm bee in Colipon's bonnet. I just searched. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up, if you notice on December 5, 2010, user John Carter already gave his opinion at Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_37 after enlisting it for RfC. Despite his assessment that He and Luo's connection should not be in the article, citing DUE, BLP, and SYNTH, the material was still restored. The He/Luo issue is but a microcosm for the ridiculous types of disputes that occur around here, so a sample of past discussion is great for any uninvolved parties to understand the history of this article. Colipon+(Talk) 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw in the archive that John expressed concern that the material violated policy on original synthesis. I didn't read the whole discussion. But based on my reading of these sources, I don't see original synthesis. These sources, and especially Porter, makes it clear that he believes Luo and He likely colluded to catalyse the crackdown. Here's the relevant passage from Porter:

Finally, a man named Luo Gan, along with a relative of his, may bear some responsibility for the crackdown.[...] Luo Gan was secretary general of the State Council, and he “had been investigating Falun Gong and had wanted it banned since 1996 but could not find any legal basis for transgression” (Ching 2001). However, “[Luo] had the police direct [Falungong practitioners] to Zhongnanhai, in order to create an incident with which they afterwards could be charged” (Ching 2001). [...] He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan’s relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 2000g), perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited (Sinclair 2001: 15), seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong [...] He Zuoxiu claimed that two of his graduate students had relapses of mental disorders due to Falun Gong, both in his article and on Beijing Television. The practitioners protested the magazine’s office in Tianjin because they would not carry a response, and were beaten and arrest by riot police (Schechter 2001: 69) under orders from Luo Gan (FalunInfo.net n.d.a). Afterwards, practitioners who complained to local authorities about this harsh treatment were told to go to Beijing (Schechter 2001: 69); Luo Gan had “secretly order[ed] the police to lead Falun Gong practitioners into gathering around the Zhongnanhai government compound” [...] Afterwards, Luo Gan was appointed as part of the team created by the Central Committee of the CCP to investigate the April 25 incident.It was Luo Gan who finally issued the order that Falun Gong be banned (Luo 1999). Luo Gan was then put in charge of the “the Head Office for Handling the Falun Gong Issue,” also known as the “610 Office.” [...] As for He Zuoxiu, he “became a national hero for opposing Falun Gong” (Yan 2001). Things could not have worked out better for the two if they planned it – which, it appears, they just might have.

The sources he used for the specific details aren't great, but all these claims I have also read in Palmer and elsewhere. What's key is that Porter is presenting this narrative, and this synthesis of events, as being a notable and plausible explanation for the way events unfolded in April 1999.

Gutmann says this of the family relationship:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs."

His piece doesn't lend itself as well to being excerpted, but if you read the whole thing, what he's saying is that some leaders in the party wanted to go after Falungong for a long time, but lacked an excuse. He Zuoxiu's article in Tianjin led to protests, which led to the demonstration at Zhongnanhai. Once there, the security forces (which were under Luo Gan) told the Falungong to go to Fuyou street, which was about the most provocative place they could have gone. This provided the requisite pretext for suppression. I think if you put together these two articles, the message is clear, and it seems notable enough to warrant brief mention on the page. The revelation that non-Falungong Chinese sources (including, notably, He Zuoxiu's own family tree) vouch for the family relationship also helps absolve concerns that this was just an obscure piece of agitprop. I think the inclusion is fine as long as we keep it short, and don't overstep what the sources support.—Zujine|talk 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's original synthesis is a largely matter of how the information is presented. I see the point that the current presentation may border on original synthesis, but there is a way to do this where it would be fine (for example, sticking to the narrative as Porter presents it, with an inline citation ascribing that synthesis of facts to him, and presenting Gutmann's narrative with inline citation to him. And somehow keeping all of this fairly short so as to avoid giving undue weight). Another option is to note the familial relationship in passing as a natural part of the narrative, rather than as a separate paragraph. We could say something like "Porter and Gutmann have noted the possible significance of an alleged familial relationship between He and Luo Gan; Porter speculates that the two may have planned the events of April 1999 with the goal of provoking Falun Gong and creating a pretext for banning the group." On this page, I don't think more than a short sentence or two is warranted.Homunculus (duihua) 23:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Overthinking it. I don't think there's any infringement of wp:os on the page as the information is now presented. It is the sources that are cited making this connection. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

History of FLG

Hi all, as we all know, the editing ambiance of this article is still quite tense, so I would like to discuss some changes to the article prior to hitting the 'edit' button. My assessment is that the article has essentially back-pedaled to where it was prior to the 'clean-up' efforts by numerous involved and non-involved parties before July 2009, with window-dressing and the dilution of sources to restore the POV-balance in favour of Falun Gong. Comparing two revisions from early 2010 and now would make this difference obvious - and to a non-involved party it should quickly dawn which version is more in line with our WP:NPOV policy.

Apart from the issue with He and Luo above, another issue I take is the discussion about Falun Gong's reaction to criticism prior to the beginning of the propaganda campaign in 1999. This chunk of information is crucial to the understanding of the group yet it is continuously 'scrubbed clean', removed, altered, or otherwise obfuscated. The passage from Zhao Yuezhi that discusses this as follows (emphasis mine):

The three-year struggle between Falun Gong and the Chinese media over representation reached its apex in April 1999, with six days of protests by Falun Gong members over He’s article in Tianjin, leading to a peaceful demonstration by more than 10,000 Falun Gong members near Zhongnanhai in Beijing on April 25, 1999. In these protests, not only were specific claims disputed, but there was also an insistence on positive reporting of the movement. As the protests would demonstrate repeatedly, at stake is not a matter of evidence and opinion but, rather, a matter of “truth,” which is precisely what Falun Gong’s revelatory doctrines allowed the group to attain. This decidedly institutional approach to “truth” is underscored by the fact that, unlike an increasing number of Chinese citizens who have taken individual media outlets to the courts in libel cases, Falun Gong did not entertain any notion of separation between media organizations and the Chinese government. Despite its explicit demand that the government lift the publication ban against Falun Gong books, Falun Gong demanded more than the right to reply to media criticism, It demanded the censorship of opponents’ views in the first place.

Falun Gong, then, may be understood as a movement of resistance, but it is one that offers no resistance to either the theory or the practice of censorship. Indeed, the movement actually urged the Chinese government to use its powers of censorship to muzzle the opponents of Falun Gong. Perhaps the movement’s intimacy and comfort with the notion of absolute “truth” and with authoritarian state powers of censorship can be more easily understood if we remember that China’s older socialist generation comprises the core Falun Gong membership. From the perspective of this generation, the government is responsible for slanderous content in the media as well as “responsible for preventing their publication through its powers of censorship” (Madsen, 2000: 247). Just as the Party does not allow negative critiques of its doctrines and is averse to ideological pluralism, Falun Gong does not abide any refutation of its claims and negative comments. Thus, although the Party and Falun Gong oppose each other, they have in common their “unitary value orientation” (He, 1999: 24).

In simple terms, the most important part of the narrative that is missing is that in fact the 1999 Zhongnanhai protests were in fact not as much as demonstration against the state as much as it was part of a lobbying campaign for the state to censor Falun Gong's critics and to ensure positive portrayals of the practice. There is no doubt that elements of the leadership, particularly Jiang himself, wanted to crack down, but the relationship of the state and Falun Gong were far from the dichotomy that is currently implied in the article in the pre-1999 period. Colipon+(Talk) 15:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does Zhao say that "the 1999 Zhongnanhai protests were in fact not as much as demonstration against the state as much as it was part of a lobbying campaign for the state to censor Falun Gong's critics and to ensure positive portrayals of the practice"? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

TheSound, I think that's Colipon speaking on his own behalf. Colipon, your suggestions of bad faith, POV editing are extremely wearisome. If you read Palmer, Ownby, Porter, Penny, or others who provide a complete narrative of events from 1996 to 1999, I think you would find that the article currently does quite a good job of representing the chronology of major events. Zhao's account here is interpretive. It's an important point, but whether it is the most important part of this story is entirely subjective. The fact here is that Falun Gong was asking authorities to enforce the "three nos" policy, which muzzled criticism of qigong in the official media. If you want to add a sentence saying as much, or explaining that Falun Gong sought government intervention to stop the criticism in the state-run press, I think that's appropriate. Anything further—like speculation on how this attitude reflects generational ideas, or something—would seen excessive. As to your opinion about the purpose of the Zhongnanhai protest, I agree that it was not a protest "against" the state. It took Falun Gong several more years to develop a genuinely antagonistic attitude toward the state, but as of 1999, they were like so many pilgrim petitioners asking the benevolent central government for help. Regarding the "dichotomous" relationship pre-1999, I don't know what you mean, exactly. I think the page conveys the fact that this relationship was complicated. Some government agencies supported Falun Gong, some (like the MPS faction controlled by Luo Gan) opposed it, and the whole period of 1996 to 1999 was the playing out of these power struggles.Homunculus (duihua) 15:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points, Hom, and you will notice I have refrained from making any personal comments. Could you also respond to He and Luo above. Colipon+(Talk) 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Organ Harvesting

The idea of the Chinese harvesting the organs of Falun Gong prisoners against their will while they're still alive and selling them on the black market is almost as interesting as it is horrific, to me anyway. With the way the People's republic of china seems to be silently castrating almost all Wikipedia articles concerning it I have to say I'm not surprised to find this omitted. If I was more knowledgeable about editing these pages I would take it on myself to fight the suppression of free information about China but as lowly ignorant consumer of Wikipedia's greatness I have to leave that to all of you. I hope that the Kilgour-Matas Report is found to be worth more than a passing mention in this article. The report offers compelling evidence and the fact that it is not mentioned here is frightening.--76.182.236.144 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

Nice propaganda in this article.

-There has never been any conclusive evidence for the allegations of organ harvesting or even the allegations of widespread torture of Falun Gong members. The allegations should be classified here as opinion, not stated as fact. Significant doubts have been raised concerning many of these supposed human rights abuses.

-Falun Gong was outlawed because of it's political motivations and it's threat to stability in China, not because of it's "spiritual teachings". Anybody who believes that is completely ignorant of the objective, observable reality. There are countless Qigong based spiritual groups operating in China openly, without any kind of persecution. Falun Gong was banned when it became increasingly political, culminating when 10'000 members staged an illegal demonstration at Zhongnanhai.

-Academic classifications of what Falun Gong actually is are varied. Margaret Singer, Berkeley professor and considered by many to be the world's foremost expert on cults, considered them a cult. This deserves mention.

-Absurd figures such as "70 million adherents in Mainland China", "more followers than the members of the Chinese Communist Party" are not consistent with reality and are not academically sound by any standard. How was this laughable data collected?

-Mention should be made of Falun Gong's control of/association with propaganda outlets such as The Epoch Times, Shen Yun Performing Arts and New Tang Dynasty Television.

-Proper mention should be made of the high profile murder and suicide cases involving Falun Gong members, as well as the hundreds of instances of FLG members perishing as a result of refusal to take medicine or recieve medical treatment

Honestly, this article reads like something straight off of clearwisdom. It's a laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAimlessRoad (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Heres a laugh for you,

• Of 60,000 organ transplants officially recorded between 2000 and 2005, 18,500 came from identifiable sources (including death row inmates), making the source of 41,500 transplant organs unexplained. Traditional sources of transplants such as executed prisoners, donors, and the brain dead "come nowhere near to explaining the total number of transplants across China" (they therefore conclude that the only other identified source which can explain the “skyrocketing” transplant numbers is Falun Gong practitioners).
• The meteoric increase in organ transplantation in China corresponds with the timeline of the Falun Gong suppression.
• There are very short waiting times in Chinese hospitals for transplants. One hospital boasted a wait of one week for a transplant, another claimed to provide a liver in two weeks. In Canada, the waiting time for a kidney can be up to 32.5 months. Meanwhile, the survival period for a kidney is between 24-48 hours and a liver about 12 hours. The authors contend that only a large bank of living 'donors' could account for the “astonishingly short” waiting times.
• Recipients of organs from China say that the transplant surgery is “conducted in almost total secrecy,” the recipient is not told the identity of the donor or shown written consent, the identity of the doctor and nurses are often withheld, operations sometimes take place in the middle of the night, and “the whole procedure is done on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis”
• Mandarin speaking investigators, posing as potential organ transplant recipients or their relatives, called several Chinese hospitals inquiring about organ availability and obtained admissions that Falun Gong practitioners’ organs were being used (the original recordings of these conversations remain available).
• Information on Chinese hospital websites is "self-accusatory" in that it admits to waiting times of one week, or organ swap intervals of one week (these websites were later taken offline, but Kilgour and Matas archived them); many Chinese transplant websites showed graphs with soaring organ transplantation figures, showing a sharp rise soon after the persecution of Falun Gong began.
• Organ transplanting is a highly profitable industry in China, with a kidney worth US$62,000, a heart worth US$130,000-160,000;
• Anecdotal evidence indicates that Falun Gong practitioners are blood and urine tested and have their organs examined while in custody, while other prisoners, who are not practitioners, are not tested.

