Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Big Edits

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

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

BOLD -> Revert -> Discuss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV pushing cuts many ways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fine tuning the Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cult cont'd

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

Falun Gong media

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

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

Slow Down

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

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

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

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

discussion of cult section continued 2

Okay, here are my issues.

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

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

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

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

Next paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Academic views"

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

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

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

Then maybe its time to discuss them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Bloat vs. Removing information

Some good faith changes have removed important information and muddled the meaning of some other information. Here are the relevant problems:

1. The first reference in the cult section is about the differences in use between "social contexts" or "cultural contexts" not individual people. It is also specific to how Falun Gong is seen and whether or not it is or is not classified as a cult and not simply about the meaning of cult more generally.
2. Regarding In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. vs. Among scholars, calling something a "cult" depends on how you define the term. Many scholars refrain from using the label for various reasons. The tidbit about "most scholars" is a fact easily attained by reading up on this subject (even the little I have recently done) but I'm willing to go to "many" if wikilaywering over WP:V and WP:NOR is going to take place. It does not need a citation however since it sums up what is written in the last paragraph. The rest of this change is more problematic because once again the section is about Falun Gong specifically and not simply the cult label more generally.
3. Margaret Singer is absolutely "associated" with the Anti-cult movement and this is extremely pertinent and can easily be ascertained by editors here by reading about her, about the movement or about the brainwashing controversy. Making this statement is also more NPOV than the alternative which Asgf is promoting -- adding a statement about her views being fringe scholarship (which they are).
4. Regarding "the perception" that the group is authoritarian it is "their perception" specifically. "The" in this instance is extremely weasely.
5. I'm not entirely sure why the Branch Davidians and Aum need to be mentioned. I kept both in my version and someone deleted one of them but why do we need to mention both? This seems like sensationalistic pile on to me. Something I am more used to seeing from the pro-Falun Gong side, but nevertheless.

By the way categorizing this group as a "cult" does not fit within mainstream scholarship ... only within scholarship willing to 1) adopt fringe definitions of the term cult and 2) willing to assign attributes within these definitions to Falun Gong even if most other scholars do not. From the brief overview I have undertaken it seems more that clear that a vast majority of scholars don't use this classification to describe the group. Some of the changes above distort this reality rather unfortunately. I'm afraid that reactionary measures against the pro-member POV pushing at times overreaches, and I've expressed this concern before. As a point of information I use scare quotes (they are not "ironic quotes") around "cult" because it has become common practice in scholarship at this point in time. I will not argue over this in the entry however. You can chose to follow other style conventions.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from this article and Wiki for a while. I also didn't want to get to into this page in the first place. I hope some of the more positive collaboration on this entry continues and I hope you consider some of my points regarding the "cult" issue as you plow ahead. It is not easy to edit here by any means. Best of luck.PelleSmith (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of corrections and added two references. I really will try to stay away from now on. It would be nice to see some more good faith here regarding my edits (that is not directed to you Ohconfucius) which are all neutral unless people consider scholarly consensus POV. Best of luck once again.PelleSmith (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

'Ideological and social context' subsection

Just want to make the observation that the above section is dominated (more than 50% of content) is sourced to one academic, whereas another 2 academics make up another 40%. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of it was just academic jargon and a quotefarm. That said, the academic treatment given is more or less accurate, in my view. It just needs to be re-written with more sources. Colipon+(Talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Or pared down to a more balanced distribution between the current sources. It should not be left the way it is.  / Per Edman 08:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I just made some changes to the introduction to fit more appropriately with recent changes made to the article. I made these changes while attempting to strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, and I also cut down significantly on undue weight. Please be bold and make corrections to my syntax or make it better organized as a few more sets of eyes are needed to make a good lede. Please do not revert these changes without any discussion or sound reasoning. Colipon+(Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

References, please double check

Please when removing material:

1. Make sure that you don't remove relevant third party references
2. If still you removed it please check the page again and see if those references where not used somewhere else in the article thus braking the article. Like in this revision (which now is current).

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of cult section continued 3 (sources)

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

”

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

“ Ambassador Mark Palmer

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

”

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

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

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

“ Amnesty International

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

• I really don't think this dwelling on the definition or label of 'cult' is at all helpful in taking this article forward. We should just comment on the fact that the Chinese govt has used it, some experts agree while others disagree, is sufficient. The whole thing doesn't warrant more than a single paragraph of 'normal' length. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but see: Falun_Gong#The_.27cult.27_debate --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I integrated some of the sources, and now I see that there is a lot more information here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

small note re anti-Falun Gong propaganda

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

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

• Again, I really don't think this dwelling on the definition or label of 'propaganda' is at all helpful in taking this article forward. We should just comment on the fact that the Chinese govt has used it, and Falun Gong used it, is sufficient. After all, the CCP and FG are both cut from the same cloth - the similarities between the two are really becoming clear to me. The whole thing is just both sides playing semantics. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Partial rv to intro.

Hello Colipon, it is not clear from your edit summary why you made the following revert [1]. Based on WP:LEDE "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." I think that the Teachings are important and it is a good summary to say "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure", and as being, at different levels, common to both Taoism and Buddhism." then to say that "Its teachings are influenced by both Taoism and Buddhism." which does not say anything about the teaching itself. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that the sentence "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure"" is too esoteric and of excess detail to be in the lead. It might be a different matter if it was in plain English, but it ain't. Saying that its teachings are influenced by both Taoism and Buddhism seems to be clear and accurate, and probably sufficient for those interested to click on the respective links to find out more about Taoism and buddhism. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Which part of "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure"" is not plain English? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The bit within the quote marks. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the expression is extremely esoteric. To present something as a discourse is not strange. To present something "at different levels" is not strange in itself, though quite vague. But then "to be True, Good and Endure" is neither a discourse or a description of levels, it is some sort of encouragement. These are ideals, ideological concepts, not discourses and not levels. Therefore the quoted section is too long and lacks explanatory content.  / Per Edman 08:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent deconstruction! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet, this is how Falun Gong is presented. So can we leave it at that? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mind that Falun Gong sounds pompous and vague, if FG doesn't care by being esoteric. I still don't think it belongs in the lead, if that's what you are on about... Ohconfucius (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} It strikes me as a weak attempt to position the Falun Gong as a morally positive force, making those who oppose the Falun Gong (PRC for example) a morally negative force. As such it seems like it edges on WP:WEASEL and WP:NPoV considering this I rather object to it's positioning in the lede. "Influenced by Taoism and Buddhism" is much clearer and more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"to position the Falun Gong as a morally positive force" => what I'm quoting is what practitioners consider the essence of Falun Dafa. If that makes it in your view positive, well fine. That quote is a sourced statement, short, fitting to describe the teachings. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, we're not running an advertisement-campaign with capitalized adjectives. If that were the case, you could just as well put True^TM, Good^(c) and Endure^(R) in the lead-section... Seb az86556 (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is putting a trademark on anything, those are the teachings (no trademarks present there), the quote is correctly attributed and relevant. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the quote is attributed and relevant. The question is whether it belongs in the lead. The capitalization of True, Good, and Endure is at best strange English usage. It is also far from clear what the exact meanings of those terms is in this context. On that basis, I would have to say that the quote seems to at least me be a hindrance to understanding the ideas it is putting forward. It would make much more sense to include a statement which does not have those concerns. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The capitalization is according to the source (it's a direct quote) and I'm sure that it has its reasons to be capitalized in the translation, basically because it is considered something very central to the teaching. Regarding your conclusion that "the quote seems to at least me be a hindrance to understanding the ideas it is putting forward." => actually you are talking about this: "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure", for me it is clear that the teaching is describing the nature of the universe which is in short (and at the highest level) considered to be True, Good, and Endure. Not sure why you say that this is a hindrance to understand. It is a well sourced short summary of the teachings in plain English. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, could you please address your point on the talk page, regarding your recent revert [2]? Even if the quote is WP:SPS (which was not an issue raised until now), it does not change the fact that this is how the teachings are presented by the author, and the quote is attributed. I think that it is good for this encyclopedia to include how the Falun Gong promotes its teaching. As for NPOV, I'm not sure which point is not included or how do you claim that it is biased. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Once this entire POV mess is sorted out it would be nice to be able to sum up some Falun Gong teachings in the lede. This is a very difficult task and using promotional jargon from a Falun Gong promotional website that is meaningless to most of our readership (and sound strikingly like BS:"discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure") is not the best way to go about summing up FLG teachings. Colipon+(Talk) 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Why? Which would be the best way to summarize it in your own opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV changes

I worked extensively over the course of today to make some major changes to the main article "Falun Gong" to eradicate some of the POV bruises that the article still suffers from. I also aligned, moved, added, removed, and reorganized content based on the skeleton at FLGNEW. Some copy-editing would be appreciated, as well as some more eyes to just assess the content.

There are some things that I am still unsure about and therefore have not been bold in editing. I would like to ask for input from other editors on the following issues:

1. The "teachings" section is still not very readable. Consider the phrase "Truthfulness (眞 Zhen), Compassion (善 Shan), and Forbearance (忍 Ren) are regarded as the fundamental characteristics of the cosmos—an omnipresent nature that permeates and encompasses everything. In the process of cultivation, the practitioner is supposed to assimilate himself or herself to these qualities by letting go of "attachments and notions," thus returning to the "original, true self." In Zhuan Falun, Li Hongzhi said that "As a practitioner, if you assimilate yourself to this characteristic, you are one that has attained the Tao—it's just such a simple principle." This needs to be simplified or contextualized.
2. In "theoretical background", Falun Gong's influences from Buddhism, Taoism, and its scientific elements are still absent. The section 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. Francesco Sisci says that Falun Gong "re-elaborated old, well-known Taoist and Buddhist routines, used the old vocabulary that people found familiar, and revamped them in a simple, persuasive way." seems highly irrelevant to me and needs to be contexualized.
3. Under "Growth in China", is the line "Over time, followers appear to find in the teachings an "intricate, orderly, and internally consistent understanding of the cosmos," he writes. Other qigong practices were unable to provide "clear, unambiguous explanations of life’s deepest mysteries" and such a "complete and intellectually satisfying picture of the universe," as practitioners see it, he says." really necessary?
4. The Zhongnanhai incident, a pivotal part of Falun Gong's history, is very poorly explained. It may deserve an article in its own right.
5. Under section "The ban", is it necessary to have blockquotes from Xinhua and Li Hongzhi in full?
6. Is the heading "Persecution" considered NPOV?
7. Using the skeleton at FLGNEW, the "organizational structure" section remains incomplete.

I am encouraged by the progress. Recently there has been much less disruptive editing on these articles. Hope to hear from editors soon. Colipon+(Talk) 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Once word gets out that sanity is once again returning to Falun Gong series of articles, and edit warring and tendentious editing things of the past, more and more ordinary editors will start coming. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)