Talk:Falun Gong

Template:WP1.0

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

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

	Archive note: Kindly consult the archived discussions should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the wikipedia community time spent on otherwise rehashing an issue already discussed.Template:Archive box collapsible
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

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

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

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

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

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

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

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

Membership and finances

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Singer

A look into the background of professor Margaret Singer and it is clear that if she has an agenda, it is an anti-cult agenda, not a pro-Communist one. I removed the reference to Singer being "sympathetic to [the CCP's] goals". Even if there are some sources that paint Singer this way, inserting an awkward quote like this is highlights an undue connection between Singer and the Communists, which is not at all necessary given the context. If, perhaps, Singer was a Maoist herself or has notably supported CCP policies on other issues in the past, we can make this connection valid. But Singer has not demonstrated much of an explicit support for any anti-Falun Gong measures taken by the PRC government. She merely criticizes Falun Gong in its own right. Singer's Falun Gong writings have been noticeably less inflammatory than the CCP. This is the reason that even if this phrase or anything along the same vein is sourced, it is a poor representation of who Singer really is. Colipon+(Talk) 10:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

One can be "sympathetic to [the CCP's] goals" for many reasons, and usually the most telling if somebody is or is not is their words and actions, right? So if there is a source saying that she is "sympathetic to [the CCP's] goals" then this statement when it is correctly attributed and sourced can be inserted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

But then you would be ignoring the well-known fact that FG pracititioners call all their critics "pro-CCP" as a rhetoric device. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well aren't they usually "pro-CCP"? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your leaps in logic reminds me of those highschool reasoning questions : Nazi's always hate Gays, therefore all Anti Gays are Nazi lovers. True or False? Bedbug1122 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bedbug you got it all wrong. What's more, that comment was a smear. Kindly strike it out. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Margaret's Singer's agenda had nothing to do with being "pro-CCP". The idea that anyone critical of FG is pro-CCP is alarmingly paranoid. In the American context critical perspectives, especially in relation to the "cult" label, have little to anything to do with CCP propaganda. I'm not sure how anyone can believe otherwise. Most Americans distrust the Chinese government. Singer's agenda was an anti-cult agenda which has nothing to do with Chinese politics.PelleSmith (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head with "Well aren't they usually "pro-CCP"?" - by that I mean you hit the nail on the head as to why we have problems with the way you approach virtually all these articles. Anyone who doesn't share your views is automatically "pro-CCP" in your world.

Well, truth says "no, it ain't". Accept the notion that one can be critical of and even heavily criticize Falun Gong without being a spy for or sympathizer with the Chinese government. If you find yourself unable to accept that notion, you will simply have to get out and leave. Seriously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You did do a great job in launching a smear campaign against me, I see. Although I can see your logic above, you do forget to put this into context and acknowledge how massive the propaganda campaign against Falun Gong is, which naturally makes most of the critics "pro-CCP". Sure there are some people who don't like Falun Gong just because perhaps they are born that way. But if you ask me, those are very, very few, when compared with the 70 million party members, who need to criticize Falun Gong just to remain in the party. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF???... What's up with the link to WP:NPA?... Alright, can we do a quick headcount as to who of the participants in these discussions is a member of the Chinese Communist Party?

Maybe no-one ever informed me of it, maybe my name is on some secret list somewhere, or maybe I must've stashed my membership-card into the back of my freezer and forgot about it... as far as I know, *I*, for one, have never been a member of any party. Or wait! Maybe, in fact, I *am* actually Chinese, was born in China, have been a member of the Communist Party since birth, but in order to hide that fact from everyone, including me, they surgically changed my face to Caucasian, implanted a new brain complete with new memories of my fake past, and now I am lying about it without even being aware of my lies, and... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that context should always be taken into account. In this case, when a 'massive propaganda campaign' is taken in the context of the PRC it is not so notable, because history has shown us that massive propaganda campaigns are the standard form of communication of the CCP, whether its anti-piracy, anti-corruption, anti-vermin, or anti-dengxiaoping. Campaigns don't even always reflect a true believe in the message, and certainly it still fails logic to label supporters of such topics as pro-CCP. Also in terms of Context, that 70 million CCP members are anti FLG is irrelevant in this case because a) they are Chinese, b) they live in China c) they speak Chinese. Associating an white western educated intellectual with them by default is pure silliness and ignores Context. Finally your comment "people who don't like Falun Gong just because perhaps they are born that way" is very much disturbing to me. Falun Gong is not eye color, fat women wearing thongs or ragweed pollen. Please be very careful about labeling those who don't agree with you as being 'born that way'. It leaves no room for meaningful discussion. Bedbug1122 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really glad to learn my 'dislike' of Falun Gong is apparently in my genes or because of my closet membership of the CCP, and not from meeting reactionary types in cyberspace who never accept they, or Li Hongzhi, can ever be wrong, as I had originally thought Ohconfucius (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me repeat it is funny how you take this so personally, your remark, if I guess correctly, relates to this statement of mine "Sure there are some people who don't like Falun Gong just because perhaps they are born that way." Again, both Ohconfucius, and Bedbug1122 overlooked the perhaps word, and you continue to insist that I just said that everybody who does not like Falun Gong was born that way or are CCP members. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your writing "presumably" only made it a veiled personal attack instead of a full-frontal personal attack. Anyway, you seem to have missed my use of the word "apparently". Ohconfucius (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Your writing "presumably" only made it a veiled personal attack instead of a full-frontal personal attack." => LOL, I see, how about if I say I'm sorry that I caused you that perception? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And Bedbug is right. Let's not forget the propaganda perspective isn't just to channel negative emotions... (see image added) --Ohconfucius (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but when it leads to torture, then I think it's safe to say that it is negative. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I just proved it to you with the image above that it isn't always negative, and you start proselyting again! Ho hum... --Ohconfucius (talk)

• Maybe because I failed to see why you needed to "prove" that is not always negative considering the context of this article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is funny how you take everything so personally, when this actually was started by a question, not a statement, and it is a discussion about the ratio of people who are self declared anti-Falun Gong and are also pro-CCP vs. people with no CCP connections.

To debunk a bit further:

1. "What's up with the link to WP:NPA" => Simple Seb, when you tell me "you will simply have to get out and leave." I will consider that as WP:NPA.
2. "surgically changed my face to Caucasian" => 1. I did not point my finger at you in person, 2. your statement shows up as a string of letters so I can not really assert if it is true or not, or if full context is given. Everything is possible, and all that is fine. Since we are on Wikipedia, WP:V asks us to show up the mainstream source when we edit pages. And that is all that matters, to keep focused on the text, right? Why do you want to put words in my mouth and make it look that it is personal? I can assure you I whole heartedly respect your face whatever color it may be. Your words try to portray me as racist, and I can assure you that I'm not, but I can also ask you to prove it if you insist on it.
3. "a) they are Chinese, b) they live in China c) they speak Chinese", d) they have a lot of money, e) they don't speak only Chinese, f) they try to influence the world with the outreach of embassies, media, Confucius schools, etc. => so my statement becomes relevant when speaking statistically, just a few sources on this: [5], [6], [7]
4. Again this whole discussion started from "Well aren't they usually "pro-CCP"?", it did not start from is Singer, Seb, Bedbug1122, etc... pro-CCP. Other then the fact that you made this to be a smear campaign against me, by extending my question in weird ways, there is no reason for any of you to take it personally. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no comment on 1),2)

3) e) The average CCP member speaks Chinese; perhaps some with knowledge of Russian. Yes there are those that speak English to some degree (e.g. Jiang Zemin), probably to the same scale as American democrats speak Chinese (i.e. insignificant). f) Sure they try, this is in line with the motives of any government, but what you had suggested was that their outreach by embassies, media, etc. was so influential that a western scholar who's academic view tentatively coincided with the CCP's on one isolated topic should be automatically thrown into their camp as a whole. Your sources are blogs that show to the contrary, their tactics are NOT working in the west, and they are perceived as threatening and bullying. In that light, if Singer indeed was influenced by the CCP it would be from violence and coercion?

4) I simply challenged the leaps in logic, and dualistic thinking as applied to suggest that Singer sympathized with CCP goals. This was not intended and I do not see it as a smear. In topics touching China, the nature of the beast is so enormous that it is very easy to loose perception of scale and fall prey to Reductio ad Hitlerum -esque arguments. That 70 million CCP members ordered the deads of tens of millions of unborn babies in China, does not mean that a western critic of the Prolife movement is inherently pro-CCP. Such should be true when discussing the FLG.

Lastly, I included 'perhaps' in quoting your comment, and I disregarded it because to me it does not change the intent of the sentence to suggest that those not holding your particular view are simply "born that way". If my concerned response to this has offended your sensibilities; I apologize. Let me re-word it:

'Please, perhaps be very careful about labeling those who don't agree with you as perhaps being 'born that way'. It leaves no room perhaps, for meaningful discussion'. Bedbug1122 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a point here. Characterizing someone basically independent of someone else as being "pro-" or "anti-" the goals of that other party through third-person material is at best dubious. I could easily be (as a member of the Catholic Church) symphathetic with the anti-abortion goals of Scott Roeder, but to indicate that makes me even remotely sympathetic to the assassination of George Tiller is, to my eyes, a preposterous leap of logic. Any number of people are, to varying degrees, sympathetic to the goals of many governments and other entities, but appalled at their actions. To selectively describe anyone as being "pro-" or "anti-" the position of someone else, without prsenting the full context, is probably not what we should do in any article, barring a clear statement from the party themselves, in this case Singer, regarding their views on the matter. Even then, unless their is clear evidence that the party in question, in this case Singer, supported not only the goals but also the actions taken to achieve those goals, and I don't see any real evidence to that effect, I think in the interests of neutrality and accuracy we would probably be best served by making any such value judgements based on anything other than clear, direct comments from the party themselves, or, in the irrelevant to this instance case of people who have been dead for some time, a clear statement in an academic work or biography expliciting making such a statement, and providing some degree of convincing evidence to subtantiate it. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I love your comment John, you debunk my question, in the proper manner, without starting a personal attack. I thank you for that! And yes, sure I agree that labeling is not the best tool in an encyclopedia. Here we should synthesize based on what reliable sources say, and no, I don't have at this moment any sources saying that Singer is pro-anything. So it's that simple. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on this discussion

