Talk:Falun Gong

Template:WP1.0

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

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

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

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

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

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

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

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

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

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

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

Membership and finances

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page

Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359

A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.

I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.

Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All changes have been thoroughly discussed by all users making those changes over several days. You did not participate in the discussion. If you do not participate, you cannot now go and revert everything. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip just reverted the best part of two weeks' collective work. He did it at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident‎ as well. Disruption of this type and scale is simply unacceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).

I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.

The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.

I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.

• Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [5]

• Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [6]

• Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [7]

• Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [8]

I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.

As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Dilip, you know it's unacceptable to swoop in and undo people's good-faith work like that. It's vandalism. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, you bring up those comments about the emails a lot. You do realize that if we were trying to be sneaky meatpuppets, I would have removed the comment as soon as Colipon put it on my talk page so that others wouldn't see it. Anyway, bringing up such things would only hinder the progress that has been made recently to these articles.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, If you choose to revert two weeks of changes by several editors, you are at least expected to initiate a discussion, such as Asdfg12345 has done on the Talk page to that article. It is completely unacceptable that you would revert that much work, ignore the BRD procedure and "request admin attention" without having followed the expected procedure. Not that I mind admin input, but you are at least expected to discuss something before assuming that the discussion has already broken down. / PerEdman 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur, discussion is paramount in an article of this potential level of controversy.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of the breakdown in discussions, I have put the question of merging these articles up on the NPOV noticeboard, here: Organ harvesting in China: Weight given to Falun Gong victims. / PerEdman 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Karma

It has already been stated that reliable sources as mentioned in the #Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Joens section above indicate that Falun Gong has a very physical conception of karma. Does anyone know of any scientific studies which have addressed whether this conception is supported by any real scientific evidence or not? John Carter (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just hit the Skeptical Inquirer website, the only piece they have archived which mentions Falun Gong is an article on the history of qigong, which contains only a passing reference and would be of no use for this purpose. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean research into

a) FG's beliefs about karma, or

b) the physical properties, if any, of karma?

Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he is looking for c) research into the FG's beliefs about the physical properties, if any, of karma.Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically (c), yeah. Information like whether the black or white substance referred to in the Encyclopedia article has ever been detected, where in the body it might be located, how substantial it might be, any other physical properties it might have, that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my question again, John. If the karma substance exists, then it has nothing to do with FG in particular. Do you want to know if there's research about a) FG's beliefs, or b) karma substance? Don't tell me you believe it exists!? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any studies specifically about whether FLGs conception of Karma is physiologically sound - I think most scholars would agree that this is indeed irelevant and that it is the existence of the belief that is interesting.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Mrund, yeah, my apologies, I was asking (B). In response to Maunus, the lack of evidence might not be particularly relevant, although if it has been noted that would probably be worth including. If there were any evidence of its tangible existence, I think that would be very relevant to the article. Also, if there were clear evidence (and I mean clear evidence) that the "official" statements were in any way altered, or no longer repeated, after it was shown that there might not be any physical evidence of the substance's existence, that might be worth including as well. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{undent} As I pointed out at the Rational Skepticism project page you are essentially looking for proof that the sky is not, in fact, puce. If Karma were a blackish substance that builds up in the body it would have been observed and reported on. As it is not (it's just an indian word meaning "consequence" with metaphysical connotations) there is no information confirming the absence of it.Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The physical manifestation of karma in Falun Gong is a testable, falsifiable claim made by Li Hongzhi. As such, it is interesting. But would we be mentioning it to make a point, perhaps? I believe that if the article mentions the "blackish substance", and if this belief is central enough to Falun Gong that it should be mentioned, then it might also be prudent to point out that such a substance has never been detected except in heavy smokers...  / Per Edman 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we would necessarily be adding it to make a point. However, as indicated, it is something that was considered important enough by Ownby to describe it with at least a little length in the article in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Personally, I think that if other encyclopedias include information in what are their often somewhat short articles (in this case about three pages), then there is reasonable cause for us to include it here. I acknowledge that without a clear source stating "no one's seen it" it would probably be a violation of WP:SYNTH to join any other statement which doesn't specifically address it directly. But if there is any sort of documentation anywhere to the effect that it was looked for and not found, or perhaps found, that might well be worthy of inclusion as well. And I do believe, like I said, that if it's significant enough for what is probably the most respected religious encyclopedia in the English language to include, we should probably include it here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ummm, these aren't scientific claims. They aren't testable, aren't falsifiable, aren't empirically verifiable. Not scientific. Just to clarify.--Asdfg12345 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Regardless if why one would claim it, if you DO claim that karma is a physically manifested black substance present in the physical body, that is indeed a testable claim. I'm well aware that it's not scientific, but not because the claim isn't testable, but because if you do test it, you'll find that the claim finds no support what so ever.  / Per Edman 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

James Randi as a reliable source?

This page contains some information which rather clearly compares Falun Gong to Scientology, and it is written by one of the best known and most respected "debunkers" in the world today. Some of the information, such as how Li changed his birthday, probably couldn't be sourced from this page, but some of the other material in the article, considering it is coming from an expert in the field of pseudoscience, seems to be at least potentially relevant. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally have deep respect for the inestimable Mr. Randi. However his areas of expertise could be said to be the application of the scientific method to testing of supernatural claims and stage magic. Exercise caution with Randi comments.Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article in question I would say that it would not constitute a valid source. The information offered is quite clearly Randi's opinion and is not sourced. Sorry.Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the only things I was really even thinking of considering "sourced" from that article, maybe, would be saying that Falun Gong has been compared to Scientology, Church Universal and Triumphant, etc., in terms of some of their claims and activities. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You could say that James Randi compared Falun Gong to the Church of Scientology because he claims that falundafa.org does not contain information on the core theology of the religion and attempts to frame the religion as a non-religious movement. However avoid "has been compared to" as unattributed references fall under WP:Weasel. And you will still abutt against the fact that Randi is not a recognized expert in comparative theology.Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it either it seems a bit like citing Penn and Teller for comparing Alcoholics Anonymous to a cult.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And like the latter it's not necessarily that I disagree... it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who originally cited that page here. I think Randi is a good example to refer to if you wish to point out that many people without any connections to the CCP see FG as a cult, which was what I tried to get into the article at the time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know it had been used here before. I just found it while looking for information regarding Karma like I mentioned above. :) John Carter (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Wikipedia's standards are something that take some getting used to. My personal opinion regarding AA is rather more strident than my opinion regarding FLG and yet I would contend that Penn and Teller, who share my opinion, are not an appropriate source on that subject. Likewise Randi, although in line with many of my personal sentiments, is not appropriate as a ource on this subject. Hope this helps.  :) Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

