Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Noah Porter

Noah Porter's research comes from his MA thesis, so should this be used as an academic source, or simply original research?--PCPP 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

it can be stated that it's for his MA. no problem. But if you are saying it is OR, I don't think you could have read that page too carefully. It is very clear what is original research. if something has been published by a reliable source, then it can be reported here, and that makes it not original research. the original refers to original to wikipedia, not to just the fact that it originated somewhere. Everything on this page is the same, just opinions of academics. Is it all OR? I think we should be clear about what Original Research means.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

by the way, I think to some extent, to change some of the mentions of "persecution" to something else, like repression, suppression, crackdown, yeah, that changes the wording a bit, and it kind of keeps the reading from being perhaps as dogmatic or perhaps as dry. I can see that, and I think it's okay to a degree. I need to check, but if you changed every instance, or too many, I don't think that's fair, and I don't see how you did it in the interests of improvement to the article. I likened the opposite to going around and sticking the word "genocide" in, instead of persecution. If you look up genocide, you will see that the word can be used, and there are people who have called it a genocide. Should I go around and do that? Wouldn't that create conflict and disharmony among editors? It is fine that we have different ideas about this, but we should strive to work cooperatively and compromise. I don't want to accuse you of bad things, just sharing my ideas with you. It is futile to try to downplay something like this, and if would be odious if you were attempting to do so, but if you just want to keep things interesting in terms of language variety then I have no problem. But we should be clear, and edit summaries are good to communicate ideas and be open about things.--Asdfg12345 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Scraping the barrel

I would point out, as I have also done elsewhere, that I have very grave misgivings about using one of the studies in the text. I feel it should absolutely be excluded. Noah Porter is nobody of note - he is/was a college student, and the article cited as reference was but a college thesis.

Noah Porter, not his namesake is no Michael Porter, and we would be doing a great disservice to the latter by comparing Noah with him. Somebody, in their infinite wisdom, already wikilinked NP with his namesake! The citations of him, as they appear here, puts him on a professorial par with serious reputed academics, and is highly misleading. Even mentioning in the article (or even the footnotes) that Porter's article is a Masters thesis does nothing to negate that lack of credibility or academic stature. In fact, it makes a mockery of wikipedia and the article. We are not the tabloids, and we are certainly not the Epoch Times, and we don't need rent-a-quotes. I have found not a small problem with the family of articles is that they are already all full of stuff which people quote and like to misquote. I strongly believe we should refrain from quoting Noah, or indeed anyone who has written two words about FG in a thesis, of which hundreds of thousands are written every year. Of course, there is nothing to stop us using some of the articles Noah uses as references as our own sources. Ohconfucius 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Troll, did he say somthing you disagree with? He may have his own POV but don't we all?208.254.130.235 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's hash this out and put the Porter issue to rest. There's really nothing in the policies to be found that will exclude Porter. It would be really great if all sources used here were from people who had thought about what they wrote, knew really well what they were talking about, and presented intelligent and insightful analyses of Falun Gong, the Dafa teachings, the persecution, and so on. That would really be great. I think I posted about this on the other page. I guess there are two sides to this. One is whether the source in itself, that is Porter, has presented an intelligent and valuable analysis of Falun Gong. That is open to debate. I think he's done a lot better than others I've read. A huge amount of research has gone into that, and it takes a long time to write a thesis. I don't see any problem excluding the thesis on grounds of its inherent value. That the paper is a thesis does nothing to diminish its credibility or stature as a reliable source. Countless philosophers' principal works was their thesis; Wittgenstein's Tractatus was his thesis. I can't imagine you would want to exclude the Porter simply because it's a thesis. Hundreds of thousands of journal articles are published every year (or tens of thousands, whatever). Hundreds of thousands of books, too. The number is obviously not a basis for exclusion. Newspaper articles that seem to have been written without a second thought are used as wikipedia sources. We even use the Xinhua for sources, and clearwisdom.net is sometimes used. In terms of being a neutral party, Porter obviously is far better than them. He is an academic, and if you look in some journals you will find several articles he has written about Falun Gong or other things in Nova Religio. Some of those articles are mainly based on the contents in his thesis. I said there were two issues with sources. One is their actual value in terms of what they bring to the subject, and Porter is not doing that badly, despite his bias--though anyone writing about Falun Gong will bring out their own.

The second is what wikipedia policies say. This is actually the more important one. There is nothing in RS which will exclude Porter. As far as wikipedia is concerned he is a reliable source. The thesis was produced at an academic institution and has had to be scrutinised by a few people before being published. It is thoroughly researched and well argued. I said we use xinhua, clearwisdom, and any old newspaper articles. Speaking for at least the first and last of those, those people could have written anything, their own random thoughts, with no research at all, knowing nothing about Falun Gong, its historical context, what it teaches, without having met anyone practicing it, and it qualifies as a reliable source. Xinhua is of course active and deliberate deceit, vilification and propaganda. Porter is obviously doing far, far better than this. Here is some of his work: http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~ncporter/CV.htm. Did you know he has published all this? He appears to be an established anthropologist. Additionally, his thesis is not self-published. You can find it on dissertation.com. Here is what it says in RS:

As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources...

Porter's thesis contains a great deal of scrutiny, fact checking, and argument analysis. Additionally, it is an academic and peer-reviewed publication. He has published a number of articles in academic journals and engaged in a range of anthropological research and appears to be established in the field. Actually, I am beginning to think the thesis is looking like quite a good source now. You know, those people engaged in producing 'cultic studies' publications are virtual pariahs in the academic and scientific communities. I've never tried to exclude them from wikipedia. I may have missed something in your argument, or maybe you were not aware of some evidence I have presented. I have read through Verifiable now, and RS, and personally I think the thesis is prime wikipedia material.--Asdfg12345 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I cannot can only agree with much of what you say about the quality of his work in isolation, and also in relation to other work which has been published by other sources cited here, I still disagree that we should cite Porter as an established authority. I have no issue with the intrinsic quality of his work, nor the "bias" - the opinions are, as you said, well researched, and the study appears to be sufficiently independent of both FG and the PRC government. HOwever, the issue I have is that while Wittgenstein's Tractatus may have been a thesis, it is what brought him to the attention of the academic and wider community, but that acknowledgement was retrospective. I believe it may be a case of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate on Noah's future prominence but I do not believe there is sufficient proof that any of Porter's work has elevated him to a status which would qualify citing him as if he were a reliable source. The thesis he published is certainly capable of being peer reviewed, but again, that does not in itself guarantee that it has been peer reviewed - most theses published are largely ignored. That will come when other respected academics or [political] commentators refer to his studies, so unless anyone has come across any such article, I believe it should still be excluded. I believe we may be jumping the gun as it is not wikipedia's role to participate in that particular debate. Please note that my objection is restricted to using what Noah surmises or expresses as opinion (as opposed to fact). As said previously, there are sources aplenty in Noah's thesis which are from established sources which we can freely rely on to verify factual accuracy according to WP:RS irrespective of their bias. Ohconfucius 01:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Barend ter Haar lists Porter's thesis in his bibliography of sources. I would imagine that since there is such a small amount of academic work available on Falun Gong, everybody has read Porter's thesis. I can't imagine that we need to exclude every source that is not referred to by another source... I feel criteria for inclusion that you are proposing is not found anywhere in WP:RS, and if we were to adopt it, what would we be left with? No academics refer to specific newspaper articles, or if so, few, maybe Johnson's WSJ series and the Xinhua. Do we exclude all of them? We would be narrowing the source range basically to not more than the handful of academic journal articles written on Falun Gong. And not all of them refer to all the others? Porter himself has published in these journals. He obviously has academic currency. He's not just some kid who wrote the thesis and now he's working at the shopping centre. The fact that this particular publication was his MA thesis, that seems rather external to the merits of the publication itself. My tractatus example was just to show that theses are not inherently suspect. I really honestly I think the source is fine... I just realised we can do request for comment to get wider opinions, instead of repeating ourselves. I will figure out how to apply for one in a minute. Let's leave this and wait to see what other people think. I might also look through some featured articles and scrutinise their sources.--Asdfg12345 08:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope the RFC below will be fruitful. (confucius please alter the part against including Porter. I'm sorry the 'for' bit is longer, but it is because I do not really understand clearly why he's not a good source, so I might not have been able to reproduce the claim that he isn't very convincingly... please supplement as appropriate.)--Asdfg12345 08:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one last thing. I want to rationalise the arguments going on and trace them. It might be better with a bit of paper and a pen. Firstly, is the problem with Porter himself as an authority, or with the thesis as a work:

• Porter himself is not a recognised writer on the subject -> he has published in academic journals, such as Nova Religio. Many articles on Falun Gong written in this journal are being sourced on these pages. Nova Religio is published by the University of California press (http://www.ucpressjournals.com/journal.asp?j=nr).

Question then is, are some authors published in nova religio more authoritative on flg than others? On what basis? (I think having published in this journal, which is the same standard for inclusion for anyone else, means he's fine)

• Porter's thesis is the problem -> this doesn't seem to be the problem. this was discussed. It's very well researched, extensive, well argued, etc.. as a work in its own right it seems fine
• Porter is not referred to by other authorities -> does every person sourced here have to be specifically referred to by others? If a particular source is not referred to by any other source, should it be excluded on that basis? Porter has published alongside all the others in Nova Religio, so why exclude him and not some other? Maria Chang does not even provide a bibliography, and does not even refer to ANY of the academic literature on Falun Gong. Also, I mentioned Porter is cited in ter Haar's "further resources" on his site.

I concede that he is no expert on Chinese history, religions in China, or qigong in China, or that side of things. He is an anthropologist, so he is presenting things from an ethnographic perspective. So one concession might be to only allow comments from his work that are related to his ethnographic work. But I'd say that anything he says should be published. Chang is a political scientist, but we have her absurd commentary on the teachings of Falun Gong, which she completely fails to understand, makes no sincere attempt at understanding, and even fabricates quotes (she writes "the apocalype" in quotation marks! that word does not appear once in any of the DAfa books. What are the quotations supposed to mean, that is really bad to suggest that that is a quotation) Anyway I'm going on about this too much now. this was just for further consideration, to identify the arguments specifically.--Asdfg12345 10:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Noah Porter's MA thesis is a valid source

This is the explanation for the rfc: "Whether or not Noah Porter's MA thesis is a valid source"

The reason

The dispute is whether or not Noah Porter's Masters Thesis is a valid source. Argument against is that Porter is not established as a serious academic and therefore unlikely to be an authoritative writer on Falun Gong, and that he has not been cited by other relevant academic literature. Notwithstanding its inherent qualities, the principal article being cited here for our purposes is an academic thesis (Masters degree) written in 2003 whose status as a reliable source is contested due to the perceived lack of authority of the author. Argument for is that he is an established anthropologist whose MA thesis was an ethnographic study on Falun Gong, and who has published journal articles on ethnographic studies of Falun Gong, some based largely on his thesis work. The contention is that he has not been cited. Though he is listed in the internet bibliography of Barend ter Haar, who should be a reliable source. Further, that the thesis is large, well argued, and shows a great deal of research, awareness, and citation of other relevant literature as well as being on its own a piece of original ethnographic research. 08:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism and homophobia

Does stuff about the racism and homophobia in Falun Gong belong here or in Teachings of Falun Gong? // Liftarn

Hello. There is no racism or homophobia in Falun Gong. There are teachings about mixed races and about homosexuality. These have no relation to racially prejudicial views, or homophobic views. --Asdfg12345 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It sure is. A quck googling for "falun gong" and "homophobia" gives several links with information. // Liftarn

[1] It's normal for people to have all kind of views and all kind of Original Research. Still could you point out what would qualify from your POV as homophobic teaching from the ones listed here: http://falundafa.org/eng/books.html ? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I might just add this, as far as I know every orthodox practice will consider sex outside marriage to be a sin. --HappyInGeneral 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would call statements like "the priority of the gods will be to eliminate homosexual people" and "the disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time."[2] homophobic. And other have[3] so we have reliable sources for that. Regarding racism we have quotes like "mixed-race people...[are] instruments of an alien plot to destroy humanity’s link to heaven." obviously interracial relationships are "a plot by... evil extraterrestrials" and ofcourse "The races in the world are not allowed to be mixed up. Now, the races are mixed up and it has brought about an extraordinarily serious problem..."[4] // Liftarn

Yeah all the stuff on homosexuality etc., teachings aspects, I think should go on the teachings page. Maybe make a section called "miscellaneous," to put everything like this, and all the other varied topics Li Hongzhi has talked about. That's my immediate thought. By the way, it's obviously strongly against homosexuality but I don't regard it as homophobic--there is no "phobia" to speak of. The mixed-race comments may also be regarded as highly interesting. These all constitute parts of the teachings. They should go on the teachings page with the rest. The only one of those we can use is the Rick Ross cited one. At least the myownmind certainly doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Someone like Rahn has more currency on this kind of thing. I'm sure she's thrown in her two cents on this about Falun Gong somewhere, in a cultic studies journal or something. Though I'd say it's not much more well thought out, it's probably more appropriate to use her than most others. --Asdfg12345 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it should predominantly be in the teachings section as misc. Any criticism should probably go there too, without dominating the article per WP:UNDUE. The anti-homosexuality bias is not a central part of the teachings AFAICT, but a "relic" from the Confucian past which the vast majority of Chinese believe in to this day. Ohconfucius 02:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Confucian past neither endorsed, nor condemned homosexuality, all you have to do is read their scriptures. There are plenty of translations online. Male prostitutes in Ming was rampant, as evidenced by various Ming preiod novels. As part of Li's teaching, especially in light of the fact that Falun Gong practitioners practically worships every word he says, his comments about nature of interracial marriage and his belief about homosexuality should be inserted into the article, regardless of who or what makes Li think that. 152.133.6.197 15:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

