Talk:Falun Gong/Archive25

Another example of POV pushing

This article cites the same David Ownby 9 times. While 1 reference to the Qubec Justice's statement has been BLANKED and HACKED UP. If this is not POV pushing I don't know what is. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is biased, not from a neutral point of view, and untrue. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues). Please look at the Chinese version of the page (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%95%E8%BD%AE%E5%8A%9F). This page must be previously edited by Falun Gong practicers or anti-communists against Chinese government. As a Chinese, I am feeling my country and me are deeply insulted. Please inform a Chinese admin and do enough research, before making judgement about this issue. Falun Gong is regarded as a cult in China, and it is against Chinese government in many ways. Any book or website concerning Falun Gong is baned in China, because it makes people suicide, as well as not taking medicine when sick. Please do not put an article about Falun Gong written by a Falun Gong practicer on wikipedia, as it is a mislead to readers, as well as an insult to the Chinese goverment and Chinese people. Jasontable (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Jasontable

I agree with Bobby Fletcher and other commenters. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. I've seen well-sourced references to criticism of FG move from the introduction to a position five screen pages down, and then get erased. Several of the most active editors of this article are simply FG apologists. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Randi isn't a "well-sourced reference" on this topic. The best well-sourced references on this topic are Sinologists who research Falun Gong, and their views are presented in the lede and elsewhere. They don't do the sensationalist angle that some may prefer, but that's just academia, I guess.--Asdfg12345 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to your, again, obvious attempt to marginalize discussion critical to FLG in order to maintain a POV in this article.

[archived discussion on Randi foundation un-archived. Obviousely it's not settled. Will also ask for admin opinion.]

Notability of James Randi Foundation

James Randi Foundation is a notable organization:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=James+Randi+Foundation

Above search yielded over 2000 past news articles.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, the point is that Randi is a partisan skeptic, not an expert on Chinese religion or culture, his website is little more than a blog (see WP:SPS), so he's not a reliable source for commentary on this topic. If his musings were published in a reliable source then they might be admissible in some form, but they're not, I'm afraid. --Asdfg12345 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Following your logic, perhaps you shold remove all the Kilgour Matas stuff: 1) it is self-publishing (kilgour report is sponsored by Falun Gong; see report appendix on "expense reimbursement" by CIPFG; 2) Kilgour website is little more than a blog. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Difference is that Kilgour's an expert on this subject, and the report has been hugely influential and republished elsewhere. If a scholar picks up Randi's comments then they can go in the article. --Asdfg12345 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 Please put the PRC government sourcyou BLANKED BACK

I asked the Admins and they disagree with your "inadmissible" BS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

Please put the two PRC government source back in per instruction by the Admin.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First re the tag: I won't fight any more on that. Edit warring over a POV tag is really silly. It seems the objections have become justifications in their own right. Secondly, there was no "instruction" to put it in, and editors of the page should discuss it and figure out the best way. At the moment I've left three notes which have not been responded to. I believe that it is important to understand this issue and its context to make intelligent and informed assessments about it. If you want to put "The CCP calls Falun Gong a cult" etc. in the lede, I'm saying that this will have to be qualified by more information such as: "This is widely seen by (commentators/scholars/writers) to be propaganda, as a way of turning public opinion against Falun Gong and attempting to legitimise the persecution." -- something like that. It would be referenced, of course. --Asdfg12345 00:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The admins have made their opinion clear:

Admin Everyking - however, there can be no basis for objecting to their use in citing the claim that the Chinese government considers Falun Gong a cult. Indeed, the Chinese government is the best possible source for the Chinese government's official position on Falun Gong

Admin Jenny - The removed edit looks fine to me, but the sourcing isn't so good... This is better: http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceat/det/zt/jpflg/t105141.htm

The Xinhua news agency is a perfectly reliable source on the statements of Chinese government officials

Admin Samuel Sol - I do think the statement is fine, and should be in the lead. As a great deal about Falun Gong is the controversy with the Chinese government. And Jenny is on the spot about the sources two

Where did they ever agree with your weak reason to stall this edit???

Based on abve support from MULTIPLE ADMIN, I'm going to put the edit back as they have opined and suggested.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be ignoring the thoughts I wrote on this. I wrote three or four paragraphs on the ANI page. Again, I request that you respond to the points raised in them. Just so I'm not ignoring others': yes, I acknowledge these views. The bottom line is that editors of the page should discuss the contents together in a mature way. The points I raised on the ANI page are still waiting for a response. Simply because a few people (or sysops, who can do a few more things with the software than regular editors, and do not necessarily hold more weight than others in terms of their opinions on content) have voiced their opinion, doesn't give a green light. I think things like this should be resolved with civil discussion and a free exchange of ideas. That is the spirit wikipedia is supposed to be edited in. Seeking outside opinions is definitely important, in fact vital, but I still feel that there are many outstanding issues, which I have raised, and which anyone who is not too familiar with this subject may not immediately recognise. To put it simply, in response to the above, I would just reiterate my wish that the arguments I raised (or ideas, understanding etc.) be engaged with. --Asdfg12345 08:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did respond. I pointed out your hypocrisy in objecting to Xinhua now, while defending Epoch Times with "can still be used for FLG's view" when other editors have told you Epoch Times is unreliable. Go ahead insist on your view is somehow more valid than MULTIPLE editors and MULTIPLE admins.

Xinhua and Chinese government site are perfectly reliable source for Chinese government's view. In another word - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I feel I have sought out a prepondrance of opinion. If you feel otherwise we can take this admin opinion to arb.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

responded on the ANI page. The case of Epoch Times and organ harvesting is different. It would be like, for example, the section about the cult label on the persecution page. That starts off with CCP media, then goes onto the third party things. It's because they initiated that chain of thought/writing. In the organ harvesting case, Epoch Times initiated that line of enquiry, if you know what I mean. The page doesn't have much on Epoch Times except as a meaningful way of contextualising it. I also never meant to insist that my view was more valid that others'. I merely put my view forward, and asked that the arguments in it be addressed. I don't think that's unreasonable.--Asdfg12345 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more Admin Opinion Against You, Asdfg12345

Two more response from the administrators to Adsfg12345 in the ANI cited above:

Look Asdfg12345, the most important thing about Falun Gong, for us totally unaware of its practice is the controversy with the CCP. One single statement about it on the article, does not fail WP:UNDUE, specially, as I said on your talk page, for THIS specifically piece of information they are a WP:RS. And about your bit about propaganda. I read that article almost as an altar and a praise to Falun Gong practices. It totally fails WP:NPOV, and I'm deeply worried about a possible WP:COI from you, since the only contributions I could see on your history are related to Falun Gong. Samuel Sol (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Writing as an onlooker who has no dog in this fight, Asdfg12345, your argument against using CCP or Xinhua here strikes me as an act of wikilawyering. While these websites are not considered neutral or accurate about the Falun Gong itself, as Everyking pointed out above they are reliable about what the Chinese government thinks. And since no one here (as far as I can see) denies that the Chinese government is acting in a hostile fashion against the Falun Gong, inclusion of their opinion is relevant (as opposed to, say, the Larouchies or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church). The only gain I can see here if these sources are excluded from this article is to suppress mentioning what the Chinese position is at all -- which does not help our users. Suppose a user wants to know what the Chinese POV is in order to debate & refute it: by not including a link to this source, we have made it more difficult for this person to prepare for this debate. I believe this responds to all of your objections, even the ones you do not want to repeat. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, what happened to the stuff you wrote about "listening to others"??? MULTIPLE editors and MULTIPLE administrators disagree with you. And these new opinions echo those of us who have tried to get thru to you in vain - Conflict Of Interest and POV flag for examples.

All these documented pattern of behavior has led me to conclude I can no longer Assume Good Faith.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

responded above. I don't understand your second-final sentence.--Asdfg12345 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop behaving in bad faith, Asdfg. One of the editor has clearly stated his response addressed ALL your concerns, and the consensus is the edit is good. Put it back please. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputing "branded" POV edit made by Asdfg12345

This edit has changed a neutural statement representing the Chinese government's veiw (previously cleared by adminstrator) into a POV statment that is again pusing the editor's POV. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

gong v dafa

I think this article needs to standardize it's usage of "Falun Gong" versus "Falun Dafa". Assuming they mean the same thing, just one term should be used throughout (except for quotations of course). I didn't do it myself, in case I'm mistaken about the terms being interchangeable. --Rob (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussing the lede

PCPP, please discuss changes to the lede here. I would revert you because you have violated wikipedia's content policies, but I am unable to do so since I have made a commitment to revert no more than once per article per day:

1. For example, why change "been described as controversial" to "gained attention and controversy" -- the first is a passive description of what what those sources say, the second is attributive to Falun Gong, and extends beyond merely what those sources say to suggest something about Falun Gong itself. May seem like a minor point, but I'm sure you grasp what I'm saying. Just on that anyway, the whole sentence reads "The group has gained attention and controversy, in 1999, when the Chinese government labelled Falun Gong as a cult and banned the practice..." -- and this is original research. Those sources didn't say that. You are making an original synthesis.
2. Secondly, you say the label has been "disputed" by others, when in fact they have rejected it entirely and said that it's part of a propaganda campaign. You deleted those parts (that guy is a top academic, but anyway, I won't fight on that source, there are tons of others).
3. The second change attempts to water down the sources a bit, and it also introduces grammatical errors. For example, it says "Reports of torture has surfaced, with claims of illegal imprisonment..." -- when in fact it would be more accurate to simply say that reports of x,y,z are widespread. "has surfaced" is a bit vague, and gives the impression that there are only a few of them, or something. There's actually something like 55,000. There's something like 3,500 cases of confirmed death through torture (i.e. they've got family testimony, photos, police records, etc., or a combination of evidence) , and estimates of double that.
4. The other things, where you deleted "gentlest religion", and "propaganda", without a real explanation... I think that is unfair. Landsberger, if you read his bio, is an expert on Chinese propaganda, he's a tenured academic. WP:SPS are permissible under circumstances, and this would be one of them, for example: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (emphasis in original). But anyway, it's easy to find many sources that say that. I might even be able to find a dozen. But deleting it without discussion seems a bit stiff. Instead there are CCP sources, the justification for which has not even been established. I gave many examples on the ANI page, but they weren't responded to. Just to rehash one: go to the Judaism page and put down Hitler's views on Jews, then another sentence saying how others see these as propaganda. Is that the neutral point of view? I probably wrote over 500 words there, and there were probably 3 or so key strands of argument. None of them have been addressed. It's taken me about 20 minutes to write all this, and I believe that I have kept a civil tone and stated clearly the arguments I'm trying to put across.

If you intend to respond, you might as well just keep it to addressing the points I raised on the ANI page that dispute the CCP even going in the lede in the first place. The rest is academic. That is the first point of discussion. I only put those other things in as a kind of response to having my arguments ignored and my intentions questioned, about the initial issue, as I had no other recourse. I'm not going to edit war. But now I find that even this was half deleted and sliced up. How do you understand this situation? --Asdfg12345 14:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns on the "cult" label being pushed in the lede without sufficient background or context. Is should be discussed with appropriate background of the CCP propaganda . It is well documented by Amnesty, HRW, Kilgour-Matas, US Congress Resolutions 188, 304, etc and many other sources how the "cult" label was coined by the CCP shortly following onset of the persecution campaign to justify its persecution of millions. Reverting to the more objective previous lede.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it ought not be in the lede at all. That still hasn't been addressed. The page on the Chinese Communist Party does not say that Falun Gong practitioners actually think the CCP is an evil cult, so why should it work the other way?--Asdfg12345 00:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We have the opinions of 3+ admins saying it's ok to address the Chinese government's views in order to show the conflict between FLG and the PRC. Samuel Sol said it best: The Government, like it or not, be it democratic or not, is the most important body of each country, and there opinion care relevancy. Not so much can be said about groups criticizing it.--PCPP (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What? That fails to address the issue entirely. How does the Chinese Communist Party's view on Falun Gong, which is widely understood to be purely propagandistic, have particular relevance to characterising Falun Gong? Because Falun Gong was first taught in China? Because Falun Gong is persecuted in China? Well, if the CCP's opinion is so important, why don't we also include the opinion that certain officials and and official bodies gave before the persecution, such as the awards given to Li Hongzhi, and the comments about how Falun Gong could save the government billions in health care costs? Such cursory dismissals of complex arguments, I feel, are really unsatisfactory for addressing this situation. And again I give an example of why the jiuping shouldn't be used in the article on the CCP, if it works the other way. I also want to point out that I feel that you and Bobby are simply not addressing the key issues I am raising, after repeated instances. (Just a side note, not that it makes any difference whatsoever, but Samuel Sol and Jenny/RegenerateThis aren't admins.)--Asdfg12345 04:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the lede should include the fact that FLG is viewed as a cult or that it is banned in the country of its origin, which also happens to be the largest country in the world in terms of population. I dont think this is an issue of POV or propaganda. But its a matter of fact which happens to be very notable worldwide. From the excerpts of WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.. Just my opinion on this. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kawaputra. In fact, I think you need to be a FG devotee to not agree. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg, you can not simply say whether something is propaganda or not. You should demonstrate why, from you point of view, that it is considered to be propaganda by listing statement from third party sources that say so. Most importantly, its up to the reader to decide what is propaganda, since often one person's propaganda is another person's truth. I think the current wording is fine, with the PRC's position balanced out by third party criticism.--PCPP (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kawaputra, Martin, PCCP, and all the Admins that chimed in - Asdfg you are just repeating the same thing that's already addressed by MULTIPLE ADMINS. You are so obviousely acting in bad faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A few points in response, and to Enric, below--just thoughts on this issue that I would welcome being addressed:

• FLG is persecuted in China, not simply banned. That's relevant, and it's in the lede.
• The reason for this may or may not need to be mentioned in the lede, as there are a number of reasons floating around. If any of them was to go in the lede, I think it should be that of the most notable reliable sources, perhaps not merely that from Falun Gong or from the CCP. (this is also to Enric)
• The labelling of Falun Gong as a cult, according to the sources cited in the lede, and a bunch of others, has its context within the repression of Falun Gong, not as a statement to characterise Falun Gong itself.
• Again the example that the page on Judaism does not contain Nazi hate speech, along with a refutation of such hate speech.
• The question is: should the explanation as to why the CCP persecutes Falun Gong, (or, rather, the different explanations, such as one from the CCP, one from Falun Gong, several from third parties, which also offer strong counter-criticism of the CCP view) go in the lede? Just as an example, the CCP will say that it banned Falun Gong because it was a cult causing trouble and deceiving people. The fact is, the original ban didn't make any mention of cult, it banned it as an illegal social organisation. Later on in October Jiang passed a law banning cults, while Falun Gong was labelled a cult, or an "evil cult", or slightly more poetically, a "cult of evil". So, do we give all these explanations in the lede, which is about the entire subject of Falun Gong, which includes so many different facets (notwithstanding that the persecution is an important one)? The lede can only be so long, where is there space for addressing this?

To Enric:

• The cult thing is a fringe theory in Falun Gong scholarly literature, it's not supported by mainstream scholars (it's actually discredited by them), and it's seen as no more than a crude propaganda label
• On the second point, you might check out the persecution of Falun Gong page, which contains much of that relevant information about the use of media, and the cult label in particular, in the context of the actions the Chinese authorities took against Falun Gong practitioners. Perhaps the main page could be longer, but there are many daughter articles to this topic, and they all need a kind of placement on the main page, so I'm not sure how to handle this issue.--Asdfg12345 05:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's address those points:

• It should appear on the article because it's a very notable fact. That a religion is declared a cult by the government of the most populated country on the world, where it has been a popular phenomena, is very notable, and it should appear on the article. and this is a very notable fact that should appear somewhere. How it should exactly appear is a different question.

• Oh, yeah, and the ban and cult labelling on China are also notable for this discipline because it's a traditional chinese discipline, so it's been labelled a cult on its place of origin.

• Asdfg points out that it appears already on persecution of Falun Gong, but that's a subpage of this page, so it's sort of already appearing on the article.
• The fact that the cult definition is unfair or not is not relevant to the fact itself appearing on the article. It should appear because it's a notable fact, not becase of its fairness or unfairness.
• Looking at the new sentence on the lead that is being disputed right now, it already details both the scholar perspective that it's discredited and its use as a convenient label for prosecution, so I don't see how the new sentence fails to address any issue.
• Finally, WP:WAX What about Article X is not an argument to remove notable facts from a lead, specially when it's also infringing on Godwin's law. Basically, Judaism has a lot more history than Falun Gong, spanning thousands of years. The relative size of The Holocaust compared to thousands of years of anti-semitism is very small. The relative size of the Chinese government ban and cult labelling is huge in comparison with the short history of Falun Gong, with most of its fame coming from its actions on China, while judaism was already notable way before Nazism.

I would say that the inclusion on the lead is pretty much warranted, and that this ought to be at most a discussion on how it should be worded. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I appreciated the link to Godwin's law. Thanks for this. I had not actually considered those points in this light. I suppose the notability is the clincher. Then it's fine by me. If the context of this label can be briefly given, i.e. it was made after the decision to eradicate Falun Gong, as a tool for marginalising and persecuting them, and it's dismissed by scholars, then I suppose that's all we can do. Don't worry, there are sources for this (e.g. Nov 99 WPost: "It was Mr. Jiang who ordered that Falun Gong be branded a 'cult,' and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults...", and the specifics ought to be discussed. I think the triple-scholar-rejection looks a bit lame, it can be more elegant than that. Thanks for the comments. I hadn't seen it that way. You are right. --Asdfg12345 15:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lo cambié recién, ¿ya que te parece?--Asdfg12345 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Now it's more in context with the ban thing. I added "four months after the ban" to make the temporal timeline more clear for the reader. (I'm happy that I was of help for you :) ) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have slept on this edit and it still seems a bit odd. It is a single detail among the multitude of points surrounding this issue, and while it is notable, it's placement still seems unwarranted. For example, the media campaign also included saying that "International anti-China forces" were actually behind Falun Gong, and also that Falun Gong practitioners kill their family members and commit suicide, and even, I think somewhere, engage in bestiality. These are obviously the grotesque extremes of frantic communist hate propaganda, but they are also all parts of their media campaign. The cult label, perhaps less lurid, is still one among these. For all those reasons you mention above, couldn't we substitute "cult label" for any one of these other dastardly descriptors, and any one of those would be just as notable--perhaps even more notable? I think there are kind of wider issues. The cult term then is clearly not a way of characterising Falun Gong in the lede, but merely a specific detail of the campaign against it. Then why significantly more important than any other detail? --Asdfg12345 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another note, something occurred to me. I assume no one would actually think it appropriate to include the Chinese authorities claim that Falun Gong practitioners in China, after 1999, committed suicide and homicide frequently--then, you know, include something from scholars or Amnesty saying this is propaganda and rubbish? Or any of the other wild claims. But why the cult one? Does it seem somehow more 'reasonable'? Isn't this original research? The differing views for the reason for the persecution, I think, ought to be given their own breathing space somewhere else. I don't get lifting one detail out of the wider thing and putting it in the lede. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Multiple administrators already disagreed with your "placement still seems unwarranted" opinion. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

starting the house from the roof

You guys, why don't you add the "cult" thing first on the body of the article, and then you can add it to the lead? Citing WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article (...) summarize the most important points (on the article". Right now the lead should only only talk about the ban, since the ban is mentioned extensively on the article, while Falun Gong being considered a cult or having cult characteristics is not mentioned anywhere.

You should add the cult thing on the same section as the ban, explaining when the chinese government declared it a cult, and how this declaration is related to the ban (was it after or before the ban, was it inmediately after the ban, is there some scholar analysis independent from the chinese government of how Falun Gong has got or hasn't got cult characteristics, any country listing it a legal religious organization, some Amnesy International report stating stuff about it being a cult or not? You know, some encyclopedic stuff) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because certain FLG disciple editors keep blanking out this fact. Even after the edit was taken to Admin for clear, they still insist on arguinging, hacking it up, eventually blanking it once again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

Here's the latest attempt that has once again disappeared from the article. If you know how to ask for Admin intervention I will make my opinion known, as I have never had any problem with anyone while editing, I don't know how to deal with it.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

justifying the tag

Pls note on the page that gives guidelines for how POV tags are meant to be used, it says "The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." (emphasis added) -- I will not speculate on the apparent spirit the tag has been put on the article in, but if this isn't addressed say, within 12 hours, I will remove the tag and ask that editors respect these guidelines. Such tags are supposed to be when there is a dispute that is colouring the article that has not been resolved, not simply because an editor does not like the article, or something. There's a big difference.--Asdfg12345 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, there is a current dispute going on over the addition of the Chinese government source in the lead. Until that is solves, stop trying to remove stuff.--PCPP (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but I want to say that it is really important that you engage in the discussion taking place, rather than--as it seems to me so far, to be honest and blunt--obfuscating it. It seems that none of the four or five strands of argument I have raised against the CCP thing going in the lede have been responded to. I am all for seeking outside opinion, but it must be qualified and discussed. Opinions that are not backed up or informed do not seem all that valuable for such a complex subject. The people who left comments on the ANI page said some broadly useful things, but did not engage in the points I raised, and no one else did either. So what I'm saying is, you must engage in the discussion on this topic, not perpetuate disagreements for the sake of having a POV tag.--Asdfg12345 05:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

here's yet another disput not resolved - someone has removed the edit cleared by the admins. You even hacked it up with bunch of POV follow-ups, but that's still not good enough I guess.

I too vote for POV flag stays, as numerous dispute continues. Specificall unsavory and abusive behavior by you - Asdfg12345.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you engage in any of the discussion about this? Can you introduce highly contentious edits, then ignore all the discussion, and when they get removed complain that you have been treated unfairly? It is transparently the case that this is what is happening. Anyway, the discussion to engage in is above, and you're still encouraged to do so.--Asdfg12345 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't make it any more clear - MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATORS AND MULTIPLE EDITORS DISAGREE WITH YOU!!! Yet you still instist on blanking things you don't like, and pretend you are somehow the decider of anything that's "awsome" enough to keep. The edit in question is good, put it back.

It really is that simple. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are showing a worrying understanding of wikipedia processes and consensus building. This isn't all about sharpening your head and ramming your way through, it's about intelligent discussion and a free exchange of ideas. Your note, with screaming caps, demanding that I accept the view of other editors, is quite odd. I never said I was the arbiter of what's best, I just raised my objections and asked that they be responded to. Two other editors also shared their views, and I saw the issue in a slightly different light. Relax.--Asdfg12345 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read what you wrote: "I wanna delete it unless there is some awesome reason to keep it." What if everyone think like you do, with their own measure of "awesome"? Again the fact is multiple editors and multiple administrators diagree with you, but you still blanked/hadk edit you don't like. A simple NPOV sentence that clearly belong in the lead has been hacked into a POV and quite inflamatory statment with your "brand". This is a fact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I hate to jump into conflicts, but I must say I can't see anything wrong with the sentence some editors insist on removing. It's neutral, it sums up the position of the chinese government and gives a realpolitik explanation of that position. If anything, I could understand pro-CCP editors complaining that it's a bit harsh on the government for an introductory sentence. FG's notoriety is in no small part due to its repression by the CCP, therefore the persecutor's position is pretty relevant. yandman 11:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello yandman. There is a section just above called "Discussing the lede". At the moment, there is ongoing discussion about just this question. I think the best thing would be to simply read what's there and respond to it. In particular, I note several issues with the material that do not seem to have been responded to by anyone. I don't think you need to worry about jumping in, and of course we should try not to make these discussions conflicts, but there has been a lot of words typed about all this, and specifically, against this phrase going in the lede, and it would be great if you engaged in this discussion rather than reinserting the disputed material without doing so. These are my thoughts on it. Since I disagree with this material, and have stated the reasons many times, and they haven't been responded to, I am going to go ahead and undo your edit and ask that the issue be properly hammered out.--Asdfg12345 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough. I jumped in, but not blindly. I was witness to the discussion at ANI (where several fellow administrators held the same opinion). I then read this, and other, discussions. Indeed, the post by Enric Naval sums up the point of view of many editors pretty well. yandman 15:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep I agree, now. I did not share this view until I read Enric´s comments, the notability and context is kind of, significant..--Asdfg12345 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to change "authorities" to "chinese government", because it's not immediately clear who we're talking about. In addition, "controversial" is not a criticism. If everyone is against something, it's not controversial. The movement is controversial because some oppose and some support. So (following Britannica's way of presenting it), "The group has been described as controversial by some" will become "The group is controversial: while described as ... by some, most scholars ...". yandman 16:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept the cult remark attributed to "some" -- the point is that the cult thing is primarily CCP propaganda, certainly not a mainstream academic view. I think it is okay to say that some say Falun Gong is controversial. I mean, the thing is, Falun Gong itself didn't do anything much except get persecuted, I think it is more appropriate to make clear that some people say it's controversial, rather than Falun Gong itself being controversial--catch the meaning? --Asdfg12345 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's the problem. Everyone says it's controversial, not just some. Is there one person out there who thinks it isn't? Even Britannica have it in their first sentence: "Falun Gong: controversial Chinese spiritual movement...". "Controversial" isn't the same as "criticisable". Only the CCP say it's a cult, but everyone says it's controversial. Hell, if it wasn't controversial we wouldn't have a talk page that is now approaching critical mass. By the way, Britannica talks about "the medical establishment" as well as the CCP, but isn't clear: the chinese medical establisment? International academics? CCP lackeys? yandman 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue with the english language, to be honest. "Controversial" is a neutral statement giving the fact that there is a controversy (justified or not), not a criticism. In much the same way you would say "communism is controversial: some like it, some don't, and there is tension between the two". yandman 16:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a vague remark, I feel--why not just describe the apparent "controversies"? I can understand the urge for journalists to reach into their bucket and retrieve this term, but for wikipedia, I don't see the advantage in defining Falun Gong as controversial instead of being more clear about what the apparent dispute is. Falun Gong is the five exercises and spiritual texts--is that the controversy, or the things that happened surrounding too many people doing that in China, and the consequences? I don't think it's a neutral, descriptive term in this case, as there is not a parity of sources. I don't even think the controversial thing followed by the gentle thing is appropriate for the lede to begin with, to be honest. But if other sources have said it, and editors think it's a good idea, then... but it should still be attributive rather than definitive. Know what I'm saying? --Asdfg12345 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. To be honest, I'm uncomfrotable citing another Encyclopedia (EB online and paper, in this case). Having WIkipedia say "E.B. describes the group as controversial" seems kind of clumsy. Maybe the E.B. ref should be on the word controversial. yandman 17:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the whole sentence is redundant anyway. Referring to another tertiary source is also not advisable (three of the four references were to tertiary sources). The point is, in other sources they use this as a cheap one-liner. I think we can set our standards a bit higher, and where others are careless, wikipedia can be careful. The gentle seemed inappropriate, though I'm also unsatisfied with an unqualified and unsubstantiated controversial from three tertiary sources and a newspaper abstract. bah, I'm going to sleep, got to wake up in five hours. --Asdfg12345 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: I wanna delete it unless there is some awesome reason to keep it.--Asdfg12345 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why we have to mention the word "cult" in the intro? How come the entire Communist Party of China article does not contain the word "controversy" once? There is no balance at all between these articles. Benjwong (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit is cleared by MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATORS. See discussion above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I still think there are issues. For example, the nine commentaries calls the CCP an evil cult. That's fairly notable when you put it into the same terms as the original question: a hugely popular, avowedly non-political qigong practice, practiced even by tens of thousands of cadres, gets banned and persecuted, then 5 years later comes out with a blistering political tract concluding that the entire Chinese Communist Party is actually an "anti-universe force" and an "evil cult"--that sounds fairly notable! But I think there is a snowflake's chance of hell of getting that in the CCP article lede. Questions remain...--Asdfg12345 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