I'm sure you got a kick out of that, I really wish we could stop CPC members like you from castrating all of these articles. --76.182.236.144 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unusual beliefs

Aliens and cloning

"The aliens come from other planets. The names that I use for these planets are different . Some are from dimensions that human beings have not yet discovered. The key is how they have corrupted mankind. Everyone knows that from the beginning until now, there has never been a development of culture like today. Although it has been several thousand years, it has never been like now.

The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science.

The ultimate purpose is to replace humans. If cloning human beings succeeds, the aliens can officially replace humans. Why does a corpse lie dead, even though it is the same as a living body? The difference is the soul, which is the life of the body. If people reproduce a human person, the gods in heaven will not give its body a human soul. The aliens will take that opportunity to replace the human soul and by doing so they will enter earth and become earthlings.

When such people grow up, they will help replace humans with aliens. They will produce more and more clones. There will no longer be humans reproduced by humans. They will act like humans, but they will introduce legislation to stop human reproduction." --Li Hongzhi (TIME Magazine interview with Li Hongzhi)

Note, I added the above section to the article, from where it was immediately removed with no explanation, and no reason. Why is such edit VANDALISM accepted on this article? 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the added text does not break the "defamation of living persons" rule. It is simply sourced from interview material from the Time Magazine, and reported by THREE independent, MAJOR global news sources. (MSNBC, BBC, New York Times) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently my contribution wasn't acceptable because it contained lengthy interview excepts that weren't seen as beneficial. Here the new version:

Li Hongzhi preaches a number of unusual doctrines, among them that the Earth is gradually being infiltrated by aliens. He has reported seeing green, blue and multicolored beings in other dimensions, and said the magician David Copperfield can levitate. He has also claimed that he, too, can levitate his body in the air, but upon asking if he would perform it for someone to see, he said that it is not in his enlightened nature to do so.

If it gets reverted by people wishing to censor the article, someone else may put it back. 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Don't use the talk page to make personal attacks on other editors, as you did above.
• Talk pages are not forums for general discussions of a subject
• It is not helpful to add lengthy interview excerpts to a page as you did. Li has published many volumes of writing, and given many interviews. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of such material. I don't think this will mean much to you, but I suggest that you consider reading David Ownby, Noah Porter or Benjamin Penny's books on Falun Gong's beliefs if you wish to develop a more thorough understanding. The belief in aliens is, needless to say, not a major component of the practice's cosmology or religious philosophy, and our job is to provide due weight in describing such things.Homunculus (duihua) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming this is not any blocked editor respawning.... these topics have been discussed at length, years ago (I've been around since 2010), so it might be helpful to simply look through the archives (or search them, might be faster) for the outcome and course of discussion. The basic issue with the content (leaving aside the forum and trolling issues) related to Wikipedia's policies on Due Weight and Reliable Sources (i.e. how do scholars of the religion evaluate these beliefs or statements, rather than how do particular Wikipedia editors decide by themselves what merits its own section or explanation. Former: want. Latter: not so much.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never before been blocked from this article, and edited the article for the first time ever about 24 hours ago. Are we talking about Western scholars, or Chinese scholars? Are we talking about how they evaluate it in their own groups, or what they admit publicly? It would be naïve to assume that a religion that so often has been dubbed a cult by Chinese and Western journalists and experts alike would shy away from propaganda and false PR. If the group respects Li Hongzhi's teachings highly, and if Li Hongzhi teaches aliens, racism, and homophobia, then, no matter what the religon's PR folk say, 1+1=2; the followers follow and believe in Li Hongzhi's teachings. It's not a complicated issue.91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Presenting Falun Gong as a 'harmless philosophical practice with no religious/controversial teachings' is not only completely false and misleading, but would indeed merit the term 'propaganda'.

I did not name any editors, and I don't expect people later on going through pages of logs to find out which editors. However, I apologise if my edit above was seen as an attack. The authors you name are all western authors. I wonder why you didn't include any Chinese authors, who have a better understanding of *all* of the leader's teachings, some of which he hasn't necessarily given in English. I understand now that the lengthy interview excerpt wasn't helpful. I hope my concatenated version is at least acceptable, after all, it's taking very little room of the article and is heavily sourced. The major component in Falun Gong *is* the leader, at least for *most* Falun Gong practitioners. Falun Gong is not a "make up your own rules as you go" kind of thing, it is based on the teachings of Li Hongzhi, and what he says, goes. That's why it is important to include at least some of his more cult-like, eccentric teachings to give a FULL AND THOROUGH image of Falun Gong, instead of a watered down, one-sided, twisted, westernised version that bears little resemblance to the religion as it is taught in China. 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by myself, User:Skizzik, and User:Seb az86556. In your comment above, you decried these reverts as an example of "cultists maintaining their overwhelming grip upon this wiki page." Statements of that nature are a gross violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility. Your comment above is also still indicative that you are using this page as a forum, which is not helpful. I'm sure you don't know who David Ownby and Benjamin Penny are, but they speak and read Chinese, they claim to have read all of Li's teachings, and have written books on Falun Gong in prestigious academic presses. Those are the best sources available. Ownby's 300-page volume on Falun Gong devotes two sentences to Li's statements on aliens. Penny's book, which is a much more single-minded study of all aspects of Falun Gong practice and beliefs, devotes one page out of ~250 to the subject. You might want to read WP:UNDUE. Homunculus (duihua) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Article temporarily protected, IP temporarily blocked. If problems persist please ask for longer protection and if IP returns with the same stuff, off to AIV we go. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:91.63.202.190_reported_by_User:TheSoundAndTheFury_.28Result:_.29 The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

falun gong celebrating sichuan earthquake

does it warrant inclusion in this article? many independent accounts from sources such as ming pao claim that falun gong practitioners in flushing, ny were celebrating the deaths caused by the sichuan earthquake in 2008. there are videos of flg practitioners holding huge signs that read e.g. "karma destroys china". residents have been interviewed on video and confirmed that flg were beating drums, clashing gongs and cheering in celebration of the earthquake. if you google "sichuan earthquake falun gong celebrate" (no quotes) you can find out more.

this caused quite a stir when it happened, with many flg-owned websites accusing the chinese government of organising the opposition to the flg marches and paying ny residents to lie about flg. seems like it might be worth mentioning here. ProwlingToad (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone raised this elsewhere before (can't remember where). I looked into it, and could find no reliable sources reporting on this, so it fails in terms of verifiability and notability. The counter-claim from Falun Gong was that they were holding a pre-scheduled annual parade, and Chinese-language media reported (wrongly) that the parade was a celebration of the Sichuan earthquake. Standard agit-prop. Why are there suddenly so many new and unregistered users showing up on this page and proposing that it be used to promote this kind of stuff? It's weird. Homunculus (duihua) 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

i think it's a bit much to dimiss these claims as "agit-prop". you can read the signs for yourself and see the reaction from the chinese community, unless you think those crowds are all ccp spies and hired thugs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bvydC-Biyc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GrhN9DU7Yk&feature=related i don't think there can be any doubt as to what flg were celebrating. ProwlingToad (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I can indeed read the signs myself. None of them are celebrations of the Sichuan earthquake. These youtube videos show footage of people—presumed to be Falun Gong practitioners—holding signs about the disasters wrought by the Communist Party. They being yelled at by angry crowds of Chinese people, who are apparently riled up (ie. "agitated") because they have been led to believe that Falun Gong was celebrating the earthquake. That claim is nowhere substantiated, however, which is why it falls into the category of "propaganda." Reports from state-run Chinese media don't qualify as reliable sources on this issue. Now, there were news reports in reliable sources that said that Chinese residents in this same neighborhood physically assaulted and pummeled Falun Gong practitioners with rocks, leading to several arrests,[5] and that they were apparently doing so at the instigation of the Chinese consulate.[6] I still don't think that's notable enough to include on this page, however, as it doesn't seem to have significant bearing on Falun Gong overall.

If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you would be well advised to read the following: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT.Homunculus (duihua) 16:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

censorship

i can't help but notice that there is a distinct lack of information regarding the more "out there" teachings of falun gong in this article. claims of levitation, alien beings, telekinetic powers etc are among the more "tame" claims li has made. we're talking about the religion founded by the guy who actually said, with a straight face, "without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist." and we have barely a mention of these wild claims in such an extensive article. i mean, really? it's almost as if this information is being deliberately withheld by editors. but why would flg practitioners want to prevent the public from learning about their master's actual claims and teachings? seems strange to me.

will someone explain to me why these wacky theories are scarcely mentioned when they form such an integral part of flg teachings? they really should be included in this article for the sake of balance and truth. ProwlingToad (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Number of followers in 1999

We say in Demography section:

Prior to 1999, widely cited government estimates put the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China at over 70 million adherents. After the government imposed a ban on the group, it adjusted its estimates to approximately 2 million.

It might appear that the quoted material source is faluninfo.net, Number of Falun Gong practitioners in China in 1999: at least 70 million, which also uses the same three sources and arrives to adjustment conclusion. See sources for clarity:

• Renee Schoff's May 1 1999, New-age China: Cult or Cure (found it using faluninfo quote: "“But with more members than the Communist Party - at least 70 million, according to the State Sports Administration - Falun is also a formidable social network...”")
• Seth Faison, "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors," New York Times, 27 April 1999
• Seth Faison, "Followers of Chinese Sect Defend Its Spiritual Goals," New York Times, 30 July 1999

Later we add in 1996–1999 section:

By 1999, estimates provided by the State Sports Commission suggest there are upwards of 70 millions Falun Gong practitioners in China. Wu Shaozu, an official from China’s National Sports Commission, was at this time quoted in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that as many as 100 million may have taken up Falun Gong and other forms of qigong. Wu noted that the popularity of Falun Gong dramatically reduces health care costs, and that “Premier Zhu Rongji is very happy about that.”

Suggestions

1. We should do something about material duplication Demography<->1996–1999.
2. For Demography quoted material we might follow Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, along lines: Falun Gong followers insist that they number at least 100 million, though scholars say a truer figure is probably between 20 million and 60 million. The authorities, not known for their accurate portrayal of the group's followers, say there are only two million."

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of duplicate material. Given that the number of followers in China circa 1999 is relevant to both the history and the demography, I think it's fine to keep it in both places; the mention is brief enough. As to the Seth Faison accounts, there are two articles by him: the first, published in April 1999, cites government estimates of 70 million. The second, published after the suppression began in July 1999, notes the adjusted government estimate of 2 million. The estimate of ~2 million first appeared in mid-July of 1999, and was made public immediately after the campaign began. This is why it's stated that the government adjusted its estimate downwards from tens of millions to two million. I hope that's clear. The page already gives a range of estimates from Western observers of 10 - 70 million. Maybe it should be 10 - 60 million, citing Faison on the high end, and David Palmer on the low end. One could also add a note that estimates vary, in part, because people are measuring different things. Palmer, for instance, is trying to gauge the number of committed disciples, not casual practitioners.

Regarding you edit to the lede, it reads a little choppy to me. Also, I'm sure this was just an oversight, but you got the pronoun wrong. People are "who," things are "which."Homunculus (duihua) 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding lede edit, somebody already fixed which->who.
• Regarding it adjusted its estimates - we can not attribute this material to Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, the source does not note that. We could attribute this observation to faluninfo.net, if other editors agree.
• Regarding 70 millions number, it appears this number comes from the State Sports Commission, according to Renee Schoff's May 1 1999. We have a source in 1996–1999 section where Wu Shaozu, an official from China’s National Sports Commission, raises estimations to 100 millions.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the adjusted estimate, I recommend we source this to the U.S. Department of State: "Prior to the Government's 1999 ban on Falun Gong, it estimated that there were 70 million adherents; the Government subsequently adjusted the number of adherents to approximately 2 million. Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately."[7]. As to the other estimates, what do you propose? Homunculus (duihua) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The US government source does not shed more light on the issue, imho. The source is not academical, rather political, and does not cite any primary source for their claim. 70 millions number still appears to be reliably sourced to China’s National Sports Commission. The Sports Commission organization does not appear to represent CCP or PRC government. On the contrary, Wu Shaozu cited statements demonstrate that Sport Commission is sympathetic to Falun Gong. We have additional source in the lede

• By 1999, some estimates placed the number of Falun Gong adherents at over 70 million, exceeding the total membership of the Chinese Communist Party.

According to Gallagher-Ashcraft Falun Gong claimed 60 million followers, "rivaling the size of the CCP". Lede's Joseph Kahn's source attribute the 70 millions number to "Beijing" or PRC government., such claim contains internal contradiction, since Kahn notes: "Chinese Government estimates has more members than the Communist Party". Well, even reliable sources contain bad material from time to time. I'd sugest to treat claims that "rival the size of the CCP" indiscriminately as Falun Gong estimates.