Seriously, does this article need to be so damn long? even jesus seminar didn't write this much... Plus, it almost appears that only two editors are ever involved, one Asdfg12345, a pro-Falun Gong dude who must have written the bulk, the other, Ohconfucius, an anti-Falun Gong dude who mostly just comments. I am having serious doubts about the neutrality of these Falun Gong related articles. 151.201.9.156 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute yourself. Also, it may help to gain a good understanding of what wikipedia is, Wikipedia:About, in particular these two: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Verifiability.. also Wikipedia:No_original_research. Basically wikipedia just has information in summary/quotation form about what other people have written about things. They have to have published their stuff in academic journals, newspapers, etc. None of the content on any of these pages is outside of that, and nearly every sentence is scrupulously sourced. The majority of the sources used on this page and the persecution page are from academic journals. Can you point out where you have a problem with the neutrality, and in a specific way, which parts are not neutrally written? Please provide concrete suggestions for how the articles could be improved, and if you are not familiar with the editing process, or do not have the time, perhaps myself or ohconfucius could make some of those changes. I saw some of your other comments on the talk pages too, but I am still a bit puzzled over what troubles you, about these cycle of articles and about Falun Gong generally. If you elaborate it is possible that you could be provided with a response that you find satisfying--I'm not sure about that, however. --Asdfg12345 02:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

please show me the distortion in translation between english/chinese (just post links to the chinese and english texts) or retract the statement--Asdfg12345 02:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deliberately not contributed much to this article as I have other interests in wikipedia, but would welcome anyone who contributes positively in wikipedia spirit. It is true that the FG articles have been the target of much effort recently, mainly by myself and asdfg. We have been working together whilst challenging each other in most of these articles. Both of us have been so deeply involved in this family of articles that indeed bias may have unwittingly crept in, so an outside view would always be helpful, and this is why we are actively seeking peer reviews and other such. Ohconfucius 02:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. For your information: Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the length of any article is only a function of the work editors are prepared to put into it and the information available on the subject matter. Ohconfucius 02:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO this article should be deleted or merged with teachings of Falun Gong. The bias against anti-FLG critics is apparant; as the way the paragraphs are structured in a way that pro-FLG critics's claims has been given importance in the last paragraph of every section, and that anti-FLG critics are being discredited by being squished in between.--PCPP (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

responded to below. --Asdfg12345 06:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kilgour/Matas is not a valid source

They have involvement in FLG politics by associating themselves with the FLG organization CIPFG, therefore disqualifying themselves from being called "third-party". If FLG editors keeps insisting in adding them, I might as well as add quotes from all the CCP-sponsored cult critics.--PCPP (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I believe there has been sufficient coverage in the international press about their allegations to be cited here. However, the stuff in their website is a primary source. I note you dispute that they are independent. They have credentials as Canadian parliamentarians and human-rights activists, and I believe they are de facto independent unless they have renounced that neutrality by joining FG or by accepting their money. It seems they have merely sided with FG in their organ harvesting claims, and have been going around publicising their "findings". I do not believe they have crossed the line, yet. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between independent, third parties who have adopted a certain stance and those sponsored by certain groups. Don't try to discredit Kilgour/Matas as Falun Gong sources just because they are standing up for Falun Gong--that won't work. Also, you need to find CCP-independent critics of Falun Gong, which are already mentioned in this article. It says nothing if the CCP can produce its own brand of so-called cult critics. They have already done this very successfully. There are some sympathisers in the west like Rahn and Singer, though, who are different. Basically the problem is that their stuff doesn't stand up, and people who have defended Falun Gong have more credentials and more reasoned arguments. This isn't bias in the article, it is just how the story has unfolded. I think the article provides an accurate representation of the different views prevalent and how they head off against one another. There's also the format of thesis/antithesis. People don't just come out and defend Falun Gong as a wholesome practice and not a cult for no reason. That is in response to attacks. The attacker's views are stated, then responded to. This is just a logical format of structuring arguments.--Asdfg12345 06:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weights - rewrite required

I'm quite amazed how FLG practitioners turned an article originally named Falun Gong critivisms and controversies into a apology for FLG. The problem I have is that entire sections are dedicated to one particular researcher that mostly lean towards FLG, thus creating a distorted view of academic views on FLG.

For exmaple:

• 1 Academic perspectives
• 1.1 In the context of Buddhism - Benjamin Penny's The Falun Gong, Buddhism and "Buddhist qigong"
• 1.2 In the context of Qigong - Ian Johnson's Wild Grass
• 1.3 Li Hongzhi - Maria Chang's Falun Gong: The End of Days
• 2 Falun Gong and finance - James Tong article + Li Hongzhi
• 3 Research into health effects - FLG's own original research
• 4 Falun Gong and the Anti-Cult Movement - opens with an attack on the ACM based on an article from the Journal of Church and State; FLG critics such as Rick Ross, Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan were only mentioned in a few sentences
• 4.1 Relations to society - Noah Porter's essay + Ian Johnson
• 4.2 The "thought control" theory - Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, immediatly followed by their critics
• 4.3 Cult labelling - Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson's article Journal of Church and State

This article should be written, or be deleted all together. Quotes from Li Hongzhi from the original article should be brought back, and the massive quotes from academics should be scaled down and summarised.--PCPP (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through section-by-section the changes and why:

• kept "cult label as a tool of marginalisation" because that is what those sources say, they don't talk generally about the cult label, they say how it's been used to persecute.
• kept "purported relation to society" because it is indeed what critics are purporting
• left out Kavan thing, which you have just ripped from a media release, which mentions FLG only once, the rest consisting of aspersion. as I said earlier, you will need to actually hunt down that paper, or something else written by this woman. Wikipedia doesn't do inferences or aspersions.
• Ian Johnson always refers to it as the "Communist Party", not as the "Chinese government". Whatever the source says is fine with me. If there are some people who prefer to use 'Chinese government', then theyshould be quoted as doing so. When they use CCP,references should be made to CCP.
• For your final edit, where you deleted a lot of sourced content from Penny and Chan in the "Academic Perspective" section, I reverted this.
• I left the tags up the top, but you will need to justify them, please. It's also ironic that you are finding all this pro FLG. There are no pro FLG academics. The only pro FLG people are probably kilgour/matas, but even they are not really pro Falun Gong, they just don't think Falun Gong is bad, and that it shouldn't be persecuted. The problem is that you think this is a really big, supportive statement of Falun Gong. It's actually what nearly every single scholarly work on the subject says, as well mainstream newspaper articles. Journalists and academics take exception to some of the things in the teachings, and they make jokes about Li Hongzhi, but generally they don't actually support the vicious persecution, and Falun Gong is considered harmless. This is what you'll find, and wikipedia has to reflect that. I'm not about excluding minority views, but if you read NPOV, linked below, you'll find that the article currently is not called undue weight. It would be undue weight if we filled the article with pro-CCP voices calling Falun Gong a psychosis-inducing, mind-controlling, cannibalistic, money driven, homosexual hating, hugely rich, highly organised, CIA backed, terrorist-inclined, (etc., whatever else the CCP has come up with) cult! That, my friend, would be undue weight.

