Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enric Naval (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 21 December 2009 (→Luo Gan: i see that it was put anyways). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Article probation

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:WP1.0

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

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

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

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

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

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

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

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

Membership and finances

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ "Falungong as a Cultural Revitalization Movement: An Historian Looks at Contemporary China." Professor David Ownby, Department of History, University of Montreal, , accessed 31/12/07
2. The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001, , accessed 31/12/07
3. American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2
4. Porter 2003, pp. 38-39. Available online:
5. Porter 2003, p 197
6. Johnson, Ian. Wild Grass: three stories of change in modern China. Pantheon books. 2004. pp 23-229
7. James Tong, "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing", The China Quarterly, 2002, 636-660: p 636
8. Tong 2002, p 638
9. Tong 2002, p 657
10. Learning the Practice, , accessed 21 July 2007
11. Li Hongzhi, Lecture in Sydney, 1999, , accessed 21 July 2007

Woot for Ohconfucius

This article has been in desperate need of references by Sima Nan for a long time. Kudos for finding them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Seems like Sima is a maverick and not the 'rentathug' which Falun Gong has been making him out to be. Ohconfucius 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Falun Gong practitioners

'List of Falun Gong practitioners' was merged into this article. Now that the list has been removed, it would make sense to delete the redirect too, or not? Ohconfucius 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since said section was deleted, there's really no need for a redirect any longer since the content is gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with Ohconfucius recent edits

After Ohconfucius recent edits the article makes the following statements:

"Regional offices diverged in their organizational structures. Each office generally maintained a "propaganda department", logistics department, and "doctrine" committee, or variations of those functions thereof, according to reports in state media."

Great... you have a source for that too? I mean after all you just kinda labeled Falun Gong a big hairy propaganda-organisation but then your sourcing it with an article which doesn't itself state those things but basically only states that the Communist Party ministry of propaganda states it (big surprise).

"Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'"

"While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation."

"Articles critical of Falun Gong were also published in major Chinese newspapers. In response, founder Li Hongzhi called on disciples to "defend the Fa" by lobbying media outlets and government officials to censor content critical of Falun Gong."

"Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi."

Those statements are all simply sourced with "Palmer (2007), pg249" So i looked up Palmers book page 249 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RXeuibmD2dsC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA250&vq=%22Changchun%22&client=firefox-a (hope the link works, if not use the one in the article). And i even read the previous and the next page, but simply could not find any such statements. Maybe Ohconfucius would like to give an actual source or would care to explain where exactly the present sources actually make such statements? --Hoerth (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your sarcasm is not appreciated. Please show some good faith. It's not one I recognise as my insrtion. I may have moved it, that's all. Ohconfucius 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That phrase was my contribution, not OhConfucius'. I cite "James Tong: An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing* The China Quarterly, No. 171 (Sep., 2002), pp. 636-660", who in turn cited People's Daily's "Li Hongzhi qiren qishi" for that particular statement, which is the citation used by me. There is even a disclaimer that this report is by state media so it should not be taken as impartial. In addition, I even insert phrases like "Chinese media claimed" to ensure that full NPOV treatment. Please assume good faith. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'"

"While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation."

"Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi."

Apologies, I'll have those sorted in due course. They are from real sources, I may have got some pages wrong. Or some sentences may have been moved away from their original cite. Ohconfucius 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see i have restored my comment and have posted your response as a response (instead of your editing my comment). I don't understand why you crossed those things out anyway - since they are still in the article and haven't been changed. All you did was mentioning another page of the palmer book and giving another source not accessible. I am getting the impression that you must have wasted a lot of time (i guess it must be many days at least) reading through countless unimportant and little known documents only to eventually find some sentence in which an author quotes from or agrees with the things that the Communist Party propaganda ministry claims about Falun Gong, and then you use it as opportunity to write in all those claims, basically putting them off as fact and then NOT sourcing it with the Communist Party affiliated media (which is the actual and most prominent source of the rumor) but instead sourcing it with some western guy who isn't the actual source at all but simply repeated what the Communist Party said or quoting from it.