For the article material, on question of number of Falun Gong partitioners in 1999, I'd sugest to go along lines of Librarian from Idaho, which cites this information to Tong, supra n. 11, at 636 and say:

• By the time of crackdown in1999, estimations on Falun Gong membership ranged from as low as 2.1 million according to CCP and and as high as 60-80 million according to Falun Gong.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Agada, I'm afraid I'm more than a little confused as to what you're proposing. The State Sports Commission (aka State General Administration for Sports) that Wu Shaozu represented is a government organization under the control of the State Council. It is correct to say that a government body produced an estimate of ~70 million in 1998 (at that time the suppression had not begun, and several government ministries still openly supported Falun Gong). In July 1999, the Ministry of Public Security issued a revised number of about 2.1 million. It is my understanding that Falun Gong claimed to have closer to 100 million members, by contrast. I also don't know what you're saying regarding the notion that FG may have had more members than the party. Multiple news reports and other reliable sources have noted this comparison. As to the U.S. government source, I provided it because it's a reliable source that clearly connects the two divergent estimates from Chinese government sources, saying that the Chinese authorities revised their numbers downward from 70 million to 2 million. There is nothing politically driven in this observation; it's just what happened. Could you just clarify what you're suggesting? Homunculus (duihua) 16:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the quantum leap State General Administration for Sports equals CCP is still not reliable. Sure, in 1999 when the crackdown started, sensational news reports might have included the material by media reporters where those two organizations were mixed up. For an observer outside China, it might appear that the Communist Party controls everything and everybody inside China and let's not pretend that PRC is a liberal democracy. But when we cross-reference with other sources present in this article even for a non-expert like me, it is clear that Wu Shaozu advocates for the Falun Gong. For the sake of the quality we need to base the material on later academical independent secondary sources, like Librarian from Idaho which summarizes academical world view on the subject. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Agada, I see you replaced other sources with the article by Michael Greenlee. I don't think that's a very good idea, for the same reason I've raised previously. Namely, there are vastly divergent estimates, they measure different things, and the official estimates changed from 1998 to July 1999. Furthermore, by deleted other sources, you're treating Greenlee (a legal scholar, apparently) as authoritative. But he's not. Look at the source of Greenlee's estimate on the population of Falun Gong circa 1999. He cited James Tong's article in the China Quarterly. In particular, Greenlee was citing Tong's statement that by July 22 1999, Falun Gong "had attracted a following between 2 to 80 million inside China, according to respective official and falun gong estimates." The footnote Tong gives provides an even greater range:

Renmin ribao (People’s Daily), 15 August 1999, p. 1. Official media gave a range of estimates for the number of falun gong adherents, from 2 million in the above report, to 40 million in Nanfang ribao, 18 March 1999, p. 11. The later, more authoritative figures are 2.1 to 2.3 million, Xinhua, 27 October 2001; Zong Hairen, “Zhu Rongji zai yijiujiujiu nian” (“Zhu Rongji in 1999”), p. 15, Chinese original in September 2001, English text in Chinese Law and Government, January–February, March–April 2002. There is also a range of falun gong estimates. The most common is 70–80 million domestic practitioners, and over 100 million world-wide, see “Falun gong zhenshi di gushi” (“The real story of falun gong”) 14 August 1999, in www.Mingui.ca, the falun gong website, hereafter Minghui. On the high end, one falun gong leader in Guangdong claimed that the movement had 130 million followers, Nanfang ribao, 27 July 1999, p. 2.

So, Falun Gong estimates were mostly in the 70-80 million range, and official estimates were 2 million to 40 million as of 22 July 1999. But as multiple reliable sources have noted, official estimates were higher prior to July 1999, ranging up to 70 million. You deleted any mention of this. I suggest you restore the information on where official estimates stood circa 1998. I also suggest you restore the note about what independent scholars estimated participation to be in this era, per Seth Faison's article. You could also refer to David Palmer's low-end estimate of 10 million for active practitioners in this era.

In response to your last comment, I didn't understand what you were staying about the State Sports Commission on first read. It seems you're arguing that reporters confused it for the Communist Party. That's not the case. The State Sports Commission is a government body, which answers to the State Council. It is not a Communist Party body, and no one ever said they were the same thing. The Ministry of Public Security is also a government, rather than a CCP, organization. But it is still correct to say that a government organ in 1998 produced the estimate of 70 million followers, and that number was revised by another government body in July 1999 to 2 million. Homunculus (duihua) 02:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just looked at the page. this edit strikes me as making no sense. Hmm, well, seeing as there has been no explanation by Agada about the change, and seeing that it doesn't make sense (it inserts a citation request?) I will just undo it. The numbers issue is complex; the new presentation muddies more than clarifies, and I don't think that essentially replacing multiple secondary sources with one kind of unknown tertiary source is an adequate solution. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to allow the fellow a chance to respond before reverting.Homunculus (duihua) 04:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. The Sound and the Fury says " seeing as there has been no explanation by Agada about the change". So he just "undo it?" Really? Please see the discussion above. Let me sum it up for you again:

• Regarding it adjusted its estimates - we can not attribute this material to Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, the source does not note that. We could attribute this observation to faluninfo.net, if other editors agree. And no political US source does not help.
• The quantum leap State General Administration for Sports equals Communist Party or China's government is still not reliable. Please see ref [37], cited multiple times in the article. Yuezhi Zhao outlines in Falung Gong, the Chinese State and Media Politics. see page 212 the affiliation of Li Hongzhi with this Sports Commission, when Falun Gong was legitimized by the state. Moreover she notes that the state helped to publish and distribute Li Hongzhi's books and the his followers were in highest echelons on the Communist Party. So this is not a surprise that Wu Shaozu advocates for the Falun Gong.

I'm surprised how some editors behave in the article covered by arbitration sanctions. I see a point though in attributing 2.1 number to PRC instead the party to get closer to the source provided. We need to summarize though, it appears there is no way to cite a "real" number since both sides wage a propaganda war. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the chronology of this conversation, and it looked like you made the change unilaterally and against consensus. On reading more carefully I see that wasn't the case, so I'm sorry for being quick on the revert trigger. I thought there were ample sources on the point that the two million estimate came after the persecution as a general part of the propaganda campaign (i.e., diminish influence of the verboten group; [8]), but more sources can be found for that by someone if necessary. Mainly I objected to the change because it seemed to simplify a more complex picture with a single tertiary source. I don't know who equated the sports commission with the communist party; no doubt it's an official organ of the state, however, and its "estimates" (who knows how reliable they were to begin with) of the number of followers are understood to be within the rubric of the permissible at that time in China. Numbers in China, of most any type, are easily and often politicized. The FLG-follower number quickly became political after the ban. As long as the article reflects this, according to reliable sources, that's fine. And of course both sides seek to portray themselves in the most favorable light. But that's as helpful as saying the sky is blue when the sun's out and no clouds inhibit its rays. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agada, I agree that what's currently on the page could be improved upon, though the content you replaced with was also deficient. Also agree with your statement that we need to try to be concise, and that no definitive number is possible (really, if you pick any multiple of ten million up to 130 million, chances are someone has estimated the FG population to be that). Sometime tomorrow I will go through my collection of sources and come back with a suggestion on what the wording might be, and maybe we can find a solution agreeable to all. Is that reasonable? I hope this process isn't too frustrating or disheartening. Homunculus (duihua) 03:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I looked through several different sources, and came up with the most densely referenced paragraph I've ever composed. Let me know if this satisfies:

Prior to the July suppression of the group, Chinese government estimates placed the number of Falun Gong practitioners as high as 60 to 70 million nationwide, rivaling membership in the Communist Party. By the time of the suppression on July 22, 1999, most Chinese government numbers said the population of Falun Gong was between 2 and 3 million, though some publications supported an estimate of 40 million. Most Falun Gong estimates in the same period estimated the total number of practitioners in China at 70-80 million. Other sources have estimated the Falun Gong population in China to have peaked between 10 and 60 million practitioners.

Let me know if this addresses your concerns adequately, or how it might be improved.Homunculus (duihua) 07:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny, so Homunculus, you still think, according to available sources, that 70 millions attributed to the State Sports Administration could be attributed to the Chinese government , honestly? Do you still want to make "adjustment" WP:POINT? I don't really care, but this does not make any sense. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've expended considerable effort just trying to understand what you're objecting to, and I'm afraid I still don't understand. Is it that you don't think the State Sports Administration is part of the government? Well, it is. It is an agency directly administered by the State Council which, in lay terms, is the government of the People's Republic of China. More importantly, four of the reliable sources used to substantiate that estimate simply credit it to "the government," so that is what I wrote. Do you want the article to credit that number to the State Sports Commission directly? If that's the case, just say so. It's really not a big deal.Homunculus (duihua) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. I don't have personal experience with Falun Gong, but I have reviewed considerable number of sources. The subject was popular among schoolars. I like the fact that faluninfo appears supported by reliable sources, it reads almost as Wikipedia. I'm going to tag the article for npov and synth material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? I really do not understand what you're doing. I've tried very hard to cooperate with you, but you're simply not making any sense. What do you want? Please explain what you think is problematic, in very clear terms. You've just added four tags to the article without any coherent explanation of what the problem is. If you don't explain the problems you've identified, then no one will be able to arrive at a solution. Homunculus (duihua) 23:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the tags. Since Agada commented on the talk page since then, he obviously saw the request to explain what their point was (and implicitly declined to do so). Pls don't put tags on the page etc. just to make a point about some other editing or content issue one is not happy about. There is a thing about Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems. I would say it's not even necessary because there is proactive discussion going on here and people who jump right into it and fix things when problems are identified. Let's play nice. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I keep reading this conversation, and I still don't know how it spiraled out of control. Agada, I really have been trying to understand and address your concerns, so there's no need for the sardonic tone, let alone any justification for tag bombing the page. I am still interested in addressing your concerns and improving the estimates on demographics. Please read the proposal I posted above, take a look at the dozen or so references used to support it and the quotes contained therein, and let me know if there is some specific, actionable way to improve upon it. If your objection is that the 70 million number is sourced to "the government" (per the sources) and not the State Sports Commission, I'm totally happy to just use the State Sports Commission. Even though it's not made clear in the majority of sources, it is more accurate and specific. If you have a clear, specific objection, please share it and propose an alternative. Homunculus (duihua) 06:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope it's alright if I move forward with the change as proposed. I'll use the sports commission in lieu of "government."Homunculus (duihua) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

References for above

References

Request for Comment - He / Luo connection

Should the article, specifically the section dealing with events that led to the suppression of the Falun Gong in the spring of 1999, note the alleged familial connection between two of Falun Gong’s leading opponents in this era? Two reliable sources (excerpted below) have noted this connection and the possible significance of it. The men are He Zuoxiu, a physisist and opponent of qigong, Chinese medicine, and pseudo-science; and Luo Gan, a high-ranking Chinese official with significant influence over the Ministry of Public Security. Both men were instrumental in the events that led to the suppression, and benefited personally from it. One proposal for what could be on the page is this:

"Porter and Gutmann have noted the possible significance of a familial relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, who are purported to be brothers-in-law or otherwise related by marriage. Porter speculates that the two may have planned the events of April 1999 with the goal of provoking Falun Gong and creating a pretext for the suppression of the group."

As stated above, there are two reliable sources who note this connection. The first, anthropologist Noah Porter, did so in his MA thesis, which was later published as a book. Although only a Master’s dissertation, the work achieved considerable influence, and was well reviewed by more established experts on the field. Porter is not an expert on Chinese politics, however, and some editors expressed concern that Porter’s source on the family link are Falun Gong websites which, while not necessarily untrue, are not necessarily true either. This is a slightly redacted version of Porter’s synthesis of the events (emphasis added):

Finally, a man named Luo Gan, along with a relative of his, may bear some responsibility for the crackdown.[...] Luo Gan was secretary general of the State Council, and he “had been investigating Falun Gong and had wanted it banned since 1996 but could not find any legal basis for transgression” (Ching 2001). However, “[Luo] had the police direct [Falungong practitioners] to Zhongnanhai, in order to create an incident with which they afterwards could be charged” (Ching 2001). [...] He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan’s relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 2000g)...seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong [...] He Zuoxiu claimed that two of his graduate students had relapses of mental disorders due to Falun Gong, both in his article and on Beijing Television. The practitioners protested the magazine’s office in Tianjin because they would not carry a response, and were beaten and arrest by riot police (Schechter 2001: 69) under orders from Luo Gan (FalunInfo.net n.d.a). Afterwards, practitioners who complained to local authorities about this harsh treatment were told to go to Beijing (Schechter 2001: 69); Luo Gan had “secretly order[ed] the police to lead Falun Gong practitioners into gathering around the Zhongnanhai government compound” [...] Afterwards, Luo Gan was appointed as part of the team created by the Central Committee of the CCP to investigate the April 25 incident.It was Luo Gan who finally issued the order that Falun Gong be banned (Luo 1999). Luo Gan was then put in charge of the “the Head Office for Handling the Falun Gong Issue,” also known as the “610 Office.” [...] As for He Zuoxiu, he “became a national hero for opposing Falun Gong” (Yan 2001). Things could not have worked out better for the two if they planned it – which, it appears, they just might have.

