Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 25

Ohconfucius' deletions
-- seeking discussion/clarity on this. Confucius deleted those paragraphs, citing talk page discussion. I wasn't aware of a consensus to have this material deleted, did I miss some discussion?--Asdfg12345 14:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs have not been deleted, they have been moved to the relevant subpage as per discussion under the heading "Innocent concerns from the univolved" on this talk page. PerEdman (talk)


 * Also read the dab: This article is a basic introduction to the beliefs, history, and reception of the group. For an in-depth coverage of these and related topics, please use the navigation box or follow the main article-links. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[ec]::These vast changes seem to have been decided in the last 24 hours by a select group of editors. I'm all for the bold-revert-cycle, and this was one of the guidelines set down by the mediator. You made the bold change, now I'm reverting it. There's no precedent for just ramming through vast changes despite protest or calls for greater discussion. It takes more than a few people agreeing and then deleting half of the article (or moving it to other pages; it's still deleting it from this page). What I might do is just restore the last version, before all these changes, and see what happens. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, but if the processes are being disrespected that should become clear.

Update to seb: that's fine, it's one idea, but it doesn't mean you can just assert that and then push through all those changes. We need to talk about these things. As I say, I'm restoring a previous version and let's see if we can go through this one step at a time. A series of discrete decisions about each section need to be made, rather than a general discussion and mass blanking. --Asdfg12345 14:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't really have any great numbers of editors required for a "great discussion". As you can see, there has been discussion on the talk page and your revert seems to be in the minority. Please add your voice to the subheading above rather than going against the previous consensus with repeated reverts.


 * Again: This cannot be blanking or deletion, as the material has been moved to the relevant subpages. It has not been deleted. It has not been blanked. It has been moved to its correct place to avoid a monolithical article page divided between subjects already duplicated on dedicated subpages.


 * What is your main argument against? PerEdman (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [ec] All: please keep in mind that there are a lot more eyes on this right now, and mucking around with the discussion process, deleting 1/3 of a hotly contested article based on a brief discussion that didn't involve some editors, etc., I'm sure will be looked upon dimly. I'm not going to revert, by the way, but I'll see what wikipedia allows for to deal with this sort of thing. Maybe another AE case? What choice would there be if, in this circumstance, you guys revert me again and we don't discuss all these issues? We can't have that discussion after the changes have already pushed through.


 * Update to peredman: this needs to be discussed. One third of the article has been removed from this page. Each section needs to be looked at independently. It's not so much my problem with the edits, it's my problem with the total lack of consensus in the process. Were Olaf, myself, Dilip, and HappyinGeneral included? I'm happy to change the article up, but I want it to be looked at clearly.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not "push through" anything. I suggested, many agreed, it was implemented. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving that material out to the subpage improved the article IMHO. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seb: now I'm saying I disagree. I didn't get a chance to agree or disagree before. The bold revert cycle means that you don't revert again after your bold change was reverted, you know.--Asdfg12345 14:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Asdfg, you reverted the paragraphs in question at 14:24, then again at 14:28 and finally, as what you marked a minor edit you reverted the entire document back to 306673080 at 14:40 today and you have yet to participate in the discussion above. Please stop and consider your next course of action. This is not a discussion relevant to the decision, this is a discussion regarding the lack of discussion about the decision. PerEdman (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained clearly what I was doing. I had not even seen the discussion above. 20kb of text was removed from the article within about five hours, resulting from a brief discussion which did not involve all editors. "bold" changes are subject to being reverted. If this isn't respected something is mistaken. I don't know why it was marked as a 'minor' edit. I used twinkle. It wasn't a minor edit. It was restoring 20kb of text.--Asdfg12345 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that you have seen the discussion I suggest you participate in it, rather than keep this meta-discussion and reverting the document any further. Hrmph. PerEdman (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be realistic
Blanking out a third of a stable article with no consensus on a hotly debated topic like this is but making a travesty of the efforts of other editors to improve the article through discussions and consensus. Further, these sections carried content which were not in any of the sub-articles.

"eb az86556"'s was certainly a good-faith comment, and the right response would have been to discuss, weigh its merits/de-merits and then decide whether to implement it or not. If we decide to implement it, we'd need further discussion to decide what to keep in the main page and what not to keep. Blanking 1/3rd of the article with no excuse other than "boldness" and a casual comment on talk - borders on being disruptive. Particularly, since it is a hotly debated topic. It ends up making a farce out of the efforts made by editors here on talk, the on-going discussions, and of the efforts of editors over the past couple of years, the end result of which the article was.

I don't think there is an issue of a 20k blanking made such being "discussed." We restore the material blanked out. And start where we ought to have started - weighing the merits/de-merits of such a structure.