James Randi is a reliable source on his own opinion. Randi is certainly notable enough, the question is his relevance to this particular article. I suppose we could mention his opinion, in context, if we have such a context as he would fit into, but let's not create one just to get him in there. :)  / Per Edman 22:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS also comes into play here. --Asdfg12345 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we shouldn't rely on sources published e.g. by Falun Gong sympathisers. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. James Randi is more than a self-published source, he's an authority and a prominent figure of the skeptical movement. You could just as well delete Li Hongzhi quotes with WP:SPS as a reason (I'm not saying you should, because you really should not).  / Per Edman 22:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

'Cult' section

Reading the merged content in context of the main article, I contend that it is too windy and esoteric for our purposes here. The entire section is convoluted gobbledegook, and should be pared down and rewritten. I would say that this is the same applies to the Psychiatric abuse section in the 'Persecution' article, only that it privileges two sources only, and is much worse there. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The current cult section shows clear signs of being written one sentence by a FG apologist, the next by an anti-FG writer, the third by an innocent bystander etc. It needs rewriting by a clear-headed and neutral person. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the current cult section in one piece - do you suggest I have multiple personalities? it is the same section about which you wrote:[9]. There was a wide consensus to include it at the time I wrote it. (aug 10) and nobody found it to be longwinded convoluted gobbledygook. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a rewrite below. Please do not take offense to the section that singles out possible OR. My concern with those statements is simply that as presented they are not clearly about the specific subject matter at hand. Maybe there are better ways to include the material. This rewrite is just a suggestion from an outside party.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage with the kavan source and Li Hongzhi (the part you call Or and i agree) was the only part I didn't write - but was inserted later. I wouldn't object to striking that altogether.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that I think my version is better :) - I think you are boiling the complex issues too much down. Mine is longer and more informative and accurate. Also there is no citation needed for the aum shinrikyo and davidian comparison - Frank mentions that the government made that comparison if i am not mistaken.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I simply tried to eliminate text that seemed unnecessary. Some of it is simply stylistic (making no content changes), but some is also content based. I don't think you need all the longer explanations of more general sociological issues in the entry. Good wikilinking and succinct tidbits should suffice. Regarding the comparison to Aum, etc. that's fine, it simply isn't clear unless the reference follows the statement. I also agree about Kavan in general as per my comment below. Unless everyone thinks my suggested changes are useless I would suggest discussing specific issues like the sections I moved to the possibly OR section below and/or any information that my shorter version removes that is deemed vital to the entry. I have to say that in general the section seems way too long. I commented before that from my brief overview of this topic area there seems to be a lot of overwriting (too much unneeded text) and I think this is an example. That should not be taken to reflect upon the writers. I overwrite myself all the time.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to object if you condense it - I just had to say that i wrote it that way because I thought that was the best way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite

Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others. Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China. They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo. Scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group. Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.

In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion. Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. " The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart". However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.

Most social scientists and scholars of religion reject "brainwashing" theories and do not use "cult" definitions such as Singer's or Kavan's. For example, Cheris Shun-ching Chan considers cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred more than on collective worship, that are less demanding of their members and more tolerant of other religions than sects, that have a strong charismatic leadership and that have fuzzy membership boundaries. She claims that Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a New Religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics. Other scholars avoid the term "cult" altogether because "of the confusion between the historic meaning of the term and current pejorative use" These scholars prefer terms like "spiritual movement" or "new religious movement" to avoid the negative connotations of "cult" or to avoid miscategorizing Falun Gong as a "cult" when it doesn't fit mainstream definitions. Yet other scholars argue against using the term "cult" in relation to Falun Gong and similar groups because classifying these religious movements as cults or sects rather than religions often allows governments to deny them the special privileges and legal protection that are normally offered to religious denominations.

Maunus' original version

Maybe we should just restore the original version by Maunus? It seems someone came in to this section and added various statements to tip the POV in favour of Falun Gong again - much the same pattern as before. I just tried reverting some of these obviously POV edits. Colipon+(Talk) 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a fairly good version by Maunus. Colipon+(Talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above version was an attempt to trim that version. PelleSmith (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Source concern

As an outside observer I'd like to caution against using the Kavan source as a good example of an academic reference to Falung Gong as a "cult" (scare quotes used by Kavan). The source has several weaknesses: 1) The paper is not peer reviewed -- conference papers are low quality academic sources, 2) while Kavan seems to have been researching religion for some time as a journalism professor she does not come from a methodological field which uses coherent and precise definitions for groups like "cults" and 3) the definition she does use reflects this problem in that it reproduces popular misconceptions about these groups to the extent that it is virtually meaningless. Regarding this last point read her working definition of "cult" (on page 12). In religious studies or sociology this definition would be a perfect example of "popular definitions" that have no practical utility ... one could just as easily apply this definition to the Catholic church for instance. Now I understand that per WP:V we report what reliable sources say and don't judge the merits of their content by our own standards. However I think it is prudent to keep these things in mind when assessing the usefulness of what is already a low quality source (per #1). Just something to consider.PelleSmith (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence and perhaps even the name of the subtitle somewhat obfuscate the real issues in this. David Ownby states that the cult label was a red-herring from the beginning, and Ian Johnson also dismisses it. It is not really a debate in many, many sources on Falun Gong, it is dismissed and understood merely as a very clever propaganda move. This may have been neglected while assembling these things. I think that while some of Kavan's writing may be relevant in some contexts, she is a communications professor, right? I don't see the religious expertise coming through. --Asdfg12345 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my dismay at witnessing how asdfg1234 has turned the carefully crafted neutrality of the cult debate section into a pro Falun Gong opinion piece. Then I am off for an extended wikibreak. Falun Gong is off my watchlist. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict. I will respond to Maunus] Here's my general thinking behind my changes, I'm sure there will be some discussion. Firstly, Kavan is not an authority on the teachings of Falun Gong etc., she is a communications person. I'd also point to the above concerns by PelleSmith, which I share. Basically if we are just going to be repeating low-quality sources and vague arguments here, the section could be 2000 words, and each of us could wheel out an absolute bunch of them. Secondly, I felt there was too much padding in between words, making for hard reading. Thirdly, I felt that as a consequence the actual things that people were saying about the cult label were being obscured to some extent. Fourthly, the genesis of this "debate" are important to clear up at the beginning. Fifthly, that it has been rejected by serious researchers is highly notable, and this isn't a matter of how they engage in the analysis of Falun Gong necessarily, and then choose one way or another of approaching the cult label, it's that they are directly calling out the CCP on the cult label--this is a matter of WP:DUE. Sixthly, Edelman and Richardson was too long. Seventhly, that paragraph in the middle, I felt, didn't reallly say much of anything. Eighthly, Adam Frank doesn't seem to mention the cult thing too much, at least not in the quoted passage, but his insights are relevant, so maybe they could go elsewhere.