(In case it is not clear, the point is that Luo wanted to crack down on Falun Gong for years, but had no pretext. He Zuoxiu published the article in Tianjin, which set off a chain reaction that resulted in Falun Gong demonstrating in front of the Zhongnanhai government compound. That demonstration is widely viewed as the catalyst for the crackdown on Falun Gong. As Porter notes, Luo Gan seemed to have been pulling the strings in Tianjin and Zhongnanhai, and was as a result of these events, he was put in charge of the suppression of Falun Gong).

The second source that points out this connection is Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist who has written and published on Falun Gong for about a decade. Gutmann was in Beijing as the events of 1999 unfolded, and present at Zhongnanhai when the pivotal Falun Gong demonstration took place. He appears to have sources in the Chinese government, and conducted extensive interviews for his account of the events leading up to the suppression. Gutmann wrote a feature article in the National Review which analyzed the events of the Spring of 1999, essentially arguing that the Falun Gong were baited into protesting at Zhongnanhai, providing certain Communist Party leaders with a long-awaited excuse to launch a full suppression of the group. It cannot be so concisely excerpted, so I would advise reading the full article.[9] One key excerpt is here:

...It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs.

Editors who oppose the inclusion of the information on He and Luo’s family connection point out that Gutmann does not explain the source of this claim (to which I would say that journalistic articles like this one don’t have footnotes, but are fact-checked by discerning editorial boards).

I did research to see if any other sources (outside the Falun Gong context) have noted the family connection between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan. There is virtually no information on Luo Gan’s wife. However, in the city of Yangzhou, the He family has a garden frequented by tourists where they display their family tree. According to multiple tourist accounts, the family tree indicates that one of He Zuoxiu’s relatives, He Zuozhi (probably a sister or cousin), is married to Luo Gan. This is not definitive proof, but it certainly helps to make the case that the family connection is real, and no evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.

So, we need to establish:

• That the family connection and the possible implications thereof is notable enough to be briefly mentioned in the relevant history section (with inline citations given)
• That such inclusion satisfies verifiability policy

I hope I have presented the evidence here judiciously and have not left anything out. Sorry this is such a long RfC, but it's a complex issue. Homunculus (duihua) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have time to work through all the details. What I will say is that the situation is being somewhat misrepresented by the analysis above. I urge any editor who is participating in the RfC to read the full discussion and not rely on the above analysis to characterize the nature of the dispute. Moreover, I do remind the editors that a previous RfC had already been conducted on this matter in 2010, in which User John Carter had pointed out that the passages in question were in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. I quote User John Carter: "If, and I believe only if a reliable source explicitly says that these two individuals have, in some way, colluded or conspired to act, then, perhaps, that might be relevant to the article about the suppression of Falun Gong in China, and, I suppose, an argument could be made that it is relevant here. But I have not yet seen the sources which make the statements which would be required by policy for this material to be included. If those sources exist, than I very strongly suggest that they be produced and that others be allowed to review them to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines are not violated." Colipon+(Talk) 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New evidence, and more full excerpts, have been presented in this RfC that were not presented in the previous one. Namely, the Porter source cited above does explicitly say that these two individuals likely colluded or conspired, that they may have had a significant role in catalyzing the persecution, and notes their being relatives as part of that allegation. The Gutmann source is not as explicit, but I think a reasonable person would understand that the subtext is precisely that of a collusion or conspiracy involving these two individuals. Moreover, the new evidence from Yangzhou alleviates BLP concerns (that and the fact that no evidence to the contrary can be found). I also think that the new wording proposed here resolves any concerns about original synthesis. So, with due respect to the previous decision, I would therefore exhort outside parties to consider the evidence presented with fresh eyes. I also hope sincerely that this discussion is not derailed accusations of bad faith or deception.Homunculus (duihua) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not true. The argument haven't advanced at all from Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_35#Bringing_up_an_old_discussion_.28Luo_Gan.29, in which Falun Gong user ASDFG brings up the exact same passage from Palmer. The language Palmer uses is enough to set off alarms for us: "seems to have", "might have", "may bear some". Simply pasting the paragraph instead of the passage does not constitute 'new evidence' from what ASDFG already presented. Again, the standard of scrutiny suggested by John Carter is perfectly reasonable, and the content as it stands does not reach this standard. Colipon+(Talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Porter (not Palmer) passage was not presented in full in the previous RfC. It was very heavily excerpted, which would naturally lead to concerns about synthesis. Do you know why Porter used qualifications like "may have"? It's because he's a responsible scholar. It's likely no one will ever know the truth about what went on, so he can't state definitively that they did conspire. But he can put together the evidence, connect the dots, and say that there appears to have been a conspiracy, and their being related seems to be part of it. And since Porter does that, and Gutmann does that, we can present their views in an equally responsible and qualified manner on this encyclopedia. I am not going to debate with you further. This is forum for uninvolved editors to review what the sources say and weigh in on how it might be included on the page.Homunculus (duihua) 17:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am unclear on the relevance of the family relationship. There is an underlying suggestion that the relationship is somehow improper, though the sources do not make that explicit. We do not encourage speculation. If these are the best sources that can be found, then I do not see a rationale for mentioning the relationship. This is a passing comment, I haven't read any background material, and do not have the time or inclination for that at the moment, so my comment must be taken as uninformed and cursory. If I do get some time later, I may look more deeply into the matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There's an explicit claim in several sources that the familial relationship between the two precipitated the particular circumstances of the persecution. It's not an underlying suggestion that the relationship between He/Luo is somehow improper (I'm not sure what this could mean. A familial relationship is a familial relationship--the sources claim that it was put to improper use, specifically in creating the pretext for a suppression, not that the relationship itself is improper). This is stated explicitly in the sources. The question is whether the sources brought forth pass wp:rs for the claims they're making. But what they're claiming is perfectly clear. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was actually discussing this with SilkTork on his/her talk page, and neglected to respond here. Silk raised a point, which I think has some merit, that highlighting the Zhongnanhai counter-narrative may be premature. If the narrative about the He / Luo relationship (and the significant of it) gains more ground in the relevant literature as being significant, then we are in a better position to assess its notability and relevance to the topic. For now, if we present the facts of these events in a straight-forward way, without the speculation on the significance of the familial connection, I think that should be satisfactory. Also, if ever a page is created dealing with the April 25 protest directly, that may be a more appropriate forum to explore the different interpretations of the event in greater detail. I'm not attached to any particular approach.Homunculus (duihua) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that you are now in favour of removing all the references to He and Luo's familial relationship. 209.29.21.158 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'm being noncommittal to provide an opportunity for more discussion. I think that the idea of stating the facts of the relationship in passing, without elaboration on the possible implications of it, is one option. There's also the option of leaving in a (short) description of what folks like Porter and Gutmann see as the implications, while being careful not to extrapolate beyond what the reliable sources have written. Omitting the information from this page, and perhaps waiting to see if it gains traction in future literature on the subject, is another choice available to us. None of these options seems to be a violation of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so all are valid choices as far as I can tell. I would be curious to see what other people think after reading the sources described above.Homunculus (duihua) 05:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want this to be an RfC or is this some sort of "I want to intimidate my opponents so I post an RfC that no outsider will understand"? Seriously, if you want anyone other than the usual suspects to give comment, keep it simple... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha, well, there is no doubt I failed in the mission to elicit comment from non-involved editors! Though I'm not sure how the length of an RfC could be expected to deter only would-be opponents (and, since I'm not committed to a position on this question, I'm not sure who my opponents would be in any case). On self-examination, however, I realize that I may have sought to intimidate those with an aversion to reading. I would hope that people weighing in on this question actually take the time to examine the sources in question and familiarize themselves with the surrounding issues. Maybe I hope for too much.Homunculus (duihua) 16:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"may", "seems", "just might". And other sources don't claim any deliberate provocation. Other sources directly blame Falun Gong for escalating the situation[10][11]. Another one says:

"Falundafa likely became the target of Chinese authorities in 1999. On April 25, 1999 around 10,000 Falundafa believers appeared outside the Chinese leadership's Zhongnanhai compound in Beijing. Contrary to general belief, this was not a protest against the Chinese Government. It was a request for legal recognition and defense against attacks made by a physics professor He Zuoxiu. Prof. He had made a second career as a debunker of what he regarded as pseudoscience and bogus beliefs. He wrote a critique of Falundafa in the April issue of Science and Technology for Youth, an obscure Chinese magazine. The Falundafa protest was in response to this (Eckholm, 2001)." [12].

I already heard of this guy before I saw him in Falun Gong articles. Back in 1994, He Zuoxiu was already a famous skeptic, forcing the Chinese government to make a public commitment against pseudoscience and superstition, see Hongcheng_Magic_Liquid. He appears as a skeptic in 1995 in Science[13] and in May 2006 in Nature[14] (I can't read the full article). There was nothing strange or abnormal about him giving a talk against Falun gong (which was becoming popular at the time, and had a good amount of superstitious explanations for qigong).

Please remove this as speculations from less than a handful of sources, that are not supported on any actual fact. We are not going to add every conspiracy theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Enric, it seems that you’re objecting to the inclusion of the speculation about the significance of the He-Luo relationship, which I think is a different question from just stating the relationship (something that could be done in five words or so). I can see the point that including the theory around this is speculative, but when reliable sources are the ones speculating, can’t we report it? The page has an entire section speculating on the causes behind the campaign. I’m not saying we have to include this, but there are a couple points I want to raise for consideration:

• • First, although there are only two sources that explicitly mention this He - Luo connection as being significant, they are not exactly marginal. If I were to make a list of, say, the top ten journalists and scholars whose writings on Falungong are must-reads on the subject, Porter and Gutmann would be on that list. It seems their views on these events represent a notable viewpoint.
  • Secondly, this may actually be a question of neutrality and balance. The version of events that Gutmann and Porter are challenging holds, essentially, that Falungong stupidly provoked the crackdown by protesting at Zhongnanhai (meaning they got what they deserved for their audacity). As Enric says, this account of events blames Falungong for escalating the situation. This is basically the Chinese government’s story. To an extent it was accepted by western journalists at the time because they didn’t know any better. For most of them, Zhongnanhai was their first exposure to Falungong, and they cobbled together what information they could relying on official accounts and plainly observable facts. Gutmann and Porter drew on more evidence to put together a different hypothesis, and found that Falungong was the victim and not the provocateur in the April demonstration. I think there’s a case to be made that a balanced article needs to represent this view (and I suspect this is the reason that such an apparently minor issue has been the subject of such frequent contention).

But leaving aside the question of this alternative narrative, does anyone dispute that the relationship between He and Luo exists? One might disagree with what it means, or think that conspiracy theories are out of place, but it is a fact, is it not? I previously had some concerns, but the stuff from Yangzhou (and the lack of contrary evidence) put those to rest. If we don’t include the short paragraph expounding on the importance of the relationship, at a minimum I think it would be fine to note, when introducing Luo Gan, that he is related through marriage to He Zuoxiu. Given the facts, readers can come to their own conclusions.—Zujine|talk 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about perceived truth, it only includes what can be verified from reliable sources. If no reliable sources mention the connection then neither should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, that is a good point. Please note that two reliable sources mention the connection.Homunculus (duihua) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that so many books and schoolar works were published about the Falun Gong that don't discuss He / Luo connection, while discussing their role in the crackdown. Appears as WP:FRINGE to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the RfC and decided to have a look at this case. I've studied China related topics in the past and read some interesting articles on Falun Gong, and although I can't call myself an expert, the issue at hand seems notable enough to me and the sources appear reliable. Include. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is unlikely to draw much more constructive comment. As far as I can tell, no one who weighed in took the time to read the sources or analyse them. To recap this and the preceding discussion, there were a couple initial concerns that were raised about inclusion of the He/Luo connection and accompanying theory. Namely, concern about the authenticity and sourcing of the claim, the use of the Zhao article as a source for the claim, and the statement of the connection as unqualified fact. The first of these concerns has been resolved through reference to other sources (outside the Falungong context) which assert the family relationship. The second and third points were addressed early on in edits by The Sound And The Fury. There do not appear to be any further, objective problems, but only normative interpretations. About the inclusion of the collusion theory, I pointed out that this is actually a question of balance, and that Gutmann and Porter are prominent sources on Falungong whose views represent a notable perspective. No one responded to those points. I don't think that inclusion needs to be long. Can I propose that we just adopt the wording presented at the start of this RfC? It's short, well supported by the sources, and is almost certainly an improvement to what's now in the article. That way we can wrap this up. —Zujine|talk 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's quite alright with you, I removed the paragraph that expounded on the collusion theory, and left just a passing mention of the relationship with an inline citation to Gutmann and Porter.Homunculus (duihua) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the current version remains WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CHERRY, even if the relationship itself is 'real', the relevance of it has not been established by a wide enough range of sources. In fact, the vast majority of sources that make this connection at all are Falun Gong propaganda websites, whose only reason for highlighting this reference is to portray the actions of He Zuoxiu as part of a well-orchestrated conspiracy rather than bona fide criticism that is not linked to the CCP in any way, shape or form. Indeed, several users above already mention that this is more-or-less WP:FRINGE.

