Talk:Falun Gong

Notice: Samuel Luo and his Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Tomananda are banned from editing this article indefinitely

The users specified have been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. These users are also prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong.

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

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

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

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

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

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

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

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

Membership and finances

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politicized

I do not agree with "At the time of the Zhongnanhai Incident, Falun Gong had evolved to become a *politicized* and highly mobilized form of social dissent.* How is it politicized? It didn't have a political agenda, nor did it intend to change the Chinese governements policy, nor did it claim to have any political aspirations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.172.113 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We should make sure the article represents the full spectrum of views on this topic, also in accordance with their prevalence in the literature.--Asdfg12345 01:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

i miss two realisations, or perhaps 3 in the article. the first is that falun gong, with it's traditional-like (chinese) eastern concept of a deserving(..) 'soul'(karma) , practice and meditation, and attention for cultural practices (music massage i think, etc.) is not very special of original (since it attracts a lot of attention the chinese government then certainly has a right to check consistency and practice), the second is that his residence in new york appears to make him promote materialist and for the followers potentially very dangerous (except dumb) value's, i think it is rather obvious this is enough to show the chinese the affiliation of the founder with new york is not a very fertile one. next we had our own falun gong campaign in poche magazines and glossys etc here (or at least i saw a single example), wich is fortunately not a great succes, because it is not very helpfull if people start adhering to the idea that luxury's like music, culture, social exercise or spiritual development mean people in china are repressed. therefore it could also be interesting and most amusing to get an overview what this wild (heterodox) and if i am not mistaken rather luxurious movement achieved in usia. you have a heap of ppl with a lot of bias against china that are 'quite falun-gonged'? are they efficiently operated in china unfriendly movements, or do they more often end up in therapy? perhaps they just quit the practice soon and have no lasting effects? or do they have loads of dala and fa?24.132.171.225 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Half of your comment is a forum post, the other half is either difficult to comprehend or doesn't make much sense... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Luo Gan

So Luo was He's cousin, but now he is the brother-in-law? What gives? This connection is awkwardly inserted into the text as if to say, "look, He's related to Luo, so they must all be operating similar agendas." He Zuoxiu is a pseudoscience critic, Luo is a politician. If you read He's works, he also criticizes traditional Chinese medicine, whose organizations are supported and sometimes funded by the Chinese government. They are not operating on the same agenda, and He's criticism has nothing to do with the wider campaign against Falun Gong. Stop asserting that it does. Colipon+(Talk) 09:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• The connection was picked up by academia, for example Minna Jia, University of Southern California, see here: "For example, the Zhengqing Net is an anti-Falun Gong website and operates under the name of He Zuoxiu, who is the academician of the CAS and also known as the husband of sisters with Luo Gan.". That makes this information relevant, because He Zuoxiu is not just an independent academic as you try to portray him here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• See also mentioned by Porter: [5] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• National Review, Ethan Gutman: [6] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, every single one of those sources exhibit a serious bias, or is simply not reliable. Take the first one, a university student's paper. This is in no way a primary or secondary source to prove familial relationships - not to mention, of course, that it's written in poor English. And then, of course, Porter, who cites Falun Gong website clearwisdom.net throughout his book. Finally we have the National Review, an anti-China U.S. conservative publication. Need I say more?

Now, let's assume that in fact, He Zuoxiu is married to one of Luo Gan's sisters. So what? He's involvement with Falun Gong notably preceded Luo's by some two or three years. He criticized Falun Gong from an academic perspective, noting the damage it has caused to practitioners. He felt particularly sympathetic to his students who practiced Gong long before the state ever cared to become involved. Luo, on the other hand, was commissioned by the state to crack down on Falun Gong in June 1999. Unless there is a reliable source to indicate that there is a relationship between two with solid evidence, then stating a familial relationship with the intention to paint a misleading picture is unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I see it you made up your mind :), but consider if scholars consider it worth mentioning then perhaps they think it is relevant. What you or me thinks is WP:OR right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are related, through blood or marriage, it merits nothing more than a line in their respective wiki-biographies. These power elites are all related in some way to each other. A good example is the Soong sisters. Maybe more like the intermarried royal families of Europe... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if I don't find a reasonable source (Porter doesn't count, for example, since his expertise are on the ethnographic side not on Chinese politics) drawing attention to this connection, then we won't have it in the article. --Asdfg12345 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Asdfg12345 has decided to place it anyways into the article and then edit war to keep it[7] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK? Or maybe it should have been taken to the NPOV noticeboard since that was claimed? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Edit warring to keep it? That wasn't my intention... and the Beijing Television thing was deleted as well. If I randomly deleted relevant information that I didn't like, I'd expect Ohconfucius restore it as well--and I wouldn't say he was edit warring. The Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection appears in a number of sources. The one quoted here also makes a wider point: that's not a coincidence. Since this is sourced, and it doesn't take up much space, can someone please explain what the problem is with it? I would understand if there is no source, but we can't just delete relevant, sourced stuff because we don't like it. Also, Colipon is going too far by asking for an extra level of proof from the source that they are related. As wiki editors we don't do that level of sussing things out; not that a third party source would even be able to obtain the marriage certificates and proof of identity etc. Since it's appeared in various sources, and the one quoted makes an explicit link between He's article and Luo's position, why should it be deleted? Thanks.--Asdfg12345 23:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons were given above, and you already acknowledged the problem in your own comment. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's always best to look at both sides and to point out the correct approach, let me quote again: "So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK? Or maybe it should have been taken to the NPOV noticeboard since that was claimed?". Even WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can go both ways. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to fall into those games. The reasons were already explained above. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

update: I'm confused by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing. We're just discussing the usefulness of including this Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing, right? Let's have a look what the sources actually say, rather than dismissing or arguing things based on personal taste. I'm going to do a few other things then I will paste them. It could be in 36 hours, or it could be in 1hr. I think the former, because it's the day before Christmas and I think I have to get festive pretty soon.--Asdfg12345 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, we were at the part where you agreed that you didn't have a reliable source for how the connection had any importance at all, and how you were going to search for a reliable source before re-adding the text. Hint: you are now supposed to get a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some references to the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection in reliable sources:

An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman

"In 1999, the Public Security Bureau estimated that Falun Gong had attracted 70 million practitioners, 5 million more people than belonged to the Communist party itself. 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."

Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by Ownby; I can justify this source further if need be)

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have."

Zhao Yuezhi mentions it opaquely

A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders, which caused the shift in the state's position.

A number of Falun Gong sources also mention the connection.

The disputed sentence was: "He Zuoxiu was brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security."

So as far as I can tell this has several references. Why shouldn't it be included? We can take this to an RS or NPOV board, too.--Asdfg12345 14:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't you already presented these sources in this section? You were told to get new ones, not to repeat again the old ones.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how these are not reliable sources, then? I saw what Colipon said, but I didn't understand how what he said was germane to whether or not the sources were suitable for wikipedia--his remarks mostly seemed an expression of personal opinion. Maybe it would help if I could understand how those objections fit into wikipedia policies. As far as I understand, these are reliable sources on the subject--are they not? If you believe these are not reliable sources, it would be good to know why--an anthropologist, a journalist and published author, and then an established academic. Yep, so I think that's the stumbling block. I think it's clear that they're reliable sources, simply because they are all published, referenced among the other sources on this topic, etc. Prima facie they meet the standard for reliable sources, as far as I understand. So I'd be interested in any argument that could be mounted to discount them. Is that the issue? Thanks.--Asdfg12345 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Colipon and Ohconfucius already explained the problems with those sources, and why the information should not appear here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you advancing the same arguments? Why don't you put your objections in your own words? I am just not sure who or what I'm supposed to be speaking to. Colipon believes the sources are biased, but this has nothing to do with WP:RS. That argument doesn't make any sense. Every source has a point of view. This is basic stuff. They appear, prima facie, to be reliable sources, and in the absence of any meaningful dispute (saying "they're biased!" is not a meaningful dispute), then we should take them as reliable. Ohconfucius says that it's not relevant that they are related. This doesn't make sense either, in my view. The fact that they appear in this material makes it relevant; it's relevant because a number of sources make the argument that the noose was tightening on Falun Gong before the persecution, and one of the reasons they cite for this is the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection. So the two arguments that "the sources are not reliable" and "it's not relevant anyway" (which is what Colipon and Ohconfucius's arguments boil down to) need further substantiation. I don't understand the real objection, to be honest.--Asdfg12345 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure if Falun Gong is attempting to prove "persecution" by enlisting conspiracy theories of a set-up by two people within the hierarchy of the CCP? There are already those who seek to personalise the issue to Jiang Zemin's feeling threatened by the power of FLG or feeling personally inadequate against Li Hongzhi's charisma, so let's take this one step further and exploit the fact that two players are married to sisters to once again strengthen the conspiracy theories... Although I have many issues with how the Government of China treats its citizens, I feel it doesn't have to 'prove' anything in this connection. They made a law against FLG and other "heretical groups" and they are carrying it out through a crackdown. The two people happen to be related by marriage – big xxxxxxx deal! None of the sources cite that He and Luo did what they did BECAUSE they were related – all the mentions were en passant – so how can this possibly be relevant? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I don't know what you are talking about. What you wrote doesn't seem to be a response to what I wrote. There are several sources pointing out the He Zuoxiu/Luo Gan connection; there are also some sources (like Gutmann's) suggesting that the pressure on Falun Gong had been building for a while. This is related to that. I don't understand the grounds for excluding this from the article. The He/Luo thing is just one point. It's sourced. It has several sources. I don't get why it's being turned into something else, when it's just sourced info? I don't get all the meta-argumentation. If the sources are reliable, it should be okay to have a small note on this, then, right? What's the problem? --Asdfg12345 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Material can be sourced without it being relevant. It's called a coatrack. You know that. ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gutmann and Porter directly talk about the significance of the connection. I'm not seeking to add something irrelevant. They point it out, then discus its wider relevance in what unfolded. Where is the coatrack there? It's a coatrack when you include unrelated info to make a point, right? But in this case the sources are directly saying it. You can see them above. Why are we dancing in circles over this? Perhaps putting it in direct quotes would eliminate this complaint. got to walk out the door right now though. --Asdfg12345 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this still hasn't been addressed, only vague referrals to objections that made no sense to begin with and do not seem to be defended now. What is happening here? There were two points related to this: identifying the role of Beijing Television in the Chinese media landscape, and secondly identifying He Zuoxiu as brother-in-law of Luo Gan, and noting the significance that Gutmann attaches to this. Both (or, all three) of these points are sourced. The sources are above. It simply hasn't been explained why this sourced information does not belong in the article, despite a lot of arm waving and "who cares!" type remarks. The question is simple: why should this information, from reliable sources, which adds context to several points in the text and takes up very few words, be excluded?--Asdfg12345 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Got to go now, but I just saw Enric's remark on the AE. It says: "The rest of the section is Asdfg12345 failing to acknowledge that he needs a secondary source that makes the connection that he wants to put into the article." This is simply untrue. Just look at the sources I quoted: "It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann). "He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter). "A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao). So, I made it very clear. I don't understand the claim that I provided no sources to back up what I was saying. I provided three. No response was provided except a referall to earlier, unsubstantiated dismissals. I hope this is clear.--Asdfg12345 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

missing critical info

Its strange to see this article not make mention of a lot of the criticism that is levied against this group's more controversial teachings, in particular its eugenics ideas against "race mixing' and other conservative and controversial points of view, such as that homosexuals are not fully human be depraved demons, a cancer in the cosmos, etc. At least this is what I've been reading from critics who offer a lot of quotes, and practitioners have not rebutted these claims, saying they are 'internal' only, etc. For example, [see http://sfist.com/2007/01/08/the_falun_gong_show_sfist_goes_to_the_ntdtv_chinese_new_year.php#comments] I came to his article to get the scoop with these controversies, but surprised to find no mention of it. Why the lack of info? Its not like wikipedia to have less info over more.76.14.42.191 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference to the race mixing comments on the Teachings of Falun Gong page. I'm sure you understand that considering the scrutiny of a very activist group of members of this religion discussion of Hongzhi's more controversial statements requires above average quality references. These can be hard to come by since the response to the FLG in english speaking countries has largely been to accept the idea of FLG as victims of "evil communists". Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you should drop by more often. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article(s) have been thoroughly sanitised over the years of Falun Gong domination, which we are working to address. Please register, and get stuck in. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, I believe these things should be included on the main article, and given their weight in a section called "Criticism of Falun Gong" or "Falun Gong controversy", which is currently titled "public debate". Colipon+(Talk) 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

People who have heared about the persecution might wonder why the persecution is possible and why so many people and even media and governments are ignoring it. People also forgott what the National Socialist German Workers Party labeled the rich jews as... to put it simply they just labeled them an evil cult and projected many of the methods the party itself uses on to them... Only after that do people become indiferent to a persecution as they will not believe it when an alleged "cult" claims it's followers get made into soap. This article here already contains this kind of demonization but does not source it properly (for example the article states that according to some western scholar Falun Gong would have a "propaganda departement" and then gives a source from that western scholar but when one looks into that source one realizes that he was merely quoting or repeating something which originaly originated from the ministry of propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party). There are many such instances... I already mentioned it previously on the talk page but my suggestion got deleted and it got me labeled many evil things... so i will try and see if i can correct this myself. Because i feel that the viewpoint of the Chinese Communist Party is important to mention here and that viewpoint should not be labeled as the viewpoint of western scholars when all they where doing even in the given sources was quoting the Communist Party. I mean those are such important accusations on which lives depend on as they are what made the persecution possible, so shouldn't they be handled with greater care and their original sources be given?

