Talk:Falun Gong

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

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

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

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

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

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

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

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

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

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

Membership and finances

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

Finances

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC on connections between Luo and He

Should the three disputes source be used as evidence that two individuals mentioned in the article, He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, are related?--PCPP (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging an attempt by Asdfg to add information claiming that two individuals mentioned in the article, He Zuoxiu (a Chinese pseudoscience critic) and Luo Gan (Chinese politician responsible for the ban of FLG), are related, and thus He is partially responsible for the crackdown of FLG. Asdfg is based his claims on three sources mentioned below.

These material has been disputed by several users previously[5] [6]. Source 1 derives from the National Review, a known politically conservative publication based in the US. Source 2 derives from Noah Porter's PHD thesis which has been published as a book, and which Asdfg previously said wasn't a viable source[7]. Source 3 doesn't even specifically mention He and Luo. These sources should not be used to establish a fact that Luo and He are factually related, especially since no other FLG scholars such as David Ownby even mention this, and no Chinese sources establish this claim either. Furthermore, there is a problem of WP:SYN, as Asdfg is attempting to use the above claims to synthesis a conspiracy theory on how He is responsible for instigating the FLG crackdown [8].--PCPP (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that these are the three sources on which the information is based:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

In case it wasn't clear, I support the inclusion of the information. -- Asdfg12345 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I support it only in the sense that I support all good research and relevant argument/information. I could be persuaded otherwise--for example, if we had a top scholar saying that the connection is simply bogus and was a clever piece of Falungong propaganda that got its way into the circulation system. But I don't see any such source forthcoming. Thus, I support the inclusion until proper evidence can be presented as to why it is inappropriate. So far I am distinctly unconvinced by PCPP's arguments (if they could be called that) and his aggressive reverting behaviour, over which I hope I do not have to intercede again. —Zujine|talk 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at Gutmann's article and there is another small piece of information that is relevant. He talks about how video cameras were already set up at Tianjin to monitor the protesting adherents. This indicates that the Party already had something in mind--or why would they set up that kind of surveillance? It is a small point that bolsters the relevance of this general conspiracy narrative, though it is not directly related to the He/Luo connection. —Zujine|talk 17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Question: Why would it be relevant if they were related? If one of the two men did something on the advice of the other man, then that should be said directly. Otherwise, it looks like synthesis and petty insinuation. Quigley (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned by PCPP's arguing that the sources previously listed in support of this familial connection may not be reliable, and did some searching for other sources that would either confirm or refute the claim. In the process I found another piece of what appears to be original research, published by a graduate student at the University of Southern California:

"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. The later is condemned by Falun Gong followers as one of the main executioners during the Falun Gong persecution. This point matches the information from the insider which indicates that the Zhengqing Net belongs to the 6.10 Office headed by Luo Gan and founded in June 10, 1999 after Falun Gong’s Zhongnanhai Demonstration in April that year."(Jia, Minna. "Impact of Internet on Chinese Authoritarian rule during SARS and Falun Gong Incidents,")

This supports not only that they are brother-in-law, but also serves as evidence that they are/were working very closely against Falun Gong. Homunculus (duihua) 03:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing new here. The essay Homunculus gave [9] has no evidence of being peer reviewed either, and did not actually provide a citation on the relations claim. All of these sources has been reviewed by editors here before and overwhelmingly rejected before [10]. In fact Asdfg was asked to provide better sources to prove the He-Luo relations, which he never did, and resurfaced months later with the same old.--PCPP (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It must be becoming clear to everyone that it is almost impossible to have a rational debate with PCPP, because he brings up every kind of specious, even contradictory argument, simply to try to win the discussion. Language and argument is just another weapon to try to get the desired result on the page. Anyway, while we still must abide by the fiction that this is actually a debate--that is, until this user oversteps the boundary, does one too many reverts, and finally gets banned from these pages--let me just respond to what he has said:

• The "this discussion has been had before" argument -- Firstly, yes it has been had before, and the consensus was to include the material. Here is the latest discussion on it. Editors agreed to include it then, and agree again now. Secondly, even if the consensus then was not to include it, new consensuses may be formed. So that is irrelevant.
• The "no Chinese source/no proof" argument -- this is irrelevant. Since when did something have to appear in a Chinese source? What kind of source would be reliable? Chinese sources, except primary ones, are among the most unreliable on this topic. In any case, the info appears in multiple reliable sources, and we do not require to prove the truth of the claim, merely that it has been made.
• The "not in Ownby" argument -- this is facile. So let's delete everything off the page that Ownby doesn't agree with? Please.

Did I miss any? He has been saying the same three meaningless arguments the whole time, by the way, in case anyone didn't notice. One final amusement: PCPP says that the recent source Homunculus brings up has not been peer-reviewed... but clearly this is not his standard anyway, because Porter's is a peer reviewed thesis/book, and he still rejects that. Clearly this user does not even follow his own standards. At this rate, I suspect that PCPP is rapidly putting himself on the shortlist of editors to ignore. I'll say no more on this unless PCPP brings more actual evidence to light on the topic. I mean reliable sources, not just specious argumentation. -- Asdfg12345 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg you're wasting your time here and learnt nothing from your 6 month ban. I already provided my reasons as why your "sources" are not sufficient enough to establish a fact. You previously stated that Porter's thesis isn't a reliable source, [11], that his discipline is not on religion, and now turned around and say it is.

• No, Chinese sources aren't "unreliable" because you say so. In fact He's campaigns against traditional Chinese medicine has been controversial amongst Chinese media, whereas the Chinese government has long harped about the benefits of TCM.
• Ownby's study on FLG has far more weight on the subject that the sources you provided. Not only him, but none of the other sources provide speculative evidence on the relations between Luo and He, and that He is somewhat responsible for the FLG ban. You've yet proved that the majority of FLG scholars agreed that He is related to Luo.
• The source bought up by Homunculus is nowhere new. It was a university essay that did not provide attribution for these claims at all [12]. And guess where did Porter attribute the relations claim? [13] Clearwisdom.net/Faluninfo.net, mouthpieces for the FLG movement.--PCPP (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

... and the fact remains that we have three reliable sources saying this, and several editors supporting the inclusion. If you find some research contradicting the claim, please let us know. -- Asdfg12345 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completely skipping the debate and all arguments. I've already made my statements on why the three sources does not provide sufficient conclusion on why Luo and He are related, which you have yet answered, and now you ask me to provide evidence on how they're not related? Oh please.--PCPP (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't claim a direct relationship between them being related and the persecution of Falun Gong. The original sources were all Falun Gong websites (see Colipon's comment on old discussion, about how it only appears in English language websites and it's misteriously missing from Chinese language websites). I had heard before of He Zuoxiu and I had never read that any of his acts and success was due to being related to a certain politician. He Zuoxiu is a Chinese skeptic and Falun Gong is his natural target, he doesn't need any special reason to go after them. This is just trying to smear a source in order to reduce its credibility. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But the sources do, in fact, say that there was a connection between their relationship and the persecution. I'm not going to paste them again, but just read what I posted above: both Gutmann and Porter state it directly, while Zhao says it indirectly. Why is it unusual that you had heard of He Zuoxiu, but not read of his connection with Luo Gan? And how does that relate to the relevance of its inclusion here? And, in fact, it is not mysteriously missing from Chinese language websites: it is all over Chinese websites, though most of them are Falun Gong ones, so I didn't quote them. How would that even bolster the credibility of the claim, since Chinese websites are so notoriously unreliable to begin with? And in what context would such familial relations be published, except as a way of criticising the two and showing the incestuousness of CCP officialdom--so would a mainland source boast of such things? I think not. The demand for a Chinese language source as some kind of independent corroboration for what appears in several English-language RS seems to me a furphy meant to throw us off the scent of what is right in front of our noses. It is the first time such a demand has been made, and what is its basis in policy? Do we need to scour the Chinese Internet for each piece of information, and only then will it be considered truthful? Finally, the idea that this is trying to "smear" a source in order to "reduce its credibility" is also unreasonable and inaccurate. There is no attempt whatsoever to smear Mr. He--in fact, for that all we would need to do is quote his own words about how he supports the incarceration and brainwashing of practitioners, made to the New York Times after the persecution began (though that would not be properly called smearing, merely relaying the man's own views)--but it is an attempt to explicate what several reliable sources have said about the origins of the Tianjin protest and its relation to Zhongnanhai and the origins of the persecution. What is on the page now is in fact not all of it. There were surveillance cameras set up at the protest site before the practitioners arrived in Tianjin, for example, indicating that the security apparatus was already quite prepared for it and was collecting information on these people. There should be a sentence on that, with a good source. -- Asdfg12345 16:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He Zuoxiu explains in an interview why he attacked Falun Gong[14]. At that time, Zuoxiu had already been attacking pseudoscience for years, and he was one of the scientists that prodded the Chinese government into starting a campaign against pseudoscience in 1993. All those sources are just speculating with no proof.