• it's the actions of the chinese government that are controversial, not the government in itself
• the CCP article does not have the word "controversial", but it does have a whole "criticism" section
• I think that the official label given by the chinese government is "cult", not "evil cult". The persecution article can have all the details, like the government officials and party newspapers using the words "evil cult" or "cult of evil"
• As I already said, for a religion, getting called a "cult" on its country of origin is a big thing, that's why this should be treated with more detail than the other stuff. Also, it's a label with big repercusions as it automatically marks all the group activities in China as cult activities.
• The lead can quickly summarize the most important accussation from the chinese government (the organ harvesting) by just saying "convenient propaganda, [20][21] and has also accussed the group of harvesting organs from live persons, [ref] a accussation that has been dismissed by Amnesty International. [ref]". There is just not enough space on the lead to detail all the accussations.
• If you look at the four sources for this edit changing "has been called controversial" to "is also sometimes thought to be controversial" you will see that the most adequate wording would be more like "is defined as controversial by many" or simply "is usually defined as controversial":

1. Britannica: "controversial Chinese spiritual movement founded by Li Hongzhi in 1992;" [1]
2. belief.net: "beliefs and origins of this controversial movement." [2]
3. about.com: "Falun Dafa, controversial Chinese sect." [3]
4. Halifax Daily News: "Practitioners of Falun Gong, a controversial Chinese religion, will (...)" [4]

• About this edit removing "being described as a cult by some" because it uses the qualifier "some", looking at the same four sources again, "some" is totally incorrect. It should say "being described as a cult by the Chinese government":

1. Britannica: "was a great concern to the Chinese government, which viewed Falun Gong as a cult." [5]
2. belief.net mentions nothing [6]
3. about.com "(...) chinese sect" [7]
4. Halifax Daily News: "(...)while China maintains it is a dangerous cult" [8]

Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Might have been easier if you'd numbered them, heh

• The CCP's term for Falun Gong was 邪教, something like "heterodox teaching". a western PR firm suggested to them the defter translation of "evil cult". Xiejiao is translated as evil cult by xinhua and other Party propaganda organs; that's the staple term.
• the bigger thing is getting persecuted, the cult label came after the persecution, as a way of doing the persecution. As I say, it's merely another detail among the many. A religion getting a giant propaganda campaign against it in its country of origin and having the whole population told that it teaches to kill people etc. is fairly notable--tell me, what's more notable, being called a cult, or being accused of committing murder and suicide? Why don't we put that in the lede, then, going by the same logic?
• <deleted more references to WP:WAX>
• As one particular aspect of the comprehensive media strategy against Falun Gong, I still fail to see the use of mentioning it in the lede. I mean, it mentions torture, should we also mention that electric batons are one of the most common forms? or "particularly with electric batons"? the cult label is like the electric baton of media campaign. I just don't get the particular importance.
• I'm confused by your note beginning "The lead can quickly..." -- I don't know who is accusing who of what in the sentence you provide. Sorry.
• About the controversial, I think this may be somewhat misleading. For example, I could cite hundreds of articles and stuff that don't use the term. If the apparent controversies are not going to be illustrated, and I'm not aware particularly of what they might be, then I don't see the sense of including that description. If there was some specific, notable chasm in the literature on Falun Gong, with a parity of sources, then I wouldn't object. At the moment it is vague and unsubstantiated. Besides, I thought wikipedia isn't supposed to rely on other tertiary sources.
• the last point is related to the others above I suppose. misgivings still unresolved. Have I brought anything new to this exchange? Mainly I think now the relevance of this particular claim going in the lede needs to be addressed. Yes, it was an important part of the media campaign to brand Falun Gong a cult--though it was also an important part of the violence campaign to use electric batons; it was also an important part of the general campaign to fire people from their jobs; it was also an important... and so on. Since this term is not acting as a description of Falun Gong in the lede (clear on that, right?) then it is merely a detail to the mechanics of persecution. So why particularly relevant, so far above the multitudinous other tools used by the Party? It must be explained why it is not sufficient to leave it for the appropriate section. Personally, I can't see how it isn't. If I have not expressed something clearly, let me know, I should be able to re-explain it in a different way, and in more depth.--Asdfg12345 09:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "cult" is very relevant in the context of the persecution, but it is so heavily loaded and slanderous that we must pay particular attention to this issue. It has no significance outside of the CCP's attempts to marginalize, alienate, and justify the unjustifiable. Thus we cannot isolate such terms from the broader discourse. It certainly deserves its own chapter, namely Persecution of Falun Gong#The cult label; but just like we cannot understand why the CCP is labeled a "cult" by Falun Gong unless we take the ongoing persecution into account, the same applies vice versa. Many would argue that Falun Gong's characterisation of the CCP is closer to the actual truth, but we still don't see such words in that article's introduction.

Therefore, if we choose to insert the 'cult' label into the lead section of the Falun Gong article, but it is considered inappropriate for the CCP article, we would have to assume that the CCP is a major player, but Falun Gong is not, and thus the Party's viewpoint would be deemed more important than that of Falun Gong. But that's simply not the case. Leading sinologists, including David Ownby, have stated that the Falun Gong issue will continue to bear a major impact on China; indeed, even the title of his recent book is "Falun Gong and the Future of China". And as the relevant academic community has quite straightforwardly stated that the CCP is spreading political propaganda, with intent on inciting hatred and discrimination, shouldn't that make Falun Gong's viewpoint on the CCP even more relevant? Of course, we're striving to write a professional encyclopedic article here. We should always contextualize properly, and the lead section is not intended for such elaborations. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, we should insert al-Qaeda's opinions on the US government page entirely because the US government's views on al-Qaeda as a terrorist group is on the lead of their article. Ownby's opinions remain his personal opinions, and his views on Chinese propaganda should be no different from Rick Ross or James Randi's opinions on that FLG is a cult. And FLG never had a concise view on the PRC that represent the whole group. --PCPP (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

what the..?--Asdfg12345 15:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) sorry for making such a long post.

@ Asdfg, OK for using "evil cult" instead of "cult", I didn't know the exact chinese translation.

@ Asdfg. About naming the cult label and not naming the other details. As I said, I consider the "cult" label by the chinese government to be a notable thing, not just another detail. I am not sure, but I think that, of all the badmouthing by the chinese government, the cult label is the most famous one.

@ Asdfg. About other details apart from the cult thing. We can't put every detail on the lead, we have to cut at some point or the lead will get too long, and the third paragraph in the lead is already getting too long, and the lead is starting to go against the 3-4 paragraphs limit. My suggestion above about adding the organ harvesting thing was to add one small short detail that showed the outrageous accusations made by the chinese government, and I picked it just because it has its own article and its own reports from Amnesty International (which means that it's probably a lot more notable than the other accussations). You see, we can't add every accusation that the CCP has ever made because there is a lot of them, including depictions with nazi svastikas [9]. At most, pick a source saying that the CCP has made a bunch of false accusations, and add a short sentence somewhere near the ban sentence.

Continuing the above point, there are too many torture details, and none of them is so much more relevant than the others than it warrants including it on the lead and leaving the others out.

@ Asdfg, about "controversial", it's probably OK to use tertiary sources to substantiate that some tertairy sources are using a certain word. Also, a google search [10] finds plenty of sources labelling Falun Gong as controversial "Controversial New Religions" book or describing controversies caused by Falun Gong [hhttp://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/07/entertainment/et-chinese7 "Ties to Falun Gong add controversy to the Chinese New Year Spectacular"], and controversial actuations "In one scene a Falun Gong dancer is killed by dancing Chinese police, who strangle her with a red flag." "Politicians urged not to attend controversial Chinese stage show" "Some of these dramas depict the persecution of Falun Gong members in China (...) Policemen come in and drag the practitioners off and beat them, including little girls, which is very true" [11]. I think that not much people would label that as "uncontroversial" :D To hellp you see how controversial the scene is, try to imagine the same scene with your own country's flag and your national police, and how people from your contry would react if it was done on an important public representation. In Spain, showing a Guardia Civil agent using a Spain's flag like that could bring you to court for "injuries to the flag", and the incident would be widely publicited by spanish nationalists radio hosts with wide national audience (aka, it would generate a lot of controversy). Btw, Asdfg, saying that something is "controversial" does not mean that it has to be false. You seem to believe that "controversial" is a biased label or something, when it's a neutral term on english ("controversial" can be anything that generates controversy, regardless of the reasons or details for the controversy). We shouldn't remove notable adjectives from articles just because we don't agree with them.

@ Olaf & Asdfg, I thought that the current wording on the lead already placed the "cult" label into the correct context of the abusive persecution from the chinese government by placing it in between the ban and the tortures, and by citing the "red-herring" and "propaganda" things? Do you think that it needs still more context?

@ Olaf, discussions of what to include on CCP's article lead should be held on Talk:Communist_Party_of_China.

Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric, thanks for your note, and for engaging in this discussion rationally and calmly. It's refreshing. Okay, basically my problem boils down to one thing, and I am going to keep this response to the essence of the problem, since I think by adding a lot of other things the main thing hasn't been dealt with.

It's this: Falun Gong is a huge subject, involving myriad factors. For example, there is the way that Falun Gong is practised, who practices it, where they do so, how they stand in relation to each other, etc.--this might be like the social or objective aspect of the practice; then there are the teachings; then there is the body of scholarly literature on the practice, and on the persecution; then there is the persecution itself, which includes an enormous amount; there is also how Falun Gong has responded to the persecution; there is more than these. Each of these topics has produced a huge amount of secondary literature. One part of one part of these topics is the labelling of Falun Gong as a cult (i.e. Falun Gong -> persecution -> propaganda campaign -> cult label). This is certainly not the most notable thing about this whole topic. Please consider that this main Falun Gong page has 4 or 5 daughter articles, and that some of those have their own daughter articles. Where is the sense in elaborating on a particular aspect of the media campaign against Falun Gong in the lede of the whole topic? It is an important part of the persecution, I'll warrant that. I'd say it belongs on the persecution lede. This lede doesn't even have enough information about the topic as it is, let alone adding in these details which are not directly pertinent to the whole edifice.

Apart from this, there are a bunch of other points. for example, it's not okay to simply give the opinion of the CCP about Falun Gong without giving the other opinions, such as of scholars, and of Falun Gong. And where is the space in the lede to hash out these three views, even cursorily? The lede is supposed to briefly introduce the subject, and also point out its notable controversies. Well, the persecution does just so. Maybe a sentence could preface that paragraph, including the term "controversial" or "attention" or something of the like. The cult thing is part of the media campaign of the persecution. You have to drill down three layers. Things should be taken in proportion and the whole subject outlined instead of getting into this nitty gritty. This is basically my major objection. BTW I've removed the whole sentence since the scholar rejection got deleted. I don't know whose idea it was to delete that. I don't agree with the decision, in any case. I would be interested to understand if, or how, other editors see their way around this problem I have spelled out. --Asdfg12345 09:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PCPP your example does not work. If you want to do a comparison, you can find 20 sources about the CCP's view against capitalists. That is easy. They had names much worse than "cult" for rich people. That doesn't mean I should open the Capitalist article and immediately see the party's view. Benjwong (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that the scholar view was removed with this edit summary "Removed personal interpretation by scholars. This goes in the body: the intro isn't there to pass judgement".

I think that the "cult" label is important, but simply adding the "cult" label is misleading because it makes it look like a legitimate reasonable claim. Either it's added with qualifiers explaining the context, or it shouldn't be included at all because of the misleading. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The context is that it was part of the propaganda campaign (according to reliable sources). Just trying to talk strictly from the viewpoint of a professional article on this subject, it's unwieldy to include this attack/rebuttal in the lede. It would take perhaps 30 words, and for one small piece of information that, while notable, is just one part of one piece of the Falun Gong puzzle, I can't say I really 'get it', if ya'll know what I mean. I provide a better, if longwinded, explanation of this same point above.--Asdfg12345 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest an alternative:

"In October 1999, four months after the ban, Chinese authorities branded Falun Gong and other organizations as a "heretical organization" (邪教 or "xiejiao"), ^{Amnesty International, footnote 1} which was translated to english with the misleading term "cult", or "evil cult". ^{[Amnesty International again]chinese government}"

not sure if it really establishes the context of the propaganda campaign and it has 35+ words :P Maybe this paragraph should go into the persecution article on the relevant place?

I would need a source saying "the cult label is part of the propaganda campaign" in order to make the sentence short, nice, and on context. Suggerences? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cult vs Evil Cult

The precise term the PRC referred to FLG is "xiejiao" ie "evil cult", so it should be noted in the lead. Others like Randi, Ross, the anti-cult movement etc has also referred to FLG as a "cult" but not "evil cult", and the two characterizations aren't exactly the same, which should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PCPP (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 July 2008

What Randi says is a different matter from what the CCP says. Trying to insert an explanation on the lead in the middle of explaining the CCP actions towards Falun Gong could make for very akward wording.

Randi calls them "In short, folks, this is another mystical cult basing its philosophy on mythology and pseudoscience, a spiritual movement loosely based on Buddhism, Taoism, yoga-style exercises, and blatant fantasies." [12] That's not condemning them as a bad cult, and it's a comment on his semanal commentary. Not sure if this is important/notable enough for the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these will fly, and probably will be incesently blanked and hacked up by certain editors like what I see right now. Neither will "controversial" even thou it is factual and neutural, certain editors just don't like it as it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive23#Notable_Source_Declaring_Falun_Gong_.22Controversial.22

FYI for a little history. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, my experience is that, if you can find enough sources for something, and if you can make a good case that it should be on the article, you can actually get it to stay. Ocassionally, people will find another way to express it, or it might get moved it to a different article. Sometimes this is correct and sometimes this is wrong and it has to be disputed. It helps if every once in a while you go to totally uncontroversial articles on topics you like to make uncontroversial edits.

Oh, btw, I found the court case: "An analysis of the evidence as to Falun Gong (...) [40] It is a controversial movement, which does not accept criticism." [13]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Qubec court website has some php problem and does not allow link. That's why search info and archive were provided. BTW, please note both links I submitted to ANI and was cleared by multiple admins is for the 4th time, removed. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, you are right, it doesn't work. Well, it appears that the chinese government source is now accepted as source for the label existance. Current dispute is now about how to include it without giving it undue weight, or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Landsberger's page

Altought Stefan Landsberger's page is a personal page, he is a Professor of Contemporary Chinese Culture at the University of Amsterdam [14] and has made a book on Chinese propaganda posters [15], so he is sort of an expert on the field of chinese propaganda.

I also find all sort of indications that his work is considered serious by academics. See, his work is referred to in the Center for History and New Media of George Mason University [16]. He is also listed on the bibliography of a university course on chinese culture [17], and cited on articles hosted on university websites [18][19][20][21][22], and listed as an interesing Internet resource on a university report (back in 1998, before search engine became so popular, when links were still spread by word-of-mouth) [23]. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that nothing on his website mentioned anything on the use of the "cult" label, despite what the lead claimed. I think the current sources critical of the PRC eg Ownby are adequate enough without giving it too much undue weight.--PCPP (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Stefan Landsberger source is sourcing the "propaganda technique" thing, not the "cult" thing --Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Redid intro

I redid the intro following the choices made by our competitors at Britannica. would you mind discussing before reverting, please? Got to go, yandman 06:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A short explanation: as in Britannica (and Encyclopedia Universalis), I put controversial in the lead of the lead. The movement is controversial, and that's why people know about it. Next, the CCP's motives for labelling it a cult need to be discussed in the appropriate section, giving the interpretation of a scholar in the intro clearly makes the article take position in the controversy. Remember, someone who reads an encyclopedia article should not know where the sympathies of the author(s) lie. yandman 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You really need to attribute, who is seeing this practice controversial. Also this is first a spiritual practice, then in it's development it has been seen controversial only by the PRC. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And the medical establishment. The overwhelming majority of secondary (and tertiary) sources see the practice as controversial: E.B., the New York Times, The Guardian, The Economist. A movement that is actively repressed by a major world power is obviously controversial. May I repeat that "controversial" is not a criticism. yandman 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The PRC branded Falun Gong as an evil cult, so of course that in mainland China they made it controversial. But it's controversial only there. For example, it's not controversial in my hometown and it's not controversial in the rest of the world. And as you just said here: [24] there is a controversy, but that does not mean that everything is controversial in Falun Gong.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. I think it is wholly inappropriate to define Falun Gong as controversial in the first line. It can go somewhere else, and be attributed. Falun Gong should just be defined as a spiritual practice, and that's what it is. The persecution is a major part of its notability, but Falun Gong itself is merely a practice method, with spiritual books and slow-motion exercises. The controversy relates to the persecution, not to Falun Gong itself.--Asdfg12345 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually read other encyclopedia articles about Falung Gong? Not one has an introduction that does not label it a "controverisal movement". Movement because this is an article about FG, not FG theory. I know it's a pain in the neck going to the library, but I'm starting to get the impression this is a deaf man's debate. If you can't be bothered, at least read the Britannica snippet that is linked to. yandman 09:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I saw the snippet brother (can't access the article though). I have read nearly all academic literature available on Falun Gong, I'm pretty knowledgeable about this subject. I don't see why we have to copy any other tertiary source; I'd say that would be setting our standards too low. The subject simply has to be able to be introduced on the most fundamental of terms. Falun Gong was a spiritual practice before the persecution, it has been during the persecution, and when the persecution ends it will continue to be one. Or a qigong practice, if you will, depending on your definitions. It's five exercises and a bunch of books. I think this is the most basic piece of information to present. Then the other views about x and y and what has happened surrounding.--Asdfg12345 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 and HappyInGeneral are right, in my opinion. Falun Gong per se cannot be defined as "controversial". We don't define qigong as "controversial", even though it's very much controversial in the eyes of James Randi and others. Nor is ISKCON defined as "controversial" in the article's lead section, even though E. Burke Rochford, Jr.'s book Hare Krishna in America begins with the words "Few social issues have been more controversial over the past decade than the growth and expansion of the new religions in America." Defining a phenomenon as "controversial" is already implying a stance; it is not a neutral word, because anything can be seen controversial, including the theory of evolution, George W. Bush, or impressionist art. Shall we define GWB as "a controversial American president"? Or impressionism as "a controversial art movement"? Or heterosexual marriage as "a controversial social institution"? See Wikipedia:No weasel words. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• UPDATE -- by the way, I removed the whole cult sentence since someone had deleted the references to the scholars disputing it. There is so much contention about this, and I can't understand that action in this context. I think it would be appropriate to simply remove the whole disputed sentence while forming a consensus. The issues to address re the cult thing haven't been fully hammered out, so it may be premature to reach a conclusion. I think the "controversial" remark is still... well, controversial, hehe. At the very least it should be directly attributed, if it is to go in the lede at all, which I still have misgivings about.--Asdfg12345 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Qigong and beyond section.

HappyInGeneral just restored this section after it was removed, stating that there was nothing on the talk page about it. Now, I don't know why it was removed either, but I can say that I did not miss it. Look at the page in its entirety. Notice anything in particular about it? What I first note is how incredibly long it is. The section about "qigong and beyond" read like a handbook to me, it was unencyclopedic and somewhat rambling. I'm not entirely in favor of removing it wholesale, but I am in favor of shortening the entire article to make it more readable. I'm currently going through the refs, so I won't have time for such a massive rewrite any time soon, but if anyone has any ideas on sections that may be duplicates, that may contain too much quoted material, or is just too wordy, I encourage you to Be Brave and try to remove those sections to see if the text is better, or worse, without them.

Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all those looking to restore NPOV

Let me be clear. There has been 24 archives of this talk page, the discussions around this article have largely remained consistent through the ages, and the controversies surrounding it are not going away. Falun Gong is a controversial movement. The fact that they distribute pamphlets, put on artistic productions, solicit people on streets, run newspapers, etc. is very well known. The internet propaganda battle between the Communist Party of China and Falun Gong is not one on which Wikipedia should take sides, but should examine from a reasoned, calm, and impartial perspective. Both sides have been shown to disrupt edits on Wikipedia, with the CPC apologists hovering around articles dealing with Tibet and the Olympics last year, and with Falun Gong supporters whitewashing almost all pages related to themselves. A scan through Wikipedia, and you will find some amusing results. The CPC's propaganda campaign has evidently failed on Wikipedia (see article on "Tibet"), but Falun Gong's propaganda campaign has been vastly successful (see article on Li Hongzhi). So successful that today, this very article, clearly biased in favour of Falun Gong, has not a mention of the controversy surrounding it, and does not even have the elusive Wikipedia tag of "This article's neutrality is disputed".

I want to remind the editors that wish to insert material onto this article to present a neutral point of view. It will be deleted or altered, often without you knowing. Either that or someone will come onto this talk page and attempt to use some kind of intellectual argumentation to stall the edits, and then tire you out until you give up. Whatever sources the neutral editors provide, the Pro-FLG editors will dispute, ad nauseum. To see whether or not what I am saying can be substantiated, take a good read through the vast archives of this talk page.

For all the neutral-minded editors reading this, it is clear that more concrete action needs to be taken. I am not a big expert on Wikipedia policies, but if anyone has any suggestions on anything that can be done, please point it out here. The state of the article is so clearly in need of attention that simply further editing the article in the hope of a compromise would be naive; it would be justified to approach Wikipedia's top administrators. For now, I am adding on the tag that the neutrality of this article is disputed (really, I should be adding the tag "this article has multiple issues"). I will be surprised if it is not taken down within a few hours. All the best. -Colipon+(T) 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Some food for thought: [25] [26] Colipon+(T) 00:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity and neutrality are methods, not end goals in themselves. These articles do not become fair and balanced by giving equal weight to low-ranking (or substandard) and high-ranking sources. The most reputable sources usually try to understand Falun Gong without resorting to sensationalism, and that's why the article may inevitably seem biased to those with skewed notions.

I know your history on these pages, Colipon, and you have never come across as a "neutral-minded editor". In several instances, you have been unable to defend your position on this discussion page; perhaps you have grown bitter. I hope I'm not offending you, but I agree you are "not a big expert on Wikipedia policies". I honestly suggest you devote some time to familiarise yourself with them. If you really do that, I'm sure we can find a way to get along and cooperate. I am planning to get more involved with these pages once again, and my stated objective has always been to eventually make this a featured article. We need people with all kinds of perspectives, as long as they are willing to play fair.

I don't agree with the conduct of some pro-FLG editors, but the most severe problems have been caused by those who have tried to use these articles as an ideological platform for anti-FLG struggle. Some of them have been banned indefinitely by the Arbcom. We have repeatedly asked other editors to take advantage of peer-reviewed journals and other first class references, and we'll absolutely not let these articles turn into a dumping ground for personal websites and half-truths that have been refuted and exposed by considerably higher ranking academic sources. That said, we should certainly incorporate different viewpoints in proportion to their true relevance. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, from having had past discussions with you, Olaf, I really don't need to refute what you are saying. What you did in that last comment was to resort to the "stall-argumentation" (they call it "Wikilawyering" here.) technique used by various pro-FLG editors on this page, and then attack me for being "not neutral". To that all I have to say, let someone else who is on neither side of the debate, let a third-party administrator come on here and preside over the editing of this page. Anyone who is third-party can just look at the history of this page to see what has gone on. Do a thorough investigation. It is really sad that the pro-FLG editors understand wiki policy a lot better than the people that come on here to try and curb the FLG agenda once in a while.

This is the sign of an editor who has exhausted his options, and asking those who are looking to restore NPOV to think of more concrete ways of doing it. Colipon+(T) 17:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

The pro-FLG editors clearly fit all the following criteria of Wikilawyering, specifically #2. To substantiate this claims really all I need to do is look for someone that is a third-party expert of this policy to come onto this page and just read the discussion.

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Colipon+(T) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Gross misuse of the term

It does not help your case to dig up a term and appropriate it in a way that's explicitly described as its misuse on the very same page [27] (emphasis mine):

As any pejorative, the term is easily misused. As any pejorative, it is an offense towards a fellow Wikipedian. At the same time, the notions of offense (in a debate) and insult should not be confused. While there is a blurred gray zone between offense and insult, the major distinction is that an offense in a debate is argumentative, while an insult is ... an insult, i.e., an act of demeaning an opponent. An offense is always specific, i.e., addresses a particular argument or reasoning, while an insult is generalizing and dismissive. For example the phrase "You are wikilawyering" is an insult. On the other hand, the message "Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering", while aggressive, is not an insult, but rather a pointer to an identifiable wikibehavioral pattern.

In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I really applaud you, Olaf, that you have the audacity to Wikilawyer my suggestion that there is wikilawyering on this page. I have to say, it's quite well done. For now let's just say you are correct in your assertion, and let us wait a 3rd party observer or another NPOV minded editor to enter this discussion. Colipon+(T) 20:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The disputes on this article has been going on for some 24 archived talk pages. It is clearly not NPOV, and many non-aligned editors have mentioned this with posts such as "This article is hopeless", and also, another earlier piece about a person who genuinely believed the FLG article gave him a false impression and now feels no sympathy for the group (under the heading "A messege of hope to those who value NPOV."). This is from this talk page alone. Then scan through the other 24 talk page archives. The NPOV tag is an understatement, and asdfg12345 has taken it down twice within the space of the past few hours. One more revert would be against the "3R rule", wouldn't it? Colipon+(T) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just asking you to follow wikipedia guidelines. What is your understanding of the purpose of such tags? I do not think the purpose of them is to score points. Here is a note from WP:TAGGING:

When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory.

Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed.

Emphasis mine. What do you say?--Asdfg12345 06:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just a word about all these disputes. I've noticed that at no point have the apparent problems with the article been identified. I'm not going to make a personal rant about the topic, but I just want to actually be clear. As far as I am aware, every source in this article is reliable, and most are references to academic journals. What, precisely, is the problem? How can it be fixed? Often, talk page discussion has revolved around things like putting "controversial" in the first sentence, trying to include sources like Ross, and similar nonsense. Just because there's a lot of talk page discussion doesn't necessarily mean anything about the article. A large portion of the total discussion is probably from the time of Samuel and Tomananda (and their sockpuppets), too. I'd just like to know specifically what's actually defective with the article, if anything, and how that could be remedied. Is it just like, "put more negative things on Falun Gong more prominently and we'll be happy," regardless of the sources?--Asdfg12345 06:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple actionable issues on this talk page. Just look at what hasn't even been archived yet. The repeated attempts of pro-FLG editors to block any attempt to bring this article into line with WP:NPOV is something that has to be addressed. The article is most certainly not neutral by any means of the word!Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Name them. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My real point is that just editing this article and pointing out "issues" in this article is no longer effective. It's a little naive, in fact. The tag is there because numerous users report neutrality-related disputes, source disputes, disruptive editing, and various other attempts to wash the article free of any criticism of Falun Gong (as far as I can see currently there is only one line of criticism in this entire article, and by its tonw its made to sound not-too-credible - "the late psychologist Margaret Singer derided it as a 'cult'.").