I think it would be a good idea to discuss and agree on possible changes before making them to the articles. This is what the ArbCom said when Samuel was banned. I am not averse to changing the articles, or in including more commentary from different perspectives. Anyway, please read WP:NPOV, WP:V to get an idea of the editorial expectations.--Asdfg12345 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would again ask you stop deleting sourced stuff--and please find the actual article for Kavan's views. It isn't good enough to simply repeat a press release for these kinds of views. You could try emailing her or something; it would be interesting to represent this view on the page, given that it can be properly attributed, and more precise information given about what she has said about FLG.--Asdfg12345 13:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why was the following sentence removed from the intro in this edit [5]? "In the years since the beginning of the 1999 crackdown by the Chinese government, Falun Gong has received a range of scholarly attention from western academics, at the same time garnering some attention from mainstream media and civil rights groups due to allegations of persecution by the Chinese Communist Party. " --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• In what way do you think it's necessary? I think it's merely waffle. There's already plenty of proper background in other FG related articles, so I think this article needs no more an introduction than what I left behind. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. waffle. intro should follow WP:Lead.--Asdfg12345 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining also I think you are referring to Waffle (speech). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like waffles ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

tags?

I just noticed these tags--can someone explain? I thought there was some anti-driveby tagging movement?--Asdfg12345 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Ian Denis Johnson is a journalist, not an academic, so why are his views given as counterpoint to all criticism in a section that is supposed to be about academic views? Much of the material on this page (eg background on APA's rejection of Singer's report) should not be on this page but rather on more relevant pages (eg Singer's own page). These are just 2 of the gaping flaws that jump out on 1st skimming. --Simon D M (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, parts of the article are biased. It needs input from impartial people, and a serious time commitment and intellectual engagement. No one so far has done that. There are actually numerous major flaws in this article, including even the titling. If you want to get stuck into this and rewrite the whole thing I'll help as I can from the sideline. In the future I will be able to help, but not for a month probably.--Asdfg12345 12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm starting by reducing the size of the article which is full of stuff that shouldn't be there. --Simon D M (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to cut swathes off it, copy them into a sandbox type page can you?--Asdfg12345 01:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some need to provide an, albeit truncated, appraisal that "cultic studies" is not mainstream academic discourse. This was the point of much of that material, to establish the context of Falun Gong critics and their apparent credentials and backgrounds. I agree with getting most of it off this page, but given the large amount of sources, some of the basic things should be made clear to readers.--Asdfg12345 01:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"They suggest the ACM has an "unsavoury history" which includes kidnapping, and is not a reliable source for scientific information. They state that despite a lack of "empirical verification or general acceptance in the scientific community," the doctrines and theories behind the ACM have strongly influenced, and been largely adopted by the China Anti Cult Association (CACA), and employed specifically to assist in the persecution of Falun Gong in China."

Just preserving that here so I don't have to scour the history.--Asdfg12345 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think the place for a full assessment of the ACM is on its own page, we shouldn't be cherry picking pro or con assessments here. Here, at most, we should summarise the controversy or just refer to its existence. The relationship with CACA is more relevant to this article and should/has been kept I believe. --Simon D M (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Research into health effects

Research conducted into the health benefits of Falun Dafa include work by Quan-Zhen Li (Ph.D, M.D), Richard J. Johnson (M.D.), Ping Li (Ph.D) et al. Their paper titled Genomic Profiling of Neutrophil Transcripts in Asian qigong Practitioners: A Pilot Study in Gene Regulation by Mind–Body[6][7] reports the result of studies conducted on Neutrophils/polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs) of Falun Gong practitioners. The study reports that among the 6 practitioners on whom the genomic profiling was done, in comparison to the control group, about 200 genes were found consistently up-regulated or down-regulated.

The Falun Dafa Australia website lists three surveys conducted in China in 1998, all of which suggest significant improvement in health levels. While the latter two provide no information related to who performed the surveys, the first lists a team of eleven researchers assembled from various institutes, hospitals, and universities. This survey was conducted on over ten thousand Falun Gong adherents in Beijing. The results suggest that among the participants Falun Gong’s disease healing rate was 99.1% with a cure rate of 58.5% The rate of improvement, according to the statistics collected, were 80.3% in physical health and 96.5% in mental health. The results of this survey suggest that Falun Gong has a significant effect in disease healing and improving health.

While the specifics of these findings are open to further research and interpretation, they are broadly consistent with a large body of scientific work that has found health benefits to meditative practices.

I don't believe this section is currently justifiable. The 1st study looks at a proxy variable in just 6 practitioners and the 2nd is from a self-selected sample and is self-published. Health benefits would be no surprise but these 2 studies do not add up to much. --Simon D M (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it and copied it above. The former study could be used if used along with other studies. The latter study is near worthless. --Simon D M (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Medical research isn't my field, at all. Are studies on proxy variables generally considered worthless? Or is it the very small sample size? What about the second, is the main issue that it appears on a Falun Gong website, or the nature of the study itself? I understand that the people who undertook the study were from some kind of relevant government body. I read somewhere that the Chinese have generally not properly adhered to the stringent scientific methodology, is this one such case? Does the extent of the questionableness of these two sources warrant that they are expunged entirely, or would it be suitable to qualify them further, as well as trim them?--Asdfg12345 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Both studies have 2 major flaws each. Proxy studies are not necessarily worthless, but don't reflect directly on health as the section title suggests. But this one was really a pilot study, maybe worthy of mention with a group of other studies but not enough to justify a section on its own. The 2nd study is meaningless in a medical sense because of the self-selection (people who get better will tend to stick with FG and those who don't will drift away, so the proportion of FG adherents believing themselves to be healed is systematically above the proportion healed of those who have tried FG). It looks like there are other methodological problems with this study but it only really has a social science interest, saying something about the beliefs of adherents. The fact that the source appears self-published puts it beyond the pale of WP. --Simon D M (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, of course. Yes what you are saying is clear to me now. You mean that the study does not sufficiently establish causal relation between apparent health and Falun Gong practice because there are not sufficient controls to isolate that (like, I don't know, another segment of the population or plenty of other factors). And the other is a pilot study, you mean just that there are far few people? Okay. I would suggest that this stuff has some role, somewhere. It shouldn't be beat up though, as in, promoting that FLG is proven to cure illness. Your suggestion that it framed more in practitioner self-perceptions would be appropriate and relevant, I think. There will be some scope for this later. I like what you are doing to this page. This page may almost not need to exist at a certain point, as all the extraneous stuff could be divided among other pages as appropriate. Let's see how it goes.--Asdfg12345 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The cult label

However, Margaret Singer's thought control theory greatly divides scholars. The scientific evidence on any "thought control" phenomena remains inconclusive. For example, in 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer to set up a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987, the committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On 11 May 1987 the Board rejected the report. In the rejection memo is stated: "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." The Center for Studies on New Religions wrote in Margaret Singer's obituary that "Singer's decline started with the rejection of a report of a commission she had chaired by the American Psychological Association in 1987," and referred to another ruling of 1990, which excluded "her testimony on brainwashing as not part of mainline science." Though Singer is still supposed to be "lionized by the anti-cult movement" and "some media," the article contends that her increased reception of criticism "even by 'moderate' anti-cultists," means that she has appeared "increasingly irrelevant" to the "'new' cult wars of the late 1990s." Singer's theory has both its detractors and supporters.