PS: I realized i can't do this alone after all and will need Ohconfucius help as his main source is not available online but is a hard to get and expensive magazine. Only the preface is available but the first sentence in it's preface already is "Drawing on both regime and falungong sources, this article analyses two conflicting depictions of falungong's organizational structure, communications system and financing base."

I know that Falun Gong does not claim to have a "propaganda departement" for example so this statement must be on his list of things sourced from the regime. It's not difficult for me to find this statement on Communist Party websites, but i would rather give the original source to which you (Ohconfucius) are referring to and since you must have the publication, maybe you would be so kind as to mention which source it is? --Hoerth (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see a section at least that gives voice to the critics and controversies that surround the Falun Gong. I'm not sure I follow the logic of that last message above, though, unless its trying to make an argument about the veracity of those claims as merely an invention to rationalize repression, etc, i.e. the analogy of the Jews in Nazi Germany? However, this goes beyond Wikipedia's goal: The issue is not about if a certain claim is actually true or not, but only if they are notable criticisms or not? Given they clearly are, I'd expect to see it given full breath here. If it's disputed, then lets give air to that view as well, per NPOV. I think the article already abundantly communicates the claims of the group as being persecuted in China by the govt. and offers evidence that this is the case. It is outlawed, after all. So I don't think there is any conspiracy to keep it hidden. :) My problem was that a criticisms section that one would expected to find was just completely missing, or just buried and not easily seen for readers to learn about. This is not about "demonization," whether or not that is the real motivation behind the critics, but that it should be reported on, objectively. Suppressing information is counter to the purpose of Wikipeida, not being a place of activism or pushing for a particular causes, per se. Its much easier, and less conflict will ensue, if we follow the policy of "Verifiability Not Truth" as our guide here (esp. since people disagree about what the truth is).76.14.42.191 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Amen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To Hoerth: You bring up the Holocaust for the second time, and though this is not a forum, I cannot help but comment. I am unable to evaluate whether or not your FLG/Jews-comparison has any merit; however, what I do know is that Hitler wouldn't have given a damn about what wikipedia writes. As the IP's comment correctly states, we are not here to "rectify" the world or to prevent potentially looming atrocities or injustices from happening. If^{(conditional)} the government of China really wants or wanted to implement a new Holocaust, they could, and we aren't the ones who'd be able to stop them. I agree that the "who-exactly-said-what" is indeed crucial, but alas, that's all we can do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

not giving original source

Right now a lot of the "critical info" against Falun Gong is sourced with western scholars, but in many cases those scholars are only quoting Communist Party sources. I have placed a question regarding this issue on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_a_POV_Source_be_presented_as_NPOV_if_a_neutral_person_quotes_it.3F and basically the response i got was: "Attribute the POV to those who hold it, present any opposing view points (attributing those view points as well), don't state or imply that any POV is right or wrong." and "Quotes inside another source should not be used: locate the original." So in an effort to give orignal sources i have finally obtained a copy of: Tong, James (September 2002). An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing. The China Quarterly" and so i know which original sources he uses for the relevant accusations and will therefore use those original sources in the article. This should be done with the other sources (that are not original sources) as well. --Hoerth (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A thought: I think it's appropriate to find and present the context in which these things are being said. If there are academics or journalists writing how it was part of the CCP's propaganda campaign to portray Falun Gong as a highly organised, money-making institution, then that information would be relevant in presenting those claims. This is being responsible and helpful to the reader, to get a picture of what is going on. Of course, it wouldn't make sense if the primary sources being quoted were prior to 7/20. But if they were post-7/20 regime sources, and then you have scholars explaining how post-7/20 regime sources had X and Y strategy in portraying Falun Gong, as part of this wider campaign, then I think that's relevant--I doubt anyone would dispute that. That's one thought I had.--Asdfg12345 14:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

They are all post-persecution Chinese Government sources, but they are not referenced as such. --Hoerth (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

About the Beijing TV thing

I'm going to put a thing on NPOV noticeboard. The arguments for not having this information don't make sense to me. There is a context and basis for including such information, and it's not merely random information to disparage the journal. Being a CCP mouthpiece is not even a disparagement if it's an actual fact--I mean, this isn't an expression of opinion. It's just the role it plays in Chinese society, and Ownby points this out. So, I don't see any point trying to remove this info, because it's important to get some background for what is going on here. Falun Gong is being criticised in major Party media. Removing this obscures that fact. So I'm not satisfied with the deletions and am taking it to the NPOV board to get a third opinion. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• You put it in the Beijing Television article, and chances are it will get deleted in a flash by someone other than yours truly. Here, it's even more out of place. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please address how it's out of place, since several sources draw attention to its propaganda and mouthpiece role?--Asdfg12345 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Extreme reversions--explanation requested

Hi. I only now noticed the extreme reversion of several hours work. I don't believe I've ever adopted that approach to editing. The reversions were not even noted as such in the edit summary, so I didn't bother to even check. I didn't actually think, Ohconfucius, that you would actually just do a blanket revert of a whole bunch of changes--talk about assuming good faith, eh? Each edit was done individually, with things added, things removed, things reworded, etc. I don't see how it's fair to just undo all that work in one go. In particular, it's pretty heinous to just delete everything in the cult section except one paragraph, which totally fails to reflect the character of the debate among scholars. This is something that has been hashed out over these pages several times, and we had a giant list at one point, of all the scholars who have weighed in on this, and there were like two on the "yes cult" side, and a stack on the "no cult" and "cult was a propaganda tool" side. But the section here totally fails to reflect that. This seems like really problematic behaviour to me, and I feel it kind of disrupts the idea of working cooperatively and so forth. I'm going to restore the deleted information. The justification is really on the person doing the deleting and so forth, and I'm very happy, and willing, to explain, justify, and back up all my edits. I expect the same of others who are going to edit these pages. I think this is an important point. We can't have people quietly doing big reverts of other peoples' efforts. All this stuff needs to be openly hashed out and argued, if need be. We have wikipedia policies and we have access to the sources, so there shouldn't be much problem.--Asdfg12345 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to get the ball rolling, I am going through the diff now and will figure out what was changed and what wasn't. Then, I will do edits one at a time removing or adding or rewording things. I'll do like, one action per edit. Then I'll keep a running explanation here of the edits, each with a link to the diff and an explanation of it. We can debate the merits of the changes here, where there is space and time. If there's a better way of structuring the process of change/discussion, I'd be happy to hear it. I just thought of this now. I don't think we should have a situation where no changes can be made until we agree--I think it should be a bit more dynamic and proactive, with the key point being discussion, policy, and so forth. Anyway, so I'm going to do that now.--Asdfg12345 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually maybe just change that to, there's only some point with that detailed approach if the edit summary does not explain it fully. For this one [8] it seems pretty self-contained, so I guess no point wasting space to elaborate here. Other things I guess need further explanation though.--Asdfg12345 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't work on this anymore right now, I'm finding that I'm quite disappointed with the simple revert to a bunch of thoughtful edits. The narrative of what happened in China now is really inadequate in presenting a proper picture. It mixes up various strands of things that went on, pulling pieces of information from a number of different sources to construct a novel narrative. This is my reading of it at least. I believe that our narrative of what happened in China should broadly reflect the way it's articulated in a number of sources. Zhao has an okay explanation, for example. We want to show two things, right? How was Falun Gong received in China? What impact did it have on the public, and how did the public and other actors respond? Then, there's the issue of the persecution. The current narrative melds these two issues, making it hard for people to differentiate what is going on. I think things just need to be segregated a bit more clearly and broken down a bit more clearly, with a meaningful narrative from various sources pieced together--which allows for the variety of explanations of things. At the moment what we have limits the discourse to one frame. There are multiple ways that this whole thing has been framed. Wikipedia needs to present this in the most straightforward and open way, and the information almost needs to be presented in a self-reflexive way, I think, so it's clear that what is being presented is not some cherrypicked narrative that suits a particular viewpoint, but just goes through the different points in a neutral way and shows the different major views along the way. Right now this part of the article is in a straightjacket. I have to take a break then come back to this. Also, heaps of the information in the persecution section is kinda detailed and almost extraneous. I think some of it would be useful for the persecution page, where there is space to nail out those issues. But it also blends in two points: the persecution, and the response to the persecution. Why would these two points be posited alongside one another? This is an action-response thing. We need to present a clear narrative of how the persecution was engineered, in its various aspects. There also needs to be stuff about the response. I agree that much of this isn't simple. Anyway, I got to go for now.--Asdfg12345 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits, deleting the work of multiple authors, has been tantamount to vandalism. Please immediately cease and desist. You do not own the falun gong article set. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific. Labeling does not help a bit. Point by point samples can get you a lot further though. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I need do nothing of the sort. ASDFG goes away. Several editors improve articles. He comes back, firebombs all FLG related articles and goes away again leaving all of us to fix the mess. It's vandalism. It's a pattern that has repeated several times now. And I'm not climbing more textwalls to deal with it. From now on I see pro-flg vandalism it will get two letters from me: RV. Simonm223 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you do realize that with this attitude you are in breach of Article Probation and seeking consensus. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Praytell, when was not seeking consensus? Asdfg was bold, Simon reverted. Cool. You were the one who re-reverted (if there is such a word) without discussing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To have consensus, there is a need of a point by point discussion which Asdfg did make. Reverting without engaging into discussion is not consensus seeking. But you don't need to take my word for it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the case that you need to point things out specifically and that stuff needs to be hashed out one diff at a time. There are three changes on that page now that you reverted. 1) was removing the Rahn source. 2) was removing a the CCP's post-persecution propaganda about how Li supposedly formulated Falun Gong. 3) was adding in information about Li's awards in China. Let's go through them:

1. I hold that the "Cultic Studies Review" is not a peer-reviewed, credible publication--not a reliable source on this topic. And Rahn was an undergraduate at the time.
2. The CCP is not a WP:RS for Falun Gong beliefs and practices. They are a reliable source for their own views--which would be useful in the section that explains what the CCP thinks, or that explains the CCP's portrayal of Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi post July 20, 1999. Then it would be useful to say what they said. But in a regular explanation, they're not reliable.
3. Multiple sources mention the awards that Li received from government agencies in China. It's important to make sure that both sides of how Li was received in China are included in the article. We need to know that he received awards and was praised; we also need to know that he was criticised. You can't delete the awards part because you don't like it.

If you can advance some arguments for those, I am willing to hear them. For now I'm going to restore the changes I made, because no explanation has been given for why they are problematic--yet I have explained why they should be made, in the edit summary. So, here are three points for you to address.--Asdfg12345 01:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• You've never hidden your dislike of Rahn, and I don't know if this edit just shows this predisposition. AFAIK, there is no requirement that any scholarly work cited here be "written by a scholar when he/she was a bona fide scholar". The only requirement is that it has been peer reviewed, although I don't know how one would go about proving it. Rahn's work is cited all over the place, even by Ownby. Anyway, the content of the citation in question does not need Rahn. There's mention of early criticism of FLG in other sources, such as Palmer and Ostergaard, so that must surely be moot. The information is there. You may not like it, but it's not a one for the FLG censors in WIkipedia. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I wish the persistent wikilawyering and POV-laden edits would stop. I should not have to revert asdfg again. Much of what he brings up in this dizzying body of text has been extensively addressed in the 30-some archives of this page, others are simply re-cycling arguments that attempt to tip the POV balance in whatever minuscule way. Users with a conflict-of-interest with the subject should not edit the subject, it's simple. Colipon+(Talk) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Colipon see Labeling theory. Now, are you or are you not willing to engage in point by point content discussion? Your current behavior is against Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and it is not at all constructive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need to engage in "point by point content discussion" over vandalism. Furthermore when a user comes in, makes mass changes and gets reverted the burden lies on them to convince consensus to adopt their proposed changes. The burden does not lie with consensus to justify the reversion. Finally Labeling theory?!? Does the FLG have a class in claiming to be oppressed or something? Seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just a holding note. I'll come back tomorrow, or later, after I've taken stock of things. It's hard to figure out the best way to respond to this stuff now, because I'm really just trying to improve the article, but getting accusations thrown at me and a tacit refusal to engage in debate. Anyway, it could be that this isn't the case and I need to reinterpret the situation, or my notes or edits have come across the wrong way up to now. I've also been wondering whether it would be worthwhile to hold a bi-weekly voice conference--there are some sites that do a free voice thing, where you call a number, then it's just a joint conversation. Some of the wider issues for how the information is to be organised could better suit that form of communication, if other parties are willing to engage. Anyway. Also, there is a real need to engage in point-by-point discussion, because all this boils down to details and stuff that has to be hashed out one bit at a time (most of it). Simon, the burden is on both parties to discuss things. When I make changes and state a reason in the edit summary, it's really up to the person disputing that to take up the discussion about why. It's not okay to revert a whole series of changes, then claim bad faith, and not address any of the specific points that were raised (which is what's happening now).--Asdfg12345 08:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Simon I would recommend that you read WP:Vandalism before you justify your reverts with that label, as you did here. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by editing like ASDFG's is a form of vandalism. I will not address your textwalls point by point so stop asking me to. The archives address all points raised by the FLG partizans. No amount of wikilawyering changes the fact that ASDFG is vandalizing this article. It's clear to everybody except you. Perhaps your massive conflict of interest is preventing you from seeing it.Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention this, Simonm223, but you yourself "subscribe to a Marxian interpretation of economics" and reside in China part of the time. You also deleted a comment here from someone with a conflicting conflict-of-interest, as it were. And the settled nature of the article edits does not seem obvious to a layman like myself. This deleted source clearly confirms part of the deleted text from Asdfg. Y'all seem to agree on using Benjamin Penny as a source. Meanwhile, the current article strongly implies that the Chinese government made certain claims during the time when Li first published Zhuan Falun, without obviously giving a source. I had to find this myself, and it dates from 1999 rather than 1994. (I disagree with Asdfg if he says that line in the article asserts their POV as fact, and I can't evaluate the Rahn issue now.) If you've addressed all this at length before, would you please point me to the place? Dan (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, it's attack #2 of the week on me for being a marxist I can't begin to tell you how much I love that. Dan, for the record, I am actually strongly opposed to many of the practices of the Chinese government. Furthermore, as somebody who has lived there, I can tell you China is not marxist. China is a capitalist authoritarian state. I'm not a big fan of the PRC government and am not editing to make the PRC look good. I am however filled with disgust at how the Falun Gong has manipulated popular perception by playing to western stereotypes of the "evil communists". My work on these pages is mostly to keep them truthful and not let them become yet another echo chamber of the FLG media machine.