I have one suggestion to fixing this issue, and that is bringing these multiple issues to an administrator, who will conduct a thorough investigation of the article without third-party interference. After that it should be very, very apparent what has gone on in this article over the past few years, and what measures need to be taken. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs serious Admin intervention. Is there a notice board or something to alert Admin?Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You can start with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In my perspective the NPOV tag is necessary because of two reasons: 1) the use of pro-flg language throughout all FLG-related articles. This issue is pervasive. 2) Sourcing. Pro-FLG editors simultaneously remove valid sources (including Time Magazine, New York Times, and Rick Ross) while promoting the use of biassed sources such as falundafa.org and the falun gong owned Epoch Times. Until these systemic issues are resolved the NPOV tag remains.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For #1 you need to be more specific give examples, for #2 if I recall correctly every edit was discussed. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have to remind you that all references to Rick Ross were disqualified by third parties. See this discussion.

I welcome administrators to observe our conduct and comment on the current state of the articles. Such an approach hasn't lead to any bad results in the past. Quite the contrary — the crackpots were predictably rapped on their knuckles. I can only answer for myself, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines have never ruled against what I am doing here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like the same vague arm-waving that has always gone on. You need to muster high-quality sources to support your points of view. That is the bottom line. If you cannot bring them to bear, it may indicate that they don't exist. The fact is that the cult argument is a fringe view, and it's not just that it has weak support among scholars of Falun Gong, but it's directly dismissed by them as an inaccurate approach to understanding the phenomenon, and one that came about only because of the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda. As far as I'm aware, Singer is the most high-profile proponent of this view aside from the CCP itself. Falun Gong sources are not used in any way that violates wikipedia policies; if this is the case, point it out and we'll fix it. What I suggest is that Simon223 and Colipon actually read some of the literature on Falun Gong that we are referring to in this article, to get an understanding of how high-quality sources treat this topic, and therefore how the wikipedia page on the topic should look. Don't keep ramming your head against the wall with these tired prejudices. You could start with Ownby's "Falun Gong and the Future of China." He's the most notable scholar on the topic, and his work is the most recent and complete on it.

On the other issue, what you seem to be requesting is mediation. There is a formal wikipedia process for this. You can read about it. I hope you know, they're still going to ask what is the problem?, though, and I imagine anyone doing the job seriously would ask for specific examples. Colipon, for example, do you have a better suggestion for how to present the cult label in relation to Falun Gong? Simon: can you give some specific examples of "pro-flg" language? Let's fix it! Why doesn't one of you just go through the article one section at a time and write what is wrong with it, how it could be improved, what your sources are, and then let's see. As I see it, this is all still a bunch of vague and sweeping remarks, not backed up by sources. I also have a fairly good understanding of the body of scholarly literature on Falun Gong, so I'm not surprised. The article at the moment broadly correlates with the analyses of Penny, Ownby, Zhao, Porter, and others.--Asdfg12345 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

An Occurrence on Fuyou Street

Anyone interested in this topic would do well to read this article: [28]. We can even do a "I'll read yours if you read mine" sort of deal. This is my first nomination, and I would very much like Colipon and Simon223 to read it, because I believe it is necessary to be aware of such things to make a meaningful contribution to this topic.--Asdfg12345 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Kilgour to be an expert on China, Chinese religion or anything else of relevance. He's a rather trumped up conservative politician who vascilates between Canada's conservative party and Canada's really Conservative party.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Gutmann wrote the article, not Kilgour. Kilgour is an expert on human rights in China.--Asdfg12345 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that I am afraid I can not remain appropriately civil for Wikipedia talk pages while remaining entirely true to my personal opinion of the man. Needless to say he has no credentials to make him an expert on the human rights of anywhere except within the confines of his own mind.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that ..." while your opinion is of course your opinion, I would still wonder what faults can you find in him, that you allegedly have such an unexplained low opinion. Also please note that this is the Falun Gong talk page, and we do want to avoid breaching WP:SOAP --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that Falun Gong practitioners like I suspect you to be lean too much on Kilgour's political position and stance to prove your point. As for myself, I stopped reading when the author said that Falun Gong was "the most Chinese" movement...--Ilivetocomment (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See my user page, I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. You don't really need to suspect anything :). Can you substantiate with some WP:RS that we lean too much on Kilgour's political position? I can tell you for sure that I don't need any politician to feel the seriousness of the persecution. To illustrate my point see here: [29] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to point at a Kilgour report to prove points repeatedly...practitioners rely on him and Matas for credibility all the time. Direct proof of that would be difficult, but indirect can be just as good. Try searching Google Images the terms "David Kilgour" or "David Kilgour Falun Gong", and check the links below the images. About half of them turn out to be linked to obviously pro-Falun Gong sites and such. Personally, I've noticed that Falun Gong practitioners always point to Kilgour for proof, as they say on their posters. One example of this is a giant FG poster I saw on Parliament Hill during the Tulip Festival, which said: STOP Organ Harvesting in China NOW as proven by Kilgour and Matas reports! and a very graphic image of blood and gore right next to that message <.<. PS: I watched the video, and frankly, I'm a little disbelieving that she could actually be interviewed. I agree that torture and corruption often exists in China, but generally they keep it top secret, right? I did some research, and found this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-20/29680.html, which isn't very convincing. If that video is from NTDTV, then I know my answer, IMHO.--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing. Could anything be convincing to you?

On the other hand this is wikipedia, you know what, it does not need to be convincing, it needs to be sourced with WP:RS, so next time when you are feeling the need to complain (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX), please do it under the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. The enormous amount of third party commentary that came after the Kilgour/Matas report makes it clear that it's a credible document and more than enough a reliable source. It's also not a question that Kilgour/Matas are reliable sources; the latter has won a series of prizes for his law achievements. Kilgour attends and regularly gives speeches at conferences on human rights, in China, Darfur, etc.. I'm not familiar with or interested in his politics, but he's reliable to comment on this topic, particularly in terms of the persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, Kilgour/Matas have been referred to in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, which is one of the UK's leading medical, peer-reviewed journals. You can freely read the article on the website of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. [30] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kilgour/Matas report is a perfect example of the fact that if you shout hard enough about something people know nothing about they will believe you. Those of us who demand things like dispassionate third party verification tend to look at it as a spurious report of misinformation, lies, mistakes, assumptions and flawed detective work assembled by a non-expert with a political axe to grind. Also I find it ironic that you call WP:NOTSOAPBOX on me for impugning the expertise of Kilgour and then turn around and say "So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing". Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas more than pass WP:RS. End of story.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, that article says that his allegations are credible due to a series of indications, it doesn't state that there was actually organ harvesting happening. I see that this already correctly reported in Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_in_China#Corroborative_reports (I saw other issues on that article and I posted there about them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to be off wikipedia for a while now, for a period of months. I'll be able to check infrequently. I'm moving countries and will not have any opportunity to make serious contributions for a while. Best wishes everyone.--Asdfg12345 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree over the reliability of the Kilgour / Matas report. As I said it is based on a whole lot of factual errors. Whole rooms of hospitals that appear to have vanished, etc. At best it was a sincere effort gone astray. At worst it was self-serving propaghanda. Good luck on your move. It's highly likely we will speak again. Until then, regards.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia: reliable sources are not determined by personal opinions, but by cold policy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there weren't FLG activists pumping for propaghanda to be considered a reliable source this wouldn't make the cut.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Simonm223, I don't understand you. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have never seen you refer to a policy page when you argue on these talk pages. If an investigation is considered plausible by a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing in the policies that would keep it off Wikipedia. If you played by the rules and clearly pointed out why you think others are wrong (I'm talking about direct quotes from the article, or references to proposed reliable sources, backed up by direct policy references), I wouldn't consider you breaching WP:SOAP all the time. Actually, it would be agreeable to cooperate with you towards a mutually acceptable goal. But you seem to have adopted a different attitude, perhaps out of frustration, or perhaps you never learnt Wikipedia style to begin with — I cannot say. I've encountered both kinds. This makes the situation rather tense. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An Occurrence on Fuyou Street

Anyone interested in this topic would do well to read this article: [31]. We can even do a "I'll read yours if you read mine" sort of deal. This is my first nomination, and I would very much like Colipon and Simon223 to read it, because I believe it is necessary to be aware of such things to make a meaningful contribution to this topic.--Asdfg12345 03:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Kilgour to be an expert on China, Chinese religion or anything else of relevance. He's a rather trumped up conservative politician who vascilates between Canada's conservative party and Canada's really Conservative party.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Gutmann wrote the article, not Kilgour. Kilgour is an expert on human rights in China.--Asdfg12345 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that I am afraid I can not remain appropriately civil for Wikipedia talk pages while remaining entirely true to my personal opinion of the man. Needless to say he has no credentials to make him an expert on the human rights of anywhere except within the confines of his own mind.Simonm223 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kilgour is a blow hard of no significant esteem who I have such a low opinion of that ..." while your opinion is of course your opinion, I would still wonder what faults can you find in him, that you allegedly have such an unexplained low opinion. Also please note that this is the Falun Gong talk page, and we do want to avoid breaching WP:SOAP --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that Falun Gong practitioners like I suspect you to be lean too much on Kilgour's political position and stance to prove your point. As for myself, I stopped reading when the author said that Falun Gong was "the most Chinese" movement...--Ilivetocomment (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See my user page, I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. You don't really need to suspect anything :). Can you substantiate with some WP:RS that we lean too much on Kilgour's political position? I can tell you for sure that I don't need any politician to feel the seriousness of the persecution. To illustrate my point see here: [32] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to point at a Kilgour report to prove points repeatedly...practitioners rely on him and Matas for credibility all the time. Direct proof of that would be difficult, but indirect can be just as good. Try searching Google Images the terms "David Kilgour" or "David Kilgour Falun Gong", and check the links below the images. About half of them turn out to be linked to obviously pro-Falun Gong sites and such. Personally, I've noticed that Falun Gong practitioners always point to Kilgour for proof, as they say on their posters. One example of this is a giant FG poster I saw on Parliament Hill during the Tulip Festival, which said: STOP Organ Harvesting in China NOW as proven by Kilgour and Matas reports! and a very graphic image of blood and gore right next to that message <.<. PS: I watched the video, and frankly, I'm a little disbelieving that she could actually be interviewed. I agree that torture and corruption often exists in China, but generally they keep it top secret, right? I did some research, and found this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-6-20/29680.html, which isn't very convincing. If that video is from NTDTV, then I know my answer, IMHO.--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Ilivetocomment (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing. Could anything be convincing to you?

On the other hand this is wikipedia, you know what, it does not need to be convincing, it needs to be sourced with WP:RS, so next time when you are feeling the need to complain (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX), please do it under the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. The enormous amount of third party commentary that came after the Kilgour/Matas report makes it clear that it's a credible document and more than enough a reliable source. It's also not a question that Kilgour/Matas are reliable sources; the latter has won a series of prizes for his law achievements. Kilgour attends and regularly gives speeches at conferences on human rights, in China, Darfur, etc.. I'm not familiar with or interested in his politics, but he's reliable to comment on this topic, particularly in terms of the persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, Kilgour/Matas have been referred to in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, which is one of the UK's leading medical, peer-reviewed journals. You can freely read the article on the website of Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting. [33] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kilgour/Matas report is a perfect example of the fact that if you shout hard enough about something people know nothing about they will believe you. Those of us who demand things like dispassionate third party verification tend to look at it as a spurious report of misinformation, lies, mistakes, assumptions and flawed detective work assembled by a non-expert with a political axe to grind. Also I find it ironic that you call WP:NOTSOAPBOX on me for impugning the expertise of Kilgour and then turn around and say "So just to make it clear, tortured people on tape, footage made with a big difficulty is not convincing". Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas more than pass WP:RS. End of story.--Asdfg12345 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, that article says that his allegations are credible due to a series of indications, it doesn't state that there was actually organ harvesting happening. I see that this already correctly reported in Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_in_China#Corroborative_reports (I saw other issues on that article and I posted there about them). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going to be off wikipedia for a while now, for a period of months. I'll be able to check infrequently. I'm moving countries and will not have any opportunity to make serious contributions for a while. Best wishes everyone.--Asdfg12345 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree over the reliability of the Kilgour / Matas report. As I said it is based on a whole lot of factual errors. Whole rooms of hospitals that appear to have vanished, etc. At best it was a sincere effort gone astray. At worst it was self-serving propaghanda. Good luck on your move. It's highly likely we will speak again. Until then, regards.Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia: reliable sources are not determined by personal opinions, but by cold policy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there weren't FLG activists pumping for propaghanda to be considered a reliable source this wouldn't make the cut.Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, Simonm223, I don't understand you. Perhaps I've missed it, but I have never seen you refer to a policy page when you argue on these talk pages. If an investigation is considered plausible by a peer-reviewed journal, there's nothing in the policies that would keep it off Wikipedia. If you played by the rules and clearly pointed out why you think others are wrong (I'm talking about direct quotes from the article, or references to proposed reliable sources, backed up by direct policy references), I wouldn't consider you breaching WP:SOAP all the time. Actually, it would be agreeable to cooperate with you towards a mutually acceptable goal. But you seem to have adopted a different attitude, perhaps out of frustration, or perhaps you never learnt Wikipedia style to begin with — I cannot say. I've encountered both kinds. This makes the situation rather tense. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating criticism

Hello fellow co-editors. Please, as I just have, read through the page Wikipedia:Criticism and discuss it. The current "Academic attention" segment is to me a clear "Criticism" section and just changing its name to "Academic attention" instead, which is then used to refuse to include non-academic sources of criticism, is just not an acceptable state of affairs.

Instead, read the Wikipedia:Criticism article, in particular the parts that deal with using a separate criticism section, and what Jimbo W means to be the better alternative: Spreading positive and negative criticism throughout the article, so that a neutral point of view permeates the text and we avoid the "troll magnet" we have in the section today... by first pushing all criticism into the section, then moving the section out to a separate article, then wanting to delete that article, then re-adding some of the material to the article... and so on. Let's instead integrate the text in the "Academic attention" section, into the rest of the text. Thank you. PerEdman (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit, they're really good at what they do. Their way to weasling through Wikipedia policies is truly textbook. Someone should write a book on how to crawl thru wiki policy just on the verge of violating it, but using some seemingly logical argumentation to sustain a clear agenda masked by "neutrality". Everything from "controversial" or "criticism" was deleted, the only critical phrase under "academic attention" is immediately discredited, and every time something criticizing FLG in the slightest way is removed, with or without supporting arguments. One really doesn't have to look far to find the truth behind Falun Gong thru the eyes of third-party observers. Simply do a search on Google with the right keywords. Colipon+(T) 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search with the "right keywords" and found this page. I may be getting personal, but I'd like you to elaborate a bit on the words "I am currently not affiliated with any political organizations, but have been in the past". You are a native of Nanjing, so can we deduce that you have been a member of the Chinese Communist Party? Why are you linking to Shanghai Expo, Xinhua.net and other CCP sites? This is just something I'd like to know. I'm playing my cards openly. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I am an agent trying to perpetuate propaganda. Why else would I be here day and night?

In all seriousness, Olaf, you can discredit me all you'd like, I really don't care. With the state of affairs here I don't even plan on editing the article, so discredit me all you like. I just want a third-party editor, admin, organization, whatever it may be, to come and inspect the state of this article. If you are so confident that this article passes the NPOV test you should easily agree to this proposition.

I'm calling to attention the fact that NPOV in this article is absolutely non-existent, and the FLG-POV flavour is to an extent unseen anywhere else on Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you are an agent; I've seen them before, and they generally behave in a way that's very different from you. But I believe you may be someone who's had strong CCP sympathies in the past, and I know that recently you have chosen to link to Xinhua from your user page — all the while "a neutral-minded editor" has become your catch phrase. Honestly speaking, it doesn't matter who you are and what you think, as long as you play by the rules. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentlepersons, please discuss the suggestion under this heading, rather than whether one of you is an agent of either organization or googling one another's names. Olaf, I believe you are out of line. PerEdman (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman's new, shorter Lede

Dilip Rajeev, you wanted to talk to me about the new lede and my choice of removing the explicit references made to sources throughout the lede? I started by going to WP:LEDE guideline which suggests that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." and I felt that yes, we were doing that already, but we were taking up much too much space in doing so, breaking: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.". We HAVE all the source we need for our statements, there is simply no reason to inject them into the text as well. I see for example that you re-added the paragraph that starts with '"Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises, and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance"', which I had chosen to incorporate into the lede itself, like this:

"Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion and forbearance (眞，善，忍) as set out in the main books Falun Gong"

I thought that was an excellent idea, but you apparently did not agree, and not only re-added the paragraph itself, duplicating data, but also removing my version of the paragraph. Now, I have no prestige over this, but I sincerely still believe that my version was a glimpse of a new, more accessible Falun Gong article, easier on the eye. And I did not really remove anything, I just rearranged it and let the references stand for themselves rather than be completely duplicated within the text. So for these reasons, Dilip, and waiting for your comments on the matter, I will revert back to the version I had written, so that others can comment as well. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed that I was wondering where that paragraph disappeared.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you slow down a bit and discuss your changes on talk - that would very much help avoid such confusions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am doing this as slowly as I can while still actually doing something, Dilip. If I do it any slower, there will be no changes made, and we won't be Bold in editing. I'm very confused here though. I make an edit and a Talk page post to discuss the new lede, and all you're worried about, the only thing you bring up to discussion, is that you wondered where the paragraph went, or that things are moving too fast? Does that mean you approve, or that you disapprove, or that you have no opinion on the new, shorter lede? If you have any relevant criticism, I'm sure you can anchor that criticism in guidelines. If there is a guideline that states that paragraphs should not be rewritten if they've been up for a long time, or that discussion on a talk page about a change must take place before the very discussion about the change, or that slowness is a virtue in Wikipedia, by all means, baffle me!

I haven't dared look since 2 July 2009, but I will just assume that you, HappyInGeneral or ASDFG12345 chose to remove my new, shorter lede without even trying, as you did, to actually discuss it first. Please tell me I am wrong in this, before I go look for myself. PerEdman (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs or a "copy/paste" on what your version exactly is. For example I really don't see any problem with the sentence you provided above. "Falun Gong has five sets of qigong exercises and teaches the principles truthfulness, compassion and forbearance (眞，善，忍) as set out in the main books Falun Gong". Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, just look at the history of the article for the date of my change (00:07, 2 July 2009, my timezone). Not sure how to link to a diff page, but try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=next&oldid=299789898 and then there's the revision by Dilip: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=299801370&oldid=299800875 - Hope those work.

My edit did not deal with that specific sentence alone, it incorporates the paragraph that STARTS with that sentence, into the first paragraph of the lede. PerEdman (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The diff's are quite complex, it's hard to follow because there are too many changes. But if you could break down the changes you would like into short point by point statements, it would be a lot more easy to follow and to discuss. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That would double the workload of any edit. I'm afraid I won't do that. PerEdman (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Richardson/Edelman

I am removing the claims sourced to James T Richardson and Bryan Edelman article "Imposed limitations on freedom of religion in China and the margin of appreciation doctrine: a legal analysis of the crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "evil cults""[34] in Journal of Church and State since I have now read the article and found that it does not support the claims made on the wikipedia page. The Falun Gong page used to read:

"the cult label applied to Falun Gong has no "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and is merely a label that has been conveniently used to ban the practice."

Whereas Edelman and Richardson's article reads on page 11:

"As described above, ACM ideology assents that the cult threat poses a serious danger to society. However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community. (73) However, China has incorporated many ACM theories into its campaign against the Falun Gong. The China Association for Science and Technology concluded that (emphasis added):"

...where ACM is the authors' initialism for "the Western Anti-Cult Movement", defined on page 8 as:

"According to state representatives, the Falun Gong and other groups targeted by the government are "cults," not spiritual or religious groups. (54) As discussed below, Chinese authorities appear to have borrowed heavily from the Western Anti-Cult Movement (ACM) to support the claim that such groups are not entitled to legal protections. (55)"

Because the article sourced does not agree with the claim made in the article, I felt it best to remove the claim entirely rather than try to reformulate the claim to fit the source better. Besides, doing so would likely have been original research.

Having sourced claims that are not actually supported by the sources is a very, very bad situation for any Wikipedia article so I am glad that I was able to find the original source for this reason. PerEdman (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe a good faith approach on your part would have been to, as you see it, correct the explanation of Edelman/Richardson's view, rather than simply delete it. Of course it wouldn't be original research to do that. I don't have time to argue for the original formulation, or come up with a new one. Hope to be able to do my part to remedy it in a few more days, when I have time.--Asdfg12345 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this remark of yours above: "If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" -- to be blunt, simply deleting this reference therefore smacks of hypocrisy.--Asdfg12345 17:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, I did try to think up a way of incorporating the actual Edelman/Richardson view, but it would not have improved the article as it would have become too convoluted. What Edelman and Richardson criticise is not the application of the cult label on Falun Gong; their criticism is rather that something they call the (western) Anti-Cult Movement is incorrect in assenting that"the cult threat poses a serious danger to society". So you see it is not the application of the label that is false according to Edelman and Richardsson, but the assumption that cults are serious threats to society.

In the end I argued that it is much more important to remove a possibly false reference than to build a new paraphrasing of an article that is much more complex than it has been referenced as. Should we devote a whole section of the Falun Gong wikipage to describing what Edelman and Richardson think of the Anti-Cult Movement, or who they believe the Anti-Cult Movement are? Of course not.

If you do not have time to argue for the original formulation or come up with a new one, then I hope you on 2 July 2009 did not in fact revert my edit while you waited to come up with such a formulation. In fact, when I returned here on 25 July, the OLD formulation was back, with a reference to "the conclusion" of the article. I fail to see how I was being hypocritical there. I made an edit and I brought it to the talk page. How should I have done - please reference wikipedia guidelines here - to avoid being "hypocritical"? PerEdman (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, if the cult label was "borrowed" from ACM and ACM lacks "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and the CCP "borrowed" this "to support the claim that such groups are not entitled to legal protections" then as I see it

"the cult label applied to Falun Gong has no "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," and is merely a label that has been conveniently used to ban the practice."

is a good and honest summary. If you see this as WP:OR, please provide an alternative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find incorrect information in wikipedia you can certainly decide how to proceed by correcting the information or removing it until such a time that it can be corrected, but I cannot accept that incorrect information should let stand in the article until someone else deigns to make alterations. It should be removed rather than kept. Now Olaf Stephanos has made an edit, making a perfect mastodon of a summary and I'm not satisfied by that either. It's too long. Too wordy. And still not using a web reference so that third parties can verify its veracity. PerEdman (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No using Rick Ross

In previous discussions, it was clearly established that rick ross is not an acceptable source for the article. Peredman, before you repeatedly add such stuff in, please make clear your rationale and attempt to get consensus. In my opinion the source is, in no way, acceptable. Here is about rick-ross from a webpage:

".. a review of his educational background shows that quite apart from being anti-Christian (he refers to Christians as “Bible bangers”) has no religious educational credentials whatsoever. To the contrary, his only formal education is a high school diploma. Self-aggrandizement and personal financial reward seem to be Ross’ primary motive for his attacks on Christians and members of other faiths... an unbiased review of Ross’ activities overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Ross systematically engages in anti-social and often illegal activity" [35]

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think that www.religiousfreedomwatch.org does not really qualifies as a RS for who is a good experts in cults, what with being sponsored by the Church of Scientology to bash anyone that has ever criticized the church[36][37].

Second, after reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Rick_Ross_on_Falun_Gong, which seems to be the most recent discussion in WP:RSN about Ross, although Rick Ross (consultant) is a "cult expert" and that should qualify him for opinating here, I reluctantly have to agree that we shouldn't use his opinion unless he gets mentioned in some RS as being an expert or a notable opinion in Falun Gong. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. Dilip should keep himself to the same standards he requires of others.

As for Rick Ross and the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard — sorry, I just have to say this, but I told you guys. Way too many of our editors don't seem to have the faintest clue about the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and what they entail. Some of us have been editing these articles for almost five years, and it gets rather tiresome to see people attempt the same old stuff over and over again. Keeping the disrupting editors in check takes time, and I'm sure everybody has plenty of other things to attend to. Please get acquainted with the rules from now on. Thank you.