If I may summarize. After two RFCs, Respected administrators User John Carter and User Silktork, as well as User IRWolfie, User AgadaUrbanit, and User Enric Naval, in addition to myself and User OhConfucius, all have voiced their opinions that the He-Luo connection does not belong. Apparently this still does not satisfy the users that continue to push for its inclusion. So in light of that, it should be clear that the references (no matter how 'diluted') must be removed. If this still does not satisfy users pushing for the reference's inclusion, then I think I have exhausted what needs to be said here. Colipon+(Talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's valuable to differentiate between facts and theories. The fact is that these men are related. The theory concerns the significance of that relationship, particularly as it related to the events of April 1999. Unfortunately most people who weighed in on the RfC commented only on the collusion theory. Three editors who weighted in here appear to agree that the theory of collusion is notable, particularly given the prominence of Porter and Gutmann in Falun Gong literature (I also think it's notable, and the more I read about Luo's early antagonism toward Falun Gong dating back to 1996, the more plausible I find it. But I'm also aware that while Porter and Gutmann are notable researchers on this topic, the theory hasn't exactly taken off in the literature). SilkTork, who did not have time to actually read the sources, suggested the theory may be premature for inclusion. Enric Naval argued it should be removed entirely, though I can't make sense of his statement that the connection and accompanying theory is not based on fact—it's based entirely on facts. IRWolfie, who did not seem to read the RfC carefully, let alone the literature, said that we can't include things not present in RS. John Carter weighed in on a separate RfC, where the proposed material for inclusion was different, and suggested there was a problem of synthesis. There is no consensus here on the inclusion of the theory of collusion, which is what all these editors seemed to be addressing. I thought you might find the middle ground agreeable: that is, remove the theory, but leave passing mention of the fact. It takes only a few words. There is no synthesis involved, nor any suggestion of impropriety. Readers can decide for themselves whether the relationship is coincidence or not. If you can't agree to this, I think it's likely this issue will never be put to rest. Say we remove all mention of this fact. The next time it's mentioned in a journal article or book or newspaper about Falun Gong, what then will you do? Homunculus (duihua) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Luo notice

There's a notice on top of this page that singles out User:Samuel Luo "and his sockpuppets" as being banned from editing this article. But Samuel is not the only one who has been sanctioned as a result of the arbitration case, even indefinitely, and it's a general Wikipedia policy that block-evading sockpuppets are banned from editing articles. Since the last time a suspected sockpuppet of Samuel Luo edited was in December 2007, I think this notice is outdated, not very useful, and should be removed. Shrigley (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I responded to this just now but my edit got lost in the conflict. Good idea. Instead we should have something useful like a note about the AE policies applicable to the page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Replaced with a discretionary sanctions notice. Shrigley (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do Critiques go

No critics? A NRM like Scientology in China could be no controversies? Lots need to be added. The elimination, rejection, or even some disgust is not only coming from the suppression of the Chinese goverment.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I just removed recent good faith additions by an editor because they relied on primary sources or no sources and didn't seem to establish notability for the claims. Can we get some good journalism or scholarship on this? I noticed these were imported from the Chinese version. The graffiti on bank notes is rather interesting--I hadn't seen this development--but it would be a good idea to have something more solid about where this fits into the broader anti-CPC scheme. UPDATE: Not a question of criticism or not, simply good sourcing etc. please take a look at wp:npov and wp:rs. Let's not get mean about things. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems the editor added some information and photos about the Tuidang movement. The page should include mention of this, though it can be done concisely (two sentences is probably sufficient), with a link to the relevant article. We can do this without the original research, original synthesis, or non-neutral language that was introduced. There is surprisingly little english-language scholarship or media coverage of the movement to establish notability, but there is enough to justify brief mention here.

As to other controversies, they are found at the bottom of the page. Also, try to avoid reductionist analogies (eg. between Falun Gong and Scientology). Such comparisons can only distort, and do nothing to illuminate a subject or contribute to a nuanced understanding.Homunculus (duihua) 04:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Very glad to see there are editors focused on the npov. Actually I don't want to go original research right here, just try to state more info. Alright I will try to get some good source to back those words, though it's hard. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 04:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at what I added. I forgot that Patricia Thornton is another source who has written on the movement (albeit peripherally) when it first began, but the sources there are probably enough.Homunculus (duihua) 05:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice job from upstairs. But why not the pictures? The propaganda of FLG is going crazily in rural areas actually, I'm a Chinese I've seen that but I can't find any source due to obvious reason. The graffiti on bank notes is the method used in urban areas. Without the picture stating, I don't think it could be so provable. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the images pertain to Tuidang specifically, I suggest a better place for them is on the Tuidang movement article, which currently has no pictures. There are, in fact, a couple reliably published english-language sources that have noted the presence of these FG banknote (see [15]). It is very interesting, but I wish there were more literature. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.Homunculus (duihua) 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Multiple issues}}

This article is a pretty good start, but it is still far from WP:GA pages like Plan 9 from Bell Labs. There is still a quality gap to cover. I would like to explain more clearly the placement of {{Multiple issues}} tag for this page, with intention to encourage editors to improve the article.

• advert & POV - there are multiple unresolved discussions, most notably Propaganda. There are issues that were raised from number of angles also during other discussions on this talk page.
• self-published - there is a text book self-published source included in this article. The issue first raised at 9 January 2012, questionable source discussion.
• synthesis - during Number of followers in 1999 discussion it was pointed out on 6 February 2012 that adjustment point is a analysis that serves to advance a position not advanced by the Seth Faison source.

I am restoring the tag to allow collaborative resolution of outstanding issues. I would request not to remove the tag again till those multiple issues are resolved via discussed consensus on this talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is... unusual. Tagged because not GA? Let's look at these issues. 1) some guy writes that the article is propaganda, based on disagreeing with the stuff about organ harvesting etc.? It's unclear of the points he raised which specifically are at play. If there are substantive issues of missing or problematic content, then specifically point out which and explain in detail. The reference here is unclear. 2) is because there's one blog post by an expert on the subject, one of among four references. The source is still there (Ethan Gutmann, "How many harvested?", March 10, 2011.) but the point is already made with CQ Researcher, it appears, so we could probably easily delete that. Is this a substantive issue? 3) this discussion, which you started, is above. The last thing Hom writes is " If you have a clear, specific objection, please share it and propose an alternative." You didn't answer. This is so weird. The only specific course of action in all this would be to remove the Gutmann blog. On 1) and 3) there's nothing really to do. The tagging now is obviously just an unsubtle way to make a WP:point. You're welcome to delete the Gutmann blog reference, if you insist. Other editors may see some reason for it to stay. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To address each of these points:

1. The concerns raised at Talk:Falun_Gong#Propaganda weren't answered, at least not by me, because they're ridiculous. The non-confirmed user, whose edits are limited to this page and one other, raised concerns that are either irrelevant, poorly informed, or that have already been addressed. Their first concern was about the veracity of organ harvesting claims. No such claims are even made on this page. The second point argued, without reference to any sources, that Falun Gong was banned because of its "political motivations." Editor evidently never read any scholarship on Falun Gong, because if they had, they would know this wasn't the case. The third point was regarding the classification and the views of the (fringe) anti-cult movement, both of which are already addressed on the page. Fourth, they said that it's absurd that there could have been 70 million practitioners. This is already addressed on the page, with multiple sources provided. Fifth, they said that mention should be made of Falun Gong's ties to Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and New Tang Dynasty. That is already on the page. And finally, editor said that the page should note the "high profile murder and suicide cases" involving Falun Gong. There are no confirmed reports of murder or suicide cases involving Falun Gong; only party propaganda, which is addressed in the article.

2. Your concern about self-published sources for the death toll was already discussed at great length and resolved. Seriously, thousands of words were spilled explaining to you why Gutmann's estimates are notable, verifiable, and why they satisfy WP:RS. At long last, you seemed satisfied when I pointed out that they were cited in the CQ Researcher. I don't know why you're bringing this up again.

3.Your concern about original synthesis was also discussed, ad nauseum, and resolved. The synthesis you pointed out is no longer on the page.

I don't know why you're doing this, but it's not constructive.Homunculus (duihua) 23:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I had written another long and annoyed thing. Bottom line is that this is dumb and the tags are deleted again. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems this user doesn't understand the purpose of adding tags. In order to be constructive, tags should be accompanied by specific statements of problems, and proposals for solutions. They should not be used to hold a page hostage to one's POV, or as an expression of vague disquiet with the tone of something. None of the issues identified here were real problems, as far as I can tell. If Homunculus is right, all of them are already addressed to satisfaction, if ever they existed at all. If your intention is truly to encourage others to improve the article, this is not a good way to go about it. Littering pages with maintenance tags will only 1) waste people's time, and 2) breed frustration and bad blood. There's simply no need for this kind of behaviour.

With that said, there are some legitimate areas for improvement. Foremost among these is that the persecution section still needs to be improved/consolidated/cleaned up. I volunteered for this a long time ago, and will try to get to it this week.—Zujine|talk 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I see that there is one actionable issue raised by AgadaUrganit: that Ethan Gutmann's blog is used as a source on one occasion. It is one among four sources used to support a point about Gutmann's own research. Gutmann is an established expert on Falungong, so his self-published writings on this subject actually satisfy RS. Still, if it will put this tedium to an end, why not just remove the reference? You wouldn't even have to change the content, since there are three other sources.—Zujine|talk 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to delete the Gutmann reference would be for the purpose of appeasement. It does not violate policies or RS guidelines, and its presence improves the article. It is the only source in which Gutmann describes his methodology in depth; the other sources used do not provide this.Homunculus (duihua) 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to be the Wikipedia policy and guidelines Nazi here, but the only reason which was given is WP:SPS. And current Falun_Gong#Demography beginning Prior to the July 1999, official estimates placed the number of Falun Gong practitioners as high as 60 to 70 million nationwide, rivaling membership in the Communist Party.[10][84][85][86] is still covered by WP:NOR per Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 and imho funny. The {{Multiple issues}} tag intention is to encourage editors to improve the article. The tag should be restored. See also {{Article discretionary sanctions}}. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think that a statement of fact that is supported by the Associated Press, three New York Times articles, and the U.S. World and News Report is "self-published," then you don't understand what self-published means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is there is a disagreement here and if someone, who removed the tag will not restore it, that editor would have to explain it on WP:AE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag for clear reasons stated above. Please just explain what can be fixed about the page rather than arguing over tags. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sound, I think you misunderstand the process. The tag placement should be explained, since Wikipedia:Tag bombing is not allowed. However, if you don't agree with the explained tag, it does not matter much. In order to remove or change a tag you need to reach a consensus on this talk page.

I don't need to repeat myself. This is your last warning. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agada, the tags you added were discussed. They were found to be inapplicable; the concerns you pointed to have either already been resolved, or never existed. There is consensus that the tags you added should be removed. You are the lone dissenter, yet your dissent seems to be based solely on a misunderstanding of WP:SPS or WP:NOR (namely, your belief that a fact attributed to the New York Times and Associated Press is somehow self-published or original research).

On another note, there is no policy that dictates the use of tags. The essay WP:TAGGING does state, however, that "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." More importantly, the essay suggests that in cases of a disagreement, editors should attempt to discuss calmly and in good faith. On multiple discussion threads, myself and others have politely and repeatedly asked you yet to identify the content issues you object to. You have responded to attempts at collaboration with escalating sarcasm, tag-bombing, and threats. I will state again: if you have a clear, specific objection or suggestion, you are welcome to share it. I am confident that any and all legitimate, constructive suggestions for the page can be considered.Homunculus (duihua) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did things just become totally bizarre over here? Where did you get that big stop-hand thing from? Very expressive. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oh, oh... this is rather reminiscent of the bad old days. It seems to me that AgadaUrbanit has a correct understanding of the use of these tags, and has had the good grace to come here and explain his/her concerns. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence or try to bully AU and insist this article is somehow neutral. I would remind you all that this page is under Arbcom probation, and that the entire Falun Gong cabal got banned not many moons ago. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't think you've followed very closely. If a user wants to add tags to a page, they're entitled to, but should accompany them with specific and actionable suggestions or identifications of problems on the talk page. AgadaUrbanit has tag bombed this page several times, and this is the first occasion he/she has attempted to explain. Unfortunately, that explanation involved simply pointing to previous threads, where issues were already resolved to satisfaction (if even they were legitimate issues to begin with). The tags were discussed and removed, as there was nothing further to do. (For example, Agada said above that there is a problem of synthesis with a Seth Faison source. That problem no longer exists. Similarly, they claim that a fact cited to multiple RS is original research. What can be done with that? Nothing.) The removal of the tags was perfectly appropriate. Agada then started threatening an AE case.