Summary of changes in paragraph form, I suggest using this diff to compare. first paragraph: the lede acts as a summary of the origin and notable reception of the cult claim, the later paragraphs elaborate more on the discourse surrounding those issues. second: moved up third: shorten things a bit, remove Kavan per above remarks, not to mention relevance fourth: shorten, remove explanatory sentence about what the anti-cult movement is, add context regarding the way in which the cult label appeared fifth: delete because it didn't say much and was quite wordy; this is tangentially related to the issue, I felt. Definitely not a criticism of the writing or who wrote it. (You don't know how many thousands of words I've written on these pages that were useless. I even tried to delete them myself once but got in trouble for it (on the academic page)) sixth: just tighten it up a bit, delete some parts of the edelman and richardson quote.

Please click the diff open in another tab (I actually prefer to use another window and alt-tab) and compare my comments with the changes and assess whether they are sensible, fair, reasonable, and importantly, reflective of the sources available. By the way, I think there may be some meta-argumentation here, about, for example, the notability of certain claims and the reliability of certain sources. I'm prepared to have that discussion. All of the above, I humbly submit --Asdfg12345 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[Update]. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be accused of bad faith. I've reverted the edit. I suggest the same: check the diff, check my explanations, and let's discuss.--Asdfg12345 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Edits

Wasn't going to accuse anybody of bad faith but was going to do the same revert that Asdfg just did himself. I'd suggest putting a draft of major overhauls like that and getting some discussion first.Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

that's fine, though I have some problems with some of the material staying on the page now (like Kavan), which I'm going to remove. I'll post my suggested edits below, I'm unsure of the correct procedure of discussion and debate.--Asdfg12345 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BOLD -> Revert -> Discuss

But when you do a big edit and immediately do a couple of small edits it makes reverts problematic, so that's why I suggested discussing major changes like that first. I don't know enough about Kavan to comment and will leave that for others.Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest working on a draft on the talk page, which is why I tried kick starting this for you all with an edit version above. I wouldn't accuse anyone of bad faith either, but I think the net result of the recent change is as Maunus describes it. For instance the way that the Rupert Murdoch section was written makes it seem like currying favor with the Chinese government is the reason why initial media coverage utilized the term "cult". I have a hard time believing that is true. Of course the issue with media coverage of NRMs in general is a complicated one. I am not sure I see why changes can't be suggested on the talk page first to avoid any confusion and to collaborate to reach NPOV before changing the entry. Regarding Kavan, I want to reiterate that I don't think she is a reliable source on "cult" classification in general and this is evident in her working definition. The fact that her essay is a conference paper does not help it either. People get away with the very sloppy stuff in conference papers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yah yah, I'm with you. I actually have to go right now. I'm already late for meeting someone, very bad. I believe that my changes are actually far from controversial, and really the only thing is that lede paragraph that is going to be disputed. The other changes aren't big, they probably just look big all together. The meaning is of course not that Murdoch's currying favor was the impetus for the initial "media coverage" (used broadly, seriously, we have to be careful using these kind of terms when they are printing demonstrable lies and villification, over 300 reports in the first month, 24hr marathons, etc., but yes, our writing should be still sound intelligent and neutral.), but that his son's remark was seen as "Pimping for the People's Republic". It's nothing but bringing the context with which these remarks were received into play, which I would presume is reasonable given that the comments are going to be mentioned in the first place--they certainly don't exist in a vacuum, and the section is about the reception of the cult label. Anyway, really sorry I have to run right now, I'll make some other changes and delineate things in a bit more straightforward way later. By the way, I hope no one is attached to their own writing prowess around here, everyone agrees that their stuff can be "edited mercilessly," and there was a lot of redundancy in that passage. Peace out.--Asdfg12345 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reasoning for my recent changes: one was to remove "threatened and damaged the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and the social stability of China" -- if this was to be included I guess it could be done so in quotation marks, but it strikes me as problematic to level the accusation of Falun Gong causing physical and mental harm to people without any context for how that claim came about. The CCP actually said all kinds of things, like practitioners killed themselves, killed family members, and so on, all of which is obviously straight up lies and propaganda. My concern is making such statements here without context. The view of the CCP should be expressed though, I also think it can be done so without dragging in these wider issues of how those claims were rebutted etc., which isn't part of the point of the section. These claims could go in a longer section about the anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. The other was to add Ownby and Johnson, which are high-profile figures when it comes to commentary on Falun Gong. I believe their dismissal of the claims is highly relevant and gives clear context as to how the cult label was received by those who make it their business to pay attention to and comment on these issues. stay tuned.--Asdfg12345 15:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Confucius, what is your response to the concerns articuled by PelleSmith, above, about the reliability of Kavan here? We've got a source already saying it, I don't see the need to give this woman's opinion's so much space. Are we then going to "balance" it with some pro-Falun Gong stuff? She has a highly negative interpretation of Falun Gong, and her criteria for regarding Falun Gong a cult are really rather different from that normally used: usually it's an organisational, objective definition, not a definition based on ideology. She is a communications professor, and has no background in religions. I'm just not sure how relevant she is here. Her definition of "cult" is also quite problematic. --Asdfg12345 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I take Pellesmith's point that she is not an expert on FG in the anthropological sense, and that her classification of FG as a cult is not 'traditional'. This is why I only reverted your one edit. Kavan remains a serious academic, and her paper succeeds in delivering a professional expertise 'applied' to the matter. Without discussing the weight we attribute, I believe her lay perspective mirrors what outside people generally perceive about FG and its practitioners. Sure, it is an essay, but so are the vast majorities of academic papers in sociology, so don't see anything which challenges her reliability of the rest of her findings because she seems to have adopted a 'scientific approach'. Someone will have to explain to me what the problems are with conference papers... I'm not sure I get. Surely, it depends on the academic - are we to dismiss everything which even Ownby says in conference? It's infinitely better than the usual sloppy journalists' fare. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not dispute her specific expertise regarding Falun Gong and she is clearly a serious academic. However, I would dispute her expertise in classifying any social group as a "cult". Her working definition of "cult", in this paper is unrecognizable in academic disciplines which one can take seriously for such classifications (e.g. the social sciences and religious studies). Or to phrase it differently it is recognizable as a lay definition associated with ACM and media stereotypes. The type of definition that has been explicitly criticized as meaningless by a very long list of scholars. I would caution against using her academic credentials to lend scholarly authority to the "cult" classification. Regarding the essay itself ... we should be weary of conference papers regardless of who has authored them and that is a general rule and it applies to Ownby, Kavan, and anyone else. If the conference papers have been published by an academic press in an edited volume or in a peer reviewed journal then its a completely different story. Being weary does not mean dismissing ... but it does mean thinking twice about using a lower quality source for a controversial claim.PelleSmith (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am happy to concur. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Kavan confirmed to me that the conference proceedings are peer reviewed, but they're published as proceedings rather than a journal. The full reference is:

Kavan, H. (2008). Falun Gong and the Media: What can we believe? In E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That increases the quality of the source quite a bit. Published conference proceedings are not quite on par with other peer reviewed work, but much more reliable than unpublished conference papers. Reference should be made to the published paper when used in the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Academic views"

The current section on "Academic views" seems completely irrelevant to me. It is useless saying "Scholar X did this, Scholar Y did that, but we're not going to say what significance they truly have." As a result I will now remove that entire section as per WP:BOLD. If there are issues resulting from this please discuss. Colipon+(Talk) 08:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

These types of sections are unencyclopedic. Scholarship should clearly be integrated into the entry itself and not moved to some odd "academic opinion" type section. However, that means making a good faith effort to integrate it and not simply slashing and burning. Of course if there is nothing worth keeping then so be it.PelleSmith (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Colipons assessment. It does not even include the most important parts: WHAT did scholar X say, WHAT was Scholar Y's conclusion. The sources should be kept, some of them are very useful, but the fact that the sources exist should already be obvious by their use elsewhere where relevant.  / Per Edman 09:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing cuts many ways

Recent edits like this one are troubling. The edit summary read in part: "they do not need to be constantly refuted just to make FLG look favourable". Both of the pieces of information removed are pretty informative facts about the information they describe ... and not some Falun Gong propaganda. Singer's brainwashing theories are literally fringe views in the social sciences and Kavan's cult definition (see extensive conversation above) is not representative of any mainstream academic theoretical perspectives either. You should question the use of the fringe type material itself and not the disclaimers that are added to make sure people understand the material's reliability or notability in scholarship more generally. When a subject area is plaugued by POV edits from people who identify with the subject it is not helpful to push POV in the opposite direction, or assuming good faith here, it is equally unhelpful to rush to judgment that everything added by the member editors is always propaganda. If POV pushing happens in both directions then you'll always end up with these ridiculously bloated see sawing entries written by editors who justify their own POV pushing as reactionary to that of others. It has to stop somewhere if progress is to be made.PelleSmith (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that the manner in which these two facts where inserted is perhaps not preferable, but simply removing them does not solve the problem. My personal view is that the Kavan "cult" classification is a poor addition in the first place, and the Singer piece could to be written so that her background is clearer. In fact it could contain much less text than it does even now. I would cover the ACM with something like this:

• "Western anti-cult groups and associated scholars like Margaret Singer also consider Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that members are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion."[20][79].

Appropriate wikilinking is often the answer. Singer is notable, but readers should have access to the appropriate information regarding her perspective. I would also go with the scholarly category "anti-cult movement" over the in group preferred "cult watching groups". This is in line with the references as well.PelleSmith (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I restored the deletions that Colipon made of that content. I also think it was relevant and not a tit-for-tat kind of game, which I rather dislike also.--Asdfg12345 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is odd because it seems very much like a tit for tat game. Why don't you figure out a way to improve the quality of the text by conveying the necessary information without simply adding disclaimers?PelleSmith (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be ideal. They are distinct claims, so apart from a sentence like "Margaret Singer, who is controversial and whose theories are regarded as unscientific by her peers, says that Falun Gong is a cult because of this reason and that reason." -- or not including Kavan at all, I'm not sure of another way of representing the distinct claims. Ideally we would not have to resort to these sub-par sources, but people insist on them. I guess Singer is good to have. Anyway, in whichever way the context for these claims is given, I think it's okay. I didn't think it was too much of a problem to keep it how it was. The issue is when it gets out of hand, with this counter-claim being refuted by that counter-claim, and so on and so on. If it's grouped logically and everythign doesn't take up too much space, and the key things are gotten across, I think it's fine. I don't think Kavan's unorthodox, and basically misleading (in my view) interpretation of cult should go in the article at all. Failing that, the only thing to do is just to note that her definition of cult is different from normal. Welcome ideas.--Asdfg12345 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at my proposal above (recently modified)-- Talk:Falun_Gong#Suggested_Rewrite. I'm not saying it is perfect, but what I would suggest is to group Kavan with Singer in this manner. One could add something in the last paragraph about the rejection of the brainwashing hypothesis specifically by mainstream social science. This way, the information isn't being used to refute the above sources but to report accurately on scholarly perceptions, and to do so where the information is most appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I removed Kavan's reference to it being a cult, leaving the other bits. How does that work for you? As Pelle believes it is a sub-par source as far as 'cults' are concerned, I would eventually favour removing it so as to de-escalate the bloat. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think removing Kavan in relation to that piece of information is a good idea. Her unfortunate "cult" definition only detracts from the perceived quality the more reliable information her work may contribute to this entry in the eyes of someone like me at the very least.PelleSmith (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. --Asdfg12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see that Pelle's rewrite was not acceptable. Please let us have your thoughts/concerns. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

fine tuning the Lede

[ec] WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." -- Falun Gong practitioners response to the persecution is obviously a notable aspect of this whole topic. Yuezhi Zhao, a communications professor from Canada who has published a number of books about Chinese media and society, and who is not some Falun Gong flunky but, rather, gives a fairly neutral analysis of Falun Gong, wrote: "Falun Gong's spread and sustained activism against persecution may be the greatest challenge to Chinese state power in recent history." Can we discuss the relative merits, or problems, with including this in the lede. Could we also discuss how this aspect of the topic may be otherwise represented in the lede, if it is felt to warrant representation. David Ownby devotes a chapter in his latest book to this topic, called "David vs. Goliath" (if I remember correctly), and in much of the literature of the topic the fact, and significance, of Falun Gong sustained resistance to persecution is brought up and discussed. It strikes me as obvious that this is a notable aspect of the topic. I also think the Zhao quote basically sums it up. Another suggestion would be that her and the Penny quote (about "important phenomenon") are similar, and could be linked to the idea of resistance to the persecution and combined somehow. Thoughts?--Asdfg12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• For me, it doesn't matter who he is. I would firstly presume that the paragraph is an accurate paraphrase. Certainly, the actions taken by the Chinese government have greatly contributed to FG's notability, but I fail to see how one person's view -essentially speculation - as to how this impacts the future government of China, to be worthy of inclusion in the lead section. To do so would give primacy of his views without any proper analysis of how China perceives it other than the reams of propaganda which it chucks out on FG. I would still have some concerns to it appearing in a subsequent section as it is for the same reasons. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything these people write is or could be considered "speculation." I mean, it's just their thoughts on the topic a lot of the time. If we are going to make these articles only contain descriptions of actual events in the world, that is another approach, but I don't think it would work. I'm not sure how what you say fits with WP:RS and due, since what these people say is precisely how notable something is, isn't it? If mainstream scholars on the issue all talk about this, doesn't that simply mean that what they say is part of what makes the subject "interesting or notable" and one of the "important points"? I may be missing something. if it is an issue of how China perceives the issue, well, they set up an agency and put someone in the politburo directly in charge of it, and you've read the rest of the story (or have you?), I mean, we don't need to even bother talking about that side of things, it's just like, if these people say this, is it not notable and relevatn?--Asdfg12345 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to be primarily concerned to establish notability, but I think the lead section does that quite well enough without the text I removed. If you want the text in the main body, it will need to be expanded to give it its proper context. However, I don't see that we need it because the facts speak for themselves. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to raise a new discussion about the lede. I have special concerns about this section:

“ In April 1999 over ten thousand Falun Gong practitioners gathered at Communist Party of China headquarters, Zhongnanhai, in a silent protest against beatings and arrests in Tianjin. Two months later the People's Republic of China government, led by Jiang Zemin, banned the practice, began a crackdown, and started what Amnesty International described as a "massive propaganda campaign." Since 1999, reports of torture, illegal imprisonment, beatings, forced labor, and psychiatric abuses have been widespread. Two thirds of all reported torture cases in China concern Falun Gong practitioners, who are also estimated to comprise at least half of China's labor camp population according to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the US Department of State respectively. In 2006, human rights lawyer David Matas and former Canadian secretary of state David Kilgour published an investigative report concluding that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners have become victims of systematic organ harvesting in China and that the practice is still ongoing. In November 2008, The United Nations Committee on Torture called on the Chinese State party to commission an independent investigation of the reports and to "ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished." ”

Now let's look at what this section actually says.

1. April 1999: Falun Gong protests against "Beatings and arrests" in Tianjin... this is wildly exaggerated. It was actually because some local media in Tianjin gave publicity to Prof. He Zuoxiu, who was critical of Falun Gong - that spurred a series of protests and arrests. The Communist Party was not running an organized campaign against FLG at this time.
2. "Massive propaganda campaign". This is fine, but could probably be shortened to just "propaganda campaign". No need to say Amnesty International said it. Just present it in the source.
3. illegal imprisonment, torture etc. This is a central part of Falun Gong's own propaganda campaign. It must be more neutrally worded.
4. Organ Harvesting: Again, I question whether or not this belongs in the lede at all. Anyone whose done a bit of research into Kilgour/Matas would find that there is little evidence to suggest that organ harvesting is specific to FLG practitioners. That article just got merged with "Organ harvesting in the PRC". I would suggest that this be cut from the lede altogether as it is not directly notable to Falun Gong, but notable as a subject in and of itself.

Those are my thoughts. I have not yet made any bold changes. Colipon+(Talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. sources? Is there a dispute that practitioners were beaten and arrested in Tianjin? I didn't think that was in question.
2. Again, is it disputed that the propaganda campaign was massive? It's not a deal to say one way or another, I guess, but I'm just wondering, there are mild propaganda campaigns, and there are big ones. This was a big one.
3. "illegal" doesn't seem necessary here. It's unclear how repeating the claims of torture, which have been widely discussed and for which there is a mountain of evidence, is biased.
4. How is this not directly notable to Falun Gong? The claims of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners are directly related to Falun Gong; doesn't the fact that there was such a strongly worded UNCAT submission regarding it only highlight its notability?

2c--Asdfg12345 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe its time to discuss them?