And that is precisely the problem i have with you. We all know that the Communist Party is a totalitarian dictatorship allowing no free expression, controlling everything with almost all money flowing directly to the top and that in order to justify all those terrible things they control all the Chinese and many foreign media and spreading a lot of propaganda and then using minorities like Falun Gong as scapegoats and projecting all those methods that they themselves use onto their victims.

They have spread so much propaganda about Falun Gong that it is almost impossible not to have heard it - therefore i am not against mentioning what the Communist Party claims about Falun Gong since it's very likely that people have heard it anyway. But your trying to disguise all the well known propaganda spread by the communist controlled media against Falun Gong as something western scholars spread, when in fact they merely repeated it.

The Communist Party is a much more well known source for all the things your trying to pass off as facts in the article... i could immediately, on the spot give you hundreds of communist party sources for all your claims - while you obviously have to go through a lot of effort finding a westerner repeating it. If you would give the actual and more prominent source - i would have no issue with you. --Hoerth (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. This response is just unreasonable. Further comments like these can be considered violations of the articles' probation and actions will be taken accordingly. Firstly, you are accusing editors of bad faith editing, which essentially constitutes a personal attack. Secondly, it's great you have these informed views about the Communist Party, but Misplaced Pages is not a place to advocate for a cause. Here we only stand for writing from a neutral point of view. Colipon+(Talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoerth would you like to list the primary sources for the rumors? It would help this issue a lot. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

simply go to any chinese video or media site and enter 法轮功 (Falun Gong) if you don't get an error (censorship) you usually get at least a couple of hundred if not thousands of results - all slandering Falun Gong and all saying the exact same things you guys are trying to push... this is well known... impossible you could have missed it and weird that you should even ask... all 3 of you should know this only too well... --Hoerth (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What rumours? All the above are direct cites, as my amended references indicate full well. Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS - the primary sources are only of limited relevance. This encyclopaedia is built principally from secondary sources, and that's how it should stay. The sources are perfectly accessible - just go to Google books: that's how I found the stuff - otherwise go to a library. My efforts show there's actually plenty of academic material out there, not just Ownby. There's a lot more work to do on this article I have no time to waste on bad faith complaints from yet another FLGSPA. Ohconfucius 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Hoerth, please don't start the whole POV-pushing thing again. If you feel strongly about Falun Gong in any way, then you are the wrong person to edit this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually other than inserting a picture i haven't edited the article since october 2007. Yet i might choose to do so... if i where to do so, pls tell me why would i be "the wrong person"? And why am i not allowed to point out why i feel that Ohconfucius recent edits of the article are POV? --Hoerth (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI..........umm.....you're straying from the topic. Your disruption on the talk page is counterproductive toward's our goal of improving these articles... Plus, if you really have something you feel that needs to be done about Ohconfucius, please follow the appropriate procedures, instead of bashing him on the talk page...also,FLG sources are are not any more valid than PRC's...--Edward130603 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoerth, "WP:COI" refers to Misplaced Pages's rules about conflicts of interest. If I am a militant Islamist or a survivor of 9/11, then I am simply not allowed to edit the article about 9/11. Misplaced Pages's contributors are expected to have a dispassionate attitude. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... your telling me that say a Jew wouldn't be allowed to say anything regarding an article about Judaism much less edit it, right? --Hoerth (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Jews these days don't have a very passionate relationship to Judaism, so IMHO it wouldn't be a problem in most cases. What we don't want is for someone who LOVES and ADORES Elvis to write about the quality of his final few records. Or for someone with a vested interest in the conflict between FLG and the CCP, like yourself, to write about that issue. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly why i was pointing out that Ohconfucius is such a person as basically all of his edits have clearly been from the POINT OF VIEW of the Chinese Communist Party and he tries to pass this POV off as NPOV --Hoerth (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will ignore all trolling on this, and all related pages. Ohconfucius 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Braking coments

Please don't brake other comments. You can always quote if you want to refer to some section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Politicized