Stephen Hassan attempts to construct a theoretical model for understanding how "thought control" might operate. He suggests a BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotion) model, where "mind control" is as a combination of control over behavior, information, thought and emotions. Three of Mr. Hassan's criteria--control of behavior, thoughts and emotions--were components to the theory of cognitive dissonance developed by Leon Festinger. According to Hassan, "it is by manipulating these three elements that cults gain control over a person's identity." Claiming to draw on his experience working with "former cult members," Hassan adds a fourth component to his BITE model--control of information. For each of these components, Hassan provides a list of specific practices (e.g.: a need to internalize a group's doctrine as "Truth" is one aspect of Thought Control). Hassan suggests that "destructive mind control" can be determined when the "overall effect" of these four elements "promotes dependency and obedience to some leader or cause." He qualifies that it is not necessary for "every single item" to be included. He contends that "mind-controlled cult members" can be integrated members of society, but "still be unable to think for themselves and act independently." With regard to Falun Gong, Hassan claims on his website to have a "strong impression" that "Thought control and Phobia indoctrination is very much used," and elsewhere that Li Hongzhi is "the cult extreme" and the "authoritarian stereotype." Though he says that he has not had an opportunity to interview any "individuals who have been very involved with this group and decided to leave," and is thus not convinced that Falun Gong "fulfils [his] BITE model in its entirety."

According to an essay published in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, the "mind control" and "brainwashing" theories advocated by the anti-cult movement are not generally accepted by the scientific community. Lorraine Derocher has asked whether this kind of "cultism" could be perceived as "a new form of racism." Another name in the anti-cult movement, Jean-Marie Abgrall, had his version of the "cultic brainwashing theory" attacked by the Social Justice Research, which contends that upon analysis, the theory is "essentially identical to the pseudoscientific theory that was developed first by the American CIA as a propaganda device to combat communism," and further as an ideological device that was put to use by the American anti-cult movement, in an attempt to rationalize efforts of persecution and control of minority religious groups. It is claimed that the theory has been researched and evaluated scientifically in several contexts, and in each of them has been shown to be "ineffective in coercively changing worldviews." The article concludes that because of this pattern of disconfirmation, testimony based on brainwashing theory has been opposed as unscientific by relevant professional academic organizations and "repeatedly excluded from American legal trials." It states that as a consequence, "neither legal decisions nor public policy with respect to minority religions should be based on Abgrall's appropriation of this pseudoscientific theory."

Just keen to keep track of what has been moved. It may be useful for some of this to be summarized very briefly on the page (a few sentences, I mean). Not sure. --Asdfg12345 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I mentioned in the edit summary where I moved it but you're right it's better to keep track here. --Simon D M (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong was referred to as a Cult by overseas media before the crackdown by the way. Laomei (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved: Qigong content

Qigong (or chi kung) refers to a wide variety of traditional “cultivation” practices that involve movement and/or regulated breathing designed to be therapeutic. Qigong is practiced for health maintenance purposes, as a therapeutic intervention, as a medical profession, a spiritual path and/or component of Chinese martial arts. In the 1990s there was a qigong craze with attendant state suspicion. Montreal scholar David Ownby, and journalist Ian Johnson in his book Wild Grass, both offer this boom as historical context for the rise of Falun Gong.

Johnson describes Falun Gong as “...the next logical step in qigong's development.” He writes that “while firmly stating that Falun Gong was not a religion, Master Li drew on traditional religions for terminology and symbols.” The term “Falun” means Dharma Wheel, or Wheel of Law, a traditional Buddhist symbol of the “immutable forces in the world” This is said to contain elements of well-known religious imagery—a “well established part of Chinese cosmology.” Falun Gong's sign is a wheel, a circle made up of a central, counterclockwise-pointing swastika, a traditional Buddhist symbol. This is surrounded by four smaller swastikas and four small yin-yang, or t'ai chi, symbols, a traditional Taoist sign. Ownby writes that Li emerged in 1992 in order to “rectify” the broader qigong movement. Li, according to Ownby, saw qigong as “rife with false teachings and greedy and fraudulent 'masters.'” Li understood himself and Falun Gong as part of a “centuries-old tradition of cultivation,” and in his texts would often attack those who teach “incorrect, deviant, or heterodox ways.” Johnson suggests that while initially Falun Gong laid emphasis on health benefits, over time “the philosophical teachings of Truth, Goodness and Forbearance began to take on more importance.” He writes that in the context of Falun Gong, these principles require people to live “upright lives.” A traditional morality—what Ownby calls “popular fundamentalism,” a supposed return to moral values that numerous Chinese “feel have been lost in the rush to modernisation.”

Johnson suggests that Li Hongzhi's emphasis on compatibility with science is an interesting feature of the practice. “Indeed, like other qigongs, Falun Gong positions itself as a kind of Über-science, something that is modern but even better than modern. [Li's] writings refer to extraterrestrial life and the cosmos, but also of the qigong practitioner's ability to surpass these truths.” Ownby elaborates on aspect of Falun Gong, noting that Li distinguished himself from other qigong masters by teaching that the goal of qigong cultivation was more than simply for "getting fit or developing ESP or supernatural powers"—Li sought to develop a greater history, theory and meaning behind cultivation. Ownby later delineates the kinds of discourse that Falun Gong taps into. There is the discourse of the suffering body, which holds the possibility of freedom from illness and physical suffering; the discourse of limitless human potential, where physical transformation is chiefly effected by moral practice, the basic notion that “the righteous have the power”; and the discourse of exile and return, a discourse of world creation, degeneration, and salvation/renewal.

the above is being moved to the main Falun Gong page from which the general Qigong info has be moved to the Qigong article. This is to get important FG related stuff onto the main page and general stuff off onto the pages it should be on. --Simon D M (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In May 1998, Li condemned homosexuality as "dark state of mind", and that it is incompatible with cultivation. He also said homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they "correct this bad behavior." In 2006, Li said "They are sentient beings... treat them just like anyone else."

just moving this--Asdfg12345 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Page rename

We should agree on renaming this page. 3rd party views should never be hived off so the current name is absurd. The current content of the article concerns controversies and I think the term 'controversies' should be in the new title. It is surely better than 'criticisms' because there is as much counter-criticism in the article as criticism. I suggest "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong". --Simon D M (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As in main page, suggest "Competing representations".--Asdfg12345 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This page should not exist at all. All controversy over Falun Gong can easily fit inside the main article. That this page has been created, and then MARKED FOR DELETION sends a clear signal of whitewashing in progress, and nobody should want that. PerEdman (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

PCPP's ideas to improve article

I'm planning to rewrite the page, or if push comes to shove, AFD the article. My previous attempts to rewrite the article has been met with resistance by FLG activists[8]. I currently have numerous problems with that article:

1) The article is poorly written and sounds like an essay. It lacks context, and the opening paragraphs introducing the criticas are not encyclopedic material.

2) It represent a limited range of views. Most of the "critics" on the page really lack notability beyond publishing FLG-related articles.

3) The article is full of technical jargon involving religion, which makes it inaccessable to most readers.