The persistent vandalism of ASDFG, who routinely deletes any source that disagrees with him has led me to not always check carefully to see if he has added an allowable source at the same time as all his partisan mass-edits. His MO - drive-by mass reversion mixed with insertion of small quantities of new material - means occasionally, rather than spend hours picking through the dross, reverts of his vandalism will cull stuff that is viable for inclusion. I trust non-partizan editors here to catch those if I miss them and generally don't protest over their re-inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the first note you wrote in parentheses, "that line in the article asserts their POV as fact."--Asdfg12345 08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon, I've always simply asked for discussion about the changes. But you don't discuss things and instead dismiss my concerns and call me names. It leaves me at a bit of a loss.--Asdfg12345 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick note on the Johnson quote

The full quote is this:

"Over the next two years, Ms. Chen became an enthusiastic participant, rising at 4:30 a.m. to exercise for 90 minutes in a small dirt lot with half a dozen other practitioners. After a day running errands for her children and grandchildren, Ms. Chen spent evenings reading the works of Mr. Li, the group's founder, and discussing his ideas with fellow members. Those beliefs incorporate traditional morality – do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive – as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life and separate-but-equal heavens for people of different races." (emphasis added)

This was changed to:

Ian Johnson notes that Falun Gong beliefs "incorporate traditional morality... as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life" and segregated heavens for people of different races.

You'll notice that the quote stops at "extraterrestrial life." Then the word "segregation" is added, and linked to "racial segregation." I don't know why someone cut the quote short and re-interpreted Johnson's meaning. It's unclear why there should be a need for this character of change. Paraphrasing and so forth is fine, but we should be careful not to inadvertently give a meaning to the quote that the writer did not already provide. Unless Johnson said that he believes Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, then putting it in like this may give a misleading impression to the reader. I won't comment on whether that was deliberate on the part of the editor who made that change. It's highly problematic to adopt this style of editing. Let's put it down to inexperience rather than malice. About other changes to the "controversies section": this is actually a "criticism" section, in the end. It only has negative views. Shall we balance them with positive views, or just leave it? And the other point I wanted to make is that you can't just decide what is a "controversial" teaching and what isn't. That area would be a mile long if we did it that way. A secondary source needs to make that evaluation.--Asdfg12345 02:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see separate but equal. You may have also removed sources without explaining either why the article does not reflect the sources accurately or why we should not use those sources. But I can't look into all this in detail now. Dan (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only say that I'm doing my best to explain all my edits and thinking behind them, and citing relevant wikipedia policies or whatever. And if I fail to do that, and someone points it out, then of course I would seek to fix that up. In this case it would be original research to change "separate but equal" to "racial segregation." It's not clear that's what Johnson meant. Editors aren't supposed to make these sorts of interpretations about sources, as far as I understand. I thought we are supposed to let the reader decide. I think it's enough to just quote him. If some reliable source says that Falun Gong promotes real-world racial segregation, rather than Li merely discussing some metaphysical principle, then we can use that. --Asdfg12345 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate but equal is unambiguous in meaning. It is the exact language of racial segregation in the USA. It is not WP:OR to confirm that lapis lazuli is a blue stone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you stick with the source? If anyone would like further details for that there is the wikilink, right? Why do you insist so much in changing it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer Wikipedia not to use the language of oppressors in this case. As the racism of Li Hongzhi is as evident either way I use the value-neutral wording instead of the original.Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodness... you're too much, Simon. Whatever the case, those are Johnson's words. There's no need to break the quote and outlink to some other concept. It's misleading to the reader.--Asdfg12345 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would go for the shorter text, but keeping the " do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive " to explain what is traditional morality. The stuff about exercicing, running errands, etc, is just fluff. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, the issue was whether the quote should be cut short and the words "separate but equal" changed to "segregate" with the wiki page on "racial segregation" linked. Please respond to whether you think that's appropriate or not. That's really what the dispute was about.--Asdfg12345 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been dead for five days. The point made was that by cutting the quote short, changing the words, and linking to "racial segregation," that this was a kind of source distortion and original research. Simon gave an off-the-wall response. Dan's note was noncommital, or at least explanatory. It's not clear whether he advocates the altered wording, or why. It's simply going to be unworkable if we wait for everybody to agree to something simple like this. This isn't meant to be over the top of me, I'm just trying to deal with this rationally. If there's a good reason why we should change the words of the source and link to racial segregation, I'm waiting to hear it. And if there is, that person can make the change and explain it. --Asdfg12345 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Stopping blanket reverts

This refers to, after an editor makes a series of changes, another editor reverts them all in one go and says "rv pov-pushing" or something similar. We can't work this way. It destroys morale. The edits are made with some care, but the revert is all just one go? It makes it very hard to get anything done. If anyone else has a better idea for how to resolve this, I would be happy to hear it. Often, the initial edit is already explained in an edit summary. Do we need to do more? What's the best way we can work together in this regard? I just reverted Colipon's revert of a series of edits I did precisely for this reason--no explanation was provided, and those changes were considered and took time. It's hard to resolve disputes when the substance of the dispute is unclear. So, my request is to clarify what the actual problems are, and then we can discuss them.--Asdfg12345 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The solution is not to POV-push constantly anything that might make Falun Gong. Also, I see that people keep saying that you have a COI in this topic, but you keep editing the article as if you had no conflict of interest at all.

Your edit was POV pushing just like most if not all of the edits that you keep making in rows. You make a lot of changes in a row and then you complain when you get reverted because you didn't discuss them or because they are whitewashing the subject. You ask that every revert is discussed, but you refuse to take the burden of proof when people tell you why you make those edits. When someone finally discuss the edits in details then you start with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and trying to rehash the same arguments again and again like you did at Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan.

Given the above, of course that you are being reverted. And you will keep being reverted because you are POV-pushing. And if you keep un-reverting the same POV-pushing and keeping your behaviour in this talk then you will eventually get yourself topic-banned from this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.: You want to know why you are going to be reverted? Fine, here you have: your last revert removed again the "controversial" word and the homosexuality thing from the controversies section. And you moved the part cited to Frank from the start of the "the 'cult' label" in what appears to be yet another try to paint the "cult" label as an invention exclusive of the communist party. This was all POV-pushing against consensus of other editors and it's perfectly correct to revert the same old tired from stuff that keeps being thrown to the article in the hope that it sticks. I hope I was clear in the reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm seeking nothing more than to make the pages conform to wikipedia policies. Our discussion should revolve around how that is or is not being achieved, rather than ad-hominem. Everyone who is bothering to edit the pages has some interest in them. The key thing is that the discussion is transparent, in line with wiki policy and reliable sources. I've tried to be quite proactive in discussion, but I haven't felt like others have come to the table, and instead I've just been dealt personal attacks and no real discussion of the bones of contention on the pages. I wrote several problems with the changes in the edit summaries. Each of those are discrete issues that need to be addressed. Maybe I could put a number in the edit summary each time I edit, then put a note here on the talk page explaining it further. And each edit can then be dealt with separately, on its own merits. This might make things a bit more transparent. Right now several content guidelines are being broken, but I've probably not made clear how that is happening. But I think it's problematic when a series of changes get overridden with a simple and accusatory explanation—it effectively brands someone and shuts down discussion. That's not how we are supposed to do things, as far as I understand it. So.. my next approach will be to number each edit, and we can deal with each edit separately. Why do I make edits all in a row? Because I only have a certain amount of time each day for this. I can't space out edits over the whole day, or be on call 24/7. It's not meant to make trouble for anyone. Believe it or not, I'm editing in good faith, and I want the pages to be neutral and representative of the body of reliable sources on this topic. I seem to have put some noses out of joint, so I'll try to go a bit slower, and make my arguments more clear. Since included in your reverts were two specific issues that I mentioned in my edit summary but got no real response to, maybe you could respond to them here:

1. It's original research to pull parts from Li's teachings and call them "controversial" without a source. It needs a source to say "so and so is controversial." It's a synthesis otherwise, because that would be a wikipedia editor picking through Li's teachings and deciding which is apparently controversial and which isn't. I contend that what's in that section should include what third parties have said--and not only the negative things, but also the positive things--about Falun Gong's teachings, but should not include our editor's interpretations of those teachings (implicit or explicit).
2. Secondly, please see the Johnson issue above. You reverted it to include that, so it's a tacit endorsement of how that quote was modified. I raised a concern with how that happened, and said that it should just be what the source said. Please respond to that as well.

Thanks. When I get my other work done I'll come back and make changes one at a time, identifying each edit clearly with a number, and putting a space for discussion for each one. I'm not sure of another way of structuring it. In my question for how we can work better together, you've effectively told me that I shouldn't be editing these pages, and that all my edits will be reverted. Is that what you meant? I'm not sure if that was your meaning. You may have meant, if you perceive my edits as being pro-Falun Gong, then you will consider that POV-pushing, and will revert them? It's a bit unclear. I think this definition fails to take into account the actual policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I think it would be better to explain how my changes violate those policies, rather than just your feelings. If the pages did not distort and selectively use sources, were not so biased, presented more than a singular narrative, did not do such a job of selectively paring down fair representations of Falun Gong and promoting negative ones, smothering the mainstream sources on the cult topic in ambiguity--which I do not believe is a reflection of the scholarly consensus on the topic, something which I will show with reference to the actual sources--and so on, then we wouldn't really have these disputes. I just want neutral pages that conform to wikipedia policies, showing a fuller variety of sources and opinions. And I'm really happy to work with other editors on achieving that. At the moment I'm just getting reverted and called names. Doesn't compute.--Asdfg12345 03:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the COI page. I don't have a conflict of interest. My interests are completely in line with the requirements of wikipedia's content guidelines. That's what we are meant to discuss--how the article, or certain edits, matches that or fails to. If you automatically assume that I'm editing in bad faith.. that will be tough going. Why not just "pretend" then, and go along with discussion, as long as its logical on the surface. All the issues I raise should be totally rational and very empirical concerns to do with sources and guidelines. That's the way I'm trying to discuss things.--Asdfg12345 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not believe you have a WP:COI but that is just an error in your logic caused by your extreme WP:COI. Your blanket changes are vandalism and should be handled accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Making personal accusations that are not related to the topic at hand is wrong according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you think WP:COI is a problem I would suggest you turn to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yikes Simon. We're meant to discuss things; talk about policy, look at the sources. It's a very empirical sort of process. anyway, I hope we can work together...--Asdfg12345 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes and discussion for them

Okay, I have been procrastinating but got some time now. I realised that for many diffs, there is no more immediate explanation than what's in the edit summary. But what's disputed further, we can discuss. I number and link there here anyway, so it's clear what's going on. Again, I request that each edit be dealt with separately, and that responses not be ad-hominem, but actually dealing with the straightforward question of wikipedia policy and sources. You can see how to easily set up the numbering system, or use your own way. Is this the best way of keeping track of the discussion? Anyway, we can try it like this. Would it be more helpful if I copied and pasted the edit summaries right here, so we can see? At the moment I just have two browsers on each side of the screen and can refer to them back and forth easily, but if the paper trail needs to be clearer, I am happy to oblige.