I do not agree with "At the time of the Zhongnanhai Incident, Falun Gong had evolved to become a *politicized* and highly mobilized form of social dissent.* How is it politicized? It didn't have a political agenda, nor did it intend to change the Chinese governements policy, nor did it claim to have any political aspirations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.172.113 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We should make sure the article represents the full spectrum of views on this topic, also in accordance with their prevalence in the literature.--Asdfg12345 01:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ASDFG's recent changes

Many of these changes deliberately mislead readers or misquote sources. I have little time to get into the details now, but for other interested editors - please read the sources given in that "persecution" section. You will be a stark contrast between the way it is presented in the article and the way it is presented in the source. One of the sources, for example, points out that testimonials from Falun Gong practitioners are almost impossible to verify; another says that the government's campaign targeted people who were actively organizing protests, not those practicing Falun Gong (and this is really no different to other disenfranchised social groups protesting that their houses have been illegally evicted. Falun Gong cannot claim that the government made special policies in this area only as part of a "terror campaign" against its members). In addition, the "torture, electricution" allegations are mostly routed through the Epoch Times. If and when these things are carried out, they are done by local authorities, not some secret-police-like network set up by Luo Gan, which is essentially a story played up by Falun Gong. If you bothered to look even slightly into each of these allegations, it's very easy to why this entire 'persecution' section needs to be re-written, or removed. Colipon+(Talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please like to quote your sources? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Happy. We might just want to make a rule, to keep things really simple: if you're not going to bring sources, don't worry about diatribes on the talk page. For that reason I'm not going to respond to Colipon's remarks unless he can substantiate them. There is a wealth of sources on this stuff. They'll go in the article.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This change clearly aims to re-balance the POV in favour of Falun Gong. Such an edit is not in good faith. Apparently, all references to Li Hongzhi had been whitewashed with this single edit. Colipon+(Talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, please address the substance of the article rather than talking about other things. The note I made was asking how it makes sense to mix in comments about Li's teachings with straight up notes about the persecution. They're different things. If we want to address Li's comments, that's fine.But weaving them in when there is no real connection is a kind of original synthesis.--Asdfg12345 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More so than trying to stick that relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan into the article? That's a far stretch. Colipon+(Talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentators have made this connection. If it doesn't come as a quick sentence after introducing He, do you have another suggestion of where it may be better placed? The point is that the readers are aware of what the sources say on this.--Asdfg12345 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hi. I'll put some questions here. Please do your best to answer them, Colipon and Confucius, and whoever else feels responsible. Actually, the first set of questions are just about the changes to my other edits. Then the other questions are general, about how the current points of emphasis in the article can be understood within the context of wikipedia content policies, particularly NPOV and DUE.

By the way, Coipon, I will just take you up on one thing you said, about the secret police network etc. Here's from Tong's Revenge of the Forbidden City:

"As his initial shock turned to anger, Jiang instructed Luo to handle the crisis, convening a meeting of concerned department to work our solutions and to engage the demonstrators in dialogue. Luo then called a meeting with the heads of the Ministry of Pulblic Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Armed Police Headquater, the Central Security Bureau, the Central Committee General Office, and the State Council General Office, as well as related departments..." p. 5

"Perhaps the most significant telltale sign of the imminence of the crackdown was the absence of the top two leaders in the 610 Office that was in charge of suppressing the Falungong. Their public appearances were much less frequent... Likewise, as the public security tsar and the operations head of the 610 Office, Luo Gan had reduced his monthly public appearances..." p. 51

Is there any dispute that the 610 Office is a secret police group tasked with persecuting Falun Gong? I understand the scope of its functions was later increased, but it was certainly set up for the purpose of persecuting Falun Gong practitioners, according to the sources.

About recent edits

• What misleading impression does the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing gives the reader? (Note that I restored the comment with a reference to Porter.)
• Gah, too much time has passed already and I forget what other problems I had. I restored some information.

General

• What's the understanding with making the "organisation" section of the article, since it's mostly about Falun Gong in China before the persecution. Should it be labelled clearly about which time period this corresponds to? By putting it as it is now, it gives the impression about Falun Gong as a whole, rather than in a specific time period in a specific place, which all those sources are talking about. So, it would be good to hear the understanding there. The point would just be to group information in a meaningful way. In particular, is the space that has been given these quite specific details (such as which departments Li tried to register the association with) in accordance with DUE? I had often heard confucius complain about academic sources, but none of this information would have appeared in any of the thousands of articles written about Falun Gong in the press, yet it takes up a lot of space here. Please help me to understand this.