4) Bias. The article is structured in a way that gives undue weight to whatever "critic" the paragrap focuses on, while adding criticism to FLG's critics from the ACM For example:

• 1 Falun Gong and Buddhism - Benjamin Penny's The Falun Gong, Buddhism and "Buddhist qigong"
• 2 Falun Gong and finance - James Tong article + Li Hongzhi
• 3 Falun Gong and the Anti-Cult Movement - opens with an attack on the ACM based on an article from the Journal of Church and State; FLG critics such as Rick Ross, Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan were only mentioned in a few sentences
• 3.1 Relations to society - Noah Porter's essay + Ian Johnson
• 3.2 The "thought control" theory - Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, immediatly followed by their critics
• 3.3 Cult labelling - highly POV section, suggesting that it's a fact that FLG is only labelled as a "Cult"--PCPP (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with you about the page needing vast improvement. Simon has done some excellent work in shifting much of the needless information from here to more appropriate pages. I think there is still scope for improvement. Why did you delete so much from the Buddhism section? If you would explain why, I might be able to understand, and then we could discuss it and reach a compromise. About your notes:

1) I agree.

2) That's an interesting point, but I do not think it is true. Most academics are not house-hold names. The point though, is that they belong to an academic institution, are publishing in peer-reviewed journals, are cited in other academic literature, are experts on the subject, etc., you can see WP:RS, and all the sources on this page (funnily enough, except Rick Ross, et al!) fully comply with the highest requirements of wikipedia. Benjamin Penny is a sinologist and one of the foremost experts on Falun Gong, also Chinese religion, Taoism.

3) Where you point this out it can be clarified or linked. Can you show some specific examples? I tend to disagree, as there is only one section where this kind of thing is discussed, and I think it's fairly accessible. Maybe it isn't, though, and we can improve it. I think we should first look at what we have and try to improve it, and if we can't, then we might chop some of it, rather than delete it right away.

4) I tend to agree. This should be fixed. Much of the content criticizing Singer has been removed from the article, for example. Usually the argumentation on this point is structured in the form of thesis-antithesis. So the critics have their say, and the counter-critics and defenders have their say. There is not much to do about this, I don't think. It's a matter of which sources are better in terms of wikipedia reliability, and who have the better arguments. We cannot meddle in this field, we can just collect the sources and present the arguments. However they turn out is just how they turn out. Much of the criticism of the ACM was moved to a different article though, which is appropriate. It is important to note however that the ACM is a controversial and shady movement, and that Margaret Singer, for example, is a controversial and shady figure. What people say about Singer and the ACM should be mentioned here for proper context, but should not overwhelm.

The part about the cult label is not biased. The argument in that section is that the "cult" label is merely a tool of repression. That's what those people are arguing, so it should be made clear that that is what they are saying. They aren't saying that it's controversial to label Falun Gong a cult. They are saying it's propagandistic hate speech designed to dehumanise and vilify, and that it has no basis in reality. Kilgour/Matas are saying this kind of thing, for example. We don't shy away from reporting that.

If there are legitimate critics of Falun Gong they should have their voices heard. It should be made clear who they are though, and if some others say they are not part of mainstream academia, well, that should be reported. There is also something called WP:UNDUE, which needs to be adhered to in addressing this issue. The view that Falun Gong is a cult is a fringe view. It isn't academic mainstream. Sinologists, experts on Chinese religions, and scholars who research Falun Gong do not uphold these views. People like Ownby and Penny are mainstream. People like Hassan, Rahn and Rick Ross are not.--Asdfg12345 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

PCPP, I see some of this has been cleared up, can you please explain what your ideas are behind deleting a lot of the information from the Buddhism section? Please don't revert again without discussing it. There's no deadline. It would be good to build a consensus on the changes. --Asdfg12345 05:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

____________

According to Philip Jenkins (2000) (quoted by Porter 2003), along with fringe religious groups almost always came movements to denounce or even eradicate them. The definition of a cult was not created in a vacuum, but rather is "a prefabricated script some centuries in the making, incorporating charges that might originally have been developed long ago against a wide variety of movements." Porter further points out that supernormality was already a part of qigong before Falun Gong was introduced, as was moral guidance, and that "Falun Gong does not force practitioners to sign contracts, threaten physical or economic harm for apostasy, or any other such coercive methods that are often attributed to cults." He writes that if someone tried Falun Gong and disliked it for any reason, they would have nothing to fear from practitioners. He notes that practitioners are aware that Falun Gong "...does not fit neatly into categories like qigong or religion, and some [practitioners] are looking for more accurate ways of describing it to non-practitioners." Porter also opines that it is unfair to make comparisons between Falun Gong and cults such as People's Temple and Branch Davidians: "such statements irresponsibly leave the impression that Falun Gong has similarities to these violent groups, when in fact Falun Gong practitioners have consistently refused to use violence against those who persecute them."

_____________

Disputes

• This heading is much better and does not contain self-reference:

"Falun Gong has received a range of scholarly attention from western academics from perspectives such as its relationship to other beliefs, the role of Li Hongzhi in Falun Gong, Falun Gong’s relationship to wider society, the question of finance in Falun Gong both before and after it was transmitted directly by Li Hongzhi in Mainland China before the crackdown, as well as scholarship on the modern American anti-cult movement and its members' views on Falun Gong, along with counter-criticisms."

• I've already noted that the Buddhism section is an essay, and has shortened all the excessive quoting to summarise the article. Essay material does not belong on wiki and must be deleted.

• The heading "Cult labelling controversy" is much more npov than "The "cult" label as a tool of marginalisation", with an overwhelming bias towards pro-FLG academics suggesting that their views are facts.

• I dispute the removal of words from this paragraph:

"The ACM's position on Falun Gong has been criticised by some and described as being used as a tool for marginalisation and repression. In 2000, the China Anti-Cult Association (CACA) was founded, based largely on the controversial theories of the ACM. "

to

"The ACM's position on Falun Gong has been criticised and described as a tool for marginalisation and repression. In 2000, the China Anti-Cult Association (CACA) was founded, based largely on the disputed theories of the ACM. "

--PCPP (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to differentiate the "essay" aspects of that section and the parts that aren't "essay". It looks like you have just deleted some paragraphs and cut down others. I don't really get why.

The word "some" is a weasel word. The heading is not biased. It's a reflection of what those scholars are saying. And why are you labelling them "pro-FLG scholars" -- that's rubbish, they're not pro Falun Gong scholars. Don't mix this up into a partisan debate. What they are all analysing is the use of the term as a tool of persecution and marginalisation. That isn't an interpretation from those views, that's exactly what they're saying. We represent what they say, not come up with euphemisms for it. It's not really a "controversy", it's a counter-attack on the use of the word "cult" to persecute Falun Gong, according to these scholars.

I am happy to remove the redundancy in the lede. --Asdfg12345 06:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By essay, I'm talking about most of this article, especially the Buddhism section. Just get the damn point across, no need to quote over bits and pieces that are of little importance.