Asdfg, maybe it is time to discuss some drastic changes to the cult section. You reverted OC saying that they have not been discussed. I put my suggestions up so that they would be discussed on the page. Perhaps you should articulate what about the trim version OC tried to add is not preferable. It is my opinion that this section, like many of these entries, is entirely too bloated.PelleSmith (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will open two browsers, compare them, write some notes, get back in 6 minutes. Man, we need to be discussing with google wave.--Asdfg12345 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of the version I just changed seconds ago on the talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

oh right. i actually jsut deleted a bunch of stuff. My concern is mainly to make clear when and how exactly the cult label came into currency. The context of the discussion is firmly within the CCP's propaganda campaign, and it was made three months after the persecution actually begun, as a way of justifying it retroactively. It was later adopted more widely. This dynamic is important to represent for readers. This is just one thought. let me get back. did you see the chagnes?--Asdfg12345 05:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen the changes you made. You certainly cut a lot of text, however I don't agree with your basic assumption, which seems to be a product of not seeing this issue outside of a very narrow perspective on what is going on. Margaret Singer and Heather Kavan are not patsy's of the PRC government, nor are they taking their lead from them. There is an entrenched negative use of the term "cult" (and "sect") in the West and sure the PRC government may have triggered the association between Falun Gong and this term but I'm afraid this goes way beyond Chinese propaganda when it gets picked up by anti-cult groups and the western media. To me it looks like POV pushing to focus on the PRC propaganda to this extent. The "cult" debate is legitimately happening outside of PRC propoganda in various venues, even if most scholars reject the label.PelleSmith (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

sure, but this isn't my opinion. it's simply a fact that the cult label first came from the CCP. it was picked up by Western ACM groups only after the CCP's propaganda, for example, in Johnson:

"Still, the government's use of the “cult” label was useful. In the West the anticult movement had been losing steam since anxiety over cults peaked in the early-to-mid 1990s. By the turn of the century most anticult activists were confined to adherents of established religions—in other words, people with a vested interest in attacking new groups.... But China's claim that Falun Gong was a cult gave the western anticult movement a new cause. Many outsiders fixated on the cult label and spent their time debating obscure definitions of Master Li's works, trying to prove that the group was potentially dangerous. One western academic wrote a paper pleading for an understanding of the government's concerns over Falun Gong's teachings, saying it had a legitimate right to fear the group. This even though the government had only interested itself in Falun Gong because of its demonstration in downtown Beijing, not because of its teachings. And most fundamentally, what was often forgotten in the learned discourse was that the government, not Falun Gong, was killing people."

this makes an explicit connection between the CCP's propaganda and the ACM. I'm not calling for a particular interpretation of this. It's just a matter of getting the historical context right, according to reliable sources. The second point is that the views of Singer and Kavan are not mainstream views of Falun Gong, they are minority views within academia. Kavan's definition is incredibly broad, to begin with, and Singer is a controversial figure to say the least. It's fine, since they are speaking on this particular topic, but 1) the context within which this debate even came to exist has been neglected (and I don't mean what we think, I mean, like, according to Johnson and the CCP itself), 2) the fact that the label has been rejected by leading researchers in the field also appears to have been neglected, as with what they say regarding the usefulness of the label for the CCP. There could be more. I'm not calling for anythign else except a representation of the views of the reliable sources that are available. My argument extends nothing beyond that.--Asdfg12345 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I went through it again, trying to preserve aspects of both approaches. There are thousands of words from relevant scholars and groups basically saying the cult label was just a clever propaganda technique of the CCP--this is basically the consensus view among mainstream scholars on the topic. It is widely understood how the CCP controls and manipulates the media, and how it uses propaganda to further its political ends. The cult label definitively came from this context. This dynamic is the first thing to note. Insofar as there is discourse besides this use of the term, of course, this section is the place for it, and it clearly exists, (like, Singer for example). But the simple amount, and also quality, of material on this side of things, on this subject, is far, far less than that about the cult label as a propaganda tool and the response to this. This may not be so for other groups known as new religions, but in terms of this subject, if we dispute this point we can just gather all the sources and rate their quality and count them, to establish WP:DUE (though I think it's clear). The section needs to be short and sharp, and it needs to get the key points across and it needs to establish the origin and context of the terms and narrate the debate about them quickly. Open to ideas. There is more to put in "Reception," not just the cult label section.--Asdfg12345 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It does do all of those things. You are lobbying for a POV version. The historical timeline is accurate, and the minority status of the "cult" views is also presented. The point is that after the Chinese government labeled them a cult and this label made its way to the West the debate has changed significantly and has little to do with the PRC anymore. Please address this fact directly. I've stated it several times now.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how I am lobbying for a point-of-view version. Let me take another look at things. By the way, it's untrue that the debate has little to do with the PRC anymore; the label was and always will be related with the discourse that attempts to marginalise Falun Gong, and this is directly related to the CCP's campaign. Scholars also make this clear. I can find a bunch of sources arguing for just this point. The label in relation to Falun Gong mostly exists in the context of the persecution; the CCP reprints anything these ACM scholars say on its websites, and it cooks up Anti-Falun Gong propaganda videos featuring Margert Singer. These are completely isolated things. I know the CCP's direct use of the term is different from how it has been analyzed by scholars, I'm not disputing that. Let me read it again. By the way, how do you set up columns here? It would be useful to place two blocks of text below, in two columns, to compare them side-by-side.--Asdfg12345 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me start a section below to outline my thoughts and problems and I look forward to your thoughts in response.--Asdfg12345 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

a situation outside of my control forces me to leave my computer in about 3 minutes. It's probably a good thing. anyway, I wrote some points above, I didn't get a chance to look at your wording and share my thoughts. Please compare and see what's most fitting. We want plain english and a clear and simple narrative of the main movements and sources etc., and the historical context is important to preserve. If it does all this then in my view it's great. I always prefer starting with what we have and organically changing it rather than instituting a whole new thing, though, generally. sorry, people are forcing me to get off this computer in a minute.--Asdfg12345 05:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, I read it quickly, (still got like 2 minutes), I would suggest that it fails to acknowledge the context with which the term came to exist in referring to Falun Gong, and that this is actuall vital in terms of getting to grips with the meaning of the term in relation to the subject. --Asdfg12345 05:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345's revert as of 04:43, 1 September 2009

Asdfg12345, You performed a revert of numerous significant changes since 311212231, your change comment being: "these changes are so extensive and we didn't even discuss them? what's with this... can we just take things one step at a time?". As I know you are familiar with WP:BRD process, I wonder what you want to discuss. If you believe an edit has been made in error, you discuss that error. By reverting a large number of edits, what is it you want to discuss, specifically? All of them? Were really all edits since version 311212231 something you objected to?