Actually, I think that's it. --Asdfg12345 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just went through and eliminated two very OBVIOUS disrespectful comments abut Falun Gong. I'm not a practitioner, but know several. It is always best to treat other people's beliefs with respect, even if they differ from yours. -- User:Zonetones

Housekeeping

Hey, can get use a consistent reference system between us? I don't mind which we use. Whatever the consensus is. Here are the three forms that are used on the pages now:

1. <ref name=breakingpoint>Matthew Gornet, , Time (magazine)|Time]], 25 June 2001</ref> (later uses of the form <ref name=breakingpoint />)
2. <ref name=breakingpoint>{{cite news |first=Matthew |last=Gornet |url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165163,00.html |title=The Breaking Point |work=] |date=25 June 2001}} (later uses what form?)
3. <ref name=palmer246>Palmer (2007), p. 246.</ref> (after the initial full reference has been given)

As I say, while I don't really mind which we adopt, I will just put forth my recommendation for the first. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Here are my reasons. Happy to go with whatever is decided:

• The first is the most widely used already on the pages. We want the refs to be consistent, and we'll have to change many of them if we pick any other style. That's one thing.
• It seems easier to do. If you use the citenews one, you need to copy/paste into those templates, and also copy/paste a template from some other place. Kinda an extra step. If you go with the first one, you can just type it right out usually.
• It keeps things grouped. The last one creates many different entries in the references section, so it's hard to see how often one particular reference is being used in the article, which is important information. We often want to know the page numbers. Could this be put in <!-- p. 236--> style comments where applicable? I'm not sure, actually.
• Does the citenews template have a way of assigning page numbers for each ref? That would be helpful.

anyway, just some thoughts here. --Asdfg12345 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• citation templates make the whole thing neater, but it's a barrel load of work as most of the refs are in (1). {{cite}} does support page numbers as a parameter, as in '|page=2' or '|pages=294-312'. Ohconfucius 03:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• I would also go with citation templates, also for conversion we can use . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that would be nice. I didn't click through. I guess it will be a bit time consuming. I'll look at it on a rainy day, but for now, should I plug in new sources with the citation templates, or use the old method them convert them? Hmm.. I don't expect anyone will know. Anyway.--Asdfg12345 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can volunteer to do it, I have quite a bit of experience with this. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Luo Gan

So Luo was He's cousin, but now he is the brother-in-law? What gives? This connection is awkwardly inserted into the text as if to say, "look, He's related to Luo, so they must all be operating similar agendas." He Zuoxiu is a pseudoscience critic, Luo is a politician. If you read He's works, he also criticizes traditional Chinese medicine, whose organizations are supported and sometimes funded by the Chinese government. They are not operating on the same agenda, and He's criticism has nothing to do with the wider campaign against Falun Gong. Stop asserting that it does. Colipon+(Talk) 09:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• The connection was picked up by academia, for example Minna Jia, University of Southern California, see here: "For example, the Zhengqing Net is an anti-Falun Gong website and operates under the name of He Zuoxiu, who is the academician of the CAS and also known as the husband of sisters with Luo Gan.". That makes this information relevant, because He Zuoxiu is not just an independent academic as you try to portray him here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• See also mentioned by Porter: --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• National Review, Ethan Gutman: --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, every single one of those sources exhibit a serious bias, or is simply not reliable. Take the first one, a university student's paper. This is in no way a primary or secondary source to prove familial relationships - not to mention, of course, that it's written in poor English. And then, of course, Porter, who cites Falun Gong website clearwisdom.net throughout his book. Finally we have the National Review, an anti-China U.S. conservative publication. Need I say more?

