Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Request for Comment - He / Luo connection

Should the article, specifically the section dealing with events that led to the suppression of the Falun Gong in the spring of 1999, note the alleged familial connection between two of Falun Gong’s leading opponents in this era? Two reliable sources (excerpted below) have noted this connection and the possible significance of it. The men are He Zuoxiu, a physisist and opponent of qigong, Chinese medicine, and pseudo-science; and Luo Gan, a high-ranking Chinese official with significant influence over the Ministry of Public Security. Both men were instrumental in the events that led to the suppression, and benefited personally from it. One proposal for what could be on the page is this:

"Porter and Gutmann have noted the possible significance of a familial relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, who are purported to be brothers-in-law or otherwise related by marriage. Porter speculates that the two may have planned the events of April 1999 with the goal of provoking Falun Gong and creating a pretext for the suppression of the group."

As stated above, there are two reliable sources who note this connection. The first, anthropologist Noah Porter, did so in his MA thesis, which was later published as a book. Although only a Master’s dissertation, the work achieved considerable influence, and was well reviewed by more established experts on the field. Porter is not an expert on Chinese politics, however, and some editors expressed concern that Porter’s source on the family link are Falun Gong websites which, while not necessarily untrue, are not necessarily true either. This is a slightly redacted version of Porter’s synthesis of the events (emphasis added):

Finally, a man named Luo Gan, along with a relative of his, may bear some responsibility for the crackdown.[...] Luo Gan was secretary general of the State Council, and he “had been investigating Falun Gong and had wanted it banned since 1996 but could not find any legal basis for transgression” (Ching 2001). However, “[Luo] had the police direct [Falungong practitioners] to Zhongnanhai, in order to create an incident with which they afterwards could be charged” (Ching 2001). [...] He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan’s relatives (FalunInfo.net n.d.a; Clearwisdom.net 2000g)...seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong [...] He Zuoxiu claimed that two of his graduate students had relapses of mental disorders due to Falun Gong, both in his article and on Beijing Television. The practitioners protested the magazine’s office in Tianjin because they would not carry a response, and were beaten and arrest by riot police (Schechter 2001: 69) under orders from Luo Gan (FalunInfo.net n.d.a). Afterwards, practitioners who complained to local authorities about this harsh treatment were told to go to Beijing (Schechter 2001: 69); Luo Gan had “secretly order[ed] the police to lead Falun Gong practitioners into gathering around the Zhongnanhai government compound” [...] Afterwards, Luo Gan was appointed as part of the team created by the Central Committee of the CCP to investigate the April 25 incident.It was Luo Gan who finally issued the order that Falun Gong be banned (Luo 1999). Luo Gan was then put in charge of the “the Head Office for Handling the Falun Gong Issue,” also known as the “610 Office.” [...] As for He Zuoxiu, he “became a national hero for opposing Falun Gong” (Yan 2001). Things could not have worked out better for the two if they planned it – which, it appears, they just might have.

(In case it is not clear, the point is that Luo wanted to crack down on Falun Gong for years, but had no pretext. He Zuoxiu published the article in Tianjin, which set off a chain reaction that resulted in Falun Gong demonstrating in front of the Zhongnanhai government compound. That demonstration is widely viewed as the catalyst for the crackdown on Falun Gong. As Porter notes, Luo Gan seemed to have been pulling the strings in Tianjin and Zhongnanhai, and was as a result of these events, he was put in charge of the suppression of Falun Gong).

The second source that points out this connection is Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist who has written and published on Falun Gong for about a decade. Gutmann was in Beijing as the events of 1999 unfolded, and present at Zhongnanhai when the pivotal Falun Gong demonstration took place. He appears to have sources in the Chinese government, and conducted extensive interviews for his account of the events leading up to the suppression. Gutmann wrote a feature article in the National Review which analyzed the events of the Spring of 1999, essentially arguing that the Falun Gong were baited into protesting at Zhongnanhai, providing certain Communist Party leaders with a long-awaited excuse to launch a full suppression of the group. It cannot be so concisely excerpted, so I would advise reading the full article.[1] One key excerpt is here:

...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.

Editors who oppose the inclusion of the information on He and Luo’s family connection point out that Gutmann does not explain the source of this claim (to which I would say that journalistic articles like this one don’t have footnotes, but are fact-checked by discerning editorial boards).

I did research to see if any other sources (outside the Falun Gong context) have noted the family connection between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan. There is virtually no information on Luo Gan’s wife. However, in the city of Yangzhou, the He family has a garden frequented by tourists where they display their family tree. According to multiple tourist accounts, the family tree indicates that one of He Zuoxiu’s relatives, He Zuozhi (probably a sister or cousin), is married to Luo Gan. This is not definitive proof, but it certainly helps to make the case that the family connection is real, and no evidence to the contrary has ever been presented.

So, we need to establish:

  • That the family connection and the possible implications thereof is notable enough to be briefly mentioned in the relevant history section (with inline citations given)
  • That such inclusion satisfies verifiability policy

I hope I have presented the evidence here judiciously and have not left anything out. Sorry this is such a long RfC, but it's a complex issue. Homunculus (duihua) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have time to work through all the details. What I will say is that the situation is being somewhat misrepresented by the analysis above. I urge any editor who is participating in the RfC to read the full discussion and not rely on the above analysis to characterize the nature of the dispute. Moreover, I do remind the editors that a previous RfC had already been conducted on this matter in 2010, in which User John Carter had pointed out that the passages in question were in violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. I quote User John Carter: "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." Colipon+(Talk) 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
New evidence, and more full excerpts, have been presented in this RfC that were not presented in the previous one. Namely, the Porter source cited above does explicitly say that these two individuals likely colluded or conspired, that they may have had a significant role in catalyzing the persecution, and notes their being relatives as part of that allegation. The Gutmann source is not as explicit, but I think a reasonable person would understand that the subtext is precisely that of a collusion or conspiracy involving these two individuals. Moreover, the new evidence from Yangzhou alleviates BLP concerns (that and the fact that no evidence to the contrary can be found). I also think that the new wording proposed here resolves any concerns about original synthesis. So, with due respect to the previous decision, I would therefore exhort outside parties to consider the evidence presented with fresh eyes. I also hope sincerely that this discussion is not derailed accusations of bad faith or deception.Homunculus (duihua) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not true. The argument haven't advanced at all from Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_36#Bringing_up_an_old_discussion_.28Luo_Gan.29, in which Falun Gong user ASDFG brings up the exact same passage from Palmer. The language Palmer uses is enough to set off alarms for us: "seems to have", "might have", "may bear some". Simply pasting the paragraph instead of the passage does not constitute 'new evidence' from what ASDFG already presented. Again, the standard of scrutiny suggested by John Carter is perfectly reasonable, and the content as it stands does not reach this standard. Colipon+(Talk) 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The Porter (not Palmer) passage was not presented in full in the previous RfC. It was very heavily excerpted, which would naturally lead to concerns about synthesis. Do you know why Porter used qualifications like "may have"? It's because he's a responsible scholar. It's likely no one will ever know the truth about what went on, so he can't state definitively that they did conspire. But he can put together the evidence, connect the dots, and say that there appears to have been a conspiracy, and their being related seems to be part of it. And since Porter does that, and Gutmann does that, we can present their views in an equally responsible and qualified manner on this encyclopedia. I am not going to debate with you further. This is forum for uninvolved editors to review what the sources say and weigh in on how it might be included on the page.Homunculus (duihua) 17:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am unclear on the relevance of the family relationship. There is an underlying suggestion that the relationship is somehow improper, though the sources do not make that explicit. We do not encourage speculation. If these are the best sources that can be found, then I do not see a rationale for mentioning the relationship. This is a passing comment, I haven't read any background material, and do not have the time or inclination for that at the moment, so my comment must be taken as uninformed and cursory. If I do get some time later, I may look more deeply into the matter. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an explicit claim in several sources that the familial relationship between the two precipitated the particular circumstances of the persecution. It's not an underlying suggestion that the relationship between He/Luo is somehow improper (I'm not sure what this could mean. A familial relationship is a familial relationship--the sources claim that it was put to improper use, specifically in creating the pretext for a suppression, not that the relationship itself is improper). This is stated explicitly in the sources. The question is whether the sources brought forth pass wp:rs for the claims they're making. But what they're claiming is perfectly clear. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was actually discussing this with SilkTork on his/her talk page, and neglected to respond here. Silk raised a point, which I think has some merit, that highlighting the Zhongnanhai counter-narrative may be premature. If the narrative about the He / Luo relationship (and the significant of it) gains more ground in the relevant literature as being significant, then we are in a better position to assess its notability and relevance to the topic. For now, if we present the facts of these events in a straight-forward way, without the speculation on the significance of the familial connection, I think that should be satisfactory. Also, if ever a page is created dealing with the April 25 protest directly, that may be a more appropriate forum to explore the different interpretations of the event in greater detail. I'm not attached to any particular approach.Homunculus (duihua) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that you are now in favour of removing all the references to He and Luo's familial relationship. 209.29.21.158 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'm being noncommittal to provide an opportunity for more discussion. I think that the idea of stating the facts of the relationship in passing, without elaboration on the possible implications of it, is one option. There's also the option of leaving in a (short) description of what folks like Porter and Gutmann see as the implications, while being careful not to extrapolate beyond what the reliable sources have written. Omitting the information from this page, and perhaps waiting to see if it gains traction in future literature on the subject, is another choice available to us. None of these options seems to be a violation of any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, so all are valid choices as far as I can tell. I would be curious to see what other people think after reading the sources described above.Homunculus (duihua) 05:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want this to be an RfC or is this some sort of "I want to intimidate my opponents so I post an RfC that no outsider will understand"? Seriously, if you want anyone other than the usual suspects to give comment, keep it simple... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha, well, there is no doubt I failed in the mission to elicit comment from non-involved editors! Though I'm not sure how the length of an RfC could be expected to deter only would-be opponents (and, since I'm not committed to a position on this question, I'm not sure who my opponents would be in any case). On self-examination, however, I realize that I may have sought to intimidate those with an aversion to reading. I would hope that people weighing in on this question actually take the time to examine the sources in question and familiarize themselves with the surrounding issues. Maybe I hope for too much.Homunculus (duihua) 16:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"may", "seems", "just might". And other sources don't claim any deliberate provocation. Other sources directly blame Falun Gong for escalating the situation[2][3]. Another one says:

"Falundafa likely became the target of Chinese authorities in 1999. On April 25, 1999 around 10,000 Falundafa believers appeared outside the Chinese leadership's Zhongnanhai compound in Beijing. Contrary to general belief, this was not a protest against the Chinese Government. It was a request for legal recognition and defense against attacks made by a physics professor He Zuoxiu. Prof. He had made a second career as a debunker of what he regarded as pseudoscience and bogus beliefs. He wrote a critique of Falundafa in the April issue of Science and Technology for Youth, an obscure Chinese magazine. The Falundafa protest was in response to this (Eckholm, 2001)." [4].

I already heard of this guy before I saw him in Falun Gong articles. Back in 1994, He Zuoxiu was already a famous skeptic, forcing the Chinese government to make a public commitment against pseudoscience and superstition, see Hongcheng_Magic_Liquid. He appears as a skeptic in 1995 in Science[5] and in May 2006 in Nature[6] (I can't read the full article). There was nothing strange or abnormal about him giving a talk against Falun gong (which was becoming popular at the time, and had a good amount of superstitious explanations for qigong).

Please remove this as speculations from less than a handful of sources, that are not supported on any actual fact. We are not going to add every conspiracy theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Enric, it seems that you’re objecting to the inclusion of the speculation about the significance of the He-Luo relationship, which I think is a different question from just stating the relationship (something that could be done in five words or so). I can see the point that including the theory around this is speculative, but when reliable sources are the ones speculating, can’t we report it? The page has an entire section speculating on the causes behind the campaign. I’m not saying we have to include this, but there are a couple points I want to raise for consideration:
    • First, although there are only two sources that explicitly mention this He - Luo connection as being significant, they are not exactly marginal. If I were to make a list of, say, the top ten journalists and scholars whose writings on Falungong are must-reads on the subject, Porter and Gutmann would be on that list. It seems their views on these events represent a notable viewpoint.
    • Secondly, this may actually be a question of neutrality and balance. The version of events that Gutmann and Porter are challenging holds, essentially, that Falungong stupidly provoked the crackdown by protesting at Zhongnanhai (meaning they got what they deserved for their audacity). As Enric says, this account of events blames Falungong for escalating the situation. This is basically the Chinese government’s story. To an extent it was accepted by western journalists at the time because they didn’t know any better. For most of them, Zhongnanhai was their first exposure to Falungong, and they cobbled together what information they could relying on official accounts and plainly observable facts. Gutmann and Porter drew on more evidence to put together a different hypothesis, and found that Falungong was the victim and not the provocateur in the April demonstration. I think there’s a case to be made that a balanced article needs to represent this view (and I suspect this is the reason that such an apparently minor issue has been the subject of such frequent contention).

But leaving aside the question of this alternative narrative, does anyone dispute that the relationship between He and Luo exists? One might disagree with what it means, or think that conspiracy theories are out of place, but it is a fact, is it not? I previously had some concerns, but the stuff from Yangzhou (and the lack of contrary evidence) put those to rest. If we don’t include the short paragraph expounding on the importance of the relationship, at a minimum I think it would be fine to note, when introducing Luo Gan, that he is related through marriage to He Zuoxiu. Given the facts, readers can come to their own conclusions.—Zujine|talk 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about perceived truth, it only includes what can be verified from reliable sources. If no reliable sources mention the connection then neither should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, that is a good point. Please note that two reliable sources mention the connection.Homunculus (duihua) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I find it interesting that so many books and schoolar works were published about the Falun Gong that don't discuss He / Luo connection, while discussing their role in the crackdown. Appears as WP:FRINGE to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw the RfC and decided to have a look at this case. I've studied China related topics in the past and read some interesting articles on Falun Gong, and although I can't call myself an expert, the issue at hand seems notable enough to me and the sources appear reliable. Include. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is unlikely to draw much more constructive comment. As far as I can tell, no one who weighed in took the time to read the sources or analyse them. To recap this and the preceding discussion, there were a couple initial concerns that were raised about inclusion of the He/Luo connection and accompanying theory. Namely, concern about the authenticity and sourcing of the claim, the use of the Zhao article as a source for the claim, and the statement of the connection as unqualified fact. The first of these concerns has been resolved through reference to other sources (outside the Falungong context) which assert the family relationship. The second and third points were addressed early on in edits by The Sound And The Fury. There do not appear to be any further, objective problems, but only normative interpretations. About the inclusion of the collusion theory, I pointed out that this is actually a question of balance, and that Gutmann and Porter are prominent sources on Falungong whose views represent a notable perspective. No one responded to those points. I don't think that inclusion needs to be long. Can I propose that we just adopt the wording presented at the start of this RfC? It's short, well supported by the sources, and is almost certainly an improvement to what's now in the article. That way we can wrap this up. —Zujine|talk 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's quite alright with you, I removed the paragraph that expounded on the collusion theory, and left just a passing mention of the relationship with an inline citation to Gutmann and Porter.Homunculus (duihua) 23:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the current version remains WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CHERRY, even if the relationship itself is 'real', the relevance of it has not been established by a wide enough range of sources. In fact, the vast majority of sources that make this connection at all are Falun Gong propaganda websites, whose only reason for highlighting this reference is to portray the actions of He Zuoxiu as part of a well-orchestrated conspiracy rather than bona fide criticism that is not linked to the CCP in any way, shape or form. Indeed, several users above already mention that this is more-or-less WP:FRINGE.

If I may summarize. After two RFCs, Respected administrators User John Carter and User Silktork, as well as User IRWolfie, User AgadaUrbanit, and User Enric Naval, in addition to myself and User OhConfucius, all have voiced their opinions that the He-Luo connection does not belong. Apparently this still does not satisfy the users that continue to push for its inclusion. So in light of that, it should be clear that the references (no matter how 'diluted') must be removed. If this still does not satisfy users pushing for the reference's inclusion, then I think I have exhausted what needs to be said here. Colipon+(Talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's valuable to differentiate between facts and theories. The fact is that these men are related. The theory concerns the significance of that relationship, particularly as it related to the events of April 1999. Unfortunately most people who weighed in on the RfC commented only on the collusion theory. Three editors who weighted in here appear to agree that the theory of collusion is notable, particularly given the prominence of Porter and Gutmann in Falun Gong literature (I also think it's notable, and the more I read about Luo's early antagonism toward Falun Gong dating back to 1996, the more plausible I find it. But I'm also aware that while Porter and Gutmann are notable researchers on this topic, the theory hasn't exactly taken off in the literature). SilkTork, who did not have time to actually read the sources, suggested the theory may be premature for inclusion. Enric Naval argued it should be removed entirely, though I can't make sense of his statement that the connection and accompanying theory is not based on fact—it's based entirely on facts. IRWolfie, who did not seem to read the RfC carefully, let alone the literature, said that we can't include things not present in RS. John Carter weighed in on a separate RfC, where the proposed material for inclusion was different, and suggested there was a problem of synthesis. There is no consensus here on the inclusion of the theory of collusion, which is what all these editors seemed to be addressing. I thought you might find the middle ground agreeable: that is, remove the theory, but leave passing mention of the fact. It takes only a few words. There is no synthesis involved, nor any suggestion of impropriety. Readers can decide for themselves whether the relationship is coincidence or not. If you can't agree to this, I think it's likely this issue will never be put to rest. Say we remove all mention of this fact. The next time it's mentioned in a journal article or book or newspaper about Falun Gong, what then will you do? Homunculus (duihua) 21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Luo notice

There's a notice on top of this page that singles out User:Samuel Luo "and his sockpuppets" as being banned from editing this article. But Samuel is not the only one who has been sanctioned as a result of the arbitration case, even indefinitely, and it's a general Wikipedia policy that block-evading sockpuppets are banned from editing articles. Since the last time a suspected sockpuppet of Samuel Luo edited was in December 2007, I think this notice is outdated, not very useful, and should be removed. Shrigley (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do Critiques go

No critics? A NRM like Scientology in China could be no controversies? Lots need to be added. The elimination, rejection, or even some disgust is not only coming from the suppression of the Chinese goverment.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I just removed recent good faith additions by an editor because they relied on primary sources or no sources and didn't seem to establish notability for the claims. Can we get some good journalism or scholarship on this? I noticed these were imported from the Chinese version. The graffiti on bank notes is rather interesting--I hadn't seen this development--but it would be a good idea to have something more solid about where this fits into the broader anti-CPC scheme. UPDATE: Not a question of criticism or not, simply good sourcing etc. please take a look at wp:npov and wp:rs. Let's not get mean about things. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems the editor added some information and photos about the Tuidang movement. The page should include mention of this, though it can be done concisely (two sentences is probably sufficient), with a link to the relevant article. We can do this without the original research, original synthesis, or non-neutral language that was introduced. There is surprisingly little english-language scholarship or media coverage of the movement to establish notability, but there is enough to justify brief mention here.
As to other controversies, they are found at the bottom of the page. Also, try to avoid reductionist analogies (eg. between Falun Gong and Scientology). Such comparisons can only distort, and do nothing to illuminate a subject or contribute to a nuanced understanding.Homunculus (duihua) 04:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Very glad to see there are editors focused on the npov. Actually I don't want to go original research right here, just try to state more info. Alright I will try to get some good source to back those words, though it's hard. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 04:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at what I added. I forgot that Patricia Thornton is another source who has written on the movement (albeit peripherally) when it first began, but the sources there are probably enough.Homunculus (duihua) 05:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice job from upstairs. But why not the pictures? The propaganda of FLG is going crazily in rural areas actually, I'm a Chinese I've seen that but I can't find any source due to obvious reason. The graffiti on bank notes is the method used in urban areas. Without the picture stating, I don't think it could be so provable. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the images pertain to Tuidang specifically, I suggest a better place for them is on the Tuidang movement article, which currently has no pictures. There are, in fact, a couple reliably published english-language sources that have noted the presence of these FG banknote (see [7]). It is very interesting, but I wish there were more literature. Anyway, I'll see what I can do.Homunculus (duihua) 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Multiple issues}}

This article is a pretty good start, but it is still far from WP:GA pages like Plan 9 from Bell Labs. There is still a quality gap to cover. I would like to explain more clearly the placement of {{Multiple issues}} tag for this page, with intention to encourage editors to improve the article.

  • advert & POV - there are multiple unresolved discussions, most notably Propaganda. There are issues that were raised from number of angles also during other discussions on this talk page.
  • self-published - there is a text book self-published source included in this article. The issue first raised at 9 January 2012, questionable source discussion.
  • synthesis - during Number of followers in 1999 discussion it was pointed out on 6 February 2012 that adjustment point is a analysis that serves to advance a position not advanced by the Seth Faison source.

I am restoring the tag to allow collaborative resolution of outstanding issues. I would request not to remove the tag again till those multiple issues are resolved via discussed consensus on this talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is... unusual. Tagged because not GA? Let's look at these issues. 1) some guy writes that the article is propaganda, based on disagreeing with the stuff about organ harvesting etc.? It's unclear of the points he raised which specifically are at play. If there are substantive issues of missing or problematic content, then specifically point out which and explain in detail. The reference here is unclear. 2) is because there's one blog post by an expert on the subject, one of among four references. The source is still there (Ethan Gutmann, "How many harvested?", March 10, 2011.) but the point is already made with CQ Researcher, it appears, so we could probably easily delete that. Is this a substantive issue? 3) this discussion, which you started, is above. The last thing Hom writes is " If you have a clear, specific objection, please share it and propose an alternative." You didn't answer. This is so weird. The only specific course of action in all this would be to remove the Gutmann blog. On 1) and 3) there's nothing really to do. The tagging now is obviously just an unsubtle way to make a WP:point. You're welcome to delete the Gutmann blog reference, if you insist. Other editors may see some reason for it to stay. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To address each of these points:
1. The concerns raised at Talk:Falun_Gong#Propaganda weren't answered, at least not by me, because they're ridiculous. The non-confirmed user, whose edits are limited to this page and one other, raised concerns that are either irrelevant, poorly informed, or that have already been addressed. Their first concern was about the veracity of organ harvesting claims. No such claims are even made on this page. The second point argued, without reference to any sources, that Falun Gong was banned because of its "political motivations." Editor evidently never read any scholarship on Falun Gong, because if they had, they would know this wasn't the case. The third point was regarding the classification and the views of the (fringe) anti-cult movement, both of which are already addressed on the page. Fourth, they said that it's absurd that there could have been 70 million practitioners. This is already addressed on the page, with multiple sources provided. Fifth, they said that mention should be made of Falun Gong's ties to Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and New Tang Dynasty. That is already on the page. And finally, editor said that the page should note the "high profile murder and suicide cases" involving Falun Gong. There are no confirmed reports of murder or suicide cases involving Falun Gong; only party propaganda, which is addressed in the article.
2. Your concern about self-published sources for the death toll was already discussed at great length and resolved. Seriously, thousands of words were spilled explaining to you why Gutmann's estimates are notable, verifiable, and why they satisfy WP:RS. At long last, you seemed satisfied when I pointed out that they were cited in the CQ Researcher. I don't know why you're bringing this up again.
3.Your concern about original synthesis was also discussed, ad nauseum, and resolved. The synthesis you pointed out is no longer on the page.
I don't know why you're doing this, but it's not constructive.Homunculus (duihua) 23:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems this user doesn't understand the purpose of adding tags. In order to be constructive, tags should be accompanied by specific statements of problems, and proposals for solutions. They should not be used to hold a page hostage to one's POV, or as an expression of vague disquiet with the tone of something. None of the issues identified here were real problems, as far as I can tell. If Homunculus is right, all of them are already addressed to satisfaction, if ever they existed at all. If your intention is truly to encourage others to improve the article, this is not a good way to go about it. Littering pages with maintenance tags will only 1) waste people's time, and 2) breed frustration and bad blood. There's simply no need for this kind of behaviour.
With that said, there are some legitimate areas for improvement. Foremost among these is that the persecution section still needs to be improved/consolidated/cleaned up. I volunteered for this a long time ago, and will try to get to it this week.—Zujine|talk 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, I see that there is one actionable issue raised by AgadaUrganit: that Ethan Gutmann's blog is used as a source on one occasion. It is one among four sources used to support a point about Gutmann's own research. Gutmann is an established expert on Falungong, so his self-published writings on this subject actually satisfy RS. Still, if it will put this tedium to an end, why not just remove the reference? You wouldn't even have to change the content, since there are three other sources.—Zujine|talk 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The only reason to delete the Gutmann reference would be for the purpose of appeasement. It does not violate policies or RS guidelines, and its presence improves the article. It is the only source in which Gutmann describes his methodology in depth; the other sources used do not provide this.Homunculus (duihua) 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I hate to be the Wikipedia policy and guidelines Nazi here, but the only reason which was given is WP:SPS. And current Falun_Gong#Demography beginning Prior to the July 1999, official estimates placed the number of Falun Gong practitioners as high as 60 to 70 million nationwide, rivaling membership in the Communist Party.[10][84][85][86] is still covered by WP:NOR per Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 and imho funny. The {{Multiple issues}} tag intention is to encourage editors to improve the article. The tag should be restored. See also {{Article discretionary sanctions}}. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think that a statement of fact that is supported by the Associated Press, three New York Times articles, and the U.S. World and News Report is "self-published," then you don't understand what self-published means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is there is a disagreement here and if someone, who removed the tag will not restore it, that editor would have to explain it on WP:AE. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the tag for clear reasons stated above. Please just explain what can be fixed about the page rather than arguing over tags. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sound, I think you misunderstand the process. The tag placement should be explained, since Wikipedia:Tag bombing is not allowed. However, if you don't agree with the explained tag, it does not matter much. In order to remove or change a tag you need to reach a consensus on this talk page.
I don't need to repeat myself. This is your last warning. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agada, the tags you added were discussed. They were found to be inapplicable; the concerns you pointed to have either already been resolved, or never existed. There is consensus that the tags you added should be removed. You are the lone dissenter, yet your dissent seems to be based solely on a misunderstanding of WP:SPS or WP:NOR (namely, your belief that a fact attributed to the New York Times and Associated Press is somehow self-published or original research).

On another note, there is no policy that dictates the use of tags. The essay WP:TAGGING does state, however, that "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." More importantly, the essay suggests that in cases of a disagreement, editors should attempt to discuss calmly and in good faith. On multiple discussion threads, myself and others have politely and repeatedly asked you yet to identify the content issues you object to. You have responded to attempts at collaboration with escalating sarcasm, tag-bombing, and threats. I will state again: if you have a clear, specific objection or suggestion, you are welcome to share it. I am confident that any and all legitimate, constructive suggestions for the page can be considered.Homunculus (duihua) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did things just become totally bizarre over here? Where did you get that big stop-hand thing from? Very expressive. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, oh, oh... this is rather reminiscent of the bad old days. It seems to me that AgadaUrbanit has a correct understanding of the use of these tags, and has had the good grace to come here and explain his/her concerns. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence or try to bully AU and insist this article is somehow neutral. I would remind you all that this page is under Arbcom probation, and that the entire Falun Gong cabal got banned not many moons ago. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
With due respect, I don't think you've followed very closely. If a user wants to add tags to a page, they're entitled to, but should accompany them with specific and actionable suggestions or identifications of problems on the talk page. AgadaUrbanit has tag bombed this page several times, and this is the first occasion he/she has attempted to explain. Unfortunately, that explanation involved simply pointing to previous threads, where issues were already resolved to satisfaction (if even they were legitimate issues to begin with). The tags were discussed and removed, as there was nothing further to do. (For example, Agada said above that there is a problem of synthesis with a Seth Faison source. That problem no longer exists. Similarly, they claim that a fact cited to multiple RS is original research. What can be done with that? Nothing.) The removal of the tags was perfectly appropriate. Agada then started threatening an AE case.
Take a look at the thread above titled 'Number of followers in 1999'. If you can even follow the discussion, you've bested me. I spend a substantial amount of time trying to work with this user, and to understand and answer their concerns. Finally I offer a solution to the problem, proposing a short paragraph with no fewer than 14 references, each with the quotes from relevant articles for easy corroboration. AgadaUrbanit then becomes inexplicably sarcastic and begins placing multiple tags on the page. After repeated requests that they just engage in discussion and articulate the problems they see with my proposal, they never respond. I fix the page anyway. Weeks later, user adds the same tags again and points back to that discussion as evidence of what's wrong. If you think that's appropriate behavior...well, anyways, it doesn't matter. Frankly, if this user is committed to spending the time filing that complaint, I have no problem with it (I don't think it would end well for him/her, however).Homunculus (duihua) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is just intimidation. User AgadaUrbanit is a non-involved editor who raises some very legitimate doubts about the neutrality of the article and then they get scared off by the poisoned editing ambiance. Reminds me of why I stopped editing Falun Gong. Alas, the rational voices always get scared away from this wikispace. Colipon+(Talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Colipon, take a look at some of the threads above (eg. the 'number of followers in 1999), or at AgadaUrganit's talk page. You will see, I think, an extraordinary level of patience being extended to this editor. If you are more capable than I at parsing meaning out of Agada's words, please tell me what the legitimate concerns are that this user raised. Because I can't figure it out. How can a simple statement violate WP:NOR when it is cited clearly and directly to the New York Times, U.S. World and News Report, and Associated Press? How can a statement be a violation of WP:SYNTH when it is not even on the page? If you can answer these question, I would appreciate it. Asking a user to clearly explain their concerns before covering a page with maintenance tags is not intimidation. Homunculus (duihua) 21:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the tags because AU never explained himself in a sensible way, identifying clear and actionable concerns. The supposed issues collapsed upon examination. The tags seemed simply a way of expressing annoyance at a conversation that stopped making sense at some point (about the sports administration not being the Chinese government). The whole episode was strange. I wasn't trying to scare the guy. But I do agree with you both that this page is clearly not a magnet for rationality; that much has been amply shown. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

POV Problem

This article may be not neutral because some opinions of Chinese government are ignored. In addition, the fact that Falun gong organization involved in Chinese politics and damage the Chinese society should also be mentioned in the article.--A20120312 (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that explain how Falun Gong "damage the Chinese society"? Vague allegations of bias are not sufficient grounds to add a POV tag to a page. You need to provide detailed, actionable recommendations for improvement based on quality sources, in compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. By the way, the "opinions" of the Chinese government, as expressed through their propaganda campaign against the group, are represented in the article. But they can't be used as primary sources, obviously, so they are expressed in a neutral manner through secondary, reliable sources. Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't bother looking for objectivity here, A20120312. This article is completely controlled by Falun Gong SPA's who are probably being paid. That's why it reads like a promotional piece.
The opinions of the Chinese government are no more biased than those of the Falun Gong sympathisers, and they are often more academically sound and more consistent with reality. Anybody who has actually spent any notable amount of time in China just chuckles at FLG propaganda like "70 million practitioners in mainland China" and "FLGers are tortured and murdered simply for doing Qigong". AnAimlessRoad (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hom I suggest you don't bother arguing with these people. Don't feed the troll(s?). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Chen Fuzhao

I see that an article for Chen Fuzhao was created and speedily deleted. If there isn't going to be a separate article, does he merit a mention here ? Coverage in the Chinese media can certainly be included here to give the Chinese government's side of the story and there are also these sources

I'm not very familiar with the media coverage of Chen Fuzhao in China but given that the government cited him in a letter to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and said "In May this year Falun Gong practitioner Chen Fuzhao, of Chanan County, Zhejiang Province, misled by Li Hongzhi, put poison in the food of some beggars, leading to the deaths of 16 of them and one Buddhist", I assume they are employing the case as part of their campaign, which may be notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand, there have been many specific instances of the government's anti-Falun Gong propaganda, and references for some of them could also be found, I imagine, in similar volume. At the moment the section on "media campaign" addresses the broad issues associated with anti-Falun Gong propaganda. I'm not sure if a particular case study is necessary, or, were it, whether Chen Fuzhao would be the most emblematic or notable case to include. I would imagine that in-depth discussion of particular propaganda cases associated with the media campaign against Falun Gong may be best placed on the page specifically about the persecution, where there is more room to elaborate. I think it would be too much detail for this article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In order to assess overall notability to the subject of Falun Gong, it would be helpful if some of the scholarly works on Falun Gong described this case. A cursory search through my collection of academic literature doesn't turn up any reference to Chen Fuzhao, but I may be missing something. There are a few sources that mention, in general terms, that the government's propaganda campaign includes attempts to link Falun Gong to violence and murder, and that's already mentioned on the page, albeit briefly.Homunculus (duihua) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I was skeptical initially on inclusion, but Sean brought here 3 high quality major news reliable sources: BBC, Time Magazine and Reuters. Probably we could mention Chen Fuzhao in couple of sentences, while attributing carefully the information. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully expect Falun Gong practitioner-editors to paint it as another "conspiracy" orchestrated by the Chinese government, just like the Tiananmen self-immolation "conspiracy" and the Fu Yibin "conspiracy". This article will never reflect a balanced viewpoint as long as cult-members maintain their overwhelming grip upon it. AnAimlessRoad (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It's unclear to me whether it deserves to be included here, in the WP:POVFORK-ish Persecution of Falun Gong or neither. There are clues that it has some significance for both sides. For example, this interestingly structured editorial in China Daily ends dramatically with "If the self-elevation of Falun Gong practitioners has to be conditional on the killing of innocent others, it constitutes a heinous threat to public security. And that brooks no tolerance." and the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong's fairly extensive efforts to distance themselves from the case and refute the government's story (see [8][9][10][11]). Without decent independent secondary source coverage of the various narratives it's difficult to get a balanced overview. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
AnAimlessRoad, I see what you mean about the cultists maintaining their overwhelming grip upon this wiki page. As soon as I added material, sourced by verifiable, trustworthy sources as per Wikipedia's rules, some religious fanatics reverted the changes I made almost immediately. They did not check the sources, they deleted the information apparently because it conflicts with the propaganda the rest of the article is full of. I wish other wikipedists and administrators would take note of this behaviour and really check this article thorougly. 91.63.202.190 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I share the general sentiments that this page is being patrolled by a small group of users who go great lengths to write the article to conform with Falun Gong's worldviews. It's correct to say that it amounts to a textbook case of using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, and over the years the Falun Gong users have perfected it, and discouraged everyone else from participating. My past experiences have taught me that unless Wikipedia's leadership steps up to combat the blatant POV-pushing (perhaps more accurately "POV-scrubbing") that happens here with the same dedication they have shown at Scientology, a few new users (or IP users) with scant Wiki experience cannot do much to restore balance. For the time being most of us 'involved' experienced users have (sadly) all left Falun Gong articles because of the trauma it inflicted. Colipon+(Talk) 01:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope that observers of this page do not think that comments like those above represent an acceptable form of engagement on Wikipedia. To the contrary:

  • Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or advocacy
  • Wikipedia users are expected to assume good faith
  • Wikipedia's civility policy prohibits "religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities."

Note that User:AnAimlessRoad has been indefinitely banned from the site for abusing talk pages in this way. User 91.63.202.190 has also been blocked.—Zujine|talk 05:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Central teachings

First three of total four paragraphs rely on the primary source: Li Hongzhi, Zhuan Falun. So I tagged the section. I would suggest to re-source using secondary references. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call. I'll work on that. Homunculus (duihua) 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agada, can you explain these changes?[12] I missed some primary sources in my last round of edits. I could fix those too if you pointed them out specifically. It's not super pressing, though; the presence of some primary sources, used sparingly to describe themselves, does not violate policy. You've gone and stripped them out of various sections of the article where, I believe, they were used appropriately to begin with.

In addition, you have removed all references to Zhuan Falun, even when the statements were clearly quoting Zhuan Falun, and there were other secondary sources used. Why did you feel this was necessary? You seem to believe that Wikipedia policy forbids the presence of primary sources, even when supported by others. This isn't the case.

You also requested quotations for every single item within 'teachings' where it wasn't provided in the reference. Why would you do that? I provided quotations within some of the references when they contained particularly short, quotable excerpts. Sometimes the issues are described in the course of paragraphs or several paragraphs. Sometimes I just didn't feel like adding a quote for everything. Are you going to require that every single thing in the article contains the quotation within the reference? I just don't understand what you're trying to do. If there is a particular item that you're not sure about, you can ask me on the talk page to give you a quotation.

In addition, you removed a very salient, germane image by saying it was unrelated. You also replaced an image that had been removed, noting in edit summary that removal hadn't been explained. Removal actually was explained. The image illustrated a sub-topic of Falun Gong—a 'Tuidang' protest in Hong Kong. The caption was also full of grammatical and spelling errors.

You also removed a large paragraph of densely sourced material about Falun Gong's demography in the 1990s. You said this was original synthesis. Could you explain why? This paragraph was proposed to you months ago. I asked repeatedly for your feedback on it before putting on the page. You have never explained where you think the problem is. Homunculus (duihua) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing pressing about changes and thank you for taking part in the clean up. I would appreciate quotation of marked sources. Could you explain on images? Would you mind posting diffs, and maybe opening separate discussion would be beneficial for clarity of discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk)
As you are the one who made these edits, and since I have already explained my objections, I think the onus is on you to answer the questions. There is something slightly tendentious about demanding that another editor open multiple discussion threads as a prerequisite to engaging with you about your activities. There is also something tendentious about demanding that other editors provide you with quotations for 17 (!) cited statements that, to anyone familiar with the literature, would not appear the least bit controversial.Homunculus (duihua) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access for the sources, that is why I am requesting quotation for WP:V. Copy of relevant pages in the source would do. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The page of the reference should be noted as a matter of course, in the citation. Homunculus is under no obligation to provide you with a copy of the pages from the books if that is what you are suggesting. I'm not sure what scenario is being imagined, that he scan them and email them to you? That would probably violate copyright law. Verify them by buying them or going to a major library in your city.

On to the primary source policy. Here are some lines from it Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources:

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

I think it's a good idea to make sure this section has better sources. But deleting the line [13] "Falun Gong exercises can be practiced individually or in group settings, and can be performed for varying lengths of time in accordance with the needs and abilities of the individual practitioner." seems a bit strange, doesn't it? This is not a controversial claim (i.e., it is true of many activities.) Nor have the reasons that no primary sources be used in a section that is about Falun Gong's teachings been properly discussed. I can see the need for controversial claims or unique interpretations, but for straightforward facts like that above, what is the problem with a primary citation?

Thus, the wholesale removal of these primary sources appears to me inappropriate. And I also note AU's removal of the figures, among all these deleting actions: [14].

Numbered below are the actions I am going to take. If there are any points disputed, use the number to refer to it and explain why. No particular order.

  1. [15] Restore the primary sources here because there is nothing problematic or controversial about their use. There are no interpretive or analytical claims being made. furthermore, in most cases there is already a secondary source cited. There is really no need for another source. The primary source references could simply be deleted if necessary, but I think it would be wise to keep them for sake of completeness in referencing.
  2. [16] restore these deletions. Again, there are no interpretive or synthetic claims being made with the reliable sources. The reference to faluninfo falls within our policy either, because a Falun Gong advocacy group is a reliable source on the views of Falun Gong.
  3. [17] Restore the rather mundane claim about the practice of FLG's exercises. The other two parts simply do not need more than one citation. I'll remove the tags.
  4. [18] these are unremarkable claims. You wish to delete ‘’The book Falun Gong is an introductory text that discusses qigong and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises and meditation.’’ because it is cited to a primary source? That is not the purpose of the primary source policy. You have evidently misread it. It is not a problem to use primary sources to substantiate such simple statements (similarly for the next paragraph).
  5. [19] similarly.
  6. [20] I think there are better images we could use than this one. I’ll replace it with something that is more normal.
  7. [21] This deletion was inappropriate. This has been discussed at length above. I say no more on it here. The information relates to the number of practitioners in China. There is no synthesis. It is clear representation from secondary sources. Please do not edit Wikipedia disruptively. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. It was a good idea to have an image in the response to suppression section (and I was about to say: get rid of the irrelevant image in the demography section, but then I realized it may have been meant as a representation that there are both old and young people who practice the religion? Unsure.), however I replaced it with a better image that is 1) in English, 2) Makes a simple and clear representation. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed following editnotice on Sathya Sai Baba page, maybe we could substitute in that message Sai Baba with Li Hongzhi/Falun Gong and utilize this message here. Just a thought. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea if we ever do have a problem with editors trying to make unique and interesting use of primary sources in this subject area. At the moment we don't seem to have that problem. As mentioned, there are cases where primary sources are no problem. Simple statements of fact that, for example, someone can do exercises with others or by themselves, or that, a certain book has illustrations and text, is a perfectly acceptable use of primary sources. Further, most of the time in the sections on Falun Gong teachings there are both primary and secondary sources provided. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the guideline on reliable sources applies by default to all pages on Wikipedia. We don't seem to have a particular problem here of primary sources being used inappropriately to cite novel, controversial, or interpretive statements. With that said, sometime in the next...oh..48 hours or so, I would be agreeable to providing page numbers for specific statements you would like clarification on. There are also statements (like the one mentioned by TSTF above) that would benefit from an added secondary source, and I can do that too. For now, other work. Homunculus (duihua) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've consulted with Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. It might be important to include quotes from Li Hongzhi /Zhuan Falun as an important and known religious source. However there is a question about the use of faluninfo/clearwisdom/clearharmony as a direct source using material published on their site rather than via secondary source coverage. There are some relevant RSN discussions I've browsed. In practice, here they are, some in articles namespace:
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I know. The page does include quotes from Li Hongzhi. The quotes selected are those that are also quoted in high quality secondary sources, which is why they now have both the primary and secondary sources attached to them. I did not want this section to get cluttered with in-text citations to this or that scholar; instead it is a more or less unadulterated representation of the moral precepts and understandings that all the major scholars agree compose Falun Gong's core beliefs. In select cases where the secondary sources quote Li, I incorporated some of those quotes. As to the use of faluninfo, clearwisdom, and clearharmony, I recommend that the latter two should be treated as primary sources. Faluninfo is in a slightly different category (I tend to think of it as the equivalent of the International Campaign for Tibet); it is frequently cited in academic works (so is clearwisdom, actually, but cautiously), and by NGOs, human rights groups, and governments. I'm pretty sure it's what David Ownby was referring to when he spoke of Falun Gong publications that are generally considered trustworthy in these communities. I still think that this source should be used sparingly, and in-text citations can be provided when circumstances call for it. As to the other two, Wikipedia permits the use of primary sources as sources about themselves, but they should be used with all the caveats that normally apply to primary sources. From the lists you provided, it appears that these sources almost never appear on Wikipedia pages (though there are a number of talk page links to clearwisdom). What is the value of this exercise? Homunculus (duihua) 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the exercise is editing Wikipedia in accordance with WP:V. The content of the first three of total four paragraphs in the section was challenged, due to usage of primary sources. So now, when you added the secondary sources, to support the old content, it appears per policy that the WP:BURDEN lies on you, Homunculus. Please provide the quotes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The section you cited says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]

It doesn't say anything about providing the actual quotes from the sources. Homunculus, please don't waste your time. AgadaUrbanit, if you want the quotes go to the library and get the books, or buy them, or whatever. There's no obligation for anyone to type out the quotes for you as a matter of course. If you have some particular question or reasonable dispute with a particular phrasing, that you can explain, then as a matter of collegiality and good faith I think it would be fair enough to fish the quote out from the book; this doesn't appear to be such a case. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't intend to waste my time. This section is already extremely densely sourced (arguably too much so). I've provided page numbers, as well as several quotes. I have more than fulfilled the burden of proof. If Agada is insinuating that secondary sources were inappropriately added retroactively to support primary source material, I would merely assure him that this section was originally written through extensive reference to the secondary sources; that's why it was so easy to add dozens of them when asked. I just didn't previously see the need to overload the section with dozens of refs to corroborate claims that are plainly obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of Falun Gong morality. But now I have done that, and have no more time to entertain these tendentious demands. Homunculus (duihua) 21:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun_Gong#Categorization edit

In the 'classification' section, I saw that an editor removed[22] a discussion of whether falungong meets the definition of a 'sect.' The edit summary suggested content violated WP:PARAPHRASE, but I don't see how. WP:PARAPHRASE is meant to prevent subtle copyright violations that take the form of very close paraphrasing. The deleted content didn't seem to have that problem. It was unsourced, but sources could easily be found and added. On a related note, I think this section could also use an expanded discussion of the 'religion' classification, especially in terms of the Chinese conceptualisation of religion (I think Penny and Ownby have written on this. I'll try to find what I'm thinking of).—Zujine|talk 05:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For "sect" classification, you can cite to Porter. Ownby had a 2003 article in Nova Religio that similarly explained why Falun Gong (as well as some historical redemptive societies) don't meet the definition of a sect or sectarian movement. For the religion issue, as you know Penny's latest book discussed the classification both in explicit and indirect terms. This testimony[23] by David Ownby on the definition of religion in Chinese society might also be close to what you're looking for. I'm not sure where the Ian Johnson quote originally came from, or if it's necessary. But if you have it, you may want to check his book Wild Grass for something similar. Finally, Danny Schechter provides a poignant rebuttal to some of these classifications, though he's operating at the level of dissecting journalistic and popular discourse, not sociological definitions. Good luck. Homunculus (duihua) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The content removed was unsourced. I've tried to look for the Ian Johnson quote and failed to find secondary reliable sources. I would appreciate if the new material per Ownby would be posted on this talk page first. It could be a good sign of collaboration. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Agada, you might want to consider that, instead of removing anything that doesn't have a source, you can add a request for citation. If a citation is not provided in a reasonable period of time, then it may be appropriate to remove the material. This of course doesn't apply to material that clearly violates policy, such as WP:BLP. Try not to overdo it, of course. It's not that every single sentence needs a citation (see WP:Citation overkill). In this case, I think it's fair to challenge the material, particularly the part that quotes Johnson. I asked Zujine to check Ian Johnson's book Wild Grass to see if the quote, or something similar, is contained therein. If we cannot find something that more directly cites this quote to Johnson, I suggest leaving it out per WP:V.Homunculus (duihua) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was actually hoping to explain why falungong doesn't generally self-identify as a religion (not why the government doesn't consider it as such), but the Ownby testimony might still be of some use. I think I know where to find what I'm looking for.—Zujine|talk 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look. I expanded a little on the various forms of classification as a cultivation practice, religion, and sect. Hopefully the language and descriptions are still accessible to average readers. I also trimmed and moved the paragraph from Craig Burgdoff, as it didn't belong in this section (and some of it was actually already repeated elsewhere).—Zujine|talk 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks quite good, though I don't consider myself a good judge of accessibility. I was doing some of my own readings on this from old journal articles, and was wondering whether it would be possible or desirable to elaborate on the idea that, if Falun Gong had openly identified as a religion in the 1990s, it would have been immediately suppressed because the party only recognizes the five officially sanctioned religions. Ian Johnson did an article about this topic, but it's also discussed by Ownby, Penny, et al. This was actually one of the original sources of contention with the party-state in the mid-1990s: some people criticized Falun Gong because it clearly had theological and religious elements, but "hid" behind the mantle of qigong in order to gain official acceptance. It's kind of a silly debate to me, particularly since qigong itself was originally a deeply religious practice, and was only reclassified under Communism as a branch of Chinese medicine rather than religious exercise. But regardless of the merits of the argument, it is important in understanding the point of view of Falun Gong's earliest critics. Maybe there's another article that would be better suited for this. I'm not sure. Homunculus (duihua) 03:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I deleted a sentence that was added to categorisation that said "According to Gallagher-Ashcraft Falun Gong movement is an assaulted nonviolent millennial group in China." This was inserted in the middle of a discussion of whether falungong meets the definition of a religion, and it does not belong there. I tried finding another place for it, but it didn't seem to fit. "Assaulted nonviolent millennial group" is not really a category of classification. It is a just a collection of adjectives. Ethan Gutmann likes to call falungong a "Buddhist revival movement," and I'm sure many other scholars have their own terms, but I think we should keep this section focused on broad categories of classification. I feel similarly about "new religious syncretism," but decided to keep it, since it is used by at least two different scholars.
  • On the importance of the qigong / religion debate in 1990s China, I don't think that belongs in this section either. It seems more fitting in a 'history,' if anywhere. Would it be possible to explain this issue sufficiently in a sentence or two?—Zujine|talk 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Death toll

The question remains as to how many Falun Gong practitioners were persecuted to death. I have a gut feeling that the number is around 800-1000 from July 1999 until now. Also, the claim that half of all people sentenced to reeducation through labor are FLG practitioners are without solid evidence. Why are there so few sympathizers of the FLG movement inside mainland China from the Tiananmen incident in 2001 to the Bo Xilai incident this year? I wonder that given all the people released from RTL throughout the years, the number of sympathizers should ideally be quite high, especially in today's Weibo/Twitter era. Yet even mainstream dissidents in China have rarely spoken out on behalf of the FLG movement. The fact that there is a dramatic reduction in the number of FLG practitioners in mainland China might not pinpoint to an actual reduction. It could be that there is only a dramatic reduction in the number of FLG practitioners in PUBLIC in mainland China. For people accusing of me of trying to whitewash a crime, well, I am not defending the CPC persecution of FLG or any of its other crimes. For this matter, I am only trying to objectively determine the true death toll related to FLG in China. It is just too obvious that the 5-figures number is wrong. Now I am throwing into doubt the 4-figures number. Is it possible to find ANY source out there that agrees with my number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.24.47 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, though I must advise that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion on one's personal feelings about an issue. I checked through the paragraph in the article that cites these numbers, and found that the wrong state department report was referenced. I've fixed that, added some additional references (including one that presents a more conservative ratio), and also added quotations within those references that you can refer to if you wish to do your own reading (you can view them at the bottom of the page). If you come across other reliable sources publishing different estimates, you're welcome to introduce those to give a more complete picture. On the death toll, the section already appears to describe a full spectrum of estimates given by experts on the subject, though if you can find more (from reliable sources, such as books, journal articles, human rights reports, etc), please share.Homunculus (duihua) 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think briefly stating an interest or perspective on the topic amounts to using the page as a forum. He was probably just trying to ease in with an introduction. Consider WP:DONTBITE... On the specific content issue, I believe any five number figures are possible death tolls as a result of the alleged organ removal; the claimed deaths from conventional means I believe are four figures. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Did I bite? I don't think so. I thought that was a friendly proviso that, while editor is welcome to contribute reliable source content, this is not the place to discuss "gut feelings" and ask others to find sources to substantiate said gut feelings. In any case, I apologize to the user if I was not sufficiently inviting. And on another note, I am reminded again that the section on persecution is the weakest in the article, and could use 1) a rewrite to summarize and better prioritize information, and 2) additional scrutiny to ensure that sources are good, information presented in a fair and detached way, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

One Change to Page, One Question re: Organ Harvesting

First, I added the Falun Gong portal at the bottom; I don't know why it wouldn't be there and many of those pages are not referenced elsewhere in this article. If someone reverts, please explain, I'd like to understand the reasoning so I do not make the same mistake again. Second, I came to this page for information about the claims of organ harvesting, one of the most important issues surrounding this organization, true or not. It is the main topic of many of the external references and covered in other articles on WP not linked to from this one, but not mentioned here. Why not? Also, after posting this, will I be banned from entering the PRC? 65.217.137.4 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've edited these pages for a while so I might answer for now. 1) Good. Not sure why it wasn't there. 2) Why is there no organ harvesting information? I don't know. That is extremely strange. There should be information about it on the page for the reasons you state. I haven't looked at this page closely recently because it's kind of stable and well-sourced, but you've pointed out one major omission. We should fix it. See the Kilgour-Matas report page for information on that topic. 3) It's highly unlikely. I think the government has other things keeping it busy at the moment. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope so! I added a section on organ harvesting, might be a bit long, bounce between UK to American English, and some of the links may not work because of their age how it was cobbled together, but I don't have any more time this morning. I think it's pretty balanced though. There was a section here until August or so of 2009 that was removed under vague circumstances, but this topic is certainly a major point of notability for the Falun Gong, at least in the West. 65.217.137.4 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If I get a moment in the next couple of days I would revise it to probably just one paragraph and simplify what is presented here (i.e. the way it came to the public, the details of the rebuttals/denials, and so forth can probably be curtailed.) I think on this page it would be enough to have a statement which says that there have been these allegations, here is what they are, and they are contested. Then people can read the other page for more information. Although the Falun Gong do make a lot of noise about these allegations, I have not seen evidence showing that it is a major point of notability of the group in the West. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

here from gao zhisheng page but regarding organ harvesting im not sure why we would haev ALLEGATIONS rather than FACTS about sthing so serious? i read the policy and wikipedia said it should be VERIFIABLE and such claims are difficult to verify if not impossible. not saying i dont believe it. just sayin'Happy monsoon day

It is a verifiable fact that allegations have been made. It is not our place to assess the veracity of these allegations, of course, but we can state that they exist. As an aside, IP editor — well done. You may want to consider changing "commissioned" to "asked," or something, as the former often implies an exchange of funds. Homunculus (duihua) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
alright thanks for explainingHappy monsoon day 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Falun Gong

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Falun Gong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ctvJuly06":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC) um so how do we fix this error?

the bot seems to be freaking outHappy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Already fixed. Homunculus (duihua) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

confusing part

Falun Gong has been described as highly centralized in the sense that neither spiritual nor practical authority is dispersed; local branches and assistants are afforded no special rights or titles; "assistants" or volunteer "contact persons" do not hold authority over other practitioners, regardless of how long they have practiced Falun Gong.[94][95]

1)what is the connection between these two things i.e. highly centralized in the sense that neither spiritual nor practical authority is dispersed and then the part about local branches and assistants. these seem unrelated. 2)what is the source for highly centralized it seems made up or contradicts things id read elsewhere about the group. ne1 care to explain or i may change this. i thought there was not actually a centralized organization at all.Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just check the references, do a bit of research, and rewrite that part yourself? There may be a mistake. As I understood, there was little concept of "practical authority" in Falun Gong. Maybe check out the Burgdoff reference. There is no mention of "centralized organization" (the words you quoted) in the article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone has access to research databases. This is probably the most relevant part from Burgdoff.
Remarkably, while Li jealously guards his spiritual authority, he seems to have willingly relinquished organizational control. In fact, Li insists that practitioners who take on organizational roles should have absolutely no authority over other practitioners. Arguably, the absence of any other official authority figures within the Falun Gong organizational structure strengthens Li’s unique status and power and makes any relinquishment of his organizational control unlikely. In any case, the lack of organizational hierarchy works against institutionalization.
Hope that's helpful. There might be a way to tweak the wording to make it more clear that the centralization refers to spiritual authority, rather than practical.Homunculus (duihua) 03:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The guy says he's a grad student on his user page so the assumption is that he has academic access. As I recall there is more more than just that one paragraph in the paper on this topic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah no problem i can access journal articles and stuff. im actually familiar with the group and the struggle in china so ill check out burgdoff and fix this part up [at some point not sure when but soonish]Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

try that i didnt look at the ref [cba really] but the idea shouldnt be really controversialHappy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

delled this sentence with no source Surveys in China from the 1990s found that between 23% - 40% of practitioners held university degrees at the college or graduate level—several times higher than the general population.[citation needed]Happy monsoon day

Citations clean up

The discussion on citations brought up a good point. I'd like to take on a the task of cleaning up all the references and standardising the format. I'll do a deeper review and discuss further, but I wanted to give a heads up so that there isn't a duplication of efforts. It will be a tedious task so I don't want anyone to waste time. —Zujine|talk 06:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be very grateful for such efforts. The one thing I would stress is that we do tend to prefer academic sources over the other kind, so if there is duplication involving academic and non-academic sources, academic ones would be preferred. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
it seems like this hasnt been done yet but id actually like to do that if i can get some instruction on the desired format; i seem to take a perverse enjoyment in doing tedious tasks like this----so what kind of reference citation formatting is desired on the page?? =) Happy monsoon day 18:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-adding america.gov publication on death camp investigation that was removed during POV fight

The article that showed US embassies had visited the alleged camp on two occasions was removed at some point. I've added back in. Feel free to make a better edit if you like. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not necessary on this page because I think Sujiatun is only a minor component of the organ harvesting allegations; seems undue to me. Better to keep it short here and have a full discussion on the appropriate page. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Add information

After reading this article, I think it's really good that this article include many academic references. However, I think something like opinion of Chinese opinion is ignored. When the article tells that Chinese government stops Falun Gong in China, the article didn't include the reason about why Chinese government did this. In fact, the Chinese government announced that Falun Gong did some illegal things. But this didn't be written. This may give people the opinion that the Chinese government stops it just because of tight relationship between the government and Falun Gong. This is unfair and is harmful to the neutrality. I think this kind of information should be included. I'm new in English Wikipedia and English is not my native language. So I think it may be better to start a discussion with everyone. Welcome to join it!--A20120312 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this up on the Talk page. There are a number of media reports, books, and human rights reports that analyze the Chinese government's rationale for its actions against the FLG. Did you notice that the reasons given by the Chinese authorities for the crackdown are already provided in the article?
In particular, the article notes that in July 1999, the Chinese government asserted that the Falun Gong organization was not properly registered and had "engaged in illegal activities, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability." That comes from the official state-run news agency, Xinhua. The "illegal activities" were not explained or elaborated upon. Presumably it refers to organizing the demonstration outside Zhongnanhai, but we can't speculate (the kinds of criminal charges that were brought against Falun Gong leaders were things like 'stealing state secrets' and 'undermining the socialist system', etc.). The later accusations that the government brought against Falun Gong can only be understood in the sense of the media campaign, and a lot of them are explained in that section. What specifically do you think is missing? If you have some good sources that explain the parts you think are missing, we could discuss it further. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I can't be sure, not knowing the Chinese legal system that well, the part starting "advocating superstition..." might be the explanation/elaboration of the illegal activities. Certainly, "inciting and creating disturbances" is illegal in pretty much every country I know of. Now, I do agree that the statement does not offer specific instances of illegal activity in that statement, and they would be important as well, but I don't know if the Chinese legal system necessarily requires that. Does it? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism

This article seems to do what a lot of articles seem to do when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, etc, in that it doesn't really separate the actual ideology itself from the post-Mao government's warping of it. The Deng legacy's authoritarianism and capitalism is counter to socialism and Marxism-Leninism. 96.41.152.155 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but these are terms that they still use in official statements and documents, including where it's quoted in this article. This is the language they deal in, however inaccurate it might be. I'm not sure what can be done. TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

The onus of showing notability is on the editor wishing to add information. If "Fazhengnian" is notable, please provide some detailed academic discussion on it - not vague references to Ghits. If there is some thorough academic discussion on the topic, like there is about everything else on this page, then I think we're fine. Primary sources are not the basis for establishing notability. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what is being discussed here. The only way that notability would necessarily apply here is regarding the subject Falun Gong itself, whose notability is, I think, rather clearly established. There may be a question regarding whether something qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:RS, but that is a separate matter, which is detailed on the page linked to. I sincerely hope someone points out exactly what the nature of the current dispute is, because the above comment, regrettably, gives no real indication of the nature of the disagreement. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The existence of a body of reliable sources on this would satisfy the notability concerns I noted above. They are two sides of the same coin. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me explain it briefly: a user from Chinese Wikipedia has created a page about a kind of FLG exercises called Fazhengnian or "sending forth righteous thought" ,which was a DYK on Chinese Wikipedia, and today I've added it to the "exercises" paragraph in this article. However, TheSoundAndTheFury deleted it and nominated it for deletion (also nominated for deletion on Chinese Wikipedia, but the result was speedy keep).--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
We make decisions based on policies here. There are policies against having articles based purely on primary sources, as well as policies against original research. If you can produce good quality, secondary sources (like books on falungong) that discuss the importance of this ritual, then we can discuss where it might fit in, how much weight to give it, where, and so on. Otherwise it doesn't belong here.—Zujine|talk 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"发正念" has lots of result in google books.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I looked it up in Chinese as well. Most of the Chinese results are unrelated to falungong, but instead to other Buddhist traditions. Some appear to be related to falungong, but are only mentioned in passing (eg. as part of a list of censored terms in China). Others are Falungong publications, which are primary source. That's still not enough to establish notability or to enable us to make interpretive claims about what this is and what role and significance it has to falungong overall. Sorry. —Zujine|talk 19:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

can someone help me out on the photos here. i notice the photo of ethan gutmann a researcher was recently deleted; it was a photograph that was taken by epoch times. woudl not that newspaper simply give us the photographs if they knew they could be useful and illustrative of the subject on wikipedia? if so can anyone point me in the direction I go about that? I would be happy to email them to request for them to sign over the rights to public domain or something creative commons. has anyone tried this?Happy monsoon day 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an image of Falun Gong practitioners send forth righteous thoughts before the Chinese Consulate in New York. According to google books, secondary reliable sources discuss the subject of FLG "sending forth righteous thoughts". According to primary FLG sources: "Sending forth righteous thoughts is one of the three things that Master requires of us. It is very important, and every Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple must do well in this regard." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
well personally i think its problly worth mentioning something about this falun prayer thing even if the sources we have so far are not completely perfect. certainly doesnt seem to deserve a page to itself but ill add a few sentences just so we can move on how about that.Happy monsoon day 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_37&oldid=1142438398"