(On a side note, it is interesting how the words of these complete outsiders and Wikipedia experts — who cannot be argued to have any conflict of interest in this topic whatsoever — greatly resemble what I and Asdfg12345 have always said about acceptable sources. I encourage you to read the original WP:RSN thread. Did you notice how User:PCPP made no attempt to bring the content and result of this discussion into our awareness, even though he directly named three editors, including myself?) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The RSN doesn't seem to share your opinion of Rick Ross, Olaf Stephanos. Not once did they mention his criminal background or that he is an agent of the CCP, so I do not believe you did tell us. I'm sure it must be tiring to edit the same old stuff for five years, I know how tiring it gets in just five weeks. PerEdman (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is WP:RSN not sharing Olaf's opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC tag

Some editors have expressed concern over the neutrality of this article and have suggested that the overall tone and certain editing practices of devoted editors have damaged the neutrality therein. In a good-faith attempt to draw attention to this and work towards improving the neutrality of the article several editors have put up the pov tag at the top of the page. Other editors have removed the pov tag, arguing that the concerns on neutrality are baseless. The request for comments in this case is on whether the Wikipedia policy on neutrality tagging has been adhered to correctly in the case of this article and whether the tag should be placed on this article until substantial changes to tone and content are made.Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way "Some editors" is WP:WEASEL, if you want the POV flag, follow the guidelines for Wikipedia:TAGGING#Constructive_tagging as also highlighted above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't argue that the page was neutral or not-neutral. I just asked you to explain how it was not neutral and how we could fix it. I asked for specific examples, and said I would like to work together to fix any problems in the page. You never gave examples of problems with the page, you have not brought up any reliable sources or major viewpoints that are missing. I removed the tag because there was no explanation for it, only that the page was "POV". But when I asked how it was "POV" you didn't respond. Just go through it and point out the problems, like weasel words, or whatever, and let's fix them. That's all I've said. Other thing is, having an RfC about a tag is really abstruse. Especially under the condition that it stays "until substantial changes to tone and content are made," when you haven't even pointed out what problems there are with the tone and content, I mean, what is this? Can't you just say what's wrong with the article, specifically, and let's fix it?? --Asdfg12345 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet whenever the neutrality issue is brought up on the talk page you have denied it. I understand you may dislike me putting up a policy RfC on tagging but, honestly, there is a serious policy disagreement between two blocs of editors over what constitutes a POV concern. Wikipedia should not be a soap box for alternative religions to proselytize and yet, all too often, we have seen this behaviour on the FLG articles. It's not how other religions are handled on Wikipedia and it's high time that it not be how the FLG was handled. Now I would honestly rather NOT have FLG on my watchlist. I genuinely don't care about the religion very much. I do care about Wikipedia being a valid place to get factual information... this is not the case with FLG. So, yes, I intend to be somewhat activist here for a while. Until it's cleaned up. One page at a time, one issue at a time. And I will tag, revert and RfC as necessary to see that this system of articles ceases to be one-sided propaganda and becomes, instead, good articles on a controversial new religious movement. And, when that is finished, hopefully I will not have to exhaust another valuable pico-second of my life dealing with the Falun Gong. And HappyInGeneral, seriously, you are complaining of weasel words? On a talk page? For this article? Over the phrase some editors? Seriously? Have a good weekend, talk to you again on Monday.Simonm223 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How slickly you avoid answering to Asdfg12345. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I don't know that I have denied that the page is biased, or argued that it's neutral. I don't mean to be the one denying or advancing anything. I'm just asking you for some non-general commentary on why this page is apparently biased. I want examples, and if there are problems, some specific ideas for how to improve. Sources would also be helpful. Wikipedia's policy on placing tags requires as much. I am looking forward to the scrutiny of a wider audience.--Asdfg12345 07:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, wikipedia requires that you respond to this. The tag will be removed, again, if the problems with the article can't be specifically identified. I am interested in improving the article, not carrying on these arguments--so please walk the walk.--Asdfg12345 21:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How to improve? Total tear-down and rewrite with strict administrative controls. Inclusion of information from experts on cults. Inclusion of information from the Chinese state to balance against the Epoch Times, Clearwisdom.org and other FLG websites. Elimination of the undue weight given to the single Montreal academic (who is likely considered expert by a reasonable definition) and to Kilgour and Matas (who are less expert than the banned-by-the-FLG cult experts). Oh and a little bit less of the poorly informed, frequently mistaken, wikilawyering from certain editors would be nice. It's ludicrous that I needed to RfC to keep a neutrality tag on such a clearly biassed article.Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I post here the opinion I posted in the NPOV/noticeboard.

Tags are legit as long as there is a perceived NPOV issue with the article and there is an ongoing discussion in the talk page or if no consensus is reached as to the resolution of the NPOV issue. It is difficult to give opinions without concrete examples but editors must be mindful not to engage in WP:TAGBOMB and follow the recommendations of WP:RESPTAG

It seems that some POV concrete examples are given in the above comment and thus to me at least the POV tag is warranted until a genuine effort by all editors concerned is done to bring the article within WP.--LexCorp (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong is a Religion

Scientology is not called a "spiritual practice" and neither should Falun Gong. It's a religion. That IS the neutral compromise between "spiritual practice" and "dangerous cult"Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong has nothing to do with Scientology. But we can have both definitions. I am mostly concerned that people would confuse it with organised religion (churches, denominations etc.) But you can find me a reliable source calling Falun Gong a 'religion', I'll find one calling it a 'spiritual practice', and we should agree. I'll settle for 'religion' for now, but you must still find a source for it if you want to keep it.

The 'illegality' of Falun Gong is explained in the fourth paragraph. First we must explain what Falun Gong is per se, and then we can briefly describe other notable things. There are guidelines for how to do this right, see Wikipedia:Lead section. But adding the words "...through the auspices of the divine intervention of Li Hongzhi..." is a textbook example of how not to edit Wikipedia. Not only are they intentionally ironic in tone, they never appear in any published source − you just made them up. Please explain yourself.

I pointed out on Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong that you seem to be here to right what you perceive as great wrongs, but I may be wrong. Could you answer:

• Are you here to edit constructively, taking all the policies and guidelines into account in everything you do?
• Are you ready to discuss each and every edit that is legitimately challenged (i.e. with policy references and explicit arguments)?
• Will you provide counterarguments, based on direct references to policy, when other editors accuse you of breaching the rules?
• Do you understand what it means to back up your edits with reliable sources, and do you acknowledge all the criteria put forth in WP:RS?

I would like to have a straightforward, unambiguous reply to these four questions. It is of vital importance to our cooperation. Thank you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I agree that the crackdown on Falun Gong should be mentioned earlier, preferably in the first chapter, if we want to adhere to WP:LEAD. It is one of the most notable issues surrounding this topic. But it has to be done after briefly explaining the essential characteristics of Falun Gong as a spiritual discipline (or religion, if you prefer). Therefore, regardless of its notability, the persecution is less important than the fact that Falun Gong has five qigong exercises and books discussing cultivation practice. Without establishing this context, everything else is out of question. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK for Falun Gong being a religion. And, honestly, Scientology is the very best analogue for the FLG that one can find. Very simmilar in structure and behaviour.

As for the "divine auspices" quote I could reference the same NY Times article that we have been doing the RfC for over in Teachings of Falun Gong that the children of interracial marriages only get salvation if Li Hongzhi intervenes. If you want I can add that quote in there... or we can leave it just mentioning that salvation only comes with intervention of Mr. Li without a specific quote. Either is fine by me.Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That should resolve your WP:OR concerns. Nicely cited from a valid source.Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer my questions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've answered every question you have asked except for those that warrant no answer but silence.Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

of course Falung Gong may be called a religion. Hell, football may be called a religion. The point is that "religion" is a term taylored for the western (strictly, Roman) and there can be lengthy debate as to what extent any of the "Far Eastern religions" can properly be called religions. With this in mind, yes, Falung Gong is a religion, but like Buddhism it may also meaningfully be described as a "spiritual practice". --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any religion with an engaged congregation could be called a "spiritual practice". Pentecostalism could certainly be called a "spiritual practice". The fact is that FLG have tried to diastance themselves from the term "religion" to avoid the easy paralels to Scientology and Raelianism that would otherwise arise. It's just PR. And Wikipedia must not be a PR point for any religious group - it is an encyclopedia and should be based in reality.Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, mister based-in-reality. Originally this difference comes from how 'religion' is understood in the Chinese context: a religion (宗教) has churches, denominations, temples, officials, and a hierarchical structure. Falun Gong does not have any of that. The Western understanding of religion is arguably quite different. In addition, Falun Gong is clearly something that's practiced through concrete efforts, not only believed in. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Falun Gong doesn't call itself a religion. But if people regard Falun Gong as a religion and wanna call it that, than i guess that's fine. But is that really what you want? Wouldn't you rather be much happier if it where labeled an "evil cult" not only by the Communist Party but also by the west? But an "evil cult" actually isn't the same as a "religion" at all. Doesn't an evil Cult exploit it's members, glorify it's leaders, make false promises to gain members and deceive the public, brainwash it's members, kill those who want to quit or think differently, practice forced labor, intimidate members with violence etc.

Anyone who really looks at Falun Gong for himself knows that it does none of that. Yet the Communist Party itself employs all of these methods and more. Many in my family died at the hands of the Communist Party and yet i am not trying to get them labeled an "evil cult" on Wikipedia. So what point is there in your trying to label Falun Gong an evil cult even though we both know that it doesn't do any of that? What would be achieved by labeling it that? At best it could only fuel the persecution. --Hoerth (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth Hoerth. I have never used the word evil to describe Falun Gong. When I did use the word cult it was preceeded by the word dangerous and was within the context of pointing out that Religion was a neutral term as opposed to that obviously POV slanted term and the equally POV slanted spiritual practice term. So next time you try to accuse somebody of labeling a religion as an evil cult you would be well advised to actually make sure they really did so. Since you FLG types insist on bringing up my personal politics I am a democratic socialist and am thus opposed to real and verifiable instances of oppression. I have been heavily critical of the Chinese state for abandoning socialist principles in favour of free market capitalism without providing democratic political reforms. I am not a bloody mouthpiece for the CCPC, so you can drop that angle right here, right now. What I am is somebody who doesn't like to see religions using Wikipedia to advance their own agenda and somebody who thinks it is harmful to lie about being oppressed to drum up popular sentiment for a controversial religion.Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like some people feel it's harmful to "lie" about the six million Jews who "supposedly" died during the Second World War? Right. You choose what you believe, Simonm223, but the hubris is your own. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time, I suppose, before you started alluding to the nazis. The differences between the FLG case and the Holocaust are so extensive that they could not be enumerated but the core is this: there is real proof that the nazis killed six million jews. There is no real proof that the People's Republic of China has systemically exterminated any number of FLG members.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is. You just don't believe it, which may reflect on some underlying issues, as you also failed to read and comprehend the article you were linking to. End of discussion. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? In the extreme case, let me allude to this. Somebody decides to overthrow the Chinese government over the Falun Gong issue. In the process, untold millions die in the carnage. In the end, it is proven that no or very little Falun Gong persecutions actually take place. Who will go to the International Criminal Court? J'accuse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that anything like this is going to happen or that is even likely to happen. So then what you are actually doing here is the spreading of FUD Fear, uncertainty and doubt. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, please start by getting familiar with Wikipedia spirit and policies, here is a good place to start Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, you fall victim to passion again. If you use reason, you can probably understand the issue more. If there is or was really a genocide going on against Falun Gong, it would be natural that more and more witnesses will come out from China testifying of the crimes simply because there are more people living there. But as days go by, the only tangible witnesses come from outside of China. To the contrary, the number of people saying the opposite of what the Falun Gong has been claiming is actually growing. You don't see the same momentum going on with the Falun Gong group though. In the years before Holocaust concentration camps were discovered in 1945, the amount of evidence claiming the same is happening were much larger and ever growing. Consider that war is going on in the early 1940's and very few travelers can freely travel between Nazi Germany and the Allied world, while comparing the same with modern China and the West, one can feel that if something so great and horrible is happening, then there must be a SOLID evidence testifying of it. After all, before the ban, Falun Gong practitioners were limited to rural and undeveloped areas. They are all over the cities. How can such a great amount of evidence suddenly disappear? I have been to the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C. and heard tales of the abhorrent and unimaginable things that are backed up by evidence. A people slaughtered like animals, a culture completely gone, and this is about six million individual stories. Olaf, I understand your horror at the question, "What if I do nothing when a genocide is going on?" But, as a man of reason, will you feel the same thing with dread, "What if I do this thing for lies and propaganda?" Very possibly, a war may break out, and many more people are going to perish, this being a nuclear age. The entire Chinese civilization is at stake here. Will you not feel the same dread that you felt for the Jewish people? With much evidence I collected, I can roughly form this picture in my mind: Most Falun Gong practitioners in China were probably driven underground, with some totally giving up the practise. Their situation is not unlike what happened to the underground Christians in China. They were indeed oppressed, or you may say they "disappeared", but it is unimaginable for you to compare this with the situation of the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that I can not produce a mirror that when it reflects a person, reflects not his shadow, but his faith and truthfulness. But I can responsibly tell you that neither the CCP nor the FLG actually tell you the truth. The only truth that you can get is when you visit China and see for yourself. Are you ready for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are really just unclear about the facts, I can recommend you to watch the documentary series made by NTDTV, http://www.adecadeofcourage.com/. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

99.244.152.119, let me tell you that I know dozens of Falun Gong practitioners who have been imprisoned and tortured in labor camps. Many of them are my friends. What they've told about their treatment in China is very consistent, and some of them still have scars on their bodies. Direct comparisons with the Holocaust may not be appropriate in the sense that millions of Falun Gong practitioners haven't been killed. But the severity of this persecution and some of the criminal acts are part of the same continuum – the unimaginable totalitarian nightmare, the Fundamental Issue of the 20th century.

An older Chinese lady, a Falun Gong practitioner, who used to work as a plant manager in a large oil refinery before 1999, was granted a UN asylum in my home country. Before she managed to escape China about four years ago, she had been arrested nine times. More than 20 different methods of torture had been applied to her; she was tortured to the brink of death four times; once she was bound into a bed for 58 consecutive days and became partially disabled (though she later recovered through Falun Gong practice). Her sister died in the persecution. Another friend of mine was kept for two months in a small, windowless cubicle of less than two square meters. She was also beaten up and tortured with electricity. Some of my friends haven't seen their relatives in years, nor do they know their whereabouts. The wife of a friend of mine was sentenced to a labor camp for an indefinite number of years because of driving a truck loaded with leaflets describing the persecution. You don't seem to understand; we know this is happening and will not be stopped by people who fail to discern the facts from the fiction. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

Mediation assistance was requested with the general Falun Gong topic area (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-15/Falun Gong). I understand that this can be a complex topic area with a heated editing environment. I have looked over the history of this article and its talk page, as well as those of several related articles. I am generally familiar with Chinese religious and cultural traditions. I have experience with several religious and cultural mediations. I formerly served on MedCom and as a coordinator for MedCab. I believe with my experience, and after looking over matters, that I will be able to help the editors here reach some agreement.

Just to address it upfront, while I am an arbitrator, that role plays no part in my participation here. I am here to help purely as an informal mediator. On a similar note, I will not take any direct administrative actions on this article or its editors, except to use article protection in case of edit warring or heavy vandalism. So please, do not ask me to block or otherwise sanction any editor to this article. I will post conduct reminders or ask an uninvolved administrator to review the situation if things start devolving too much.

Mediation is purely voluntary. On that point, we will need to forge some agreement on the basics before moving forward. First, those participating need to indicate whether they accept me as a mediator. Second, we need agreement on some basic behavior points:

• No personal attacks, insults, or otherwise rude comments. Intelligent and respectful conversation is impossible with such negative commentary.
• No accusations of ulterior motives, extreme points of view, or so forth. Guessing about motives and questioning the basic honor of editors only results in a poisonous editing atmosphere.
• Stick to the bold/revert/discuss model. If an edit is reverted, take it to the talk page. Do not revert back and trigger an edit war.

Third, we need to agree to stay focused on the content and reliable sources. A major portion of my presence here will be keeping the discussion focused in this direction, with an eye towards improving the article and developing consensus on how to handle some disputed issues.

So, do the editors here agree to accept my assistance as a mediator, follow the basic behavior ground rules, and focus on developing the article according to the most reliable sources? Any additional comments, questions, or concerns? Let's not jump into describing the disagreements and article issues quite yet. Please just indicate if you agree with these three points and ask any related questions. --Vassyana (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You sound like a reasonable and experienced mediator, Vassyana, and I agree with your demands on the editors. Let me thank you in advance for your time and efforts. Welcome. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the points you listed are very reasonable, and now I see that the point you mentioned in the second bullet might have been broken by me here [38]. At this point I think you are perfectly right and we need to concentrate on "Third, we need to agree to stay focused on the content and reliable sources.". So, Welcome! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree to the mediator. Colipon+(T) 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Same here, I agree to the mediator.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to agree as well, the entire topic needs Mediation. I apologize for my accusations against User:HappyInGeneral, made previously. I would like to point out, however, an attempt by User:Olaf Stephanos to discredit me with how new my account is. Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If it helps any I see Irbisgreif as a user familiar with Wikipedia policies, so I would not brand him/her as new contributor to Wikipedia, only the account. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against new editors; but writing "Fulan Gong" into the official rename proposal means you didn't even have time to proofread what you wrote, and it conveyed an impression of hastiness and overexcitement. When combined with the fact that your account is very recently created, it aroused some concerns in my mind. As HappyInGeneral said, it seems you are familiar with Wikipedia policies, so I apologise for my premature judgment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. For the mediator, I consider that issue closed and needing no further worry. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome Vassyana's mediation. I think it will be salutary while he is around. But I am pessimistic about his long-term effect on the article. Historically, the influences on the article that I consider harmful have taken the form of an continual pressure for change in a certain direction. And the moment Vassyana departs, that pressure will in all likelihood resume its unbridled action. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence there. If you hadn't noticed, a few other editors, me included, are hopefully going to try to do something with this material, and I'm hoping at least one of us, probably including me, hangs around a bit thereafter as well. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"I'm hoping at least one of us, probably including me, hangs around a bit thereafter as well." => Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

List of current issues

Firstly, I thank you for choosing to mediate one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. Secondly, I agree with your policies and guidelines as listed above. Now I will raise my concerns:

• Undue weight: beyond the body of what is ostensibly a well-sourced and well-written article, lies serious undue weight. The alleged persecution of Falun Gong in China, for example, is an important issue, but it is being given undue weight.
• Neutrality: The article may appear like it is written in a neutral tone, but many pro-FLG editors have abandoned the basic spirit of neutrality and have only made the article sound neutral. This practice must end.
• Criticism of Falun Gong: A "criticism" or "controversy" section must be part of this article. To any objective person FLG is a controversial movement. Whether it is a religion, a spiritual movement, or just a harmless qigong group, it has generated significant controversy. A browse through these archives, and it will be apparent what the controversy surrounds. While many people agree it is morally not justifiable for the Chinese government to have "banned" Falun Gong and persecuted practitioners, many reputable sources (NYT, IHT, Time, SCMP) have also acknowledged Falun Gong manipulating the persecution, "prey on the naivete and lack of knowledge by Western governments and individuals", to serve what looks like Falun Gong's own propaganda campaign to further their "agenda". There is undoubtedly enough controversy about FLG to warrant an article all by itself (users have previously attempted this at "Third party views of Falun Gong" - now "Academic views on Falun Gong" but criticism there has also been gradually silenced - see the article's history).
  • The idea here is that the article makes it look like the Communist Party are the only ones who have ever criticized Falun Gong, and that they are only doing so to serve the purposes of the "persecution". This is the crux of the issue: that this is not just a FLG vs. Communists propaganda war. Many third parties have been critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Nature of Li Hongzhi: He is also a controversial figure. There's really little discussion here.
  • There are rather strongly enforced wikipeida policies when it comes to BLP. Even as regards talk page comments. "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." The material presented must be directly related to the individual's notability. Here is the Britannica Encyclopaedia article on the subject: [39]. The person is also the recipient of several hundred awards world-over. Britannica touches upon the recognition received in US. The wikipedia article, in fact, does not even cover a tip of the recognition and awards the Individual has received from various governments and international bodies. -- :Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've found a brief article from TIME magazine here. It gives a general picture of the ridiculous things Li Hongzhi claims. More importantly, it also shows that FLG could be but is not neccesarily a cult (50/50% in terms of criteria). I have added it as a external link.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed before, numerous times. This article, in fact. This is a classic example of where pro-FLG editors allege that TIME is a "unreliable source" when they are critical of FLG. Colipon+(T) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am yet to see a single editor claim TIME is not a reliable source. But certainly, as Wikipedia requires us to, we might need to give academic and scholarly sources a higher priority. And things presented, in BLPs, Wikipedia requires us, should directly be related to the Individuals' notability. Please see my comment below.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reliable sources: what is a reliable source? If CCP publications and Chinese government-sponsored media be branded as "pure propaganda" and unreliable, does the same apply for Falun Gong-related websites? Do Minghui, Falundafa.net, Epoch Times etc. serve as reliable sources when it is clear they are owned and operated by Falun Gong practitioners? Can one source be considered reliable when it is praising Falun Gong, but unreliable when criticizing it? The trend here has been that every source, no matter reputation, if critical of Falun Gong, has been derided as "unreliable". Rick Ross, for example (see debate above), has been quoted many times in many other controversial articles, but it doesn't make the cut here, according to several pro-FLG editors.
• Political nature of Falun Gong: Persecution or not, Falun Gong is clearly politically-oriented. The Chinese article (written mostly by Taiwan and HK editors) points out that although initially Falun Gong appeared to have no political allegiance or beliefs, it is apparent that contemporary Falun Gong groups outside of Mainland China have become "unmistakably involved in politics", particularly in their dogmatic opposition to the Communist Party of China. In fact, Falun Gong appears to be the most effective overseas anti-CCP force to have ever emerged. These points get no mention in the English Wikipedia article due to claims by FLG practitioners that Falun Gong was "never political".
• "Wikilawyering": I have pointed out before that a few pro-FLG editors engage in acts of Wikilawyering. Pro-FLG editors often invoke Wikipedia principles and policies when they remove well-sourced content critical of FLG. Although they have denied this, I urge the mediator to go and read some of the past discussion to judge for him/herself whether or not this has taken place.

I will not engage in any kind of unproductive debate by pro-FLG editors that attempt to deny that these issues exist, or that I am looking at this from the "wrong angle", or any other type of argumentation for the sake of argument to stall actual edits. Again, I welcome the mediator to this discussion. Colipon+(T) 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I 100% concur with Colipon. Most of the FLG articles need to checked/reviewed for NPOV. --Edward130603 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, you will notice that on this talk page alone, there has been four editors (myself included) from very different backgrounds who have written of the article as being "hopeless" under three separate headings. ("This article is hopeless", "2 cents from a reader" and "comprehensive look".) In fact, almost in every heading we see some kind of dispute about the neutrality of the article, and almost all seem to be concerns in good faith. The extent of discussion on these talk pages is a sober reminder of just how big a problem this article has become.

I will also add another issue to the ones that I have already raised above:

• Chinese government ban: As user:BTfromLA explained above, the reason and motives for the Chinese gov't to ban Falun Gong are never explained. Surely, the Chinese gov't are not saints when it comes to human rights, but what was their rationale for banning the practice? Doesn't it at least deserve some mention? Shouldn't it be explained? Colipon+(T) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ensuing Discussion

Colipon, when did any editor say TIME is not a good source? Of course, editors could have pointed out that academic studies must be given a higher priority. As regarding the facts of the persecution - the authoritative bodies: Amnesty International, HRW etc ( and all major governments and human rights organizations, according to David Ownby) make the reasons clear. I am not sure what you imply by "involved in politics." Is it that practitioners have exposed the persecution that makes them "political?" Anyway, if there are 3rd party, reliable sources, vetted by the academic community and their claims are not superseded by latest scholarship, then certainly it merits inclusion - the Falun Gong outside of China Page should be right place to present the material. Am yet to see an academic study make such a claim though. I think these pages mention how the Nine Commentaries were made by Epoch Times, has resulted in around 50 million quitting the CCP, etc. Whether that makes Epoch Times "politicized" is a subjective thing. We present the facts. If you can find academic sources making such claims ( am yet to see, and, in fact, whatever scholarship I have come across tells the straight opposite. Falun Dafa is best understood as traditional qi gong cultivation practice according to almost all academic sources - Ownby, Schechter, Penny, etc. )

As for the "why" behind CCP's murder and killing of innocents, including women, elderly and children - it is covered by scholarly and human rights sources and is covered in the article(s). Details of the mechanics which drives the persecution is also covered, all highly sourced. In the main article, the statement the chinese communist party issues as its "rationale" for persecuting Falun Gong is presented in block quotes:[40]. If you ask me, thats overkill. We need to stick strictly to quality sources, on a topic like this. I quite dont understand from your concern that it deserves "at least some mention" stems.

Falun Dafa related website are only used sparingly in these articles, as far as I see. And they certainly merit inclusion as primary sources - when the perspective presented doesn't conflict with mainstream academic perspectives on the topic. Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 50 million quitting the quitting the CCP is the most blatant lie from FLG ever. The only sites to report that are pro-FLG sites. Since the FLG ban in China, FLG has directed just about all of its efforts into spreading lies about China. Plus, over 1,000 practitioners died because they followed Li's "teachings" and refused to seek medical treatment for their illnesses. Is that just propaganda from the Communist party or should the FLG practitioners actually refuse treatment? After all, Li Hongzhi says that the mankind has been destroyed 81 times, that the earth is about to explode very soon, and that he is the only one to rely on to prevent the explosion.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is from Times:

Li's rambling dissertation, Zhuan Falun, has only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes "humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere"�extraterrestrials are everywhere, too�and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly.

--Edward130603 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This might come as a shock to you but see here: Natural nuclear fission reactor. And about the rest, well if it's written in Zhuan Falun you can quote that directly, correct? As a side note: if you want to make Albert Einstein with it's Special relativity look wacky, I think that is also possible, at the extent that you can phrase it wacky. But still if placed in the proper context it becomes a scientific theory, well some say (me for example, but I think Ethan Guttman also said it, just need to find the source for it) that the same is true for Zhuan Falun. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that that was quite surprising. As for the rest of what you said, could you be more specific. Albert Einstein's theories may seem wacky because of the little information we know on that topic. However, I'm sure that Li Hongzhi being able to fly is just nonsense. No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wander if there is any point in discussing your opinion that "No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.", because Wikipedia is not about your opinion or my opinion, it's about WP:RS and WP:V and not WP:SOAP. But here we go. Li Hongzhi did not say anywhere that he can fly, you can look up all of the books. CCP said that Li Hongzhi said that he can fly. That is the correct attribution. Regarding levitation, Li Hongzhi presented a theory explaining the mechanics of levitation. He also explained why people can not see anyone flying and why is the whole human race in illusion. And in the spiritual/religious/qigong/meditation community this is not something wacky. In their eyes as I often times heard is something experienced first hand. So if they could experience this first hand in a consistent/repeatable manner, doesn't this make levitation a reality, even a scientific reality in their eyes? See definition of Science: "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also the way TIME magzazine puts it. And no, I don't write for Time so it is not what I said, nor is it what your opinion is. It meets WP:RS and WP:V. Of course, this article shouldn't be a soapbox. It shouldn't be the battleground where FLG propaganda is, apparently, dominating. I checked out Zhuan Falun myself today. It wasn't as the CCP put it to be, but it does mention flying. It says that if you release all the locks in your body, you will be able to fly and levitate. People don't show it to other people because they can't levitate, but Zhuan says that it is because others need cultivation. --Edward130603 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if just by accident you misunderstood me, I meant that WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOAP fails your statement of "No, I didn't make it look wacky, his statements are wacky.". I never said that about the Time magazine article, that is a separate discussion as I see Olaf has addressed it bellow. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because these issues are the laughing stock for (pseudo)skeptics worldwide, that doesn't warrant undue weight in a Wikipedia article. But not mentioning them at all wouldn't conform to WP:NPOV. Time Magazine meets WP:RS and WP:V; yet again, "the choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources." If secondary sources rephrase primary sources incorrectly, we should report this discrepancy.