Now, let's assume that in fact, He Zuoxiu is married to one of Luo Gan's sisters. So what? He's involvement with Falun Gong notably preceded Luo's by some two or three years. He criticized Falun Gong from an academic perspective, noting the damage it has caused to practitioners. He felt particularly sympathetic to his students who practiced Gong long before the state ever cared to become involved. Luo, on the other hand, was commissioned by the state to crack down on Falun Gong in June 1999. Unless there is a reliable source to indicate that there is a relationship between two with solid evidence, then stating a familial relationship with the intention to paint a misleading picture is unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I see it you made up your mind :), but consider if scholars consider it worth mentioning then perhaps they think it is relevant. What you or me thinks is WP:OR right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are related, through blood or marriage, it merits nothing more than a line in their respective wiki-biographies. These power elites are all related in some way to each other. A good example is the Soong sisters. Maybe more like the intermarried royal families of Europe... Ohconfucius 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if I don't find a reasonable source (Porter doesn't count, for example, since his expertise are on the ethnographic side not on Chinese politics) drawing attention to this connection, then we won't have it in the article. --Asdfg12345 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Asdfg12345 has decided to place it anyways into the article and then edit war to keep it --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

This source criticizes the Chinese government and all of their allies and calls for the protection of practitioners. Reading through it, I found that it actually gives quite an impartial view on the history of Falun Gong. For example, it talks about Falun Gong's attempts to silence critics in China before the ban, it talks about Li Hongzhi's supernatural powers claims, and it very clearly says that Falun Gong's teachings have apocalyptic elements, something that is mysteriously hidden from the article until this day. Human Rights Watch writes: "There is no question that Falun Gong promotes salvationist and apocalyptic ideas, in addition to its teachings on qigong." HRW also reiterates this statement three times throughout the book. In addition, HRW writes: "Falun Gong protests have been tightly organized and coordinated," something that Falun Gong practitioners continue to deny. Colipon+(Talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It can only be said that there are different narratives; all of them should be available to the reader on wikipedia, according to their prominence in the sources. Since you see HRW as such a good source, why do you have a problem with calling the persecution a persecution, when, for example, Mike Jendrzejczyk, Washington Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division, says "These Falun Gong members should never have been arrested, much less given heavy sentences. If freedom of association and assembly mean anything in China, then Falun Gong members should be free to recruit others, to practice their exercises and meditation in public, and to protest their own persecution." I don't get it.--Asdfg12345 23:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Touching base

I am checking in. How are things going at this article and others in the topic area? What are continuing points of contention, if any? Do any particular discussions or content disagreements need mediation or outside opinions to help form a consensus? What sorts of guidelines or community assistance could help further stabilize the topic area and improve the involved articles? (On the last question, please avoid "ban user X" type answers.) Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could you impose a ban on the Falun Gong SPAs, please? ;-)

  Seriously, since you last checked in, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident has been declared FA. We have a spinoff article, History of Falun Gong, which is in growth phase. Save for the renaming/deletion of Persecution of Falun Gong, there has been relatively little drama, and a small handful of minor spats and drive-by taggings. For that, we have to thank the disappearance of Olaf Stephanos, and the self-imposed exile of Dilip rajeev and asdfg12345. My wish from Santa is that this peace will last. Ohconfucius 07:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Vassyana chipped in here. This is a good opportunity to bring something up. Please take a look at the recent history. Several changes I made were simply reverted by Colipon. It took a while to make those changes, but he just wound them back. His comments on the talk page also accuse me of bad faith editing. I'm not upset about that, but I don't think reverting people and accusing them of bad faith is conducive to the editing environment we want.

Another thing is, I think there are some problems with the current balance of the articles. We're presented with a singular narrative of Falun Gong, rather than a more variegated picture. The reality, and what the sources say, is far more complex than is being made out. For example, there was an organisation in China, but it was disbanded in 1997, and things are highly decentralised now. The only reason there was an organisation in China in the first place is because no group is allowed to do anything without registering--i.e., they were made to register as an organisation. So nearly everything in that section is about pre-1997 China, but by default it purports to describe Falun Gong as a whole. This is just one example of the over simplification. Even in this there are many sources and many different voices, and they have all been deleted. Similarly with Falun Gong's reception in China; all the stuff about awards and approval by the mainstream have been purged, and now it's all about skeptics and critics; in fact, skeptics and critics were on the fringes back then. It was certainly part of how Falun Gong was received, no one disputes that, but the article currently presented a skewed picture, and one not in line with much of the research on the topic.