Take a look at the thread above titled 'Number of followers in 1999'. If you can even follow the discussion, you've bested me. I spend a substantial amount of time trying to work with this user, and to understand and answer their concerns. Finally I offer a solution to the problem, proposing a short paragraph with no fewer than 14 references, each with the quotes from relevant articles for easy corroboration. AgadaUrbanit then becomes inexplicably sarcastic and begins placing multiple tags on the page. After repeated requests that they just engage in discussion and articulate the problems they see with my proposal, they never respond. I fix the page anyway. Weeks later, user adds the same tags again and points back to that discussion as evidence of what's wrong. If you think that's appropriate behavior...well, anyways, it doesn't matter. Frankly, if this user is committed to spending the time filing that complaint, I have no problem with it (I don't think it would end well for him/her, however).Homunculus (duihua) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is just intimidation. User AgadaUrbanit is a non-involved editor who raises some very legitimate doubts about the neutrality of the article and then they get scared off by the poisoned editing ambiance. Reminds me of why I stopped editing Falun Gong. Alas, the rational voices always get scared away from this wikispace. Colipon+(Talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Colipon, take a look at some of the threads above (eg. the 'number of followers in 1999), or at AgadaUrganit's talk page. You will see, I think, an extraordinary level of patience being extended to this editor. If you are more capable than I at parsing meaning out of Agada's words, please tell me what the legitimate concerns are that this user raised. Because I can't figure it out. How can a simple statement violate WP:NOR when it is cited clearly and directly to the New York Times, U.S. World and News Report, and Associated Press? How can a statement be a violation of WP:SYNTH when it is not even on the page? If you can answer these question, I would appreciate it. Asking a user to clearly explain their concerns before covering a page with maintenance tags is not intimidation. Homunculus (duihua) 21:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tags because AU never explained himself in a sensible way, identifying clear and actionable concerns. The supposed issues collapsed upon examination. The tags seemed simply a way of expressing annoyance at a conversation that stopped making sense at some point (about the sports administration not being the Chinese government). The whole episode was strange. I wasn't trying to scare the guy. But I do agree with you both that this page is clearly not a magnet for rationality; that much has been amply shown. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

POV Problem

This article may be not neutral because some opinions of Chinese government are ignored. In addition, the fact that Falun gong organization involved in Chinese politics and damage the Chinese society should also be mentioned in the article.--A20120312 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that explain how Falun Gong "damage the Chinese society"? Vague allegations of bias are not sufficient grounds to add a POV tag to a page. You need to provide detailed, actionable recommendations for improvement based on quality sources, in compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. By the way, the "opinions" of the Chinese government, as expressed through their propaganda campaign against the group, are represented in the article. But they can't be used as primary sources, obviously, so they are expressed in a neutral manner through secondary, reliable sources. Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother looking for objectivity here, A20120312. This article is completely controlled by Falun Gong SPA's who are probably being paid. That's why it reads like a promotional piece.

The opinions of the Chinese government are no more biased than those of the Falun Gong sympathisers, and they are often more academically sound and more consistent with reality. Anybody who has actually spent any notable amount of time in China just chuckles at FLG propaganda like "70 million practitioners in mainland China" and "FLGers are tortured and murdered simply for doing Qigong". AnAimlessRoad (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hom I suggest you don't bother arguing with these people. Don't feed the troll(s?). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Chen Fuzhao

I see that an article for Chen Fuzhao was created and speedily deleted. If there isn't going to be a separate article, does he merit a mention here ? Coverage in the Chinese media can certainly be included here to give the Chinese government's side of the story and there are also these sources

• China poisoner sentenced to die - BBC
• ARRESTED. CHEN FUZHAO - TIME
• Falun Gong follower to die for poisoning 16 - The Age/Reuters

I'm not very familiar with the media coverage of Chen Fuzhao in China but given that the government cited him in a letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and said "In May this year Falun Gong practitioner Chen Fuzhao, of Chanan County, Zhejiang Province, misled by Li Hongzhi, put poison in the food of some beggars, leading to the deaths of 16 of them and one Buddhist", I assume they are employing the case as part of their campaign, which may be notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, there have been many specific instances of the government's anti-Falun Gong propaganda, and references for some of them could also be found, I imagine, in similar volume. At the moment the section on "media campaign" addresses the broad issues associated with anti-Falun Gong propaganda. I'm not sure if a particular case study is necessary, or, were it, whether Chen Fuzhao would be the most emblematic or notable case to include. I would imagine that in-depth discussion of particular propaganda cases associated with the media campaign against Falun Gong may be best placed on the page specifically about the persecution, where there is more room to elaborate. I think it would be too much detail for this article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In order to assess overall notability to the subject of Falun Gong, it would be helpful if some of the scholarly works on Falun Gong described this case. A cursory search through my collection of academic literature doesn't turn up any reference to Chen Fuzhao, but I may be missing something. There are a few sources that mention, in general terms, that the government's propaganda campaign includes attempts to link Falun Gong to violence and murder, and that's already mentioned on the page, albeit briefly.Homunculus (duihua) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I was skeptical initially on inclusion, but Sean brought here 3 high quality major news reliable sources: BBC, Time Magazine and Reuters. Probably we could mention Chen Fuzhao in couple of sentences, while attributing carefully the information. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully expect Falun Gong practitioner-editors to paint it as another "conspiracy" orchestrated by the Chinese government, just like the Tiananmen self-immolation "conspiracy" and the Fu Yibin "conspiracy". This article will never reflect a balanced viewpoint as long as cult-members maintain their overwhelming grip upon it. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear to me whether it deserves to be included here, in the WP:POVFORK-ish Persecution of Falun Gong or neither. There are clues that it has some significance for both sides. For example, this interestingly structured editorial in China Daily ends dramatically with "If the self-elevation of Falun Gong practitioners has to be conditional on the killing of innocent others, it constitutes a heinous threat to public security. And that brooks no tolerance." and the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong's fairly extensive efforts to distance themselves from the case and refute the government's story (see [16][17][18][19]). Without decent independent secondary source coverage of the various narratives it's difficult to get a balanced overview. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

AnAimlessRoad, I see what you mean about the cultists maintaining their overwhelming grip upon this wiki page. As soon as I added material, sourced by verifiable, trustworthy sources as per Wikipedia's rules, some religious fanatics reverted the changes I made almost immediately. They did not check the sources, they deleted the information apparently because it conflicts with the propaganda the rest of the article is full of. I wish other wikipedists and administrators would take note of this behaviour and really check this article thorougly. 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I share the general sentiments that this page is being patrolled by a small group of users who go great lengths to write the article to conform with Falun Gong's worldviews. It's correct to say that it amounts to a textbook case of using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, and over the years the Falun Gong users have perfected it, and discouraged everyone else from participating. My past experiences have taught me that unless Wikipedia's leadership steps up to combat the blatant POV-pushing (perhaps more accurately "POV-scrubbing") that happens here with the same dedication they have shown at Scientology, a few new users (or IP users) with scant Wiki experience cannot do much to restore balance. For the time being most of us 'involved' experienced users have (sadly) all left Falun Gong articles because of the trauma it inflicted. Colipon+(Talk) 01:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope that observers of this page do not think that comments like those above represent an acceptable form of engagement on Wikipedia. To the contrary:

• Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion
• Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or advocacy
• Wikipedia users are expected to assume good faith
• Wikipedia's civility policy prohibits "religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities."

Note that User:AnAimlessRoad has been indefinitely banned from the site for abusing talk pages in this way. User 91.63.202.190 has also been blocked.—Zujine|talk 05:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Central teachings

First three of total four paragraphs rely on the primary source: Li Hongzhi, Zhuan Falun. So I tagged the section. I would suggest to re-source using secondary references. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I'll work on that. Homunculus (duihua) 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agada, can you explain these changes?[20] I missed some primary sources in my last round of edits. I could fix those too if you pointed them out specifically. It's not super pressing, though; the presence of some primary sources, used sparingly to describe themselves, does not violate policy. You've gone and stripped them out of various sections of the article where, I believe, they were used appropriately to begin with.

In addition, you have removed all references to Zhuan Falun, even when the statements were clearly quoting Zhuan Falun, and there were other secondary sources used. Why did you feel this was necessary? You seem to believe that Wikipedia policy forbids the presence of primary sources, even when supported by others. This isn't the case.

You also requested quotations for every single item within 'teachings' where it wasn't provided in the reference. Why would you do that? I provided quotations within some of the references when they contained particularly short, quotable excerpts. Sometimes the issues are described in the course of paragraphs or several paragraphs. Sometimes I just didn't feel like adding a quote for everything. Are you going to require that every single thing in the article contains the quotation within the reference? I just don't understand what you're trying to do. If there is a particular item that you're not sure about, you can ask me on the talk page to give you a quotation.

In addition, you removed a very salient, germane image by saying it was unrelated. You also replaced an image that had been removed, noting in edit summary that removal hadn't been explained. Removal actually was explained. The image illustrated a sub-topic of Falun Gong—a 'Tuidang' protest in Hong Kong. The caption was also full of grammatical and spelling errors.

You also removed a large paragraph of densely sourced material about Falun Gong's demography in the 1990s. You said this was original synthesis. Could you explain why? This paragraph was proposed to you months ago. I asked repeatedly for your feedback on it before putting on the page. You have never explained where you think the problem is. Homunculus (duihua) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing pressing about changes and thank you for taking part in the clean up. I would appreciate quotation of marked sources. Could you explain on images? Would you mind posting diffs, and maybe opening separate discussion would be beneficial for clarity of discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

As you are the one who made these edits, and since I have already explained my objections, I think the onus is on you to answer the questions. There is something slightly tendentious about demanding that another editor open multiple discussion threads as a prerequisite to engaging with you about your activities. There is also something tendentious about demanding that other editors provide you with quotations for 17 (!) cited statements that, to anyone familiar with the literature, would not appear the least bit controversial.Homunculus (duihua) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access for the sources, that is why I am requesting quotation for WP:V. Copy of relevant pages in the source would do. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The page of the reference should be noted as a matter of course, in the citation. Homunculus is under no obligation to provide you with a copy of the pages from the books if that is what you are suggesting. I'm not sure what scenario is being imagined, that he scan them and email them to you? That would probably violate copyright law. Verify them by buying them or going to a major library in your city.

On to the primary source policy. Here are some lines from it Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources:

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

I think it's a good idea to make sure this section has better sources. But deleting the line [21] "Falun Gong exercises can be practiced individually or in group settings, and can be performed for varying lengths of time in accordance with the needs and abilities of the individual practitioner." seems a bit strange, doesn't it? This is not a controversial claim (i.e., it is true of many activities.) Nor have the reasons that no primary sources be used in a section that is about Falun Gong's teachings been properly discussed. I can see the need for controversial claims or unique interpretations, but for straightforward facts like that above, what is the problem with a primary citation?

Thus, the wholesale removal of these primary sources appears to me inappropriate. And I also note AU's removal of the figures, among all these deleting actions: [22].

Numbered below are the actions I am going to take. If there are any points disputed, use the number to refer to it and explain why. No particular order.

1. [23] Restore the primary sources here because there is nothing problematic or controversial about their use. There are no interpretive or analytical claims being made. furthermore, in most cases there is already a secondary source cited. There is really no need for another source. The primary source references could simply be deleted if necessary, but I think it would be wise to keep them for sake of completeness in referencing.
2. [24] restore these deletions. Again, there are no interpretive or synthetic claims being made with the reliable sources. The reference to faluninfo falls within our policy either, because a Falun Gong advocacy group is a reliable source on the views of Falun Gong.
3. [25] Restore the rather mundane claim about the practice of FLG's exercises. The other two parts simply do not need more than one citation. I'll remove the tags.
4. [26] these are unremarkable claims. You wish to delete ‘’The book Falun Gong is an introductory text that discusses qigong and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises and meditation.’’ because it is cited to a primary source? That is not the purpose of the primary source policy. You have evidently misread it. It is not a problem to use primary sources to substantiate such simple statements (similarly for the next paragraph).
5. [27] similarly.
6. [28] I think there are better images we could use than this one. I’ll replace it with something that is more normal.
7. [29] This deletion was inappropriate. This has been discussed at length above. I say no more on it here. The information relates to the number of practitioners in China. There is no synthesis. It is clear representation from secondary sources. Please do not edit Wikipedia disruptively. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done. It was a good idea to have an image in the response to suppression section (and I was about to say: get rid of the irrelevant image in the demography section, but then I realized it may have been meant as a representation that there are both old and young people who practice the religion? Unsure.), however I replaced it with a better image that is 1) in English, 2) Makes a simple and clear representation. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed following editnotice on Sathya Sai Baba page, maybe we could substitute in that message Sai Baba with Li Hongzhi/Falun Gong and utilize this message here. Just a thought. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea if we ever do have a problem with editors trying to make unique and interesting use of primary sources in this subject area. At the moment we don't seem to have that problem. As mentioned, there are cases where primary sources are no problem. Simple statements of fact that, for example, someone can do exercises with others or by themselves, or that, a certain book has illustrations and text, is a perfectly acceptable use of primary sources. Further, most of the time in the sections on Falun Gong teachings there are both primary and secondary sources provided. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline on reliable sources applies by default to all pages on Wikipedia. We don't seem to have a particular problem here of primary sources being used inappropriately to cite novel, controversial, or interpretive statements. With that said, sometime in the next...oh..48 hours or so, I would be agreeable to providing page numbers for specific statements you would like clarification on. There are also statements (like the one mentioned by TSTF above) that would benefit from an added secondary source, and I can do that too. For now, other work. Homunculus (duihua) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've consulted with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. It might be important to include quotes from Li Hongzhi /Zhuan Falun as an important and known religious source. However there is a question about the use of faluninfo/clearwisdom/clearharmony as a direct source using material published on their site rather than via secondary source coverage. There are some relevant RSN discussions I've browsed. In practice, here they are, some in articles namespace:

• faluninfo
• clearwisdom
• clearharmony

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I know. The page does include quotes from Li Hongzhi. The quotes selected are those that are also quoted in high quality secondary sources, which is why they now have both the primary and secondary sources attached to them. I did not want this section to get cluttered with in-text citations to this or that scholar; instead it is a more or less unadulterated representation of the moral precepts and understandings that all the major scholars agree compose Falun Gong's core beliefs. In select cases where the secondary sources quote Li, I incorporated some of those quotes. As to the use of faluninfo, clearwisdom, and clearharmony, I recommend that the latter two should be treated as primary sources. Faluninfo is in a slightly different category (I tend to think of it as the equivalent of the International Campaign for Tibet); it is frequently cited in academic works (so is clearwisdom, actually, but cautiously), and by NGOs, human rights groups, and governments. I'm pretty sure it's what David Ownby was referring to when he spoke of Falun Gong publications that are generally considered trustworthy in these communities. I still think that this source should be used sparingly, and in-text citations can be provided when circumstances call for it. As to the other two, Wikipedia permits the use of primary sources as sources about themselves, but they should be used with all the caveats that normally apply to primary sources. From the lists you provided, it appears that these sources almost never appear on Wikipedia pages (though there are a number of talk page links to clearwisdom). What is the value of this exercise? Homunculus (duihua) 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the exercise is editing Wikipedia in accordance with WP:V. The content of the first three of total four paragraphs in the section was challenged, due to usage of primary sources. So now, when you added the secondary sources, to support the old content, it appears per policy that the WP:BURDEN lies on you, Homunculus. Please provide the quotes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The section you cited says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]

It doesn't say anything about providing the actual quotes from the sources. Homunculus, please don't waste your time. AgadaUrbanit, if you want the quotes go to the library and get the books, or buy them, or whatever. There's no obligation for anyone to type out the quotes for you as a matter of course. If you have some particular question or reasonable dispute with a particular phrasing, that you can explain, then as a matter of collegiality and good faith I think it would be fair enough to fish the quote out from the book; this doesn't appear to be such a case. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to waste my time. This section is already extremely densely sourced (arguably too much so). I've provided page numbers, as well as several quotes. I have more than fulfilled the burden of proof. If Agada is insinuating that secondary sources were inappropriately added retroactively to support primary source material, I would merely assure him that this section was originally written through extensive reference to the secondary sources; that's why it was so easy to add dozens of them when asked. I just didn't previously see the need to overload the section with dozens of refs to corroborate claims that are plainly obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of Falun Gong morality. But now I have done that, and have no more time to entertain these tendentious demands. Homunculus (duihua) 21:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun_Gong#Categorization edit

In the 'classification' section, I saw that an editor removed[30] a discussion of whether falungong meets the definition of a 'sect.' The edit summary suggested content violated WP:PARAPHRASE, but I don't see how. WP:PARAPHRASE is meant to prevent subtle copyright violations that take the form of very close paraphrasing. The deleted content didn't seem to have that problem. It was unsourced, but sources could easily be found and added. On a related note, I think this section could also use an expanded discussion of the 'religion' classification, especially in terms of the Chinese conceptualisation of religion (I think Penny and Ownby have written on this. I'll try to find what I'm thinking of).—Zujine|talk 05:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For "sect" classification, you can cite to Porter. Ownby had a 2003 article in Nova Religio that similarly explained why Falun Gong (as well as some historical redemptive societies) don't meet the definition of a sect or sectarian movement. For the religion issue, as you know Penny's latest book discussed the classification both in explicit and indirect terms. This testimony[31] by David Ownby on the definition of religion in Chinese society might also be close to what you're looking for. I'm not sure where the Ian Johnson quote originally came from, or if it's necessary. But if you have it, you may want to check his book Wild Grass for something similar. Finally, Danny Schechter provides a poignant rebuttal to some of these classifications, though he's operating at the level of dissecting journalistic and popular discourse, not sociological definitions. Good luck. Homunculus (duihua) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The content removed was unsourced. I've tried to look for the Ian Johnson quote and failed to find secondary reliable sources. I would appreciate if the new material per Ownby would be posted on this talk page first. It could be a good sign of collaboration. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agada, you might want to consider that, instead of removing anything that doesn't have a source, you can add a request for citation. If a citation is not provided in a reasonable period of time, then it may be appropriate to remove the material. This of course doesn't apply to material that clearly violates policy, such as WP:BLP. Try not to overdo it, of course. It's not that every single sentence needs a citation (see WP:Citation overkill). In this case, I think it's fair to challenge the material, particularly the part that quotes Johnson. I asked Zujine to check Ian Johnson's book Wild Grass to see if the quote, or something similar, is contained therein. If we cannot find something that more directly cites this quote to Johnson, I suggest leaving it out per WP:V.Homunculus (duihua) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually hoping to explain why falungong doesn't generally self-identify as a religion (not why the government doesn't consider it as such), but the Ownby testimony might still be of some use. I think I know where to find what I'm looking for.—Zujine|talk 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look. I expanded a little on the various forms of classification as a cultivation practice, religion, and sect. Hopefully the language and descriptions are still accessible to average readers. I also trimmed and moved the paragraph from Craig Burgdoff, as it didn't belong in this section (and some of it was actually already repeated elsewhere).—Zujine|talk 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks quite good, though I don't consider myself a good judge of accessibility. I was doing some of my own readings on this from old journal articles, and was wondering whether it would be possible or desirable to elaborate on the idea that, if Falun Gong had openly identified as a religion in the 1990s, it would have been immediately suppressed because the party only recognizes the five officially sanctioned religions. Ian Johnson did an article about this topic, but it's also discussed by Ownby, Penny, et al. This was actually one of the original sources of contention with the party-state in the mid-1990s: some people criticized Falun Gong because it clearly had theological and religious elements, but "hid" behind the mantle of qigong in order to gain official acceptance. It's kind of a silly debate to me, particularly since qigong itself was originally a deeply religious practice, and was only reclassified under Communism as a branch of Chinese medicine rather than religious exercise. But regardless of the merits of the argument, it is important in understanding the point of view of Falun Gong's earliest critics. Maybe there's another article that would be better suited for this. I'm not sure. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted a sentence that was added to categorisation that said "According to Gallagher-Ashcraft Falun Gong movement is an assaulted nonviolent millennial group in China." This was inserted in the middle of a discussion of whether falungong meets the definition of a religion, and it does not belong there. I tried finding another place for it, but it didn't seem to fit. "Assaulted nonviolent millennial group" is not really a category of classification. It is a just a collection of adjectives. Ethan Gutmann likes to call falungong a "Buddhist revival movement," and I'm sure many other scholars have their own terms, but I think we should keep this section focused on broad categories of classification. I feel similarly about "new religious syncretism," but decided to keep it, since it is used by at least two different scholars.
• On the importance of the qigong / religion debate in 1990s China, I don't think that belongs in this section either. It seems more fitting in a 'history,' if anywhere. Would it be possible to explain this issue sufficiently in a sentence or two?—Zujine|talk 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Death toll

The question remains as to how many Falun Gong practitioners were persecuted to death. I have a gut feeling that the number is around 800-1000 from July 1999 until now. Also, the claim that half of all people sentenced to reeducation through labor are FLG practitioners are without solid evidence. Why are there so few sympathizers of the FLG movement inside mainland China from the Tiananmen incident in 2001 to the Bo Xilai incident this year? I wonder that given all the people released from RTL throughout the years, the number of sympathizers should ideally be quite high, especially in today's Weibo/Twitter era. Yet even mainstream dissidents in China have rarely spoken out on behalf of the FLG movement. The fact that there is a dramatic reduction in the number of FLG practitioners in mainland China might not pinpoint to an actual reduction. It could be that there is only a dramatic reduction in the number of FLG practitioners in PUBLIC in mainland China. For people accusing of me of trying to whitewash a crime, well, I am not defending the CPC persecution of FLG or any of its other crimes. For this matter, I am only trying to objectively determine the true death toll related to FLG in China. It is just too obvious that the 5-figures number is wrong. Now I am throwing into doubt the 4-figures number. Is it possible to find ANY source out there that agrees with my number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.24.47 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, though I must advise that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion on one's personal feelings about an issue. I checked through the paragraph in the article that cites these numbers, and found that the wrong state department report was referenced. I've fixed that, added some additional references (including one that presents a more conservative ratio), and also added quotations within those references that you can refer to if you wish to do your own reading (you can view them at the bottom of the page). If you come across other reliable sources publishing different estimates, you're welcome to introduce those to give a more complete picture. On the death toll, the section already appears to describe a full spectrum of estimates given by experts on the subject, though if you can find more (from reliable sources, such as books, journal articles, human rights reports, etc), please share.Homunculus (duihua) 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think briefly stating an interest or perspective on the topic amounts to using the page as a forum. He was probably just trying to ease in with an introduction. Consider WP:DONTBITE... On the specific content issue, I believe any five number figures are possible death tolls as a result of the alleged organ removal; the claimed deaths from conventional means I believe are four figures. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I bite? I don't think so. I thought that was a friendly proviso that, while editor is welcome to contribute reliable source content, this is not the place to discuss "gut feelings" and ask others to find sources to substantiate said gut feelings. In any case, I apologize to the user if I was not sufficiently inviting. And on another note, I am reminded again that the section on persecution is the weakest in the article, and could use 1) a rewrite to summarize and better prioritize information, and 2) additional scrutiny to ensure that sources are good, information presented in a fair and detached way, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

One Change to Page, One Question re: Organ Harvesting

First, I added the Falun Gong portal at the bottom; I don't know why it wouldn't be there and many of those pages are not referenced elsewhere in this article. If someone reverts, please explain, I'd like to understand the reasoning so I do not make the same mistake again. Second, I came to this page for information about the claims of organ harvesting, one of the most important issues surrounding this organization, true or not. It is the main topic of many of the external references and covered in other articles on WP not linked to from this one, but not mentioned here. Why not? Also, after posting this, will I be banned from entering the PRC? 65.217.137.4 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've edited these pages for a while so I might answer for now. 1) Good. Not sure why it wasn't there. 2) Why is there no organ harvesting information? I don't know. That is extremely strange. There should be information about it on the page for the reasons you state. I haven't looked at this page closely recently because it's kind of stable and well-sourced, but you've pointed out one major omission. We should fix it. See the Kilgour-Matas report page for information on that topic. 3) It's highly unlikely. I think the government has other things keeping it busy at the moment. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope so! I added a section on organ harvesting, might be a bit long, bounce between UK to American English, and some of the links may not work because of their age how it was cobbled together, but I don't have any more time this morning. I think it's pretty balanced though. There was a section here until August or so of 2009 that was removed under vague circumstances, but this topic is certainly a major point of notability for the Falun Gong, at least in the West. 65.217.137.4 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If I get a moment in the next couple of days I would revise it to probably just one paragraph and simplify what is presented here (i.e. the way it came to the public, the details of the rebuttals/denials, and so forth can probably be curtailed.) I think on this page it would be enough to have a statement which says that there have been these allegations, here is what they are, and they are contested. Then people can read the other page for more information. Although the Falun Gong do make a lot of noise about these allegations, I have not seen evidence showing that it is a major point of notability of the group in the West. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

here from gao zhisheng page but regarding organ harvesting im not sure why we would haev ALLEGATIONS rather than FACTS about sthing so serious? i read the policy and wikipedia said it should be VERIFIABLE and such claims are difficult to verify if not impossible. not saying i dont believe it. just sayin'Happy monsoon day

It is a verifiable fact that allegations have been made. It is not our place to assess the veracity of these allegations, of course, but we can state that they exist. As an aside, IP editor — well done. You may want to consider changing "commissioned" to "asked," or something, as the former often implies an exchange of funds. Homunculus (duihua) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

alright thanks for explainingHappy monsoon day 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Falun Gong

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ctvJuly06":

• From Kilgour-Matas report: CTV.ca News Staff (6 July 2006) "Chinese embassy denies organ harvesting report", CTV.ca. Retrieved 8 July 2006.
• From Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China: CTV.ca News Staff (6 July 2006)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC) um so how do we fix this error?

the bot seems to be freaking outHappy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Already fixed. Homunculus (duihua) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

confusing part

Falun Gong has been described as highly centralized in the sense that neither spiritual nor practical authority is dispersed; local branches and assistants are afforded no special rights or titles; "assistants" or volunteer "contact persons" do not hold authority over other practitioners, regardless of how long they have practiced Falun Gong.[94][95]

1)what is the connection between these two things i.e. highly centralized in the sense that neither spiritual nor practical authority is dispersed and then the part about local branches and assistants. these seem unrelated. 2)what is the source for highly centralized it seems made up or contradicts things id read elsewhere about the group. ne1 care to explain or i may change this. i thought there was not actually a centralized organization at all.Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just check the references, do a bit of research, and rewrite that part yourself? There may be a mistake. As I understood, there was little concept of "practical authority" in Falun Gong. Maybe check out the Burgdoff reference. There is no mention of "centralized organization" (the words you quoted) in the article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone has access to research databases. This is probably the most relevant part from Burgdoff.