In short: Respect the efforts of other editors. Before blanking anything out on an actively debated topic like this, please: 1. Discuss 2. Form a Consensus.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even shorter. BRD. Bold, Revert, Discuss. I'm trying to seek discussion and consensus right now, but as long as editors expend more energy on discussing the discussion or lack of discussion, rather than participating in the current subject matter-oriented discussion, there's nothing one person can do. PerEdman (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Long rambling text is never helpful, and it is especially the case when there is a main tag on a section. It is longstanding practice to keep sections concise and in summary form. Articles go through growth and consolidation phases, and the time appeared ripe for a top-down approach. Seb reminded us of that, and as an editor whose editing skills and objectivity I have gained respect for while editing July 2009 Ürümqi riots, I decided to act on his recommendation as at least one other editor agreed that it should be shortened. With me, that made three, so I believe there was enough of a discussion. However, the balance of what was left and what was removed was with the aim of maintaining a good flow within the article. Of course, it was never my intention to change the emphasis of any section where there were deletions, and I apologise if that happened. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it would be okay to move/delete some of the stuff, summarise others, and keep others. The real problem was the disrespect for the discussion process. Protests were ignored and reversions were themselves reverted, multiple times. That's the travesty. There are always improvements to be made in terms of content. I just think we should fix this, put it behind us, and get on with the work of building the article.--Asdfg12345 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not referring to me, I hope? You and I have edited enough to know that the discussion also centres around proposals for mutually acceptable text, usually in an iterative manner, rather than blindly reinstated deleted text, or insisting that it be reinstated before there be any further discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Innocent concerns from the univolved
Why are there so many spin-offs to this article, the content of which is regurgitated in this article?


 * Teachings of Falun Gong has its own article, should be kept brief here
 * Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China has its own article, should be kept brief here
 * Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China has its own article, should not be in here at all

What this article needs is


 * Lead with infobox at top
 * History
 * Origin with link to "Teachings"
 * Reception with link to "persecution"
 * Membership
 * References
 * navbox