Another thing is, the History page was made mainly so the persecution page could be deleted. For some reason that wasn't successful, and now those pages are neither fish nor foul and cover similar ground. The History page is also hopelessly one-sided. Anyway, to put a positive spin on it, when we can provide a balanced picture that will be better than either pro-Falun Gong propaganda or (the current) anti-Falun Gong propaganda. Right now, while there are some good developments, the strong-arm tactics, marginalisation of mainstream discourse, elevation of a few sources to control the narrative etc. has gotten a bit out of control. It's basically like, whoever spends more time on the pages controls them. What I'm most worried about is that when I start trying to insert these mainstream views that someone is going to call in the anti-Falun Gong hordes and everything will be wiped again. Something like that happened six months ago, and we had some bizarre conversations about how the word "criticism" didn't really mean "criticism" but instead something else.

Also, the deletions of mainstream views from the pages so far is already quite extensive. For example, Ownby is interspersed with scholars whose interpretation he doesn't support (so it looks like he buys into what they're saying), whereas his analysis in other areas has been deleted. Just some generalisations here.

I'm looking forward to doing good work on these pages, and I'm genuinely interested in working with everyone. I'm just a little concerned about Colipon's willingness to do blanket reverts (I think this kind of thing should only been done rarely, when an editor has obviously done just wacky changes) and make accusations about other editors' intentions. Anyway, I've just started editing again, and it takes some time to warm up. I might have forgotten that you need a thick skin around here. By the way, I plan to edit other articles on aspects of Chinese society and politics, it's just tricky to find the time. --Asdfg12345 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• The above comments by asdfg need to be put into context of his absence for almost two and a half months. Ohconfucius 10:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think I had seriously edited the pages for more than six months. Either way. I don't want to sound negative. I'm not blaming anyone. Basically, I think it will be great if we can work collaboratively, play by the rules, and just keep our noses clean. No playing dirty and no backbiting; just the regular tussles about sources, policy, how things should be framed, compromise, negotiation, and so on. We've been doing this for a long time already and know how it goes. The key is just to be reasonable.--Asdfg12345 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Falun Gong articles are on probation. After several months of peace and quiet I am discouraged that POV editing has entered the fold once again. I stand fully behind my reverts and all of my edits as a means to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. I will continue to fight against POV-editing from both the Communist Party side and the Falun Gong side. But it seems as though the majority of POV-pushing continues to be coming from the Falun Gong side, with much the same "gaming-the-system" tactics employed earlier by users who have already been banned.

To Vassyana, it would be extremely helpful if there were one or two uninvolved but knowledgeable editors who to monitor the page and will be bold when it comes to reverting POV edits by questionable users and who are familiar with how SPAs on this page game the system. I have little energy left in combatting senseless POV-laden edits and answering to non-productive partisan discussions, and then receiving accusations from users with a clear conflict of interest against me as though I am the one doing the wrong thing. Colipon+(Talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, not sure what to say. I'm editing in good faith. Happy to engage in dialogue on policy, the sources, etc., and hammer out the best way of presenting things. You're basically saying I'm gaming the system, doing bad faith edits, etc. That's not true. I would prefer just to deal in the nuts and bolts of what's in the sources and what is on these pages.--Asdfg12345 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What is and is not true is very visible in your edits. Ask any uninvolved editor to review your edits and talk page rants, and it will be very clear what is going on. There is no to continue denying that you have a very clear conflict of interest in this subject, and as such should not be editing Falun Gong articles, period. Your disruptive edits have been sparse in the past few months but they are creeping back as of this week. Deny it all you want, but these are plain facts visible to any uninvolved spectator. Colipon+(Talk) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