Other sources say nothing at all of this connection, and some mention that he has attacked qi gong and other pseudoscience before. For example, Time magazine[15], and about every source that mentions Zuoxiu's interview. Apparently Ownby never felt necessary to mention any such connection. Zuoxiu himself says that he criticized Falun Gong in other occasions before a specific interview that caused protests[16]. A Lynne Rienner Publishers book gives another reason for ZuoXiu's attack against FG: "The He Zuoxiu anti-qigong article that originally sparked the Falun Gong protests came partly in response to Li's claims that Falun Gong had proved that modern science was inadequate to explain the universe (...)" page 245 [17]. From Columbia University Press book, Zuoxiu had already been "a leading role in the anti-qigong polemic of 1995", page 134 footnote 84 [18]. In other words, all sources of high quality say absolutely nothing about any brother-in-law or about ZuoXiu's collaborating with the Chinese government to bring down Falun Gong. The weight of sources is against any mention.

See also John Carter's comment below about this polemic not being important enough to appear in the main article. (He Zuoxiu‎ looks like an adequate "child" article to include this info) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Enric: even John Carter thinks the info is OK as far as NR is concerned. The Porter thesis has been published in book form, and has been called "excellent" by Ownby and also praised by Palmer, so it is a very good source. I will respond to the logic of the points you are making. One is that other sources say other things, and that not all of them mention this. But I don't know since when what was said in a few reliable sources had to be said in all reliable sources to be admissible. For example, Ownby also says little about how practitioners jammed satellites in China--does this mean that wikipedia should not mention this? Also, Ownby himself says that his book is mainly about Falun Gong and is not a detailed history of the persecution. He is not interested in a thorough discussion of the inner politics around what happened, whereas Gutmann directly researched and wrote about that aspect. Different scholars have different focuses. Ownby, for example, does not mention the Iceland incident once; but a scholar has recently published a whole book on just that incident, and it would certainly be relevant to include some of that on this page. Secondly, the other source you cited, a "Lynne Rienner Publishers" book, is a chapter written by Adam Frank, the only chapter that author has written on Falun Gong--it is explicitly about the scholarly and media discourse on Falun Gong, not a thorough examination of the origins of the persecution. Finally, your point about He Zuoxiu already being predisposed to attacking Falun Gong is well taken. But this does not conflict with the documented statements about his connection with Luo Gan, and Luo Gan's leading role in the persecution. They are complimentary pieces of information, not contradictory ones. Again, if you had a source which said explicitly that the brother-in-law thing was simply irrelevant, well, then we could say how others find it irrelevant; at the moment we have several reliable sources talking about its relevance. There is not a conflict between one source not saying it therefore meaning we shouldn't say it; Wikipedia is a composite of the best research on a given topic. -- Asdfg12345 03:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Noah Porter's thesis should not be used, considering that he sourced the claim directly from the FLG mouthpiece Clearwisdom. Here's the direct passage from his book [19]:

He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 200g)

And nowhere else in his book does Porter comment on the supposed relations between He and Luo, or speculate that He was responsible for the crackdown.--PCPP (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the religion RFC tag as well. I think a few points are relevant here:

1) How is the material in question directly relevant to the topic of this article? This article is about Falun Gong, the movement. So far as I have seen, there is one source which states that these two individuals may be in some way cooperating to the detriment of Falun Gong. There are serious questions about whether that synthesis of material is necessarily of such importance that it has to be included in the main article.

2) Please see WP:SYNTH. I note that none of the sources indicate specifically state that there was any form of cooperation between the two individuals. If the purpose of the material is to imply that there is such a cooperation, then that purpose, however good, would be a form of synthesis not permitted by SYNTH.

3) Are these individuals alive? If either is, or even potentially if their direct families are, WP:BLP would very possibly be a serious consideration here. The idea seems to be to indicate that these two have cooperated actively in some way, and, honestly, the evidence presented does not make that a clear and necessary conclusion. Insinuations of things which cannot be clearly documented by reliable sources are very possibly unacceptable per BLP.

4) National Review, which I myself don't necessarily think is that good a magazine, is a good source for this comparatively straightforward information as per WP:RS. A PhD thesis, unless cited as a source by other independent sources, probably isn't. The third source, as mentioned above, doesn't even mention the individuals by name or in any other way clearly and explicitly, and is, on that basis, not really admissable evidence regarding this subject.

So, on the basis of the above, we have one generally reliable source which mentions that these two individuals are related, and other sources which include information which supports that conclusion, but without making clear and forthright statements to that effect. In all honesty, the National Review, on its own, is probably sufficient for the information to be included, if the material is to be included. The question becomes whether the material is of sufficient importance to be included in this, the main article on the topic. Honestly, I cannot see how it is, based on the clear and non-SYNTH information provided. Now, there are other questions involved.

Are these two individuals notable enough in their own rights to have separate biographical articles? If yes, then reference to family is certainly appropriate for such biographical articles.

Is the material, perhaps, of sufficient importance to be included in one of the "child" articles? Maybe. That would depend on a number of matters, including the degree of material in the article about the two individuals themselves. Even there, BLP might be a consideration.

Hope these answers are clear enough. If there are any doubts about what I said, please indicate as much below. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to give my comment on this. I'll get back to you in a few hours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick word. The material in question is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong. It bears virtually no significance in the biographies of these persons. There is ample research on the significance of the Zhongnanhai manifestation and the preceding Tianjin incident; among the competing narratives on the pre-crackdown era, this version of events is directly supported by many important sources, even if not all of them mention the family relationship between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu. Gutmann in National Review believes the connection is important, and he is not the only source talking about a melange of science, ideology, politics and personal affiliations. Since this context and narrative already exists, we are not synthesising material, only providing the readers with reliably sourced remarks on the circumstances leading up to the crackdown. As far as I see it, there is no encyclopaedic reason to keep this information out of the article. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the passages cited are directly from these sources, certainly not an original synthesis of them. -- Asdfg12345 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to read WP:SYNTH again, asax it seems to me that you have rather clearly misunderstood it. It is a violation of SYNTH to link together statements in such a way as to cause them to apparently say something that none of them specifically say. The attempt to introduce this material is based on individual editors' interpretation that other texts, which do not specifically refer to this individual by name, are in fact referring to him because of his relationship to another party. Such attempts to get an article to say something that is not said by any of the sources is a very clear violation of SYNTH. Olaf's statement that the material is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong is, to my eyes, completely unsupported by policy and buidelines. And I do not see any sort of direct response to the possible violation of WP:BLP. To be specific, there has been nothing clearly established explicitly from reliable sources which links the relationship of these two individuals to the suppression of Falun Gong, and attempting to get multiple sources to state something that no source presented to date has explicitly said is a violation of SYNTH. According to BLP, we cannot allow such material to any article. If, and I believe only if a reliable source explicitly says that these two individuals have, in some way, colluded or conspired to act, then, perhaps, that might be relevant to the article about the suppression of Falun Gong in China, and, I suppose, an argument could be made that it is relevant here. But I have not yet seen the sources which make the statements which would be required by policy for this material to be included. If those sources exist, than I very strongly suggest that they be produced and that others be allowed to review them to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines are not violated. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Reorganization

On the assumption that I had everyone’s blessing, expressed or implicit, I have just updated the main article. A summary and explanation of changes is below. I know I previously promised this would be riveting, but now I’m simply hoping that I don’t offend too many people’s sensibilities. As we all know, this is a contentious topic, and I don’t expect that these changes will be universally well received, but I do hope that those who are particularly invested in this topic can appreciate what the edits attempt to accomplish.

The main changes are a reorganization of the sections, and the paring down of the entire article. I also attempted to add, in some cases, summary paragraphs at the beginning of some of the sub-sections, as they previously followed a somewhat ad-hoc, stream-of-consciousness order.

The new sections are as follows:

Beliefs and Teachings

• Categorization
• Organization and Structure
• Demographics

History

• Criticism and Response
• Tianjin and Zhongnanhai Protests
• The Ban

Suppression

• Media Campaign
• Conversion Program
• Coercive Measures
• Response Inside China

Falun Gong Outside China

Reception

• Controversies

The rationale for this reorganization is based largely on persistent suggestions that the article gave too much emphasis to the persecution of Falun Gong, and insufficient attention to the practice itself. I attempted to shorten the suppression section by consolidating information and removing extraneous and redundant analysis by human rights groups and academics. There is more that can be done in this respect, but I am not sufficiently bold to make further cuts to the content. I suggest that the content that was removed, if it is deemed relevant, be placed in the persecution article. I also moved the suppression section down, relative information about the practice itself.

Some editors have suggested that the suppression section should simply be folded into the history section, and then be followed by a discussion of Falun Gong’s organization, demography, etc. I attempted to do this, but ultimately concluded that it may be better to keep the most relevant information about the beliefs, organization, and composition of practitioners together, rather than breaking it up with a long and complex history about suppression in China. I therefore kept all the information about the practice under the same heading.

I also attempted to bring the suppression section under the History heading, but encountered two problems: First, as TheSoundAndTheFury pointed out, convention holds that the sub-headings should correspond to daughter articles, and both the suppression and the history have their own daughter article. The second problem I encountered is that I found it rather difficult to organize the suppression section as part of a chronological narrative (it is currently organized thematically). In the end, aside from reducing the total length and adding brief section summaries, I did very little in the way of changing the content of this section. In the future, however, I recommend that some effort be made to combine a chronological and thematic approach to the suppression. It should include more recent information, as the article currently says very little about the suppression from 2005 - present. Hopefully this information can be added without greatly expanding the size of this section.

Other notable changes:

• I broke up the “Public Debate,” moved “Categorization” into the “Practice and Beliefs” heading, and “Controversies” into the “Reception” section. Speaking of...

• I created a “Reception” section, and wrote some additional content, including a summary overview. Much of the content here was culled from other sections, where it was out of place (namely, ‘Public Debate’ and ‘Falun Gong outside China’)

• The ‘Controversies’ section now also includes the discussion of Falun Gong’s ‘cult’ status which was previously found elsewhere in the article.

• The section ‘Falun Gong outside China’ was messy and without direction. It discussed both the practice and activities of Falun Gong outside China, as well as its reception. It now discusses only the former. I also added an overview for this section and a brief history of the practice outside China, then transitioning into a discussion of how overseas Falun Gong communities have responded to the Chinese government’s campaign.

• I wrote a section on the demographics of Falun Gong practitioners both inside and outside China, drawing mainly on research by Ownby and Palmer, and some research cited by Porter.

• The categorization section includes content previously found in ‘Public Debate,’ as well as content that was previously in the Practice and Beliefs discussion. I also reduced the length here, as much of the content proved to be redundant when it was pulled together.

• The sections on organization and structure are pulled both from the previous version of the page, as well as contributions by Asdfg on the talk page regarding finances

• Added more information on Falun Gong beliefs, cosmology, and practice

• In the interest of reducing length, I tended to summarize instances of talking heads who were simply going back and forth on an issue.

All told, I think I reduced the length by about 1,500 words. I also made a number of other minor changes – removing the Gao Rongrong photo, for instance. I am happy to discuss any and all these changes at greater length, and hope that subsequent discussions will be constructive and in good faith. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am of two minds about this... these are certainly big changes, and many of them undiscussed. I disagree with what you call the "extraneous and redundant analysis" about the persecution, since it is one of the most notable aspects of this topic. I have changed a few subheads and re-added one of the important images regarding the persecution. I didn't look at the changes thoroughly but I will over the next few days, and probably have more comments. I do appreciate the work that goes into this though, at the least. -- Asdfg12345 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reorganization is excellent. Asdfg, do you feel you have a tendency to own the page? It was agreed by several of us that the information about the suppression (I am about to revert your changes to those subsections) needn't be so prominent or extensive. Homunculus is to be applauded for the rigorous scholarship and painstaking research that obviously went into this rewrite. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, though I hope no one will object to my putting back the picture, at the least. - Asdfg12345 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

At some later point I would like to open a discussion on the "propaganda campaign" or "media campaign" question. I do not think it is biased to refer to it as the former, since there is no disagreement among sources that we are talking about anything but propaganda. I could find dozens or more references. -- Asdfg12345 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps my final point, in response to Homunculus's changes, is the notion that people in the West actually think that Falun Gong is a "cult": this is quite an assertion. I give Westerners more credit than that, and in my experience it's not actually the case. Very few people hold such views, and mostly it results from a lack of information. I am wary of Wikipedia inadvertently perpetuating these vague stereotypes (someone reads "people think it's a cult" and then by osmosis start thinking "that Falun Gong, is it a cult?"); my point is not from the standpoint of advocacy, but in terms of how an encyclopedia should inform readers. Practically, I would have thought it would be better to explain the whys and wherefores of the cult label in more depth (i.e., explaining its irrelevance as a legitimate categorisation and its utility as a propaganda label) rather than just say which stereotypes exist. Anyway, a thought. I appreciate the serious engagement with this topic by other editors, even when I don't always agree with the changes; serious consideration of the topic and meaningful editing from "outsiders" has, unfortunately, not been seen for a long time. -- Asdfg12345 04:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A lukewarm reception, but I'll take it. I'm glad the changes are generally acceptable. I encourage people to add or remove info as appropriate, as there remains much work to be done in raising the quality. Bear in mind that these changes mainly represent a reorganisation and more research on a few points more than anything. Asdfg, regarding the propaganda vs. media issue, let's see what the Wikipedia convention is re: propaganda. On the cult issue, I will be a tougher sell. Some Westerners do view Falun Gong as a cult, even if the view is not well supported. Ownby says as much when he notes that the Chinese government's portrayal of Falun Gong as a cult has undermined sympathy for the group. And the article does contextualise this claim, though perhaps not quite as much as it used to. Basically, I'm not really sure what more you want. If you have an edit that will improve the article, I won't object, and I won't claim my edits are necessarily correct, but I hope you can temper your sensitivity some. Homunculus (duihua) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Homunculus, this reorganization is much welcomed. Asdfg, to some extent I share your concerns about the significance of information about the persecution, and that is something that could be better explored going forward, perhaps. —Zujine|talk 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes by Homunculus seem reasonable to me. Regarding the cult information, please read the article published earlier this year, "Falun Gong: Ten Years On" in I believe Pacific Affairs, which states that the government's calling it a cult has led to some individuals outside of China mentally linking it to Aum Shinrikyo and/or the Branch Davidians, and that such comparisons are in fact to the detriment of the group. We really don't have any conventions about "propaganda", other than maybe WP:AVOID regarding possible use of the word to the exclusion of other more neutral words. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

A generic section head, I know. I'll be meticulous in explaining my changes in reverse chron:

• Firstly, this one because Colipon's personal complaint is not a reliable source we should link.
• Secondly, adding in all that information from primary source materials is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. I noticed large parts of well-researched information removed with primary source material from FLG teachings added, including some rather novel interpretations. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so this is strictly not allowed. Drawing one's own interpretations is not allowed. If one wants to include such information one must show that it has been written as such in scholarship. You can't just dig through the teachings and present an analysis of your choosing, however closely it is sourced, because no single editor has the authority to determine how certain parts of teachings should be represented, what importance they should be given, what role they play within the larger corpus of teachings, their significance, etc. There's a big Internet out there for blogs of this kind. Wikipedia is in some ways a confined space, so what's here needs to be highly well researched and rather compact. Large wanderings on obscure topics--NB: "obscure" is defined as not having a scholarly interpretation, or several, to back it up, which goes for all the additions I am removing--don't have a space and are not in line with our content policies. There were two changes along these lines, both rather radical. The first on Jan. 16, which put the page from 87,073 bytes to 93,192 bytes, then again on Jan. 19, putting the page from 93,279 to 95,279 bytes (wonder if the timing reflected anything about Hu's US visit?). These are quite radical changes that reflect arguments that have been gone through over and over again, and where consensus has been formed already, more than just once. The sources used were also entirely primary sources, and filled with speculative sentences. Perhaps an overzealous FLG person was feeling lucky?
• Thirdly, the pinyin. Some of these additions were incorrect, such as karma being pronounced as "Niè. As far as I know, karma is pronounced ye in Chinese. I find the pinyin symbols, the large brackets that accompany them, and their intrusions all over the text, quite distracting and unnecessary. I read a lot of Chinese articles on wiki and never see this. It doesn't look nice, and it gets in the way of the reading. If people want to study Chinese they can go ahead. There's no reason in an ordinary article of this sort for the casual reader to have to be exposed to diacritics and other esoterica. I have removed them, too. That meant basically just pulling the changes all back. But I've explained my reasons as above. The first is pretty watertight, though I would certainly change my view on the material in question if reliable, secondary sources were brought forth--then it would be a question of WP:UNDUE. Such interpretations, however, are not adhered to by the top scholars of Falun Gong, like Ownby or Penny, and that would have to be kept in mind. The page as it stands, if you'll read the long arguments above, represents quite a balanced compromise between the various factions; I suggest such an equilibrium not be too quickly upset. As for the pinyin, let's see what others think. If there's a majority that support it.... well, let's just say I'll be very surprised!--Asdfg12345 03:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the pinyin, I can't claim to have strong feelings, but the great care that is being taken to add pinyin transliterations on this page is something I have not seen elsewhere (though, in fairness, I once encountered a page filled with bopomofo, so it would be worse). I don't suppose there is a style guide concerning the use of pinyin?Homunculus (duihua) 06:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Anyway, would you mind expressing either your support or opposition to the changes? As you know, wiki works by consensus, and expressing your views one way or another will help in that process going forward. I've never seen a rule that because someone took care doing something, that it is necessarily a valuable thing to have done. Nothing against the Pinyin guy. [Update: I'm also going to be bold and ask you to take a look at my changes on the immolation page, and my explanation. Why do I ask you? You'll notice editing these pages is like walking through a mostly empty desert... except for the odd jackal that springs out. It would be helpful to have a critical but rational voice to test things against and beat out a consensus with.] --Asdfg12345 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aye...ok. I suggest that in the section describing Falun Gong's beliefs, the criterion employed should be that the beliefs feature prominently in Falun Gong's teachings. As a test of their significance and the orthodox interpretations of them, we should rely on secondary sources. Previously (that is, before last week), I believe that most things in the section met these criteria. I found the recent additions to be interesting, but I concur with your assessment that they were given inordinate weight, added much length, and represented the author's original interpretation of primary sources, with no supporting secondary sources. I suppose this is my way of saying I support your change. As to pinyin, the manual of style is most unhelpful. Homunculus (duihua) 08:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mystery editor reverted your changes this morning. I do not normally engage in reverting, but in this case, I decided to reciprocate. My suspicion is that we may indeed be dealing with a FLG person uninitiated in edit summaries and the art of consensus. Perhaps you can attempt to draw this fellow's attention to the existence of a talk page, so he/she does not become flummoxed by the repeated disappearance of their changes.Homunculus (duihua) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• He seems to have gotten the point. We see a reasonable compromise here. --Asdfg12345 02:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just reverted again... Sir, I think you should become more familiar with policy etc. I could add ten pages of favorite teachings and chuck them on the page, but the key is scholarly research, third parties, etc., and crucially: neutrality and due weight. --Asdfg12345 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Very strong bias / propaganda after a decade editing this article

Hi again from a LONG time ago. I've noticed with interest that all the very strong pro-FLGers are still on this board with unabated force after this many years and after reading the Discussion history for this article, have essentially completely succeeded in driving out all the more neutral editors simply because they wanted a more balanced article. I'm actually surprised you drove out someone like Ohconfucius (whose political opinions I have reservations about because he is more sympathetic to anti-CPC movements and is thus not totally balanced) who could have got this article featured and/or included. Instead, a dogmatic adherence to one and only one tolerated opinion by FLG followers has resulted in this page reading exactly like a Falun Gong propaganda leaflet as handed out by the practitioners themselves. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the sheer bias in proportion by pro-FLGers (i.e. practitioners) contributing even on this Discussion page, compared to non-practitioners, should say something, let alone the fanatacism to a narrow, accepted doctrine (version) of the main article is/are the main stumbling block(s) to ever having this article featured.

Asdfg, having your more radical fellow accounts such as Dilip "contribute" by edit-warring to drive out even neutral observers will never promote your cause. Even back then I realised you wouldn't change one bit despite myself saying you had grown slightly more accepting of a slightly different opinion for the simple reason that your actions speak louder than words. What goes around, comes around. If you are so ridiculous intolerant of any other view other than the narrow one espoused by Li Hongzhi and the most senior in the FLG hierarchy, why should any non-FLG practitioner show tolerance to your beliefs?

Much like Ohconfucius, I have been permanently put-off editing this article forever, but note this well. Drowning out, or totally overwhelming (in volume) other "contributors" with your opinions even on the Discussion page or the main article page doesn't make your opinion more right or better simply by occasionally having other fellow FLG practitioners agree with that one doctrine. You can't preach FLG's three main tenets if you can show non-FLG people's opinions none of those three things - non-FLG people will realise the hypocrisy.

After all, criticising someone else for being wrong does not make you (more) right. A sect or cult (depending on your POV) built almost only on a hatred of a political party won't last, since in history, no political party has lasted forever, and then FLG will have lost its raison d'etre. Jsw663 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen this. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I was the only Falun Gong practitioner left and I've just been banned for it. So most of those arguments are fantasy (with a good dose of vitriol). If you want a basis from which to judge the matter, it is suggested that you look at David Ownby's book on Falun Gong. The page in its current form does not differ too much on the key issues from his largely authoritative text. --Asdfg12345 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)