Everything else is completely redundant. Slash it. What concerns me the most is that parallel universes are evolving, either conflating everything or creating contradicting entries. You guys can fight over "cult" or not in the persecution-article, over the organ-thing in that article, and over the beliefs in the next. Keep it separate. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice for any subject, particularly religious groups, which have received significant coverage in the reliable press regarding their teachings, history, conflicts, etc., to have separate articles on those matters. It is also generally the case according to WP:SS that the most important of those articles should be spun off leaving a summary in its place. I have every reason to believe that such was what was initially intended here. The fact that the articles have perhaps suffered in terms of content for whatever reason is another matter entirely. Regarding the use of the word "cult", I tend to agree that that is a rather low priority for this article, and regret that it gets as much attention as it has. However, whether for good or ill, such discussion is not infrequent in articles about controversial subjects. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree that extremely lengthy 'cult' discussion is completely unecessary. But there's been endless discussion in the 29 or so archives for this page about all of Falun Gong's controversies and content critical of Falun Gong, and for some reason none of them ever seem to stay on the article for longer than a couple of hours without being removed, moved, shortened, discredited, "restructured" or minimzed. It's completely unreasonable. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was not against the existence of those spin-offs. I am for it. My point was the excessive length of this article. It's almost becoming so detailed that the spin-offs are redundant. Almost everything that's in the spin-offs has now been fudged into this one. I say cut this article to the bare minimum and then let interested readers go to each in-depth coverage. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At 69kB, this really isn't that long. I've seen other articles, like Catholic Church, which weigh in at 187 kB. If the subject is one which has a lot of information about it available, and if a lot of that is meaningful enough to be covered in the main article to at least some degree, then articles get rather long. I'm not disputing that the article could use some serious editing, but at this point the article's length probably isn't one of the highest priorities. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is true. My goal is to keep the edit-warring and endless rants compartmentalized where they belong. I would advocate the same approach if this was 200AD and we're writing about emerging Christianity. I would transform this article into a sort of "portal" with a pseudo-dablink on top
 * That would save us a lot of trouble and keep things apart. I know it's a bold suggestion, but after 29 pages of rants, someone needs to give a different approach here. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said elsewhere that I myself agree that there seems to me to be a bit of an effort to try to cram too much material into too few articles, so I'm not sure I disagree with you particularly. The question there is whether the different structure would itself create more disagrement, and possibly cause, god help us, even more problems. I would like to see more effort made on what seem to me the more obvious child articles, though. History of Falun Gong in particular seems to me to be an obvious article that could cover a lot of this material which doesn't yet exist. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said elsewhere that I myself agree that there seems to me to be a bit of an effort to try to cram too much material into too few articles, so I'm not sure I disagree with you particularly. The question there is whether the different structure would itself create more disagrement, and possibly cause, god help us, even more problems. I would like to see more effort made on what seem to me the more obvious child articles, though. History of Falun Gong in particular seems to me to be an obvious article that could cover a lot of this material which doesn't yet exist. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed here. I'm merely concerned about structure. I have no interested in these (often childish tit-for-tat) discussions. I look at everything with the eyes of an uninvolved reader who wants to actually learn something. A guiding structure would help. Right now, it feels like you walk into a room where everyone wants to be the first to yell meticulous details into your ear. That can come later and in the child-article. The larger picture has to be the "welcoming ceremony." Seb az86556 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I have now boldly implemented these. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly support this new structure revision for these articles and agree with Ohconfucius' edits. Now the article will be easier to work with. Colipon+ (Talk) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the new structure in the hope that only one or two articles can focus on the points of contention among us while perhaps the Falun Gong article can gather such information that we can gain consensus on... HOWEVER... I would like to point out the Jimbo quote in WP:Criticism again, which I happen to agree with. Putting all your criticism (or "reception" or "review") in one segment or article, rather than making it a natural part of the ongoing text, inherently means that you are being conciously uncritical in the rest of the text, and that's hardly NPOV. But.. I think we can still include all angles in all articles. PerEdman (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my remarks below about these suggestions for the article.--Asdfg12345 14:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just in case it wasn't clear, I disagree with deleting 20kb of text from this article and having a sentence at the top directing readers elsewhere. Such a large change to a hotly contested topic obviously needs to be hashed out in more depth, and the discussion needs to include more editors. It isn't to be decided by a few then forced through. It's fine to be bold, but when reverted, the cycle is not to revert back, it's to discuss.--Asdfg12345 14:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the project pages in the right-hand side box? What is the use of those pages, if they do not contain content relevant to the subject matter that take up too much space in the main article? Should we perhaps integrate the pages on Li Hongzhi, Beliefs and Teachings, Persecution of Falun Gong, Reports of organ harvesting, Falun Gong outside China and Academic views on Falun Gong into the main article again? I'm not saying I'm against that, but we would have to delete quite a lot of text to make that fit into a readable article. What do you propose? PerEdman (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of new structure
I find the new structure to be completely inline with WP:SUMMARY. We have subpages, let's use them. If we duplicate the information that should be on subpages in the main page, we gain nothing but possible content forks by having the subpages. PerEdman (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the "new structure" would only be meaningful before the article has instituted it. I'm unwilling to continue discussion until this situation with these reverts is resolved. It's unprecedented to radically alter the article without consensus, then ask to discuss it. Discussion goes before the changes, or it's obviously meaningless. i'm going to look at the mediator's four points that we should all follow now, and see what formal channels there are for dealing with this.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Discussion comes after Revert, which comes after Bold. You know this already. So discuss.
 * In passing, it is hardly unprecedented to radically alter the article matter without consensus. PerEdman (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's like this. Seb made some suggestions. Confucius 'boldly' implemented them. I reverted them. Now it's time to discuss them. What we're discussing is the original changes, the deletion of 20kb of text. Maybe you aren't clear on this point, so I just want to make sure. I'm actually going to restore the article, to before the bold deletion of 20kb was made and see what happens. If it's reverted again, then I know we have a deadlock. If it's not, then we can actually continue discussion about the merits of the changes.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like there was a third alternative. I'm still waiting for that discussion, though. Please, your arguments. PerEdman (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather unimportant side-issue from the design-obsessed
This is simply a matter of "visual preference," so if people disagree, just say no: that infobox hangs kinda lost-in-space in all the articles... many other articles present related topics as navboxes... any strong feelings about keeping the infobox? Or can I make a navbox? (I could simply make one as a test) Seb az86556 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is the difference, since the page is protected, could you present your idea in a sandbox? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-controversial edits can be requested via the template. --Richard (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the box is an unprotected template, has nothing to do with the page. navbox is across, like this, can be any color, like I said just something minor. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current Falun Gong box looks very aesthetically pleasing. I honestly don't see a need to change it. Or I guess we can have both. I think they do at Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i etc. Colipon+ (Talk) 07:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the current style better. I'm just a little confused that it's so far down on the page. PerEdman (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind then... Seb az86556 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please enforce WP:BRD
Just been away this whole 10h, so now I come as an observer.

A quick summary on WP:BRD. I can see bold here, I can see Revert here and here at which point BRD is broken, then enforced to be broken here ironically by the same person who suggested to work by the BRD model. Of course not intentionally to his credit, but because this is standard procedure on stopping a revert war. However under these conditions, we are at the mercy of the people who managed to force their change in to now go and discuss their changes point by point, which is not even easy with a complicated diff as this. So at this point I am requesting the mediator to enforce WP:BRD, only because that is the correct thing to do as I see it. If I'm wrong please explain why you think I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the BRD process broke down, but not because of the lock but because there was never any discussion. There was the bold edit, there was the revert and afte that there were five or six revert and discussion about the reverts but not about the bold change. There are several headings above hanging with my name as the last power, pleading for arguments for the discussions. I still have hope they they will come, however, because how can we have discussion with one side only?