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12] -- This needs a source or it's simply a random snippet that someone put in cause they thought it sounded good. Do I misunderstand something? It's like putting in any random comment or statement, right? Doesn't make sense.
5. [13] -- I could be missing something here. Like in all the cases, happy for an explanation if I misunderstand something. But I didn't believe the CCP was a reliable source? Maybe it could be handled with context, or something? In this case, it's not clear how their view is relevant to the discussion, though, since they are not RS, and the CCP's view on Falun Gong is most relevant in the section about their view? Am I wrong?
6. [14]
7. [15] -- this is actually a more complex issue. It's basically a question of how the cult label debate should be treated in the article. I don't think major revision is necessary to the current version. But I think there are two key points that are both verifiable through sources and important for the page to reflect. 1) the origin of the term. 2) the "uptake" or response the term has received among journalists and scholars--i.e., how it's most often talked about and contextualised. More on that later. In short, I believe this should be in the section that explains the CCP's propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. But it's not enough to simply assert that. The point is to show that such an argument actually has strong textual support. Wikipedia has to conform to what the sources say, so the placement of this material should reflect the best sources.
8. [16]
9. [17]
10. [18]
11. [19]
12. [20]
13. [21]
14. [22]
15. [23]
16. [24]
17. [25]

--Asdfg12345 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes have been reverted multiple times, and no one has made any attempt to respond to the edit summaries or the info above. I also wrote above whether it would help if I ported the edit summaries here, but no response... This is now kinda entering the realm of fantasy. But I just watched the last half of that star trek prequel, so I'm feeling pretty optimistic. It's hope that makes me so assiduous. I'm just going to restore the information that I added to the article. I will also list the other problems that currently exist, as I perceive them. These are all in various states of non-discussion. As in, the problem is brought up, someone makes a dismissive remark, abandons dialogue, and nothing further. Then, apparently, it's "no consensus" so no one can edit. anyway. I have taken note of how to make good edits, so I hope things are even more transparent. --Asdfg12345 13:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot of material to the article. I didn't change much of what was already there. Apparently that's a no-no. And I tried to check the diffs to see that they were all very clear. All these edits in the midst of so much turmoil, it seems pretty contentious. I know. I will explain briefly. I don't think it's right that I be intimidated from editing the pages because people are revert happy, because they call me names, say I'm a pro-Falun Gong POV-pusher, and whatever else. The pages just need improvement. I'm not going to not do that because of irrational arguments levelled at me. This isnt' meant to be provocative. I just do not want to get caught up in all this drama. I only added information, impeccably sourced, and often quite relevant. Most of the time it balanced an existing POV, or added some (what I would consider) background or context. I will be interested to see whether someone dares revert them all. I was careful to not actually modify the existing structure or content, so as not to invite that sort of thing. So I basically just added stuff. I welcome others to build on it, work with it, and play with it constructively. If you revert it all and call me names, I'll be sad. Unfortunately though, I won't be surprised. But it will be a great example of the collapse of the editing environment around here if it happens. I think the edits stand on their own, and I think they fit the context of the article. I suggest you read through them before deleting them. Judge whether they are good or useful changes or not. Don't tell me that I have to get a consensus on each point before I can add information. That's not true. This is a dynamic, work in progress, right? As I say, my changes are simply adding information. First read, think, and consider: is it a net benefit to the page, to the encyclopedia? We can change and discuss, change and discuss. I hope I'm not acting out of line, but I've been considering the events of the last few days, and I think it would be wrong to just give up on improving the pages because I've been met with hostility. Live long and prosper.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked this diff and unfortunately it's not as clean cut as I tried to make it. I apologise if that is annoying to anyone. I don't think it will be hard to recognise that nothing much of the existing content has actually been changed, though. Only the minimum necessary to add more information. The real changes are additions. Over and out.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban against Simon

See here. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage everybody to participate and point out how partisan and inappropriate this requested topic ban is. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone familiar with the behaviour of Asdfg12345 and HappyInGeneral, this request is outrageous. These two editors have POV pushing the heck out of FG articles for months, and now they are getting reverted they have the nerves of trying to topic ban one of the editors that is reverting their POV pushing? This pushes the limits way farther that I can stand. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Enric, please discuss the content which you may do so above. That is constructive. Labeling user conduct is not constructive. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• This has been attempted for months years and it has been of absolutely no usefulness since Asdfg12345 and you are clearly trying very hard not to hear. (By the way, the accurate descriptions of the disruptive behaviour of an user does not constitute a personal attack, so references to WP:NPA are not having the effect that you think that they are having). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the current situation and sentiments are quite unfortunate, and even confusing. Why can't edits be discussed? Why can't we thrash out the issues based on sources and policy? Every change I made was clearly explained in the edit summary, and I made a space above. If you have a problem, please point it out, explain why, or undo that edit, or whatever. Use policy and sources to support your argument, rather than generalised accusations. Show rather than tell how my edits are problematic. I am more than willing to have that discussion, support my arguments with sources, and where I'm wrong admit it and go with the better formulation.--Asdfg12345 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits were discussed, for months you don't own the falun gong articles and other editors do not need to run every decision past the office of Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs). Simonm223 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the edits where discussed but more importantly what I would like to point out to you that by doing blind reverts you are in practice blocking people you don't like to make edits and that is the actual practice of owning the article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A seemingly civil facade does not hide the end goal of single-purpose accounts. Any rational user can read through these discussions, look through user contributions, and see for themselves. I am not engaging in strawmen discussions and wasting my time to wait for my logical argumentation to be shoddily brushed away by users who simply do not want to agree, and who are forbidden to agree because of their belief system. Colipon+(Talk) 03:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This request is bullshit. I won't even dignify it by commenting at ArbCom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do, I could use the support. Simonm223 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.. it's a pretty watertight argument you have, Colipon. Avoids all the actual trouble of engaging in the issues at hand. I like working with other editors, and would like nothing more than to have a collaborative environment here. I don't know how to make that happen. I don't even know what I've done wrong. Edit the pages, it seems. I am sure you are aware that 80% of the Persecution of Falun Gong page, which was full of serious research from academic journals and major newspapers, was all gutted. Simply deleted right off the page, whole sections that were groundbreaking research (like Munro's on psychiatric abuse). But all I've done is balance things here (like adding "decentralisation" to the section about Falun Gong's apparently hyper strict organisation, and making clear the status of the cult claims in the mainstream) with mostly good sources, documenting everything in a very clear way. I don't know what more I can do. But if there is, please tell me. I would like that we could just get on with the actual work rather than all the finger pointing.--Asdfg12345 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Apposition needed

Østergaard, Palmer, Ownby... these are just some of the names that need an apposition when first mentioned in the text. The general reader will ask "who's that?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Clemens Stubbe Østergaard, Associate Professor of politics at Aarhus University, ... [26] [27] (could not find his position on those pages)

• David Palmer, adjunct professor of anthropology and religious studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong , ... [28]

• David Ownby, Professor of History and Director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the Université de Montréal, ... [29]

--Asdfg12345 07:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done (if someone insists on the refs, g'ahead and put'em in) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Gutmann deletions?

This was removed from the article by Colipon: Gutmann argues that because He Zuoxiu is related to the head of public security, Luo Gan, and the journal he wrote the critical article in answers to the state, it was "a signal and trial of the party's designs." Considering themselves "targeted," Falun Gong could "keep quiet - and probably get crushed..." or "stand up - and still probably get crushed."

1. Why were the two sentences the journal he wrote the critical article in answers to the state... and Considering themselves "targeted,"... deleted?
2. The Luo Gan issue is sourced and has not been resolved. How is it relevant that it was published in a U.S. conservative journal? It's unclear how that is grounds for disqualifying the source, and despite the variety of objections, this has still not been explained.--Asdfg12345 00:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The second part of that section does not make sense given the context. The first part still presents no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters, and, make no mistake, it is still an opinion from one person, especially the statement "a signal and trial of the party's designs." In addition, Gutmann's opinions need to be put into perspective by comparisons to other Falun Gong scholars. Does David Ownby, Ostergaard, or anyone else make similar claims in academic journals? Colipon+(Talk) 04:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the second part doesn't make sense given the context once you delete 1). The point is that there is more than one narrative of the lead-up to the persecution, and by rights they should both be presented here. Regarding 2, here are the three sources on this issue:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann). "He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter). "A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao) Emphasis added

About your points, I've never heard that sources need to present evidence for the things they assert or opine. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if they all did, but no article I've seen has operated on that basis--especially this one. Just for example: does He Zuoxiu present evidence for his claims about Falun Gong? (more on his remarks in a second). Ownby does not, as far as I am aware make a comment about this. But nor is it a requirement that every comment or opinion be shared by a variety of scholars for it to be included. Many views are held by a very small minority, but still warrant inclusion (the cult label springs to mind). Some analyses are wholly unique to a particular academic, and are still included. On many occasions, the broad facts are not disputed, but each commentator is adding their own shade. It's unclear why this shade should be excluded while others are promoted. Are you applying the same standards to this information as you would to the information you seek to include? It's unclear to me.

Regarding the He Zuoxiu remark about Falun Gong, you may consider balancing it with: "According to Falun Gong, the cases He cited as evidence of the dangers of Falun Gong were erroneous, since the people who had been supposedly harmed were not even Falun Gong practitioners." which is in Ownby's recent book p. 169. Full quote: "According to Falun Gong practitioners who watched the program, the cases that He cited as evidence of the dangers of Falun Gong were erroneous; the people who had been supposedly harmed were not even Falun Gong practtiioners, they said.... [and just for fun] The BTV station must be considered the rough equivalent of the People's Daily as a mouthpiece for state policy and propaganda." -- which was earlier trimmed then deleted. I look forward to understanding your objection to the Gutmann source further. Please let me know if there is something unsatisfactory about my response.--Asdfg12345 10:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That passage you provide above in itself is highly contentious and I would question whether it really fits as a "reliable source". For one, "It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult.", this is not even true. If you read the contents of He's opinion piece, he actually comments against qigong in general and only uses Falun Gong as an example of 'qigong-related delusions'; nowhere does he mention that Falun Gong is a "dangerous cult". The rest seems to be merely the author's personal speculation - phrases such as perhaps partially motivated; as for he 'intentionally provoked Falun Gong', let's not forget that he was actually forbidden to write against Falun Gong in mainstream newspapers, so he was forced to take his views to a lesser known college journal read usually by students so it wouldn't raise as much attention. The college Journal, contrary to what the author believes, does not "answer to the state", but answers to the local media department, which is in turn, a few leaps away from the state ministry of propaganda. Unlike what he seems to believe, the propaganda department isn't some Orwellian machine that supervises all of its subsidiaries (see for example, the newspapers controlled by the Guangdong provincial party committee, which diverge significantly from the views of the "Party").

As for Falun Gong denying that He's cases were practitioners... well... Falun Gong similarly denied that the self-immolators were practitioners. The article attributes He's opinions to He. This is neutral, balanced, and easily presentable. It should not attribute He's opinions to some party-state machine when there is no evidence to do so, nor is it absolutely obliged to add on a "refutation" from Falun Gong for every negative point against it. Colipon+(Talk) 16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese government has enough division between local, provincial and national authorities that it has actually been cited as a major roadblock to national initiatives for anti-corruption activities, anti-piracy activities and environmental cleanup initiatives. The central party issues directives, these are interpreted by the provinces - and the parties of the provinces will frequently have a very free hand in interpretation and then these interpreted directives are operationalized by local authorities. Variances in budget, personality, dilligence, etc. can all potentially impact the extent to which these initiatives will be implemented at all - let alone in the form initially envisioned at a national level. The idea of China as an absolutist, Orwellian, totalitarian state just doesn't play out that way on the ground - not necessarily because the central party doesn't want that level of control (can't speak to that one way or the other as I don't know) but rather because it's nearly impossible to have absolute control over 1.5 billion people. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to be away for a few days. I can see what you are both saying, I don't disagree with it. I'm reading Lieberthal and Shambaugh now. I just don't see how it's particularly relevant here. Colipon, it's unclear how your explanation fits in with wikipedia content policies. We all know that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So I don't really get the objection. The only basis for objection is that it's not a reliable source, not an argument about the veracity of the claims, or whatever. There's a lot of nonsense on these pages, traceable back to reliable sources. He Zuoxiu's comments themselves are less a reliable source that Gutmann's. They're effectively from a primary source. You just made an argument based on your understanding and thinking, and extrapolated it to mean the material shouldn't be included. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. There's a stack of stuff I could rebut in the same fashion, but it's pointless, since (see quote above). Anyway, this is fairly elementary wikipedia stuff.

Regarding not adding a response from Falun Gong, could you explain your thoughts on that further? Shouldn't an encyclopedia present both sides? Shouldn't it be clear why they protested? Shouldn't the page seek to explain things for the reader, rather than give them a ready-made package that fits in with our ideas? It's not necessary to include the details of what He Zuoxiu wrote, in the end. But if they are included, and since they are counter to what reliable sources say about Falun Gong, it's only reasonable to include a statement by the Falun Gong side. It's simply not neutral to include such remarks without challenge; it's a big claim that's being made. It is a violation of WP:DUE. He's view in this should be explained in terms of giving the context to the whole affair; but when you expand on his views, giving them detail, when he's not a reliable source on Falun Gong, and not providing any contrary views, it becomes problematic. It's a kind of POV-pushing. In another sense, the simple reason for their protests have not been provided: that the criticism violated Hu Yaobang's 'Three No' policy on Qigong (Palmer, p. 249), that He had "unfairly maligned their spiritual practice" (Schechter, p. 69), or that the remarks He made were "erroneous" (Ownby, per above). It's not that Falun Gong's version of events should take prominence. But things should be presented in an evenhanded way, and with a mind to what the best sources have said on this topic. At the moment the scholarship has been sidelined on this point, to an extent, while a primary source has been elevated. I suggest either remove the sentence where he details his problem with Falun Gong (the allegation about the student not drinking or whatever), or adding in the remark that it was claimed erroneous and the individual misidentified. It just seems a simple matter of neutrality and WP:DUE.