This is a good example of the type of discussion you should try to avoid regarding this topic. As John Carter points out, unless there is corroboration from reliable sources for the claim that Singer was pro-CCP we have no business putting it in an entry period. There is no need to get into this kind of mudslinging over such a simple issue. I wish I had been more clear headed myself when I commented earlier but the pro-CCP claim is a violation of WP:NOR. My advice is to stop attacking each other and move on to greener pastures.PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. John Carter and PelleSmith make the points in clear terms and are the better voices of reason here. Moving on. Bedbug1122 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Intervention

This bunch of unsubstantiated edits by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) are disruptive to the great amount of progress that has been made so far by editors from all different walks of wiki who have dedicated time into this extremely contentious article. As such I will now revert it. If there are any grievances or issues arising from this please discuss. Colipon+(Talk) 22:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Colipon, let me elaborate, then tell me which one of the edits is unsubstantiated and why:

1. 20:03, 7 September 2009 Colipon (talk | contribs) (52,916 bytes) (rv SPS, POV, etc. Undid revision 312449859 by HappyInGeneral (talk)) => You did not engage yet in the talk that was started here. Please address them.
2. 21:30, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (53,207 bytes) (›Membership) => I added a WP:RS regarding the number of practitioners fixed.
3. 21:31, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (53,189 bytes) (›Media branches and PR Strategies: remove WP:OR) => I changed PR Strategies into appeals, if you go through the sources in that section you will see that that is a Human Rights Appeal and not PR Strategy
4. 21:40, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (53,173 bytes) (›The 'cult' debate) => here I split up the section into supporters and critics of the cult term, otherwise it is intermigled and it is not clear what is the WP:Due on the subject
5. 21:53, 7 September 2009 HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) (54,696 bytes) (›Critics of the 'cult' term: amnesty) => in these revisions I added more informations correctly sourced and attributed.

Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In my eyes the only valuable NPOV-passing edit in that group was number 2. So you can restore that if you would like. Also, if you believe my treatment of the content was unfair, you can ask other editors if you would like. I merely reverted because I cannot assume "good faith" on these edits, sorry. Without directly speaking out against you personally, I would like to point out that your edit patterns and open advocacy are often in direct violation to the article probation and as such must cease. A recurring theme for pro-FLG editors on this article is to subtly "tip the POV balance" in favour of Falun Gong and these edits are a typical example. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we agree on nr. 2, then I restored that part. For the rest it is troubling that you are unable to assume "good faith", because that is necessary in order to have a constructive environment. Still it is not really relevant either, because we are discussing sources not opinions, so please address what is the problem with how the sources are attributed and presented on point 5, or with the structural change made for clarity in point 4. Point 1, is discussed in another thread above and point 3 is not that important. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing that we need to avoid right now is to make presentation of everything a "for" or "against" battle. The earlier "cult" section did this extremely well in that it put everything in a fluid context that a reader can easily follow. Adding headings and then restructuring everything to "pro" and "con" makes the presentation more black-and-white and therefore much more misleading. Colipon+(Talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"much more misleading" because? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the above points, I would comment as follows:

1. We have dealt with this before, and I definitely don't feel such detail and esoteric language is suitable for the lead.
2. agreed
3. it's all to do with the use of media to get the political message across. Although I don't find it misleading or POV, I will try and find a better term.
4. I have rearranged the section slightly. It was essentially rewritten from the previous problematic version by third party editor PelleSmith, and I agree that it is more neutral than any version we have had before. Splitting is unnecessary because it breaks up the flow of argumentation, and becomes an invitation for either 'side' to firebomb with quotes which favour their own arguments.
5. I believe you were trying to make a point with this edit. It is exactly the sort of disruptive firebombing which has blocked progress at this family of articles for so long, contributing to the significant bloat. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Please state your opinion in the relevant section #Partial_rv_to_intro.
2. ok
3. "it's all to do with the use of media to get political message across." here is one point where your POV is showing because you are stating things that are not in accordance with the majority of WP:RS and is against common sense, because what practitioners are doing is a Human Rights Appeal. There is no political party favored in their message, there is only a call to stop the persecution.
4. OK, I'll go and check
5. What is disruptive in adding sources and balancing a blatantly POV version of the cult label? What is disruptive in this talk? Isn't it more destructive to have lightning fast reverts without proper discussions, basically owning the article? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No one person owns the article. In fact there has been a very large group of editors working in concert to improve the article. I would suggest that it is in fact you who might want to consult WP:OWN.Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral, there is no need to lash out at other editors for WP:OWN when a vast array of editors have finally begun to work on solid content on these articles and disassembling the Falun Gong POV fortress that SPAs have built in the past two years. To me it is not only ironic but also disrespectful to good faith editors. Colipon+(Talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I have absolutely no intention of being disrespectful. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I did. What d'ya think this was?

3. nobody said there was party politics involved. There can be politics without parties.

5. It appears that when you get to the point where it is in 'balance' for you, most of us have an issue with WP:UNDUE on our hands. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Karma and qigong

OK, this may be a bit of a reach as well. We know that Li said karma was a substance physically found in the body. T his of course sounds to many westerners rather, well, odd. In Ownby's 2008 book, page 10, he states that during the qigong boom some well-known Chinese scientists claimed to have found the material existence of qi. Having this information included somewhere, probably the qigong article, would probably be useful. It would maybe also help to reference it here, to establish that Li's claims are not unprecedented.
By the way, the PRC's record for science in this area is not exactly spotless. I know that in a collection of Skeptical Inquirer articles I read several years ago, as I remember a collection of Martin Gardner's pieces, there was one in which it reported how Chinese citizens were able to prove conclusively that they were able to identifiy hidden objects in sealed boxes. The fact that these psychics were allowed to take the boxes home with them at least overnight, and, in some cases, returned them physically damaged and with the seals open, was not of course something that the government saw fit to take into account in these studies. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem in Chinese Academe at the moment is actually a tendency to see a failed hypothesis as a failure. As a result if data tends not to support an hypothesis the research is generally shelved and not spoken about again; furthermore information that tends to support an hypothesis may, on occasion, be treated credulously. Even China Daily has reported on this problem (though don't ask me to cite a date and page number, it was a random copy I read one day on my break back when I worked over there).Simonm223 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The negative reporting bias is not isolated to Chinese Academia. In labs around the world research ethnics and the ego of individual researchers clash on a daily basis. Plus there is the very practical and well documented link between positive results and continued funding. The difference is, whereas in the west solid estimations can be made on the the rate of unreported failures due to its more transparent environment, in China, the added layer of government propaganda motivations make these figures hard to ascertain. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Better

I have reverted everything to a better state. I'm sure that everyone except Ohconfucius will agree.--FalunDafaDisciple (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone ban this user immediately. Colipon+(Talk) 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW.....that was a massive trail of destruction!--Edward130603 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I 'd want this guy immediately banned as well. An obvious Joe job account - nothing more. He does nothing but make comments engineered to create a caricature out of the apparent perspective of supporters of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Category

Is the category Category:Victims of Communist repressions in China really necessary?? It has one article - Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

LMAO...whodunnit? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody involved in this debate.Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Seen it. I have the notion that there are some people going 'round creating these categories. I recently responded to an RfC on Communist Genocide and The Expulsion (author claimed it was a well-known term for the displacement of Germans after WWII)... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ridonculous. I'm going to put it up for CfD. It was listed once before, but in one of those mass noms, so nothing happened. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets not blanket all these categories as "ridiculous" - if several notable topics come under the category, it might very well be deserving of an independent page. When we have categories as the ones here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victims_of_political_repression , I see little reason why this one alone would become "ridiculous." Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't get the rationale - could you kindly expand a bit? The category is certainly notable -isn't it? At least as notable as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victims_of_Communist_repressions_in_Poland_1939-1989 , I would say. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How other categories are named doesn't affect what THIS category is named. We already have the more neutral Category:Political repression in the People's Republic of China. Adding "victims of..." simply invited more POV-pushing. Please take your anti-PRC agenda elsewhere.--PCPP (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How, then, would you explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victims_of_Soviet_repressions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victims_of_Soviet_repressions_by_nationality , etc.? How come these categories help organize material - but when it comes to the CCP such organization would merely "add POV"?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(I don't know what's to explain. You are arguing along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Read it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

and perhaps WP:DEADHORSE too ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cases like this should be worked on a case by case basis, especially considering that Category:Victims of American political repression was deleted [8]--PCPP (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is only one article in the category, then the category basically fails in its primary putpose, which is to link related articles, and can fairly clearly be seen as being unnecessary. The fact that the category is also one that could be construed as being POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, linking it to FLG as a whole is just incorrect. As the FLG touts, it has practitioners around the globe. I certainly don't see the CPP doing much repressing to the local members that like to camp out in front of the Chinese consulate in my town. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a category with a single category is not a meaningful category, maybe there where more entries in it at some point, but as it stands right now it is meaningless. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• What is wrong is not so much there being a category with only one article in it, but that this category was seemingly created specifically for housing this one article, like some sort of custom-made POV repository. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I saw there was a Photo of Falun Gong practitioners getting arrested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TiananmennBrutality.jpg in the article "People's Republic of China" and i thought that the photo would be more relevant here. But it got like immediately taken out again and after like a few months it also got taken out in the PRC article with the remark "Human rights: unnecessary and undesirable to use a propaganda photo to illustrate the article". And now i am like "WTF? why would this be called a propaganda photo?"

There actually thousands of picture like that (here are a example of a couple of hundred i found on a Falun Gong website http://photo.minghui.org/photo/Esitemap.htm) so there all propaganda? Why? Simply cause it's from a Falun Gong website? That's enough for categorically devaluing it as propaganda? So what they reenacted it all? Would be kinda hard to reenact it on Tiananmen square, wouldn't it? And the pictures of Labor camps there are fake too? You know they said the same thing about the holocaust... I am sorry but i am German an Germans tend to get pretty angry at remarks like that... (-:

BTW i am not the one who uploaded the picture or put it into the PRC article. --Hoerth (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Which photo of the four on the page linked to are you discussing. My own personal belief, for what little it might be worth, is that those photos would probably best be on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article, because they are all most directly relevant to that subject. But the nature of the photos, and the fact that they deal with something only really marginally dealt with in this article, might cause some to question whether they would be particularly appropriate here. Also, there is the fact that all those images are copyrighted, and by wikipedia's guidelines and policies, we try to use a public domain photo wherever possible if such a photo is sufficient for the article's purposes. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well most (not all but most) of the pictures where shot by Falun Gong Practitioners themselves - so i am pretty sure they are not gonna be against using them otherwise they wouldn't have put them on western internet anyway and put themselves in danger by having shot them. But of course i don't know them personally. There is only one picture on the Falun Gong website in which i do know the guy who shot it personally (and i know him very well and know that he is not opposed to it being posted on Wikipedia). It is this one: http://photo.minghui.org/photo/images/persecution_evidence/wuju/images/zhu_hang1_big.jpg http://photo.minghui.org/photo/images/persecution_evidence/wuju/images/zhu_hang2_big.jpg And this is the background storry:http://clearwisdom.net/emh/emhweekly/2005/12/11/2005-12-08-persecution.html#12 --Hoerth (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I am reluctant to use these photos is because they are all taken with the aim of advocating for a cause. They play on emotion and are part of a much larger public-relations campaign by Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. Initially, the page held a host of pictures showing people being beaten, harassed, reenacting torture, and all that. I do not doubt that the pictures are real, and as you can see, one remained ("reenacting torture"), but it gets out of hand when the article becomes a gallery of cruelties, esp. when the issue at hand is so divisive. I am extremely aware of the power of images, and I do believe that the words in the text, rather than the pictures, should "speak." To me, the current shape of the article is already a compromise. If it was up to me, I'd take out all the pictures. But we settled on this compromise to include a few of them, but not too many.

As a side, "propaganda" wasn't my rationale and word-choice when I reverted the inclusion. Colipon's word-choice of "advocacy" is the appropriate term. If at some other article, people accused you of propaganda, just ignore that comment. It's charged. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just because Falun Gong, Flickr, [name your source] has a photo gallery doesn't mean we have to use them. Whilst images often help to put a subject into clearer perspective, some articles are best left without. IMHO, this is one of those. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Seb az86556: No you weren't the one who said "Human rights: unnecessary and undesirable to use a propaganda photo to illustrate the article". Ohconfucius said that when he removed the photo from the People's Republic of China page. But anyway I really don't care... I just thought the picture that i saw on the PRC article would be more appropriate here and i wanted to mention that if you guys want to have a picture relevent to the persecution that there is one where i know the background and have permission and that i could put up. That's all. --Hoerth (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

POV editing again

I have removed this series of POV edits by HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). I want to remind said user that this is not the first time such an edit has been attempted and it has been reverted multiple times by multiple users due to its selective quoting and POV nature. Please do not do it again, as it would certainly put your good faith into question. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a central piece of information sourced to the Amnesty International added to the article, and supported by a detailed citation - what is "POV" about it? The material is centrally relevant in that section as well. Could you please expand on why you label it "POV"? Am interested in knowing. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the tone of said addition sounded more like a lecture than an article-section. I do not think we should assume that all readers of wikipedia are dumb sheep that need to be told what/how to think. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is at least the second time said user attempted inserting this content. Colipon+(Talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are a number of problems with the text, so I have restored the text written by PelleSmith. Either you guys don't realise that just because something is sourced, it doesn't necessarily mean it belongs (WP:N, WP:RELEVANT, WP:NPOV) or you're once again disingenuously attempting to firebomb the article and causing WP:UNDUE issues. Either way, this needs to stop.

  I also have a problem with the repeated insertion and unsourced reference to the Nazi swastika. I am not aware that FLG has ever been under attack for its use of the symbol, and I would say that such paranoia is completely unwarranted. What is more, the infobox is the last place such commentary should be. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The conjecturing in the last 2 sentences do seem inappropriate, but I'm not sure the Amnesty International ref isn't relevant to show the classification differences in China. Bedbug1122 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it simple for me

Question: Since you reverted again, can you please explain in detail how is a something that is reliably sourced from Amnesty.org and American.gov is less WP:N = WP:RELEVANT, WP:NPOV here then "Chan 2004", "Irons, Edward. 2003", "Kaven"? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That clause explaining the Chinese gov't classifying Falun Gong as an 'Evil cult' was immediately followed up with "The government uses the term to classify groups deemed harmful to social stability in China." To launch into a very detailed explanation here is unnecessary. It is sourced content, yes, but placed in this context it is given undue weight. It seems to me like the implications of this edit is to say "The Chinese government says Falun Gong is an evil cult, but this is wrong". This also fails at WP:NPOV. As you say, we keep it simple, and the current revision does a superb job of this. Colipon+(Talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! So I understand that your problem is that this edit was WP:UNDUE, ok, I'll get back on that. Is there anything else I should be aware of? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Self-immolation

Having copyedited that article today I feel that the event has very notable and warrants inclusion in the main article. From looking at the different sources I get the impression that Chinese public opinion did not turn decisively against Falun Gong until the incident occurred in February 2001. It seems to have played a pivotal role in the Chinese government's media campaign against Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the article's importance. I have completely restructured the article in recent days, and I aim to present it for WP:FAC very shortly. Any positive contributions would be most welcome. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The subject is mentioned in the index of the Ownby book several times, unfortunately in the latter part of the book I haven't gotten to yet. If the candidacy is put off till, maybe, Wednesday or Thursday, I should have whatever I can get out of that book available then. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not in any hurry. It can wait the outcome of your reading. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

If the page on persecution of FLG is semi-protected, why is the main article free for new users and IP users to edit? This makes very little sense to me, especially in light of recent vandalism by sockpuppets of FalunGongDisciple. Colipon+(Talk) 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong symbol section

Hello,

I think there should be a good place where the swastika can be explained. Otherwise visually this symbol can be confused with the Nazi symbol, see here: [9]. I'll get more research on this, but as I talked with people that was their first confusion. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, you do that. In the meantime, please don't keep putting it back. By all means write some text based on scholarly remarks and put it in the body - the infobox is not where it belongs. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We try not to duplicate content too much, and the swastika article already covers the oriental usage fairly well. I think all that would have to be said would be something to the effect of the "the swastika, used as it is in Buddism, Hinduism, and other eastern religions as a symbol of [whatever]", would probably be enough. --Comment by John Carteradded by HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. See here: [10] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you moved it into the body and added 1/2 a sentence explaining the Nazi's plagiarism of the symbol it would help with the confusion. My first experience of seeing a group of Buddhist students with swastikas on their uniforms was one of utter shock. Bedbug1122 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the "quick-note caption" in the infobox is a sufficient solution. I just don't know why it needs to be in bold print. Seems to be pre-programmed into the infobox... anyone know how to override that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Hello Simon,

I see that you reverted this edit the point of that edit was to remove duplicate content in refs and merge it under the same refid. Could you please merge them as you see fit? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The cult label and WP:DUE

I submit that:

1. The cult label with regard to Falun Gong can properly be considered a Fringe theory;
2. It should be treated as so in these articles, according to WP:DUE;
3. Including it in the lead, between two words which are not fringe theories, and having a section which does not detail how it is a fringe theory, according to researchers, violates WP:DUE.

Can we discuss these points? I think it's just the most upfront and simple way to go about this. I know it's been brought up before, but this is just silly, to some extent, when David Ownby is repeatedly pulled out of the cult section, and the sources which clearly say that it's a fringe theory are pulled out. I'm adding Ownby and Johnson back now--it's clear that both of them are exemplary sources, and their statements on the topic are highly notable and warranted. Let's discuss the other aspects. Please remember that reliable sources are king here at wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your exclusion of the word cult from that particular part because it clearly says "There is a debate"; it thus doesn't make any claims about the truth or merit of that label. Within that one sentence, it cannot possibly mislead anyone into assuming or inferring anything other than what it says: a debate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll find a far more sensible way of resolving this when we address the real issue: is it a fringe theory or not? This is the locus of debate, really. It was not actually resolved last time when PelleSmith began the discussion. Here's the link he compiled:

Use cult

• Kavan, Heather
• Singer, Margaret

Don't use cult

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

Reject the cult label

• Ownby, David
• Porter, Noah
• Edelman, Bryan
• Richardson, James T.
• Johnson, Ian
• US State Department[11]
• Amnesty International [12]

NOTE: Very often, actually, in all the cases above, a rejection of the cult label goes along with a statement that it is essentially a propaganda tool. I didn't put that in the sub-section name, just to keep things simple, but I'm noting it here.

Another issue is, the "reject" category includes all those in the "don't use" category. I would think that an overwhelming majority of "don't use" compared to "use" would be enough to conclude that the "use" pile is fringe (particularly when the credentials are questionable, such as Singer, and when Kavan is trained as a media professor--the case against Kavan here is not as strong, but at the least, she carries far less weight than people like Ownby on this issue)--Asdfg12345 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. Looks like a "debate" to me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a fringe theory?

Here, it says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

On the WP:NPOV page there is some related language about WP:DUE, related to the fringe guideline:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Is it clear by now that the cult label is a minority view, a fringe theory? I'm not asking whether there is a "debate," and "debate" isn't the metric wikipedia uses to evaluate arguments and sources. There's a "debate" between Darwinism and creationism--but one is certainly a fringe theory and the other not. There are also a bunch of other theories. The proponents of them call it a debate; the mainstream calls them fringe. What we're interested in here is the preponderance of the term in mainstream sources, and how it is treated in them. I'm showing that it's 1) not used by mainstream sources as a descriptor of Falun Gong, and 2) often rejected by mainstream sources as a propaganda tool. I believe this makes it clear that the cult label in relation to Falun Gong is a fringe theory. Any dispute?--Asdfg12345 09:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"any dispute?" is mere rhetoric on your part. Apparently, there are other opinions; if it was so clear-cut, people would not have included it in the first place. You don't need to wiki-lawyer me into getting a brain, I already have one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just another point: It just dawned on me that the list of "don't use the cult label" is every academic article which is not in the first list. That's a tautology, obviously, but the point is that that "don't" list can already be considered to be maybe another couple of dozen names long, since it is only a very few, specific academic sources (like Kavan and Singer) which use the cult label with regard to Falun Gong seriously. --Asdfg12345 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for your response, Seb. Would you like to elaborate on what you mean further? You seem to be suggesting that you disagree that the cult label is a fringe theory, but you don't explain why, or offer any sources in support. Please note that you are required to justify your stance with reliable sources.--Asdfg12345 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) It is a known fact that the Chinese government incessantly uses the words 'evil cult' to refer to Falun Gong. It features prominently in all statements issued from state media, and a very large number of mainstream sources report that. Whether they necessarily agree with that is another matter - actually, most just cite it these days e.g. 'Falun Gong spiritual movement, which the government refers to as "an evil cult"'. SO whether we like it or not, it is a prominent element in that debate, even though the concept is largely deprecated in academic circles. Personally, I think that academics have gone utterly 'politically correct' (meaning soft) in this regard because there are/have been undoubtedly manipulative/destructive cults, but I digress. Again, I'm not saying FLG is a cult of any sort. The 'cult' in the lead asdfg objected to is merely a placeholder for the debate which is in the cult section of the article, and it is clear enough there is absolutely no endorsement for what FLG should be classified as, be it cult, NRM, or just spiritual movement. I really don't see what the issue is, and what WP:UNDUE has to do with anything in this context. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen. I was waiting for Ohconfucius to -- once again -- express it in a more civil manner, because I am about to lose it here. (and just like you don't have to wiki-lawyer me into getting a brain, I don't need advice on sources) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We are attempting to establish whether the cult label is a fringe theory or not. Neither Ohconfuncius's comment nor Seb's addresses, or even attempts to address this. You don't see what the issue is? But I've spelt it out several times: is the theory that Falun Gong is a cult a fringe one or not? I've presented policy and a pile of sources suggesting that it is. If there's no attempt to argue with this (that it's a fringe theory that Falun Gong is a cult), then we have nothing to discuss, and we can conclude it's a fringe theory and deal with it accordingly in the article. Or, do either of you seek to disagree?--Asdfg12345 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to list all sources, give a number in weight, then based on that mathematically decide how much weight (mention) one or the other deserves. Sounds fair? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are so fond of policies, read Ohconfucius' rationale again, and go to WP:N. It's not like just some wacko came up with it, it's te Chinese government, one of the major players in this whole debate, controversy, dispute, pick your wording. If some jerk on the street came up with a fringe-theory, nobody would give a damn. The CCP's using it makes it notable, whether you like it or not, and there is no endorsement of this anywhere in the sentence. Fringe theories are by definition held some loon who sits in his office and dreams up junk without influence. A government with an army and a police-force isn't a fringe theory anymore. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We may be getting somewhere. You seek to dispute that the cult label is a fringe theory on the basis that the CCP was the first to use it, and promotes the term as a descriptor of Falun Gong? That's an unexpected argument. Just so things are clear, Ohconfucius, do you support this assessment? Seb, are you arguing that the CCP is a reliable source on Falun Gong, and on evaluating the cultic or non-cultic nature of religious beliefs and practices? Or are you saying that regardless of the reliability of the CCP as a source, the cult theory is not a fringe theory, simply because the CCP has an army and a police force? I'm not sure if I follow your exact argument. If you gave me some policy to chew on it might help. What you're saying seems odd to me right now...--Asdfg12345 10:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You understood me. I am neither endorsing nor disputing the word. I am not saying the CCP is a "reliable source", just like I would not argue that Hitler was a "reliable source" on Jews, or Verwoerd was a "reliable source" on black people. Fact is: CCP (with a lot of influence) uses the label; therefore, it is notable, under whichever specific policy you want to dig up, and it deserves being mentioned in this article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you may have linked the wrong policy. WP:N is specifically about what qualifies for an article. It's in the "nutshell" and the first sentence: Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article...--Asdfg12345 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you're not disputing that it's a fringe theory then there's no dispute. The cult label is a fringe theory. It should then be treated in the article as such. This is about WP:DUE, which says things like "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." -- if you're admitting that the CCP is not a reliable source, that also makes sense. The real thing is how academics have taken up the cult label. And we see above how. If you are not really disputing that it's a minority view, there should be no problem amending the article's current condition to reflect this. Here's another: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." -- there are more. It's all over there at WP:NPOV. Just to sum up, so the state of this discussion is perfectly clear:

• a list of academic sources which use, don't use, and reject the label was presented. -- you did not dispute this.
• the policy about fringe theories was presented, and I argued that the label was a fringe theory in light of the policy and the sources -- no clear dispute here, either.
• I repeatedly asked if there is a dispute that it's a fringe theory -- no clear dispute, no sources produced, no policy referred to.
• You keep saying that the term is notable. Not arguing. It's notable insofar as it's a fringe viewpoint.

My conclusion, based on the policy, sources, and lack of response, is that the cult label in referring to Falun Gong is a fringe theory. We all know that the article should reflect the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject, as NPOV and DUE make very clear. Now we also know, it would appear, how reliable sources treat the cult label with regard to Falun Gong. The article is quite far from reflecting this at the moment. I'll make some changes that I think will remedy this now. --Asdfg12345 11:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the master at reading with blinders. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seb, you didn't respond to any of the points I raised, what am I to think? I can only conclude that you simply have no response. If you have something substantive to bring to the table, in terms of a policy item I've missed, or an interpretation of policy, or some sources, please go ahead and bring it forth. Those are the germane issues here.--Asdfg12345 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded, you are blind, not my fault. Go ahead and change whatever you want to change, it's not worth my time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please quote the relevant part of your response or provide a diff, so it is clear which response are you referring to? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, we've been through this. The PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'" whether you like it or not. And journalists say 'PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'"' whether you like it or not. It's immutable and notable fact, and one that people looking up 'Falun Gong' will expect to see addressed in this article. If it's such a reader doesn't see it there, xhe will probably say 'WP is crap because it doesn't even have the basic fact but instead harps on about some boring farty academics saying nobody uses "the c word" any more', and they would be right. If it is an editor, xhe may well insert it, and they would be right. It may be a theory which belongs on the fringe, but it sure ain't a fringe theory any more. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"The PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'"", right nobody is disputing that, however the question is just how much of the academics and media say that the PRC is right. When there is a debate, then it is actually questioned whether that branding is correct or not. Right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point we keep going over is that we are only after verifiability not truth. Its pretty clear that Wikipedia does not share a paradigm with FLG, so I would advise you guys to stop trying to apply or force your paradigm onto Wikipedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia policy on truth vs. WP:RS. It is just interesting to note, how a different page requires a different standard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have very serious difficulties not jumping to the conclusion that this whole discussion is some form of POV pushing. The use of the word is at least discussed significantly by the Chinese government, and by the sources independent of the government. The index in Ownby lists for "cults" pages 3-5, 19-20, 23-24, 43, 127, 161, 164, 168, 173, 176-182, 195, 223, 226, 229-230, and I can verify right off that most of the later items listed above deal specifically with the term as it applies to Falun Gong. I have no reason to believe that the word should be, in some form of censorship, excluded from the article. Exactly how much attention should be given to it, however, is another matter entirely. It is clearly among the most often used words used to describe Falun Gong by the government, however, and very reasonably should be included in the material describing the government's later reactions to Falun Gong. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I always have a chuckle to myself when I'm reading the archived press articles on Clearwisdom where the word 'cult' is systematically replaced by [slanderous word]. It strikes me that some are trying to push us in that direction. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have certainly exhausted my assumption of good faith from a select few COI users on this article, I did what I must. Noting all the opposition to asdfg's changes I reverted the article to an earlier revision. These edits are completely discouraging and I must yet again remind the users that this article is on probation. The Wikilawyering is painfully obvious to any third party, and the editing habits are growing to be rather offensive. I am in pain every time I look at a discussion like this. Enough is enough. Colipon+(Talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to have it on record again, I do not want the word excluded from the article. But to quote John "Exactly how much attention should be given to it, however, is another matter entirely.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If we were to apply the 'Ownby index of "cultability (sic)"' to the issue, I would guess it comes pretty high on the scale that it would merit a mention in the lead of the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and did I mention page 3 is in fact the first page of real text in the book, so, in effect, the question of FG's status as a "cult" is almost the first thing he talks about? John Carter (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We all know that the CCP uses the word a lot to slander Falun Gong, but that's unrelated whether it's a fringe theory or not. No one has directly come out to respond on that. Let me just clarify that it was never my thought for the term to be removed from the article--I was calling for whether we have a consensus that it is a fringe theory or not. In the article currently, it is not treated as a fringe theory, it's made out to be an ongoing debate within the academic community on Falun Gong. But it's just not, and the article shouldn't portray it to be. It's fine that the issue is brought up by Ownby on his first page, and that Reuters and AP always use it--this shows that it's not such an insignificant minority viewpoint as to warrant exclusion from the article. It shows that it's something like a minority viewpoint as outlined by Jimbo, above. We can name a prominent adherent: Singer. But the term doesn't have traction among the academic literature, and it's mostly rejected and understood as a clever label from the Central Propaganda Department. Since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources which discuss this issue seem to take this stance, this is how it should be in the article, right? Let me quote this piece of NPOV again: 'Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.' -- at the moment, nothing has been shown which would suggest that the cult label isn't a minority viewpoint. --Asdfg12345 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And, as I referenced directly above, if you read it, Ownby begins to discuss the question regarding Falun Gong's cult status on the first page of his book. I am glad to see you referencing something other than WP:NOTABILITY, but I cannot see how a subject referenced on the very first page of the most recent reliably sourced book on the subject does not qualify as sufficiently notable for reasonable inclusion in this article. I believe that, ultimately, your arguments are completely unconvincing to anyone taking part in this discussion who may not have a preexisting bias in favor of Falun Gong. That being the case, I believe there is very little point in continuing this discussion in the current form. A posting to a relevant noticeboard or a request for outside comment through RfC might be reasonable, but, considering this is evidently far from the first time this discussion has been made with no satisfaction, I cannot see any purpose to be served by continuing the discussion in the current fashion. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, regarding: "but I cannot see how a subject referenced on the very first page of the most recent reliably sourced book on the subject does not qualify as sufficiently notable for reasonable inclusion in this article.", do you mean that the cult word, having it's own subsection is not reasonable mentioned in this version? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable label, that's not in question. I just want to get a consensus on whether it's fringe or not. It's fine that we take it to another forum if we're at a deadlock, but the question I've raised is actually a very simple, very straightforward one, and we can establish an objective metric for weighing it up. It's actually got nothing to do with preexisting bias in favor of Falun Gong. By saying that you are effectively painting yourself into a corner. Apparently, then, PelleSmith must have a pro-Falun Gong bias, simply because he's suggesting that the cult label in terms of Falun Gong is a fringe theory in academia? (the label, by the way, is a fringe theory in general. In terms of Falun Gong it is doubly problematic, given its uptake in communist propaganda.) Anyway, you've said you think it's not a minority viewpoint, so that gives some way for a start to the discussion. Since it's fairly important to make clear how the cult label will be treated in this article, if we cannot agree to how it will be treated on this page--and agreement for how it should be treated on this page is unrelated to how we personally feel about it--then sure, let's take it to another forum and get other people to decide for us, so we can get on with it. It's good to bring these issues out and just get things real clear.--Asdfg12345 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

I'm not even sure what the problem is. The labeling of the group as a cult is both 1) notable because of the Chinese government's political rhetoric while being 2) fringe/minority in the academy. As long as the "cult" label is used contextually in the entry there is absolutely no problem with it being there. Does anyone object to the current version? I believe this is a more accurate reflection of the "cult" issue with a couple of minor exceptions. The Frank reference could go back in to neutralize it a tad, but it really does seem at this point that academic consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of not using the word at all and we should reflect this more clearly than it was in the version I scaled down a while ago.PelleSmith (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Content

As far as I can see, a balanced treatment of the cult issue now goes something like this:

• Chinese gov't labels Falun Gong a cult, but that is wrong because Ownby says so.
• Social scientists and everyone else reject the cult theory.
• Richardson and Edelman see political ramifications - cult label is exploited by the Chinese gov't.

We also notice that the following was removed:

For example, Cheris Shun-ching Chan considers cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred rather than collective worship; that cults are less demanding of their members and more tolerant of other religions than sects are; that have a strong charismatic leadership and that they lack clear boundaries of membership. Chan claims that Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a new religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics.

I have no more energy to run these circular arguments. ASDFG's edit summary was misleading, and makes it seem like a 'consensus' was reached at the talk page, when really he is just inserting content favourable to FLG and removing content that criticizes it. This is absolutely unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 18:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. The fact is that scholarly consensus has nothing to do with what is or isn't favorable towards Falun Gong. You make it sounds like Ownby is alone in calling Chinese political rhetoric what it is or in rejecting the cult label when his position seems entirely mainstream. I've said this before but this entry needs less knee jerk reactions coming from both sides. Your position seems to be that if certain editors are making an edit it must be completely exaggerated nonsense meant to push a POV. Provide a reasonable argument based on reliable sources please and if you think content that has been deleted should be re-added then find a way to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if we argue endlessly on WP:UNDUE and WP:N, we notice that in ASDFG's edit, much reliably sourced material was removed. And if we go into this edit and see which parts were removed, we notice handily that parts portraying Falun Gong in a negative light had disappeared. Then, if we go into ASDFG's history on this very talk page, we notice almost everything he has written is about getting rid of content critical of Falun Gong. I frankly don't give a damn about whether or not Falun Gong is a cult. What I am concerned about is these users with a clear conflict-of-interest in the subject constantly editing to advance Falun Gong's case. If you disagree with my analysis, so be it. Go make some bold edits if you must to make the content more balanced. I am sure you are a good faith editor just trying to take a neutral and just perspective. As for me, I am just too fed up with these SPAs. Colipon+(Talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) I think it should also be pointed out, believe it or not, according to Ownby, that there is a mountain of material in China critical of Falun Gong, and he doesn't explicitly state that he believes all of it is necessarily generated by the government. By the way, I really wish someone else had some of the other books to cite. I think I can get hold of The End of Days, but that might take awhile. I also indicate again that I have copies of all the articles stored on JSTOR available to anyone who asks for them. Just send me an email and I'll send them to you. I haven't had the chance to read them all, but it could well be that some of them relate to this as well. And, as an addendum, if you believe disruptive editing has taken place, such editing is a violation of the ArbCom sanctions. I don't think anyone who actually edits here would see themselves as being uninvolved enough to take action, but the sanctions were put in place to prevent anyone from making disruptive edits. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, could you upload it to mega download or other temporary upload download site, so we can all access them?

Yes, I believe disruptive edits happened here and here, just to mention a couple of them. But since the discussion is ongoing, I did not want to take it further, just yet.

Also John, since I see that you read some about this subject would you like to take a stance and express which one of the edits you think is good, or perhaps if there is a third version you would seem more appropriate? Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a violation of JSTOR's terms of use to upload the material, which more or less states it is for private use only. Regarding the content dispute, Give me a few days to finish finding articles about the UAE and tagging them, and ask me again later. I'm not trying to be evasive, but I really can't do as many things at once as I would like. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"I really can't do as many things at once as I would like" => It's OK, don't worry, I totally understand. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I have read some of these pre-1999 critiques of Falun Gong but unfortunately much of it is not available online, and when it is, it has always been labeled as just more Chinese gov't propaganda. Sima Nan is one of Falun Gong's strongest critics within China before the crackdown. Sources are very scarce. I am trying to get through some of these JSTOR articles but unfortunately real life is catching up to me. Colipon+(Talk) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In China the Government controls all form of it's media and historically any persecution is first prepared with critics in the media. Against Falun Gong this started since at least 1996. I know this from the documentary A decade of courage, part 1, made by NTDTV. Let me see if I can find some other sources saying similar stuff. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries made by yet another FG subsidiary. I think I'll go along with what the JSTOR articles say. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure JSTORE is fine, but is good to have a starting point, right? Otherwise information is just hidden in a billion of pages. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Through his reorganisation of the secton, asdfg apparently removed Frank and Kavan. This resulted in non-sequiturs/lost context and broken references in the text. I have reverted the section to an old version. I am beginning to feel rather frustrated by this constant unproductive battle. I feel that this removal of two key paragraphs may be related to his wanting to remove the [slanderous word](sic) from the lead - the possible logic being if we banish the cult debate in the article, there is no further need to mention it in the lead. Of course, this is going about it all the wrong way. Verifiability over truth is the way of WP, not "truth compassion and forbearance". As time goes on, my forbearance is approaching its limit. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius please note your POV is clear as well. And since nobody is owning the document isn't it normal to establish what is fringe in the academia and what is not? If you would answer the questions directly, the whole thing would be a lot quicker, so just who's patience should run thin by now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• You and asdfg are the only people who are pushing for this. Everyone else believes it is necessary to mention the "c-word" in the lead. Whether the existence of "cults" is fringe or not is not what's at issue. Something can be fringe and still merit a mention in the lead, and this is the perfect example. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pushing what to be more exactly? Did I ever say that the cult word can not be mentioned? The question to which the answer is being avoided is if the cult label of Falun Gong is a fringe theory or not between the western academia. If it is a fringe theory, then it should be portrayed as such in the cult section. Right?--HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will further continue in this discussion in the event of a paradigm shift at Wikipedia. Failing that, I feel that we are done. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Same here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing new in your reaction. This is EXACTLY avoiding the question presented above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of things. The first is that I'm most interested in making this article conform to the content policies. I think PelleSmith's compromise of putting "cult" in quotation marks works. The second thing is that I noticed Colipon's discussion sets up a kind of pro-Falun Gong and anti-Falun Gong dichotomy. I won't speculate on why, but I'll just say that I think this is a counter-productive way to approach things. Let the conversation revolve around sources and policy instead, and we'll get away from this stupid pro/con discourse. It's not about a bit of salt outweighed with some pepper. Ideology isn't the driving factor in content, it's sources and policies. Not much else to say for now. I hope we can get everyone's views on whether the cult label is fringe or not.

oh, and about my edits of the article. I removed Chun (is it?) because it just seemed to take the discussion in yet another direction. That was a single source, a few hundred words. Her theory is distinct yet again. Do we accord each source space to state their own theory, or are we supposed to use some judgement and convey those they are the most common? I don't mind, as long as there is some logic to the process. The western media section was yet another non-sequitor. Finally, I'd urge people not to do blanket reverts, but instead make changes to supplement and improve the changes of others. This will create a much more collegial environment, I think. Of course, use your judgement, if something is really inappropriate, then revert, or do as you feel best, but when someone has taken time to change wordings and really weighed things up, in terms of the clear consensus of sources presented on the talk page, and you come along and pull it all down with one click, that doesn't help to create a feeling of "working together."--Asdfg12345 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Ohconfucius, please be sure to give your stance about whether it's a fringe theory or not.--Asdfg12345 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seem this cult issue is one of the central points of debate on this topic. Would I be correct to assume that there is not a large body of scholastic work or extensive schools of thought regarding this issue available? If this were to be true, wouldn't it in the spirit of inclusiveness and diversity, be acceptable to allow coverage of whichever academic that has given input on the topic? Why is there the need to condense and distill this particular sub-topic when it's obviously generating much discussion and contention? I see above a list of pro/anti authors; wouldn't this be a much better illustration to have in the actual body than resorting to subjective labelling? To me, seeing such a list lets me draw on my own an impression that there is a general consensus on the issue. But when the word 'fringe' is used I immediately reflect that by scientific standards, when a topic is fairly new and only contributed by a few dozen sources, it is wholly inappropriate to label any one theory as 'fringe'. Of course the dualistic way to classify each scholar's interpretation and their own definitions of what a cult is, is another issue. Basically, I'm trying to say - be more inclusive. 136.159.169.6 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe or not - one question at a time

Without comment on whether or not "cult" should be mentioned in the lead please answer the following question so we can move on: Is using the cult label to describe Falun Gong a fringe position in scholarship?PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it is a fringe position in scholarship.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Now watch them get to work lawyering that... Ohconfucius (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you just state your arguments? It would be more productive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you mind answering the question so we can see if this is in fact agreed upon by editors here? Until this is settled it will continue to confuse issues like whether or not mentioning the label in the lead is appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Yes it is a fringe position per list provided here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• No - because I believe the question is misframed. I think a more accurate description of the current state of affairs would be something like, "China says Falun Gong is a cult. Is it? Well, based on what we westerners can see, no." But I very much believe that the question as phrased is kind of putting the cart before the horse. The western academics have, in general, little if any knowledge regarding the subject, so they hven't yet made up their mind. I think a better summary of the current academic situation would be something like what I added in quotes above. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes -- and the question is perfectly sensible. There is a specific provision in wikipedia content guidelines for fringe theories. The sources I list above show clearly that it's a fringe theory. Just read about what a fringe theory is. It's not necessarily bad, it's just an objective assessment of the uptake of a particular theory in a field of study. John, what do you mean when you write "western academics have, in general, little if any knowledge regarding the subject, so they hven't yet made up their mind" ? There are dozens of scholars, China scholars, sociologists, and others, who have researched and written about Falun Gong. There's a list just above. The vast majority don't adopt cult discourse, and the majority also actually refute it and say it was a CCP propaganda label. I'm just repeating what's in the sources here. PelleSmith is right when he says we need to get clarity on this point, or it's going to keep coming up. So, everyone involved, please make your position clear and be prepared to defend it.--Asdfg12345 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are dozens of scholars at each of the thousands of universities in North America, as well. And only a very few, percentage-wise, have spoken on the subject. Therefore, it is my belief that this subject itself is one which is so generally not understood or spoken of that, in a sense, there hasn't been time for the academic community as a whole to come to any sort of conclusions. Obviously, they will follow the lead of most of those who say it isn't, but the fact that so many have to refute the theory rather explicitly is itself evidence that the belief that Falun Gong is a cult is still one which apparently has some weight. Very few of the sources on the life of Jesus go into any degree of detail regarding the numerous fringe theories about how he survived the crucifixion, so that clearly is a fringe belief. The fact that so many people, even within the last year or two, have to devote so much space to the cult question is, to my eyes, at least a form of backhanded evidence that the belief is still current enough to not qualify as "fringe". And I hope that I don't have to ask others to defend their behavior, as well as their statements, as well. I have read the page several times, and find it presumptuous that anyone would be so arrogant as to indicate that I had not. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • John there are dozens of scholars at each of the thousands of universities in North America and only a very few, percentage-wise, have spoken on virtually 99.999% of all subjects studied by other scholars. Pick anyone you want. That doesn't disqualify those who have spoken on the subject, among whom there are countless years of expertise in Chinese religion, in the study of NRMs, etc. etc. I continue to fail to understand your argument in this regard. The debate over the cult label seems to be one between mainstream scholarship and various non-scholarly perspectives. No evidence has been presented to the contrary and and within scholarship the criteria you have referred to regarding what may or may not be considered a cult is actually a well established fringe position.PelleSmith (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• No The status of the FLG is contentious and I don't think that the academic community, let alone the public, is of one mind on the issue.Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But do you agree that the majority of academics do not use the label or refute it? And, do you agree that in our lists above, there are only two academics who uphold it, and many more that explicitly refute it?--Asdfg12345 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The question is not conducive to improving the article. Currently that section of the article merely states that most social scientists reject brainwashing theories, and that they apply this avoidance of "cult" to almost all NRMs that have cult-like character. In mainstream scholarship, scientology is also not a "cult", branch dravidians is also not a "cult", and mormonism and JW are most certainly not "cults". If we apply this purely academic definition, then FLG is not a "cult" either. But the debate over the controversial nature of each of these groups most certainly exists, and currently we seem to be narrowing in on the word "cult" and have become overtly obsessed with discussing its inclusion, when we can better spend our time discussing the points of contentions and controversies in general, which immensely lack the due weight it deserves in the article. In any case, the current treatment of the "cult" issue is, in my view, the best we ever had. It does not in any way define Falun Gong as a cult, but merely clarifies who has what views. Colipon+(Talk) 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging from the warring over the use of 'New religious movements', we are headed for another round of fruitless discussion there after people tire of this "c-word" one. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius and Colipon, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you simply do not want to engage in a straightforward discussion about whether the cult label is a fringe theory with regard to Falun Gong or not. If you did, you would have said whether you think it is or think it isn't a fringe theory, and would have given your views. Instead, the question is being delayed and obfuscated. It's just a very, very basic question, and it's all about how things are presented on the pages, and things need to be presented according to the mainstream sources. The reason for proposing this question is to make sure we have a consensus on what mainstream scholarship says about Falun Gong, which is a requirement of wikipedia policies. At the moment, the article doesnt' reflect what the mainstream says. The purpose here is to reach a consensus on it. If you are refusing to answer, I find that highly problematic. I reiterate: Is the view that "Falun Gong is a cult" a fringe theory in the academic literature on the subject or not? It's very simple. I've compiled a list of sources above.--Asdfg12345 16:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• No - There is not enough academic study in terms of time, scope, or diversity to qualify any single idea to be labeled as fringe. The above list of sources conclude that there is a minority opinion that it is a 'cult' by whatever definition. But 1 in 3 is a minority too. Fringe delimits the far bounds of sloping landscape. When your landscape consists of only 15 relevant sources, what's the body when you start designating fringes? Consider using a less extreme word. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it clean

A friendly reminder, the question above is: Is using the cult label to describe Falun Gong a fringe position in scholarship?

• @John: Since your question is: "China says Falun Gong is a cult. Is it?" could you please create for it another section? It would be more appropriate.
• @Asdf: Please answer the question yes or no. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• @John, is my assertion above wrong? Is there any reason why you don't want to move your question to it's appropriate section? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming entangled. Please create a section for each issue and in that section discuss that issue, otherwise in the end it will not be possible to evaluate what was answered and what was not and anybody can claim that the question was repeated ad nauseum. No honest editor should want this to happen again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not a vote, it is a simple question about how people perceive scholarly consensus to fall on the use of cult to describe the group. I see absolutely not legitimate reason not to answer yes or no, besides either not having enough information to answer the question (which ought not to be the case given the prior discussion) or affirmatively believing that there is no scholarly consensus. I also implore you all to simply get this over with so you can move on to more fruitful endeavors. Please also keep in mind that the inclusion of the clearly notable use of the label by entities outside of the academy is not in danger of being wikilayered out because of an affirmation of scholarly consensus. Accurately reflecting what sources say should be the simple solution to both problems.PelleSmith (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I personally think the FLG is a cult I don't think there is any scholarly consensus on the issue. Kavan says yea, Ownby nay, etc. ad nauseum. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you consciously say ad nauseum when the sources where listed multiple times. What scholar classifies them as a "cult" other than Kavan and Singer?PelleSmith (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly the most heavily studied subject in academia. So I'd say that even two major voices using the lable are sufficient to confirm that there is not a concensus in academia. You asked for my opinion, I gave it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: "So I'd say that even two major voices using the label are sufficient to confirm that there is not a concensus in academia." => Do you have a way to quantify what make a voice major here? Or is that just a personal opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't yet seen a real definition of the word cult which is uniformly agreed upon, which I would think kind of required to decide whether any group qualifies as one or not, my impression is that it probably isn't a negative impact on its practicioners, which is I think one of the factors in determining "cult"-status. It does seemingly take an unusual amount of time on a daily basis, and that can and today often does raise eyebrows, and its members do, like those of many other newer religions, display an almost slavish adherence to the words of its leader. That doesn't help public perception either. So, while many of its members are often what others would call extreme in their related activities, I think that's probably more about the individuals themselves, rather than of the system they follow. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking anyone to decide themselves, that would be a WP:NOR violation. I am asking about scholarly consensus. I'm not sure why people are avoiding answering this question. Regarding your comment, there was a more uniform definition of cult within sociology and there now is a uniform understanding by sociologists of what anti-cultists refer to when they use the term. The problem is that today "cult" is rarely used as a meaningful term by scholars of any stripe precisely because popular usage comes with various association which have little to no empirical basis. People here seem to think that "cult" is a meaningful classification for a group with various negative qualities and if they admit openly that scholars don't use this term to describe a certain group then somehow the group can claim to have vindicated itself from any activity it engages in that could be considered negative. This is simply not true. It has already been pointed out that scholars like Ownby are fully capable of taking a critical perspective despite not using this term. So what's the problem here? Are we all that hard up on using this term despite the fact that experts consider it useless?PelleSmith (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry for misreading earlier. I guess the answer to that would be how much weight to give the various Chinese officials who have described it as a "cult". My guess is that, in the west, including academics, it is perceived primarily as a fringey new religion, but not necessarily as a cult. The question then becomes how much weight to give the allegations out of China regarding its effect there. One of the points in defining a cult is unquestioning regard for the words and actions of its leader, and certainly Falun Gong members seem to follow Li almost to the letter, according to what I read in Ownby, anyway. I think the defining characteristic of the term when it is used in a perjorative sense is whether being an adherent of the school is damaging to the individual. There are numerous allegations in China of such damage, generally put out by the government there. The devotion its adherents give it could be seen as being indicative of that as well. So, I guess, from what little I've seen, the people in the west apparently think it possesses some of the characteristics we associate with "cults", but not demonstrably to the degree that would justify use of that word. Most other religions fall in the same general grouping as well. I think the west also tends to discount the statements out of China in general, which I think throws out most of that data. So, probably, a group with uniformly highly devoted members, yes, a cult, no. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John I think you are not fair regarding "One of the points in defining a cult is unquestioning regard for the words and actions of its leader, and certainly Falun Gong members seem to follow Li almost to the letter, according to what I read in Ownby ... The devotion its adherents give it could be seen as being indicative of that as well." simply because if we were to generalize this broadly, we could just as well start to argue that we are cult members just because we spend over 2h almost daily on Wikipedia, and speculate that the editors must have an irregular family life, back problems, eye problems, etc...