I'll take a brief step into WP:SOAP by saying this: it seems rather unfair how Falun Gong is blamed for every supernatural claim that was ever made in qigong. There were so many "qigong masters" in China who openly boasted with their gongfu, encouraging their followers to pursue these abilities, and so forth. In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi was addressing an already existing discourse that had been embraced by extremely large numbers of Chinese. The failure to acknowledge this historical context, as well as the portrayal of Li Hongzhi as some random guy out of nowhere who came to subvert reason and state power, is preposterous to anyone who knows what was really going on in Chinese society. Unfortunately, historical revisionism and even negationism are an essential part of any totalitarian ideology; history must be reinterpreted to suit the needs of the ruling class. A large part of the more "outlandish" claims made by Li Hongzhi have been made by others before him; these include the natural nuclear fission reactor in Gabon, the existence of aliens, levitation, prehistoric civilisations, plants with emotions (they actually tested this on Mythbusters in 2006 and got similar results with a polygraph [41]), and so forth. It's just that a lot of this stuff is considered pseudoscience, and there's an organised opposition to these ideas. I'm not going to start an argument about how supporting evidence is systematically rejected – people hold strong opinions about this, and we're talking Falun Gong and WP:RS instead of debating the structure of scientific revolutions. This is just something I wanted to point out. Compared to some other 'masters' in China, Li Hongzhi was quite moderate in his claims, and always emphasised that becoming a kindhearted person while living a normal life in society is the only thing that matters. If you read through Zhuan Falun, you'll know what I mean. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually undue weight here that's the issue. It's that skeptics are not being given any weight. Again, the only phrase in the entire article that is slightly critical of FLG is Maragret Singer derided Falun Gong as a "cult", with cult being placed in quotations, without any explanations as to why, and with a paragraph after it extensively refuting Singer. Just look at that section. It's extremely obvious POV-pushing. Colipon+(T) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea that Falun Gong is a 'cult' just doesn't seem plausible to academics, so why should we claim otherwise? What reliable sources are you suggesting? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit telltale to any ordinary reader that even though there is "no academic evidence" suggesting FLG is a cult, that an entire paragraph is spent defending the fact that it's not a cult. Clearly there is a debate. Margaret Singer's theory should be explained in its own right. Colipon+(T) 15:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you could provide diffs or chapter links, so at least we are all on the same page, and know exactly what the 2 of you are talking about. Thank you! PS: I'll be leaving for a couple of days shortly. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you refer to this edit, but still please confirm. Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Earth is abould to explode very soon?!!! lolss.. not worth commenting.. but still.. several academics, including Ownby, make it very clear that there is no doomsday stuff in Falun Dafa.. though it is mentioned a period of renewal will be there..the teachings explicitly say prophesies of major catastrophies etc. are true.. and as for cycles of civilization mentioned ,in passing, in the lectures.. its part of every tradition.. Hindu( read this article:Yugas .. and thats what every Indian believed/understood, for thousands of years, till Darwinism and Western education became mainstream.. now are you gonna say every Indian who believes there might be substance to his traditions need to be persecuted to death?.. or till he recants his beliefs? ) , Buddhist, South American, Jain..

An increasing number of scientists are starting to hold the same view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wox3SfzBA8. And the discovery of what are labelled "out of place artifacts"[42][43] have lead many scientists to hypothesize a model involving cycles of civilizations. Why? You'll accept things only when they are 100% in-conformity what your school teachers taught? And it becomes a "sin" to even discuss anything not in conformity with the school-text-theories framework? Perhaps, it is so in CCP's rule. Not here.

We don't need hackneyed communist propaganda on our discussions.. do we? This is an encyclopedia, not CCP's propaganda ground. And it really serves no purpose. And it is not gonna fool anyone outside of mainland China, where media is censored and people are forced to swallow whatever the state controlled media says.

Regarding the 50 million statistic.. I meant: according to Epoch Times.. Well, there is no reason for many to suspect the numbers... Since all signatures and names are made available online. Anyway, someone claimed in a post above something like the Nine Commentaries by the Epoch Times and its powerful impact on exposing CPP's real nature has not been covered, or at least I thought thats what he meant when said he said "political...". As far as I can see, its an award winning editorial series, very well researched, well structured and well written. Personally, I really dont know what would make it any more "political" than another study on CCP. Anyways, isn't this stuff related to the Epoch Times page? Am for even having a separate article on The Nine Commentaries - certainly meets WP:N.

Cities throughout US and Canada Honor Falun Dafa for the benefits it has brought to the society practitioners live in. Over 900 awards and proclamations have been issued in the US alone.

Regarding medicine. You may want to look into this study, published in a leading peer reviewed journal in the field - The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine published by Mary Ann Liebert and the official journal of The International Society for Complementary Medicine Research .

The changes in gene expression of FLG practitioners in contrast to normal healthy controls were characterized by enhanced immunity, downregulation of cellular metabolism, and alteration of apoptotic genes in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation. The lifespan of normal neutrophils was prolonged, while the inflammatory neutrophils displayed accelerated cell death in FLG practitioners as determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Correlating with enhanced immunity reflected by microarray data, neutrophil phagocytosis was significantly increased in Qigong practitioners. Some of the altered genes observed by microarray were confirmed by RPA.[44][45]

Among 12000 genes tested in the Affymetrix chip, about 200 genes were consistently altered in the FLG practitioners, and we have discussed some of the changed genes...[46]

Ribosomal proteins are very important components of protein synthesis. Downregulation of 10 out of 11 genes for ribosomal proteins suggests that protein synthesis might also be lowered. Ribosomes are the molecular machines that manufacture proteins (Maguire et al., 2001). Downregulation of both genes for ribosomal proteins and genes for protein degradation may lead to reduced protein turnover. In correlation with downregulation of protein degradation and synthesis, the genes coding for proteins involved in DNA repair, cellular stress, and antioxidant enzymes are also lowered (Fig. 3C). Decreases of those stress-associated key enzymes, along with other stress-responsive genes, may implicate limited oxidative production and macromolecular damage...[47]

( Also could someone please add the above material , summarized, to the article? If no one else does it, I'll be doing it - later today or tommorrow. This piece of research certainly merits mention. )

And also you find this article, written by an MD, an interesting read: http://www.pureinsight.org/node/154

Btw, these - straight out of CCP's propaganda sheet- claims you make above are things have been repeatedly proved baseless by independent researchers, human rights organizations, journalists and scholars. Raised only by editors who have since been banned. Even judging by common sense, 1000 people out of 70 million ( China's own statistic, according to the New York Times, as well as academic sources) in a 8 year period.. with a significant portion of practitioners being the elderly would imply a death rate manifolds lower than in the most developed of nations. In fact, it is plain to see that the Chinese Government itself was promoting Falun Dafa. For instance, the first Lecture outside China was upon direct invitation of the Chinese embassy in France. In American Universities, Falun Gong was introduced through embassy channels. And several awards were given by state qi gong orgaizations ( ref: ownby). Pre-persecution state sponsored research in China concluded Falun Dafa saved hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of health care costs etc., each year and, further, profoundly improved the health and productivity of practitioners.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do a bit of mathematics, sourced with reliable statistics, to substantiate Dilip or Edwards claims. Actually I always wanted to do this computation, but never got around it, the result actually surprised me. Here are the facts: Based on this figure [48] death rate in China multiplied with the number of practitioners 70 millions over 8 years would have mean a total of about 3.9 million dead people. Now out of those 3.9 million, well about 1 thousand actually died. Hmm, if you ask me it means that Falun Gong just saved around 3.9 million peoples lives in China and yet the communist party was so desperate in finding faults on Falun Gong that it used this figure. Now of course there is the problem that in China these figures might not be publicized, only the state party propaganda makes it to the press, Internet, Radio, TV etc. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must admit multiplying with 8 might be a bit exaggerated, because the 70 to 100 million practitioners figure (according to the Chinese Communist source) was made in 1998, and it was not stated that is a constant/average number from 1992 to 1999. So let's get it minimal and let's compute the death rate for 70 million people in 1 year [49], that is 489 thousand, which statistically speaking compared to the 1 thousand mentioned it's still quite good (miracle?). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "over 1000" statistic is from those that refused medical treatment in the case where it is needed.

• According to Zhuan Falun, "no medical help is needed" for practitioners is an important part of the teachings.
• According to China Falun Gong "Taking medicine while practicing Falun Gong means not believing that Falun Gong is able to cure illness. If you believe, why do you need to take medicine?"
• According to Zhuan Falun, "One of our students went to the hospital and had several syringe needles bend on him, ... but the needle still couldn't go in. Then he caught on, 'Wait, I'm a cultivator! I don't want any more injections.'"
• According to Sickness Karma, "Once ill, the person takes medicine or seeks various kinds of treatments, which in effect press the sickness back into the body again."

Here are a few examples of the deaths:

• Zhang Jinsheng aged 21 in Liaoning Province burnt his arm incautiously. But he refused medical treatment because he thought this was his master was eliminating karma for him. Consequently, he died of septemia in November 1998 caused by the wound infection.
• Li Qiaoying (58 years old) felt sick in October 1998. But she refused to be treated at hospital and died of cerebral thrombosis in December of that year. Two days before her death, she was suffering from paralysis and lost the ability of talking. Her husband said to her, "It is Falun Gong that has brought us misfortune. If cured earlier at hospital, you would have been saved." Li kept nodding her head but too late to repent.
• Falun Gong practitioner Hu Guangying, a retired worker in Shanghai aged 59, caught an ordinary dermatosis in January 2001, but she resolutely refused to accept medical treatment, and finally died caused by purulent infection on the affected part.

There are many more, although I don't think I need to go on.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases of these - unfortunately because the Chinese government has launched a propaganda war against Falun Gong, it is very easy to FLG practitioners to just label everything here as "CCP propaganda", regardless of whether or not the above cases are true. If nothing else, FLG is extremely sensitive to outside criticism. That's why we saw the first protests in Zhongnanhai, that's why they started their own PR campaign, and that's why we are now having issues with this very article. Colipon+(T) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One simple reason that allows for this to be dismissed as CCP propaganda is that these cases can not be checked independently. The Party does not allow it + this documentary shows the extent the Party goes with the lies and theatrics to deceitfully incriminate Falun Gong. See stages of genocide step 5 Polarization. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One other reason is that most of the quotes used above are taken out of context or simply do not exist in the Falun Gong teachings, see here: "Taking medicine while practicing Falun Gong means not believing that Falun Gong is able to cure illness. If you believe, why do you need to take medicine?". This quote is taken directly from the CCP propaganda machine. When quoting please always attribute it to the correct source, see WP:A. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that is exactly where I found it. However, that doesn't mean it is false. By the way, it was originally in a book Li Hongzhi wrote: China Falun Gong.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You do need to attribute your source, if CCP said it, then the CCP said it. If it's really in China Falun Gong, you need to quote it correctly from there. I saw for example a documentary how the CCP changed the video cut one word from "the world is not going to end" to "the world is going to end" then heavily promoted this footage claiming that Falun Gong is a doomsday cult, while they cut the Chinese nations access to the original/genuine Falun Gong materials. So please don't rely on the fact that you think it was in China Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it as I was browsing through Falun Dafa's online version of Zhuan Falun:

We have a practitioner who broke a few needles at a hospital. In the end, the liquid medicine squirted out, and the needle still would not penetrate. He came to understand: "Oh, I’m a practitioner, and I shouldn’t have injections." He just realized that he should not have an injection.

See...A few sentences afterwards, Li Hongzhi says that he doesn't allow his practitioners to go the hospital. You can find it at about 70% down the page on [50].--Edward130603 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you what I think about the discussion above:

• To test the validity of the "Quit CCP" campaign, I decided to see if I could "quit the CCP" myself on their website. To date I have quit the CCP three times. During these three times, I claimed to represent 65 people in total. Once I even used the pseudonym "Zhou Enlai", thinking the Epoch Times might catch on that I am not being serious. But a day later I found my "quit party testimonial" on their website. The "Quit CCP" thing is a joke, and everyone knows it. At its current rates over 80 million CCP members would "quit" by 2010. This also means that since the beginning of their campaign, 75% of the CCP have already quit. Doesn't look like it to me.
• Dilip responded to my contention that Li Hongzhi is a controversial figure with a note to Britannica. Here is what Britannica says about Falun Gong:

[...]On a more esoteric level, Li also teaches that demonic space aliens seek to destroy humanity and, since their arrival in 1900, have manipulated scientists and world leaders. Critics of the movement not only ridicule such claims but regard its reliance on Xiu Lian as an alternative to official medicine as hazardous to the members’ health. Indeed, the Chinese government claims that 1,400

Falun Gong devotees have died as a result of this alleged rejection of modern medicine.

Curiously, the same content has never made it onto Wikipedia.

• In response to the "research" above, it's an attempt to stall edits again, not to mention your math is quite plainly wrong, and is very clearly WP:OR.
• Need mediator here now. We're straying again. Constantly debating the same things is useless and unproductive. Colipon+(T) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Math is "plainly wrong?" Why May I ask? And OR? It is talk page discussion! Then, dont you think what you end above with "Doesn't look like it to me"... is OR?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is plainly wrong? I have graduated Computer Science, and for computation I did use a "computational knowledge engine", made by the creators of Mathematica. So please Vassyana can you please confirm that the the mathematics used above [51] is correct? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

About: "To test the validity of the "Quit CCP"", a campaign like this is at the moment the single best way in which you can quit the party and not loose your income, freedom or perhaps even life. The potential number for the Quit the CCP campaign is 1.3 billion because it includes even those who took an oath in school to be little red guards. Anyway the fact that you did quit post many times there, well that is just wrong. Let me put it this way, given the conditions do you know a safer/better way to, at least in principle, Quit the Party? One more thing the whole story about you quitting the party is WP:OR. Also please be reminded that Wikipedia is not a SOAP box WP:NOTSOAP, please keep to WP:RS and WP:V + refrain from using FUD. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really quite impressed how much Wikipedia policy you can pull into one small discussion about the validity of the Epoch Times Quit CCP program. The entire Epoch Times "Quit Party" campaign is clearly a fraud. If I can quit the CCP three times on behalf of 65 people, the next guy can do it ten times and represent 10,000 people. Honestly, even in Taiwan and HK they see the whole thing as a joke. Colipon+(T) 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Happyingeneraly, pulling all that WP policy still doesn't make the Quit CCP campaign reliable, at all. Anyone can go on there and pretend to quit CCP. I could even if I don't have any affiliation with CCP. It's about the same as asking everyone online to leave a signature and join me on my mission to reach Pluto by December of the next year...okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I could debate extensively with you, but that would be useless because we are on wikipedia. What is relevant is exactly, what you are impressed about: "I'm really quite impressed how much Wikipedia policy you can pull into one small discussion". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, you may want to read the Archives of discussion.

This is the article from Encyclopædia Britannica Online(2009): http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/338603/Li-Hongzhi

In July 1999 Li Hongzhi became known to the world when the Chinese government condemned the practice of his Falun Dafa system, a cultivation of five meditation exercises (known as Falun Gong) that were based on ancient Chinese methods of spiritual healing and enlightenment. Li and his system came under attack on April 25, when more than 10,000 followers protested against being called a “superstitious cult” by the Chinese government. Li, allegedly unaware of the ensuing events, left China just one day before the protest, traveling to Australia for a presentation. He did not return. Three months later, Chinese Pres. Jiang Zemin declared the practitioners of Falun Gong a threat to the government and issued a warrant for Li’s arrest while detaining thousands of his followers, some of whom were officials for the Chinese Communist regime. Millions of Li’s books and cassette tapes were destroyed in the crackdown.

Li was born into an intellectual family on July 7, 1952, in Jilin province, China. He studied under masters from the Buddhist and Taoist faiths. With the surge in China in the late 1980s of Qiqong-related activities—from which many Falun Gong exercises descended—Li decided to synthesize his techniques in order to establish a synergy between the mind and nature. He compiled many of his lectures into a book entitled Zhuan Falun, which served as the main text for his methodology. In it, he called for spiritual enlightenment through meditation and the striving toward a high moral standard of living. Falun Gong became popular in the 1990s largely because many followers claimed to be healed from diseases that traditional medicine could not treat. By the end of 1999 Li estimated there to be around 100 million Falun Gong practitioners throughout the world. Zhuan Falun had been translated into nine different languages.

Shortly after publishing Zhuan Falun, Li announced that he had completed his teachings in China. He began to travel extensively, making guest appearances at conferences in support of his techniques. Li became a U.S. citizen in 1997 and moved to New York City in 1998. He called for dialogue with the Chinese government to resolve the crisis that had resulted from the use of his system. His teachings continued to be relayed in books and on audiotapes throughout the world, and such cities as Chicago, Toronto, and Houston, Texas, had honoured him by proclaiming “Master Li Hongzhi” days in recognition of the positive contributions of Falun Dafa.

DeAudray Brown

The article on Falun gong in the encyclopaedia is extremely dated. Not a single reference going beyond 1999/2000 - when CCP was the only available source on the topic to many in the west and no third party research was available. This has since been superseded by latest academic research - Refer, for instance, David Ownby's 2008 research. Even the 2002 World Book Encyclopaedia article is entirely positive.

In a topic like this, a field of active academic research, and where more information is available almost daily, latest scholarship, vetted by the academic community, certainly deserves more merit than 10 year old articles. See earlier discussions. Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Every one of these topics have been debated ad nauseum on the 24 archives of this talk page. Can we just refrain from writing things and await the mediator?Colipon+(T) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the mathematics presented above [52], which although it's very simple and straight forward, you state is "quite plainly wrong, and is very clearly WP:OR", is new :-) But I do agree that everything was discussed before, and it's best to keep to WP:RS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Singer

As a side discussion from above, why is it that Margaret Singer's labeling of Falun Gong being a "cult" not explained at all? She mentions in her book that "cult" is not even meant to be a pejorative term, merely descriptive. I find it interesting that the fact that she believes FLG is a cult is presented, and then not described at all. Why does she think so? If she thinks so, there must be a reason, right? Why isn't the reason presented at all? She is clearly a very reputable source who has published in many peer-reviewed journals. She even wrote a book (See here on Amazon) called "Cults in Our Midst" that details some of what she considers "cult characteristics" of Falun Gong. She has also published a well-referenced journal article here. I'm sure this has probably been discussed before. But why isn't this part of the article at all? Colipon+(T) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. At the moment, her comment isn't explained. It is given a short sentence and is overshadowed by all of the pro-FLG statements.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it in context. David Ownby - the professor at the University of Montreal, has his name all over every article that deals with Falun Gong. But Margaret Singer, who is equally if not more qualified from UCLA, and renowned for her cult studies works, was given one line. Both scholars ostensibly do not want to promote any agenda, CCP or FLG. But one somehow goes on to appear much, much more than the other. It doesn't take much to see that there is very obvious POV tampering. Colipon+(T) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit on "Reception" section

I have made this edit on the "reception" section: [53]. This is the first edit I have made on the page for ages. Please discuss first if there is any plans to revert. Colipon+(T) 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Falun Gong has garnered diverse public attention on several occasions." Although I will not change this statement for fear of reverts, to me it is clearly just a way to avoid saying "Falun Gong has generated public controversy". Colipon+(T) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Colipon, I changed to "Falun Gong also was also critiqued on several occasions." and reordered the paragraphs, see here: [54], because this way it starts with the scholarly reception which should be the most NPOV. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zhuan Falun

Earlier in the discussion, User:Bdentremont pointed out direct primary source Zhuan Falun.

He stated:

Why do we need reliable secondary sources regarding beliefs of Falun Gong when primary sources are readily available?[...]

He then gives the following pages for reference:

• Prehistoric nuclear reactor - Zhuan Falun, pg 10 (pdf pg 15)
• The 81 cycles of civilization- Zhuan Falun, pg 11 (pdf pg 16)
• Spinning Law Wheel in the lower abdomen, Zhuan Falun, pg 21 (pdf pg 26)
• The Third (Celestial) Eye - Zhuan Falun, pg 24 (pdf pg 29)
• Degradation of human society and recent development of homosexuality - Zhuan Falun, pg 181 (pdf pg 186)
• The "Dharma-ending period" and loss of morals - Teachings of Li Hongzhi at the Zhuan Falun Publication Ceremony, Beijing, January 4, 1995, pg 2.

He goes on to point out "To reiterate, these are from the authorized English translations FG's fundamental literature. Some, particularly the "Law Wheel" and Third Eye appear to be very important to the FG belief system." and that "I think that most readers would consider inconsistency with mainstream western science to be an important aspect of FG, and thus worthy of inclusion in the article. Obviously, many would consider this inconsistency to reflect negatively on FG, which is why FG promotional materials highlight less controversial aspects such as the exercises. Having read both the translation of Zhuan Falun and some FG promotional materials, my opinion is that that the current article follows the promotional materials too closely approaching something of propaganda piece..

This is a very well-argued concern in good faith from what looks like a very neutral-minded editor. We have yet to receive a response to this. Colipon+(T) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

These issues belong into the article Teachings of Falun Gong. They can be nicely added alongside the larger context provided by the secondary sources. But their relative weight in the teachings must be taken into account: deliberate cherry-picking of anything that sounds or smells controversial is not the point. While some things, such as the spinning Law Wheel, celestial eye and the moral degradation of entire humankind can be easily perceived as major issues in Li Hongzhi's talks, things like "recent development of homosexuality" (an original interpretation), the prehistoric nuclear reactor and the 81 cycles of civilization are a lot less important, based on their prevalence in the entire corpus of teachings. Other major issues (in my own words) are the supernatural aspects of ancient Chinese traditions; non-pursuit as a core concept in cultivation; the structure of dimensions; physical transformation of the entire being through xiulian; insistence to conform to the ways of ordinary society; Fa-rectification; and saving people from imminent destruction by making them understand the true nature of the CCP and this persecution. In my view, all this should be included on the Teachings page to some degree.

A few of words regarding the "FG promotional materials" and how they highlight "less controversial aspects such as the exercises". The truth is that a lot of these issues, such as the supposed existence of aliens or 81 cycles of civilisation, do not bear any practical relevance to Falun Gong practitioners. Essentially, the practice consists of doing the exercises, studying the books, and disciplining one's moral character. All of the lectures and books are very easily available; there have been no attempts to hide any of their content. Just think about it: if Falun Gong promotional materials would discuss these things, a lot of disinterested people on the street would consider it an assault on their worldview. Besides, in our activities, we're primarily trying to spread the message about what's happening to practitioners in China. It's not missionary work. We don't want to push any of this stuff; if a person finds Falun Gong appealing, it's up to him or her to digest it and see if the unconventional claims become insurmountable obstacles in his or her mind. But now that the promotional materials are more considerate towards different opinions and avoid provoking people too much, practitioners are accused of cover-ups. You just can't please everyone, can you? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article at Teachings of Falun Gong. If you notice, much of it (and the entire section on "Falun Gong's views on science") was written from one source - David Ownby. I will eagerly wait for third-party assessments. In any case, it's fairly clear that the main article reads like a promotional piece for Falun Gong, as User:Bdentromont has pointed out. Colipon+(T) 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just ask anyone to read the following, word for word:

Leading Falun Gong scholar David Ownby sees Falun Gong as first and foremost "concerned with moral purpose and the ultimate meaning of life and death."[34] Falun Gong practitioners consider their practice "profoundly moral," according to Ownby, where "the very structure of the universe, according to Li Hongzhi, is made up of the moral qualities cultivators are enjoined to practice in their own lives: truth, compassion and forbearance. The goal of cultivation, and hence of life itself, is spiritual elevation, achieved by eliminating karma—the built-up sins of past and present lives which often manifest themselves in individuals as illness—and accumulating virtue."[8] Through cultivation, Falun Gong promises "personal harmony with the very substance of the universe." Ownby says that Li's teachings do not focus on "lists of dos and don'ts or 'sophisticated ethical discussions.'" Falun Gong teaches instead that followers should "rid themselves of unnecessary ‘attachments’, to do what they know is right and hence to return to ‘the origin’, to their ‘original self,’" he says.[8]

This is considered encyclopedic? Colipon+(T) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that quote from Ownby's book is a good description of the phenomenology of Falun Gong practice. In the school of thought that emphasises understanding (the hermeneutic phenomenological tradition rooted in German philosophy), that is considered good science. If you've been formed in an environment of Marxist sociology and scientific positivism, perhaps you don't see its value. Ownby's overused in these articles, though. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

China Falun Gong

Does anyone know where I can find an online copy of the book China Falun Gong by Li Hongzhi?--Edward130603 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that book was later renamed simply Falun Gong, so see here [55]. It is considered an introductory book, the main text being Zhuan Falun. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for the Mediator

Is it possible for the mediator to conduct a thorough 3rd party investigation into what has actually taken place on this page and other FLG-related articles? Without any outside interference? This is really the only way to fix it. I understand this may be outside the jurisdiction of a mediator but something has to be done. Something third-party, thorough, serious, and conclusive. Issues have been brought to RfC, ArbCom, AdminNoticeboard etc. no less than nine times, and nothing seems to be resolved, or even in the process of being resolved. The same circular arguments are being rehashed over and over and over again, by the same group of pro-FLG users, over and over again (just read this page). So many NPOV-minded editors have reported their frustrations with this, yet nothing can be done. To the mediator, I must say, your help is greatly appreciated.

It's at a point where giong to Jimmy Wales himself on this issue may not be an unreasonable thing to do. After all, can anyone else name any other article on here that has faced so many serious disputes that have not been resolved through so many available channels? Colipon+(T) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I've mostly seen anti-FLG editors rehashing their circular arguments over and over and over again. The fundamental problem is still related to reliable sources and their relative weight. Personally, I have nothing against the inclusion of "critical" sources; but attempting to hijack the lede with red herrings, or failing to produce Wiki-qualifying references on demand, seems to be the norm among some ideologues in our midst. While sources like NYT, IHT, Time, and SCMP do meet the community requirements – mind you, I've never removed them, and I don't agree with the conduct of those who have – they are still less significant than peer-reviewed journals, and are not entitled to similar visibility or weight. And when anti-FLG editors really start digging the dumpsters (Rick Ross), and refuse to get the point in spite of third party discussion, that effectively poisons the atmosphere and weeds out any cooperative mentality at the outset.

The anti-FLG party has to accept the fact that the most reliable sources are actually taking a neutral outlook at Falun Gong, oftentimes seeking proper contextualisation and a hermeneutical understanding, and that's why they appear positive. Anything that aims at genuine understanding doesn't satisfy sensationalists, who perfer distorting the relationship between individual parts and the whole to suit their agenda. To me it seems that only a sensationalist "exposé" of Falun Gong could ever appear "neutral" to certain people. We will never let these articles degrade into something like that; if the legacy of Samuel Luo and Tomananda starts raising its deformed head, it will be pushed back into its boghole without delay. But I do agree with you on this: these articles need WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, we haven't seen too many editors with a disciplined approach to neutrality.

One more thing. Please stop calling yourself a "NPOV-minded editor". As long as you use words like 'alleged' in front of 'persecution'; and fail to evaluate sources based on their notability (i.e. academic sources are more notable than newspapers, peer-reviewed journals are more notable than non-peer-reviewed ones); and continue to lobby for people like Rick Ross; and fail to make distinctions between editors on the "pro-FLG" side, I don't see much NPOV-mindedness in that. You're not fooling me; you clearly have an ax to grind, and I see you as a moderate anti-FLG editor. You're not a fanatical extremist like Simonm223, but you are far too committed to a maligning discourse to call yourself neutral. In my eyes, you're only trying to angle for sympathy, as if paying lip service to some Archimedean point would hoodwink anyone. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos, which "anti-FLG editors" do you mean? There must have been an insane number of them judging by the reverts that have been performed, mustn't there? You have stated many times that you have nothing against critical sources, but when have you last let one stand, let alone included one yourself, even when directly asked to do so.