Please advise on the Gutmann issue. It's unclear how the points you bring up, while perhaps with general merit, explain why the three reliable sources on that single point should be excluded.--Asdfg12345 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts?--Asdfg12345 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing is still quite alive. There's been no substantive rebuttal of the source. First it was branded unreliable and U.S. conservative, and when I asked for clarity on that, that reason seems to have been dropped for a longer explanation about how the assertions are not true. Then I said wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth, and the discussion stopped. Can whoever wants to continue disputing the Gutmann source please throw your hat in the ring? If it's not a reliable source, please indicate how. So far, that has not been really disputed (only asserted). The thing is published in National Review, it's unclear what the problem is. Do we need to open a noticeboard thing on whether Gutmann is a reliable source? That might be the simplest way of dealing with this, actually. Please advise. Or i'll just do it in a few days.--Asdfg12345 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that these paragraphs of 'discussion' are a type of bait to shift the burden away from Asdfg himself and onto the users that disagree with him. He introduced the passage, numerous editors have expressed reasoned opinions on why it should not be in the article, yet he continues to insist on it through roundabout ways, even after he has been topic-banned. I will reiterate again that this issue has been addressed many times, thus I will not be going into point-by-point rebuttals. Colipon+(Talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Colipon. I simply don't have the time to debate the same argument over and over for months. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT applies. If Asdfg12345 does go to a noticeboard with this it would be wise for Asdfg12345 to disclose his/her topic ban on FLG topics. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Asdfg12345 says that he has rebutted the complaints, but he has yet to convince the other editors that he has actually rebutted them. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This dispute reflects the circuitous arguments that seem to happen regularly. It would help so much if things were just clear, but nothing has been clarified in this, only remarks like "read what he wrote above" or "you're pretending you didn't hear." The reasons for rejecting the info keep jumping. First it was because it was in Porter, who cites Falun Gong website clearwisdom.net throughout his book (forgetting the fact that he is regularly cited, his study was an exploration of Falun Gong, where primary sources are of course going to be consulted, and Ownby calls his work "excellent") and the National Review, an anti-China U.S. conservative publication. Later, these arguments were apparently dropped, and unrelated stuff was brought up that made truth-claims about the content rather than its reliability or verifiability. Colipon, you say "numerous editors have expressed reasoned opinions on why it should not be in the article..." -- I wish that were true. No one has presented a cogent reason. Originally the argument said it was a too conservative source, not reliable. That was it. Others just said "see what he wrote" without putting forward any views of their own. Simon's second last comment isn't relevant at all.

I don't want to rehash everything, so since I've got your attention, can I just confirm that the only crux of the discussion is whether Gutmann, Porter, and Zhao are reliable sources on this? I just want to be clear on what exactly is disputed here. It will really help going forward. Saying "its' been shouted down 100 times, why don't you just go away" isn't going to help clarify the situation, since it's actually unclear what the problem itself has ever been. So: is the locus of dispute whether they are reliable sources, or is it whether, even if they are, that should just not be in the article. Please answer, and we can take the next step. (this appears to be separate from the other part of Gutmann that Colipon deleted).--Asdfg12345 01:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to recap, I want to know whether the problem is the reliability of the sources. If it is, then I can take it to the RS noticeboard. Is the problem NPOV? Then I can take it to the NPOV noticeboard. This dispute needs some outside opinion. I just need to know how to present it. At the moment I'm not sure how I'd explain the dispute in terms of which policy the content is claimed to be breaking. It's not bait, Colipon. Just a very simple question.--Asdfg12345 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I have received no response, I'll assume that Colipon's objections (of the source being from a conservative newspaper) are the essence of the complaint, and that the problem is that these are not reliable sources on the topic. I will open a note on the reliable sources noticeboard now.--Asdfg12345 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally left note on NPOV board. --Asdfg12345 02:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:

(a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.

(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.

This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

newsletter?

Someone has gone and subscribed my email address to a Falun Gong newsletter called "Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group" :-/ It seems that they have searched my name in google to find my email. Anyone else had the same experience? --Enric Naval (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Happens quite often as far as I know... it's a means to force you to listen to more Falun Gong material... Falun Gong is generally not kind to its opponents - just read up on the Epoch Times article about New York comptroller John Liu. The Epoch Times has an entire website dedicated to attacking Liu because he criticized a Falun Gong practitioner. Colipon+(Talk) 06:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... that's something else. But then I guess we should expect that from the epoch times. Hopefully they go too far with their insane allegations and get sued into oblivion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There should be an unsubscribe button at the bottom of the email, shouldn't there? I think the John Liu story is more complex than that, Colipon.--Asdfg12345 13:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I never solicited that newsletter, so it's unsolicited email, aka spam. I don't like that people take the decision of filling my inbox with unsolicited messages .... weekly. I have treated it the same as any spam that I get: not clicking in any link or image, and tagging it as spam so the bayesian spam filtering picks it up and other accounts in the same provider also get it sent to the spam folder. This is the only way to treat spam, honestly, nothing personal against the sender, I am "subscribed" to more than a dozen unsolicited newsletters and I treat them all the same. I already have problems being up-to-date with the newsletters that I have actually solicited. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"I already have problems being up-to-date with the newsletters that I have actually solicited." <-- I hear that.--Asdfg12345 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Many academics"? Really?

I saw this in the lead just now. I would suggest that those words be removed. (No, I didn't attempt to remove them editing through an IP account). Two reasons for this are that the accusation or label originated with the CCP and is the CCP's calling-card, if you will, in describing Falun Gong. The label is mostly related to the CCP's "view" of Falun Gong. Another reason is that it's simply untrue that "many academics" use this term to classify or label Falun Gong. In fact, many academics reject the label. If editors were committed to NPOV, I think they would actually note that in the lead. Here's a list of academics' stance on the cult label (credit goes to PelleSmith for compiling this list. I think he left these pages when he got sick of the rampant anti-Falun Gong POV-pushing).--Asdfg12345 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I thought it needed a more subtle gradation, since The Economist and Madsen don't say the same kinds of things as Ownby and Johnson; the latter are explicit repudiations, the former a bit more equivocal.--Asdfg12345 00:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Use cult

• Kavan, Heather
• Singer, Margaret

Don't use cult

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

Don't accept the cult label

• (sorta) The Economist: "But his [Jiang’s] argument that the Falun Gong is as dangerous as Japan's Aum cult, which released poison gas in the Tokyo metro in 1995, is particularly unconvincing in Hong Kong, where the sect has a docile following of just a few hundred people." Asia: Jiang almost meets the Falun Gong, May 12, 2001. Vol. 359, Iss. 8221; pg. 45
• Madsen, Richard, “Understanding Falun Gong” Current History September 2000, 243-247. "“Though perhaps near the outer edge of the normal spectrum of Chinese indigenous spiritual practices, Falun Gong does not seem to go far enough over that boundary to be considered a cult."

Reject the cult label

• Ownby, David
• Porter, Noah
• Edelman, Bryan
• Richardson, James T.
• Johnson, Ian
• US State Department[30]
• Amnesty International [31]
• Beyerstein, Barry (a psychology prof and cult expert at Simon Fraser University) http://www.lostflag.com/NOW%20--%20Falun%20Gong,%20Mar%203%20-%209,%202005.htm

Unuseful information

From the article :

One follower believed that it will bring "some sudden change that will be good for good people, but bad for bad people."[33]

I can see it's sourced and I guess this is what's left as a compromise after a long debate, but it is now emptied from any meaning. One random (and a bit childish one at that) voice in a movement of millions doesn't fit in an encyclopedia, feels awkward and knocks out of reading rhythm. I don't even know why it's in the controversies section. Needs to be rephrased or deleted. Fearfulleader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC).

It's the result of a mentality that seeks to paint Falun Gong as an illegitimate belief system, make it sound dumb, hard to understand, and if possible, even devious. Why don't you delete that part yourself?--Asdfg12345 12:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference provides information on the Apocalyptic subtext of much of the FLG belief system. The quote itself has been watered down by FLG proponents, I agree, but it's wording as it is now is probably the closest we will get to neutrality while still mentioning FLG Apocalypticism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality doesn't always lead to interest, as it is now it's just a random quote. Furthermore, I don't understand how a part of a belief system could be used as controversy about it, only describing the views of outsiders toward this particular belief can be controversial. Especially when most of the big religions have some degree of Apocalypticism. I tweaked a bit the sentence but I still think it should be deleted altogetherFearfulleader (talk)

I don't have a problem with your tweak but I'd oppose removing the sentence altogether. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added Kavan 2008 with a quote of how the members believe in the apocalypse. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Enric, this edit seems rather cynical, to say the least. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to make a certain group look crazy, stupid, or heartless? That's what you do when you make edits like that. That's not telling us much about the group, it's not seeking to inform or educate the reader about what these people believe; no encyclopedia would do that kind of thing. These articles should present things in context and try to elucidate whatever the subject is, not be a reflection of the biases of the editors. I would suggest that commentary on the teachings be put in a section about the teachings, and that it should also be much more intelligent, informative, and nuanced. Kavan is not an expert on Chinese religion, she's a communications researcher; so she is probably not a reliable source on Falun Gong's teachings anyway. Even the most basic thing, of presenting her opinion as her opinion, rather than as a "fact" about what Falun Gong practitioners believe, has not been observed. There are issues of reliable sources, undue weight, original research, and neutral point of view here. I suggest seeing what actual experts of Chinese religion, like Ownby or Penny say about Falun Gong's beliefs. They are qualified to comment on the subject, and their words carry far more weight than Kavan's. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be "hit pieces." It would be just as simple to make a section called "non-controversial teachings" and fill that up; or one called "peaceful teachings" and fill that up with rosy quotes about Falun Gong's pacifistic and "Gandhian" philosophy. Interesting that that's not happening.--Asdfg12345 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This wording is less bad[32]. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New Intro

I have significantly altered the lede section of this article to more clearly represent the content of the article and describe Falun Gong from a more neutral perspective. Please be bold in editing if any other editors see I have made mistakes or overlooked something. I have also taken off the tag for "Unbalanced Viewpoints" as there seems to be no real existing discussion on this issue. Colipon+(Talk) 23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The most notable and troubling aspect of this is how all third party views that verify the persecution have been deleted. It's now framed as a series of Falun Gong claims, rather than an actual issue that is happening, and which has been written about extensively. The same thing happened when dealing with the organ harvesting allegations; probably the most notable statement on it--the United Nations Committee on Torture's demand that there be an investigation and anyone responsible punished--was purged in a similar fashion. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or what.

I suggest the information with regard to the persecution of Falun Gong be written to properly take into account the views of reliable sources on the issue, and not merely as "Falun Gong claims," which is both inaccurate and misleading.--Asdfg12345 04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also reconsider the "proselytising" remark. That was changed from "highlighting the abuses," which is the actual purpose of such public activities like petitions, parades, etc. Does the former have a few good sources?--Asdfg12345 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the new intro is significantly improved. Good work. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Simon or Colipon, can you please address my complaint: I have said that information about the persecution has been couched as "Falun Gong claims" when in fact there is a wealth of reliable sources on this topic which could be used. By calling them only claims by Falun Gong, this leads the reader to beleive that such claims have not been verified by independent agencies. And since there is such a wealth of independent information about this, much of which was actually in the references before Colipon stepped in, it's unclear why it should be excluded, and this information marginalised. --Asdfg12345 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments (current revision):

• In the last section of the lede (Its teachings are derived[6] from qigong, Buddhist and Taoist concepts, and draw upon modern science.[7][8][9]), reference 6 is somewhat confusingly placed in the middle of the sentence, which appears to be because the word "derived" is taken from that reference. This isn't clear to a reader, though, so I would suggest either putting "derived" in quotes (to make it clear why the reference is there or at the end of the sentence) or, better yet, to reword that part of the sentence and put the reference after "Buddhist and Taoist concepts". The current wording actually could be criticized as plagiarism by some editors, so it would be good to reword...something like
  • it has roots in / has been influenced by qigong, Buddhism, and Daoism,[6] and also draws upon modern science, etc. The wording is still close, but not too much. I'm not sure what the best way to reword "derived" would be, you might want to look at other religion articles to see how they handle that.
• The claim about the government's "revising" the 'membership' number to 2 million is not mentioned in the source given, so I removed it. And if it is re-added, it probably needs a more robust source than just an NYT news article; the ideal thing would be to cite both of the government reports themselves.
• Reference 1 is broken, apparently Leiden has discontinued its web hosting service. I found an archived version here, but I have two questions about the reference before I add the archive link:
  • What makes this a reliable source? Who is "Barend ter Haar" (he's certainly not this guy, who died in 1902).
  • I don't see how this reference supports the claim made in the second place it's cited, "...who charged that [FLG's] teachings were pseudoscientific and harmful to the public. I can't find that in the page itself, and the quotation on the footnote is just for the first place where it's cited, not for the others.
• Why is there such a big sentence about the 1999 Zhongnanhai protest, instead of just a minor mention (like "...responded to its critics through protests—at least one of which involved as many as 10,000 practitioners—and lobbying..."). I know 1999 is an important year for FLG, but unless this sentence says more about why that protest in particular was important, it seems a bit random.
• Citation 15 should give some indication that it's actually a web.archive link, not a normal one (the best way is to use the |archivedate= and |archiveurl= parameters of the citation template, and to keep the original url in |url=).
  • Taken care of.
• The phrase "Falun Gong groups have since moved abroad" suggests that all of them have gone abroad. Is this true? And what exactly is meant by "groups"—FLG-related organizations, or all practitioners? (If "groups" means just any practitioners, then certainly they haven't all left.)
• There is some repetition in the end of the last paragraph. Two sentences in a row begin "Falun Gong groups have since...", so the second one should be reworded (should be easy, something like "They have also..."). Three sentences in a row begin "Falun Gong".
• I'm not sure why "the group has emerged as a notable force in opposing the Communist Party and its policies" is included, especially with only one source (which doesn't say this explicitly, unless I missed something). It seems a bit empty—it was already clear that FLG opposed the government, and saying they've "emerged as a notable force" doesn't add much and sounds a bit peacockish.
• The last sentence, on FLG websites claims about 'membership' numbers, seems oddly placed here. Can it go to the 2nd paragraph, where gov't claims about numbers are included?