"Some" is not a weasel word in this context, especially since that those who view that FLG is not a cult are not even the majority, and neither are the anti-cult movement. You phrased these paragraphs to give a false impression that somehow the anti-cult movement is bogus, and distort the opinions of ACM critics as facts, especially with the heading "The cult label as a tool of marginalisation", which is simply an opinion. This paragraph has hardly any mention of the ACM's opinions, but full of attacks on the ACM. This is giving them undue weight.--PCPP (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The ACM are academic pariahs. They aren't mainstream academia. If you would like substantiation on this point I am able to provide it. I think there is one "cultic studies" journal--it is not affiliated with any academic institution. It's an internet journal. You can see their website, very cheap. Was actually started by the American Family Federation or something, a Christian-right group--look it up. They changed their name later. These are the kind of people we're talking about
• Further to that point, the view that Falun Gong is a cult is a minority one in Falun Gong literature. It's specifically debunked in a number of books and articles I am aware of, and it simply doesn't even enter into the discussion into the vast majority. It was a red herring from the CCP, picked up by the ACM. It's as simple as that. It has no mainstream support. Probably the most notable critics from this field are Singer (a terribly controversial and discredited figure herself), and perhaps Rahn (a failed soap actress who went back to college and wrote a few essays for the cultic studies journal). That's the sad truth of it, I'm afraid. I'll stand corrected if you can show me otherwise.
• It's clear that they are not saying the cultic label is controversial, they're saying it was a tool of marginalisation, a political strategy to persecute Falun Gong. That's what those sources are saying, I don't understand why we should try to change what they specifically say. That's not really upholding neutrality, it's bending the sources. This is the only edit of yours that I have undone.
• I agree about the essay, and the sentiments you express, and I have been wrong to simply revert you previously. It does need a clean-up, and I appreciate you taking a proactive approach toward that. I won't fight about this side of things, because I think the whole concept of this page needs assessing. There may be parts of the section that are more important which have inadvertently been left out, and I'm sure we'd be able to discuss them later. I don't want to scrutinise and haggle about that now. It was too long and needed cutting back.

If you disagree with what I'm saying about the marginalisation section, we ought to talk about it. --Asdfg12345 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just on another note, I think the whole cult section can have swathes cut off it in all directions. And right now I'm going to remove all references to Patsy Rahn. I only found out she was a nobody a few months ago, her essays aren't WP:reliable sources.--Asdfg12345 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No duplicating content please

I don't see any sense in duplicating content across articles. Put it all in one place and introduce then link it, or split broadly related content to specific sections. That's only one of my problems with the current page. I see this as a very temporary situation for now anyway, this whole page, because I think it's forseeable that all its content gets moved to more relevant pages, or gets badly cut down. And while I am aware that Singer is a highly controversial figure, and the whole ACM and their theories fringe, particularly with regard to this topic, I don't see the sense in canning the lot of it. The whole cult section should actually be significaly smaller anyway, I feel, and introduce the idea that there are these people with these views, then give the view of mainstream academia on the topic. There is simply no parity of sources on this topic, and it really does not need to be explored in depth. I disagree with many of the recent edits, but am not going to spend time engaging in editing the page because I think it would be more productive to focus on the bigger changes to which this content will be a part.--Asdfg12345 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By merging of some of those namespaces, I was merely attempting to shorten the contents. The content in the article was going tangentially off from what the main namespace suggests it carries... the namepsace itself is a duplicate of a section the persecution page has.I'll try to work more towards structuring this topic later today when i can find more time. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is David Ownby?

Someone so prominently linked from the article should have at least a web page we can look at. An article would also seem natural. -Zahd (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding Adam Frank publication

I'm knew to Wikipedia, so please feel free to correct me if I'm making any procedural mistakes here. I'd like to edit the piece to include reference to my own essay on falun gong, "Falun Gong and the Threat of History," which appeared in Italic textGods, Guns, and Globalization: The International Political Economy of Religious Revivalism" Volume 13 of the International Political Economy Yearbook, Mary Ann Tétreault and Robert Denemark, eds. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. I am an anthropologist trained at University of Texas at Austin, currently Assistant Professor of Asian Studies in the Honors College, University of Central Arkansas. In addition to the publication, I've presented several papers over the years on falun gong at national and regional academic conferences. I am also currently enaged in updating my research on falun gong in the U.S. Regarding Noah Porter's work, in my opinion, it's a very solid M.A. thesis, well-researched, and sufficiently vetted by his adacemic advisors. No reason in the world why it shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia or any other publication for that matter. Porter is one of the experts on this topic in the United States. Frankadam (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam. It seems to me that wikipedia is pretty much founded on the idea that intelligent people can work together to make an encyclopedia. So anyone can edit these pages, like removing information, adding information, reshaping the page, whatever. It's a free for all, and the pages just get a certain way when people discuss about how they should be. You should take a look at WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V--these are the content rules. Whenever you add something, it has to come from some published source; the higher quality the better. And you have to reference it. When you click "edit" on the article page you will see all these pieces of wikipedia code among the text, like <ref>Adam Frank, "article name," journal, etc.</ref>. So just copy this format when you want to reference something. It's fairly intuitive. When you want to refer to the same source more than once, which is likely, you have to define what I will call a "reference variable", so you go <ref name=Frank>Adam Frank, "article name," journal, etc.</ref>, and then every time you want to cite that again all you need to type is <ref name=Frank/>. Currently this reference system has no way to manage different page numbers from the same reference, so don't worry about that. I thought that book was called "Gods, Guns, and Globalization"? If there are more questions just ask.--Asdfg12345 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as the page is unlocked, I'll take a crack at at.Frankadam (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it is partially locked, which stops people from making an account then vandalizing it. There is some rule about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users -- you have to make ten edits to normal articles and have had your account for four days. If I were you I'd find some unlocked topic and polish some punctuation, then you'll be able to edit this page. If you want to make italic text you use ' ' -- those half quotation marks. Use two of them to start and finish text you want in italics, use three of them to start and finish text you want in bold.--Asdfg12345 10:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

propose deleting

As one of the main authors of this page from some time ago, I now propose that it be deleted. It now serves no purpose and only contains one-sided information which would be better condensed and moved elsewhere, if anywhere. I can move all the data to a subpage of my userpage, including the current version and the one from about 6 or more months ago, for reference in the future. At the moment I don't think it's a useful resource for readers. If there aren't any objections I'll put a thing on it. --Asdfg12345 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just skipped through the article.. I am not completely sure - but seems most of this information is covered elsewhere. If there wont be any substantial loss by deleting it and the content here is superfluous, I support deletion. Dilip rajeev (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. All we have to do is move all this content back inside the article on Falun Gong, which it should never have left. Moving it to a subpage of a userpage would serve no purpose except hiding its contents from view, which is not desirable. PerEdman (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's too long for the Falun Gong article. A lot of it is also obscure research, it's unclear of the benefit of maintaining it. I don't care all that much though.--Asdfg12345 17:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The falun gong article is too long too, but that doesn't seem to stop it. The content here can be integrated into the FG main article. You can't just copy and paste it, of course, but that's not what I'm suggesting either. PerEdman (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article should be named Reception of Falun Gong

Because the sources cover more than academics, and by the article's heading, I don't know why it should be limited simply to academics.--PCPP (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was originally named "Criticism of Falun Gong" but this title became so sensitive to FLG practitioners that the compromise was to move to "Third party views on Falun Gong", but this still wasn't enough because it still presented FLG in a bad light, so now we have "Academic views on Falun Gong". After that some more POV-pushing happened, and some more pro-FLG content added, but later disputes arose again so most content has been deleted. So voila, here we are today. Sad, isn't it? Colipon+(T) 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

There is a discussion about this article over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group#Criticism of Falun Gong. In essence, some editors (including myself) are proposing to move this article back to Criticism of Falun Gong or Reception of Falun Gong. Various editors have proposed reverting this article back to an earlier revision which restores the content that was recently deleted by Asdfg. Please join the discussion there. --Richard (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I see it you already did the revert. If you ask me it's quite OK. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of this article back to the post-AFD, pre-ASDFG12345 deletion state

Based on comments on the Talk Page, I felt it reasonable to revert the article back to the point where the AFD was closed and before ASDFG12345 deleted massive sections of text without first discussing to form a consensus.