There was the question on Falun Gong's view of homosexuality which was brought up the last time I had the time and energy to edit the page. At that time, you responded with a veritable wall of text on how careful one must be when mentioning Falun Gong's view of homosexuality, but when asked, you did not actually add anything to the page, just cautioning everyone else. The same thing happened when we spoke of mixed-ethnicity marriages and Falun Gong's view of them.

The lowest point is still however how you will at one moment claim that you have nothing against critical voices, and at another you have no qualms about launching accusations of criminality against a source (Rick Ross in this case) as a method of excluding his statements from the article.

I really wish I had the time and energy to help improve this article, but I am so very tired of poorly-motivated blanking, combined calls for discussions and then reverts made without discussion and then, particularily from you, Olaf Stephanos, endless references to wikipedia guidelines which do not actually support your action. PerEdman (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My direct impact on the current state of the articles is not very significant. I have been discussing on the talk pages – probably way too much in proportion to the actual work that needs to be done. But I want to get involved without having to ward off constant harassment and ideological struggle, and foster an environment where only reliable sources, sound arguments, rational thinking, and a disciplined approach can stand a chance.

Oh, and Rick Ross can keep selling his snake oil on a private website. All your concerns were resolved here. This is getting old. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

By accident I stumbled upon this edit of yours on Samuel Luo's talk page. "I think we have a lot in common, and can work together in revealing the truth about Falun Gong. I'd like to know, aside from Wikipedia and having the initiative to start your own website, did you do anything else in this process of exposure? I am very interested. Get back to me when you can." So you're interested in a "process of exposure" and have "a lot in common" with Samuel. Good to know. This was written at a time when the articles were oozing with original research, weasel words, and ideological struggle that ultimately got Luo and Tom banned for life. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Colipon is nearly as radical as Luo. Please refrain from making connections. It is getting close to violating WP:NPA.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He's not nearly as radical; like I said, I consider him moderate. I'm just pointing out that his NPOV-mindedness is extremely selective, and that he has sympathised with Luo's crackpottery before – even when the articles were failing miserably. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, really. I've gotten used to the personal attacks on this talk page. I have never been similarly attacked anywhere else on Wikipedia. I've been called a CCP agent numerous times already, Olaf even going as far as to scout out my user page history to find a phrase "political affiliations in the past", saying it is obviously a clue that I'm a Communist propagandist. To that, I say, go on. Discredit me all you'd like. No matter how much I am discredited, the article is still in a terrible state. Compare me to radical editors in the past, accuse me of being an agent, whatever you can think of. By discrediting me and alluding to my allged "connections" to people such as Sam Luo, Olaf hopes to paint my edits and comments, and indeed, my person, as someone who is not editing in good faith, someone who is part of a larger agenda. By disputing my neutrality, pro-FLG editors aim to give mediators and spectators the illusion that the conflict on the article is a protracted two-sided war with defined anti-FLG and pro-FLG interests, whereas this is more a case of neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV. If Olaf is a neutral minded editor himself, he would have no problems with asking for a third-party investigation into the state of the article and its disputes. If he were truly neutral, he would support my comment above, because neutral editors have nothing to lose if a third-party investigation is conducted.

The article's not getting any better. The state of the article and the nature of these disputes are extremely clear to any third party, once they have read this talk page, its 24 archives, or the article itself. Colipon+(T) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, I'm sure nobody has any problem with truly NPOV, third party contributors, I think Olaf was only trying to say that you are not one of those, as it could have been understood in your request, in which, you just request by painting a picture without any concrete and to the point information provided. I requested a few times and I will repeat here, please refrain from FUD techniques and provide concrete addressable issues (that is new issues, not ones that are repeated and discredited over and over again). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never called you a "Communist propagandist". Moreover, I have explicitly stated that I don't believe you are an agent, nor do I believe you are "part of a larger agenda". I'd like to ask you to stop misrepresenting my words. I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like "neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV", there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly? "Yes, I have these careless remarks in my past, but I have learned my lessons; I am no longer interested in 'processes of exposure' and promise to collaborate in good faith."^{Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)} ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"...your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil." haha. I like it. :)Colipon+(T)

"Miss representing words" goes against one of my favorite policies on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and it is a disruptive technique. So I kindly ask for it to stop. In any case I will keep an eye on it anyway and bring it up whenever it happens to keep it as a reminder. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Colipon+(T) 15:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I must remind editors that my question above was intended for the mediator. I look forward to getting an answer from him/her soon. Colipon+(T) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Call for Investigation

I just read Archive No. 24 and the entirety of this talk page. Just a message to the mediator: reading these two pages alone (will take roughly 30-40 minutes) is enough to give you a good idea how serious the problem really is. Very self-evident - doesn't require much to be said. Seems like there are two users, namely asdfg12345 and Olaf, who have done most of the refutation/reverts of criticism, and they are intermittently flanked by dilip and HappyInGeneral. Olaf seems to employ argumentation at a more advanced level than asdfg, although asdfg seems more versed in invoking wiki policy. Dilip has been banned once for various abuses, and HappyInGeneral, as far as I can tell, is more "moderate". Anyway. Several blogs have already been written about issues in this article, from users like OhConfucius, Mrund, etc., after they gave up on their quest to present a neutral view. My view on this matter is that the only proactive way to solve the problems on this article is:

1. Conduct thorough investigation from higher Wikipedia authorities.
2. Ban the users they deem responsible for causing the problems on this article.

I am certain that I am not alone in these thoughts. Best wishes, Colipon+(T) 20:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have dissected many callow arguments and left them in bloody pulp, but my reverts have been sparse and few over the years. If you aren't content with our mediator, you can always take another route of WP:Dispute resolution. Prepare to do a lot of work; nobody's going to do it for you. I know, I initiated the previous arbitration case. It all comes down to whether the anti-FLGers have used WP:RS and given them due weight or not. Unreliable sources can be removed by anyone without further ado, not to speak of original research. Other problems have been caused by people who want to hijack the lede with some red herring. The same old story. I don't think you have a case, Colipon, but you can always try your luck. Hey, don't we all love gaming? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please wait for the mediator to respond?--Edward130603 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Edward and Colipon. Mediator please read thru the archived talk pages. I, like many others, have basically given up on these FLG pages; IMHO some editor's wangon circling has resulted in many facts unfairly removed/marginalized.

The same editors have also circled wagon and POVed it to death in this page.

On a personal note, I'd like to ask the mediator to reveiw this balnking of cite okayed by multiple administrators

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any fair-minded reader who looks at the past discussion will see that a few pro-FLG contributors are camping on this entry and removing all criticism, no matter how well sourced. The amount of passive-aggressive wikilawyering exhibited here is staggering. It's the same situation that recently led to the wholesale banning of pro-Scientology contributors from Wikipedia. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on most points. I am not sure "higher Wikipedia authorities" should "ban users responsible for causing problems", but this article certainly bears investigating, but it cannot stand under constant surveillance of administrators for all time. The article needs skilled editors and I have lost the energy to be one of them. The article and the list of active editors needs to be much improved before I can participate constructively.

The article is poorly written (wordy, convoluted, contains too much name-dropping), poorly sourced (too many sources, many of them to Falun Gong webpages and liks to articles that reference each other) and gives a very whitewashed impression (very few critical voices, if any, are allowed and have even been removed through "minor edits" or by accusing the source of being criminal or being implied as agents of the Chinese government). When one digs into the sources, web-available articles will be linked by article name and publication rather than a weblink, or the link will go to a webpage collecting snippets of articles, created by Falun Gong members, rather than the first-hand statement.

I have tried to improve the article in these areas: by going through sources to verify that they support claims in the wikipedia page, by restricting references to ref tags (removing namedropping) to make lede more readable, remove references that build their content solely on the content of another reference that has already been used on the wikipage. Please see my talk page headings from 2 July 2009 for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Incorporating_criticism ff. PerEdman (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary. I am just discouraged because a) I have another life and do not have the time to keep monitoring this page and b) we have exhausted all of Wikipedia's dispute resolution channels. This is the reason I suggested "higher Wikipedia authorities" - although because I have never dealt with an issues similar to this, I really don't know where to go anymore. Colipon+(T) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths. The conduct of "pro-FLG" editors has been investigated during the previous arbitration case. I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me.

Grand talk without reliable sources; inability to present reasonable, logical, cool-headed arguments; blind ideological struggle; refusal to get the point; and complete avoidance of the real bones of contention, even when they are brought forth in discussion – these are the real problems we're facing. A lot of us just haven't read the friendly manual properly, have we? When I browse through the archives, I see something very different from what you're describing; me and Asdfg12345 have always asked for sources, sources, sources – and rational discussion. How many dozens of hours have we wasted debating something that unambiguously does not qualify, just because it's the best someone can come up with (and that says a lot). How many times have we seen someone insert some pungent red herring and insist on its placement in the lede, even if we would've agreed that the reference is alright in another location, as long as it's contextualised properly. We've encountered a myriad of agitators, pseudoskeptics, CCP-sympathisers, militant atheists, and a motley crew of other anti-FLGers who've never learned the details of how to edit Wikipedia properly. They realise they're dealing with a group of editors who're extremely aware of their rights, and they don't find a way around the fundamental requirements, don't know how to do genuine research, get extremely frustrated, and eventually say things like "I have never dealt with issues similar to this, I really don't know where to go."

Let me give you a piece of friendly advice. There are two ways we can proceed. The way that is probably the simplest for all of us is waiting and seeing if we can get ahead with our mediator. He seems like an experienced and reasonable guy. Another way is starting an arbitration enforcement case. You need to collect the evidence, present the exact diffs, elaborate on what policies they are breaching through direct references to the rules (something you've erroneously called "wikilawyering") – and be scrutinised yourself, as the accused parties will certainly gather countering evidence to prove your own misconduct. I've gone through this process. It's quite time-consuming, but it's the final step of dispute resolution. There are no "higher authorities" on Wikipedia who just show up on demand and conduct an investigation. You conduct your own investigation and present it to the judges. Tomananda and Samuel Luo, the two chums from Frisco, were banned indefinitely as a result of the previous arbitration case; until the very end, they thought they were the ones who had done nothing wrong. You should familiarise yourselves with their tragic fate. I see a lot of their hubris in some of you. Apart from User:Mcconn, who was placed on standard revert parole and hasn't been around for years, no "pro-FLG" editors were punished. Why? Because we're familiar with the playground. And we do research. And our sources are better than yours. (And because, in the end, we know what we're doing, while you are making the most serious miscalculation of your lives – but that's another story, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so let us stick to tangible issues and not give too much weight to correct personal opinions.)

Nevertheless, to give you some credit, I can say that I've seen some glimpses of constructive editing on these pages. You may indeed have the potential to learn and become mature. For instance, I was very happy with Colipon's wording "Falun Gong has garnered diverse public attention on several occasions." That is definitely true, and a neutral wording we should all be able to agree with. On the other hand, from your point of view, it may be unfortunate that the overwhelming majority of reliable academic sources are quite neutral towards Falun Gong – and what is 'neutral' will undoubtedly appear 'pro-FLG' to some of you, as it does not portray Falun Gong as some weird, incomprehensible, dangerous phenomenon that warrants further marginalisation. As a result, this article cannot give out the impression that the anti-FLG activists would prefer. There's no doubt we need to develop these articles by making them more balanced, more comprehensive, more diverse. But they will never turn into a frantic "exposé" of Falun Gong; you should realise this at the outset. I am aware of a large number of untapped, reliable, third party sources that are just waiting to be included here. I'm perfectly assured that any rational reader will be able to understand the real situation when we really get down to business; because even if Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, it will all be wonderfully transparent when the facts are laid out in an eloquent, systematic fashion.^{Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)} ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, it is because you are a "civil POV pusher". Please read WP:PUSH. I don't think that those of us arguing against you are gonna get banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. None of us have 24 sockpuppets and all of us edit constructively. For one, I'm not a single purpose editor. I don't spend my life on Falun Gong articles on Wikipedia. Happyingeneral, Asdfg, Olaf, and Dilip are all people that do nothing on Wikipedia except for editing FLG-related articles. You are familiar with the FLG "playground" because you are on it day in and day out. You eat on it, you drink on it, you "cultivate" on it, you even sleep on it.

Also, please don't try to scare us off by telling us to "familiarise" with Sam Luo's "tragic fate". I don't see anything I have done that would warrant an indefinite ban.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I completely disagree with your characterisation. I understand you can find no other accusations against me, so you keep calling me a "single-purpose account" (see WP:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors). I have plenty of other things in my life, as you can see on my user page, so I'm not going to bother using even more of my precious time for Wikipedia, even if I have other areas of expertise that would surely help building an encyclopedia. I am here, because in the real world, a near-infinite amount of renminbi and dollars have been used to denigrate and defame Falun Gong; because so many people are deluded by the CCP; and because using nothing but reliable sources and giving them due weight is the only way to keep this article from degenerating into another tool of oppression and propaganda. I am here as a defender of transparency, reliable sources, and the spirit of Wikipedia. I can write for the enemy, and I have done so in the past. I've swept the floor with hollow arguments over and over again, yet remained civil, even if my arrows are sharp and I shoot you straight. I can see several characteristics of "civil POV pushers" applying to anti-FLG warriors, such as:

• They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. ("cultic studies", anyone?)
• They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. (Rick Ross, CCP propaganda in the lede...)
• They attempt to water down language ("alleged" persecution), unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories - pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short). (why do you always have trouble producing academic sources on demand?)
• They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors. (...and keep insisting on some sources even when they've been turned down)

Secondly, I did not say you would deserve an indefinite ban. None of you have surpassed Tomananda and Samuel in blind ideological struggle. But the road some of you are treading would undoubtedly lead to sanctions if you kept your attitude. Martin Rundkvist, Per Edman, and Simonm223, to say the least, all have incriminating edits in their past. A lot of this evidence is already collected, so it's easily available if our problems escalate. Talking about bans and their targets was a reply to Colipon's comment: "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary." Right, Colipon, wouldn't it all be so much easier without accountability? All those pesky 轮子 niggers, those no-good cult members being so awfully demanding? I mean, who would have the time and energy for that? But a wholesale ban, mmmmmm... yes... sweet....... ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I've only called you a single-purpose account once. The persecution of FLG exists so it is not alleged, but the word persecution is not NPOV. Also, FLG's couterattempt at defaming China is disgusting. In addition, in China (yes I have been there for extended periods of time before), civilians who want peace are harrased with leaflets that are sneaked in to them and bombarded with endless phone calls asking them to join FLG and/or donate money. Westerners only see the good side of FLG. (BTW, please don't say that that was WP:OR, I'm not trying to put it into the article.)

And who was calling you a "wheel nigger"?--Edward130603 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong practitioners do not make phone calls asking people to "join FLG and/or donate money". You've been lied to – or you have encountered an agent provocateur. However, I know Chinese who call their fellow countrymen and persuade them to renounce the CCP. It is not uncommon for more than half of the respondents to agree. (As for your other question, calling practitioners 轮子 is a common slur in Mainland China.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Over half of the people agree because the respondents are tired of harrassment from FLG.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If none of this is relevant, I really do request that you folks wait till Vassyana gets back. He's an extremely accomplished mediator. In the meantime, I hope you folks will abstain from this pro- and anti- talk about each other. Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Our mediator, Vassyana, is "currently without regular internet service. This will be corrected withint 7 to 10 days. Apologies for any inconvenience." as it says on his/her talk page yesterday. Lets just wait for our mediator to return before we proceed.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a good idea. Colipon+(T) 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to thank you all for your patience and understanding regarding my internet service issues. That said, what I will do in response to the request above is take a deeper look over the history of this article and the talk page archives, as well as those of related articles, and provide some honest feedback about what I see as the main problems and stumbling blocks. Does that seem appropriate and helpful? Vassyana (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf's comments

Olaf here wrote of critics that "Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths" and anything he writes after this point will be ignored by me. I cannot keep assuming good will against such a background.

I'm sure there are many stronger people than me here, but I cannot muster the energy to edit a wikipedia article on a subject as sensitive with this in a climate where such comments hail. I'm sorry. PerEdman (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Olaf Stephanos is the single most hostile Wikipedia contributor it's been my misfortune to come across either on the Swedish or the English site. Not to mention his tendency to write two-page wikilawyering screeds. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not attacked you personally. The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose.^{Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)} ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf wrote: "I have not attacked you personally. The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose.". Am I the only one that senses an incredible amount of irony and hypocrisy in that statement? -Colipon+(T) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also reminded of Olaf accusing me that my "shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil." If these are not scathing, unacceptable "personal attacks", I don't know what is. Colipon+(T) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Difficile est saturam non scribere. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And in the mean time our mediator Vassyana kindly asked us to refrain from personal comments. So I think if everybody would mind that even when complaining or defending a state. As she mentioned it before, it does not really matter who starts a debate, probably what matter most is who is keeping it alive. So please no more negative personal comments and better stick to the content of the article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar Arbitration Case for Reference

If we choose to take the path of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, it certainly looks like a long road ahead.

Also, this archive gives a very good overview of what tactics users may resort to if a ban is placed. Also looks like the article on Scientology has a lot more admin attention and quite a few apologist editors. Colipon+(T) 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what's the fundamental difference? Scientology, as described by numerous reliable sources, is nothing but a money-making pyramid scam for useful idiots. The overwhelming majority of academics are clear on this. The Church of Scientology IP addresses have gone to great lengths to keep the most reliable sources out of the article. The ArbCom did wisely by banning them wholesale.

On the other hand, in Falun Gong's case, the reliable, academic sources tell a very different story. A paranoid totalitarian government launched a vicious assault on a peaceful group of meditators who did not want to get involved with politics. The group has no official membership, no formal organisation, no leaders and subordinates, no monetary corruption, and seems to be composed of normal people with some unconventional beliefs. They've been imprisoned, subjected to forced labour, tortured and killed, and there are numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence about their organs being harvested. Some people are so committed to their anti-FLG beliefs that they are genuinely surprised to find obstacles in their missionary work. Their views cannot stand closer scrutiny and are handily dissected by fellow editors with sufficient mastery of the word. They find it incredibly difficult to prove their arguments with reliable sources; and they turn into wolverines, digging the outlying dumpsters to find one half-rotten red herring, and fiercely insist on showcasing it at the prime spot of the exhibition. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So claims the self-professed FLG practitioner. It's nice to see your hypocrisy in smearing other beliefs yet claim "persecution" yourself. There are good people in Scientology too, and people are free to come and leave. And before you attack my country, learn what "totalitarian" means. Jiang Zemin actually stepped down from power when his term expired. Would a totalitarian dictator do the same?--PCPP (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, just wait for the mediator. Colipon+(T) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Claims vs. Says

Hello Edward, regarding this edit [56] could you please elaborate why you think claim is a better wording then says? Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Happy. It was just to match the tone of Singer's statement, which used "claims". If you think that the original wording was better, please tell me and we can revert it back!--Edward130603 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I read the source on Singer, and now I see that you made a 1 to 1 weight on the sources, although Olaf pointed out that these are rather fringe theories. BTW, what I don't understand at this point why are the critics in front? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it is because the non-critics are refuting the critics.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Edward that it is most logical to put a claimant before whoever responds to the claimant. Rather than take Olaf Stephanos word for who holds a fringe theory and who is not, I suggest you take it to the noticeboard. PerEdman (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Destynova's Comments

[moved by Edward130603 from section Comprehensive Look]

Agreed. The English language version of this article seems to highlight Falun Gong in an unfairly positive light. Even at the start, it's referred to as a 'spiritual practice' when it is considered a religion by some (and a cult by others) - little to no mention of this is made in the article. This seems to be consistent with the way FG is described to the public as a form of exercises and meditation - any elements of FG practice or beliefs which would be regarded as unsavoury in the Western world (such as the views on homosexuality as amoral behaviour, although I did check the article on Christianity and found no mention either, which seems odd) are eliminated or toned down.

A search of the article for the word 'cult' turned up a first mention in the "Persecution" section, stating that the Chinese government had branded FG as such (note that "branded" in this context is kind of a weasel word). The next hit, in the "Reception" section is of interest, but completely fails to mention any of the reasons why those people consider FG to be a cult. Why is the "Persection" section seven times longer than the "Reception" section? That in itself indicates some bias in the article's current state.

Finally, I have to agree with a previous editor who mentioned that the Chinese language version of the article is much fairer and balanced than the English language one. It discusses some important issues which are completely omitted in the English version.

Destynova (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are the reliable academic sources calling Falun Gong a 'cult'? Just because billions of dollars have been used to attack and defame Falun Gong, and some people have been seriously mislead, that doesn't mean Falun Gong has anything to do with genuine cults. Nobody called it a 'cult' before the persecution began, so it is more than appropriate to mention the word in that section and explain its origins. We shouldn't give an air of objectivity to something that is, academically speaking, nothing but a fringe view. See my post here for some elaborations on this issue. Falun Gong's views on homosexuality and other such things can be mentioned in the article, as long as they are given due weight; they are a minor fraction of the entire corpus of teachings and don't have any impact on how Falun Gong practitioners act towards other people.

Why aren't these views given more prominence in the "Reception" section? Margaret Singer was so controversial that she was no longer accepted as an expert witness in her later years; her reports "lacked scientific rigor and an evenhanded approach" according to a court ruling. This should be mentioned whenever she's brought up. Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress [57] [58], who has nothing but a BA in political science (although she "studies modern and classical Chinese at the University of California at Los Angeles", according to the reference in the article). On the other side, we have David Ownby (Director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal); Livia Kohn (Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University and a scholar in Daoism); Barend ter Haar (Chair of Sinological Institute at the University of Leiden); and many other respected scholars. Per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, there's no way we can end up with a fair and balanced article by giving equal weight to people like Singer and Rahn and other members of the "anti-cult movement", whose partisan views and ideologies have been described in a peer-reviewed journal as "[lacking] empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community", as well as "useful tools, helping efforts by the [Communist] party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong." [59] As long as you don't give me an opposing peer-reviewed reference claiming that these are not fringe views, we will go by what is said in WP:FRINGE (emphasis mine):

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.

There are people who like to "struggle" against almost anything that seems irreal, untrue, and/or religious; there are those who are concerned about Falun Gong's incredibly strong peaceful resistance to the CCP and want to discredit the practice based on their personal sentiments; and there are other reasons. We have editors like that, such as Simonm223, whose entire Wikipedia history is somehow related to lobbying for secular materialism. These kinds of people undoubtedly see this article as biased, because it doesn't "expose" Falun Gong, blow things out of their proportions, and make the whole issue seem ridiculous and dangerously irrational. But don't blame me on the fact that most Western academics are taking a neutral outlook on Falun Gong. Giving due weight to reliable sources and taking extra caution at representing things in their relevant contexts is the only way we can get ahead, regardless of personal opinions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. One of Falun Gong's defining characteristics is its extreme sensitivities to any outside criticism. It responds to criticism with ad hominem attacks and stylish apologetics. This is quite apparent even in your comment. Your logic runs that because Singer has been a controversial figure that her opinions are not credible - and then you also raise the ad hominem notion that because Rahn is a BA and used to be an actress that her publications and views should also be discredited. You then go on to brand the entire ACM as "ideologists". A read through Rahn's works and you will see that she actually attempts to take a very moderate view. Yet you posit Rahn and Singer on "one side" and Ownby, Kohn etc. on another, giving the impression that these scholars are opposed to each other - that academics who criticize FLG are against FLG, out to get FLG, running an ideological struggle etc. This argumentation is grossly misleading. In any case, the ACM is a controversial body - that fact is recognized. But the ACM will not publish material on say, the Lutheran Church, or moderate Presbyterian groups, or Ismaili Muslims, or Tibetan Buddhists. It publishes material on Scientology, polygamist Latter-Day Saints sects, and Westboro Baptists for a reason. It has also publishes material on Falun Gong. The fact that it has published material on Falun Gong already speaks volumes. But Falun Gong would have none of it. Anything critical of Falun Gong must be wrong, must be discredited.

I also find it questionable why your wall of text is necessary in response to a concern by a passing user who simply raised an opinion about the way the article is written. It's apologetics at best and a laughable insecurity on the part of FLG at worst. Colipon+(T) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a representative of Falun Gong. I am here as an educated, argumentative person who believes in transparency and honest, rational discussion. I am well-read in the subject matter, and I want to make sure that no propaganda and fringe views override reputable academic sources. Do you know why I keep insisting on peer-reviewed journals? Because they are a good reflection of the scientific consensus among the experts of the relevant field. And because they rank highest in the Wikipedia hierarchy. Falun Gong and the persecution of its practitioners are extremely complicated social phenomena, and they warrant good, comprehensive research that keeps the ideological slant to a minimum. The Anti-Cult Movement is not only controversial; it is utterly refuted by Cultural Studies and related disciplines. I know this beyond doubt because of my own academic background.

Sure, the ACM may have published a lot of material on Scientology, polygamist sects and Westboro Baptists. I could write books about tuna, catfish, Baltic herrings, and blue whales, but that wouldn't make me an acknowledged expert on fish, nor would blue whales become fish just because I didn't know any better. No matter how you try to get around it, you need to find me peer-reviewed references calling Falun Gong a cult, if you want to dispute what is said in other peer-reviewed sources. Otherwise: fringe views deserve fringe visibility. Go change the policies if you think there's something wrong with them. Drop me a line when you pan out, will ya? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the problem has nothing to do with whether or not Falun Gong is a cult. The problem lies with editors trying to hide and whitewash criticism of any kind.

David Ownby himself calls Falun Gong "undoubtedly controversial" as an opening to his segment published in "New Controversial Religions". Only after I had read Ownby's works have I seen how whitewashed this article truly is. It chooses part of Ownby's writings that present FLG in a positive light, but ignores, for example, Ownby's writings on Li Hongzhi's "eccentricity", the "holy" nature of Zhuan Falun, Li's claims of supernatural powers, and his apocalyptic rhetoric (which Ownby himself portrays as a very important part of the FLG doctrine). Colipon+(T) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now we're talking. Let's incorporate that stuff. Can you offer some quotes, so that we can find start discussing their placement? We probably need to redesign the structure of these articles as well. As long as the sources are alright, the most serious obstacle has been removed, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with you. It's about time to move from discussion to actual work. I found the article you mentioned (I hadn't read it before), and the final paragraph nicely sums up Ownby's position: "In the final analysis, Falun Gong came to be controversial because of the extraordinary growth of qigong, and because of the eventual negative reaction of the Chinese state. Otherwise, Falun Gong is largely consistent with certain traditional popular religious practices well known in pre-Communist China." We should represent this viewpoint fairly.