That's all, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

The Controversy section should not belong under the "Beliefs and teachings" heading. This "Reception" heading can include the Controversy section as well a Advocacy section from various sources to help illustrate the contrasting views.

--Mavlo (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I just popped by this article to find out about the group, and I thought it was confusing to find a reception section separate from history. The spirit of this re-write seems helpful enough, but not the label or placing. (1) Two label suggestions: "Reception" and "Advocacy" (that is, the meanings of the words, not the content of the sections per se) suggest something that belongs in the history section. Maybe just a section (I think after, not before, the history section?) on "Criticisms" followed by "Reactions/Responses" to them? (2) Organization: bring the 'cult label' discussion into the criticisms/controversy? I know the word 'cult' itself is ambiguous, but as it's introduced with regard to Falun Gong it seems - from this article - to have been clearly intended to be pejorative.

Good points. With regard to the cult label, in the context of Falun Gong I think it is able to be shown that the vast majority of reliable sources place this term, as it was used against Falun Gong, in the context of the persecution/anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. I will get some sources on this later, but I think there are few writers who discuss this outside that context. If that is the case, I would think that wikipedia should reflect this and include the cult section as a sub-section to one about the propaganda/media campaign. Looking at the list of academic sources which adopt/reject the label, this also seems to be the case. This logic may be faulty though; if so please point out how.--Asdfg12345 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception should come after the "history" section. It's usually at the end of articles like these. Agree that "Cult" also belongs under this section. Colipon+(Talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Reception section removed? Why was the Controversy section placed back in Beliefs and teachings? Please explain.--Mavlo (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This behaviour is problematic. Let me leave a note on Mrund's talk page. Mavlo is within his rights to revert that, in my view. No attempt to engage in discussion was made, and not even an edit summary left. That's destructive editing. --Asdfg12345 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have provided a reason for reverting. Sloppy of me. Half of what Mavlo added was unsourced and all of it was pro-FG massaging. I have no quarrel with the proposed restructuring, just the added content. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That the material he added presents a pro-Falun Gong point of view is not a reason to remove it. As far as I know, it followed a section that presents a point of view critical of Falun Gong. You will have to explain more clearly why it's problematic to present both pro and anti Falun Gong points of view, rather than just anti Falun Gong points of view. I didn't get a clear look, but I thought it was all sourced material.--Asdfg12345 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually all content within the Advocacy section were properly sourced and are exact quotes from their sources. The reason it is "pro-FG" was to balance the Controversy section, as I had already explained above. --Mavlo (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a "reception" section in an article like this. Reception is for movies, books, plays, etc. It sounds almost belittling to have a section on FLG's "reception". "Controversy" is just fine, because controversy is what it is. And in the current revision, the Controversy subsection is under "Public debate", which is also fine with me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

New Single Purpose Accounts show up

In hes five months as a registered user on Wikipedia so far, Mavlo has acted as an unabashed pro-Falun Gong Single Purpose Account. Myself and many others are quite relieved that we have recently managed to rid these articles of both pro-FG and anti-FG SPAs. Therefore I would suggest that Mavlo invest hes wiki time, which is in itself of course very welcome, in a wider thematic range of articles and leave the FG ones alone. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also suggest he edit other articles, but it's quite inappropriate to warn someone off editing a certain topic.--Asdfg12345 00:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aren't all accounts able to contribute to the FG page within their right to do so? Considering my five months here I really haven't contributed that much to be termed a SPA. Also, due to the time constraints of life, and a general habit I have developed over time, I try to dedicate myself to a minimal number of tasks. I believe this focus only helps to make whatever is I do more thorough and fair, instead of tackling too many tasks at a time. Thus I will continue to contribute to this particular topic until my schedule allows me to allocate more time to other wikipedia topics. --Mavlo (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, actually SPAs are explicitly discouraged. Particularly biased agenda-pushing ones. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As are meat puppets and sock puppets of blocked users. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The accusations and insinuations you guys are coming up with are a bit odd, and slightly troubling. I would suggest focusing on the actual article. As for the section, I don't know if it's best to segregate responses into "controversies" and "advocacy," which kind of seems to be two POV magnets; it may be better to have a discussion of "Reception," and include elements of what is there now, but make it more theme-based. That is, information isn't segregated based on whether it is perceived to be positive or negative toward Falun Gong, but based on what it actually says. For example, a paragraph or so about teachings, and what commentators have found odd, hard to understand, or problematic--and then what others have found normal for Chinese folk religion, understandable in context, or not problematic (or splicing it together). There are other topics that could be explored in a reception section, too, like what support Falun Gong has received by what quarters of society, for example. Richard Madsen gives a discussion of this, citing, for example, how Falun Gong's conservative sexual ethic may alienate some more liberal minded types, while it being a non-Christian belief means it hasn't received huge support from the usual constituencies that promote freedom of religion. Just an example. I think the current section simply offers polarised views which aren't necessarily too informed or informative, and is basically a channel for unexplored opinion-giving. In particular, the opinions expressed in the "advocacy" section clearly aren't advocacy. It would have thought it would be more useful for the reader to allow certain themes more space, but breaking it into "positive" and "negative" doesn't seem to allow that. 2 cents. --Asdfg12345 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with the sudden cropping up of new SPAs right after you and HIG are blocked from editing the page directly for incessant POV pushing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mavlo (talk · contribs) is obviously a POV-pushing SPA sock as can be judged from his edit history. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, just FYI, I'm actually the puppetmaster behind anyone who adds information balancing a negative POV on Falun Gong. Also any information about the persecution, too. It doesn't stop at Mavlo. This goes deep!--Asdfg12345 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we know what the bard had to say about that. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. Do you agree with the ideas expressed above for how to structure the reception section?--Asdfg12345 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with proposals coming from blocked accounts. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're such a friendly person, Simonm223. Does anyone else consider my suggestion useful or appropriate?--Asdfg12345 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea for improvement

Hello. I have an idea for the "cult label" section: it is to separate the aspects of the use of the cult label that relate to the Chinese government and put those in the section that deals with the views of the Chinese government. Then in the section of "public debate," include the various characterisations of Falun Gong by media and scholars, including the cult label, and basic analysis of how Falun Gong has been discussed in the public domain. This has some good textual support, including a journal article I came across recently. Adam Frank's book chapter also takes a "discourse analysis" type approach to the issue; in fact, there are several. It would mean that the aspects of response/counter-response to government propaganda could be addressed separately from how Falun Gong has been taken up by Western media and academics. The two are of course related, but by treating them separately the article will allow further exploration of both those views. An explanation of intersections and influences in both those fields would be helpful. That's my thought. I'll make some changes now and the editors can share ideas. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this: "Western media's response was initially similar to that of the anti-cult movement,[120] but later used less loaded terms to describe the movement.[121]" I cannot find the first part in the source. Could anyone point me to the page? This may be wrongly attributed. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The structure looks fine to me. Good work. Colipon+(Talk) 21:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have encountered some sourcing irregularities in the text. There are several places where a source is cited, but where what is written in the article does not appear in the citation. I will make some changes and leave notes here. It took a bit of time to go through these. This is a subject I know something about, having read David Ownby, James Tong, and David Palmer's relatively recent texts; but there are of course intricacies and intricacies. I will make the changes and provide some clear reasons here. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the following, in each case I have checked the sources in question and explained below any issues I found. I make these changes (mostly deletions, actually) on the proviso that if my research turns out to be mistaken, someone will be able to fix it just as easily and we'll all have learned something. I haven't checked all the sources carefully yet.

• The sentence: "Its rapid growth generated attention from Chinese journalists, skeptics, scientists, and religious institutions, and brought about friction between Falun Gong and its critics, who charged that its teachings were pseudoscientific and harmful to the public."; was sourced to Patsy Rahn and Barend ter Haar. I could not find anything to substantiate this sentence in either of those sources. I may have overlooked something. The most Rahn seems to say is (p. 41): "In 1995 his teachings began to come under criticism for being superstition, and in 1996 he withdrew the group from the qigong association, thereby removing its official registration." ter Haar does not seem to go into this at all. Since I think saying "Its rapid growth generated attention from Chinese journalists, skeptics, scientists, and religious institutions." is not controversial, I have left that, even though it does not have a source. I am not sure how strictly sourcing policies are enforced though.
• Similarly with "As early as 1995, critics called Falun Gong "superstitious" and were skeptical of its claimed health benefits." Rahn only seems to say that sentence above in relation to this. I removed that sentence too, since it is unsupported.
• Nor could I substantiate "Sima drew special attention to Falun Gong, alleging that Li Hongzhi used psychological manipulation and a questionable mixture of traditional thought and modern science to sustain his teachings." For starters, Ownby does not appear to mention Sima Nan's criticism of Falun Gong, though he does mention Nan's criticism of qigong. Secondly, I do not believe a link to a Hong Kong Taoist wiki (it appears to be a dead link) is a reliable source. Given that the sentences before it lead into this one, I simply deleted the paragraph. Nan's criticism of qigong may be notable, but I could find no mention of his criticism of Falun Gong in either Palmer or Ownby. Since the reference to Ownby's text was here, I just moved that to the paragraph; now Ownby is cited as discussing the Guangming Daily incident (which I think he does).
• Regarding the note about the Buddhist Association comparing Falun Gong to Aum Shinrikyo in 1998, I have not been able to substantiate that either. I need to get ahold of the text in question. At least, Palmer does not mention this. I will look into this particular issue further another time. At the moment I've just drawn a question mark there. I notice there is a source from Benjamin Penny that should address this. I will follow that up and provide the result of my research another time. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As a major contributor to the current introduction, I can testify that some parts of it was merely my own attempt at summarizing what was already written in the article. The lede of an article does not necessarily need to be sourced to the teeth (for example, in Barack Obama, where it is not sourced at all). I do not believe that any of the content was controversial, and received numerous endorsements above for its content, and thus would call for that section to be restored. As for Sima Nan, I would also advise against removing paragraphs wholesale simply because Sima's critiques of Falun Gong were very widely known - it is just a matter of pinpointing a good source for it. Remember that these sources are not limited to Palmer and Ownby. You might also be interested to look at the Sima Nan article for sources. Sima's critique was largely on Qigong groups who claim supernatural powers, and Falun Gong seemed to be the "representative" of this qigong clique that Sima zoomed in on. Colipon+(Talk) 17:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page that discusses how leads are supposed to be structured says it "should be carefully sourced as appropriate..." I would also have thought that leads need to be careful not to overreach toward certain arguments, and be clear about which are mainstream views and which are not. Regarding Nan's criticism of Falun Gong, I just mean that it is not mentioned in either Ownby or Palmer. I will check the Sima Nan article to follow up. I would wonder about how notable his criticism of Falun Gong could be if it did not appear in these major sources, though. As you say, it may indeed be that the content was not controversial, but academic integrity is important and Wikipedia ought to respect that principle to the utmost.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with reinserting that material which appears to be unsupported by good sources. As far as I understand, the lead is to introduce and present a general overview of the subject and its salient points. That would mean obviously undisputed points. This inclusion does not have a source, and does not seem to reflect a general summary of the subject usually found in quality secondary and tertiary sources. Lionel Jensen's entry in the "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture" may be useful as a benchmark for how a professional encyclopedia deals with this subject. I have to step out now, but there were other issues. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm in editing the article. Falun Gong's two most vocal opponents were Sima Nan and He Zuoxiu. Even if Sima does not appear in Palmer or Ownby (although I'm fairly certain it does) it warrants inclusion. The fact that Falun Gong attacked and harassed its critics before '99 is a well-known fact supported by numerous sources. In any case I am terribly fatigued from editing these articles and combing through propaganda on both sides. I trust that you will make it into something better and that your enthusiasm will not go to waste. A word of caution that editing this article will certainly increase your wiki-stress, just be prepared. Colipon+(Talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Some material you should read, TheSound, before you go on editing, is this page and this page. In addition, another FLG-advocate banned user is back after his 6-month sanction expired. Wish you all the best. Colipon+(Talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly note. The links you sent are eye-openers. It is clearly a subject that arouses emotions and has the potential to polarise debate. The first link you provided seems to explain why, a couple of years ago when I visited the page briefly, it read something like a Falun Gong pamphlet. I suppose it's natural for situations like that to evolve on Wikipedia. I am still in the midst of discussing how to include some potentially "controversial" information about the role of sado-masochism in Michel Foucault's life and work; from this I can see how proponents of the subjects of articles may want certain issues brushed aside. I am pleased to see the inclusion in the current article of Falun Gong's more seemingly eccentric beliefs. Progress toward open engagement with those issues has obviously been made. For my part, I do not want to get involved in any polemics on this subject. I was reading the article and began checking the references, and noticed the irregularities. I haven't finished going through them, and will just do a bit each day. Below are some more findings and explanation of changes. If this meticulous approach is not welcomed, I guess I'll take my business elsewhere and let the polemicists battle it out.