About the persecution and protests

At the moment the article treats in one section protests in China, and the persecution. Could someone speak to this? Why? Have most sources made this connection? Would it be adequate to give a broad outline of the persecution, and then Falun Gong practitioners' response? It's unclear why they are chained together atm. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, about my removal from the sentence in the lead: it's problematic because it asserts a disputed interpretation of Falun Gong as a fact. There's no room for bringing these disputes into the lead, so I think what's in there should just reflect the baseline of things we can usefully say about the subject that everyone agrees on. It doesn't need to venture into claims that are more complex, said by only one person, or whatever. On the other hand, if this can be shown to really be a mainstream view, commonly cited, then I'll be happy to go with it. But I have Ownby here saying that Falun Gong was not unique in its protests against what it saw as a concerted government campaign in the 90s; and in other cases where sources talk about Falun Gong practitioners' apparent overzealousness in responding to criticism, it's never discussed in the context of how these people are different from other religious or qigong groups. --Asdfg12345 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• We've had it from many sources, including Ownby, that Falun Gong practitioners' overzealousness in responding to criticism is as good as written into the scriptures, thus is a defining characteristic of practitioners and the movement. I don't think we need to compare with the other movements. It's already noted all the other qigong groups (eg Zhong Gong, the most prominent) got crushed. Ohconfucius 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if we could say that so definitively. But whatever the case, I think it's a good idea to expand on this kind of thing and explore the whys and wherefores in the actual article. Trying to make it as part of the lead seems to over-emphasise this perspective. I mean, when people give a brief introduction to this whole topic, which includes Falun Gong, the persecution, etc., is that one of the things that comes up? ("oh, yeah, and they're a really reactive group of people, by the way") Is it really one of the most notable things about the topic, warranting its inclusion in the lead? Just seems kinda forced.--Asdfg12345 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope we can all agree that this sort of stuff is vandalism. I just reverted to the last version by HiG. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

Something wasn't making sense to me about the structure, so I shuffled things around and renamed some headings. What does everyone think? The subject is so complex that it gets tricky to figure out where things should be properly grouped. Here is some of my reasoning for the changes:

1) because nearly all that stuff related to mainland China. If we have a section called "History," that's quite open ended. It could include nearly everything on the subject, starting from the beginning to now, with not much left out. If, instead, the history itself is integrated into the article (as in, a section on inside mainland China, and a section on outside mainland China), this seems to make more sense? It's a thought.

2) I think it makes more sense to have a sub-section called "reception" and include both the positive and negative response Falun Gong received in China. At the very least, for the sake of neutrality, if you had a section about critics, you would have to have one about supporters, which doesn't seem to make much sense. There were both.

3) It seems quite tricky to untangle all the things that happened in China that led up to the persecution and the ban, and there are many different narratives. If we narrate the events and key perspectives/opinions/interpretations of them, leading up to the ban and persecution, I think that provides some value to the reader. The media attacks and protests move in lockstep up until July 20; it's hard to make a clear cut, so I think it makes sense to call all this "friction" and then explain the ban.

4) the only other change, as I recall, was to group all the material about Falun Gong outside China in one section, rather than split it over two sections. The "outside China" is closely related to "response to persecution," and the way it was until then broken up seemed kinda arbitrary.

5) the public debate section now includes more things, and we can give this more subtlety and neutrality. Here though, again, it's unclear whether all this material should be shipped to relevant areas? As in, much of the stuff about organisation etc. is relevant to mainland China. Should that be in the mainland China section?

Anyway, these are just some ideas and thoughts. Looking forward to figuring it out.--Asdfg12345 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is, the issue of the protests and the persecution will have to be resolved. Are these not separate things; the idea of a section called "continued protests and statewide suppression", or a chunk of text which interspersed how the persecution was actually carried out and the results on the people affected, with the protests against that persecution, seems slightly odd. At the very least, the protests are a response to state violence; grouping this together and calling it "response to persecution" in the mainland section could make more sense. Unless I'm missing something? I'd again recommend Ownby as useful to consult here. His "Falun Gong and the Future of China" is the most recent and highest quality scholarly account of this whole phenomenon, so I think much of the way things are framed there would be useful to us. --Asdfg12345 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• Religion articles needing attention
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles