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.

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."

Rationale for my edit on the Controversies section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.He changed this sentence:

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

to this:

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

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

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

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

PCPP has removed this three times now, without explanation.

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

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

He added the following from David Palmer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much stuff to review now, but for now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment

There is a dispute over inclusions of material in the Controversy paragraph. Specifically, should a New York Times article be used [7] on controversy over interracial children and the "Dharma Ending Period".--PCPP (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The dispute here is not about the "Dharma Ending period", as PCPP is trying to claim. Li Hongzhi's teachings contain multiple references to that period of time, and it is a very well-known concept in practically all Buddhist traditions. The sole concern is whether Craig Smith has misquoted Li Hongzhi and/or placed his words out of relevant context. Wikipedia policies clearly indicate that primary sources are the best sources about these sources themselves. Of course, this should be self-evident to any reasonable person. Again, "the accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aren't we missing the point a bit ? When Smith says "He said interracial children are the spawn of..." it's just Smith's interpretation not a quote. It's his version of the actual quote "All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period."[9] We don't have to use the word "spawn" (although it's harmless and presumably just means a large number of offspring in the case). It seems to me that the more pertinent points in the NYT article, pertinent to this article, were the actual (and accurate) quote The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven.[10] and Smith's interpretation "As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention." I assume that is derived from the lecture statement "This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved." Again, we don't have to use Smith's words but we should be able to convey the same information, Smith's interpretation attributed to him. It's the NYT. It's inherently notable. I've never seen an argument to exclude an NYT report in all of my years editing Wikipedia. I don't buy the arguments being made here because I don't see this material as particularly negative. It's just interesting and pertinent information from a prominent RS. It's not even presented in a negative way in the NYT article. It's presented as "this is how it is" according to Smith. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

As to WP:NPV, however, Zujine does make a good point that this is not considered to be a notable teaching by mainstream scholars on Falun Gong, and there does not appear to be a real controversy, either. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the NYT is inherently notable. Surely, we are not going to put in everything that the NYTimes has ever written about Falun Gong in this article, nor are we going to write a Wikipedia article for everything its reporters have ever said. There is a vast sea of literature on Falun Gong. It is a huge topic, and we need to exercise judgement on what opinions, ideas, and analysis are actually notable against that whole body of literature. As WP:NPV states, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Furthermore, in response to the question "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are 'always unreliable'?", the reliable source gods proclaim "No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The official Falun Gong site here[12] gives their own summary of these teachings, which is probably more accurate than my reading. I will leave it to you to decide if you wish to modify your edit accordingly, but if you don't I think it's fine for now. One other point, though, is that you may also wish to fold the Ian Johnson quote from that paragraph into the general category of journalists who have noted this aspect of the doctrine.Homunculus (duihua) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

We are not here to put forward the case for Falun Gong; nor are we here to decry it. We simply sum up what reliable sources have said. The sources report that there is concern about Falun Gong's attitudes toward race and homosexuality. We report that, and we cite the words by the Falun Gong spokesman/leader which have given rise to that concern. It's not our role to interpret what Li Hongzhi is saying. The problem with my suggested wording, though, is that it is so short it may not fully explain the context, and may be seen as potentially negative. The explanation by Falun Gong of the situation may be considered for citing in order to provide that context, though with limited summary. Perhaps - "Falun Gong have responded by saying that they welcome homosexuals, and that many practitioners have interracial children.[13]" SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1RR/week restriction

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

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

Poster in media campaign section

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

Attributing the Persecution

Hi Sean, regarding your attribution of the persecution to Falun Gong practitioners, as I understand that you did here [14], I wonder if it is fair. Because saying this would imply that Falun Gong practitioners consider the attitude of the Chinese government as being persecution, and not something that is objectively happening, while the "Amnesty International Report 2011" states: "The authorities renewed the campaign to “transform” Falun Gong practitioners, which required prison and detention centres to force Falun Gong inmates to renounce their beliefs. Those considered “stubborn,” that is, those who refuse to sign a statement to this effect, are typically tortured until they co-operate; many die in detention or shortly after release." [15] As I see it this amounts to both persecution and genocide. Don't you agree? Thank you in advance :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The stance of the Chinese Communist Party is a fringe view that serves to advance their persecutory agenda. Yes, we can say that the Chinese government doesn't regard it as a persecution, but placing this viewpoint at par with more reliable (scholarly) views is just another instance of "he says/she says" type of unproficient journalism. [16] There are people who deny the Holocaust, including some high-profile Iranian authorities. Wikipedia does not work that way. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hi guys, actually if you recall I was contesting the fairness of your attribution, because done like that can be misleading, and that actually fails the spirit of WP:NPOV because it is introducing a bias, by assuming that it's only practitioners who view it as a persecution. So as I see it WP:NPOV requires fair presentation of all view points, so I would include both CCP's view point, that it considers Falun Gong practitioners to be subhuman worthy to be punished for their faith (please help me out here with a quote) as well as the fact that the Argentine judge Octavio Araoz de Lamadrid after studying the matter for 4 years arrived at the conclusion that the Chinese communist government actions are "The genocidal strategy" with “The designated purpose - the eradication of Falun Gong"[17]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

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

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

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

Repeated Text

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

To start the section off:

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

And then in a paragraph below it:

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

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

Suppression picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organization section

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

File:Falun Gong science.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Falun Gong science.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rwityk edits

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

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

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

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