Regarding Nan's criticism of Falun Gong, I did check both Palmer and Ownby and it is not noted. As I say, they do note his criticism of qigong, however, and the violent repercussions toward him because of it. The articles linked from the Nan page are interesting, but if his criticism of Falun Gong specifically has not been noted by major scholars, I'm not sure how notable it can be said to be. The articles linked on that page are friendly to Nan, but those I checked are a bit vague on the details of the criticism itself. At the least, his early FLG criticism seems to have gone under the radar, while those news items appear situated in the post July 20, 1999 context. Perhaps it would do to note it more briefly. The Buddhist criticism of Falun Gong, on the other hand, seems to have legs. Benjamin Penny devotes an article to it, and Palmer a miniature sub-section. It was presented inaccurately in the article though. This took quite some time to sift through. Below are my changes for that and other aspects (I am about to make them).

• The sentence "In its January 1998 meeting, China's Buddhist Association compared it to dangerous sects like Aum Shinrikyo and calling it xiejiao" is cited to Clemens Stubbe Ostergaard, who refers to a footnote. The footnote (p. 224) says in part: "A strong and elaborated condemnation, comparing the Falun Gong to the Solar Temple Order and Aum Shinrikyo, and using the dreaded expression xiejiao (twisted learning, heretical sect), came as early as the January 1998 meeting of the China Buddhist Association." I checked this against two other sources, Penny and Palmer. Ostergaard is explicitly contradicted by the former, and implicitly by the latter. Let me explain. Penny (2005, p. 37): "One major contrast with the post-July 1999 critiques is the absence, in this article, of the term xiejiao... Rather than describing Falun Gong as a xiejiao, the term waidao is used in the title of this article." Further, according to Penny, Falun Gong was not compared to modern cults as Ostergaard claims. (Penny 2005, p. 37): "The category mixin as it occurs in the discourse of the Party-state whether collocated with minjian, as in this example, or with its common qualifier fengjian -- feudal -- or alone, is one that immediately engenders suspicion and condemnation. In other words, whereas in the post-suppression period Falun Gong is seem as comparable to Heaven's Gate, the Solar Temple, and Aum Shinrikyo and needing to be crushed as a danger to society, here, in early 1998, it is a Buddhist heresy best understood in Chinese historical terms." I also checked Palmer (p. 262-263). He notes Buddhist criticism of Falun Gong, but says the same thing as Penny, and does not say that the Buddhists compared Falun Gong to Aum Shinrikyo. Further, both Penny and Palmer say that in January of 1998 Falun Gong was discussed in a meeting. Then in March, the polemic appeared in print. What Penny and Palmer refer to above is the print article, which was from March. Ostergaard refers to a "strong and elaborated condemnation" in January. He seems to have confused the issue. The reason I believe Penny and Palmer have got it right, and Ostergaard wrong, is that both of them refer to primary sources that they have translated themselves. Further, Penny's whole article is on the Falun Gong/Buddhism criticism and counter-criticism. Ostergaard does not cite the source of the footnote. As a side note, Ostergaard's book chapter does not appear to have been cited by his peers, and when I asked David Ownby he said he had not heard of either Ostergaard or the chapter. Yet his chapter is the most frequently cited item on this page. In any case, for the Buddhist criticism I have moved Ostergaard's interpretation to a footnote, as standard in academic practice for noting discrepancies, and recast the criticism in the terms found in Palmer and Penny. I have also briefly noted the response of Falun Gong practitioners.
• The sentence: "In response, founder Li Hongzhi called on disciples to "defend the Fa" by lobbying media outlets and government officials to censor content critical of Falun Gong" is referenced to Palmer (p. 249). However, Palmer reports the response of FLG practitioners as: "Thousands of Falungong followers wrote to the Guangming Daily and to the CQRS to complain against these measures [the banning], claiming that they violated Hu Yaobang's 1982 'Triple No' directive." I do not know where this came from, but I have simply replaced it with a paraphrase of what that citation points to.
• "Zuoxiu was unable to get any critical article published, and he wrote to the Party head Jiang Zemin in vain." This is referenced to p. 215 of the Ostergaard text, but there's nothing about this on p. 215. I'm not sure who inserted that, but maybe they would know the source of this claim.
• I included what I consider an insightful point made by Patricia Thornton on the idea of a "boomerang effect," where when these oppressed groups make an attempt to enter the realm of public debate, if they do not cross their t's and dot their i's, it can end up working against them in some quarters.

One final thing is, one editor made two edits that removed information that had recently been added, and also added back the information I removed--removed after showing how it did not correspond to the citations. But that user made no discussion here, so I don't understand this dynamic. The material I removed was clearly not consistent with the stated source. And the material added appears to have been to good sources. I think an explanation would be appropriate. I left a note on that user's discussion page. I find it odd, but I'm not stressed... yet! --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I think Oostergard provides an 'alternative narrative'. Having lived through this era of Falun Gong before the gov't crackdown in China, in many cases I am much more inclined to agree with Oostergard's observations. Of course, this is just my subjective judgment. But I do feel that giving Palmer and Ownby primacy may be misguided and does not give the whole picture. But I am confident in your work in balancing sources, as you seem to be doing a commendable job sifting through this mess. Just a small note. Please remember that Chinese surnames precede the given name. I.e. Sima is the surname of Sima Nan, not Nan, and He Zuoxiu's surname is He. Please just make a note of this when editing the article as to not make it appear unprofessional. The user you are dealing with, in my experiences, is a practitioner-editor who has been one of the most vocal proponents of Falun Gong. He was banned for six months and now have returned, and, having been subject to his insults and rudeness in Falun Gong discussions in the past, I cannot forsee myself getting involved much again in this article should his presence here continue. As I am busy in life I am not about to enter any wiki-drama again. Best wishes. Colipon+(Talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Colipon. Hope your winter was pleasant. I suppose TheSoundAndTheFury was talking about PCPP; the last time I checked, he still wasn't a vocal proponent of Falun Gong. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TheSoundAndTheFury, good job! And Olaf, chucklechuckle, nice to see you back...last time I checked, you haven't done anything during your ban from FLG articles, but...Im sure you'll enjoy your time here as a silent opponent of FLG...--Edward130603 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, thank you for your note on Chinese names. I do not know why I thought that Sima Nan's last name was Nan; that is slightly embarrassing. I said I would continue to comb the citations, and here are some more findings and explanations for some edits that I will make in a moment.

• Tianjin: One point I have noted is how the Tianjin demonstration is treated here, and how it is treated in a few commonly cited sources. I put forward the view that the information presented on this page should broadly conform to the sources available. Here are three explanations of that incident. Note that currently it says: "The Tianjin party and government authorities did not respond favourably, police were dispatched and practitioners were beaten and arrested." This is referenced to Schechter.
  • Schechter wrote (p. 69): "Riot police were dispatched to the scene, where they beat demonstrators and arrested fourty-five people."
  • In Ownby (p. 171) it's "The response of the authorities was to call in the riot police, who reportedly beat an undetermined number of practitioners and arrested 45."
  • In Palmer (p. 267) it's "Three hundred riot police were dispatched to disperse the demonstration. Some Falungong followers were beaten, and forty-five were arrested. Hundreds then marched to the munipical government to demand their liberation."
  • Since that's two commonly cited sources talking about riot police (even a specific number of them), it's probably an accurate assessment. I have updated the article to reflect this, also noting one more point that is to be found in a variety of sources: That after the alleged beating/arrest, the practitioners went to the municipal government in Tianjin and were told they had to go to Beijing to deal with the issue. (Palmer, p. 267; Schechter, p. 69; Ownby, p. 171) This makes the segue from Tianjin to Beijing a bit clearer, too.

• He Zuoxiu: The other item I noticed was how He Zuoxiu's polemic was explained. My edit of this is an attempt to make what Wikipedia says more closely resemble what mainstream sources say. In my understanding, this is the requirement of the neutral point of view policy, in particular the "due weight" clause.
  • Ownby (p. 169) "According to Falun Gong practitioners who watched the program, the cases that He cited as evidence of the dangers of Falun Gong were erroneous; the people who had been supposedly harmed were not even Falun Gong practitioners, they said." Then on p. 171: "The events which immediately preceded 25 April, which constituted the spark which lit the fuse of the larger demonstration, were completely consis tent with the history of Falun Gong reactions to perceived media misrepre sentation. He Zuoxiu was once again at the heart of the controversy, having published an article on 11 April 1999 in the Tianjin Normal University's Young Reader magazine, in which he argued that young people should not practice qigong, illustrating his case with the same examples he had used in his tele vision interview in May 1998, which had sparked the important Falun Gong demonstration at the television station. He also compared Falun Gong prac titioners to the ignorant and superstitious Boxers and denounced Falun Gong for recruiting children in primary school playgrounds. As many as 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners protested the publication of the article and made their discontent known both at the university and at the Tianjin municipal offices. The response of the authorities was to call in the riot police..."
  • Schechter says (p. 69): "It began as a media protest... against what they considered an inaccurate, even slanderous, attack on Falun Gong, launched by He Zuoxiu... One of his denunciations took the form of an essay, "Why I am Opposed to Qigong Practice by Teenagers," which appeared in the Teenage Science-Technology Outlook, a state-sponsored magazine. In the shrt piece, he challenged Falun Gong's claims of being scientific and reported that a "post graduate in my institute had two relapses of mental disorder after he practiced Falun Gong." This article was one of several he wrote critiquing Falun Gong... Falun Gong practitioners believed that He Zuoxiu had unfairly maligned their spiritual practice with the first magazine article. According to one supporter, when the magazine would not agree to carry a response, practitioners gathered at the editorial offices in Tianjin. By April 22, several days later, their numbers had grown to a few thousand. Riot police were dispatched..."
  • Palmer says (p. 267) "A week earlier an article by He Zuoxiu had appeared in an obscure student magazine of Tianjin Normal University in which he attacked Li Hongzhi and compared Falungong to the Boxer rebellion, which could bring ruin to the country. He criticised the recruitment of children in primary school playgrounds by Falungong practitioners, and claimed that the mental states provoked by Falungong meditation could cause psychiatric illness. Within hours of the magazine's release more than a hundred messages were posted about it on a Falungong online bulletin board service, discussing how to respond. The article was seen as highly offensive by Falungong practitioners, who gathered to protest in meditation posture around the university administrative building. According to Falungong sources, the magazine editors initially agreed to publish a correction, but then suddenly changed their attitude and refused to do so. The number of demonstrators grew day by day, as the magazine editor refused to comply with their demand to recall the magazine from circulation, to publish official apologies, and to ban any reproduction of the article by others."
  • My conclusions from this is that 1) All sources give both the Falun Gong and skeptic/critic view. In Ownby it's that the cases cited (the same claimed Falun Gong cases were cited in the Beijing Television broadcast and the Tianjin publication) were claimed by Falun Gong to be "erroneous," and in Schechter and Palmer it's "inaccurate, even slanderous," "unfairly maligned their spiritual practice" and "highly offensive" respectively. 2) The page does not currently state that the cases cited by He were claimed by Falun Gong not to be Falun Gong members. 3) The part about "the magazine editors initially agreed to publish a correction, but then suddenly changed their attitude and refused to do so" is quite interesting, and corresponds with Ownby's analysis on pp. 168-171.

• Sima Nan: I believe that, similarly to Tianjin and He Zuoxiu, this incident should be reported in more-or-less the same way that it is repeated in the sources available. After looking at the (quite revealing) sources linked from the Sima Nan page, it is clear that Sima Nan's input into criticism of Falun Gong is most notable as a post-July 20 artefact. As he notes, his early criticism of Falun Gong did not make waves in China (nor did it, as mentioned above, in the annals of scholar's notes of early criticism of Falun Gong). So I think it would be most appropriate to include Sima Nan's criticism in that context, that is, post-July 20. To provide the context for this I have drawn on James Tong's recent text, along with that of Xing Lu. This clarifies the importance for the authorities to have posited "good" science and Marxist-Leninist Thought against "evil" religion and superstition. Sima's role in the post-July 20 context appears to be along these lines, as illustrated in the sources to be found on that page. Clearly he did not support the suppression, as cited in those sources; but it is merely that his notability corresponds to both that period of time and the rhetoric of "Uphold science, eradicate superstition." So I believe that's where a note on Sima's criticism is most appropriate, and I have put it there.

• Also, I forgot to append Ostergaard's divergent view of the Buddhist criticism in the footnote. I will do that.