As I've said before, my impact on the current state of these articles is not significant. I am not here to whitewash anything or defend status quo. I've said that I want you to come up with reputable sources, not some ACM mish-mash with no scientific value whatsoever. I don't stand in opposition to critical voices per se, as long as the material complies with the Wikipedia standards. When I talked about transparency, I meant it. A rational reader will be able to come to his or her own conclusions, as long as the articles conform to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I will be away from computer until Sunday. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here has been quite encouraging, although I'm still a little bit concerned about this statement by Olaf: "No matter how you try to get around it, you need to find me peer-reviewed references calling Falun Gong a cult, if you want to dispute what is said in other peer-reviewed sources. Otherwise: fringe views deserve fringe visibility." My issue here is that peer-reviewed sources were already available that happened to contradict the view currently predominant in the article (that FG is not a cult and the Anti Cult Movement lacks credibility), and you attacked those sources not only in this discussion but in the article itself. It would be a shame if all critical viewpoints were quickly marked as "fringe" views. There have been good points made; the material by Ownby as quoted by Olaf is promising: "In the final analysis, Falun Gong came to be controversial because of the extraordinary growth of qigong, and because of the eventual negative reaction of the Chinese state. Otherwise, Falun Gong is largely consistent with certain traditional popular religious practices well known in pre-Communist China." - I think the relation to qigong practices and the persecution by the Chinese state have been covered quite well in the article, but the notion that FG is consistent with Chinese religious practices has not, and would be a welcome addition to the article which, as I mentioned earlier, describes it as a "spiritual practice" and is somewhat ambiguous over whether FG is a religion or not. Regarding the views on FG being a cult or not, I agree that such a contentious issue should not be treated lightly and quality sources should be found that treat the argument fairly.

Destynova (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

One short question (I really won't be able to take part until Sunday, this is the last thing I'm writing here): what peer-reviewed sources are contradicting the view that FG is not a cult and that the anti-cult movement lacks credibility?

@Olaf: I was referring to Singer and Rahn, who have both described FG as a cult, and whose contributions you described as not credible (e.g. "is a former B-class soap opera actress [92] [93], who has nothing but a BA in political science").

I should point out that I am undecided on whether FG is a cult (since there has clearly been a strong propaganda movement by the PRC to label it as such, whatever the truth is), which is why I came to the article in the first place (and quickly found that some views were under-represented there). That the relatively small number of sources in the article critical to FG have their opinions followed by a caveat which diminishes their credibility just seems dodgy.

Destynova (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You responded so quickly that I can still comment on this. Perhaps you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means.

Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.

I have never seen anything by Singer and Rahn that has been subjected to formal evaluation by their peers. Instead, a publication that does meet these requirements (Journal of Church and State) has completely discredited the anti-cult movement ("most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community") and even said this: "By applying the label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." [60]

This is what I meant. It's not the opinion of an individual writer; the peer-review process ensures that this is an accurate reflection of the scientific consensus in that field. Unless you find a peer-reviewed reference that disputes this claim, we have direct proof of Singer's and Rahn's views being subject to WP:FRINGE. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Blatantly POV edits

I feel it is necessary to bring to light recent edits by Olaf. He attempted to explain these edits above in a very long-winded response against concerns raised by a passer-by user on this article. In this edit he goes on to very directly discredit Dr. Margaret Singer's statements and then also wrote an entire paragraph discrediting the American Anti-Cult Movement in general. The fact that these kinds of edits continue to happen is frankly quite alarming. While they do not seem to violate the letter of WP policies they unmistakably run counter to the spirit of presenting the material from a neutral perspective.

This is also the general trend in these articles - whenever critique is introduced a pro-FLG editor immediately comes in and either blanks it or refutes it. See for yourself at this revision.

In discrediting Singer, Olaf writes into the article the following, seemingly in direct response to Singer calling FLG a cult:

However, Margaret Singer's academic views have been deemed as "not accepted in the scientific community" according to a court ruling, and she was no longer accepted as an expert witness in her later years.

He also inserts this long paragraph, clearly aimed at refuting any notions of FLG being a cult:

According to Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson writing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Church and State, China has incorporated many theories of the "anti-cult movement" into its campaign against the Falun Gong. "However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." Moreover, Edelman and Richardson argue that "the definition [of a 'cult'] allows the government to employ the restrictive anti-cult legislation to target a wide array of religious and spiritual organizations. The evidence suggests that this is precisely what has happened." As for the anti-Falun Gong legislation in China, "such infringements are not within the bounds of state discretion. As a result, they are in violation of international customary law. Furthermore, although China's discretion in relation to its restrictions on religious practice is greater, its actions also seem to overstep the bounds of the margin of appreciation. State edicts and legislation appear to be discriminatory in nature." The researchers conclude that "the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong."

If these edits are to considered to be "in good faith" then there should be some serious review of wiki policies. Colipon+(T) 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Each sentence I wrote has significance. First refute my arguments point-by-point; then we can discuss. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. No. I have not made any changes to your edits, nor do I plan to until the mediator sees this and decides for him/herself what to do. Colipon+(T) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to know why do you insist in using low quality and shaky sources? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one am glad that Olaf Stephanos actually wrote something on the wikipage, even though it took the risk of erasing misquoted reference to do so. I am confused why the article in Church and state is not weblinked; it really should, be for everyone's benefit.

For the moment I feel the segment is far, far too long and intricate, which speaks volumes of the original paraphrase. PerEdman (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what is the mediator's take on this issue? I have not made any changes myself because I wanted to wait for third-party opinions. If I went and edited myself I often get called names and hurled accusations. Colipon+(T) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic area review

While I am still waiting for the nice technician to come grant me the wonders of new internet service, I do have occasional trustworthy access to the internet still. I have taken a good chunk of time to review the article editing history, talk page archives, various noticeboard discussions, past administrative and arbitration interventions, and several user talk page histories.

• Most of the problems can be described as "point of view pushing". Many editors, usually with good intentions, possess a clear point of view and advocate for it almost explicitly.
• As a consequence of this "POV pushing" and an often antagonistic atmosphere, much of the discussion becomes sidetracked with speculative and accusatory personal comments.
• Bad faith, uncooperative attitudes, and adversarial obstruction abound in this environment.

• This is illustrated by conversations becoming sidetracked in accusations of bias, ulterior motives, and similar speculations on a sadly regular basis.

These factors have a heavy impact on the content, due to the positions taken as a consequence of the environment and individual opinions.

• Primary sources, governmental statements, and NGO reports are overused, over-discussed, and often misused. The misuse comes as a consequence of selective quotation, mining material for a predetermined view, and ignoring how those sources are addressed by the best available reliable sources.

• The no original research and content noticeboards should be more often used to determine the appropriate use of these sources.

• Reliable sources, especially academic/scholarly sources, are underused and often selectively chosen. The former is especially true of good overview sources that place Falun Gong in a broader context of new religious movements, Chinese religion, and so forth.
• What appear to be clearly reliable sources are argued against on the basis of the view that it favors, or appears to favor. The reliable sources noticeboard is underutilized.
• The neutral point of view is regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources.

• As with reliable sources, the NPOV noticeboard is underutilized.

I know this seems like a harsh assessment, and it is, but it is a set of my honest observations. It is important to be aware of the problems (and their chronic nature) in order to properly address the editing environment. There needs to be a willingness to collaborate without the speculative accusations of bias and agency. (Don't make things worse, but instead keep it calm.) More outside input needs to be solicited, and deferred to, in order to solve many points of dispute. (Be flexible and respect consensus.) Sources need to be examined as a whole group and their reliability fairly determined without resistance due to the source supporting the "wrong" point of view. (Sometimes you have to write for the enemy and accept that it's not about winning.)

In order to help move things forward, I would like to invite three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths to join us here. I believe their input and example would be incredibly useful in keeping discussion focused and moving things forward. I will generally remain available to provide feedback, help get through some of the more difficult disputes, and craft noticeboard requests and requests for comment to solicit outside input. I believe a core of active experienced editors, coupled with assistance in keeping things on-track and getting community feedback, could help counter the problems I outlined above. Does this seem to be an acceptable approach to attempt improving the quality of discussion and the overall editing environment? --Vassyana (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. I think it will help to improve these Falun Gong pages.--Edward130603 (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Good points, at this point I think anything is welcomed that will keep the sidetrack discussion to a minimum and asses the relevance of the sources. Also I think it's great that you will help us get more feedback on this. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you, Vassyana. I see you've done a very thorough job and given us invaluable advice. I recognise and acknowledge all of the core problems you mentioned. I'm especially grateful that you pointed out how the community noticeboards are underused; moreover, I think it's a good idea to bring in some outsiders and hear what they have to say. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree, and feel that bringing in some new people and making better use of the noticeboards is a good step, the noticeboards are populated by some pretty level-headed folks. Irbisgreif (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to thank the mediator for the work s/he has done in what looks to be a very complex case. I completely agree with the assessments of the mediator. That being said, I would like some clarification with the following: what is meant by "three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths"? What is considered "diverse views"? What is considered "experienced"? Another concern of mine deals with enforcement of these recommendations. Several decisions were passed in regards to the arbitration case dealing with the Falun Gong articles in 2007. Clearly, the rulings from that arbitration have not been enforced properly - much of the conclusions of that arbitration were supposed to deal directly with issues that are still recurring and on-going. Some of the decisions from that arbitration are being blatantly (and also subtly) violated. How do we ensure that a mediation isn't all talk and no real action? How do we enforce that the same circular reasoning not be used repetitively in future discussions? Colipon+(T) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Diverse views" means editors with a variety of perspectives and general outlooks. "Experienced" means the person in question has been around for a while, is very familiar with policy, and has some experience with related topic areas. With a bit more focus and structure with the involvement of a few experienced hands will make it much easier for uninvolved administrators to decipher what's going on and identify disruptive editors. If I can further clarify or answer any other questions, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean, then, that these "experienced editors" will be outside, third-party editors? Because there is nothing this article needs more than fresh, third-party perspectives. I was also wondering if the mediator could address the question about enforcement. Colipon+(T) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. A few fresh uninvolved voices to help steer things in the right direction is what I believe is needed here. Regarding enforcement, I am here in a capacity as a mediator, which means I will be unlikely to handle enforcement. However, as I mention above, the changes to the editing environment should make it easier for uninvolved administrators to understand the situation and identify disruptive editors. --Vassyana (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm very hopeful about this, given that the Bold-Revert-Discuss strategy has totally fallen apart. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Certainly don't see BRD working at all. Especially the "discussion" part. We need third-party, relatively uninvolved editors to come here, give their honest opinions, and intervene when something is clearly going out of hand. Colipon+(T) 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vassyana. Harsh and true. I believe there is much to be gained by combatting the angatonistic nature of the discussion here and hope that more editors could consider "writing for the enemy", basing their writing in available sources. PerEdman (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi. I think I'm one of the "experienced editors" mentioned above. I have some familiarity with religious/philosophical material, even if I'm not particularly knowledgable about this particular topic. To answer one of the questions posed above, regarding "circular reasoning", that's a problem fairly often, but doing so repeatedly is a violation of policy, and could be addressed by an administrator or ArbCom. That isn't to say that it may not still happen, because there are times, unfortunately, when the people engaged in circular reasoning have a point, even if they don't express it particularly well. But the best way to address is it to find sources which resolve the matter one way or another. I do have some access to scholarly/academic sources, and will try to help add some materials from them. Also, if any of you want material from JSTOR, but are not personally able to pull up the articles yourself from their database, let me know which specific articles you want and I can try to email them to you. John Carter (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get some tangible examples of what Colipon is talking about. Nothing abstract – more like direct links to discussions on this talk page, and pointing out how they employ circular reasoning, and what would be the logical conclusion instead. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for being abstract. But I've mentioned that to any third-party editor, a lot of these "tangible examples" you are asking for are extremely apparent after a read through these archives. Basically the same idea as "The neutral point of view is regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources." Essentially my "abstract" commentary on these talk pages is very nicely summed up by our mediator in his/her analysis of the situation. I stand fully behind the mediator.

Best example on this page would probably be Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_Repeated_Removal_of_Adminstrator_Reviewed_Edits, raised by Bobby Fletcher. The logical conclusion would be to restore administrator-reviewed edits. Colipon+(T) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how come those exact words nicely sum up my concerns, too? The only thing I've been asking for are reliable (and preferably academic) sources, so that we can start discussing their placement. I've been pushing you to do research over and over again. We've argued endlessly about some cherry-picked quotes from private websites; and the disputes have become even more ridiculous when some editors have tried to insert these quotes into the lede. I know there are so-called pro-FLG editors (sorry, we should stop using these terms) who have removed stuff just because it's critical. I've always said that I don't agree with them (an example). I've seen anti-FLG editors (uh...) argue against reliable sources "on the basis of the view that they favor, or appear to favor"; and I've seen NPOV "regularly argued on the basis of what predetermined picture of Falun Gong should be presented, with little reference to the body of reliable sources outside of a limited (and cherry-picked) selection of sources." I have nothing against building a honest, transparent, encyclopedic article. But when people just want to find shortcuts to push their POV, it has been extremely damaging to any hints of cooperative mentality on these pages. That said, I do believe we can move forward with the kind help of our mediator. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I trust that the mediator and third-party editors will help improve this article. Colipon+(T) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideas from a newbie

OK, these are just a few ideas from one of the requested newcomers.

• (1) It might be a good idea to create a separate discussion page, like maybe Talk:Falun Gong/Discussion, which could be used to raise points of concern regarding content in any related articles. Such a forum for centralized discussion generally helps.
• (2) Like I said before, I have access to JSTOR, the online database of material from academic journals. Anyone can get the list of relevant articles from their website, at [61] but not everyone can actually access the articles themselves. I can. If you want to get a copy of one of the articles, e-mail me with the name of the article and the e-mail address you want it sent to and I'll get it to you.
• (3) In addition to academic sources, there are other printed sources which might be useful. I went over the list of book reviews related to Falun Gong on JSTOR and elsewhere, and found that the following books related at least in some way to Falun Gong all received multiple reviews, which means that at least theoretically not only could they be used as sources, but they could also be made the subjects of separate articles. These multiple-reviewed books include:
• Challenging the Mandate of Heaven by Elizabeth Perry
• Falun Gong: The End of Days by Maria Hsia Chang
• Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownby
• Falun Gong's Challenge to China by David Schechter
• Power of the Wheel: The Falun Gong Revolution by Ian Adams, Riley Adams and Rocco Galati
• Chinese Democracy after Tiananmen by Yijiang Ding
• Chinese Society: Change, Challenge, and Resistance by Elizabeth Perry
• A Comparative Sociology of World Religions by Stephan Sharot

If anyone has access to any of these books, I'm assuming they would be among the better sources of books out there.
I will myself try to access some of the JSTOR articles and at least attempt to locate some of the books, and I'm fairly sure some of them are fairly commonly available, in the near future. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Will get back on this, but for now I suggest Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China, Noah Porter's fieldwork. Also look at the Yuezhi Zhao article which is reffed in this article. Finally, look for the book chapter by Adam Frank. Just google "adam frank falun gong" and see what comes up. His book chapter is actually an analysis of the scholarly discourse on Falun Gong, which is wonderfully abstruse, and really useful for us nerds.--Asdfg12345 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:PCPP edit warring

I am very much offended by User:PCPP's recent attempts to push his POV. Instead of adjusting his behaviour to meet the mediator's suggestions, he keeps blanking peer-reviewed material about the Anti-Cult Movement and calling it "irrelevant". I find it extremely hard to assume good faith towards him, if he doesn't drastically change his approaches. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The material about Margaret Singer would probably best be included in the biography of the subject. While it is not irrelevant to say that her judgement was more than questioned, and even discredited, later, it would have to be established through references to the book in question preferably that her opinions were less than well regarded at the time she wrote the book cited for the material cited from the conference to be removed altogether. Although I am not a mediator, or member of the WP:MEDCAB per se, this article is under existing ArbCom sanctions and I cannot believe that they would consider any removal of sourced material without prior discussion appropriate. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood. Your reply is quite tortuous. What I'm concerned about is that Margaret Singer, and the entire Anti-Cult Movement she represents, has been discredited by an extremely reliable, peer-reviewed source: "most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." As I said before, the same source also states that "by applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance." I don't think there's any room for ambiguity; the Journal of Church and State even leaves open the possibility that the ACM might not have acted "unwittingly."

Moreover, I have never seen a peer-reviewed source defending Singer's views. If this is not direct proof of her ideas being subject to WP:FRINGE, then please tell me what would be. I see only two choices: either we remove Singer and the ACM altogether, or we mention how the ACM has been discussed by reliable academic sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Those concerns however do not indicate that her own observations and personal experiences, which in this case include her claims that relatives approached her, are invalid. I have just read two reviews of the book in JSTOR, and neither was particularly positive. Whether her ideas do or do not meet WP:FRINGE is basically irrelevant to the statement in question, which is so far as I can see from the revision I have in front of me simply a statement by her that (1) she used the word "cult", which I'm assuming she did, and (2) that she was approached by members of the families of Falun Gong members. Considering she worked with "cults" and other such groups, and wrote on them, the first point, regarding her having defined the group as a "cult", seemingly based on her experience, is probably well enough sourced for inclusion, and the second point is something we would take the word of an academic on. I am not saying that there is any particular need for the word "cult" to be included, and certainly this isn't the best of all possible sourcing for such material, so WP:UNDUE might still enter into the matter. But it is sourcing, even if it could be improved, and the latter point doesn't relate to her personal opinions at all, so any questions of her personal opinions are basically irrelevant to that point. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We can find a near-infinite number of people calling Falun Gong this or that. The point is whether they deserve to be included in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we couldn't give any voice to Singer, but her opinion of Falun Gong being a 'cult' has no practical relevance to the academic community. Besides, Journal of Church and State is considerably more reputable than any publication or conference of the Anti-Cult Movement, so I don't see how Singer's views can be left intact while the reference in question is blanked. Please see the following quote from WP:FRINGE:

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

On a side note, I'd like to ask you not to use the term "Falun Gong members" and talk about "Falun Gong practitioners" instead. The former term is loaded, since people who practice Falun Gong have never assumed any 'membership'. It also subscribes to a discourse that characterises Falun Gong as a formal organisation instead of a loose network of voluntary supporters. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, you wrote "I am very much offended by User:PCPP's recent attempts to push his POV." I believe that if a person is so emotionally invested in a subject that an edit to the Wikipedia entry about it is enough to offend him very much, then that person should not take part in editing the article. Could an edit to the article about Vienna offend you? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am offended by what looks like fueling the fire - a deliberate attempt to undermine our mediation case. If there were similar controversies in the article about Vienna, and I was one of the involved parties, then yes, such behaviour might "offend" me as well, in lack of a better word. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with John Carter's thoughts. The edit has been mentioned above by myself at "blatantly POV edits". Olaf seemingly inserted the material on his own accord without any consensus anyhow. I wouldn't jump straight on PCPP and say that he is "edit warring". Colipon+(T) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I see it John and Olaf where conducting a discussion based on substantiated Wiki principles. However if I see it correctly this is attempted to be "diverted" again by personal attacks against Olaf. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy, I'm sorry, but saying that Olaf inserted the material on his own accord without consensus is a reference to a fact, not a personal attack on Olaf. Colipon+(T) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Olaf inserted" WP:RS in context, true, but is that is not all that you and Martin said, is it? What do you hope to achieve with half quotes like this? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Actually, I was just recently in a discussion on Talk:Bob Dylan where someone who has done a good deal of work developing the WP:RS policy said that a source, if it meets the standards of WP:RS can be included even if it would be seen by most neutral outsiders as being factually wrong regarding that particular point. Therefore, considering that the publisher of the book seems to meet WP:RS, and the author's beliefs regarding the possible applicability of the word "cult" is an informed one, even if less than objective, and the material was published in a reliable source, I have to say that it probably meets WP:RS threshold, although you are free to take the matter to the noticeboard if you so wish. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That still does not answer my concerns. I have not removed Singer and Rahn from the article; I am simply arguing that a peer-reviewed source discussing the Anti-Cult Movement should not be removed and is definitely not "irrelevant" in this context. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Carter: Yes. This article also frequently runs into issues such as, is the Chinese government an RS, even if everything it says is part of a nationwide propaganda campaign, should it still be considered relevant to the context of this article? Colipon+(T) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Olaf, I never said it was irrelevant, at least I don't think so. I believe what I said was that it might violate WP:UNDUE to add all the material you wish, and I honestly believe that adding several sentences to discredit something which is itself only one sentence long is at best going into undue detail regarding a subject which is also covered elsewhere, in this case her own biography. You are free to take the matter to the WP:CNB or other page for outside input, but I doubt anyone would agree to that there is any reason to spend more space criticizing a person than we use in describing the person's comments themselves. And, yes, the matter of the government's material is a good one. It's clearly relevant, as it's the basis for the persecution, and including it would be important. It's objectivity is another matter entirely. Personally, I think by policy we should not be using the government's own material regarding their opinions, but rather try to find some other, independent, source, discussing their allegations. And, yes, considering that the subject of the government's repression of Falun Gong is one that was substantially covered in RS, there isn't much question that the material should be covered. To what extent it should be covered in this article, as opposed to Persecution of Falun Gong, is another matter. Personally, I don't myself see the need to have the quote regarding the government ban isolated as it is. But the material would be relevant to one article or another. Li Hongzhi's quote could also be more easily integrated into the text. In both cases there is a reasonable question whether the quotes themselves have to be used, or whether a paraphrase would work. Personally, I think paraphrases tend to be shorter, and they might be preferable for this, the main article. The quotes could reasonably be included in full in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, where WP:UNDUE would be less of a concern. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As the article stand right now [62] Singer's opinion may look as a highly reputable opinion to a reader who just happen to read that. As I understand you don't consider sourcing the credentials of Singer's as irrelevant and yet you consider that adding too much details is WP:UNDUE then how would go about it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you all realize that the frequency of responses here have caused me to have to revise my statements as a result of other statements being made before I can post my initial responses, so I'm at this point not sure whether I said this on this page or whether I had to omit it as a result of edit conflict changes. Personally, I would say something to the effect of "Singer, a professional psychologist whose credentials regarding this matter were questioned, said..." I know I wrote that, I'm just not sure whether it made it through the multiple edit conflicts and subsequent changes or not. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, I'm sure we all appreciate it! As a best practice when an edit conflict occurs I copy out my statement in a document. On the other hand, if I would have always done that, perhaps, I would not needed to come back with that many grammar fixes :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not solely to discredit one sentence, but to offer a relevant context for all statements by members of the Anti-Cult Movement. The article in Journal of Church and State is specifically about how the ACM has postulated Falun Gong as a 'cult', even though the scientific community disagrees with their methodologies and sees them as a lackey of the CCP. Patsy Rahn is also one of them; correct me if I'm wrong, but she has never been published in any other journal besides Cultic Studies. And I agree with HappyInGeneral: if we don't balance their views with reputable sources, a casual reader might interpret these people as recognised authorities on the topic, and that would be terribly misleading. I suggest you read the article in question, if you haven't done that already; it's available here. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not try to change the subject. If you want to discuss Patsy Rahn, fine. I can see how that section might be putting undue weight on the subject of the conference. But she is not the same issue, and it would make sense to try to raise that issue in a discussion of a separate one. Rahn's material on Falun Gong was also published according to this page in the journal "Terrorism and Political Violence", published by Routledge, which is a respected academic publisher, so I tend to think that her credentials, while not necessarily the best, are good enough to meet minimum WP:RS standards. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the Margaret Singer material, I find the material regarding court statements rather distracting. They have nothing to do with FLG or views of the itself. We don't need to dig up dirt on everyone that has an opinion on FLG.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Singer's comment

I'm creating a new thread just to keep things clean. I made this edit where I kept the bare minimum about Singer as John suggested. Hope it's OK. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Honestly, putting five references beside that one phrase (not even a sentence, a phrase) is a clear sign that it's dodgy. But the trend is really discouraging. It goes something like this:

• Insert some critical content into the article, trying very very hard to make everything NPOV.
• Content is unreliable!
• Okay, we will source it.
• Sources are unreliable!
• They are clearly reliable, just look at [1] [2] and [3].
• Okay, they are placed out of context. It's a fringe theory anyway.
• Yes, but that warrants some degree of inclusion, in the very least.
• Okay, let's insert a statement that discredits it.
• The statement is too long and unecessary
• 'Okay, make it shorter then.
• Okay.

Three months later... the statement disappears altogether again, back to square one.

Does no one else see why editing this article is so frustrating? Sorry to portray it in such a simplistic manner, but this is the kind of stuff that turned many good faith editors away over the years. Colipon+(T) 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with this edit." => Those are reputable sources showing that no, Singer's comments are not as reputable as it would be loved to be portrayed.

Okay, they are placed out of context. It's a fringe theory anyway. => This is what usually you insist on to introduce, even if reputable sources are present in their place. But don't take my word for it, now we have the mediator and John. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please let me mention that when you put essays like this on the talk page, if it's one, two or even five it's fine, it can be constructive and it can show a point, but when you do it over and over again, with the clear intention to discredit the editors of this page, that is WP:NPA in my view, and also as I see it is a FUD technique. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Stop playing a martyr, Colipon, and stick to the work at hand. I'm not going to get involved with your strawmen. Let's just agree to disagree. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am hardly alone. I just tend to be more frank when speaking out about it. A host of other editors raise the same issues (PerEdman, Edward, Ingsbrief, OhConfucius, Mrund etc. etc.). I can move these to my own userpage in due time if their presence here bother you. Colipon+(T) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do that. As for myself, after finishing my thesis in the end of August, I intend to write a rather comprehensive essay on my user page based on my comments here over the years. But I refuse to discuss anything but tangible issues from now on, unless I am really forced to. I have way too many other things in my life. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn

OK, new thread started. I'm not familiar with Patsy Rahn. For a start could you please provide the article you mentioned here? As I see that is only an introduction, if there is a full article, and I don't see it, sorry. One more thing, the "International Cultic Studies Association" (ISCA) as in http://www.icsahome.com/, is that a reputable source? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I just asked the second question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cultic Studies Review, and the only response received to date is that it seems to be. I think the reference to Patsy Rahn is based on her being one of the subjects referenced at the Seattle conference, where she basically said that the popularity of Falun Gong in the US was in part fueled by the violations in China and that the truth of Falun Gong lies somewhere between Falun Gong being an evil cult and Communist China being an evil empire. The first comment is, at least to my eyes, fairly obvious (we in the US tend to do things to annoy countries we don't like) and the second is probably also fairly obvious, in saying the Communist Chinese and American press both tend to use more hyperbole than is required. Could you be a bit more specific regarding what exactly you're asking about Rahn? I don't find any of her articles on JSTOR, but they might be somewhere else. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, basically you mentioned this article, and I was wondering if I can read more of it, not just the abstracts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the article from 2000 is supposed to be at one of the local libraries, and I might be able to get a copy of that, but the local library with it doesn't list carrying anything after volume 17, although another local library says they have later holdings. WorldCat lists most of the libraries with holdings, and there might be one in your area. I can try to maybe make copies of them, but I'm not the best scanner user in the history of humanity. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Continue discussion on Talk:Falun Gong/Discussion - agree or disagree?