Why would anyone in his right mind want to start speculation like that? For one we are not forced to edit Wikipedia, the same is true for the people who practice, we find it meaningful to edit here, so do they.

The Chinese governments label as a cult is not based on any science, cases of practitioners who died of illness is not correlated with the general illness factor in the country. This is something very normal when the label is used just as a propaganda tool. Based on that I would accord near zero academic value to what the PRC says. Of course, I might have a POV, but if you have better reasoning on why the PRC's label should be given more academic value, please state it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the cult page, where extreme devotion to the words or actions of a leader is in fact listed as being one of the characteristics of cults, in the "According to secular opposition" section. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read it again. To be a cult is way more complex then that. To quote completely your source: "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." The point is that to be a cult it has to be coercive. Do you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also thank you for answering the question, now I guess this discussion is for the sake of broadening our understanding. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You did see where I said at the end that it seems that it probably doesn't meet the definition of "cult", but that it possesses several of the characteristics of them, right? Most religions do possess several of those characteristics, but aren't cults. Personally, I think given the comparative newness of this group, and its circumstances, it is probably not unreasonable for an uninformed person to raise the question of whether it is or is not a cult, but that the evidence available doesn't support particularly well the contention that it is a cult. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John the specific issue at hand regards a scientific or expert consensus which is unrelated to 1) how you or any other editor may classify the group based upon matching up qualities of the group with a criteria for "cult" you have accepted or 2) whether or not Falun Gong is considered a "cult" in Western mass culture. The former is clearly OR and the latter is wholly besides the point if we are trying to figure out what is mainstream in expert discourses and not popular ones. It seems like you are saying that based upon your perception that Western scholars don't know enough about Falun Gong you are willing to dismiss the perspectives they do have. That sounds rather anti-intellectual and against the grain of WP:V and WP:RS regarding expert sources. Within academic discourses there are mainstream perspectives and there are fringe perspectives (and much more rarely there are even disputes). There is no justification for dismissing expertise in this area of scholarship based upon our own perceptions. Also FYI, in the "cult" entry "secular opposition" is a less clear way of saying Anti-cult movement. We should not use the criteria of the anti-cult movement to determine whether or not a group is a "cult". This should have been obvious from the section title which has the word "opposition" in it. This would be akin to taking a criteria for what constitutes "science" from the Discovery Institute.PelleSmith (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may sound like that to you. However, having read the work of Ownby, who spent a good deal of time in China investigating it, I have to say that, however good his opinion is, it is based on a rather small, although probably scientific, study of a comparative few individuals he could find. I think he's right, in saying it isn't a cult, but scientific sampling can be wrong, as we all found out after the 2004 US Presidential election, which so many studies indicated Bush would lose.

And, ultimately, although I personally do discount most of the effort, it is extremely hard for me at least to say that the one body which has had the opportunity and interest to study the matter, the people of China, primarily active with the government, are themselves, basically, wrong. Even Ownby acknowledges that many of the claims made by the Chinese government regarding old people who refused medical treatment because they thought Falun Gong would heal them read as realistic. And, of course, no outsiders have had the opportunity to really study the matter, so in those cases the Chinese government's claims are all we can work with. If true, that would put Falun Gong, somewhat, on basically the same footing as Christian Science. Is that a cult? I think that depends, also, upon who you ask. Experts at fundamentalist Christian universities will define Christian Science as a cult, some others might not. So, basically, on a term which has no definition set in stone, like "cult", there is not only the matter of whether Falun Gong is a "cult" but also the matter as to what a "cult" is.

There is another matter, which Ownby acknowledges, I think (believe it or not, I don't have the book with me today), which is itself, according to him, something that, basically, outsiders will have trouble addressing. This is a touchy issue, but probably a relevant one. Having given some study to the matter myself over time, which is inadmissable I know, something that often plays a role in people engaging in "cult"-like behavior is lack of what we call formal education. This isn't explicitly included that I can see in the cult article, although it is somewhat implicit in points 2 and 5 in the "in psychology" section of that article. Ownby surveyed many western adherents, and found their education and economic opportunities high, even compared to other westerners. He also acknowledges that the same probably doesn't hold true in China, but this also hasn't really been studied by any outsiders, so their opinions are just that. However, people with little knowledge of the broader world, which is a cult characteristic, are more likely to act in accord with the beliefs of the group they know whether that is to their apparent benefit or not, and it could reasonably be argued that some of the observable activities of Falun Gong adherents in China indicates it may be true of many of them.

So far as I can tell, the purpose of asking this question is basically to determine if WP:FRINGE applies here. To an extent, I agree it should, at least the part that says theories should be described "with representation in proportion to their prominence", and there is every evidence that the opinion of the Chinese government is a very prominent one. However, I personally believe that there is a very real chance, given the previous behavior of several individuals regarding this content over the years, that formally declaring it a fringe theory will result in individuals trying to minimize the amount of content relative to the Chinese government, or spinning it out to some other article, and I believe that would be inappropriate. You could say that violates AGF, but I find it reasonable to not necessarily assume good faith of all individuals involved in a topic that ArbCom has placed under sanctions. And, yes, I have to say that, even according to the most recent scholarly book on the subject, much of the information which would be required to make a reasonably accurate determination of Falun Gong's status as a cult within China itself is unavailable to outsiders. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John I am at a loss to understand what the reliability of election polling in the United Sates has to do with determining what the mainstream scholarly position on classifying Falun Gong is. The latter issue has nothing to do with scientific sampling -- a literature review perhaps, but that is rather different. Your main argument above seems to be that the truth about Falun Gong's status as a "cult" has not been fully ascertained, so therefore we cannot trust our current standards of verifiability. This is completely contra to standard Wikipedia policy and practice. In determining scientific consensus go by what peer reviewed journals and academic presses publish on various topics, and in this case doing so clearly supports the notion that classifying the group as a "cult" (for WHATEVER REASON) is a minority position. Counter arguments I am hearing from you amount to 1) your own value judgment about the state of scholarship on Falun Gong and 2) your own original research in taking qualities of the group and matching them with qualities associated with "cults" in popular and anti-cult definitions of the term. Neither are appropriate, and the latter would be original research even if the definition of cult you were working with was itself mainstream (but it isn't even that). Of course I can't blame you for failing to grasp what type of definition you seem to be working from since you're using sections of the "cult" entry which are still highly misleading in their presentation of fringe materials. The Chinese government's opinion of a socio-political adversary is not "prominent" in any meaningful way related to this discussion (which is about scholarship and not politicized rhetoric), nor is their opinion to be considered any more reliable than Falun Gong's opinion of them. This does not mean excluding the Chinese government's opinion, but treating it within the proper context and with due weight. Lastly I can't care less if someone fails to assume good faith of a group of editors who are more often than not disruptive POV pushers, but when doing so leads to blind push back and the failure to recognize accurate information for what it is then one becomes a walking example of why things like WP:AGF and focusing on content instead of the behavior of editors aren't simply about being nice to people but serve a practical purpose in maintaining the quality of this project.PelleSmith (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Christian Science example is a bit off the mark since I'm unaware of "experts" at Christian universities who call Christian science a "cult". In order for these individuals to be meaningfully considered experts in relation this issue they would have to be scholars of religions movements of some kind. Are you honestly telling me that you can show me peer reviewed work by such experts which does what you claim? I'm sure I can find "experts" in the physics department of MIT who consider the Catholic Church a cult as well. Again ... mainstream scholarship is determined by reliable publications which themselves more or less regulate expertise.PelleSmith (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you do seem to discount all the material published by the academic presses of China over the years regarding this matter. I don't. In fact, I would contend that probably constitutes the bulk of the academic research on the topic. What you are saying is that the western academic press takes priority, and I cannot see how that is the case. By your own statements, unless those reports are specifically refuted by outside sources, who are generally seen as more reliable, I agree, then there isn't any reason to discount them, as seems to be the impression here. Also, I note that you ignored the final point. I reiterate, I cannot see how having this discussion, at this time, really is of any positive benefit. And I have not seen how it is even directly relevant to any other discussions taking place. Therefore, with no prejudice, I will decline any further participation in what seems to me to be a discussion which has no particular benefit to be gained from it, given the vagueness and lack of apparent relevance to any particularly current discussions. If I can see through later discussions some specific reasons to believe that this discussion is even remotely relevant to any particular points regarding this article, maybe that would change. However, at this point, I have to say I have seen no real reasonable reason put forward for why it is even taking place. Without some specific indications of real relevance to any other issues, I have to say any further discussion on this topic is probably both moot and, in so far as it focuses attention away from other matters, probably at least somewhat counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

John, the whole discussion was about whether or not we should classify the cult label of Falun Gong a fringe theory. You led the discussion off course then PelleSmith tried to respond and explain things. Then you abandoned it altogether, still without properly answering the question. About Chinese scholars: everyone editing these pages shoudl know that the CCP controls all public discourse in China, and everything in the media and scholarship in China since 1999 has received the Party stamp of approval.--Asdfg12345 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy and John, this discussion seems irrelevant. Let's get clear on what the consensus in scholarship is. At the moment it's looking very much like the cult label is a fringe theory. Any problem there?--Asdfg12345 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that getting answer is the priority, however John already did answer in the section above and this section was made for discussions. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Scholars from China

Hi John, a few questions:

1. Who are the scholars from China? Can you list them?
2. When did they wrote their studies regarding the cultishness of Falun Gong? As far as I know this term was ordered by Jiang Zemin, so if there are such works they are after 1999.
3. Should studies that happened after the official ban implemented be used? If a work is made after it is like using a work from Hitler's time on why Jews are subhuman, right?