I may list some other changes that I think would be appropriate for this page at a later time. I am finding this level of source scrutiny and meticulousness a good intellectual challenge; getting down to these details is what good scholarship is all about. It is also mentally taxing, so I will take a short break from this page after these edits. First, I will reiterate some elements in the page that currently need to be verified:

• "Some 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners invaded His house, and then they gathered every day at the station during two months..."; prima facie this looks like a mistake, because 2,000 people could not possibly "invade" a person's house (the meaning of "invade" is also unclear here. Does it mean "enter by force"? That's what I take it to mean.) That particular line has no source. The next line is sourced to the Human Rights Watch report, and again p. 215 of Ostergaard. I have tagged that line for a source. Further, I removed the scare quotes from the word "slandered." They appear to be used here not in quotation form but in ironic way, which seems inappropriate.
• "As a result, He Zuoxiu was unable to publish articles critical of Falun Gong, and he wrote to the Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin in vain." This is again cited to p. 215 of Ostergaard, but does not appear there. I have put a quote request tag on it. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your meticulous work in this area is quite admirable! I agree with the majority of points you raised. What I am really interested to find out now is the background of Mr. Schechter and Mr. Oostergaard. I know Schechter already has his own Wikipedia article. We had a discussion over at Tiananmen Self-Immolation, if I remember correctly, and came to the consensus that Schechter's source should only be used when proper attributions are given and with due weight. Having read Schechter's book on Falun Gong, I can't say it comes off as a neutral account, nor is it really academic like Palmer and Ownby. I am less familiar with Oostergaard, but his works seem relatively fitting and more believable than Schechter. If we only rely upon Ownby and Palmer, then we limit this article essentially to a paraphrased account of those two people alone, with any divergent views, for or against Falun Gong, given minimal weight. That is my biggest concern right now. If it were easier I would search for non-aligned Chinese sources as well to balance out the very "Western" narrative, but given the nature of Chinese journalism and how it is prone to bias, this has proven difficult. This is why I had asked for the inclusion of Sima Nan, who seems to provide a leading voice in the pre-7-20 critiques of Falun Gong; As such, I also disagree that he should only be included in the post-7-20 setting, simply because Sima often makes a point in his interviews to show that his criticism of Falun Gong has little to do with support for the Chinese government and more to do with his dislike for charlatans and people who claim supernatural powers. Sima also remarked that he thought the Chinese government's suppression of the movement had gone too far. Sima is mainly known in China as a 'debunker' of the supernatural. Once admins address the issue of SPAs and consistent abuse on this article, I will be happy to come back and collaborate with you to finish this gargantuan task. Colipon+(Talk) 22:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You've raised a number of important issues, so forgive me if my response is slightly complex or overly long. I am enjoying this discussion. I agree that the background of these individuals is relevant, and also agree with some degree of circumspection in using a source like Schechter. He wears a pro-Falun Gong bias on his sleeve (and now that I have read the full Ostergaard piece, the same could be said in the opposite direction). I think it is easy to deal with. Readers want a mainstream, informative, and accurate account of this phenomenon, not one that is tainted with ideological-political biases. Both writers put a "spin" on their assessments, which is clear in how information is used, how it is presented, which facts are emphasised, which left out, the tone used, and so on. In disputed cases, we should consult the widest number of sources, and as far as possible take a look at the source that they use. For example, with the Penny/Palmer/Ostergaard issue above, I checked all sources available and noted what each had said, and where they had obtained their information. It became clear that Ostergaard was mistaken in his comment, so his view was shunted to a footnote and the more mainstream scholarship given greater prominence. One common factor in assessing the "mainstreamness" of a source is often how much it has been cited: to some extent this shows the influence of that source and acknowledgement of it among peers. There is certainly a time differential in the Ostergaard/Schechter studies, but whatever the case, the former yields three citations[33], none to scholars writing about Falun Gong, while the latter is cited 26 times[34]. Though not an academic text, Schechter's has been an influential one. (In light of that, I must admit that it is unclear why Ostergaard's analysis is the most cited on the page; he obviously presents an "alternative" narrative, as you rightly point out, but the way he is used does not appear to reflect this.) In most cases, however, this should not be overly significant. We should present facts, as far as possible, and keeps things clear of spin. When Schechter gives his cosy opinion of Falun Gong, it can be made clear that it's his opinion, and if it's shown to be wrong by other sources, it can be excluded or moved to a footnote. This is standard practice. That this page would represent a largely Western narrative is perfectly natural, and exactly what a mainstream, English language Encyclopedia should provide. The overwhelming majority of all the factual information is available in multiple sources, is largely undisputed, and often it seems that the only thing that differs are matters of interpretation. When matters of fact differ, all major views should be noted. In constructing the central narrative, we should look at how mainstream sources construct the central narrative. The points of differing interpretation are largely footnotes to the facts, rather than prisms through which facts (I do not mean "truths") are presented. A good example is the line in this document that says "For Palmer, the Tianjin protest was another sign of Falun Gong's "militancy"; for Gutmann, it was because "refuting lies" is a central part of Falun Gong's moral system." First we are given what happened, then a note on what it means according to X and Y. As regards Sima Nan, whatever the case about his criticism of Falun Gong, it seems clear that it received notability only in the post-7/20 context; in the major sources his criticism is not noted at all. If there was no 7/20, perhaps he would not have made a splash. Whatever the case, we can only go with what we have. I do not think we should re-present information in secondary sources much outside the discursive frame in which it was presented in those sources; dealing with primary sources requires greater care. That would leave the door open to hard-to-resolve disputes, because who is to say in which context certain things be framed? It is better to keep to the sources themselves in providing the frame. I believe that existing Wikipedia policy already clarifies how to manage these issues, and that broadly speaking they are the requirements of any unbiased scholarship. I have another thought after reading the neutral point of view policy page again, outlined below. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point I will change in a moment relates to the "controversies" section. I think that the way it is structured now gives too much prominence to the views which "advocate" Falun Gong's way, in how those remarks have been given their own subsection. I believe that information should be integrated into the Controversies, because they are really just part of the controversies. According to the policy on Article Structure[35], this is advisable, too: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." So I will integrate the text. If there is a problem with this, please advise. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I made those changes. Along the way I deleted several pieces of gushing praise for the group that didn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject (like: "there could be no gentler religion than the Falun Gong" and "practitioners he met in China emanated a "sense of calm and generosity"" etc.). If this was mistaken, and those remarks have some utility, then consider restoring them and perhaps explaining why. I also found that a few things were incorrectly attributed, and corrected one of them. That was the phrase "Falun Gong claims these are smears planted by the Chinese government," which didn't really reflect what was actually said in that source. I changed it to: "A Falun Gong practitioner said these views were held by "people who don’t understand Falun Gong and the propaganda from the Chinese government."" which seems more in line with what actually appeared there. This is beyond the question of whether such articles are appropriate sources for this. I also wonder whether this comment: "Falun Dafa Information Center claims, without substantiation, that journalists picked up on Li's remarks upon the prompting of Chinese state media, but confirms that "Falun Gong’s founder mentioned the issue."" is an accurate representation of the views of the Falun Dafa Information Center on that issue. I took a brief look at the page, and I think their view could be better represented. Another day, perhaps. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement for the most part. I cannot give a lengthy reply as I am quite busy, but it seems like you are working towards NPOV in a very diligent and dedicated fashion. When I have more time I will look more into sourcing myself, but I will message you if I do. Colipon+(Talk) 04:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, another source you can look into is Human Rights Watch. Even though you'd expect a human rights organization to produce reports that are extremely sympathetic to Falun Gong, the report by HRW was surprisingly balanced - rejecting many Falun Gong claims while also calling on the Chinese government to stop its abuses. Colipon+(Talk) 05:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP's disruptive edits

I have started an RfC on this user's conduct. He has now again restored and deleted content that is going through tedious discussion above, even after being reverted. This kind of behaviour should not fly. More details are in the RfC. --Asdfg12345 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't raise the issue here if this were an isolated incident. I see that it is not exactly Falun Gong related pages alone that the user targets but material pertinent to human rights violations by the CCP. Here, for instance, the user blanks 12 paragraphs of well sourced and centrally relevant content with a sneaky comment "rv pov material." Here, again with no edit summary or talk comments, a paragraph disappears: [36]. And in this edit dated March 1st, several paragraphs are blanked with a similar comment - "pov cleanup." I believe this edit/blanking [37] would need more explanation than a "questionable sources removed" comment - and, hence, am restoring the content.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I seek explanation for the following three edits:

• [38] was named "moved burgdoff comment"; the edit, while moving the Burgdoff comment, also reduced it, and deleted this: "Falun Gong claims that the Chinese government's crackdown against the group has resulted in torture; genocide; violation of the right to life; violation of the right of liberty and security of the person; arbitrary arrest and imprisonment; violation of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and conspiracy to commit violations of civil rights within the United States." I note that the source was the Columbia Journal of Asian Law. I would like to know why this was deleted. I would also like to know why the edit summary only said "moved burgdoff comment," when it was more than moving the Burgdoff comment. Part of the Burgdoff quote was also deleted: "Falun Gong practitioners, like most people who participate in a religious tradition, freely pick and choose from the official teachings according to their individual inclinations... for most practitioners Falun Gong is fundamentally about individual ethical development."" If it was felt necessary to delete these two quotes, an explanation as to why would be appropriate. I would still like an explanation.
• [39] changed several items of terminology as they were stated in the source. For example, "propaganda" became "statements by the Chinese government" and "the regime" became "the Chinese government." In neither case did the source say "statements by the Chinese government" or "the Chinese government." The source stated "propaganda" and "the regime." I would like to know why those words were changed. In the same edit, Sima Nan was changed from "a hot commodity" and "establishment darling" to a "prominent cult critic." I would also like to know why those terms were changed.
• [40] I think this is good, expanding on the issue and presenting the relevant views in a fuller way.

I assume the three edits were made by PCPP. I would appreciate an explanation of the changes in terminology and the deletions of some parts of the text. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The second point on the list is easily explained and justified; you guys don't know how to quote. If indeed that is the word-choice of the source, then such word-choice must be in "". If it isn't, it can and should be changed to neutral terminology. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean that the words "propaganda" and "regime" are not neutral, and should be placed in scare quotes on Wikipedia? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "regime" is definitely not neutral. What I mean is that when there is a passage that could be considered controversial, it is always better to quote directly rather than re-phrase and run the risk of having people understand that these are the words you chose as an editor. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Its quite obvious to see that propaganda and regime are indeed not neutral, Sound/Fury. What do you think when I say: The United States Regime is currently using propaganda. Note the negative connotations both words have.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Just a short remark that the scholar who used these terms is James Tong. You can see his information here:[41]. He is not a biased scholar or a China basher. I do not believe these terms are biased in this context; they are regularly used in academic studies to refer to the Chinese Communist Party and its media activities. U.S. propaganda is referred to as U.S. propaganda without needing to be put in quotes; see Chomsky's work, for example. These words are quite regularly used. For now allow me to do three things: the first is that I will undo the changes, because they were not explained, retaining the information that was added, but restoring the language that was used according to the sources. Next, I will put in quotes the parts that refer to "regime" and "propaganda." Finally, I will make a notice on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to check with the wider Wikipedia community on whether these terms are biased or not. My view is that because they are commonly used by China scholars, we should not seek to enforce our version of orthodoxy over the terminology. These people have worked in the field for decades and are the experts. Generally speaking, they should be more qualified to judge what the neutrality of bias of certain terms than we are. That is just my opinion. I will be interested to see what is the view of the wider community on this. It does raise an interesting point, though. I have another concept for minor improvement that I will outline in a moment. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I left a remark above asking for the sources for certain comments attributed to Ostergaard. I checked the pages referenced and could not find the material cited. As I brought one of those up twice, and several days ago, I think it is fair that the information now be removed until a source be found. I will make an edit to do that. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A) The Burgdoff comment was placed right under Kavan's criticism of FLG, and is used in a sense to dismiss Kavan's claims. I've placed it in a more appropriate section with other comments more supportive of FLG. The FLG statement itself is a pointless addition used as a rhetoric, when in fact FLG's position has already been made in the introduction and leading paragraphs. The quote is excessive and the previous sentence already outlined his position

B) Per words to avoid, these terminology carries negative connections, and should be replaced or rephrased with more neutral words, unless they're actually quoted from the source.

C) Ditto --PCPP (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I find the changes in "A" fairly reasonable. Regarding B and C, the words "propaganda" or "regime" don't appear among the words to avoid. That mostly appears to be reserved for other issues. I left a note on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and the message I get is that these words do not need to be strictly placed inside quotation marks whenever they appear, but they should not appear in the Wikipedia voice, and should be cited with a source attributed. I believe the section in question cites the relevant sources, and uses terms like "writes X" and "according to Y" when appropriate.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions by Olaf

I have some questions about the page in its current form:

• Why is there no subsection on the persecution? It would clearly seem appropriate and in line with Wikipedia convention and policy.
• Where does the word "proselytize" appear in the sources cited for the use of that term in the lead? What is the meaning of "Falun Gong groups have since moved abroad"?
• Can the claim "Western academics generally describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement" be substantiated?
• Why is the alleged self-immolation incident placed in "Continued protests and statewide suppression" rather than "Media campaign"?
• Why does the lead suggest that the 'persecution' is a series of claims by Falun Gong practitioners and not verified or discussed by third parties?

Thanks! ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)