Remarkably, while Li jealously guards his spiritual authority, he seems to have willingly relinquished organizational control. In fact, Li insists that practitioners who take on organizational roles should have absolutely no authority over other practitioners. Arguably, the absence of any other official authority figures within the Falun Gong organizational structure strengthens Li’s unique status and power and makes any relinquishment of his organizational control unlikely. In any case, the lack of organizational hierarchy works against institutionalization.

Hope that's helpful. There might be a way to tweak the wording to make it more clear that the centralization refers to spiritual authority, rather than practical.Homunculus (duihua) 03:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The guy says he's a grad student on his user page so the assumption is that he has academic access. As I recall there is more more than just that one paragraph in the paper on this topic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah no problem i can access journal articles and stuff. im actually familiar with the group and the struggle in china so ill check out burgdoff and fix this part up [at some point not sure when but soonish]Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

try that i didnt look at the ref [cba really] but the idea shouldnt be really controversialHappy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

delled this sentence with no source Surveys in China from the 1990s found that between 23% - 40% of practitioners held university degrees at the college or graduate level—several times higher than the general population.Happy monsoon day

Citations clean up

The discussion on citations brought up a good point. I'd like to take on a the task of cleaning up all the references and standardising the format. I'll do a deeper review and discuss further, but I wanted to give a heads up so that there isn't a duplication of efforts. It will be a tedious task so I don't want anyone to waste time. —Zujine|talk 06:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be very grateful for such efforts. The one thing I would stress is that we do tend to prefer academic sources over the other kind, so if there is duplication involving academic and non-academic sources, academic ones would be preferred. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

it seems like this hasnt been done yet but id actually like to do that if i can get some instruction on the desired format; i seem to take a perverse enjoyment in doing tedious tasks like this----so what kind of reference citation formatting is desired on the page?? =) Happy monsoon day 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-adding america.gov publication on death camp investigation that was removed during POV fight

The article that showed US embassies had visited the alleged camp on two occasions was removed at some point. I've added back in. Feel free to make a better edit if you like. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not necessary on this page because I think Sujiatun is only a minor component of the organ harvesting allegations; seems undue to me. Better to keep it short here and have a full discussion on the appropriate page. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Add information

After reading this article, I think it's really good that this article include many academic references. However, I think something like opinion of Chinese opinion is ignored. When the article tells that Chinese government stops Falun Gong in China, the article didn't include the reason about why Chinese government did this. In fact, the Chinese government announced that Falun Gong did some illegal things. But this didn't be written. This may give people the opinion that the Chinese government stops it just because of tight relationship between the government and Falun Gong. This is unfair and is harmful to the neutrality. I think this kind of information should be included. I'm new in English Wikipedia and English is not my native language. So I think it may be better to start a discussion with everyone. Welcome to join it!--A20120312 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this up on the Talk page. There are a number of media reports, books, and human rights reports that analyze the Chinese government's rationale for its actions against the FLG. Did you notice that the reasons given by the Chinese authorities for the crackdown are already provided in the article?

In particular, the article notes that in July 1999, the Chinese government asserted that the Falun Gong organization was not properly registered and had "engaged in illegal activities, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability." That comes from the official state-run news agency, Xinhua. The "illegal activities" were not explained or elaborated upon. Presumably it refers to organizing the demonstration outside Zhongnanhai, but we can't speculate (the kinds of criminal charges that were brought against Falun Gong leaders were things like 'stealing state secrets' and 'undermining the socialist system', etc.). The later accusations that the government brought against Falun Gong can only be understood in the sense of the media campaign, and a lot of them are explained in that section. What specifically do you think is missing? If you have some good sources that explain the parts you think are missing, we could discuss it further. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I can't be sure, not knowing the Chinese legal system that well, the part starting "advocating superstition..." might be the explanation/elaboration of the illegal activities. Certainly, "inciting and creating disturbances" is illegal in pretty much every country I know of. Now, I do agree that the statement does not offer specific instances of illegal activity in that statement, and they would be important as well, but I don't know if the Chinese legal system necessarily requires that. Does it? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism

This article seems to do what a lot of articles seem to do when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, etc, in that it doesn't really separate the actual ideology itself from the post-Mao government's warping of it. The Deng legacy's authoritarianism and capitalism is counter to socialism and Marxism-Leninism. 96.41.152.155 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but these are terms that they still use in official statements and documents, including where it's quoted in this article. This is the language they deal in, however inaccurate it might be. I'm not sure what can be done. TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The onus of showing notability is on the editor wishing to add information. If "Fazhengnian" is notable, please provide some detailed academic discussion on it - not vague references to Ghits. If there is some thorough academic discussion on the topic, like there is about everything else on this page, then I think we're fine. Primary sources are not the basis for establishing notability. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what is being discussed here. The only way that notability would necessarily apply here is regarding the subject Falun Gong itself, whose notability is, I think, rather clearly established. There may be a question regarding whether something qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:RS, but that is a separate matter, which is detailed on the page linked to. I sincerely hope someone points out exactly what the nature of the current dispute is, because the above comment, regrettably, gives no real indication of the nature of the disagreement. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The existence of a body of reliable sources on this would satisfy the notability concerns I noted above. They are two sides of the same coin. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain it briefly: a user from Chinese Wikipedia has created a page about a kind of FLG exercises called Fazhengnian or "sending forth righteous thought" ,which was a DYK on Chinese Wikipedia, and today I've added it to the "exercises" paragraph in this article. However, TheSoundAndTheFury deleted it and nominated it for deletion (also nominated for deletion on Chinese Wikipedia, but the result was speedy keep).--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We make decisions based on policies here. There are policies against having articles based purely on primary sources, as well as policies against original research. If you can produce good quality, secondary sources (like books on falungong) that discuss the importance of this ritual, then we can discuss where it might fit in, how much weight to give it, where, and so on. Otherwise it doesn't belong here.—Zujine|talk 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"发正念" has lots of result in google books.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up in Chinese as well. Most of the Chinese results are unrelated to falungong, but instead to other Buddhist traditions. Some appear to be related to falungong, but are only mentioned in passing (eg. as part of a list of censored terms in China). Others are Falungong publications, which are primary source. That's still not enough to establish notability or to enable us to make interpretive claims about what this is and what role and significance it has to falungong overall. Sorry. —Zujine|talk 19:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

can someone help me out on the photos here. i notice the photo of ethan gutmann a researcher was recently deleted; it was a photograph that was taken by epoch times. woudl not that newspaper simply give us the photographs if they knew they could be useful and illustrative of the subject on wikipedia? if so can anyone point me in the direction I go about that? I would be happy to email them to request for them to sign over the rights to public domain or something creative commons. has anyone tried this?Happy monsoon day 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an image of Falun Gong practitioners send forth righteous thoughts before the Chinese Consulate in New York. According to google books, secondary reliable sources discuss the subject of FLG "sending forth righteous thoughts". According to primary FLG sources: "Sending forth righteous thoughts is one of the three things that Master requires of us. It is very important, and every Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple must do well in this regard." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

well personally i think its problly worth mentioning something about this falun prayer thing even if the sources we have so far are not completely perfect. certainly doesnt seem to deserve a page to itself but ill add a few sentences just so we can move on how about that.Happy monsoon day 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any notable studies about Falun Gong's views about aliens and civilisations before human?

Though I remember there are several times where this ides was mentioned in books like Zhuan Falun and some of Li Hongzhi's teachings(such as Oklo), this area seemed to be largely neglected in this article--Inspector (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have looked into this before, and I understand that extraterrestrial life is only mentioned once or twice in passing in Zhuan Falun, meaning it doesn't make up a significant part of the teachings. Another editor also once looked at how much weight to give these teachings based on their appearance in the most authoritative books on falungong beliefs:

Ownby's 300-page volume on Falun Gong devotes two sentences to Li's statements on aliens. Penny's book, which is a much more single-minded study of all aspects of Falun Gong practice and beliefs, devotes one page out of ~250 to the subject.

According to Penny, a much more important concept than the existence of aliens is falungong's ideas about other forms of life pervading the universe—namely gods, buddhas and deities.

I can't find any mention of Oklo in the text of Zhuan Falun, but I looked through Penny's writings, and see that there is an indirect reference to it. There's a short section of Li's book where he mentions several apparently ancient artifacts to make a point that civilisation extends further back than historians and archeologists generally allow. Penny writes that "determining whether Li's contentions about certain historical artifacts or natural phenomena are correct or not is to misinterpret the nature of [Li's] teachings...Li's writings should be viewed as religious texts." The tradition he's playing into here "echoes ideas present in Chinese religions for centuries," especially those of Buddhism and medieval Daoism, which hold that there are multiple ages of human civilisation that undergo cyclical periods of renewal and decline.—Zujine|talk 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Due to the internet blocking I cannot reach the Zhuan Falun text by now, but I guess Li Hongzhi had mentioned something like "a 2 billion-year nuclear reactor that cannot be built by today's technology".--Inspector (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is some pieces from the first chapter of Chinese Zhuan Falun:"非洲有个加蓬共和国有铀矿石，这个国家比较落后，自己不能够提炼铀，把它出口到先進国家。... 最後證實這個鈾礦是個大型核反應堆，而且布局非常合理，我們現在的人都不可能 ... 是二十億年前，它運轉了五十萬年。 "(Rough Translation: In Africa there is a country called Gabonese Republic; it is a developing country not able to refine uranium ore and exporting it to developed countries...It was at last confirmed that this uranium ore is a big nuclear reactor with perfect structure that cannot be build by us now ... It had run for 500 thousand years in 2 billion years ago).--Inspector (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that certain disputable texts should not be overly criticized. Though, what was currently written in this article about this view about "echoes ideas present in Chinese religions for centuries," presented in Penny's writings?--Inspector (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Penny's book, which is a much more single-minded study of all aspects of Falun Gong practice and beliefs, devotes one page out of ~250 to the subject. To be clear, that's a quote from User:Homunculus[32]. Actually, this understates the amount of coverage Penny devotes to Li's alien and related beliefs in the book: the index indicates that aliens are discussed on pages 91-92, 130-132, 147-49, see also UFOs discussed on 126, 130-133, 148. There's also quite a lot of quotation and analysis on his concepts of giant pythons (p.101), evil snake spirits (p.108) and other "unusual" beliefs relative to the "persecution" that our articles like to emphasize, on Penny's chapters dedicated to Li Hongzhi and Zhuan Falun. It would be less undue to place some mention of them on the articles there. @Inspector: It's well known that Falun Gong's English translations of its texts are crafted towards its political goals, so they exclude a lot of the stuff that would be treated skeptically by the press and non-Chinese-literate scholars. Shrigley (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the translation.--Inspector (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there's a lot of misinformation around falungong, be careful not to make erroneous statements that could further misunderstandings. The leading scholars on falungong haven't said anything about its english translations having any kind of "political goals." There are reputable scholars who read both English and Chinese and who have read both versions of Li's writings, and their findings don't at all support your statement. Penny spends more time discussing the slight translation differences between the three English editions of Zhuan Falun than he does elaborating Li's views on aliens, and yet he makes no mention of any form of manipulation in the translation—to the contrary, he notes that the texts are translated assiduously. The biggest inconsistency he mentions is the translation of "Shijian fa" into "in-triple-world," which is apparently because they were treating "shijian" like "sanjie".

I also checked H's observation for myself. Penny indeed devotes about one page (<1.5 pages) to explaining falungong's beliefs on aliens. He spends another half page to a page on other people's writings on extraterrestrials and speculating about what kind of discourses may have been influential in China in the 1980s and 1990s. All the other mentions from the index are tangential, one-word mentions outside the context of really explaining falungong's beliefs.

Certainly, Penny's book dedicates relatively little space to the persecution, because Penny's study is a textual analysis of falungong's books, not a general overview of all things falungong. The history of the practise and the origins of persecution are given an excellent introduction in the first chapter, but that's about it. Since this article is an overview with only one small section on falungong's central beliefs and teachings, it should remain focused on the most central beliefs, not the ones that certain editors find "unusual" or sensational.—Zujine|talk 15:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Lightning

Are there any known ties between Falungong and the doomsday cult Eastern Lightning??[33][34] This cult seems to be also engaging in anti-CCP rhetoric, and called the Chinese government the "red dragon" of the Book of Revelations, a term also used by Falungong's Nine Commentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.128.66 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so. They share some things in common in terms of the treatment their members have received at the hands of Chinese authorities, and it's not entirely surprising that they've adopted some similar anti-government rhetoric. But in terms of doctrinal similarities or lineage ties, there's no connection. Interesting though. TheBlueCanoe 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)