Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Falun Gong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

STRONGLY Disput Asdfg's 'blanking' of notable source with invalid rationale

People, check this out. Like I said, there are too many evidence to AGF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=199256756&oldid=199249051

1) "2 link each"? There's no Wikipedia rule on this 2) The Asia Times article is a neutural report (with sections critical of the Chinese government), but still get blanked

This is not right, ArbComm where are you? Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, where are you? :) I think he was the one who came up with this, based on some WP policy, anyway, I do believe that links are useful, perhaps not in the article itself, but I would see it very useful to have a separate page dedicated to external links. And not just for article but for the whole wikipedia. And for this article we could have it columns so that neither side considers itself pushed down, only that this way the number of columns is limited. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing Bobby, if you want links you can add them in as references, I know that there is no limit on that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Asdfg's 'blanking' of relevant quotation from notable source in discussion body

Asdfg, I disagree with your 'blanking' of Justic Rousseau's quote. I disagree that your "simplification" made the article better. It appears your simplification also removed these facts: 1) mentioning of "controversial movement"; 2) rotating wheel in the stomach.

In essence, your "simplification" in the disucssion body is unjustified, and removed details that I believe are facts relevant to the article. Simplification is a very poor rationale for blanking things in the discussion body where DETAILS should be. This is not the lead. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Contesting Fnhddzs' Destructive Edit of Notable Fact

Fnhddzs, malicious 'blanking' of facts is unWiki. Justice Jeannine Rousseau's decidsion was discussed in Talk before it was added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong#Notable_Source_Declaring_Falun_Gong_.22Controversial.22

This cite is legit, it is DE for you to 'blank' the summary reference and discussion body. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This 'blanking' is particullarly malicious - Fnhddzs didn't look at the McGill University link carefully. It is a search enging project from their math department called "Montréal Category Theory Research Center", not a personal page.

Fnhddzs, I suggest you start acting in good faith. The case Justice Rousseau judicated on was brought by Falun Gong and heavily promoted by Epoch Times. If the suit is notable, so is the decision. Again the soure, a Canadian superior court justice, is notable source. This edit was made in good faith.

Fnddzs, I suggest you actually carry out your threat against me, however I must inform the McGill Univ. link is not mine, and there are many other sources archiving Justice Rousseau's decision. I urge you to make positive contribution like updating the fact with better source/link, instead of "improving" the article by "blanking" notable facts.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm thinking to do the same, simply because I don't trust that source if it comes from a math site instead of an official court site. But since you say "there are many other sources archiving Justice Rousseau's decision." I'm sure it will be easy for you to find the correct reference. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, this archive of court document ain't mine. Anyway Happy, the original discussion of Justice Rousseau, cited above, did provide the original source. Here it is again in case you missed it:

http://www.jugements.qc.ca

Here's the complete search info - Cour Superieure, juge ou decideur - Rousseau, Date de la décision - 20051207, Zhang c. Chau

Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to say that, HiG search the case for your self, the direct link to the case is here, I am not sure if it works, if it doesn't, just follow the search instruction by Bobby and you may see the case! Zixingche (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's odd, I also tried with a direct link, www.jugements.qc.ca sounds better then www.math.mcgill.ca, but the link does not work, it must be something related to PHP sessions. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm curios, if http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/ is a search engine, how is the documnet under infocult folder? very curios ... :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed info, I needed it, my french is not so good, also I found the text, your source is OK, although it would not hurt to find another location :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the McGill Univ. archive: 1) the text matches original; 2) source is not "personal" as the DE editor claimed, but Montréal Category Theory Research Center; 3) If McGill, a prominent institution has no problem with this archive, who are we to say otherwise? Go ahead and complaint, it it disappears feel free to update the link - but BLANKING IS DE, not "improvement".

Actually I'm suprised y'all don't know this case. Epoch Times pumped the heck out of it. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, when I said "your source is OK, although it would not hurt to find another location" I meant optionally if you can find another location, simply because www.math.mcgill.ca does not look very reliable for a visitor. Don't worry as far as I'm concerned this source is fine. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, however as editors we do research in good fiath, then edit the article in good faith. If any visitor (none the less infamous FLG wiki warrior like Fkgdz there) find the link placed in good faith "unreliable", they can do research and help improve it.

but 'blanking' facts from article is DE and not the answer. I hope you can agree with this. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on ... he reverted your edit once when he found it suspicious that a law document should come from a math lab ... :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You come on ... we've all seen fkndz in action before. You really want me dig up his edit war diffs? Or you are willing to either 1) do your own homework to prove me wrong; 2) conceed the point 8-) Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Put back Martin's 'Controversial' wording previously blanked

It's time to put it back, since we now have a strong notable source from the Quebec Superior Court:

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

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, put something in and I'll copy-edit, like I just did with your preceding discussion entry. (-; Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No reference to aliens invading the human mind?

Surely they could be included under beliefs section of the article. There is reference from a published source quoting Li Hongzhi, himself, in the Timeasia.com interview.--Lorddon (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree second this addition of facts. I've read this interview. It is Master Li's own words. Why this is getting 'blanked' in this article is beuyond me. If I didn't have to assume good faith I'd say it's POV and DE for sure. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree to add alien stuff from Times, a valid source. Zixingche (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the question is where you put it and how you keep it in context? BTW do you think it's destructive to believe that aliens have something to do with the technological developments we have, or you insist to put it in because it's sensational? Even though it's perhaps not quite relevant since there is no controversy on the aliens stuff. He just mentioned that they exist, he did not provide any proof, so what's the big deal? I believe that aliens exist for more then 25 years now, and if you search youtube you will find that I'm not alone :) For me it just makes sense, it would be a big waste of space, if nothing else would exists beside us :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again Happy I must refer you to the source provided, Times Asia article. Did you read it? As above Qubec cite stated, FLG is considered controversial, and these aspects of FLG's teaching, with notable source, are relevant to the article.

Facts are neutural - only individual's POV colors them; if FLG disciples are ashamed of these teachings they should seek professional help instead challanging facts/blanking wikis/DE without any compelling reason.

Weither alien exists or not has nothing to do with the fact these are indeed elements of FLG's teadching. That's really it - stating facts relevant to the article. I speak for myself, others can state their intentions. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

I'm not going to edit anything. But I have to say something. How many active editors here can read Chinese? I mean, there's a bunch of editors from Europe and North America who can't even read basic Chinese. Didn't you know that Falun Gong advocators empolys two completely different propagandizing strategies? They knew lots of Chinese people are illiterate/ignorant, and the desperation when facing crises(cancer, for instance), so they advertised the Gong like it's the Cure and Solution of Everything(while in fact it's 42). But they also knew that on the other side of the planet, there are lots of so-called humanitarians, so they act like innocent humble people and keep those ridiculous stories to the Chinese world. As a diehard Atheist, I don't really care if these Wheelers will die in vain should they refuse proper treatments. But it's disturbing or at least annoying to see these liars are getting so much attention and sympathy. And these Wheelers annoyed me at the Chinese New Year Parade, they brought political bullsh**t to a festival of joy. Even Scientology is better than this, at least it's funny to read the Xenu story. With people this stupid, I guess humanity was doomed from the beginning. 154.5.61.233 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am trying to say here, Falun Gong, in China, is the universal solution to everything, Falun Gong can cure cancer, can fix a photocopier, can act as an antivirus software, can do whatever you want! This is why Falun Gong is banned in China!

Some innocent western people are just fooled by Li Hong Zhi, quite pity. And thank you 154.5.61.233 now I know how to translate "Lun Zi' into English, yes "Wheelers" is better than "Wheels".Zixingche (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is all this relevant for an encyclopedia? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the fact, and I think facts somehow relevant to an encyclopedia. Zixingche (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:POV that is not even sourced according to WP:RS & WP:V can hardly be called a fact :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Falun Gong's anti-virus benefit claim

Hey Happy, this is the article in question, from Falun Gong's official website, Clearwisdom:

http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/12/14/16758.html

"Clean Out Computer Viruses by Sending Forth Righteous Thoughts" Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

latest edit in introduction, explanation

Hello. Firstly, I wanted to write something first rather than revert that. Secondly, that isn't a neutral description at all, and it isn't referenced either. So it's basically quite safe for me to remove it. I had not wanted to remove it without making a post explaining why. If you check the third party page there is some discussion of Falun Gong and the Anticult movement which you may find illuminating. If there are any more issues with the removed paragraph we can talk about them here. Better to discuss changes with the other editors, too, and build consensus. --Asdfg12345 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention. I clicked "restore this version" (twinkle button), and the box came up. I wanted to cancel it and then type something here, then revert. But when I clicked cancel, the revert went ahead with no explanation. Most of the time I write an explanation if reverting is necessary. This time it was a mistake. The explanation is here anyway, sorry, thanks.--Asdfg12345 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think what I wrote was neutral and common knowledge, thus not needing references. Anyone else care to voice an opinion? I'll wait a few days before I reinstate the text. I think the article is much more useful if it mentions that the organisation is controversial. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong IS controvesial. I don't see how it can be controversial or NPOV to point that out. I mean, just look at this very topic, this very action - it was so controversial to even mention that Falun Gong itself, is controversial, that it had to be immediately deleted and criticized for not being NPOV. Now hand over those references to "discussions of Falun Gong and the Anticult movement", or stand guilty of the very error you imply in others. PerEdman (talk)

Falun Gong is indeed a cult, Falun Gong itself advertised forbearance, however Falun Gong does not allow any other people to criticize it. Any criticize towards Falun Gong will be considered evil and supporting CCP, what the heck. Not to mentioned that Falun Gong also believed in alien controlling human minds, just like scientology. Li himself has stated before that every computer user is controlled by alien, only prtaiciting Falun Gong will get rip of the alien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.174.156 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

( http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990510/interview1.html ) Times interviewed Li in 1999, this is the article about the alien invitation and mind controlling things, well, seems we are all controlled by alien now, so sad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.174.156 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I support Martin's edit. To remove it when there are at least 3 votes in favor is DE. Anyone wish to see ASDFG's MO and pattern in DE can check his edit history to see how he has tried to 'blank' the fact Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong *at least a dozen times* Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Falun Gong is controversial" is a vague statement, nor is it neutral, and it itself is a controversial statement. It's not sourced either. Putting that in the introduction will throw things off balance, because there are other sources which say that Falun Gong is not controversial, and that people saying Falun Gong is controversial only happened because of the widespread vilification of the group by the Chinese Communist Party. There are high quality reliable sources which present this view, and then that should also go in the introduction. But the introduction should be concise, anyway, so that's why I removed the original paragraph.--Asdfg12345 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents: perhaps all editors are not completely familiar with the Wikipedia cornerstones of No original research, Neutral point of view, and most importantly of all (in this case), Verifiability. Unless you state who says what, and your sources are consistent with the Wikipedia standards, there's no problem, in my view. But it would require extensive and convincing arguments, as well as extremely high-quality sources, to expand the introduction beyond its current limits. Falun Gong is controversial for several reasons, and nobody's trying to hide that. Indeed, many of us have devoted a significant amount of time over the years to dig up, for instance, peer-reviewed journal articles to cast light on the stunning complexity of these controversies. And because we wish to maintain a high standard, anything will be removed as long as it's not properly referenced and attributed. That is a basic, guaranteed right of all Wikipedia editors. Please read through the Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines.✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In practice, Wikipedia relies almost entirely on unreferenced common knowledge. Not mentioning that Falun Gong is controversial would be like discussing George W. Bush's foreign policy without mentioning the controversy over the second Iraq war. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Mrund. Asdfg1235, please, stop deleting information that is anti-falungong, Wikipedia is not Epochtimes, readers have to know both sides of the stroy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.174.156 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Owing to a long history of mediation, arbitration and profound disagreements, we insist upon strict methodological stringency on these articles, not some obscurantist, unreferenced "common knowledge". Gentlemen, you are welcome to contribute, but I plead you to do so in a rigorous and transparent fashion. The same policies and guidelines are consistent throughout Wikipedia. Substandard content in another article is no excuse for lackadaisical editing elsewhere.

Indeed, I've always wondered why so-called "skeptics" turn completely unscientific and emotional when they encounter perceived "heresy", "quackery", or "blind belief". Instead of relying on true academic research on the complex nature of such phenomena, they straightforwardly ignore its existence and start howling the battle cry of partisan secularism: Écrasez l'infâme! They even willingly use words like "cult" to describe Falun Gong, strengthening the discourse of marginalization and alienation that aims at defining a great number of people as irrational non-persons, stripping them of their individuality and rationality, thereby indirectly giving kudos to the present means of extreme repression and subordination.

But Falun Gong is not managed or organized like a 'cult'. That is not an opinion: it is a fact, and it's supported by plausible research. If religious or metaphysical dissidence is denoted as 'cultic', the label becomes nothing but a marker of a paradigmatic boundary between an in-group and an out-group. By postulating a similarity between Falun Gong and Scientology, Raëlianism, or other such organizations, we are operating within an agenda of guilt by perceived association. In this agenda, the cultic elements of, for instance, Scientology, are magically transferred into a completely different phenomenon, which is Falun Gong, and they melt together as one grey, amorphous mass of suspicious, cultic, potentially dangerous, manipulative pyramid organizations - which, of course, has nothing to do with the serious research on Falun Gong by several anthropologists, sociologists and East Asian scholars. Regrettably, a myriad of people are not aware of what constitutes good research in cultural studies and related disciplines, and what is basically nothing but a rant in defense of the author's own biases and prejudices.

Here we mostly focus on a careful scrutiny of the editors' contributions and evaluate them against the official policies. I wrote the above to introduce some of my own views on these matters, and I am ready to continue discussion, but we shouldn't stray too far from the actual purpose of this talk page. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you now in agreement, Olaf Stephanos, that Falun Gong is indeed controversial, which is what was originally stated. If you are, then what is it you are really accusing "so-called 'skeptics'" of, as being controversial was the statment in question, not whether or not it is a "cult", which was not brought up until 203.173.174.156 and is not the statement in question in this discussion. PerEdman (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at my first post under this header: "Falun Gong is controversial for several reasons, and nobody's trying to hide that. Indeed, many of us have devoted a significant amount of time over the years to dig up, for instance, peer-reviewed journal articles to cast light on the stunning complexity of these controversies." The disputed edit by Mrund reads as follows, and I intended to comment on that: "Falun Gong is a controversial movement. Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as an innocent religious movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others compare Falun Gong to Scientology and Raelianism and describe it as a manipulative obscurantist cult. The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government." Unless attributed to a valid source, this is just another editor's opinion, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a scrapbook of such opinions; it is a tertiary source referring to transparent third-party research and other significant publications. See Wikipedia:Sources for more information. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example, after nytimes published this article [1], which contains negative comments towards Falun Gong and its so called Chinese New Year gala, minghui.org responded "How The New York Times' Article Was Used By the Chinese Communist Regime" [2], in the minghui articles, nytimes is as evil as CCP, and later on minghui published a few other articles, attacking nytimes [3] [4] [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.174.156 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not Ouyang Fei, who wrote the Minghui article in question, and I don't think the CCP was behind the New York Times review. In my opinion, it was bad journalism, that's all. Besides, Minghui is a forum of individual practitioners' discussion, not some official mouthpiece of "the Falun Gong" - such things don't exist, because nobody can really speak on the behalf of everyone else. But this has nothing to do with the standards and policies we're discussing here. Let's stick to the topic. By the way, you're supposed to sign your comments. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then I think the guardian [6] and the telegraph [7] are all bad journalism too. And anything that is against Falun Gong is bad journalism . BTW, since when minghui is a forum?

I have read all of those articles, and I do think they seriously misrepresent the Shen Yun Chinese Spectacular and Falun Gong as a result of the journalists' personal disdain. The show is extremely high-quality and has been praised by both ethnic Chinese and other audiences worldwide. According to several surveys with a large sample of audience members, more than 96 % have rated the show as either 'excellent' or 'good' (about 75-80 % as 'excellent'). Hundreds of thousands of people have already seen it. And Minghui has been a pre-moderated forum since the beginning. Again, you did not sign your comment, and this is completely off-topic, so I won't continue the discussion here. You can reply on my talk page if you have something to add. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just like what you say above, unless attributed to a valid source, several surveys results are invalid. Can you show me where to find these surveys results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.174.156 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Wikipedia articles should adhere to strict methodological stringency, the many articles which are not up to scratch are not an excuse to continue including folklore. I believe the mass of introduction being warred over is certainly capable of being sourced, and can probably stay for a while but with a {{Fact}} tag. If no-one comes up with the required source after, say, a week, then it could be deleted.

Contrary to what Olaf is saying, I don't see anything wrong with the NYT, Times, Guardian articles, nor do I consider them "bad journalism". I'm fed up to the back teeth of FG apologists (and the FG propaganda machine) who try to pooh-pooh or discredit FG critics, or label everything anti-FG as "CCP propaganda". Fundamentally, the said articles are performing arts reviews, and are thus brief descriptions of the act supplemented by critical opinions of the columinists. What's wrong with Shen Yun is in some ways similar to Malboro sponsoring the Grand Prix and having their own clothing line (Marlboro Classics) - they are trying to advertise their cause by sailing a path of lesser resistance.

But this is where the similarities end: by not announcing that the act is rooted in FG message and mysticism, and dressing it up as Chinese culture, it earns the disdain of reviewers and the audience alike. The columnists were doing their job well enough, and indicated their principal disappointment with the act as 'not being as advertised'. The same negative sentiments surrounds FG practitioners taking part in New Years or other parades masquerading as "Chinese martial arts demonstrations", then FG starts blaming city politicians for kowtowing to Beijing. The fact of the matter is really very simple: People do not like being fooled, and this back-door approach to getting its message across really gets people's backs up. Although "Wheelers" may be paranoid and in constant denial over criticism of the movement, the statement that "The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government" may be impossible to source, IMHO.Ohconfucius (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems we are all in agreement that Falun Gong is a controversial movement, that this is an interesting fact that should be reflected in the Wikipedia article, and that even a controversial movement can produce a fine stage show. (This latter fact is not of great importance IMHO). I have suggested that we include the following paragraph efter "more than 80 countries".

"Falun Gong is a controversial movement. Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as an innocent religious movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others compare Falun Gong to Scientology and Raelianism and describe it as a manipulative obscurantist cult. The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government."

Any suggestions as to how this contribution could be made more useful to Wikipedia users? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is presented already from so many angles, what are sources owned or affiliated to Falun Gong say, what are sources owned or affiliated to CCP say, what are third party sources say, however there is no notable mention in comparing Falun Gong to Scientology and/or to Raelianism as far as I know. So I don't really see any grounds on which this should be inserted to the article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it if the anonymous "others" are replaced by at least one source, which doesn't even have to be reputable. Someone needs to say it or it's a typical weasel case. However, as soon as that is done, the similarities to Raelians and Scientologists is obvious - they all appear to be cults to someone and they all claim otherwise. PerEdman (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources, these ideas might be developed in the Third Party section, with the anticult movement material. --Asdfg12345 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a little note a bit off the topic, for Martin. I don't know how you got this idea of Falun Gong. I've read nearly everything available, from sensationalist newspaper articles to considered academic journals. I've never found anything comparing Falun Gong to Scientology or Raelianism. There are also no high level academics supporting the theory that Falun Gong is a cult, or a "manipulative obscuratanist" one, at that. This comes from either the CCP or from people like Patsy Rahn, a failed soap actress who went back to school and wrote a few papers as an undergrad, or others, like Rick Ross, with no academic currency. There is also no evidence for comparing Falun Gong to these groups, and no evidence that it is a "manipulative obscuritanist cult." Even those that say these things never produce or cite evidence. Real scholars and high-quality sources don't do these sensationalist, maligning characterisations, they do not appeal to stereotypes, they do not make vague claims, they do not try to elevate differences. Correctly exploring this kind of topic involves building bridges, explaining things, and overall taking a considered, intelligent approach. It is about actually getting to the issues and making them clear, not obscuring them. I don't think a paragraph like that would help readers too much, especially in the intro. Throwing in sensationalist terms and characterisations will create confusion when they cannot substantiated or explored. Not to mention that so far there are no sources. I think to understand the topic with some depth, readers need more considered, clearer, and substantiated material. Just my 2 bob.--Asdfg12345 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The correct procedures are rather inambiguous: you find a reliable and valid source, evaluate its relative significance (majority/minority viewpoint), quote it without any semantic alteration (no original research, i.e. the source can't be used for the editor's own analysis), and add a footnote. I thought that I expressed this very clearly in my earlier messages, and I wonder how many more times we have to reiterate it. There are way too many Wikipedia editors who never care to Read The Friendly Manual. User:Tomananda and User:Samuel Luo were terminated for eternity because of that cardinal sin. (Of course, they used to come around every fortnight, wearing creepy sockpuppets all over their hairy hands, but that's another story...) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can say that there is not references to support this sentence, "Others compare Falun Gong to Scientology and Raelianism and describe it as a manipulative obscurantist cult.", if you try google "Falun Scientology" you will find lots of articles about the similarities of Falun Gong and Scientology, but I understand that we can not just references that. But this statement "The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government." is completely correct, with references I provided above (Minghui vs Nytimes) and other examples, in fact, the discussions happening here in this page, is another perfect evidence to support the statement.