As suggested by User:John Carter, creating a separate discussion page for all Falun Gong related articles would make things a lot easier for all of us. This would make the current talk pages redundant; I suggest archiving them and placing a link to the discussion on a blank page. Also, we could copy some current threads to the new discussion page.

• Agree ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Partial Agree, I agree that it would be nice to have a separate page where the discussion is going on only based on WP:RS and the other fundamental policies of Wikipedia, but I also think that separate talk pages are nice, because they each can address some page specific issues, like how to improve that wording, what sources to include, etc... These things did not work until now (I hope they will in the future) because usually the discussions where "diverted" from constructive to personal characterizations and attacks. Those are not useful, and I think with the mediator and the experienced wikipedia editor here, it should become close to in-existent, which would make the talk pages useful again. So you can take my partial agree to abstain, because I think both approaches are fine as long as civility is maintained. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Everyone should also put it on their watchlist. Also, we need a list of the articles in question. Do NTDTV and Epoch Times also qualify to be under this discussion? Colipon+(T) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I wouldn't personally remove any of the talk pages, although this one could sure use archiving. They can be useful for any newcomers or occasional editors who want to add something or comment. I was initially thinking of trying to create a WikiProject or work group for the subject, whose talk page could be used to provide a place to leave notices on all the articles. With only 16 articles in the category though there probably isn't enough content to call for a work group. It does make it easier for people to see be able to comment about subjects which cross single articles to have a single place to comment on those cross-over subjects. Also, I left a message on the talk page of the Religion WikiProject asking for new eyes, partially because that might be the only related project which I personally do much with. It might be possible to get additional eyes from WikiProject China and/or WikiProject Philosophy as well. In response to the last question, I was thinking that all the articles in the Category:Falun Gong were relevant. Oh, and just on a side note, the Portal:Falun Gong could conceivably face some questioning. A portal is generally supposed to have about 20 articles without cleanup tags to draw from, or at least potentially face the possiblity of deletion, as per Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. That's one of the reasons I proposed creation of articles on the books. Conceivably, articles on proponents or opponents of Falun Gong, as well as any other directly relevant articles, could be included as well. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• It would be easy enough to creation a Falun Gong working group or collaboration under the auspices of WikiProject Religion. If I'm not mistaken, Falun Gong is listed as a potential working group already at the project. It would serve to attract other WP Religion participants and provide a location for centralized discussions. It would also be an appropriate vehicle for discussing topic area/WikiProject guidelines, which could help bring everyone on to the same page. Just some thoughts. --Vassyana (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm actually the one who created the list of potential work groups, as per here. The problem is the number of articles. In general, a group like this is supposed to have at least 100 articles to be viable in the long term. Right now, there are about 15, not counting the portal, and it is a bit of work to create the page, the various categories for the banner, etc. Given the rather unusual circumstances of this subject, I could probably do the needed work to create the group anyway, but it would be nice if the amount of content were a bit greater. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the need for some centralized discussion and collaboration is good justification. I can help with setting up the project. Falun Gong has a lot of reliable source material and I'm sure we can split and create new articles as we go along. I will try to allocate time towards setting up a project page, the templates and so forth this evening to get the ball rolling. --Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! A work group attracting other religion-focused contributors with no particular axe to grind with respect to FG would be great. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group. The page is more than a bit rough still, but the beginnings are there. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

*Agree with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, this totally makes sense. Also if I may, Martin you surprised me, in the very best sens of the word :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree--Edward130603 (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question - Why does using a subpage make things easier? I would make two alternate suggestions. First of all, subpages are good for compartmentalizing discussions on a specific topic. For example, if there is a debate about whether or not Falun Gong is a cult then Talk:Falun Gong/Cult status would be a good subpage to have that discussion. Secondly, if you want a centralized discussion, consider starting a Wikipedia project on Falun Gong. This makes most sense if there are at least 5-10 articles related to Falun Gong. You will need the support of 5-10 editors but I think that should be easy to get considering the support indicated above. --Richard (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think Richard had an excellent proposal here. Having a page where a topic is discussed will serve as a stable reference where we can point that a subject has been discussed, so this way we can avoid discussing the same issue over and over again. Great idea! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. We do not have enough motivated editors to maintain 5-10 good articles on Falun Gong. The current main article is bloated and wordy in my opinion, lacking in original content and can be drastically condensed into a more readable form. PerEdman (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently I believe the compartmentalization has allowed fringe views and blanking on some of the subpages and only very few editors (2-4?) have been able to get an overview of all the subpages, which may have caused an over-representation of these few editors' materials on these pages. The Criticism of Falun Gong page is the absolute worst example here: Content moved off into subpage, subpage renamed, subpage drastically reduced in size, subpage link removed from main article and then twice proposed deletion? Let's not further a situation where things like this can happen. PerEdman (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard about a relatively low-level magic trick that makes any erased content mysteriously reappear. Poof! The revert spell! But some elderly folks whisper of chaotic necromancers who refrain from using that spell just because they would lose a measly trump card against their lawful adversaries. As for myself, I just can't take those old wives' tales that seriously.^{Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)} ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion.--Edward130603 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman wrote: The Criticism of Falun Gong page is the absolute worst example here: Content moved off into subpage, subpage renamed, subpage drastically reduced in size, subpage link removed from main article and then twice proposed deletion? . I absolutely agree with PerEdman that this is absurd. Any way the mediator can investigate the history of this page? To my understanding much of the content modifications were the work of two very specific users. Colipon+(T) 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would honestly prefer reverting to this revision and I hope some level-headed editors here agree with me. This will almost certainly face opposition from Olaf though... Colipon+(T) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, that was one of the most preposterous suggestions I've heard on this page in a long time. You are endorsing a version that has been written almost entirely by Samuel Luo and Tomananda – the only guys who've been banned from editing this article for life. Seems like it wasn't inappropriate to point out this comment of yours after all. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, did you not yourself suggest that revert could bring back the erased material? Were you being entirely facetious? PerEdman (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that that version should have some of its content placed on the current page. Reverting it to that might be a little too much but incorporating a little more of the content would be good. Of course, pointing out something that Colipon wrote over 2 and 1/2 years would be so explain so much about him. Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion. --Edward130603 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Edward. Sam Luo and Tomananda were banned for disruptive editing and I oppose all forms of disruptive editing. It does not mean that none of the contents they wrote have no validity. As for Olaf constantly zooming in on my edit on Luo's talk page, that's purely an ad hominem attack, and I respectfully ask for these attacks to cease. Colipon+(Talk) 23:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's simply no need to go replacing articles, is there? I mean, that would be under normal circumstances. In this case the previous article is chock full of original research, lengthy quotes of Li's lectures, and is basically an anti-Falun Gong essay that S&T cobbled together in their spare time. It violates every wikipedia content policy. It doesn't strike me as a serious idea to just revert the article to that version. Realistic suggestion: pull out some of the reliable sources, if there are any, and appropriately incorporate them into what I assume will be the Reception of Falun Gong article, given the overall weight of scholarly research and fieldwork.--Asdfg12345 21:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, that is not an ad hominem attack, because you have never retracted your words. It is a reference to something you wrote on Wikipedia. When I first pointed it out, I asked you to say that you no longer think you have "a lot in common" with Samuel Luo, and that you're no longer interested in "processes of exposure". Before you do that, I consider this your stated intent. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Edward and Colipon. That users Samuel Lo and Tomanda have been banned is no reason to delete all content they have added. Focusing on the person rather than the subject, or confusing the two, will not change this. Asdfg, I find your image of the Falun Gong article very interesting to read. I feel the same way about the way the article is written today. PerEdman (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note. John Carter created the project page and set up various bits for a Falun Gong working group under WikiProject Religion. I have updated the page and made a few other contributions. Editors are encouraged to sign up and contribute to the development of the project. --Vassyana (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is over 500 kBs long, which is way too long for most pages. Any objections if I archive any threads which haven't had any new comments since the beginning of July 2009? John Carter (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a good suggestion and archiving should be uncontroversial. It is easy enough to restore a particular thread if someone had further comments they wished to add or want to revisit. --Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's archived to the first of July, and still about 340 kB long. That'll probably require additional archiving later, maybe around the end of the month, if not sooner. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've went ahead and pared it down by about another third. --Vassyana (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments

• I have specifically requested that PCPP join us in discussion here.
• Margaret Singer, Rick Ross, and other "anti-cult" individuals represent a significant minority of reliable sources. While they should not be given undue prominence, neither should they be shrugged off as a fringe view.
• This article is about Falun Gong. The sources should discuss Falun Gong. Off-topic material, however well-intentioned, is simply inappropriate.
• Edit-warring to remove sourced material, unless it is an extreme case such as a copyright violation or a "BLP" violation, is also inappropriate (especially while this topic area is subject to arbitration probation).
• Views about "cult" defenders and critics are significantly more diverse in academia than presented in this discussion. It is a very heated discussion that (even in some of the better sources) often becomes disparaging, dismissive, and even downright unprofessional. Here are a few sources that help better illustrate the nuances of the scholarly situation:[63][64][65][66]
• People from both sides are returning to the pattern of personal accusations and arguing against reliable sources on the acceptability of their views. We should be focusing on a productive review and discussion of what the general body of reliable sources reports about this topic. Partisan bickering will not get us to that goal.

Please:

1. Do not edit war.
2. Refrain from personal comments.
3. Focus on earnest, polite, and constructive discussion.
4. If there is an impasse about the use of a source or its appropriate balance, defer to the content noticeboards and opinions of outside editors. I will be glad to craft neutral requests for the noticeboards and outside comment.

If 1. and 2. are repeatedly violated despite the best efforts of myself and outside editors, I will neutrally and politely request review from uninvolved administrators at the incidents noticeboard and/or arbitration enforcement. Without 3. and 4., the arguments here will simply go in circles with little to no progress being made. I have to leave for the moment, but when I return later this evening, I will gladly post a request to the appropriate content noticeboard(s) about the reliability and appropriate weight for M. Singer (as well as the additional material regarding her credibility) to solicit a bit of further outside input to settle the matter. Please try to stay positive and help us move forward productively. If we all do that, we can find consensus for changes and improvement. This article could even become a good or even featured article, if we find that spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia-building. That should be the goal of everyone here. I see movement forward, but we still need more of the new and less of the old. Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One question: what reliable source represents Rick Ross? How has this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard been overridden? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

According to his article, Ross has lectured at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago and University of Arizona and has testified as an expert witness in court cases.--PCPP (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not mean anything. Universities rent their lecture halls for various purposes. A lot of biblical creationists have also lectured at universities; does that mean they should be automatically included in articles about evolution? In addition, what reliable source says that Rick Ross in an expert on Falun Gong? See the discussion on the RSN:

• "Rick Ross appears to be his own self-contained cottage industry."
• "WP:SPS is very clear - Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Unless you have RS that shows Rick Ross is an established expert on Falun Gong, his self-published blog is not acceptable. If you disagree, then get the policy changed."
• "Definitely only use something from him on any topic if he's been quoted by reliable source and where relevant mention he used to be a "deprogrammer" to make his POV perfectly clear. Preferabbly where WP:RS say that that person's efforts have someone influenced the outcome of events. Being a paid professional smear artist who happens to get a lot of media should not necessarily make one a good source for an encyclopedia."

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's just a one or two sentences isn't it? Rick Ross is used elsewhere on WP in similar contexts without editors invoking all of these wiki policies over and over again. As far as NPOV goes I really see no issue with providing a one or two sentence Ross insight. Colipon+(T) 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Expertise is not a requirement per se, notability, as per WP:NOTABILITY is, and it seems that Ross is notable enough to merit inclusion somewhere. I also notice that the comments above seem to ignore the fact that, having read the discussion, it seemed to me to indicate that Ross was a usable source as indicated. I can't imagine why that wasn't mentioned above. To me, the more relevant question would be where to include such content. We don't have as yet, that I can see, a Criticism of Falun Gong page, which is rather standard for any religious type organization. Nor, for that matter, can I see a History of Falun Gong, Beliefs and practices of Falun Gong, Falun Gong in China, Falun Gong in the United States, or any number of other articles which it seems to me to be more than sufficiently notable to merit content. Why that would be the case, I have no idea, but maybe if there were less effort spent by people trying to question inclusion of material, and more effort spent on trying to include it somewhere and then later on arguing how much space to give it in the main article, the problems here, and less than congenial atmosphere, might reduce a little. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, do you mean that we could basically take anything Rick Ross says on his private website about Falun Gong, even though he hasn't been published by reliable sources? Sorry, but I need a better explanation. How does that fit with what is said in WP:SPS? "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Expertise is not a requirement per se, but self-published sources are subject to this policy, no matter what. Therefore, in order to use material from Ross's private website, a) Rick Ross must be seen as an established expert on Falun Gong; b) his work in the relevant field must have been previously published by reliable third-party publications. If he has said something about Falun Gong in another source that is otherwise acceptable, then we should evaluate the situation again and perhaps give him due weight. But his private website still doesn't qualify as a usable source, nor does the discussion on RSN indicate that it would.✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of including Rick Ross, I've never seen anyone get around the whole SPS thing. Contradicting policy is a dealbreaker, right? He's a self-published source, not a reliable source for this subject. Notable as he may be, he's not reliable. Michael Jackson was famous; if a few years ago he said something on Falun Gong, would that be relevant for inclusion? He's got no expertise on the subject of Chinese religion, just like Ross.--Asdfg12345 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read and the second paragraph of [WP:SPS]. This has been brought up before, multiple times. He is notable and reputable in this field (and no other). To say, now, that you have never seen anyone "get around" this argument is difficult to believe. PerEdman (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is, Colipon's remark didn't address the issue; the source was ruled out by the noticeboard. If that decision is contested, let's start another post there referring to the old one, and explaining that some editors are not satisfied with the previous consensus. Then we can hear more opinions and debate. Right now we've got a strike-down from the RS noticeboard on Ross, so unless we start another one, it should stay that way if we want to respect the rules. Am I right?--Asdfg12345 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Falun Gong

Moved discussion of Academic views on Falun Gong to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group#Criticism of Falun Gong. Please continue discussion of the article there. --Richard (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New third-party editors - where are they?

So far, the only new editor we have seen on these pages is User:John Carter. Our mediator said that he would invite "three to five experienced editors with some diverse views and strengths to join us here." While I find User:John Carter a very polite, civil and reasonable person to work with, I would also like to see some new editors with a generally sympathetic outlook on religions and spirituality. Now, I can't be sure about User:John Carter and his views; I only know that he has listed things like Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Xenu and Space opera in Scientology scripture on his user page – things that are widely considered either as parodies or otherwise ridiculous topics. I understood that the mediator's intention was to bring in "editors with a variety of perspectives and general outlooks", which is definitely a good thing. I am just pondering whether we are getting there in the near future. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think John Carter is a perfectly reasonable editor. That said I do believe there needs to be more third-party editors. But Olaf raises that he would like to "see some new editors with a generally sympathetic outlook on religions and spirituality" and then points to the things on John Carter's user page... seems to me like a subtle ad hominem challenge to John Carter. Colipon+(T) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I know two others who were contacted by Vassayana declined, I don't know about the others. Regarding me, I tend to work almost exclusively on religion content, being the current lead coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and having before then worked to help develop the WikiProject Religion and the other religion projects. I'm sure User:Cirt, one of our top editors and one of those contacted, would really appreciate having some of the content he works on regarding Scientology considered "ridiculous", particularly considering at least one of the article mentioned above is an FA. And, considering the userpage starts with a picture of a constipated-looking cat calling himself an "admnim", I would have thought that it was obvious the userpage wasn't supposed to be taken too seriously. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in my comment that was intended as a subtle ad hominem. I did not even insinuate that John Carter would not be welcome to edit these articles. I was only pointing out that Vassyana promised to invite several editors with some diverse views and strengths, and if several have declined, I wonder where we could get some more. I may have drawn too hasty conclusions about John Carter's user page – maybe it has nothing to do with his views on religion – it's just that things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are usually brought forth by those who want to highlight its ridiculousness. Whether that is the case or not is irrelevant, and it has nothing to do with my point. I think Colipon just wanted to make me look discourteous. I'm getting used to that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have thus far invited: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)[67], Jclemens (talk · contribs)[68], EastTN (talk · contribs)[69], Dan (talk · contribs)[70], John Carter (talk · contribs)[71], Cirt (talk · contribs)[72], Blueboar (talk · contribs)[73], Storm Rider (talk · contribs)[74], Snowded (talk · contribs)[75], and Sephiroth storm (talk · contribs)[76]. This is a varied lot of experienced editors. I am inviting editors in small groups of roughly 3 to 5 editors, as I do not want to add the chaos of too many new voices at once. I will invite further rounds of editors periodically until we achieve three to five new outside editors accepting the offer to participate. If you have further questions or concerns, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I have now also invited Zenwhat (talk · contribs)[77], Viriditas (talk · contribs)[78], and Richardshusr (talk · contribs)[79]. Vassyana (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Vassyana that is truly appreciated. If I may, I would also add a few words, hopefully they will be regarded as positive, because negative personal characterizations did indeed abound, sadly, on these pages, and naturally they proved unproductive. First of all I do like the cat on John's page! I read the user page a couple of days ago and I wished to compliment on that, but it might have seen that I'm trying to score points, so I refrained. As I see it the user page is saying a story on how ridiculous is when somebody is stating something that can not be probed absolutely. (This happens pretty often both in the "Evolutionist" and the "Creationists" teams, but what is most funny I think is that "Evolutionist" don't consider themselves believers, when they are actually are doing their science just as the "Creationist" do, failing to see that they only operate on different axioms (on something that is unproven and can be called, yes, a belief). That being said it would be nice if we would all state our axioms, and respect the axioms of others. :) ). John certainly has an impressive experience User:John_Carter/Articles, and an INTJ personality is the best we can hope for a Wikipedia article. In this case I think that will allow him to see behind our words and detect every major contributor's true reasons and true tactics. That being said, I agree with Olaf as well and I would welcome also experienced neutral contributors, if there are any available, who have a proven respect for spirituality. That addition right now is lacking and I think it would be necessary for keeping a truly balanced article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing specific user's "axioms" would be the direct opposite of putting the focus on verifiability. PerEdman (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that it's best to have verifiability, but unfortunately we can not have it always in life. And for the parts on which we don't have verifiability, there are usually endless debates. Instead of having endless debates, wouldn't it be better to just accept the things that are not verifiable as such? Even if that means that the uncertainty left behind can generate potentially completely different views on life. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not all things in life. For the parts where we do not have verifiability, the content should be removed from Wikipedia. Focusing on a user's "axioms" does not change this. PerEdman (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos, you don't have to be sure about User:John Carter and his views, you just have to follow wikipedia policy. PerEdman (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Olaf's remark was fair enough. I'd say the same thing if someone with a close interest in mystical or metaphysical was the first contributor, and you or Martin wondered aloud whether we could also get someone with an atheistic background. Let's not make harsh remarks to one another.--Asdfg12345 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not see that I commented on you, too, Asdfg12345: "Listing specific user's "axioms" would be the direct opposite of putting the focus on verifiability." Obviously you would agree that Olaf is right in focusing on the person writing rather than what they are writing, but that only means that you are both wrong. Nothing harsh about the truth, is there. PerEdman (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I shouldn't have said anything. Have a good day.--Asdfg12345 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Joining the discussion at Vassyana's request

Hi, I've been on Wikipedia for almost 3 1/2 years and an admin for over 2 years. My interest is in historical topics especially governmental, military and religious history. Recently, I've spent a lot of time on articles related to the Catholic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses.

With some hesitation, I am tentatively accepting Vassyana's invitation to participate in editing this article. Aside from the natural reluctance to take on the chore of working on a contentious article, my hesitation is also based on the fact that I know relatively little about Falun Gong. On the other hand, coming to the table knowing little helps provide an NPOV perspective in that I don't have a preconceived bias for or against the group.

First of all, this Talk Page needs to be archived. Archiving everything before the RFC would be a good start.

Secondly, it would really help newcomers like myself if someone could compile a list of contentious topics. Scanning over this Talk Page doesn't give me any easy way to get my arms around what the issues are. A scan of the edit summaries for the last 500 edits to the article identified the following issues:

1. how many members? (if such a question is reasonable for an organization that has no definition of membership),
2. is Falun Gong a cult? (what is the definition of a "cult"?)
3. which sources are "reliable"?

If anyone can improve on this list, I would appreciate it your comments.

--Richard (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, Richard.

Building on your list:

1. Controversial views of Falun Gong. Their views on homosexuality and mixed ethnicity should be explained for the benefit of those targeted by them, for the sake of apologetics and for the sake of completeness. It helps no-one to blank these issues.
2. Falun Gong's connection to chinese tradition. The movement has only existed since 1992, but claims ancient roots.
3. Validity of "organ harvesting" claim. Currently, the same second-hand sources are quoted through third-hand parties as if they were unique sources.

PerEdman (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You can always look at this, my attempt at summarizing the issues pertinent to this article. There is also this list of pervasive issues in the FLG family of articles. I will put a disclaimer here that these are purely evaluations from my perspective, and because of the opposing POVs here there may be different ideas of what is considered an "issue" and what is not. Notice, too, that this page has 27 or so archives. The disputes are extremely serious. Vassyana also did a good summary of the issues related to editing (issues about issues).

In my view, the major issue is not actually about the content per se. It's disruptive editing and severe POV-pushing. A contributor wrote an entire rant about these pages, and another contributor wrote a a blog about this article.Colipon+(T) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't change the disruptions in the past, but we can work for a better article, so let's focus on how to resolve the current issues with the content. PerEdman (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish I shared your optimism. Plainly put, if you track edits on the this article and its talk pages, it's clear that the problem is the users, not the content. Colipon+(T) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(response to Richard)The question regarding "cult" is a good one, as that term has no specific agreed upon meaning. I think in recent times, it has been used to refer to groups who tend to be socially isolated from the greater community, and to include those groups from which people have been sometimes seen as needing deprogramming. Having said that, given the lack of any clear meaning of the term, I would prefer to avoid it except in those cases where the sources themselves specifically use it.

I have seen sources so far saying that Falun Gong incorporates aspects of other faiths, including Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. Right now, I'm reading a 60-page book review(!) about "dissent" and haven't really gotten to the other sources I've copied, most of which have been other book reviews I've found.

Regarding reliable sources, I listed above a few books which have been fairly well received by academia, and which I'm going to on that basis conclude are reliable. That's the main reason I went for the book reviews first, actually. There are others reviewed, but like I said I haven't gotten to them all. There is a real question about how accurate descriptions by one's perceived opponents are, and Falun Gong and the Chinese government I think both see themselves as opponents by this time. Particularly for a group this young, there won't be as big a collection of outsider evidence one way or another. In such cases, I tend to think that most sources which meet WP:RS in general could and should probably be used and referenced, although it would make sense if the material or source is clearly potentially controversial or dubiously reliable to indicate at least who the source is, so that readers can come to their own conclusions about the source's neutrality or lack of same. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no real dearth of material on this subject, really. We don't need to lower our standards for sourcing. The idea of checking disputes through the noticeboards is great. --Asdfg12345 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents

More editors are getting involved and I think it’s a great thing. :) And I’d like to welcome all of them here :).

I might not find a lot of time to contribute in the coming few days.. so here are my two cents on how the issues here could be resolved (and I also mention a couple of aspects on which, I believe, the article could be improved upon ).. :

• Ensure that the view of the mainstream academia is what the article, as a whole, conveys. Make sure every line presented is highly sourced, with the perspective of the source accurately reflected. I think this article is rather commendable, already, in this particular aspect.

• I’d like to request admins here to please help keep discussions focused on the article- and its aspects that call for improvement. If there are specific issues with article – poor sourcing, a topic given attention to by the academia but not covered in the article, etc. - All of them need to and should be appropriately addressed. But, at the same time, users, I am of the opinion, should be discouraged from employing tactics of creating fear and chaos : attacking contributors on the project, drawing baseless analogies with certain groups( views held by the academic community on whom are the anti-pole of how Falun Gong is perceived by the academia), blanketing entire articles as "NPOV"(while failing to point out specifics - say issues with sourcing, conflicts with perspectives of mainstream academia..), etc. Such talk page commenting not only takes the focus away from real issues on the article, but ends up forcing those editors who are at the receiving end of such diatribes to counter or clarify the allegations raised – again, taking the editors’ focus tangentially off from where it ought to be. As for me, I have made it a policy to ignore and to not respond to personal attacks unless absolutely forced to clarify.

• This is a topic on which more material/data becomes available, almost every day – especially regarding the human rights violations - and some of the information presented can quickly become obsolete. The material on the persecution in the article is currently quite dated and requires update. There are more sources, updated statistics etc. available. US Congress annual reports on China 2008 being one of the many newer sources we could look into ( this particular source carries material of central relevance on some issues, including the ‘6-10 office’). More sources are available on the issue of live Organ Harvesting as well, than are currently being made use of in these articles. Also, when the perspective of the latest, mainstream academic research supersedes that which is carried in early material, when little information was available to the academic community and journalists other than CCP propaganda, the former, obviously, ought to be given focus to.

• A minor thing, but I’d like to, for the sake of comprehensiveness, see this covered in the article. There have been some pilot studies conducted into health benefits of the practice as a system of mind-body cultivation – but these are not touched upon by the article. These, though published in peer reviewed journals, are just pilot studies - but they certainly deserve a passing mention at least.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism from sources other than Chinese gov't

Can third-party or mediators look at this edit and decide if it is good? Is it appropriate to say there is "criticism emanating from sources other than the Chinese government"? Colipon+(Talk) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As perhaps it's fairly obvious from the edit summary, I considered that wording as WP:OR and redundant, but please check. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundant, in my perspective.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, this is a really blatant POV edit. Suggesting that everybody who criticises FG may be an agent of the Chinese government! It's an instructive example of what we've had to deal with around this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Martin, the edit and the edit summary aren't really that appropriate. But they are alright per WP:BRD. I reverted, but don't take this to mean that I am endorsing the original wording. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see suggesting anywhere that Singer has ties with the CCP, I have no WP:RS on that. But I really don't see why is there a need to emphasize that Singer does not have ties with the CCP without WP:RS. Do you see my point now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. Colipon+(Talk) 12:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding "from sources other than the Chinese government" -it is quite unnecessary when the reader can see for himself what the sources are.

2. The edit summary makes sense to me - all these "criticism" followed CCP's labeling of the practice a "cult", three months into the persecution ( a manufactured tool of repression, and not its cause, according to Kigour Matas, Ownby, Schecter, etc) . So, these early criticism as from Singer , it is reasonable to assume, could have, at least indirectly, been influenced by CCP propaganda.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is that reasonable to assume, Dilip? Because one happened after the other? I'm not even convinced that that is correct. PerEdman (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The sentence was redundant, so I removed it. There is no reason to state, inside the section of the article dedicated to academic attention and criticism, that "there has been criticism", and then who and what that criticism is. It is perfectly satisfactory to just include the criticism itself. PerEdman (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Colipon's sandbox

• Moved to User talk:Olaf Stephanos#Colipon's sandbox.