I had indicated in the edit summary and elsewhere that we might discuss which revision to revert back to. However, on further reflection, I think this is not the most effective way to go forward as initial discussion has suggested that we could get into a huge dispute about the merits of one revision over another.

I would like to suggest instead that we simply "edit forward" from the current restored revision which was the last revision by User:Flowerparty (i.e. this one).

This is not meant to endorse that revision as somehow "better" than anything that preceded it. I just think it will be less crazy-making if editors propose specific additions, deletions and modifications by being bold. We can then use the WP:BRD model to express our opinions about the usefulness of each edit.

It may very well turn out that ASDFG12345 has valid points about the worth or worthlessness of various sections. Let's discuss the proposed deletions one-by-one and decide whether to try and salvage some of the text or to abandon it altogether.

--Richard (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is fine. Just an explanation for my no-consensus blanking: no one was editing this page then--you can look at the history--and I just thought it would be easiest to simply cut it loose so I could focus on other stuff. Since the page is such a disorganised mess, it was going to take someone hours to fix, and it had been sitting like that for so long without anyone doing that, I just thought it best to purge it from the system and move on. If the page gets the care it needs, that's even better.--Asdfg12345 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious Blanking

Between June 22 and July 8, User:Asdfg12345 has reduced the article by nearly 89% its original size. I almost find this laughable. Note his reasoning (emphasis mine):

1. (cur) (prev) 16:40, July 8, 2009 Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) (3,167 bytes) (bang) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 14:48, June 25, 2009 Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) (7,743 bytes) (these two, neither...) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 11:20, June 22, 2009 Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs) (28,114 bytes) (this section is no good) (undo)

I am not going to even bother reverting this. Colipon+(T) 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All that stuff reflects positively on Falun Gong, so why should you oppose what he's done? Undoubtedly the real reason for blanking is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). Why keep a separate article on these issues when all Falun Gong related articles ought to be based on "academic views"? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my view to Move.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Olaf, blanking is blanking. ASDFG removed several sections of sourced content without discussion, and with very dubious reasoning ("Bang" is not a good reason to blank an entire section). I take no partial position on whether the blanking is in relation to positive or negative content. It's still blanking. I am not "out to get" Falun Gong. I didn't even revert the changes. It's just that the pervasive abuse on these articles is alarming. Colipon+(T) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Asdfg12345. I have ended up thinking that this article should be renamed "Reception of Falun Gong" instead of deleting it. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, "All that stuff reflects positively on Falun Gong, so why should you oppose what he's done?" seems like an accusation to me. Colipon+(T) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we all live in a big old zoo of angry mastodons, Colipon. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny...This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion.--Edward130603 (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He may not understand the difference between essays, policies and guidelines, or he is gambling that the people he addresses do not. PerEdman (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Send your complaints to our mediator, who adviced us to read that page. Gentlemen, you are dismissed. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The actions of user Asdfg12345 in the matter of this page are clearly in breach of wikipedia policy. I would support a report of these actions. PerEdman (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If Asdfg12345 had been edit warring to enforce these edits, then you could say that. He didn't. Nobody reverted. <sigh> What a kindergarten. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd, Olaf. Blanking is blanking. Blanking is legitimate only if you give good reasons. "Bang" is not a good reason. Colipon+(T) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bang. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Asdfg12345's deletion was a violation of Wikipedia policy. I would say that it was a failure on her part to be collegial and overly bold. It would have been more collegial to propose such wholesale deletions on the Talk Page first and then form a consensus to support the deletions. However, it's acceptable within policy to make such deletions as long as the deleter understands that the deletions might be reverted under the WP:BRD model. Asdfg12345 was bold, I reverted. If anyone wants to discuss the reasons for the deletions and try to form a consensus for them, now is the time. --Richard (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I never really said it was a policy violation. I just thought "bang" and "this section is no good" are not reasonable justifications for removing sections. However, this is not the first time I have encountered this sort of blanking/disruptive editing so I unfortunately cannot assume good faith in this case. Colipon+(Talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

okay, let's shutup about this now. NO ONE WAS EDITING THIS PAGE at that time; no one even cared about it. I just wanted to delete it to move on with my life, but someone pulled the bureaucracy. The next option was to starve it of oxygen then go for another deletion attempt. Now the page is back, people are (presumably) going to spend time on it to make it good, so that's great. I just felt like it's this giant mess over in the corner there, and it would be easier to just sweep it away than take it all apart and make it into something nice. I was the only one who cared at that stage. If you all want what's best for the page, that's great. I'd even be invigorated into action by that sort of collegial spirit. --Asdfg12345 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not critical solely of the wholesale blanking, but of the entire chain of events from the point where Asdfg12345 chose to fork it from the main article. The admission that "The next option was to starve it of oxygen then go for another deletion attempt." is frightening in the extreme. I am trying to view this in the best possible light, but the fork, renaming, unlinking and proposed deletion paints a very dire picture however I light it.

I am however in favor of the rest of the post: Let's sweep it away and put it back into something nice. PerEdman (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

we should wrap this discussion up; I didn't have any ill intentions, please don't be frightened. It's just that it's better to have nothing than a messy, biased page. If people want to fix it, then great.--Asdfg12345 14:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to fix the page, why did you revert changes to the main Falun Gong page that moved content from the main page to this and other subpages?[9]? Please clarify. PerEdman (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that asdfg's only serious error is not having posted a message or suitable tag indicating a cleanup was intended here. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg wrote: It's just that it's better to have nothing than a messy, biased page. I am sorry if I cannot accept this as an explanation, but asdfg was one of the major architects of this page to begin with. Creating a page with the pretext of "moving section from main article", re-writing it, and then deleting it... Something just doesn't add up. Colipon+(Talk) 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of Asdfg's explanation sounds fishy but I also think that there are more worthwhile issues to discuss than beating on this dead horse. The blanking has been reverted. Asdfg asserts that what he did was in good faith so let us assume good faith and move on. --Richard (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As you know I oppose the behavior, but it's not worth continuing. If you want to take action against a specific user's behavior, please do so through the proper channels, let's not destabilize a sensitive talk page with this. I suggest we archive these discussions. PerEdman (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)