Maybe you still don't understand the essentials of what Wikipedia is all about. First of all: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. Then, in no particular order: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. There are more, for sure, but I kindly ask you to read through at least these policies and guidelines, apprehend their meaning, and then come back to discuss. And please learn to sign your posts. You do that by adding four tilde marks (~) in the end of your comment. In addition, consider creating an user account if you seriously plan to contribute. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reading you provided, I already read them. I am a wikipedia newbie, and I never edited any page related to Falun Gong, not to mention that nearly all of these pages are protected, even if they are not, i still will not edit them, because i know that i am a wikipedia newbie, and my english is not good enough to contribute in a professional level. My reason here provide other editors with information from the other side, because I am a native Chinese speaker, I know a lot more about Falun Gong, and I know how much we ordinary Chinese hated Falun Gong. I believed information I provided are good enough to be referenced in wikipedia, like news from nytimes. And thanks for your suggestion, I registered an account, my account name is zixingche, which means bicycle in chinese pinyin. Zixingche (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Asdfg and Olaf, please just be honest: you aren't at all concerned about Wikipedia's general standards here, just about protecting Falun Gong's reputation. There is no research proving that Britney Spears is a pop singer, yet you wouldn't hesitate to allow the Wikipedia article about her to make that statement. Now, a lot of people think Falun Gong is a cult and see great similarities to Scientology, and others don't. That's what the controversy is about, and that's what needs to be in the introduction to this encyclopedia article, which is currently heavily biased in FG's favour and thus pretty useless. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Martin. And by the way, can we have a section in the Falun Gong Page, listing all diseases that Falun Gong claimed it can cure, and all other magics that Falun Gong claimed? So far there is articles about Falun Gong can cure cancer, can fix a fax machine and can act as an antivirus software for computer. All these articles are in Minghui.org, verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.174.156 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am most concerned about Wikipedia's general standards, because they protect these (and other articles) against people who do not want to play fair. There's already quite a lot of material from writers who have labeled Falun Gong as a 'cult' (see the section on third-party views), and their arguments are referenced, attributed, and, in most cases, countered with other sources that comply with the Wikipedia standards. WP:Verifiability says in a nutshell, and I'm quoting directly: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." And not only a source, but a reliable, published source. There are definitions for what that means. And there are policies and guidelines for structuring and organizing a Wikipedia article, for writing a lead section, for evaluating and ranking various sources, and so on. You may think something "needs to be in the introduction to this encyclopedia article", but others don't, and they question the transparency and attribution of your claims. Besides, you did not even bother to comment on my elaborate analysis on the 'cultic' discourse. Now, that's not important in itself, and we can certainly stick to discussion on the minimum standards of editing, but somehow I feel you don't really (want to) get my point. You can dig through the Falun Gong arbitration case that was a moment of truth for all of us who've been around for several years. (Keep in mind that Samuel Luo's sockpuppets hadn't been recognized at the time.) This topic is not only controversial, it is also a powerful troll magnet. Trial and error have proven that our only option is strict legalism and methodological stringency. We either play by these rules or don't edit Falun Gong related articles at all. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone suggested that we needn't compare FG specifically to any particular cults. How about this then: "Falun Gong is a controversial movement. Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as an benevolent spiritual movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others describe Falun Gong as a manipulative obscurantist cult of a kind common in the West. The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government." Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just can't believe what I'm seeing, Martin. You keep offering practically the same text over and over again, without any kind of attribution to any valid source - or any source, for that matter. Who are these others describing? Who is immediately accusing? What research do you base these allegations on? Again, Wikipedia is not a scrapbook of editors' opinions. It is a tertiary source. You're operating on a highly abstract level, never telling us who says what and where. It seems as if you deliberately disregarded everything I wrote, since I don't want to think that you lack the mental capacity to understand it. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point quite well, Olaf. I am simply challenging it. Falun Gong's controversial status is common knowledge of a kind not subject to research, comparable to the fact that Britney Spears is a pop singer. Instead of hiding your pro-FG opinions behind a formalistic smoke-screen, please tell us if anything in my suggested addition is factually incorrect. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, why is it that you are so concerned with Martins text about what "Others describe" Falung Gong as, when you not only once have complained that "it is seen by many as an benevolent spiritual movement", which is similarily unattributed and occurs only a few words earlier in the very same suggested text. If you request support for such common knowledge as comparisons between Falun Gong and other religius sects, then you should in honesty's name reqest support also for such common knowledge as FG being described as a benevolent spiritualist movement persecuted by an authoritarian regime. And no, since you already critizised such arguments yourself, you cannot simply claim that THAT is common knowledge. PerEdman (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's challenged in Wikipedia requires a valid source. I'm not hiding the fact that I'm pro-FLG -- why, I've been practicing it for over six years, I think it's a very effective cultivation practice, and I am quite familiar with most of the academic research on the subject. Nevertheless, I strive to be fair towards all editors. I have repeatedly removed or edited pro-FLG material that contains weasel words or unreferenced claims. What I'm saying is this: if somebody would actually challenge the statement "Britney Spears is a pop singer", it would certainly require an outside source. We all know that the statement is true. But questions relating to Falun Gong's controversiality are a lot more complicated, and a great deal of academic research has argued that the 'cultic' and 'manipulative' labels imposed by some people are nothing but unscientific, biased, vilifying opinions, not facts, and therefore they have nothing to do with "common knowledge". Now, we can mention the names of people who hold such opinions, and we can state what they have said. That's because "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." [8] You still don't seem to have grasped what that means. If I challenge your edit and you don't provide a valid source, the edit can be reverted without further ado. For further reading, check out Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and then have another look at the addition you've proposed. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are very clear on the fact that you are POV and unsuitable to edit the article and especially in judging which of other contributor's sources are acceptable for entry into the article. You just fail to mention on occasion why that is.

Perhaps you missed the first time that I challenged your statements and you failed to provide any form of valid sources? Should I repeat myself? PerEdman (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable Source Declaring Falun Gong "Controversial"

Here's what Quebec Superior Court justice Jeannine Rousseau wrote in her ruling on a FLG issue:

Source: http://www.jugements.qc.ca (search for 12/07/2005 judgement by Rousseau, also archived by McGill Univ.: http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/infocult/jugementFalungong122005.doc)

"[40] It is a controversial movement, which does not accept criticism."

Incidentally, justice Rousseau also made statement re nature of FLG's teaching:

"[39] Amongst the characteristics of Master Li's teachings are the rejection of science as being misleading and dangerous, the promise of supernatural powers, amongst which a rotating wheel in the stomach of practitioners to purify them, constant health, rejuvenation, and the ability to see into other spatial dimensions."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To add the complete case search info - http://www.jugements.qc.ca, , Cour Superieure, juge ou decideur - Rousseau, Date de la décision - 20051207, Zhang c. Chau Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I challenge that "it is seen by many as an benevolent spiritual movement". And as you allude to verifiability, I challenge you to verify that it is a benevolent spiritual movement. Until you do, all references to such statements should be stricken as being weaselly. Or we can say that certain things - both pros and cons - are in common knowledge, meet half way and have a consensus on our hands. I know which I would prefer. Which would you like?

And please, the time for quoting wikipedia guidelines is long since past. I may be a new en user, but I'm a long-time Wikipedia contributor. Looking at the arguments that have been put forth so far, I would say all users including yourself are well aware of the guidelines and your allusions to them stand out mostly as attempts at argument to authority. PerEdman (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've put something in (with references) that I hope everyone will agree is fair. I'm watching the article. Let's not make an edit war of this. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution does not qualify. Let's have a look: "Falun Gong is a controversial organisation". I wasn't able to find the words "controversial organisation" anywhere in the article. You made an obscure statement, even claiming as a fact that Falun Gong is an "organisation", even though there are valid sources that state the opposite. "Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as a benevolent spiritual movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others describe Falun Gong as a manipulative obscurantist cult of a kind common in the West." Who are the many that see it as a "benevolent spiritual movement"? What about the "others"? James Randi's personal website is not a valid source for Wikipedia: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." [9] (See also: Wikipedia:Sources#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves) And lastly, "The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is usually soon accused of supporting the Chinese government." Who is criticising and where? Saying that "Falun Gong is criticising" is like saying "science has proven". Nothing but abstractions. Which scientist has "proven" and where? Which practitioner of Falun Gong has "criticised" and where? Besides, the words "clouded by the fact" are only meant to suggest and insinuate. Read again: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. We insist upon precision, attribution, and transparency. No passive voice or bandwagon fallacies. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Please just act like a grownup, Olaf, OK? I suggest you go and insert some useful material into some other article instead of sabotaging my attempts to improve this one. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you honestly don't know of James Randi and the James Randi Foundation, Olaf? It's not just a personal webpage, and it cannot be discredited as such. It's a well-known skeptic organization that for example issue the one-million dollar prize for anyone who can prove a supernatural ability. To add insult to injury, you apparently do not believe science can prove anything. I suppose there is simply nothing left to say that will satisfy you. Further attempts at sabotaging the subject from your part will be met as such. PerEdman (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Act like a grownup"? Have I ever resorted to ad hominem against you? This article is never going to become featured if people keep adding blatantly substandard content. Now, I know there's a lot of room for improvement, and the articles are still very much incomplete, but all those who wish to contribute seriously to this goal will have to abide by the Wikipedia policies. That applies equally to pro-FLG editors, anti-FLG editors, undecided editors, and all those who didn't raise their hand by now. I, for one, haven't been involved with these pages for many months, but I'm intending to tap on the very large collection of articles I've acquired from different journals and other significant publications.

Because I've familiarized myself very well with the Falun Gong issue, and I know hundreds of people who practice it, I will not yield any definitional power to people who believe they know some "facts" but cannot back up their claims by referring to genuine research. But maybe that's because the serious researchers have rather consistently argued that Falun Gong is not "racist", "cultic", "manipulative" or "exploitative" like the CCP, or partisans of other ideologies, have opined. This is not the venue to counter these claims, but let me give you some examples. By virtue of personal contacts, I happen to know that mixed-race marriages (mostly between ethnic Chinese and Caucasians) are more common among Falun Gong practitioners than the general population. Secondly, I've practiced Falun Gong for six years; I've never joined anything, and I am not a member of any "organization". Thirdly, the vilification of Falun Gong by the CCP is revisionist history: in actuality, the Chinese government was highly supportive of the practice before 1997 or 1998, and it even invited Li Hongzhi to lecture in Chinese embassies. Fourthly, qigong in its modernized forms has been around for decades, and its supernatural elements have been widely researched and discussed in the Chinese scientific community. You can find certain references in the main article, under "Theoretical background". Falun Gong is not an isolated phenomenon, and any descriptive research on it requires extensive cultural and historical contextualization. Fifthly, people practice and stay committed to Falun Gong because it works better than its alternatives. Most people who rant against it have never even tried the movements. Sixthly, Falun Gong's critics, especially the amateurs, often rely on blatant misinformation and falsehoods spread by the CCP (even in your blog I saw such a feigned "quote", and I've seen plenty of similar things over the years: "Whoever believes Falun dafa is just a health movement is the most worthless of living beings"). Occasionally they've been pipelined through a third-party medium. Rumours, myths and twisted half-truths tend to stick around. They are often appealing to people who don't want to spend a significant amount of time to understand Falun Gong: ask questions, get to know practitioners, read through the thousands of pages of published lectures, try out the movements, learn the history of qigong both in old China and under the Communist rule, and so forth. Then, even if such a person wouldn't choose to practice Falun Gong, he would start to grasp the profundity and sheer complexity of these questions, and perhaps the understanding of their controversial nature would have been elevated from the level of Reader's Digest. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple notes on semantics here -- Olaf: Saying "Act like a grown up" is not an ad hom as no argument is being made with it. Ad hominem applies strictly to an argumentative statement that is made on the basis of attacking your opponent's character. If Martin had said "Olaf, FLG is _____ because you are acting childish," then that would be an ad hominem. Your usage is a common mistake. What he did is more like an insult, although I think it's even a stretch to call it that.

Secondly (and this was used by multiple people), regarding the "science has proven" issue: science doesn't "prove" anything, they "disprove" and ideas / notions are supported implicitly by disproving other feasible explanations. There is no way to universally prove anything in science, as there is always a possibility for variables that we don't know about.

Thirdly (and this is at least germane to the discussion) -- I understand the points Olaf is making regarding the Wikipedia guidelines, but given his self-proclaimed advocacy for FLG, I would question a conflict of interests, particularly regarding double-standards with statements of opinion (the "beneficial" issue that Martin brought up). I would ask this, sincerely: What kind of criticism of FLG would you find acceptable?

The issue of whether or not FLG is controversial is kind of self-evident just by looking at this Discussion page itself. I understand that WP Verifiability still requires that an arbitrary source be provided as a reference for the assessment. It looks like there is currently a link that specifics it is "controversial in the West", citing a Times article. Surely that's satisfactory, yes? 149.165.11.33 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Woh, excuse me Olaf, when we are adding something bad about Falun Gong, you insisted reliable references, and now you are talking something good about Falun Gong, can you show us where are the reliable references for these?

Chinese government invited Li Hongzhi to lecture in Chinese embassies.
Most people who rant against it have never even tried the movements
Falun Gong works better than its alternatives
mixed-race marriages are more common among Falun Gong practitioners than the general population
Falun Gong's critics, especially the amateurs, often rely on blatant misinformation and falsehoods spread by the CCP

And about QiGong, yes practicing QiGong is good for improving your general health, I support that, just like any other activity, you will be better off when practicing some activity, rather than sitting in front of your TV for whole day. But should any QiGong claim that it can cure disease, it will be banned, just like Falun Gong.Zixingche (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: "Falun Gong is not a controversial organization and many do not consider it a cult. It is not the case that its adherents are unable to take criticism; this article omits a Critique section because there is simply nothing to criticize. Falun Gong is all good and benevolent, and there is no controversy surrounding it whatsoever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.169.254 (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Falun Gong is an evil cult and facts

Falun Gong, is banned by Chinese government, many may think that Falun Gong is such a innocent spiritual group which is just another victim of communist, however, in fact, Falun Gong is a cult, totally a cult, and nothing but a cult.

Falun Gong claims that joining and practicing Falun Gong will cure cancer, and other deadly disease

Falun Gong's official website, minghui.org, posted about 2000 cases in Chinese[10], and around 10 cases in English[11], claims that practicing Falun Gong will cure cancer instantly.

Falun Gong, again, stated that quitting CCP will cure cancer

This page[12], written in English, published in Clearwisdom.net (minghui.org english version), told a beautiful story about a women cured her cancer, just by simply quitting CCP.

Falun Gong, attacks anyone criticize it

For example, nytimes, has been attacked by Falun Gong, after they published this article [13], Falun Gong replied nytimes with these ridiculous articles [14] [15] [16] [17]

Li Hong Zhi, aka Master Li, the founder and cult leader of Falun Gong, said that we are controlled by alien

In this interview with Time [18], Li said that we, computer users, are all controlled by alien, and the only way to get rip of the alien, is to join Falun Gong.

Li, said that he can cloak, fly, and teleport

In the first edition of <Zhuan Fa Lun>, which is the bible to Falun Gong, there is a biography about Li[19], saying that Li can cloak since the age of 8, and other abilities, such as fly, telekinesis and teleport, the first edition of <Zhuan Fa Lun> is published in 1994, at that time Falun Gong is still fully legal in China.

So far, according to minghui, Falun Gong is the ultimate universal solution to universe, life, and everything

Falun Gong can be an antivirus software, and can fix a photocopier[20]. Falun Gong can jump start a car's engine, can put off a fire[21], can save you from a car crash[22], and can protect eggs from broken[23]. Zixingche (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if some of those things sound a bit awkward (and they do, even to me), they don't make Falun Gong a 'cult'. At best, you could call it a 'religion' that you don't believe in -- that's alright. I have stated this before, and I will say it once more: Falun Gong is not organized or managed like a 'cult'. The practitioners are a loose, global network of individuals, some more engaged than others. It's all voluntary and free of charge. You could drop out anytime, and nobody would come to cause you trouble, even if they were sad because of your departure. Also, a great deal of practitioners have personally experienced persecution, and I agree that they're very sensitive to negative criticism. That's understandable. Almost nine years have passed since the crackdown, and people still get tortured and killed. I know several people who've been imprisoned in labour camps and seen their scars.

Aliens, flying, teleportation or any of that stuff has no implications whatsoever in practitioners' lives. They're just curious things out there, and their significance in Falun Gong's teachings is very small. If they exist, fine, but so what? Ultimately Falun Gong practice is all about cultivation of virtue. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on qigong: "In some styles of qigong, it is taught that humanity and nature are inseparable, and any belief otherwise is held to be an artificial discrimination based on a limited, two-dimensional view of human life. According to this philosophy, access to higher energy states and the subsequent health benefits said to be provided by these higher states is possible through the principle of cultivating virtue (de or te 德, see Tao Te Ching, chapters 16, 19, 28, 32, 37, and 57). Cultivating virtue could be described as a process by which one comes to realize that one was never separated from the primal, undifferentiated state of being free of artificial discrimination that is the true nature of the universe. Progress toward this goal can be made with the aid of deep relaxation (meditation), and deep relaxation is facilitated by the practice of qigong." Falun Gong merely takes these ideas further. There have been similar things in China for thousands of years, and Chinese history is full of supernaturalism. I'm sorry you have grown up under Communist rule that has completely prostitutized China's real cultural heritage. I practice Falun Gong because of the very tangible benefits it brings. My bad acne was completely cured, including the scars, and I now have a complexion that radiates with health. And that's only the physical side of it. Indeed, a lot of people argue that Chinese medicine could cure cancer, and qigong is an essential part of it. But I won't continue this discussion very much longer. "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." [24] ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect your believe and 'religion', I understand that in your world, Falun Gong is not a cult. However, in my world, I believe if a 'religion' claims that a person after joined and practiced such Gong, can cure cancer, can fix a photocopier, can use the Gong as antivirus software, and the 'religion's master can fly, teleport and cloak, it MUST BE A CULT.Zixingche (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the practitioners I know has tried to fix a photocopier or use Falun Gong as an antivirus software. That sounds pretty funny to me. I agree, there are people who make all kinds of claims, and some of them are exaggerated or misunderstood, but there's something you don't quite understand: hundreds of articles get published on Minghui every week. There is some pre-moderation, but the shared opinions and views don't reflect some official "party line" of Falun Gong. People have their own understandings. Their education levels, cultural backgrounds and personalities are very heterogeneous. Falun Gong is free for anyone to practice, and it is exactly because Falun Gong is not a cult that you see such things happening. There's no "communication strategy", and your questionable words won't be censored by some higher manager -- since there are no managers in Falun Gong to begin with. Practitioners are free to speak and express their own understandings, send articles on Minghui, and maybe someone else will comment on them later on. I've seen several Minghui articles that have criticized something that was written by another practitioner. Honestly, I don't even follow Minghui/Clearwisdom very actively.

I'm probably the only one of us who has met Li Hongzhi. He's a very humble man. I certainly don't worship or kowtow to him -- he wouldn't like that, and I wouldn't do it -- but I have great respect for the practice system he has taught. He's not a "cult leader". In ordinary terms, he's just the highest ranking professional in his own field, which is cultivation practice, xiulian. If his "product" was not working beyond doubt, he really wouldn't have such a huge fan base. And even if supernormal abilities exist, they're not for showing off. Really, who cares? There used to be so many qigong masters in China who boasted with their extraordinary powers, whereas Li Hongzhi has always stated that they're essentially nothing, the only thing that matters is cultivating virtue and assimilating into Zhen-Shan-Ren. That's yet another reason why you can't understand Falun Gong without looking at the larger cultural and historical context. A lot of Zhuan Falun is about debunking the extravagant, irresponsible claims of other qigong masters.

By the way, you cannot "join" Falun Gong. You either practice it or you don't, just like you can go play tennis with your friends without joining any tennis club. This example is not precise, because there are tennis clubs you can join, but there is no way you can become some official "member" of Falun Gong. It's impossible for me to comment on all of your possible misconceptions. I can only say that you, as a native Chinese speaker, have a wonderful opportunity to get acquainted with the original books, and I would recommend you do that. Why don't you read through Zhuan Falun, do one set of exercises from #1 to #5, and then come back to discuss. At least we would be talking about the same thing, right? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, I have already read the <Zhuan Fa Lun> in 1997, because my grandmother was used to be a practitioner, and stop saying that anyone can practice Falun Gong, it may be is now, but my grandmother paid money to buy the audio tapes and the <Zhuan Fa Lun> book. After Falun Gong was banned in China in 1999, I read the <Zhuan Fa Lun> again, and I even read the english version of <Zhuan Fa Lun>, I am a very logical person, I will not simply say Falun Gong is a cult by just reading CCP based information, actually not only <Zhuan Fa Lun>, I read minghui / clearwisdom / renminbao / epochestime all the time, and still to me, Falun Gong is a cult.

And, because your suggestion, I downloaded the exercises 1-4 mp3 files in falundafa.org, listened to them and tried to practice the Gong, I found it is just ridiculous, the man speaking in the auidio file, can't even speak mandarin correct. Anyway, I tried, and I found nothing special.

Now, will you, Olaf, start reading and thinking something different, i suggest you read something from Dr. Fang Zhou Zi. But unfortunately Dr. Fang's articles are all in Chinese.

Do you know in fact almost all Chinese hated Falun Gong and called practitioners "Lun Zi", which means "Wheels", I know you probably don't understand Chinese, "Lun Zi" to practitioners is just like nigger to black people. This word is not invented by CCP, but it is invented by us, the people in China, and i think Falun Gong deserved that name!

And, Olaf, I think you probably should learn to read Chinese, because if you can read Chinese, you will find minghui.org Chinese version is NOTHING, nothing but contents about curing cancer and curing deadly disease, oops, i forgot minghui.org Chinese version has a exclusive section called "revenge", this section is full of contents about someone killed / infected with disease / developed cancer / died / paralyzed / whatever because they did something bad to Falun Gong, and punished by a magic force. Here, [25], I have this section translated for you using babel fish, tell me, if Falun Gong is not a cult, why people criticize it got "killed"? Zixingche (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And referring to "Practitioners are free to speak and express their own understandings, send articles on Minghui.org", if I become a practitioner, do you think I can publish a article about "CCP is very good!" in minghui.org?Zixingche (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat that this is better taken elsewhere, but just one remark. Your english is very good, however, it's unclear to me why you translated 報應 as "revenge". This should actually be something like "retribution" or "judgement", shouldn't it? That's even what it's translated to on that page you sent through babel. You want to make Falun Gong look bad, I know, but doing it this way is no good. You just lose credibility. Anyway, don't you believe it: 善有善報惡有惡報？This is just the most basic upright belief of human beings. I know you do not like Falun Gong, but it's really awful that you would support vilifying practitioners and treating them subhuman. They are human as well, just like you. You are boasting that your friends hate Falun Gong and that Chinese people have come up with nasty names for practitioners. This is very sad to hear. Should people be treated this way for their beliefs? Yet you say that no practitioners are killed in the persecution? People should be allowed to believe as they wish and not suffer any consequences. Falun Gong is actually based on upright and kind principles. These issues are just the most basic issues of what it means to be human. You should have some humanity, some compassion, and some tolerance!

Aside from this, there's no need to clog up the talk page further with this nonsense. Keep on topic. If it keeps going on I'm going to start deleting every post not directly related to discussing the page, including my own, Olaf's, yours, or anyone's. I am allowed to do this given the rules of wikipedia and the correct use of talk pages. They are not for you to come here and vilify, belittle, and spread hatred toward Falun Gong or any other group. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 12:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How can a thread about Falun Gong's activities, on the Falun Gong talk page, be off-topic, or nonsense? Why are you even interpreting it as "vilify, belittle and spread hatred" when the thread starts with sourced descriptions of FG activities? Do you have any valid, sourced statements that somehow countermand all the things in the OP? Please provide them if you do. Please stop sabotaging the talk thread if you don't. PerEdman (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the "revenge" section title is called "恶报", not "报应". Second, the contents inside the section, are just too horrible to be called "报应", I will translate a few here, and you will see why i call this section "revenge"

"河北省沧县王长芳诽谤大法遭恶报"[26], this article says a HeBei muslim resident suddenly died of brain hemorrhage at age of 37, because she tried to stop muslim to practice Falun Gong.

"河南叶县城北关居委会分片长刘聚川遭恶报死亡"[27], this article says a HeNan male, died of esophageal cancer, because he didn't read the "Nine Commentaries of CCP". It even says that "迫害大法遭报应是天谴", means he was killed by "Heaven" because he did something bad to Falun Gong.

"辽宁省辽阳县毁真相资料遭恶报事例"[28], this article has a few stories, one of them saying a villager and his son in LiaoNing crashed while riding motorcycle and died instantly, because he destroyed some "Nine Commentaries on CCP" booklets.

The section contains 99% of articles like these, just using a same template: some one did something bad to Falun Gong, like stop people from practicing / destroy some Anti-CCP booklet / whatever, and got punished by the "Heaven" or whatever, and died in many ways, like cancer or car crash or strike by lightning or whatever. Please, tell me, is it more appropriate to call it "revenge"? Zixingche (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

About the discussion page, what are you trying to hide, Mr Asdfg12345? Every sentences I wrote here are supported either by media or minghui.org itself, and are all directly related to Falun Gong, and now you want to delete all my discussion?

About the name "Lun Zi", tell me what does Falun Gong practitioners call CCP member? heh? CCP member are human too, how can you do that? And how do you call Mr. Jiang Ze Min? heh? Mr. Jiang is a human too, how can you do that.

We called Falun Gong practitioners "Lun Zi", because they affected our normal daily life!

Falun Gong people graffiti our building in China, there is even a article in minghui teach how to graffiti effectively[29].

Falun Gong people damage our bank notes! they print something on the bank note, and it is illegal to print something on the legal tender! they even damage our coins, minghui has a article, teaching people how to "print" on a coin. [30]

I received huge amount of SPAM from Falun Gong everyday, in many ways, such as Email, Skype, QQ, when I was in China I even received SMS spam.

When I go to China Embassy in New Zealand to renew my passport, those Falun Gng people in front of the embassy were protesting and blocking the way!

Somebody manage to put a DVD in my father in law's pocket without his consent, while he was walking in a park in China.

And the most important reason we call practitioners "Lun Zi", is that because Falun Gong KILLS! Falun Gong killed huge amount of people in China, because they believed in Falun Gong and refused to go to the hospital! And not to mention that according to minghui.org, Falun Gong killed another 2000 people in China, because they did something bad to Falun Gong. Zixingche (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fantastic. Zixingche is listing factual criticism of Falun Gong in a discussion thread about the controversy over Falun Gong, and you have the balls to claim that it's off-topic nonsense? The gall! What criticism of Falun Gong would YOU say, if you were alone to decide it, on-topic for the Falun Gong talk page? PerEdman (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! I really appreciate that! Zixingche (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not supporting you, I don't even know you! But you are producing sourced observations on Falun Gong's activities in China, and you are getting criticized for being "off-topic", which just blows my mind. I am not absolutely certain that what you say is true, but it is sourced and it is being criticized in a manner that is just blatantly ruthless. That is what I am reacting against. PerEdman (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh* I didn't want to make an issue of this, maybe I said something wrong. Slag off Falun Gong all you want, it doesn't change anything for me. I don't have to be the one who tries to keep a semblance of order, when it's not worth the trouble I won't do it. Zixingche isn't presenting resources that can be used for the purposes of constructing this article, I hope you recognise that. Minghui can be used to a certain, limited degree, but it's not a reliable source. What's on those pages can be used in some circumstances, but that wouldn't count as criticism. Those links are just from minghui. The criticism is from Zixingche, and it's all inadmissible for wikipedia. He's entitled to his opinions, but these talk pages are for discussing the articles, not for discussing his hatred of this practice.

I only posted this because you may not have realised what I meant, or that what he was saying, and this whole conversation, is off-topic and useless for wikipedia. It may have come out wrong. The intention was simply to make a better environment for editing the pages.--Asdfg12345 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Zixingche and Olaf, this discussion would be better taken to one of your talk pages.

Martin, the definitions of Falun Gong given in the introduction should be as simple as possible. The view that Falun Gong is a cult is not academic mainstream, and has been thoroughly debunked by published, reliable research. It's fine that the CCP propagates this view, and that a couple of fringe-academics and "cult-busters" out there also support it. Their views should be duly represented. But they don't even count as reliable sources, and putting that in the introduction as a way of defining the practice is inadequate.

I also see you inserted the same paragraph twice after it was deleted, and failed to respond to the concerns raised by the other editor. I don't think this is productive. These things should be done on consensus, and we are still working through the issues. I don't think it helps to start an edit war, Martin. Half of it is not sourced, one source is unreliable, and the other does not correspond to what it was attributed for. That's no good. On top of that, there are all the other outstanding, wider issues previously raised. --Asdfg12345 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Zixingche's and Olaf's discussion on Falung Gong is the best material and concrete discussion we've had since MartinRs original entré and is sorely needed here. As long as you consiously oppose anything that is critical of Falun Gong, there can never be a consensus that is not pro-Falun Gong. Or you can prove me wrong by answering a question:

What statements critical of Falung Gong would you approve of? PerEdman (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded to above. But please don't misinterpret me. I don't want to squash criticism. It's just that their whole conversation is their own viewpoints and it's not useful for wikipedia. I suggested they talk about it on their talk pages. Wikipedia pretty much only presents what reliable sources say about a topic. Olaf posted links to the core wikipedia policies, it would be a good idea to read them, to get a context for why I would say it is off-topic and doesn't belong here. --Asdfg12345 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it not useful to wikipedia to argue the points relevant to the article? Now PLEASE stop referencing the wikipedia guidelines we have all read already, it only makes you appeal to your own authority, which you have none. If you have a valid explanation for why a discussion about Falun Gong is "off-topic" for the Falun Gong talk page, then make your point specifically here and now or you are, indeed, despite your best wishes, "squashing criticism". Once more:

What statements critical of Falung Gong would you approve of? PerEdman (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty stubborn. I'm going to continue inserting varying versions of a paragraph mentioning the criticism of Falun Gong until it sticks. Therefore, Olaf, Asdfg and any of your buddies who might show up, what you need to do is improve my text, not delete it. Make it better. Because it won't go away. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Time Magazine article is a valid source, but it doesn't call Falun Gong an "organization". Yes, this work does require extreme precision, even on the level of individual words. I left the reference, organized the introduction in chronological order (the article was published in 2001), and summarized the conclusion of the article with a direct quote. However, the James Randi website is clearly a personal website. You should be warned that people have been banned from editing this article by referencing to personal websites, including James Randi's, and if you keep adding such links, administrators will certainly have a look at your edits upon request.

In addition, the sentence "as may be seen from this very article's discussion page, the issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is usually soon accused of supporting the Chinese government" is directly in violation of Wikipedia's core policies. It is reflecting a strong bias, it's referring to the article's talk page (which is forbidden), it alleges something that's been challenged by the rest of us, and it's infused with weasel words. You could even call it an insult. If you keep adding similar things, you won't be able to stay here for very long. These articles have been placed on probation by the Wikipedia arbitration committee: "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." [31]

The Wikipedia policies are non-negotiable, they are expected on all articles and of all editors, and they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. I understand you are new, but your attitude towards common rules seems quite arrogant. We don't want to cause unnecessary conflicts; it's essential that you learn to edit properly. I advise you to read through all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I mentioned earlier in this discussion. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrund has not broken any guidelines, in fact he introduced the sources we asked for when we asked for them and you are one of the few people who still believe it is not enough, even when a reputable source such as the JREF is used. This makes it obvious that you are not indeed interested in conforming to wikipedia standards, but satisfied to use them only when they can be interpreted as obstructions to someone elses's edits. So I ask again:

What statements critical of Falung Gong would you approve of? PerEdman (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome some attention from admins in view of all the ridiculous disruption done by blindly pro-FG editors over the past few days. In fact, I've already asked the admins to have a look, and they basically said "You have to work it out among yourselves." Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, why don't you propose some wording here, and I'll play with it. If you don't propose the wording here, I'll do it within 24 hours. It will mention that there are different views on Falun Gong, and give some context to them. It will be about two or three sentences. I think this is manageable. Please don't reinsert what you have been. You are violating wikipedia policies. Referring to the article's talk page, drawing on sources that fail reliability, then declaring your stubbornness on the talk page to keep reinserting it without having responded to any of the arguments—I think this is all quite poor form. You still have not produced any reliable sources, doesn't this bother you? You are also making personal attacks in your comments. What you are currently doing is called tendentious editing. In 24 hours I will produce some wording, or if you leave some here, look again and fiddle or propose something new. This is compromise, please consider doing the same.--Asdfg12345 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Martin did not attack anyone. Zixingche (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The JREF is a perfectly reliable source used elsewhere on wikipedia in comparable situations. I look forward to what type of wording you deem acceptable, which we can then discuss, and come to an actual compromise that does not consist of you deciding on an acceptable wording. PerEdman (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The FG camp has repeatedly removed a reference to the James Randi Educational Foundation's web site on the grounds that it would be a "personal website". This is not true: the JREF is according to Wikipedia "a Fort Lauderdale, Florida non-profit organization founded in 1996". Thus I am reinstating my edit again. This is really tiresome, don't you think? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I reverted Martin again, which put me at 3 reverts within 24 hours, so I reverted myself. There is an ongoing discussion here with no consensus, the Randi source fails WP:RS, other proposals have not been responded to, the policy concerns have not been responded to (of which there are many), and having broken WP:3RR by reverting 6 times, Martin is now clearly involved in POV-pushing and tendentious editing.--Asdfg12345 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, that's because I don't have any Falun Gong buddies to share the editing work with. You guys are avoiding the 3RR rule by taking turns undoing my edits. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

James Randi educational foundation's website is basically a platform for Randi's personal blog. He can write there whatever he wants. He's not an expert of Falun Gong, his writings are promotional in nature, and he's not even referring to any actual research. We can have the administrators decide whether it's acceptable or not. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, the JREF is older than "blogs" and your statement is completely unfounded. The foundation is a well-established skeptical webpage and as valid source as any source ever used in this article. Furthermore, you seem to have completely igored this when it has been stated before - insisting on your own interpretation without participating in the discussion. Do bring in the administrators if you can, but stop reverting valid edits using the same excuses every time. PerEdman (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem with many so-called "sceptics": by adhering to a secular materialist worldview, they assume their word to be the fundamental Truth of the Matter, imagine that their competence extends to each and every subject and ontological area, and believe that only they can tell what these things are genuinely all about. As far as I know, Randi doesn't even have a scholarly background. He might be a good illusionist, and don't get me wrong, I do respect some of the work he has done to expose charlatans, but he does have his limits, and sometimes he's just plain wrong. When relevant, serious academic research is in direct contradiction with his views on Falun Gong, and when the referenced commentary is on a self-published site, no matter how institutionalized, it just doesn't qualify. Or if you sincerely believe it does, it shouldn't be so hard to back it up with appropriate policies. You have completely failed to provide a Wiki-legal explanation of your edits, which is something every editor is expected to do upon request. Otherwise, you are merely clutching at straws. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, you are making it extremely clear that you do not in fact have valid criticism against using JREF as a source as you are now instead criticising the world views and ideology of people you call "'Skeptics'". I am sadly uninterested in reading what you may or may not know (thus far), but I would like some factual argument against using the JREF as a source for the statement that SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE FALUN GONG TO BE A CULT. I am not capitalizing this because I am loud or angry, but because it is the central statement we are discussing. If we were to use the JREF foundation as a basis for a statement of fact (which you, apparently, do not believe to exist in any fundamentally meaningful way) then it would be relevant to criticize it for being self-published or insufficiently based in research.. but when it comes to a statement that simply says "Some people think FG is a cult", then it follows, logically, that supplying sources of a few such people who do think FG is a cult, is source enough. You aren't going to tell me James Randi is not the utmost authority alive, on what James Randi does indeed believe, right?

In short: The statement is "some people think FG is a cult". For such a statement, even self-published sources of such statements would be valid proof that yes, some people do indeed think FG is a cult.

In conclusion: Please cease and desist from attempting to bash people over the head with wikipedia guidelines when it is not even relevant to do so. PerEdman (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say "some people believe Falun Gong is a cult" and provide a link to James Randi's website. Sentences beginning with "some people believe..." are explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If the source was acceptable, you could say "James Randi believes Falun Gong is a cult". Of course, we're talking about an unacceptable source, because it's self-published, and you don't seem to understand the technical aspect here: self-published sources are not allowed, period. Nevertheless, even if we could find something reliable and valid (from Wikipedia's perspective) that says "James Randi believes Falun Gong is a cult", it would still be just, well, James Randi. In that case, I would welcome him in the third-party section, but not the lead section. He's not a Falun Gong researcher, he's a skeptic, and that fact alone does not yield him Highest Definitional Supremacy in any subject matter imaginable - at least, not in the eyes of those who believe secular materialism is nothing much but yet another dubious ideology. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can, if those "some" people are listed and referenced as valid sources; by which the use of the words "some people" becomes a matter of semantics only. What you cannot do is state that "people" believe Falun Gong to promote happiness and harmony and not even mention who those people are. And for the bleedin fifth time, the JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION is not a self-published website prohibited as a source in wikipedia guidelines, and for the second fifth time, even if it was, a self-published source is a perfectly valid source according to wikipedia guidelines for the opinions of the self-published person. What it would NOT be an appropriate source for would have been factual statements, but that is not the question here.

Now PLEASE stop sabotaging wikipedia! PerEdman (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, the main issue is your not responding to the discussion, and in fact ignoring the citations of wikipedia policies which show your edit is inappropriate. And I don't think it's nice to label editors like "Falun Gong buddies", "the FG camp", etc., especially not as a way of avoiding responding to the arguments you are being presented with. That's obfuscating the debate, and it's called ad-hominem. When you want to engage in discussion I'll be happy to join you. You and HappyInGeneral will probably be banned for 24 hours for breaking 3RR, and all the text we have not yet agreed on will be removed until we reach consensus, but let me recap the issues:

You have not engaged in much discussion, but a lot of accusation and aggressive editing, and you have declared your stubbornness to continue. Editing should be done on consensus.
The view that Falun Gong is a cult, similar to scientology for example, is a minority view. It is debunked within academic mainstream, see WP:UNDUE.
You have still not produced reliable, high quality sources to back up your assertions. (As far as I am concerned, Randi still fails reliability, at the very least, as a benchmark for characterising Falun Gong he falls far short)

There are a lot of other concerns about how something like this should be phrased, etc., but it's been overshadowed by the fact that you have aggressively inserted your version and have not encouraged discussion here, to reach a consensus. This is foremost. If you want to start playing fair and by the rules, we will thrash it out and come up with an appropriate few sentences. It wouldn't even matter if you have a reliable source saying Falun Gong is a cult, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be jammed in the introduction. I can find a source that says Falun Gong promotes social harmony. Should I put that in the introduction as well? Should we just collect up our ammunition and put it all in the introduction? How we edit the pages needs some consideration, and it needs discussion, and consensus. So far you have not shown any interest in this, but have continually inserted disputed and what many consider biased material, either not referenced at all, misrepresented, or referenced to low-quality sources. And this still says nothing about whether it's right to go in the introduction. A lot of issues to deal with. When you want to discuss them, we can.--Asdfg12345 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing; Mrund has not "aggressively inserted" his version. After participating in this discussion, he inserted references to valid sources (JREF is a valid source), which was apparently first criticized and then ignored, and now you treat it as if he hasn't even engaged in this discussion. That is rather false behavior, don't you say?

It would matter if you could find reliable sources. I find it difficult to believe that you do not know what the introduction should be used for. It is in the guidelines, after all, and you seemed to know them so well up until now. So in the spirit of building consensus I ask a question that I have asked before that has still not been answered by you or Olaf Stephanos:

What criticism toward Falun Gong would you approve of?

PerEdman (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is aggressively inserting it when he has to revert it six times because it has been removed by other editors where no consensus has been reached. James Randi's website is a personal website, he can write whatever he wants on it, there is no editorial oversight. That's the definition of a self-published source: "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight." I say more on Randi in a moment.

I have explained my main difficulty with this material several times, but I will explain it again. The view that Falun Gong is a cult is not a mainstream view. It is not repeated in high quality, reliable sources that I am aware of. It is propagated by the CCP, and fringe academics or people like Randi, Rick Ross, etc.. It has never been backed up by any research or evidence that I am aware of. In this case, Randi's views are purely opinion, not based on any cited research or evidence, are in a self-published source, are not repeated in reliable, academic sources, and he is clearly not an expert on Falun Gong. He writes whatever he wants on his blog/website. There is a lot of legitimate academic material debunking just this stuff. You can take a look at it some of it here.

A fringe view, especially for which no reliable source has yet been produced, doesn't belong in a prominent place in the introduction. Please see WP:DUE: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Please also see WP:REDFLAG: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "...claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

There is also the whole issue of consensus, and edit warring, which has been ignored. No agreement has been reached on this content. The content issues are supposed to be resolved through discussion. Martin declined to discuss and instead reverted numerous times. You ask what criticism of Falun Gong I would "approve" of? Whether it is praise or criticism, it needs to come from a high-quality, reliable source, it needs to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DUE, it needs to appear in the article with some consideration of its context within the article, it needs to be coherent, and a bunch of other factors, like consensus need to be considered. My main problem is the unanswered problems with the content, the numerous citations of wikipedia policies, the edit warring, the tendentious editing, the personal attacks. All of this is still outstanding. Anyway, now I'm going to edit the page without deleting the disputed material.--Asdfg12345 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My addition to the introduction is sourced strictly to reliable sources. I have also put tags where appropriate on the Randi content. Personally, I don't think the introduction is the place to set off this debate, with the minority views against the mainstream views. I think these are better dealt with sensibly elsewhere. What I perceive as the tendentious and aggressive editing, personal attacks, vilification of Falun Gong on the talk pages, general lack of cooperation, and unwillingness to work towards consensus, have all been quite unhelpful, in my view. With no other option, I have now constructed another paragraph to offset that above, which was hotly disputed, aggressively inserted, representative of a clear minority view, and is referenced to a self-published source. The argumentation to justify was also ad-hominem, and pointed to a conspiracy of suppression--i.e., the WP:REDFLAG cited above. I'm just explaining the context to what might otherwise be considered an inappropriate edit, despite it being flawlessly sourced. This is how the situation will stand until the page is taken back to its original state, before Martin inserted the disputed content, and discussion commences about how to move forward.--Asdfg12345 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Randi is also a published author. Not a self-published one. If you want to claim that any reference to the James Randi Educational Foundation is a self-published source, then we must also put into question any reference to the Teacher's webpages, as they too are personal, where the Teacher can write whatever he wants to and there is no editorial oversight. Or we could accept that there is relevancy to what is written and that relevancy overrules any one definition of self-publishment. So again, no, JREF is far more than a personal website or blog, it is the official educational foundation of a known skeptic, author and critic of religous cultdom everywhere.

I oppose the very assumption that there is a "mainstream view" of Falun Gong, and you would do well to supply support such a broad claim. I get the feeling that you mean Falun Gong's perception of itself, rather than the public mainstream's.

It is very clear that consensus will never be reached here, as all criticism seems to have met with similar fates here over the years. No-one on the deletist side of this discussion has answered what criticism they would accept

Don't tell me wikipedia articlse needs to follow wikipedia guidelines, of course they do, and that's not what I asked. I asked what criticism of Falun Gong you would approve of. Not what it should and shouldn't do - what would it be like? What criticism would you not countermand at every turn? Give me an example of what you'd like to see. Because you are ever so diligent in following the guidelines, I'm sure you cannot seriously mean that Falun Gong should have a webpage entirely devoid of any of the criticism that has been waged against it... right?

Funny WPG quote to bring up in the FG talk page: "Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." PerEdman (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna explain something that you friends of FG will probably find hard to understand. Please try to get your heads around this, because there's actually something in it for you.

Imagine someone from outside looking at this Wikipedia article and its editing history. He/she finds endless frantic scrabblings to keep the text pro-FG, and three sentences that are not pro-FG. These sentences are festooned like a Christmas tree with tags shouting "This is garbage! Never mind this! We don't want this here!". What kind of idea do you think this person gets about your organisation?

I am someone from outside, and I can tell you. People think "OMG, these people really have something to hide, and they clearly have no sense of perspective at all. How cultish!". You are making fools of yourselves and Falun Gong. You are counteracting your evident purpose, to make FG look good. You are making FG look like a crazy cult. Not me. You are. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this when I went back to remove the "does not correspond to source" tag, after considering that it was being a bit harsh. I can only repeat that you have been presented with endless citations of wikipedia policies, plea after plea to discuss your edits and reach a consensus, demonstration that your sources are not valid, etc. etc., whatever I have repeated now 10 times. You chose to ignore it all and reinsert your edit numerous times without really engaging in discussion, now followed up with more ad-hominem and attacking Falun Gong. I can really only reiterate that you need to address the outstanding issues. I've really tried to keep an even tone, not take any personal swipes, keep my editing with acceptable limits. I think I could be more friendly in what I write, that's one thing I will try to work on. But I do find it hard to sympathise with your position here. You're clearly flaunting the rules, but when you are challenged with reference to policies, you don't respond to that, but make it personal because you are being challenged. You have swept the actual policy issues aside as some kind of smoke and mirrors trick because I'm obviously a cultist with something to hide. I don't know how I'm meant to respond to this, which is kind of why I have just tried to play a really straight bat and cite policy with the expectation that you'll come to the party. --Asdfg12345 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Endlessly and needlessly citing wikipedia guidelines does not make a consensus. And to reach a consensus, it would be much more constructive if you posted your version of Mrund's text, rather than dismissing it out of hand regardless of the changes he makes to it. Mrund HAS responded, he HAS added sources and he has stood by those sources. It's your turn to give an actual example of how Mrund's text would have to look if you were to accept it. My guess is that you can't even visualize the possibility of including criticism of Falun Gong in the Wikipedia Falun Gong article. PerEdman (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just so sick of these pro Falun Gong editors, anything article which has negative criticism towards Falun Gong is UNRELIABLE! Even it is from nytime, telegraph, guardian or CNN, but anything good for Falun Gong is OK, even it is from minghui. Why don't you guys start a Falun Gong Wiki? Then you can write whatever you want! Just like this Li Hongzhi's Biography in English[32], it is a valid reference, because it is on the references list for a long time, but you pro Falun Gong editors just citing part of it, making Li Hong Zhi looks like a normal person, but in fact, the biography is not about how many Master Li had, it is all about how many supernatural abilities Li has! In the biography Li can fly, teleport and cloak, How can you just ignore the most important part of his biography, and cited something to make Li looks normal? Zixingche (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing something that is sourced, whithout WP:OR and basically by the book, which also means WP:DUE and in context, it's always fine. Do it like that and nobody will find faults with you. If you need help and you think a Falun Gong practitioner can not give it to you, then you can talk with User:Ohconfucius, he has done in my view a pretty good job. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I need a favor here, can you tell me, as you are a programmer, do you believe that Li can fly? Please answer with "yes" or "no" Zixingche (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that we are editing/contributing to an ecyclopedia here. Show me a policy that will say that unsourced POV helps an ecyclopedia and then I will answer. If you want to talk about what I think, we can do it offline. For your info see: WP:SOAP. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

无. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I didn't ask you to reply, and, "无" means "no" in some cases, but not in this case, the correct Chinese word to "no" is "不", try learn some Chinese, and you will find out how evil Falun Gong is. :p Zixingche (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know 'no' is 不. I said 无, and you ought to know what that means as an answer to a question. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Intro

WP:lead states that ¨As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs.¨. As the paragraph I relocated gave no general information describing Falun Gong, and fit perfectly on the end of a section that discusses the specific subject matter, its clear that my edit was entirely appropriate and left a total of four paragraphs in the lead. I don't appreciate getting messages from extremely pro-Falun Gong editors accusing me of having a ¨negative view of Falun Gong¨ when all I was doing was following wikipedia content polices. Just because something makes the subject of the article looks good it doesn't give editors the right to put it in the lead. It isn't neutral and it gives undue weight. ʄ!•¿talk? 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK you did that. Personally, I'd say that most of the lead section needs to be rewritten at some point. We need a good, concise description, like the one you see in the featured article on Bahá'í Faith. (I already said this on Mrund's talk page, but I advise you all to have a look at its footnotes. Nothing but high-quality, transparent research. That's the kind of reliable sources we're after.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism that isn't criticism

Please try to avoid this. Introducing "strawman" criticism just to knock it down with a next sentence loaded with praise is not what NPOV is all about. Mostly this article should be purely descriptive, so criticism should be reserved for Criticism of Falun Gong. Except this article doesn't exist. It's a redirect to Third party views on Falun Gong, a cop-out article which looks rather biased, from my point of view.

I'd be surprised if Falun Gong was really immune to criticism, putting it mildly. There is no reason for Criticism of Falun Gong not to exist as a proper article. Compare and contrast with Criticism of Islam, which really is a good, solid criticism article that pulls no punches. Nor should it. Middle ground does not equate to NPOV. Moreschi (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, we don't necessarily even have to segregate criticism to a separate article. Doing so drifts into the realm of a POV fork. If possible, it should be kept in this article and put wherever applicable. The reasons we don't do this with subjects such as Islam have to do with the size of the article, along with the fact that the criticism can stand alone as its own subject. For a subject such as Falun Gong which has significant controversy attached, criticism should be in the main article as appropriate. Look at the Scientology article. A separate article for criticism exists, but this doesn't stop the main article from having a large section devoted to controversies (In this case, there's just too much to put it all in the main article). Here, by comparison, only one paragraph is currently allowed to contain any criticism. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The turth about Minghui.org

Olaf, the pro Falun Gong editor, told me that Minghui.org is a pre-moderated forum posting discussions by practitioners, well this is totally a lie, Minghui is the de facto official site of Falun Gong, Minghui to Falun Gong is somehow like People's Daily to China Mainland, ever since Li fled to US, Minghui is the only source for Li to make announcements to practitioners.

Even Minghui itself does not deny this, According to this important announcement posted in 1999 [[33]]. In the announcement it stated: If Teacher (Master Li Hongzhi) has new articles to publish, they will all be posted on Minghui Net. Articles not posted on Minghui Net but circulated underground are all fake. and Therefore, practitioners must pay attention to the attitude of Minghui Net on all important matters.

Olaf, do you still think Minghui.org is a forum?Zixingche (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. A multi-purpose site for providing a forum of pre-moderated discussion, as well as for publishing Li's new jingwen on the Net, among other things. Feigned articles are a serious problem in Mainland China, and that's why they make that point. The CCP is ... well, the CCP. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Exemplary sources for featured articles

Per Edman and Martin Rundkvist have repeatedly posed the question: What kind of criticism of Falun Gong would we approve? Let's have a look at some of the Wikipedia featured articles on Religion, Mysticism and Mythology, particularly their footnotes and references: Atheism#Notes_and_references, Bahá'í Faith#Notes, Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.#References, Intelligent design#Notes, Islam#Notes, Sikhism#References. Some of these articles deal with quite controversial phenomena. As long as your edits are referenced to sources of comparable quality, I have no objections. Self-published sources can be used only in articles about themselves. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So citing weblogs, as the ID article does is satisfactory? Presumably not every weblog, which is the problem. I would suggest that the source has to be relevant to the field, which raises the Randi question again. If you believe that Falun Gong is not a cult than Randi clearly isn't relevant. If however you take a neutral point of view then it may be. In that case Randi, who is a published author on belief and deception - and widely respected as such - is relevant. WP:NPOV may be helpful here. NPOV is not a lack of a point of view, it is a neutral point of view. Editors might also want to look over WP:OR and WP:V. If it helps WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy but it is not a carte blanche for citing self-published sources about the Falun Gong either for or against the organisation. Would it be helpful if I edited the article to show uncited claims from a neutral perspective?

As Olaf has identified above there is a lack of reliable criticism in the article and presumably we would all like to see a more balanced entry. Perhaps those reverting mrund's entries could identify better sources of criticism? Alunsalt (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, give examples. What parts of which of the linked articles do you believe to be in a format suitable to this article? I would like your opinion first, as I know full well what happens if someone else give their opinion and let you have free run of it. (It gets revert-revert-reverted, doesn't it?)

I say one more time, James Randi is not a "self-published" source. He does not publish his own books and he does not publish his own TV-show. He does publish his blog, but to repeatedly diminuate him as a self-published blogger is very, very false. PerEdman (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know he has not published his own books or the TV-show. I even have a certain respect for some of the things he has done, though I cannot symphatize with his die-hard secular materialism. You are still trying to insert a reference to a self-published source of his, and you insist on having it in the lead section. I have made this as clear as possible, so please don't admit you hadn't really understood it by now. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your respect, sympathies or beliefs on secular materialism are not in question. Whether a statement from a prominent skeptic can be used as a reference source for the insertion of the fact that yes, some people do believe FG to be a cult, is. Rather than focusing on the guidelines on self-published sources (which I would urge you to re-read carefully, for example"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable..." et cetera). Please note that James Randi is not called as an expert witness on whether or not FG is a cult, but on whether he believes that they are. And in that circumstance, even a self-published source would be acceptable. Please keep the big picture in mind, rather than focusing on the details of the law... sorry, guideline. PerEdman (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather focus on the details of the law... sorry, policy. James Randi can believe what he wants about Falun Gong, or feminism, or chickenpox, or banana farms. Whether his self-published source has a place in this article, well... no, since we insist on reliable and verifiable sources. I've provided links to the relevant policies so many times that you can just dig through the previous discussions. That's how Wikipedia works, and if you want to edit, you'll just have to adapt. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

James Randi can and does believe what he wants, and therefore he is the perfect source for a reference to what he believes about Falun Gong. What other source do you request in support of the statement that Mrund did make, that some people believe Falun Gong to be a cult? Can you give even a theoretical example of what sort of source for someone's opinion would satisfy your need for a consensus? No, a quality peer-reviewed journal cannot further disclose the US's supreme skeptic's opinion than he himself has already done in a verifiable medium.

As you have noticed by now, I haven't edited. One because I can't and two because this subject has been hijacked by a POV group in such a way that editing the article would have no effect at this time. PerEdman (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested people to start looking for quality peer-reviewed journals. One major bone of contention is that the new editors are basically trying to infiltrate the lead section with a dubious reference to Randi's weblog. That's a major element in the conflict here. Even though Randi is a published author, he hasn't gotten anything published on Falun Gong. He could have his place in the article "Third-party views on Falun Gong", where a lot of other critical authors' opinions are voiced (but as far as I recall, there are still no references to their personal sites). If we are allowed to add just about anything we like to the lead section, who's going to set the boundaries for that? Are we going to make it, for example, forty paragraphs long, just because we could very easily find over 35 different sources that are more verifiable and more Wiki-compatible than Randi? Can you tell me why Randi's point of view is considered more significant than, for instance, the research of actual sinologists? Are we entitled to quote their writings there as well? Would the introduction to a real encyclopedia article raise one self-published author's voice above the others?

I believe we should basically rewrite the entire lead section to make it conform to the Wikipedia style guidelines (emphases added): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"quality peer-reviewed journals" in the research of what? Into the subject of "do people who believe Falun Gong is a cult exist?" We already know there are people who hold this opinion, what statement is it you believe needs further supplanting? Saying that there are people who believe FG is a cult and that James Randi is one of them is as clear, accessible and carefully sourced as anything can be. PerEdman (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the reasoning here is that a couple of scholars have written in an academic context that the Chinese government use "cult" as a smear word to denigrate FG, and that for this reason the article should make no reference at all to such criticism. I, on the other hand, think that regardless of what the nasty Chinese government says, it is relevant and interesting that independent and respected people in quite different parts of the world criticise FG in similar terms. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue of where Randi's opinion is voiced is beside the point. JREF is a reliable source for Randi's opinion. And Randi's opinion is without doubt, one of the most notable voices among skeptics. It's certainly worth more than a seven-year-old three-paragraph anonymous piece in Time. As for "self-published sources" - the Matas and Kilgour report appears to be self-published as well.

Can you tell me why Randi's point of view is considered more significant than, for instance, the research of actual sinologists? Are we entitled to quote their writings there as well?

And Matas and Kilgour are sinologists? The point is that, as it stands, the introduction lacks balance. It attacks the term cult at length, going so far as to say that practitioners appear to be...good citizens and exemplary members of their respective civil societies. This reads like a promotional piece, not an NPOV article. Guettarda (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied such imbalance in the introduction, or even the article as a whole. I am not endorsing the status quo; in fact, there are just so many things to improve that I have trouble deciding where to start. And it is not beside the point where Randi's opinion is voiced; Rundkvist and Edman have forcefully and repeatedly inserted it into the lead section, even though it is substandard in comparison to a majority of sources currently used in this article. That's why the conflict really flared up. Kilgour-Matas report is a different case altogether, because it has received a great deal of attention and is taken seriously by a lot of important organizations, including the United Nations. (Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, has stated that organs were harvested in Sujiatun.) If Randi's view on Falun Gong was considered important and worth reproducing, it would have appeared in relevant sources that are not self-published. There must be some criteria for admission into Wikipedia. But I want to have a constructive discussion about this matter. I'd like to see examples in Wikipedia where the JREF site is used as a source and is not challenged.

On a side note, even though we don't need to mention that in the introduction, the long-term practitioners I've met are good citizens and exemplary members of their respective civil societies. It's not only Kilgour and Matas who are saying that. For example, Livia Kohn, Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University, one of the foremost scholars of Daoism in the world today, has stated in her book Daoism and Chinese Culture (2001): "[Falun Gong] has attracted large numbers of followers, both in China and abroad, and has a high success rate in creating friendlier people, more harmonious social environments, and greater health and vitality." Oftentimes I feel that the anti-FLG side is really living in a world of malignant misimpressions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, please can you point out exactly where Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, has stated that "organs were harvested in Sujiatun." Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rundkvist and Edman have forcefully and repeatedly inserted it into the lead section" - I have inserted nothing into any part of the article. I will interpret your statement as an honest error, despite being newly-registered on EN wikipedia with a red-tagged user name and talk link on the talk page of an article you know is blocked to newly-registered users, and despite my suspicion that you had something to do with that block. I will suppose you simply forgot, or thought me and Mrund were secretly the same person sent by the CCP to spoil, ruin and spread cancer. PerEdman (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just confused you with some other people who were on Martin's side. I didn't check it when I was writing that. I've never thought that you are Martin or vice versa. (We've had to deal with sockpuppets before, though.) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you've both found some and accused some more, yes, which is why I can see how you would easily bunch people together as being on one "side" or another. One could say your past experiences may have affected your capacity for NPOV. PerEdman (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Organ harvesting has been inflicted on a large number of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners at a wide variety of locations, for the purpose making available organs for transplant operations. Vital organs including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas were systematically harvested from Falun Gong practitioners at Sujiatan [sic] Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, beginning in 2001." (Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, 20 March 2007) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, Nowak's UN report is being misquoted by FLG in general. Here's the report, and the quoted portion is merely catalogue of allegation made by FLG:

http://falunhr.org/reports/UN2007-org/Torture-UN-07.pdf (page 60, para 40, under "allegation transmitted and government response")

As you can see, Nowak also catalogued Chinese government's refutation of Falun Gong's allegation, which Falun Gong choose not to mention. NOT ONE FLG affiliate is is quoting Nowak correctly. Try to fine ONE to prove me wrong. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, Kilgour and Matas should not be included in the article. As you quoted: self published sources are acceptable for well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise. This description applies to Randi - he is one of the best known voices of Skepticism; it doesn't apply to Kilgour and Matas - neither of them appear to be published authors on the topic. You also said that James Randi is a partisan skeptic, not an expert of Falun Gong - NPOV requires us to describe all relevant opinions, it doesn't matter if the person is "partisan" or not.

There must be some criteria for admission into Wikipedia.

There is. You should really familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

I'd like to see examples in Wikipedia where the JREF site is used as a source and is not challenged.

Do you have some reason to believe that JREF isn't a reliable source for Randi's opinion? Or are you saying that the fact that True Believers challenge the opinion of perhaps the most notable skeptic in the US is sufficient reason for throwing out his opinion? Anyway, there's a reason we have policies and guidelines - if you want to change policy to say that "sources that have been challenged can never be used", please build a consensus to change our core policies first, then cite them. Please refrain from making up policies on the fly. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilgour and Matas were only put in the introduction as a response to Martin's continual reinsertion of the Randi (and before that, two or three times, completely unsourced stuff which came from Martin's blog). This is generally not an appropriate way to run an encyclopedic article. Randi's view and the view that Falun Gong is a cult, comparable to scientology, are fringe views. Sinologists and real researchers and scholars of Chinese religion and qigong do not say this. These views don't belong in the introduction. I can dig up any old fringe source about just about anything and put it in those any article, then complain that it is sourced and belongs. Apocryphal examples abound. --Asdfg12345 00:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I happen to think that Randi merely rants about FG (without any real attempt at understanding China, FG), and as such does not warrant more than a side mention somewhere in third party views (and not in the main article), otherwise it would be undue. Randi's comments are certainly not important or directly relevant enough to belong in the lead section, otherwise we would also have passing comments of all celebrities concerning FG.

What disappoints me in this whole debate is the insistence of pro-FG editors to state their case using almost exclusively "scholarly texts" (which are preponderantly favour FG) and then rubbish everything else as "propaganda" or irrelevant. In general, pro-FG editors only grudgingly accept mainstream articles, most of which tend to range from very hostile (eg Guardian and Times reviews) to mildly sympathetic (Ian Johnson) and seek to counter it with text from tons of scholarly journals. However, in seeking to counter the negative general mass media image of FG by so doing in the main 'Falun Gong' article would clearly be giving it undue weight, as scholars' view are no way consistent with the general public's (the real world) perceptions of FG, which are more closely aligned with the mass media. I would also say that use of this learned material in the 'Third Party views' article would also need to be controlled. It is clearly out of balance as the size of the section on the mass media perspective (0Kb) in relation to the 'Academic perspectives' section. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "scholarly texts," here is an article on Falun Gong entitled "The Falun Gong in China: A Sociological Perspective" from The China Quarterly. It is available online here. Abstract:

This article offers a sociological perspective on the rise of and crackdown on the falun gong in relation to the social, cultural and political context of China. I specify from a sociological perspective that the falun gong is categorically not a sect but a cult-like new religious movement. Its popularity, I suggest, is related to the unresolved secular problems, normative breakdown and ideological vacuum in China in the 1980s and 1990s. Before the crackdown, the falun gong represented a successful new religious movement, from a Euro-American perspective. However, most of its strengths as a movement have become adversarial to its survival in the specific historical and political condition of China.

I would like to add that a quick combing though Web of Science doesn't give too many results--however, I'm not too familiar with searching for social science articles. Anyone better at looking though that stuff? I have academic access and can check it out. Russell Abbott (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What you happen to think is not the subject in question nor is it your place to judge who has "real understanding" or not. Wikipedia is not here to promote your personal views. PerEdman (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the kind of criticism that is acceptable. Not because I agree with it, but because it's published by a verifiable source. I have a suggestion: we write a new lead section based on a lowest common denominator in our understandings, in a consensus-seeking spirit, so that it neither infringes upon the self-understanding of Falun Gong practitioners and supporters, nor feels out of balance from your point of view. Therefore, we need to make it very down-to-earth and concise, and save the complex debates into the later chapters - otherwise it will quickly turn into an arms race, wherein both sides load the introduction with their favorite quotes. I suggest you have another look at the style guideline I posted above.

I agree with OhConfucius about the scholars being predominantly positive towards Falun Gong. But that's what people who truly have a sense of its context and history tend to opine. Whatever the general public thinks is clouded by at least three facts: 1) the systematic attempts of the CCP to spread its propaganda abroad after 1999, 2) a complete lack of knowledge of what happened in China in the 80s and 90s, when a so-called "qigong boom" swept through the Chinese society, including its top universities, 3) inexistent management in Falun Gong, even though it's postulated by the public as an organization (sometimes individual practitioners do not give a very good impression, and because FLG is a marginalized group, that impression sticks to the group as a whole, even if they have nothing to do with the individual in question). However, do you think we should devote 30-40 % of the ID article in favour of Intelligent Design, just because that's the proportion of Americans who believe in it? Regardless of my personal opinions about the debate, I still think Wikipedia should represent the views of the relevant academic communities. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to Olaf, I was tied up with work last night, but the answers above are pretty close to what I was going to say. If this is an article about Sinology then he's right Randi has no place. If however this is an article about an organisation making bizarre pseudoscientific and paranormal claims then, if I wished to be aggressive, I could ask why a Sinologist should be a better source than someone who's made a career out of exposing such nonsense. As it happens it's both and more. For instance MUFON considers Falun Gong a source on the current alien invasion. If enough people think that's noteworthy then it belongs here even if it's nonsense.

Now there is a problem with tackling criticism of FG. It's possible to set up three sections, one on FG and social intolerance such as allegations of homophobia and racism, another on it's pseudoscientific claims such as levitation and artificial nuclear reactors in the Lower Palaeolithic and a third on allegations that far from being naive, the FG has a very sophisticated media strategy. I think that would be a bad idea. It would be axe grinding in the opposite direction, just as the current article is POV. Perhaps a section on Pseudoscientific claims by Master Li and a second on Media Strategy and the FG, which could include information about CCP propaganda as well as the claims against FG. Also NPOV may be aided in re-writing the 3rd party views section which is very positive, while the main article raises questions about things like financial oddities.

I think Olaf's right in identifying the introduction as being very POV. What I propose is removing the section on organ harvesting from from the lead as it isn't a reliable source and dropping it into the persecution section. In its place I'd put a bland sentence The Falun Gong movement has been covered in the popular press in recent years as a result of it being banned in China by the Communist party and for making claims which have raised questions about whether or not it is a pseudoscientific cult. This cuts the lead back to a consensus above without losing much. I also think that Martin Rundkvist's suggestion of moving the beliefs up ahead of the history section would improve the impression that the articles is about Falun Gong rather than the political fights that surround it. Alunsalt (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have some reasonable arguments there. However, the term "pseudoscientific cult" is certainly giving kudos to the skeptic discourse. It is not a neutral wording. Even if Li Hongzhi has made "pseudoscientific" claims, as you call them, they don't make Falun Gong a cult. This is the same logical fallacy that applies to skeptics calling ID a "cult", or homeopathy a "cult", or just about any kind of "heresy" a "cult". It is nothing but a club to strike a perceived adversary: it has no basis in actual research, the sociological definition for a 'cult', or the connotations in the popular imagination (Heaven's Gate, Solar Temple, and so on). It merely seeks to obfuscate the matter and arouse mental images that, in the end, have nothing to do with the phenomenon itself.

In addition, we will not create any POV forks in the article. That goes without saying. We used to have an article called "Criticisms and controversies about Falun Gong", but it was removed both because of its blatant original research and because it goes against the Wikipedia recommendations. First and foremost, the main article should tell what Falun Gong is and how its practitioners understand it. Any titles that suggest Falun Gong being something per se, such as "Falun Gong and social intolerance", are not acceptable, because a) practitioners honestly don't consider Falun Gong socially intolerant, and they have never spoken out against any group of people except the perpetrators of the crackdown (I can give you a personal example on that, as I'm researching racist bullying at workplaces and very much interested in various theories on social inclusion), b) such claims are frequently based on low-context misinterpretations of Li Hongzhi's lectures, and c) even when we report on these allegations, they must be presented together with opposing viewpoints from reliable sources, whenever they are available, and organized under a neutral header that everyone can accept.

"Media Strategy and Falun Gong" sounds interesting, but I think we could still find a more appropriate title. The word "strategy" sounds like there was some centralized organization issuing "media strategy guidelines", almost as if some puppet master was pulling the strings of some ... mind if I say useful idiots. Again, we don't have to agree on the conclusions of different researchers, but the structure of the article and its headers must not imply a POV. "Persecution" of Falun Gong is acceptable, in my opinion (it was actually changed from "suppression" to "persecution" by administrators earlier on), because that word is used by several third-party human rights organizations, and there are several articles in Wikipedia documenting the "persecution" of different ethnic, cultural or religious minorities. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, your comment in response to mine is causing me some problems: I certainly do think we should devote 30-40 % of the ID article in favour of Intelligent Design, if that's the proportion of Americans who believe in it. That's exactly what WP:UNDUE means, AFAICT. Wikipedia should represent the views of the relevant academic communities, but it does not exist to redress the balance in society, and act as a soapbox for Falun Gong, or indeed any other subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is a featured article, and it has certainly passed a community review. These are not simple questions. In addition, the Wikipedia policies can not be interpreted in isolation from one another. See Wikipedia:NPOV#A vital component: good research: "Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have side-stepped the issue of what the policy says: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. It would be misleading to mince criticism in the mass media with defense from scholarly texts, because that would not reflect what public opinion is. Unless and except where the mass-media world has picked up on the beliefs of the academic world, the two should be kept clearly segregated so as not to misrepresent. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If we conclude it is a pseudoscientific cult then yes there's kudos to the sceptic claims. What I am claiming is there are allegations of this which is true. Now there is a problem. To what extent can practictioners of Flaun Gong veto entries. For example I am aware Falun Gong presents itself as not being a religious practice, but scholars of Sinology and religion e.g disagree. e.g. Haar and Felhberg and Ulloa-Fehlberg. If we only give the Falun Gong self-definition in the lead then it's heavily POV.

This the problem in excluding criticisms of Falun Gong. This is not a site for advocacy of Falun Gong. The statements of practioners are important, but so are the statements of third party sources. Most intolerant people don't believe they're intolerant. However if there are claims alleging homophobia and racism in Falun Gong and if we have citeable reliable references of homophobia and racism by Falun Gong practitioners then that would be of interest for the article. For instance if there's a source on the Falun Dafa website saying that homosexuals are unworthy of being human then, regardless of your own tolerance Olaf, it would appear that Falun Gong, as taught by Master Li is homophobic. Similarly if we find a lecture where he says "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." then that would seem to be a reliable source. Being against mixed-race marriages on the ground of racial purity is, in most countries, considered racist. Again I believe you, Olaf, are not racist. However would it be fair to say that these lectures by Master Li are reliable sources for Falun Gong?

Now we can argue over whether or not saying saying someone saying things like "Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code." promotes tolerance or not, but if you read round the public perception of Falun Gong it is an issue. We can include the quotes and leave the reader to make up their own mind. In contrast I would not include quotes like In other words, if you’re a woman, you must act like one, and be kind and gentle. Only then can you gain respect and love from men. as evidence of sexism because that would be Original Research - it's not an issue that women's rights groups have picked up on, so we shouldn't include it until they do. What heading to we put these issues under? I'm happy to take Criticisms and controversies about Falun Gong as a compromise

Would Media presentation and the Falun Gong be a better title for the media section? A problem with this is that putting the FG in the title might suggest that it's that who are producing all the propaganda, and that's not the case. There's stuff from the CCP too. Perhaps Media Controversies would be better? Alunsalt (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not our place here on wikipedia to conclude or otherwise whether FG is a pseudo-scientific cult. It's our job to ensure that all the arguments are presented with due consideration of the weight of received opinion, that's all. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course such quotes would be relevant to this article. They belong in the section on "beliefs and teachings", where they can be further contextualized with other quotes from the lectures. I'm totally in favor of full transparency, and after all, the lectures are available on-line for anyone to read. There are some issues I'd like to add, though. Mixed-race marriages are actually pretty common among the practitioners, and they are in no way shunned upon. That's what I mean by low-context misinterpretations, or at least insufficient understanding of what is being said. The present society is supposed to be just like it is. The practitioners can marry anyone they like, and they're still practitioners just the same. A lot of critics are missing a crucial point: Falun Gong is not pushing a social agenda. If any change is to occur, it is metaphysical (and, I would guess, self-evidently proves that FLG was right). In Falun Gong's beliefs, people are to be accountable only for taking part in the persecution, everything else is secondary and rather insignificant.

Now, I'm just playing with ideas, but please follow along: If Falun Gong is not true, and I know some of you believe it isn't, the people who practiced it can just go on with their lives as usual. In that case, we're not talking about a phenomenon that could last for several decades. It would still raise some serious questions, such as "Why did it still work better than other qigong practices and provided tangible effects?". If, on the other hand, Falun Gong really is what Li Hongzhi says it is, our definitions and the variety of opinions will eventually come to vanish in thin air.

What people commonly associate with words like 'homophobic' and 'racist' are people who discriminate. Because of the intimately personal dimensions of practicing cultivation, uncompromising emphasis on compassion, and, not too infrequently, a relatively high level of education, Falun Gong practitioners don't do that. I've never seen them do that. The things you quoted are small excerpts from a large corpus of texts, and they are related to cultivation of morality and alignment with the presumed universal characteristics. This is something that cannot be ignored, and it is the most significant reason why Falun Gong practitioners feel that they are misrepresented by critics to the point that they can no longer recognize themselves in such descriptions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, you may be confused. Morality is social and saying things like "In Asian society, women have become overly strong" is pushing a conservative social agenda. . Master Li's writings about how this can be corrected and instructing people to act in certain ways is a social action. Now I appreciate there is a Falun Gong perspective to the quotes like

You know that homosexuals have found legitimacy in that homosexuality was around back in the culture of ancient Greece. Yes, there was a similar phenomenon in ancient Greek culture. And do you know why ancient Greek culture is no more? Why are the ancient Greeks gone? Because they had degenerated to that extent, and so they were destroyed.

but hopefully you can see that blaming homosexuals for the downfall of Greece rather than, say, its divided political structure which had Greek states make alliances with Rome against other Greek states sounds like singling out one group of people for blame.

I don't think discussing the ontological truth or otherwise of Falun Gong here is helpful. You can take it to the talk pages of contributors or to advocacy websites. Here we're trying to work out an NPOV entry for the article not confirm or debunk Falun Gong. Pushing editors into pro/anti FG camps would not be helpful in gaining a consensus. If you're genuinely interested in how a false belief can persist for centuries then I suggest reading some basic comparative religion. Alunsalt (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, what you say Falun Gong practicioners do not do, that you have never seen them do, seemed to feature prominently under the heading of "恶报" at http://www.minghui.org/, regardless of whether you refer to the existence of "universal characteristics" or not. Everybody feels they are being misrepresented by critics, but we wikipedians have a solemn duty to represent not only the feeling of those who feel they are being misrepresentend, but also the feelings and opinions of their "misrepresenting" critics as well. I will give you a friendly and non-threatening warning, Olaf, that you are now dancing very close to admitting that your involvement in the Falun Gong article is POV and nothing else and I do not think you want to do that. PerEdman (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Of course, I have several things to say, but now I propose a short truce in this debate. Meanwhile, I need to take care of some urgent matters that I've neglected because of spending so many hours on this talk page. Perhaps Asdfg12345 or other people can pick up on our discussions and voice their opinions as well. I'll get back to Wikipedia on Sunday and reply to both of you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Debates don't have truces, wars do. Wikipedia should represent the views of both proponents and critics. Enjoy your rest and come back better. PerEdman (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just about Alun's remarks, Falun Gong isn't pushing any kind of social agenda at all. The teachings should be reported within their context in the whole corpus of lectures. They should go in the teachings section, and given due weight to their overall place. I gave an example on the other page, that homosexuality is mentioned two or three times in 1000 pages of lectures. That's how important it is in Falun Gong, and this should be represented in wikipedia. I do not think we should pick out any part of the teachings we like and say "this is what Falun Gong is about." The space given to whatever teaching should reflect the overall idea Falun Gong is presenting.

If there are critics, however, published in reliable sources, who write about this or that aspect of Falun Gong's teachings on this or that thing, this can also be reported in a section which explores the different views around Falun Gong. The point is to approach this with no preformed ideologies. Most of the teachings cited, by the way, are not criticisms of Falun Gong, they are just teachings. The critical views should be presented also, in conformance with all the usual rules.--Asdfg12345 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing, "Representations of Falun Gong" might be a useful catch-all in some cases where people write one thing but Falun Gong says another, and another scholar says another. This is about that other title you had come up with Alun, that had something like this in it, something about media. Just a quick thought as a skimmed through the text above.--Asdfg12345 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think it's particularly biased to give a self-characterisation in the lead. This makes the most sense, to me. I think for any wikipedia article this makes the most sense. The divergent views also need to be explored, but in terms of characterising the practice, definitional power should be quite uncontroversial and simple. In this case however, Falun Gong's self-characterisation as a qigong practice with spiritual component is pretty much consistent with the work sinologists on Falun Gong (thinking David Ownby and Benjamin Penny), so I don't think this is an issue. In "Representations of Falun Gong" perhaps some of the other things could be nutted out, like what Randi thinks and how Falun Gong understands his claims, who thinks Falun Gong is a religion and who doesn't, etc.. My 2 bob.--Asdfg12345 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I have limited time I just looked at the lectures 96-99 online. We have:

Sydney Homosexuality equated with organized crime
Singapore AIDS a spiritual disease targetting homosexuals
Frankfurt Extensive claims including the Fall of Greece claim
Geneva Gods will destroy homosexuals and other claims
Los Angeles Homosexuality is something warped and other claims
New York "if you aren’t husband and wife and have sexual relations, then you are doing the filthiest thing."

That last one suggests to me that homosexuals are probably having more fun in bed than the average FG practitioner. :) Nonetheless, that's less than half the public lectures checked from the Falun Dafa site and more than two or three mentions, all of them consistently negative. There is a prima facie argument that claims of homophobia in Falun Gong are supported by its teachings. As for a social agenda, what could be a more political statement than saying half the world's population should look good to gain the approval of the other half? Saying things like Women have too much power in society is social commentary. The point is not to prove that Falun Gong is a Bad Thing, but to show that criticisms are not baseless. I'm not saying FG practitioners must agree with these claims, but that they have a place in the article.

In fact I'd be worried if someone supporting Falun Gong did say "Yes Falun Gong is sexist and that's why I like it." Alunsalt (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in China has been frowned on and taboo for generations, and is probably as old as Confucianism; and Falun Gong is not exactly New Age, so it does not seem terribly fair to label it with politically correct terminology as "homophobic". Sexism is also as old as the hills, except that Mao Zedong attempted to rectify that with his Cultural Revolution. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Move Beliefs and Teachings section up?

When someone searches for information about FG, they are probably more interested in what FG stands for as a spiritual movement than in the organisation's history and the details of its deplorable persecution. But currently the Beliefs and Teachings section is located after three long history sections. I suggest we move the Beliefs and Teachings section to a position directly after the introduction, and that someone beefs it up a little. What do you say? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the assumption on what a purported searcher would want to find, but I do agree with the sentiment that beliefs and teachings could come earlier. It's a question of where you prefer to put focus in a text. Placing history first follows chronological structure. Placing teachings first follows a different structure. The question is what is most in the spirit of Wikipedia. PerEdman (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the most important thing is establishing a context. Because Falun Gong's roots are in an ancient culture that is relatively little known in the West, and a significant part of the Chinese people are living in a Communist system that egregiously limits their access to information, most readers know almost nothing about the qigong upsurge of the 80's and 90's. This, according to several respected sinologists, is absolutely crucial information for understanding Falun Gong and its persecution as cultural phenomena. After that comes the section on beliefs and teachings, then persecution, third-party views, and FLG outside of China. What do you think? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no conflict between establishing context and starting the article with the beliefs of the movement. That may serve, possibly better than starting with the history lesson, to give an insight into the context of Falun Gong as well. I cannot believe that it is a significant part of any religious movement that they are being persecuted by someone else. That cannot, by its very definition, be the heart and core of a belief system (since you sort of NEED a core in order to be persecuted for it, the persecution cannot come first). Please note, then, that no-one here is suggesting that we REMOVE the references to persecution, but that we at least consider what is the most defining parts of Falun Gong. I do not believe the persecution is it. PerEdman (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles on Christianity and Islam begin with their beliefs and teachings. The article on Buddhism does not. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Right from the beginning, Falun Gong's teachings have commented on the surrounding cultural context, the qigong community; inevitably they go hand in hand. I would still think that we first need to explain what happened before Falun Gong, as well as referring to the debate between naturalism and supernaturalism in the Chinese scientific community (see, for example, the quote from Journal of Asian Studies), then provide a description of how Falun Gong positioned itself in this environment. However, in order to provide a comprehensive, unbiased exposition of the teachings, we really need to understand the persecution and related matters, since they are in such an essential role in Li Hongzhi's post-1999 lectures. Therefore, it could be reasonable to argue that persecution comes first, then the beliefs and teachings. Unless, of course, we want to have one section on pre-1999 teachings and another on post-1999, but that just wouldn't work, since the basic core (assimilation into Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance) has not changed at all. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, then the relationship to the quigong community should also be privileged, but I maintain that the tenents of the faith should be at the top of the page, with the complexities that follow from that belief should follow after, unless a strictly chronological structure is followed, but I don't think it is. Please note that I am not now commenting on any wikipedia guideline on which structure to follow, but professional writing in general.

I must also regretfully repeat that this is not about removing text on persecution and related matters, but to focus on what is the heart of the movement, rather than focus on the problems it is involved with as a consequence in latter times. PerEdman (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it might go: below "1992 - early 1999", or under the Theoretical Background, too, possibly. Either of these could also be expanded or reduced. What are the outstanding disagreements/ideas to move forward?--Asdfg12345 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

permission to add Li's supernatural abilities

According to Li's biography [34], which is already on the references list, Li has many supernatural abilities, such as fly and teleport, this biography was attached to early editions of <Zhuan Fa Lun>. The following paragraph in the article cited the biography, but telling only about how many masters Li had, and ignored the most important part of the biography: what abilities Li learned from his masters.

According to the biography which appeared as an appendix to Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi had been taught ways of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) by several Masters of the Dao and the Buddhist schools of thought from a very young age. This biography says that he was trained by Quan Jue, the 10th Heir to the Great Law of the Buddha School, at age four. He was then trained by a Taoist master at age eight. This master left him at age twelve, and he was then trained by a master of the Great Way School with the Taoist alias of True Taoist, who came from the Changbai Mountains.

Should we at least mention these abilities from the biography? Any objections? Zixingche (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's not the place. If it's biographical, I can think of a more relevant place than this here article. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't have this section at all. Telling only part of Li's biography in the Falun Gong page is inappropriate, I suggest either tell all or tell nothing. And BTW: which article? Zixingche (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to state the obvious, so it's obviously this page. I'm not suggesting it necessarily belongs there, but depends on how you go about sourcing and presenting it - the biography you are referring to has been withdrawn, and the issue of its contents have been discussed at length on the talk page (if I recall correctly). Ohconfucius (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zixingche. Li's magical abilities are important to mention, seeing as he is such a central figure in FG. The article about Jesus states that "Over the course of his ministry, Jesus is said to have performed various miracles, including healings, exorcisms, walking on water, turning water into wine, and raising several people, such as Lazarus, from the dead". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well on the comparison, but is it mentioned in the article about Christianity? PerEdman (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much. There's a brief mention of miracles at the end of the section Christianity#Jesus the Christ, and a lot of discussion of the resurrection (which is a different beast, as it's critical to most views of the religion). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the resurrection is a different beast. It is a much larger beast, but it is nevertheless a claim of the supernatural. Will anyone agree with me that it would be reasonable to at least mention the claims of Li's supernatural abilities in the Falun Gong article, as similar claims are represented about purported abilities in other ... ah ... spiritual movements? PerEdman (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you know he never showed off. He teaches how people should build up virtue primarily and as a side note mentions that these can help bring forward your innate supernormal abilities. If you want to make from Li Hongzhi a David Copperfield, I think that would not be quite right, would it? If you want to mention somewhere, that he teaches that through virtue people can obtain supernormal abilities, that would be I think correct and quite factual, but also would be advertisement, don't you think? Anyway he also teaches that supernormal abilities can not be shown off. If you're interested in what he's saying, see "Why Doesn’t Your Gong Increase with Your Practice?" [35] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi's own words about Falun Gong and supernormal ability

(source: Zhuan Fa Lun)

self-inducing thermo-nuclear reaction inside Li's own body

Lecture 2, section "Transcending the Five Elements and the Three Realms", paragraph 3:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture2.html

"I have also been tested, and the detected radiation of the generated gamma rays and thermal neutrons was eighty to one hundred seventy times more than normal matter."

Li created a planet (Falun Gong Paradise) somewhere in Milky Way

Lecture 3, section "The Buddha School Qigong and Buddhism", paragraph 9:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"Sakyamuni, Buddha Amitabha, and the Great Sun Tathagata each have their own paradises for saving people. In our Milky Way, there are over one hundred such paradises. Our Falun Dafa also has a Falun Paradise."

Li's ability to cure illnesses

Lecture 3, section "What Has Teacher Given to Practitioners?", paragraph 1:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at exercise sites will have my fashen to cure their illnesses."

Li's Fa Wheel descending from the sky to save disciples from danger

Lecture 3, section "What Has Teacher Given to Practitioners?", paragraph 15-17:

http://falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

"There are so many of these cases that they cannot be numbered. Yet no danger has occurred. Not everyone will encounter these kinds of things, but some individuals will run into them. Whether you come across them or not, I can assure you that you will not be in any danger—I can guarantee this."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop breaking the discussion chains with your own headers and insertions. You should respect their form, since people will easily get confused about when they were posted. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? I say again that the Falun Gong Wikipedia article is not a forum for Li Hongzhi's opinion on what are the interesting parts of the faith, but what may be interesting to newcomers and people who seek to know more about the movement without learning it FROM the movement. As such, I believe it is important to bring up the claims of supernatural abilities in the Wikipedia article, as they are spectacular and of interest regardless of whether Li Hongzhi agrees that they are. PerEdman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my post? I did not object for you to mention this :) and I also did tell you from where you can inform yourself better to be as close to the fact as possible :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you refered solely to a POV source as a way to "inform" someone in a discussion about how to make a better wikipedia article, and I objected to it. Was that in any way unclear? PerEdman (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think as long as we keep in mind that these articles aren't a playground for ridiculing the practice, or promoting it, things will be fine. All that has to be done is report Li's supernatural claims within their context in Falun Gong, and certainly within the wider qigong and supernaturalist discourse in mainland China at the time. It is not about making it seem silly or funny, nor about somehow downplaying supernatural elements. These are also not the focus of what Falun Gong teaches, which I think has been repeated a couple of times. The teachings page needs significant revision anyway. Anyway, are there concrete proposals for how the page should look, for now? Alunsalt has set up a page here for proposals etc.. --Asdfg12345 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

Just a heads up, but a couple of science blogs are canvassing their readers to come to this article and fight a battle:

Wikipedians, "Check This Out" - "Edit wars against cultists are hard to win decisively."
P.Z. Myers, "Wiki Warriors wanted" - "Martin is in a protracted Wikipedia battle with a cult, Falun Gong...so you might want to help him out.

--Calton | Talk 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment caught my eye. Gives a good depiction of what kind of people we're dealing with.

"Success in an edit war depends on how well you present your case. In most rationalist-vs-nutcase scenarios, the good-guys will present their case calmly and formally, and will base their arguments around documented Wikipedia policy. Meanwhile, the bad-guys will resort to hysteria and mudslinging. Similarly, when it comes the the article itself, the good-guys will continue to make dispassionate and encyclopedic edits, whilst the bad-guys will get more extreme and more hysterical. When it comes to arbitration, the good-guys will win.

Unfortunately, if seems as if these Falun-Gong cultists known how to play the system. If you want to win, you must outplay them. A comment such as "this article is biased nonsense" is precisely useless. Instead, you must attack it in a systematic, formal and dispassionate manner, with each point being clearly explained and based around documented Wikipedia policy. Eventually, they will slip-up and reveal themselves as the foaming lunatics they are. Once that happens, the good-guys (if sufficiently prepared) will win."

Right. How unfortunate that we Falun-Gong cultists know how to wipe the foam off our raving mouths. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Naughty naughty! While WP:CANVAS states canvassing within wikipedia should not take place, it is clearly meant to deter this type of behaviour in spirit, and could potentially get the canvasser banned from Wikipedia for good. I don't want that to happen, so I would urge Martin to take his blog entry rally cry off-line, PDQ. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Naughty yourself for attempting to persuade a person critical of Falun Gong to remove his blog post calling for support. If this were the other way around, I'm not so sure a similar cry for censorship would be approved. If the content of a wikipedia article CAN be "attacked" in a systematic, formal and dispassionate matter, with each point clearly explained and based around documented wikipedia policy, then the article can only improve as a result. The best you can do, Olaf Stephanos (I don't know you, Ohconfucius) is the very same thing. PerEdman (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This will only work to balance the tone and factual content of this article. 99.232.18.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters the article is protected, so there is no worry in having a lot of angry newbies mess up the page. Other then that a call in having experienced Wikipedians edit the page, that is just great I think, since hopefully they are not all biased in one way :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the links posted above slightly funny and disturbing. It doesn't matter what you think about it Edman or 99.232.18.41, it's against the rules.--Asdfg12345 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines are guidelines for wikipedia, not for how to behave on your own blog, meaning I don't buy Ohconfucius interpretation of the "spirit" of the guidelines, at all. If a call for contributions can result in more interested, motivated and knowledgable writers joining the article, that is a good thing. If the article is instead nigh-unknown and contributed to only by a stubborn few who are more or less vocal PROPONENTS of the subject topic, the article will almost certainly become POV. If you actively do not want any writers of a different opinion, please say so instead of accusing someone of off-wiki on-wiki canvasing, which is just absurd.

There is a problem on ALL subjects where one party in a discourse are much more motivated than the other. People who love and cherish something are much more likely to want to "defend" it and give it the shiniest polish possible than people who are disinterested or even against it. This tendency conflicts greatly with the purported principles of wikipedia. Luckly, most of the time it isn't an issue because wikipedians move around from article to article and everyone is free to edit. But it does become an issue when only a chosen few have the stamina to remain on one page, babysitting it, deciding among themselves (due to shared ideals or otherwise) what goes and what does not. I am not saying that is the situation we have now - I am saying more motivated wikipedians paying attention to the article can only improve it, and I say your fear of the very same thing is extremely telling. PerEdman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A second comment on Ohconfucius above. At first I dismissed the reference to WP:CANVAS out of hand because I remembered quite clearly that it refers only to inter-wiki mass-recipient messaging, distinguishing between friendly notices on one end of the spectrum, to disruptive canvassing for support at the other end. But since ASDFG12345 seemed to agree with the interpretation of the "spirit" of WP:CANVAS, I decided to read it again regardless.

It turns out my first interpretation was right. I even checked the talk page. Please read it before refering to it again. In fact, please read any wikipedia guidelines before trying to force it on someone else with the assumption that they haven't read it, or have already broken a rule. Remember not to trust an authority on its authority and do not try to be that authority. PerEdman (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it, just?? Check this out! It's pretty clear to me that, whilst not exactly stealthy in the real sense, it is pretty much covered. I don't think anyone, yourself and Martin included, is denying he's canvassing, going so far as to talk about "winning" and "losing" edit wars. Not only is this totally lacking in good faith, it is disruptive and not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia.

"Whilst not exactly stealthy in the real sense", but in some made-up sense? No, it's not covered. It's neither stealthy, nor on-wiki, it is a call for contributions and is, if we in any way see Jimbo Wales as any sort of voice for acceptable wikipedia behavior, a perfectly normal way of driving a discussion on or off wikipedia. Take another look at the WP:CANVAS talk page, go down to Overly prescriptive and follow the arguments. In other words, stop trying to bash people over the head with guidelines rather than actually argue for your opinion. PerEdman (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to add that I am not endorsing censorship, but a little self-restraint on his part. Dr Rundqvist is free to say on his blog what he likes about Falun Gong just like the rest of us, but what he should refrain from doing is to rally people from the outside to wikipedia with aggressive battle-talk, clearly intended to support "his side" of the argument inside wikipedia. There are plenty of biased articles here on wikipedia, and some are more zealously guarded than others. It can at times be frustrating - I know, I have been "struggling" in this series of articles for many months. However, I still don't agree with crying left and right for help like he has done, preferring to let the {{NPOV}} and {{disputed}} tags do their work, like they are supposed to. I don't disagree with the substance of MR's gripes, just the form of how he's going about it is totally up the creek. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-order?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alunsalt/Falun_Gong Rather than start a new edit war with a change, I'll point to the draft of the re-ordered FG page, which pushes beliefs up and also includes a referenced link to why its recent history is important. Opinions on POV etc welcome. It doesn't change a lot of the text. There are a few {{Fact}} tags, but some of these may be due to strange copy problems moving it into my personal folder. The only section that comes out dreadfully is is the 3rd party views which is very uncited. Alunsalt (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I think that version would be a definite improvement. I might just consider not undoing the edit if you put that version in. At least not immediately. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on that one to reach consensus. Haven't seen it yet. Will take a look and perhaps make changes.--Asdfg12345 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep I made some comments there. Thanks for putting it up.--Asdfg12345; 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the re-ordered version live. Obviously it still needs work. A few comments.

I've cut the POV commentary from the link to the Xinhua site. I'd be surprised if it wasn't following the CCP party line but that's clearly a judgement on my part and I'm not being neutral if I leave it in. I realise Asdfg12345 disagrees but adding similar POV commentaries on FG links saying they are propaganda would be unacceptable, and so the same has to go here. A better label may be By Xinhua, the Official Chinese News Agency or similar and leave the reader to make a judgement about it.

The importance or otherwise of FG teaching on race, sex etc depends on where you stand. If you're a mixed-race lesbian then you're quite possibly going to have a very different view than a straight male. I've not put in information about the sexist teachings because they are not currently an issue. To do so would smack of journalism. In contrast the homosexual comments are a live issue. As I understand it FG believes homosexuality is a behaviour which should be corrected. If we describe it like that it puts in in the neighbourhood of regimes like Iran and people like Fred Phelps. In comparison the edit I've put up is very mild, but I'm happy that it could be improved.

The degree of persecution is important and belongs in the article, but if we feature it heavily in the opening then we're right back at the POV impasse, because some people would argue that any belief system that encourages suicide is a danger. I think crediting the reader with some intelligence would be a good idea. I think we should assume they can read that 66% of reported torture cases are related to Falun Gong and work out how serious the persecution is. Alunsalt (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

one thing: it isn't biased to note that the Xinhua articles about Falun Gong were those published as part of the propaganda campaign against the practice. This isn't controversial. It's widely documented and widely known. Can I please request that you read The Persecution of Falun Gong page, for some context to this issue. --Asdfg12345 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong doesn't encourage suicide. What are you talking about? I strongly disagree with those edits, too. I suggest you please enumerate proposed edits and we'll discuss them. E.g.

1. say Falun Gong is a religion in the lead

2. remove information about the persecution from the introduction

etc.. The changes you are asking for are very significant, I am sure many editors would appreciate some discussion. There's a lot to say about all the points you have mentioned above there, but I am keen to keep the discussion on specific points of how the article is proposed to change. The wider issues will develop from that. I am all for changing it, but I we ought to discuss what those changes will be. --Asdfg12345 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the fact that you added {{fact}} tags into the article, because all those need to solved, to have an article that is more airtight. However the rest of it I would have preferred instead of taking copy/paste a version like the reorder as you think it more relevant, to leave it some room to discuss first.

For example you say that when people search about Falun Gong their are interested more about the teaching part ... In the current context of history where a genocide is going on China against this group the Theoretical base and debate may or may not be very relevant at this point ... and so I see for example that the chronological order makes more sense. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For the lead section to stay neutral, I also believe that the persecution stuff and stuff about organ harvesting in the lead should go. All that should remain are the demonstration by 10,000 practitioners led to the ban. I don't believe we should be continually edit-warring over whether FG is a "spiritual practice" or "religion". I think "spiritual practice" is more acceptable - after all, nobody refers to Yoga or Qigong as 'religions'. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had an idea. What about lifting the "Persecution against Falun Gong" into a separate section? If it's so important, but not the heart and soul of the movement, doesn't it deserve to be treated in a separate section, rather than taking up room in the first paragraph anyone will read?

I have no opinion on whether it's a religion or a spiritual practice. PerEdman (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you believe the persecution stuff should disappear from the intro? In my view, this is the most notable thing about Falun Gong out there. Most would not know of Falun Gong in the west if it weren't for the persecution. How many pre-1999 news articles do you see about Falun Gong? It's the most notable thing in this whole story, so I think it should definitely be made clear in the introduction. It shouldn't overwhelm it though, I agree, but it should be given its due, for sure. Don't you think? --Asdfg12345 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to remove the persecution and organ harvesting stuffs from the lead section, because with these stuffs the article will never be neutral. Not to mention that the organ harvesting stuffs are from a questionable source, and without any physical evidence.Zixingche (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Oconfucius about tilting the article's neutrality. Also there shouldn't be any more waring on weither Falun Gong is controversial - there are notable sources supporting this, such as this:

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

Asdfg's objection appears to be made in bad faith. Just look at the edit history and Asdfg's current POV dispute with two editors (including myself) in another article (Falun Gong and organ harvesting. All I am trying to do is add fact that is cited from accepted source, and Asdfg keeps blanking it.)

This is really shameful and I can no longer assume good faith. Anyone wish to start arbritration I will be gladly to make my case on the record. Or else show me how to start an arbritration process.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of religion / spiritual practice the reason I went for religion is that two verifiable reliable sources who are Sinologists describe Falun Gong as a religion. The references are in the article. These are 3rd party sources. What I have also done is included the fact that practitioners of Falun Gong and the CCP do not describe it as a religion. As Asdfg12345 points out there are attempts at propaganda and the best defences against this are to follow WP:V and WP:RS. Otherwise we could have a nutter come in, cite a whole load of CCP publications and turn this into an anti-FG diatribe.

Regarding the persecution, this is happening. It's a verifiable fact and belongs in the lead. I think Ohconfucius makes a good case that the ban followed a protest of 10,000 people. It puts the ban in context. I think we can even add in a reference of tens of thousands of detentions from Amnesty International. Unfortunately we cannot include references to harassment in Singapore because that would be journalism and would also violate WP:SOAP. Similarly I've tried tracking 3rd party claims of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners and this does not seem to come from a verifiable or reliable source. It's specifically been tested and failed to be verified if you follow the references. The sources are either FG or FG-sponsored groups. There are news stories about organ harvesting in China, but I have not found a single one which argues that FG has been specifically targeted for this. The closest I've found is this story from Al Jazeera which if you read is another FG claim. Now how do we tackle this? We could briefly note that the Chinese authorities have been accused of organ harvesting and link through to Organ harvesting in China. I think including details of the allegations and the rebuttals in this article would be better, as far as WP:SOAP allows. Putting Media Representations of Falun Gong below this would follow neatly because it would then lead onto the CCP propaganda campaign and from there we can tackle FG publicity stunts.

As far as labelling links to CCP sites as propaganda this is a bad idea. We could do it. In the interests of balance we could then list all FG links as propaganda and supportive sites as FG sockpuppets. The problem I have with this is that it then turns the article into a pro/anti-FG battleground. What we should be aiming for is consensus. An edit war will not get the article into Wikipedia 1.0 or get it Featured Article status. Consensus will.

As for the edit Asdfg1235 objected to, I can't apologise without sounding sarcastic. I interpret comments like I'm happy to work on that one to reach consensus and Thanks for putting it up. as positive noises. In the future if something is disliked then phrases like I have reservations and would like to discuss it more or No there are serious problems with that edit would be more helpful. Alunsalt (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief note, even though I'm taking a day off Wikipedia: "Organ harvesting has been inflicted on a large number of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners at a wide variety of locations, for the purpose making available organs for transplant operations. Vital organs including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas were systematically harvested from Falun Gong practitioners at Sujiatan [sic] Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, beginning in 2001." (Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, 20 March 2007) ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem - if that's true, there will be a lot of egg on faces at the United States Department of State and the Congressional Research Service. How come Manfred found so much when the others didn't? Sorry Olaf, you'll have to help me out a little more.... I did not find a copy of this report on the UN website, and I do not trust the other sources I found. Where might I find the entire report? Ohconfucius (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oconfucius, Nowak's UN report is being misquoted by Olaf and FLG in general. Here's the report, and the quoted portion is merely catalogue of allegation made by FLG:

http://falunhr.org/reports/UN2007-org/Torture-UN-07.pdf (page 60, para 40, under "allegation transmitted and government response")

As you can see, Nowak also catalogued Chinese government's refutation of Falun Gong's allegation, which Falun Gong choose not to mention.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I stand corrected. I did not have access to the original source at the moment, and I acted in good faith. Nevertheless, you should note that the report is found from Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group's website. Nobody's intentionally trying to hide the fact that the Chinese Government has completely denied the allegations, or that they are mentioned in this particular section of Nowak's report.

You are an interesting figure, Bobby, trying to refute the Tiananmen square massacre [36], as well as any factual basis of the alleged organ harvesting. No wonder some ET journalists suspected you are working for the Man. Well, some of them might a little trigger-happy in that regard, but your record seems pretty... surreptitious. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, Your comments on Bobby is indeed inappropriate, Bobby comes up with the original document and show us the fact that FLG wants to hide. Please, personal attack is not good anyway, and please do not judge people on assumption, otherwise I would say that I suspected you are paid by Falun Gong and financially supported by anti-China funds. Let's just talk about the topic and contribute to the article. Zixingche (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior only serves to make it obvious what sort of personal POV stake you have in this article, Olaf. Either you stand corrected or you just groundlessly attacked Bobby on an unrelated subject, because he corrected your significantly incomplete quote from a UN report. Which is it? PerEdman (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just got a new Bugatti Veyron and a bling-bling diamond ring with my fair share of the Anti-China Funds. Darn, it's so awesome when they really start paying you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, the reason you're going after me is becaue you have nothing to say about the facts presented. If you have any facts on your hand, show me ONE FLG-related group using the Nowak report in an unbaised fashion. They are ALL doing what you did, misquoting the catalog of allegation as proof of Nowak's support.

Really, let's see if you can come up with just ONE source to prove me wrong.

BTW, my TAM blog refers to a TAM retrospective from Columbia School of Journalism titled "The Myth of Tiananmen And the Price of a Passive Press"

http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/98/5/tiananmen.asp

You should read it.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just referred to the website of Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group. But surely they must be twisting and turning that information, so tell me Bob, how come you accept that PDF file as a valid source?! ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are mis-quoting this report just like you did. Go ahead prove me wrong. You haven't come up with one yet. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Where are they misquoting that report? Link, please. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, he already linked you to the PDF! Now is not the time to start acting stupid after acting smart for so long. PerEdman (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about, Per Edman. Bobby linked me to the appendix (PDF) of Nowak's original report on FGHRWG's website, and I asked for further information about where it had been misquoted. We are currently having discussions on this matter with the editors. They said that the newsletter (see below) had been relayed to Nowak before it was published, and he did not object to it. But I don't think it's a fair representation of the text. There are some complicated issues related to what kind of allegations the Special Rapporteurs agree to transmit to the governments. As far as I've been told, the allegations must be plausible in their eyes before they agree to transmit them, and the organ harvesting claims were reiterated not by one but three UN Special Rapporteurs. Nevertheless, I understand and generally agree with Bobby's concerns, but I'll get back to this issue later. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, that's a really lame excuse. Nowak also cataloged Chinese government's repudiation, does that mean he support the repudation too? This is not the only example of Epoch Times' biased journalism. They used a photo of a woman suffering from advanced breast cancer as evidence of sexual torture. If you are reall into Truth, take the photo to any encologist you trust. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The best thing you could do is to give me links to such pictures. I can't do anything without seeing them. And please stop accusing "Falun Gong" for things like that. That's pretty close to how the racists think. The only responsibility lies on the shoulders of those individuals who have not been truthful, or whose professionalism calls for closer scrunity. "Falun Gong" is not some entity. Unfortunately, sexual torture of FLG practitioners does happen in China. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, here's the Epoch Times article in question:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-10-21/33602.html

And here's the physician who reviewed the photo, unfortunately it's a blog:

http://rambodoc.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/is-the-falun-gong-going-wrong/

And I don't believe it is racist to say "Falun Gong". It's like saying "Cathololic Church" - Epoch Times NY's funding, and affiliation with various Falun Dafa associations in US is a demonstratable fact.

I don't doubt your sincerety when you say "does happen", but do you have any factual citation, and contxt of such facts?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Example of Falun Gong Mis-quoting Nowak

Olaf, here it is:

http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1644&Itemid=

FLGHR did the same thing you did, cite this report not as catalog, but fact supporing the claim (paragrapn 1 & 2).

Now you owe me one example where FLG affiliates is not mis-using Nowak's report that merely catalog allegation and refutation. Time to do some homework buddy. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Bobby, it seems you are right here. FGHRWG has misquoted Nowak, and this inaccurate information has spread to several other articles as well. That's pretty lame on their part. I am not interested in defending such unprofessionalism, and I'll definitely contact them. Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, on the other hand, has issued a more truthlike report: "In the most recently released UN Annual Report, some investigation activities of the UN special rapporteurs on the organ harvesting atrocities and some official correspondent letters were disclosed. According to this report, on August 11, along with Nowak (special rapporteur on Torture) and Sigma Huda (Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons), Asma Jahangir, the special rapporteur on freedom of religion, questioned the Chinese Communist regime regarding the organ harvesting allegations. Below is the original appeal document." [37] All in all, even if Manfred Nowak hasn't corroborated the claims, he has stated in an interview that "the two Canadians are drawing clear conclusions. The chain of evidence they are documenting shows a coherent picture that causes concern". [38] Moreover, I haven't seen any attempts to systematically invalidate the chain of evidence. I spoke with Kilgour in October, and he was still waiting for the Chinese government's conclusive response. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, can you not cite somebody's blog? If you recall YOU were the one objecting stuff this. Anyway you even picked a peach of a blog - It is written by Canadian super FLG disciple Makina Beauregard. I'm sure you quoted a die-hard FLG disciple's personal blog "in good faith" 8-)

And did you see FLG disciple Makina Beauregard linked to another personal blog? I thought you sad some dude paying for a websit doesn't count???

Honestly, I would love to know what Epoch Times' reply is. Not once have I seen the Nowak report used fairly in Epoch/NTDTV/Sound of Hope. I have contacted them in good faith many times, and they've more or less refused to retract/correct any story. They get money from Falun Gong, and propagandize for FLG - it is a fact they are not credible (I have notable source that back this up, want to see it?)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited the blog on this talk page and did not even try to use it in the article. I seriously don't think that the Epoch Times or any of these sites are deliberately spreading fallacious or inaccurate information. I really don't. The problem is that not all of these journalists are professionals, and that's why they have occasionally made some stupid mistakes. I'm not blind to that fact, but I also know that their intentions are good. They have gotten better with time, and I wish they'll get even better and more professional in the future. I can only say that the CCP's persecution could have implications you don't take seriously at the moment, Bobby. Falun Gong practitioners are good people who have been put into an extremely challenging position. They're trying very hard to defend their own kith and kin, so perhaps you should try to understand these matters from their perspective as well. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when ET will retract/correct their mis-quote on Nowak. AFAIK these "good people" are still forsakening FLG's principle of Truthfullness and playing the ugliest kind of poitics.

"We are not professionals" was the last and only retort I ever got from ET people like Chris Jasurek and Gregory Stephens. If they are truely interested in facts, not politics, they would have retracted blatant errors.

I wish you people luck, I really do. I used to be sympathetic to FLG's cause, until one day in Chinatown some old lady cussed me out as being a "Chinese spy" when I pointed out something inaccurate in the flyer she shoved in my face.

You people are hurting your own cause when you hijack wiki page and POV it to the point facts are no longer allowed, and this page is essentially FLG promoationa material - no one will take you serioiusely.

This is my honest advise to you. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hah. I like the cut of your jib, Alun. I just don't want you to put in unverified or highly disputed or biased information in the lead without discussion. I also don't want to say mean things or discourage you. I don't mean to send mixed messages. Sometimes if I write frankly it may seem that I am being a bit cold. You're a clever guy, in future I'll shoot straight. Anyway, I'm going to make some changes to the lead now. I will not press the 'undo' or 'revert' buttons. I wish you would discuss significant changes before making them. Besides, practitioners did not appeal at Zhongnanhai because of He Zuoxiu's article. They appealed at Zhongnanhai because when they peacefully appealed to He Zuoxiu the riot squad came, beat them and arrested them. This followed years of harassment, including having publication of the books banned, exercise sites broken up including with water cannons, etc.. You can read about it on the persecution page, if you like. What I'm saying is traceable to reliable sources (I'm pretty sure!). I will now remove the reason for the protest, and not include a longer explanation. If an explanation for the Zhongnanhai protest is demanded then we can see what to do from there. --Asdfg12345 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't want unverified material in the lead. Can you explain why you reverted religion to spiritual practice when I provided two references (one from David Ownby who you seem quite happy with) and you provided zero? I'll be honest I think that either word suffers a bit from a translation problem. Some Chinese concepts don't map neatly onto Western concepts which is why we have to use Chinese words. The reason I ask thought is because I think the principle of verifiable third party sources is important. If we allow the use of personal opinion and unreliable sources then the only defence this article has from being wrecked by people on an anti-FG spree is that so far they haven't all come at once. Alunsalt (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun, you are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on Asdfg's POV and DE. Check the "Falun Gong and organ harvesting" article's edit history, you'll see. I'm speaking from personal experience Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing genocide aka: "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group." going on in China right now against the group, and you want to hide it? That should be the last thing any human should do see: Genocide#Stages_of_genocide_and_efforts_to_prevent_it --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

HappyInGeneral, can i kindly ask you to stop repeating the word "genocide" unless you can provide some evidence. Zixingche (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it;" [39], please click on the word eradicate; also check out what is happening in China right now: "Door-to-door Arrests" and "Rewards for Identifying Falun Gong Adherents" article dated: March 12, 2008 [40] and a reward system put in place offering up to 500-3,000 yuan (roughly USD $60-$360) for identifying Falun Gong practitioners to the authorities, see: [41]. Do you need any more proof? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

eradicate != genocide. all links you provided say nothing about genocide, please stop saying genocide. Zixingche (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And, considering all the crimes Falun Gong people did in China (hijack satellite TV system, hijack Cable TV system, damage legal tenders etc), there is nothing wrong with the police reward to arrest these criminals. Zixingche (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean communist party activities like cultural revolution shouldn't count as crime? They hijacked THE ENTIRE CHINESE CULTURE for some 20 years. FG doesn't even compare. Benjwong (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, CCP sucks, I know, but no matter how suck CCP is, or even if CCP is the suckest party in the world, it still does not make Falun Gong a good religion, still, Falun Gong is a cult, and that's nothing to do with CCP. And please, stay on topic. Zixingche (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

Eradication may also refer to:

Genocide, the deliberate, systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group of people

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is genocide because it's a deliberate, systematic destruction of a spiritual/religious group of people as far as my edits are concerned on the article they will follow closely what the sources say. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It says "May", which is May NOT in this cases, using the word "genocide" you are comparing CCP to Nazi, I don't like CCP but the fact is CCP isn't that evil! In fact CCP did a right thing to ban Falun Gong, unless you can come up with a source states that all Falun Gong people are killed by CCP, please stop using that word! Zixingche (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

From a quick search see here: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13199 [42] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also from wikipedia Eradication means "Eradication is the elimination or destruction of a thing or group." Which is the same as Genocide "the deliberate, systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group of people", or you have a problem that in genocide this is done as a deliberate, systematic action? Take a look to "Statements of the Government of China" [43] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One can "eradicate" many things, such as a religion, a movement or a political party without killing anyone, while a "genocide" always means that people get killed until there are none of their kit and kin left in the world. To say that China is trying to eradicate Falun Gong would be OK with me. But to say that in addition to attempting to eradicate Falun Gong that they are also trying to kill every single practicioner, that would take quite a bit of evidence before I would agree to the wording of. 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Genocide (emphases mine): "While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of this defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...whereas "eradicate" could mean the attempt at stopping the religious movement without any of the extreme measures above. What was it you objected to again? PerEdman (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

According to verifiable third-party reports, Falun Gong practitioners are killed; serious bodily and mental harm is systematically caused to those who are imprisoned; miserable life conditions are inflicted to such practitioners, and they are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of these individuals; and several women have been forced to abort. I don't know about the last part about transferring children, but it surely smells like genocide to me. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"According to verifiable thrid-party reports", Olaf can you again back up your claim with some factual citation, so you are not in "good faith" mis-representing whatever you read, or Falun Gong cooked up (like the Nowak quote???).

Here's an article unflattering to the Chinese government that speaks to the fact western anti-cult experts were consulted in the Chinese government's effort to deprogam Falun Gong disciples:

http://bernie.cncfamily.com/acm/falun_gong_deprogramming.htm

Falun Gong disciples who break laws are sent to deprogramming centers via custodial detention (also known as Laogai). Cult deprogramming is a debatable subject, but what is true is disciples are only dead in the sense the sect loses hold on these people after deprogramming - with their organs intact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You talk about "Falun Gong disciples who break laws", and I suspect that you're being deliberately ambiguous. The article clearly states that it's not about behaviour, it's about belief (emphasis mine): "The classical anti-cult argument is used: people are not detained for their belief, but for their behavior. This is of course a fallacious argument, as the behavior in this case consisted of taking part in the activities of a group made arbitrarily illegal." In addition, you choose to use the words "custodial detention" and "laogai" instead of the plain English "forced labor camp" or "brainwashing center". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, these terms are not widely used, and are POV pushing on your part. The fact is deprogramming is a debatable subject, and Laogai is the proper term and it is factual that Laogai's legal basis is Custodial Detention, a western common law conecept. Please do yourself a Truthful favor - STOP POV pushing and stick to the facts. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved lead discussion

After Asdf's edit, I wish to make the following changes to the intro.

Remove value-judgement part of Penny's views, as no other person's value judgement of FG is mentioned in the intro.
Reintroduce the explanation for what it was those 10,000 people were protesting against.
Replace the litany about how the government persecutes FG with a shorter statement that they simply do.
Reintroduce the following:

"Organisations such as Amnesty International have condemned the suppression of Falun Gong and similar groups as "undermining the exercise of fundamental rights."^[1] Additionally there have been accusations that Falun Gong is a cult which manipulates the media.^{[citation needed]}"

Anybody, feel free to make the suggested changes. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note, Martin, I moved this down since I even missed this, and thought others might. I considered moving mine up, but thought it would be more sensible this way. Some points on the lead changes:

propose having the straight info about Falun Gong itself first off, followed by scholarly interpretations. I don't think this second paragraph can get any bigger.

I think the Penny thing is very relevant. The persecution of Falun Gong turned Chinese society upside down, and the regime was spending a significant portion of GDP on building labor camps, paying people off, etc., and what has happened in 10 years will have a large bearing on China's future. What the Party has tried to do has destabilised Chinese society, and at that time threw into a mess many of the basic things needed for the society to develop soundly, such as an independent judiciary, etc.. All this is well backed up and widely documented in the literature. I only found Penny's remarks recently. This isn't praising Falun Gong, but appraising the situation that has arisen. Just some thoughts.

The persecution of Falun Gong is the biggest human rights abuse in China. I don't think there's time to waste mentioning how two organisations which advocated the practice methods were banned. The point is that after the protest, a significant fact, two months later they had the 610 office kicking down doors and putting tens of thousands into prison in the middle of the night. From that point on everything changes and the whole CCP machinery turned on Falun Gong full swing. Failing to note that there is widespread torture, that there are hundreds of thousands of practitioners now in labour camps, and that they've also been stuffed into psychiatric institutes strikes me as too inadequate. We should share thoughts on this. The organ harvesting has now been taken out the introduction. I think this is also mistaken, but don't want to seem too pushy.

We ought to move through the article methodically and nut it out section by section. This is a start. Hope it helps. --Asdfg12345 14:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further points:

It's an interesting remark about Penny. I guess we can only make this on consensus. I think it's highly relevant given the context of Falun Gong, what has happened in China, and his status. He is one of the foremost scholars on Falun Gong, so his words come with serious weight. You will not finding him praising Falun Gong, but he does a lot of analysis of it. I couldn't argue a rule for this here, I just think it's useful for readers to immediately grasp the situation. If there are similar comments in Ownby and other relevant scholars, this may be a point to make. Not sure for now, eh.

made some comments above about the persecution remarks. I think it's a real danger to either 1) overdo it with emotive stuff, or 2) make it seem like it's not actually as severe as it is, or mince words on minor things like "ban", etc.. Mainly responded to above. It wouldn't be an issue if Falun Gong was only "banned". It's the torture, forced labour, and psychiatric abuses on a mass scale that makes it all rather shocking and notable.

Can you let me know what other point is not responded to? Did you think it was good to move the scholars to a second paragraph?--Asdfg12345 14:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro now contains a brief discussion of what FG really is. Three scholars are quoted on the subject. Alun and I have repeatedly tried to insert a sentence to the effect that additionally, many people regard FG as a "destructive" or "pernicious" cult. I have referenced this with a Time Magazine piece headed "Spiritual Society or Evil Cult?". This article indicates clearly that viewing FG as an evil cult is not uncommon. I chose a less damning word than "evil", preferring to say "pernicious". This is in the context of a discussion about what FG is, and I do not suggest that the article should state as a fact that it is an evil cult.

I'm putting this back again, and, as it is referenced to a reputable source, I do not expect it to get deleted.

Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, Martin, or don't you really know what "pernicious" means? It has a really archaic sense to it, as if Falun Gong was the incarnation of some archaic evil. It's extremely dehumanizing. The word "evil cult", xiejiao, is originally uttered by Jiang Zemin (he said it in France after the persecution started). Actually, the literal meaning of the Chinese term is "heretical religion". We should stick to what the sources say, not invent some new expressions based on our preferences, see Wikipedia:No original research. And it is explicitly forbidden to state "many/some people think..." or anything like that, have another look at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Other problems. The correct form is: X says Y in Z. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a problem in that we don't all speak the same variant of English. I learned English in the UK where pernicious means seriously harmful rather than evil. I know it has an archaic meaning of evil, and that American English is in some ways archaic viewed from the UK. While I think Martin's description is milder I can see how many people wouldn't. Reluctantly I agree with Olaf Stephanos and say we should go back to the source which is evil. I think that's overly harsh but Olaf is right, attempting to ameliorate the term is probably POV. Alunsalt (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf Stephanos, your word association is not the absolute truth, but luckily there are many useful synonyms for pernicious that we can use instead... unless it turns out, of course, that you can find fault with all of them. Instead of repeating your argument against weasel words, might I ask you to provide coherent arguments against the actually listed sources? PerEdman (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If z=valid by {WP:V,WP:NOR,WP:NPOV} then get x (z); get y (z); print x," says ",y," in ",z; verify x,y (z).

That should be pretty straightforward. We can report what reliable, verifiable sources have said, precisely and only that, also on the level of individual words. Who, what, where. No generalizations, no elaborations, no original research. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And since the injected text is now V, NOR and NPOV, we could simply restructure the text to correspond to the Olaf Accepted format, and we'll be hunky-dory. Perfect. Unless, of course, you want to apply your formula (including NPOV, of course) to the rest of the article as well, right away. You'd have to do it yourself since I can't and wouldn't edit the article. PerEdman (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the lead:

"Additionally there have been accusations that Falun Gong is a pernicious cult.^[2]

MRun wrote:

"Time Mag piece documents clearly that some people think FG is an "evil cult""

The time article is small enough and I have read it a couple of times already, can you please show me who are those some people portrayed in the article who think FG is an "evil cult""? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also please note that the word "pernicious" can not be found in the source and the "evil cult" sequence is a question, is not a statement. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found two secondary sources which refer to FG as an undesirable cult or sect. I hope that helps clear up that problem, but if we need a third we can pull in Randi. Additionally it turns out Benjamin Penny thinks Falun Gong is a religion as far as western understanding goes. We now have three Sinologists who say it's a religion: Haar, Ownby and Penny. Hopefully we can now move on to improving other parts of the article. I'd rather not have to cite literature supportive of the Falun Gong in triplicate, but if that's what they other editors feel it needs then that's what I'll do. I'm just concerned that if we do stick to a triple-cite rule and WP:RS then we'll have very little on FG beliefs and masses on its fight against the Chinese government, which I think would be misrepresenting the FG and playing into the Chinese government hands. Alunsalt (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem mentioning how Falun Gong is understood by various sinologists, the practitioners themselves, the Chinese government, anti-"cult" warriors, and so forth. The real key issue is to mention how differently it is conceived, depending on the vantage point. There's no consensus at all, so to say. Why it's not a religion in everybody's eyes, and what definition of "religion" is being used when it's categorized as such - these are important questions that shouldn't be neglected. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello the intro is getting long ... I think we should summarize in equal parts.

about the practice, what are the core teachings
about the persecution
about third party views: critics and support

Do you think 3 paragraph's would be enough? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get rid of Penny's value judgement, re: "important phenomenon". Those words don't really mean anything. Is it praise? Is it cricitism? What does he mean, concretely? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We can mention the varying views on Falun Gong in the lead, but there is something called WP:DUE. I think the only mainstream person, no longer around, who says Falun Gong is a cult is Singer. You might also note that as far as I know, she never said a bad word against the persecution. It is terribly unfortunate that those who attack Falun Gong also have a tendency to downplay the nasty things happening to them in China. The other people I am aware of who deride Falun Gong are not sinologists or other relevant experts, but are downright doubtful, such as Patsy Rahn, a failed soap actress who wrote some negative things about FLG as an undergrad (surprise: she also says there is no persecution). I would say the difficulty in representing these views in a simple way should mean the introduction becomes extremely plain and only provides a broad outline, rather than specific comments. I would not, for instance, generally think Livia Kohn's remarks are all that appropriate for an introduction. But when fringe views are being so far elevated, there seems no choice. A few notes:

Please do not re-characterise Falun Gong as a religious practice in the second sentence. It is fine to provide third party commentary, but definitional power belongs to the subject. If it were not so, articles would be a mess, where you have competing and contested views vying to identify right from the start—they can actually only comment and analyse.

Please do not remove the small amount of wording which makes clear the extent of what is happening in China. There's no reason for this. It's the biggest human rights abuse in China, shown clearly by the facts. The lead should point out the main things associated with the subject.

Please do not remove Penny's characterisation of Falun Gong as a very important phenomena. There were over 70million practitioners in China at the peak of Falun Gong's popularity. The persecution has turned the whole society upside down. Falun Gong is now the largest dissident group outside and inside China. I can think of three high-level China scholars who have made this point about the importance of Falun Gong: Penny, Ownby, Arthur Waldron. There may be more.

Minority views such as Singers should not even be accorded a place in the introduction. I know deleting it will just cause indignance, so I have refrained from doing so, but I would urge everyone to read WP:DUE, and just think about the source situation here. You've got China scholars saying one thing, and a fringe group of "cult busters" and partisan sceptics, many with no academic credentials, who are not engaging in analysis or research, but merely rhetoric, on the other. I qualify that Singer's purported phone calls from 40 anonymous people is the most substantial thing I've seen. But this is saying something, because that's not substantial at all.--Asdfg12345 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

definitional power belongs to the subject Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that says this? WP:RS says that we should go for third party sources, which presumably explains why the O.J._Simpson entry starts the way it does. The source asdfg12345 briefly cited also calls Falun Gong a religion. The reason this is important is that secondary sources are needed if we want to gain GA status. Without GA status the distribution of this article will be limited. Personally I think deleting citations is probably a bad idea. Can asdfg12345 or anyone else explain under what situations deleting verifiable secondary sources is a good idea? We have the further problem that the Chinese Government has declared itself the authority on Buddhism over the Dalai Lama. If they do the same with Falun Gong does that mean they get the self-definition?

Without WP:RS then we're into an edit war between FG and the Chinese government. For instance I can point you to hundreds of pages which say Falun Gong is an evil cult. The reason I don't think they belong in the article is WP:RS. Wikipedia policy is a good idea on this occasion.

If the intro is such a problem I leave that to others to balance and I'll move onto the beliefs. Alunsalt (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, the reference I thought was deleted was on another line. Doh! I'll leave it to asdfg or someone else to reframe it as best they can. Alunsalt (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:ID. This also strikes me as making the most sense. It's not a question that Falun Gong is a spiritual practice, but there are clearly disagreements that it is religious. This is a matter of terminology and it needs some explanation. Or, we can just drop this, and call it a "high-level cultivation practice" as it says on falundafa.org. I think "spiritual practice" which appears in plenty of sources also and is quite neutral, should just stay.

I also share your great hesitancy in deleting verifiable sources. You must admit that difficulties will inevitably arise, on the other hand, if every verifiable source gets its say in the lead. These are complex issues that have to be resolved through discussion, consensus, and some understanding—or at least sincere attempt to understand—the subject. For example, I think fringe and minority views should not be given a prominent position, as they are now in the lead. The apparent controversy around Falun Gong comes from one main source: the persecution and the CCP's massive international propaganda campaign to vilify practitioners. This is basically the root of it. Without this, Falun Gong would not really be heard of too much in the West, and practitioners would just keep quietly doing their exercises and reading their books. Everything changed after July 99, and then you've got "cult-busters" jumping on the bandwagon. Falun Gong is a set of free teachings and exercises, and it's as simple as this. Real scholars are clear on this point, whereas the more sensationalist type figures make something out of nothing from aspects of Falun Gong's teachings, and share their unfounded opinions on whatever they like. Anyway, some issues.

I might also make a remark on the beliefs: it's not conceivable to expound on the beliefs of Falun Gong without close, and majority reference to the teachings themselves, even though it is a primary source. Primary sources are quite okay in articles about themselves. --Asdfg12345 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the link you mean is this one as WP:ID is (confusingly) about Indonesia. Having read that I'm happy with that line of argument, but it's not really my problem any more. Alunsalt (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

whoops, sorry, thanks! --Asdfg12345 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a valid source?

The following sentence in the article:

In 1994 Falun Gong was also being taught at the Chinese consulate in New York, as part of the Party's "cultural propaganda to the West" alongside Chinese silk and cooking.

referenced to this link Media and Internet Censorship in China, the referenced link is nothing but a program description, and the guest of the program is a spokesperson for Falun Gong, I don't think this is a valid source. Zixingche (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can listen to the program, I'm pretty sure. That radio program is among the most respected in Australia; Philip Adams is an A-list intellectual. Erping Zhang was talking about his experience in the New York consulate in 1994. It isn't made up, it's actually in quite a number of reliable sources that the CCP either tacitly or directly supported Falun Gong for several years, until it got too big.--Asdfg12345 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't listen to the program, there is not link to play the program, and considering who Zhang Erping is, I still do not believe this is a valid source. Zixingche (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And as you said, there are quite a number of reliable sources, would you please provide a better source?Zixingche (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We need more on beliefs

If you look at the other pages on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, and less so Buddhism then the thing they all push up at the front are the beliefs, teachings and practices. If you look at where this article was a week ago then it was politics first. That's a serious problem, especially when you look at the poverty of the Beliefs section in this article.

Basically I can read that the teachings are in a couple of books. There's a bit of Fa, and xinxing. I know there's a Teachings of Falun Gong page, but to some extent that looks like a POV-fork. If you wanted to portray FG as primarily an anti-CCP sect, the current article would be a good starting point. I appreciate the actions of the CCP are a major influence on FG, but they're not the defining influence are they? If someone asked you "Why practice Falun Gong?" would your answer be:

Because it promotes health, happiness and well-being.

or

Because the Chinese Communist Party doesn't want us to!

I think I made a mistake leaving Beliefs and Teachings in section 2. It should be section 1.

Including more information on beliefs doesn't automatically mean Teachings of Falun Gong gets deleted, though I think it may have WP:RS problems. What it does it it helps explain why Falun Gong matters. More on the beliefs will also reduce the impact of sections like homophobia which I know some editors are unhappy with by putting it in its wider context. That I think would be a more positive step than deleting anything anyone doesn't like. If the sections are written well then they could be seeds for further more discursive pages.

Right now the article is more about the politics surround Falun Gong rather than Falun Gong itself and I think that is be a major hurdle between the current article and GA status. If this article doesn't get GA or 1.0 status then it will not be going out on the DVD versions of Wikipedia.

So I propose we expand Beliefs and move Origins down below it so it sits with the history sections. But I haven't done it because I think this is where FG practioners can make a really positive contribution in moving this article forward. Alunsalt (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins and theoretical context must come first. They are extremely crucial information for providing a basic idea of what ontological area we're talking about, what happened before Falun Gong, and why certain matters are brought up in the teachings. Otherwise, it could seem like some random guy just invented a really weird story out of nowhere. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that they must come first, though I agree they are crucial information. Look at other articles on similar subjects; I am certain you will have a hard time leading a similar argument for comparable movements. That is, if you even believe there is such a thing as a movement comparable to Falun Gong. PerEdman (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this could be another mistake on my part. I was thinking of 'Origins' in a chronological sense which is why I suggested moving it below Beliefs so it ran onto the history section. If we're talking about 'Origins' as in 'What were the roots of Falun Gong?' then I can see that it could be early. In fact it probably needs to be within the Beliefs section so you get:

1 Beliefs and Teachings
1.1 Origins
1.2 The Theoretical Context of Qigong
1.3 Zhuan Falun, the Main Book of Falun Gong

etc...

Does this sound better? I notice Christianity doesn't start with its origins as a Jewish cult, but Christianity likes to be seen as something distinct from Judaism, while Falun Gong, unless I'm mistaken emphasises continuity with traditional Chinese beliefs.

...though we shouldn't knock random guys inventing really weird stories out of nowhere. It worked for many ancient religions ;) Alunsalt (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the article was written in a strictly chronological order, the roots of Falun Gong would probably still come first (it didn't begin before it began, did it?) excepting the Intro, since that is intended not as the beginning of the text itself but an abstract of the rest of the text. Now, I don't actually suggest a chronological order - I suggest putting the defining characteristics of Falun Gong, the core, important part of the belief, as far up as possible. Its current persecution is definitly the most acute issue at the moment, but it cannot be the most important characteristic of Falun Gong. PerEdman (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alunsalt, do you know what "making/becoming saint" means? I'm suprised this is not mentioned in an article about Falun Gong. Some of this stuff FLG teaches are borrowed from old time Chinese folk religon/mystics about eternal life.

This notion was mentioned in a series on FLG, written by journalist Francesco Sisci:

http://atimes.com/china/CA30Ad01.html

It appears the aging Cultural Revolution era CCP cadres were using FLG as a political tool to attempt to regain their clout. It was refered to as "making saint" period for these old party hands that didn't want to let go, used the movement to mobiliz and resist transfer of power within the party. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alunsalt, perhaps that's because the Gong is essentially a political movement attempted/attempting to overturn the Chinese government. All those bull-excretion about spiritual/religious elements is just camouflage.

Edit wars are amazing, watching common sense die is entertaining as well.154.5.61.233 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

154.5.61.233 To my understanding you are able to speak Chinese and your English is much better than mine, may I suggest you to create a account and join us? We really need some good editors to contribute to this article, as the current content of the article is totally a joke. Zixingche (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of followers

Some extraordinary claims are being made on this page re numbers of followers. This page from CENSUR says the Chinese state only estimate 2 million. --Simon D M (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times mentioned a figure of 70 million in at least two articles, both released 27th of April, 1999 - one of them written by Seth Faison and another by Joseph Kahn, who professed that "Beijing puts the tally of ... followers at 70 million". Renee Schoof, writing for the Associated Press (26th of April, 1999), mentioned a figure of "at least 70 million, according to the State Sports Administration". Note that this is before the persecution officially started. They're systematically trying to downplay the influence of Falun Gong in the Chinese society. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the source Olaf. Is NYT refering to some FLG representation, or you are again, misquoting? After the giant "good faith" mis-quote of Nowak, I must insist you be more careful, and cite your claims. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, you also have to be clear on what the article is saying, eg are we talking now or in the movements heyday? Are we talking members or people who have ever practised FG? --Simon D M (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See here: [44] "Beijing puts the tally of his followers at 70 million." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With such widely varying figures being touted, maybe we shouldn't be relying on newspaper articles, but look to academic analyses that don't just pluck figures unquestioningly from other reports. --Simon D M (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The best we can do is say what the Sports Administration said. There's no way to measure how many practitioners there really are, since there is no official or central thing counting people or like, doing anything I guess. --Asdfg12345 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are a range of estimates, the best we can do is reflect that. Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World by Nick Couldry & James Curran p222 states: "The Chinese government, upon the banning of the movement in 1999, claimed only 2 million Falun Gong members." I think we have to be careful about passing on unsupportable claims as fact. Even if there are only 55 million adherents, that would be more than the number of Sikhs, Jews, Bahais, Confucianists, Jains and Shintoists combined, and FG would rank 5th among the world's major religious groups. --Simon D M (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

They did the survey and that's what they found. There were Falun Gong exercise sites all over China. I hear you could not take two steps in China without seeing a practice site. The 2 million was a cynical attempt to downplay Falun Gong's significance. You are right when you suggest this would make Falun Gong a major thing. It is a major thing. I understand you may be incredulous, but we report what the sources say, and it's widely known (and in reliable sources somewhere) that the 2 million is a fabrication for political purposes. This can be explained later, but up front things should just be reported. This figure comes from the CCP itself.--Asdfg12345 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything incredible, Sathya Sai Baba advocates also claim 60 million adherents. Sure the 2 million could be political, but so equally could the 70 million and the 100 million. If we should be reporting anything in the face of such huge discrepancy, it should be the range of estimates as in this section. --Simon D M (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I proposed we add cite a notable source on this. Here's what US congressional research service Asian affiars specialist Dr. Thomas Lum wrote in 2006:

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf

"During the mid-1990s, Falun Gong acquired a large and diverse following, with estimates ranging from 3 to 70 million members, including several thousand practitioners in the United States." (page CRS-2)

"There are an estimated several thousand Falun Gong practitioners in the United States and similarly large numbers of adherents in other countries with large ethnic Chinese populations." (page CRS-8)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was not really any political imperatives surrounding the representation of Falun Gong pre-1999. I don't see why that central figure, first reported and only cut down post-persecution for obvious political reasons, shouldn't be in the lead. Or maybe that's not what you're saying. I wouldn't look to exclude a range of estimates backed up with their explanations in the article, and that's what we should do. --Asdfg12345 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3rd Party Views

What is the justification for hiving off 3rd party views into a spin-out page? This is highly irregular as the main article should be based around 3rd party material if it is available, not self-published material. --Simon D M (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question, Simon. We were pondering the same thing when it was decided that the main article will be split into parts. Originally we had only one article that started getting longer and longer and... then some administrators stepped in, so we had to think of how to divide the material. "Third-party views" was created for the stuff that couldn't fit into "history", "teachings", "outside of China" or "persecution" (or "criticism and controversies", which was later removed because it was a POV fork created by a couple of original researchers who were forever banned last summer). ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with you Olaf.

Simon, please change it, you have my vote, but be prepared for a war. The purpose of this is clear. Until recent addition of the Qubec Court decision (even notable source fully source and discussed in Talk where hacked up by FLG editor Asdfg) and, it was POV'd into a FLG promotional material. This MO has been time and again demonstrated by these editors, as my personal experience dictate I can no longer assume good faith, lord knows I've tried. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm in favor of the current division. Do you have a better idea, Charles? We can't go back to having one long article, because it's against the guidelines. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You honestly don't see a problem when a bunch of FLG disciples guarding a page on Falun Gong, and 3rd party section contains only pro-FLG stuff while all criticism are religated to another page? You all just hope others wouldn't bother to click-thru? This page and all the edit war just because somebody want to add a fact y'all don't like now this article POV'd to the most shameful degree.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as the criticism is well-sourced and not forcibly pushed into the lead section (like you were trying to do), I don't see a problem there. I have repeatedly suggested that we should rewrite the lead section based on the lowest common denominator. It's the only way to prevent an arms race there. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you brought it up, let's take a look what happened:

1) You FLG disciple editors objected to the term "controversial" and started warring/blanking Martin; 2) When I cited a notable source from Qubec Superior Court declaring FLG controversial, I first placed the in Talk, then in the sandbox, before I placed it in the article (giving you ample opportunity to shape it) - it still got blanked and hacked up; 3) I didn't object to reasonable edit(move to 3rd party view), only objected to the blanking by Fkndz and "simplified" to almost nothing in detail body by Asdfg.

Do you understand why it is so lame to "simplify" detailed body to enforce your POV? I only quotes the 2-3 most relevant lines. My god if you people realy are that uncomfortable with "rotating wheel in the stomach", may I suggest you are in the wrong religion/movement/spiritual practice/whatever? It's a FACT from NOTABLE SOURCE!!!

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we're in the right religion/movement/spiritual practice/whatever, thank you. You inserted an indented quote into the lead section. Don't try to avoid that. There are plenty of reasons to argue that scientific research is more important than an individual court statement, especially now that the case is still in appeal. Of course, it's still a valid source from Wikipedia's perspective, but you won't insert it wherever you please. I temporarily moved it into the 3rd party section, and eventually we should organize it under an appropriate header in a relevant daughter article. The lead section's only purpose is to establish a context and provide a brief summary. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see 3), I did not object to the move; I left your edit in place. I only objected to the blanking and hacking. How about this? You put Justice Rousseau's quotes in the article. If you don't I'll take it that you either 1) don't want in the article, 2) can not do a better job. Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Olaf, POV forking is unwiki WP:POVFORK. When you lump facts you don't like into click-thru (and hope people don't see it), only keep the FLG praises and promotional material, it is POVFORK.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue I was initially raising is that 3rd party views should not be relegated to a spin-off page if they are reliable and verifiable. If you are saying that this page is covering miscellaneous topics only that are not suitable for the main page, then the title is wrong. The 3rd party section should have a neutral summary of the contents of the spin-off page, not be of an opposing POV. Critical coverage should not be relegated wholesale to another page, especially if the title does not reflect that. The lead of the main article should be in accord with WP:LEAD and refer to controversy if it is significant, but not be dominated by it. Let's also stick to discussion of the edits and lay off the personal sniping, however tempted/provoked we might feel. --Simon D M (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon, WP:POVFORK is what happened. This section used to be called "Criticism", but that was too POV so it got changed to 3rd party view, and eventually the gang of self-admitted FLG disciple editors (some I suspect even work for FLG-funded newspaper Epoch Times) pushed anything they don't like out of the main article. This is my personal experience, if you want to see example I'd be glad to produce diffs to substantiate why I can no longer WP:AGF. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon, your "controversey" comment is worth a look. The term "controversey" was repeatedly blanked out of this article, even after notable source was discussed in Talk, placed in sandbox, then moved to the article - it still got blanked by editor Fkndz and details in discussion body "simpilified"/hacked to POV by editor Asdfg (Olaf moved it to 3rd pt vw, which I did not object.) Check the 2 disputes near the top of talk, which neither editors Fnhddz and Asdfg had responded.

I know at least one of them is around, Asdfg was busy blanking another fact. Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward, the 3rd party page currently contains just the controversial stuff. I think 'controversy' is a fair term, right or wrong there is no doubt that FG is controversial, at the very least in PRC. 'Controversy' is better than 'criticism' because almost every criticism on the page is matched by an opposing view. Whatever term is used, the page needs to be renamed and the corresponding section in the main article needs to be renamed and filled with a neutral summary of the 'controversies'. --Simon D M (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the title used for this section be "Competing representations of Falun Gong" or just "Competing representations". There are a number of reasons for this. Quickly and simply, I think it's more neutral and descriptive. --Asdfg12345 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "controversy". This term is also factual, as it has notable source making such declaration, per Qubec Superior Court. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "controversy" is not neutral in an article name; it's already highlighting the alleged "controversial" nature of Falun Gong, and we must strive for 100 % non-partisan naming conventions. That's why I vote against. In my opinion, "Competing representations of Falun Gong" is the best suggestion so far, but I'd still like to hear other ideas. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's look for consensus rather than take a vote. Section titles includings the term 'controversy' are extremely common in the WP article space - I've never heard it objected to. 'Competing representations' only occurs once in the whole article space, on Li's page, and seems like too broad a category to really be useful. I don't see how something can be persecuted without being controversial. FG is even listed in Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. --Simon D M (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning with religious fanatics is hopeless, people. It's not worth it. Just tell yourself "I do not give a fuck about it" and be merry. Preserve your brain cells for greater things such as the advancement of scientific technology and future generations. They will die out eventually, it's not Middle Ages anymore. --154.5.61.233 (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the main thing is that, ironically, it is arguable that Falun Gong is uncontroversial. It's a simple meditation and spiritual practice. There are competing representations of it, though, as in, Falun Gong representing itself as uncontroversial and a cultivation system, journalists or others representing it as controversial, good, bad, silly, etc., and the CCP representing it as whatever hate speech they cook up. The key factor is that "competing representations" makes controversy itself a representation, it does not imply it. I wonder if this point is clear. We want an academic standard treatment of this issue. The article title itself should not reflect a bias or a predilection toward one view, but be able to encompass various views. "Competing representations" is broad, as you say, and it will be able to negotiate all the different, competing, views on Falun Gong. Naming it controversial from the start already gives credit to one set of views, and we should try to avoid this per WP:NPOV. (I just highlighted and wrote over the anon IP useless commentary)--Asdfg12345 10:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that even the question of whether FG is controversial or not is controversial :) --Simon D M (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Useless or not, it is not up to you, nor can you delete comments just because you don't like it. You have just proved that you don't like freedom of speech for your opponents. I bet you learned that from the CCP? Kind of irony isn't it? Reminds me what Israel is doing to Arabs. --154.5.61.233 (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, the wailing of the anonymous IP in the wind. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved content to Qigong article

The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable literature.^{[citation needed]} Scholar Xu Jian analysed the intellectual debate, which involved both scientific research on qigong and the prevailing revival of nationalistic traditional beliefs and values.

“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.”^[3]

At the center of the debate is whether and how qigong can bring forth “supernormal abilities” (teyi gongneng 特異功能).

“The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its occult workings, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge of modern science."^[3]

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.^{[citation needed]}

David Aikman wrote that unlike in America, where many may believe that qigong is a socially neutral, subjective, New Age-style concept incapable of scientific proof, much of China's scientific establishment believes in the existence of Qi. Controlled experiments^{[citation needed]} 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."^[4]

Theories about the cultivation of elixir (dan), "placement of the mysterious pass" (xuanguan shewei), among others, are also found in ancient Chinese texts such as The Book of Elixir (Dan Jing), Daoist Canon (Tao Zang) and Guide to Nature and Longevity (Xingming Guizhi). Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. However, the definitions of many of the terms used differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions.^{[citation needed]}

The above has been moved and will be replaced by new content from the Third Parties page. Give me a few minutes to tidy all this up. --Simon D M (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made a mistake here. I don't think this should be moved. Some of it might be appropriate to move, but this context is really needed in terms of Falun Gong. Whoever slapped the fact tags there went overboard, it's all in the sources first cited, they are just not cited repeatedly. Falun Gong is tapping directly into the supernaturalist discourse of qigong, and I don't think we can assume that people are going to read the Qigong article as a primer to the Falun Gong one. I would hope the Falun Gong article has a self-contained contextualisation, and I fear this is being eroded by moving all this content. I haven't seen the page yet, so I can't say what it looks like in the end, but a lot of this provides very important context, which the more general stuff from Ownby and I think Johnson did not exactly do.

I would suggest, actually, a synthesis of the two versions, where a reduced version of this theoretical stuff plus a reduced version of the more straight historical stuff is used to contextualise Falun Gong. We ought to discuss how much it is reduced etc., but some of this above is really crucial in my view.--Asdfg12345 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The expanded versions of each would appear on the qigong page.--Asdfg12345 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem at all with a much reduced summary that refers back to the qigong page. Incidentally, the expanded material greatly improves the qigong page which was at a very basic level and still needs a lot of improvement. --Simon D M (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the shuffling around was certainly helpful, and will allow much more concision and directness in addressing the Falun Gong specific stuff. The punchier, cleaner, and more to the point all that is the better. A good context is still necessary, but it was swimming in background, which you have really helped to fix. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 10:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lecture 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... the reason why so many people are studying Dafa...[is] 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."

^ "The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called "heretical organizations"". Amnesty International. 2000-03-23. Retrieved 2007-08-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Spiritual Society or Evil Cult?", Time Magazine On-Line, retrieved March 10, 2008
^ ^a ^b Xu Jian, "Body, Discourse and the Cultural Politics of Contemporary Chinese Qigong", The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999
^ The Hindu culture refers to this as Prana, the Japanese culture uses the character ki, and the Hawaiian culture calls it mana. David Aikman, American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2

[Amnesty2000-1] "The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called "heretical organizations"". Amnesty International. 2000-03-23. Retrieved 2007-08-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[TIME_2001-2] "Spiritual Society or Evil Cult?", Time Magazine On-Line, retrieved March 10, 2008

[xujian-3] Xu Jian, "Body, Discourse and the Cultural Politics of Contemporary Chinese Qigong", The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999

[4] The Hindu culture refers to this as Prana, the Japanese culture uses the character ki, and the Hawaiian culture calls it mana. David Aikman, American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]