You see; by performing a large revert of many different changes, you are really saying "I oppose to all of these changes, now let's discuss them", and the people who are interested in keeping the material you reverted, should do so. Now... in your case, that means participating in the discussion of PelleSmith's version; mentioned on this talk page: Talk:Falun_Gong#.27Cult.27_section. Please do so now.  / Per Edman 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now that Asdfg12345 did eventually involve hirself in the discussion, but I take note of the wording "I jsut deleted a bunch of stuff".

Cult cont'd

Current revision of the cult section as edited by User:Pellesmith is a good summary. I hope it will become relatively stable. Colipon+(Talk) 07:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong media

The fact that Falun Gong practitioners have began a media empire is not mentioned in the article at all. I think we had a good outline going at FLGNEW to discuss how to incorporate that into the article. Please lend your expertise. Colipon+(Talk) 07:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think discussing their media empire should be incorporated in a discussion of their broader PR campaign which also include parade insertions and streetside demonstrations.Theleike (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Slow Down

Three editors, including myself, support the new cult section version. Asdf can I suggest you slow down a second and discuss the matter here before barging ahead. I also want to add that the more general "reception" section you added is entirely unencyclopedic. It is a resume of studies done about the group. We don't list studies done about a subject matter we get information from such studies and integrate it into the entry. Please do not add it back and if you insist on having it please discuss here first.PelleSmith (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, I thought about that and thought a summary of what people have said would actually be useful. That section is in itself about how Falun Gong has been received and commented on; including notes about how it has been received and commented on struck me as normal, once I thought about it. Of course, if we don't want to do that I understand as well. There were complaints about how long things were. To actually say what those people said rather than just say they said it would take far more space... Thougths?--Asdfg12345 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue here is. Any pertinent and notable information about Falun Gong gets integrated into the entry text. That's all. No need to list studies done about them. That is a waste of space.PelleSmith (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The section is actually not about Falun Gong per se, it's about how Falun Gong has been commented on and what people have said about it. Or not?--Asdfg12345 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

discussion of cult section continued 2

Okay, here are my issues.

Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others.[70] Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English[71][72][7]. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China.[72] They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo.[73] Some scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group.[41][74] Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.

• Does not make clear the origin of the term at the start, instead saying it is basically a matter of debate depending on context. I believe this fails to satisfy WP:DUE, which requires that arguments and sources be presented in line with how they are represented in the most reliable sources. When we have major scholars making clear the origin of this term and refuting it as a legitimate descriptor for Falun Gong, I'm unsure why this should not be established clearly at the start. (Apart from it being a simple historical fact). That is, the status of the cult label is describing Falun Gong among mainstream academia on the subject is quite unclear to the reader.
• Leaves the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda comparing Falun Gong with violent groups, and that the claim that the practice somehow "damages the physical and mental health" of people, largely unresponded to. Readers might as well conclude that these were accurate descriptions, since it's only some scholars who have "suggested" this was a political stunt, rather than the reader understanding that this is in fact basically widely held among commentators on the subject.
• "Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind." --> suggested just to say "they call it a practice system." saves space.

In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[19] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion.[75][76] Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. "[77] The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart".[78] However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.[79]

• Does not make clear that Singer is a fringe scholar, is highly controversial, and that her theories are disputed to the hilt.
• Leaves the claim of "brainwashing" and "psychological coercion" in describing Falun Gong, without any mention of the different views, and the criticism of these views as unscientific and wildly inapplicable to Falun Gong.
• Kavan's reasoning is in fact different from Singer's, as far as I can tell. She talks about the whole idea of a savior-figure itself being cult-like.
• The Western media's response was actually similar to that of the CCP, not of the anti-cult movement. This is a mistake. Or, to put it another way: we have a source saying that western media took their lead from the CCP, and as far as I know no source saying they took their lead from the ACM. That's the first time I've heard of such a claim.
• Unclear of the usefulness of the Murdoch inclusion here. It's in fact inaccurate. He didn't say it, his son said it. How is it currently relevant? The context for which Frank discusses it is: "Murdoch's explicit vilification of Falun Gong might be viewed as one of the several smoking guns that contextualise the practice within a global marketplace. Indeed, even as he condemns Falun gong, Murdoch's statement reaffirms its impact on the globalization of media." -- personally, I think this is a valuable observation, but that just noting that Murdoch said it (even eliminating the inaccuracy) it not really helpful.

Next paragraph:

• Not so many problems here. I think the point that the word can actually have vastly different meanings, (as evidenced by Chan, who gives a meaning almost opposite to that usually given) may be useful to point out, along with Chan's take on it.
• The statement of Edelman and Richardson, which relates the use of the term by the ACM with the campaign of the CCP is wrapped in tooo many words and is not even clear. All those words. it would be simpler to just quote them and be done with it. The final paragraph would kind of exemplify the different ways the word "cult" is taken up among scholars.

That's about it. I'm going to add a few sentences addressing the most acute of my concerns above, and I ask that you do not delete them, please, while we discuss whether the concerns I raise above are legitimate, and then wheel out sources and discuss them as necessary. --Asdfg12345 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me a second to try to address some of these issues.PelleSmith (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I have altered the first paragraph to reflect origins in Chinese propaganda and strengthened the commentary on this by scholars.
2. It is plenty clear where Singer is coming from. Anti-cult movement and brainwashing are wikilinked and the following sentence exists in the next paragraph: Most social scientists and scholars of religion reject "brainwashing" theories and do not use "cult" definitions such as Singer's or Kavan's. This is followed by a lengthy discussion of why the cult label is not used by most scholars. Do we need to start bolding some text so its sticks out more?
3. Kavan's cult definition is a classic anti-cult influenced popular negative definition that hinges upon the idea of a charismatic leader and mind-control techniques. It is most certainly similar to Singer's.
4. The western media is already pumped and primed for groups that are supposedly "cults". There is a huge body of work on this. If they take the label from the Chinese government it is one thing. If they actually parrot the specific claims of China, as opposed to fitting the group into their own "cult context" that is another. Can you please explicate your claim about following China's lead some more? What do your sources say directly?
5. I only condensed the Murdoch bit from what was already there. Perhaps it is not a good example to use as it is.
6. The fact that the word means different things in different Western contexts is of primary importance to debates happening in Western countries about its utility for Falun Gong.
7. If the wording of the Richardson bit is unclear we can change it, but the quote was absolutely too long. Another addition of dramatic flare which is not needed here. I just reread it and it makes perfect sense in English. Perhaps a bit long but perfectly clear as far as I can tell. I'd like a third opinion on this.PelleSmith (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2. We can't expect people to click through links to see the status of these theories. Why don't we have something stating that other scholars consider such theories unscientific, which would make things a bit more clear?