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy, the date makes no difference regarding the Chinese sources unless you have reliable sources that say so. On the other hand I am also curious about the Chinese sources. Why have they not been listed or used to this point? John can you list these sources please.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Pelle, would you have any doubt that if such material is found then it isn't just a propaganda piece to slander Falun Gong? Thus I am questioning on how could study that is not verifiable be reliable? I welcome such sources, per what I asked above, still I have the assumption that if those are from PRC, then there is no way that those could be some sources that where somehow verified independently. Also as I know, there are lots of sources praising Falun Gong even just before July 20, 1999. Not sure how many of those are still online though. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. However, I believe that, in general, we give the greatest "respect" as it were to the leading expert in the field. There is one individual who was chosen to write the article in the Encyclopedia of Religion regarding Falun Gong, who also discusses in his book how he became a bit of a celebrity in Falun Gong circles, has been repeatedly asked to appear on North American media to discuss the subject, and even makes jokes about being allegedly the leading authority on the subject but his dean still won't return his phone calls. All this before his book on the subject came out, as it is included in his book. That man is David Ownby, who is the individual I indicated treats some of these studies with respect. It should also be noted that, on page viii of his book, and I quote, "[T]his book is not a judgment as to whether Falun Gong should be seen as a cult; instead, one might take the book as a demonstration that this is not the right question to ask." Now, I also acknowledge, much to my chagrin, that he doesn't include any reference to himself in the index, so I will have to go through the book to find the pages pretty much page by page. Before I potentially waste my time doing that, however, I want a solid, direct, answer from the rest of you regarding something. If and when I do find the pages which contain the material you reference, will it be taken as what it, to all intents and purposes is, the statement of opinion on at least one of, if not the, leading authority in the west on the topic, or will I see further attempts to dismiss the information? I ask because I do have other things to do as well, and do not wish to devote too much time to a matter which might well face what seems to me questionable argumentation. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As scholarly research goes, as far as I know he did exactly that, so he must qualify, right? Thus I have no problem with Ownby as a source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has a problem with Ownby as a source. The problem is with attempts to make him the only source. Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• No - There is not enough academic study in terms of time, scope, or diversity to qualify any single idea to be labeled as fringe. The above list of sources conclude that there is a minority opinion that it is a 'cult' by whatever definition. But 1 in 3 is a minority too. Fringe delimits the far bounds of sloping landscape. When your landscape consists of only 15 relevant sources, what's the body when you start designating fringes? Consider using a less extreme word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedbug1122 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

About Kavan in the cult label section

Could we exchange views on the value of Kavan's inclusion here? So far the only way I've seen it explained is that it's a good criticism of Falun Gong. I understood that the purpose of the section was to explain what reliable sources have to say about the cult label with relation to Falun Gong. Kavan is one proponent of the fringe theory that Falun Gong is a cult, and that it's doctrine and founder are manipulative. A similar sort of metric to the one above could be applied here. She appears to be one of two scholars who hold this view. Every other takes Falun Gong at face value: a free set of teachings, more or less. "Manupilative" is also a vague word in this context, and unfortunately Kavan never explains how it is that Falun Gong doctrine is manipulative, or what it means to have a manipulative doctrine. Does she mean that Falun Gong doctrine is untrue, but claims to be true, so it therefore manipulates people into believing it? Just guessing, not sure. I have read her study more than once, btw. For a view like this, which is without peers, how does its inclusion sit with WP:DUE? DUE calls for not representing minority views as though they were majority views--but not explaining that a view is minority, readers may mistakenly think that it's widely held. Perhaps, if we include her note, we could also have a sentence which explains that this view is not held by mainstream academics, and that most see Falun Gong as a (presumably non-manipulative) set of beliefs and teachings. We can use some language from Ownby or Penny. Falun Gong isn't the only group who regards Falun Gong as a "practice system." Most scholars of Falun Gong also believe that. As a temporary measure I just included Kohn's remarks about Falun Gong; Kohn is much more qualified than Kavan to comment on such issues. If everyone is happy, we can either remove Kavan, or include a couple of sentences to put her views in the context of most academic views on the subject.--Asdfg12345 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No.

No it's not fringe.

No we are not deleting Kavan.

Just... no. This debate is getting a bit long in the tooth and those of us who edit non-FLG articles on occasion are tiring of it.Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the work. However, if in fact the only way it's been explained is as a "good criticism of Falun Gong", then it would seem to have received scholarly approval, and things that have received scholarly approval or acceptance are not fringe. By the way, it would help if the "ibids" about her work actually came after the original presentation of her work. Right now, notes 83 and 84 are "ibiding" note 97, which probably should be corrected. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've had it to just about here with the constant attempts to phase out or otherwise sideline everything which is even remotely critical about FLG, but this is not remotely surprising. The purpose of Kavan's study was not to determine whether it is a clut - the discussion there occupies exactly one paragraph, in which she says if the definition of cult is such and such, then FLG does seem to fall into the classification, full stop. I was therefore reticent to push for wording which put her in the Singer camp, but she seems to have been lumped in with her anyway. In addition to her discourse about cults, there are tens of pages of other valid observations, and I see no good reason to remove her study from the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another thing is that Kavan is s apecialist in another field (communications), so naturally she would offer a different perspective to the Sinologists, social scientists, NRM-ologists and China historians. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• As a social scientist I find that Kavan's research is consistent with good practice using a participant observer methodology. It really does pass scholarly muster. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the explanations are understandable. Keep in mind, however, that Kavan is expressing a fringe theory, and what she says should be taken on that basis. If you are saying that she has a different stance from Singer, then that makes her the only academic to hold her views--I had thought she was birds of a feather with Margaret, which at least gave them safety in numbers. It's unclear, then, why each academic gets a sentence to spout their personal theory, when DUE clearly explains that mainstream views should be explained more prominently. Two things remain: that minority views are not being presented as minority views; and that majority views are continually being pulled out of the article. Let me read what's been written above.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there is no monolithic thing called 'the academia', as it embraces plenty of disciplines as far as this subject is concerned. So one might just be able to say that Kavan's views are in a minority as far as sociologists who study religious groups are concerned, it is yet to be demonstrated that her views are in a minority as far as communications/journalism are concerned. And my gut feel is that her study comes sufficiently from left field to be close to what lay-observers believe, which is quite remote from the involved observers and possibly scholars who have "gone native". Ohconfucius (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But we don't need to resort to this vague armwaving of what we feel "lay-observers" believe when we have access to the academic sources available. Let's just go with what we can. The data is imperfect, but it's pretty good. We have access to just about most things academics have said about Falun Gong. Part of it is listed above. I don't understand the continual deferral of the question. It just seems like it's so obvious this is a fringe theory but no one wants to admit it. --Asdfg12345 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington File

Quick question, if Singer/Chen/Kavan is notable and reliable enough here, even though they are sustaining a fringe view per scholars, then how is it that the following source: " According to the United States, State Department, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control." " is being reverted for the third time now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So far there is only the following explanation in the revert summary: "Cherry picking: The act of selecting words that support your PoV in a manner that distorts the text it is derived from. Gain consensus on talk before restoring please." Well, judge for yourself, here is the full quote:

"

Birkle also noted that the Chinese government labeled Falun Gong an “evil cult” in July 1999 and has engaged in a harsh crackdown of its members.

According to the State Department official, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."

Birkle also expressed concern at "overly broad and arbitrarily enforced" laws and regulations that make it "difficult for citizens seeking to express their political or religious views peacefully to ascertain the line between the permissible and the illegal."

"

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth does this distort the original meaning of the source? I don't understand what you mean. Did you read the original source? I'm restoring it, and I'll assume it was just a momentary lapse of judgement.--Asdfg12345 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am awed

This bunch of edits make it seem awfully obvious that Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) has made it his mission on this page to whitewash the article of critical content, and has done so now for about three years. Whenever there is reliably sourced critical content, he resorts to firebombing the section with content singing praise for Falun Gong. His paranoia of erasing all content with a hint of criticism on Falun Gong is perhaps best represented through this edit summary. Note that all of his edits dealt with sections that contain criticism of FLG. As these edits so obviously fail WP:NPOV, I would like to revert to an earlier revision. However, reverting specific edits is no longer possible because of intervening edits. As you can see, this is severely discouraging and it would seem to be a mistake to waste my valuable hours on trying to fight Falun Gong adherents editing Falun Gong articles. As I am running out of energy here with all of these bullshit circular discussions, WP:AE would seem like the best path now. Colipon+(Talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have I violated any wikipedia content policies? Anyone is free to edit these pages. There are guidelines for how to do so. I don't believe I've violated any of them. I've made very, very few edits to these pages over the last couple of months. Nor have I characterised your or Ohconfucius's, or anyone elses edits, the converse of how you describe mine. We have our own perspectives on this issue, and this comes through in how we edit the pages. The key is to engage in proper discussion, cite our sources, cite policy, and just be rational, fair, and assume good faith. You are free to make modifications to my modifications. Wikipedia is an ongoing, evolving thing. No one version is absolute or the best. It's all a process. Feel free to make a positive and constructive contribution to the article--that's all I'm trying to do.--Asdfg12345 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps a bit naive of you to think that I or other editors will buy your explanation. Colipon+(Talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? What is problematic about what I wrote?--Asdfg12345 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

btw, about the image complaint, I think that's fair enough. Ohconfucius removes images based on his impression that they are promotional; I think it's fair to remove them based on their giving a misleading impression to the reader--particularly when an image in that section isn't even particularly conducive to the reader understanding it. --Asdfg12345 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)