3. I've always thought that this term "cult" should mean something more than just an ideology, it should refer to some kind of organizational structure and concrete actions that people take to do bad things to other people, wrapped up in an ostensible belief system. Just identifying ideological aspects (like the savior concept) and extrapolating this out to mind control seems so silly. Further, Kavan makes so many logical leaps, like "an apocalyptic world view used to manipulate members" -- how is an apocalyptic worldview used to manipulate people? How do Falun Gong practitioners suddenly become members? etc.. These are the problems I see in Kavan's definition and characterisation. They oversimplify, they jumble a whole lot of things together, they give wildly imprecise definitions and leave so many things unexplained. She also lists "alienation from society," when it's well known that there is no such thing among Falun Gong practitioners. Or to put it another way, the definitions she provides and the statements she makes directly conflict with a large body of fieldwork and other academic sources. However this relationship is expressed is fine. Maybe something like "Most scholars and those who have done fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners do not draw the same conclusions," or whatever it is. But DUE requires making differences between fringe and mainstream views clear. This is all.

4. The claim is only that they took the remark from the CCP, not that (as far as I know) they adopted their own cultic discourse for Falun Gong. See Penny's lecture, paragraph beginning "Before I go further", for one example. Anyway, the point here is just that this language was first adopted and then not used later.

5. I think it's too wordy and watered down as it is. Let me find a key sentence and it will be less space and convey their meaning better. (I think)--Asdfg12345 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• by the way, you only responded to some of my concerns. Could you please have a look again and respond to the others? If you don't know which ones, I can repeat and number them. I should have numbered them in the first place, to make things easier. I'm usually a big promoter efficiency, sorry.--Asdfg12345 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I got to finish up with wikipedia for today. Please read through the changes. I think it's looking better.--Asdfg12345 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[19] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion." ==> How can anyone perceive practitioners be "influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion."? What is the methodology for that claim? I see this very weird because the practice is extremely open. Can't see how it could be anymore open. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of cult section continued 3 (sources)

I'll add a few sources, hope you will find it useful and incorporate it (or I might do it after a few hours of sleep).

“ US State Dept.: China Continues To Persecute Religious Groups, State's Birkle Says

United States urges systemic reform and human rights improvement in China (2005) “According to the State Department official, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."

“The suffering of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners has been especially intense,” Smith said. “Whatever one may say about the merits of their beliefs, the evidence is very clear that Falun Gong practitioners are peaceful individuals who want to be left alone to practice their beliefs as they see fit.”

From: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/July/20050722172621wkoaix0.3967707.html

”

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

“ Falun Gong persecution spreads to Canada Ottawa does little to counter campaign by Chinese envoys by John Turley-Ewart 20 March 2004

[Professor] Ownby (who is not a member of Falun Gong) believes that while some of their beliefs are eccentric, the group does not exhibit any of the classic tendencies of what, for a lack of a better word, are often described as "cults." Li urges his followers to remain in the world, not to isolate themselves. He and his followers do not believe in any utopia. Adherents of Falun Gong are not asked to give money to Li, and he does not intervene in their personal lives. In fact, Ownby thinks the moral grounding of Li's teachings is likely to make Falun Gong practitioners "more responsible citizens."

From: http://www.specialtribunal.org/articles/0024/

”

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

“ Ambassador Mark Palmer

“If the Falun Gong is an “evil sect” or “cult” then so are Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Buddhists, for all are persecuted and jailed by the Chinese Communists. We all must support this common cause.” From: http://www.cesnur.org/2001/falun_july05.htm

”

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

“ Barry Beyerstein, a psychology prof and cult expert at Simon Fraser University, is clear that Falun Gong displays none of the typical characteristics – psychological, financial or physical coercion or deceptive recruiting practices. "They don't fit the profile," he says. ”

From: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=146197&archive=24,27,2005 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

“ Amnesty International

The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations

The word “cult” has been frequently used in English to translate the label recently put by the Chinese government on the Falun Gong and other similar groups. However, this translation is misleading. The expression used in China for this purpose, “xiejiao zuzhi”, refers to a large variety of groups and has a far broader meaning than “cult”. “Xiejiao zuzhi” is the expression used in Chinese legislation, official statements and by the state media to refer to a wide range of sectarian and millenarian groups, or unorthodox religious or spiritual organizations, and other groups which do not meet official approval. Xiejiao zuzhi can be translated as “heretical organization”, or “evil”, “heterodox” or “weird religious organization”. The translation “weird religious organization”, for example, is used in one official translation of legislation published in the PRC. In this report we use the translation “heretical organization” to convey the meaning of the Chinese expression, though the word “cult” appears occasionally in the text when it is part of a quotation from a text or report available to us in English. It is worth noting that there is no precise legal definition for “heretical organization” in China. Furthermore, the government’s current crackdown on these groups raises the question of who is entitled to determine which group is “heretical”.

From: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html , http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170112000

”

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

“ REPORTS OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF FOLLOWERS OF THE FALUN GONG

Amnesty International is deeply concerned by reports that detained followers of the Falun Gong have been tortured or ill-treated in various places of detention in China…The government, apparently concerned by the large number of followers in all sectors of society - including government departments, declared it was a "cult" and a "threat to stability" and launched a nationwide propaganda campaign against it. The campaign was described as an important "political struggle".

From: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170541999

”

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop here, this should be enough material for a substantiated encyclopedia entry. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to deal with the question of persecution rather than the definition and discussion of what constitutes a cult, don't you think? We do have a section on the persecution as well, so that would be where these sources could do some good. But on the other hand, that section is already significantly sourced.  / Per Edman 09:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

small note re anti-Falun Gong propaganda

Please see Regimenting the Public Mind: The Modernisation of Propaganda in the PRC by Anne-Marie Brady. I expect there will be no problems with using this term to describe the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda.--Asdfg12345 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which term?  / Per Edman 09:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)