 * The only way to "enforce BRD" here is to D to reach a consensus. As long as this is a META-discussion, we are not moving forward. Please find, in one of the sections above, such as "Innocent concerns from the uninvolved", "Discussion of new structure" or even the heading created when the changes were reverted, "Confucius' deletions". We don't need to create more new threads on the subject of past change when we could spend the time discussing the subject matters. I am yearning to do so now, but as nobody is actually bringing any arguments to the threads above I can hardly do that on my own.


 * There is only one primary change: Material that better belonged on the already existing subpages/sibling pages were moved to those pages. The reasons are listed in the threads above. Please direct your energies towards that discussion. PerEdman (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When someone wants to talk about the merits of his/her edits it should be posted on the talk page, like there is now a section here: Talk:Falun_Gong --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm a little confused, but that is what we (all) are doing, aren't we? PerEdman (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seek consensus on a new starting point
IMHO, it is not necessary for all editors to reach consensus on an agreed state of the article in order for protection to be lifted. I think it would be sufficient if enough editors agree that there is a state of the article from which they think we can collegially and collaboratively discuss and edit forward.

In essence, all I would need as an admin is a general agreement not to edit war. Discussion about how to improve the article could follow afterwards as long as there was a sense that the edit warring would not resume as soon as the protection was lifted.

Of course, since Vassyana put the protection on, I would defer to her judgment but I would hope she would agree with my philosophy on this.

That said, Asdfg12345 has proposed this revision as the one to discuss.

I propose that we revert back to that revision if we are not already there.

We can then discuss PerEdman's assertion that the 20kb of material was not so much deleted as it was "spun off" to subsidiary articles. The issue, as it seems to me, is how much of that 20kb must be in the main article and how much of it can be reasonably spun off to a subsidiary article with only a summary in the main article per summary style.

Does anybody object to reverting to this revision followed by a lifting of the protection and a civil discourse about how to move the article forward.

--Richard (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Objection, alternative: I suggest the reverse. Let the discussion begin before the protection is lifted. I need to see with my own eyes that such a constructive discussion can take place between us editors present before I am prepared to vote for a removal of the protection from the article.
 * Clarification: It doesn't have to be the specific discussion about the 20kb of material being spun off; any constructive discussion of the content would make me ... glad. PerEdman (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Richardhusr's suggestion makes a lot of sense. What happened here was a hasty decision and a hasty implementation it would be a valuable sign of good faith to revert back to the +20kb version in order to begin a discussion about how to trim the article down. This does not involve lifting the protection - Vassyana can do this reversion with the protection in place. A good way to start a discussion is to lay out viewpoints instead of expressing doubts about whether the opposing side is capabale of constructive discussion. You (both sides) need a lot of good faith in the other side's ability to work constructively in order for this collaboration to succeed. You simply cannot build a colaboration on bad faith. Rjanag expressed this very well on Seb Az 86556's user page·Maunus· ƛ · 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, the protection would still be in place. I can agree with that. I still don't agree that we're dealing with a bipartisan arrangement here, but that is a whole new metadiscussion to avoid. PerEdman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Posed three questions to editors at "David Ownby cont'd", in an attempt to seek consensus. Please lend your opinions. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Colipon, this is the way to go, see my comments here: Talk:Falun_Gong --HappyInGeneral (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Colipon+. PerEdman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC).


 * What's the upshot of this? The idea that we cannot build consensus on bad faith is spot on. All faith in the discussion process was shattered when the 20kb deletion was rammed through despite protests and reversions; once it's put back, we can proceed. It's a simple formula. The idea that this kind of behaviour is part of the process needs to be firmly rejected. What if it happens again? So this step needs to be retaken, then we can continue. Do we have consensus here?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't realise that making ultimatums about under which conditions you will be willing to discuss is also a bad faith move and not conductive for a good editing environment? When you demand that the other side show their good faith by reverting to your version you are showing that you currently assume that they acted in bad faith when they made the change. You also remove any reason they might have had for actually reverting to your version because then the gesture of goodfaith will be useless as such since they would basically cede to coercion. Since I arrived at this page yesterday I haven't seen much more than a bunch of pots and kettles competing in blackness.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What you say seems useful. I want to understand the third sentence, but I don't think I do. Just so it's clear: 20kb of text was removed from the article without consensus; this was made according to the WP:BRD cycle, as set out by the mediator; in a case where a 'bold' edit is reverted, the process is to discuss the merits of the changes, rather than revert again. What happened was that the 20kb removal was disputed, but instead of being discussed, it was forced through by multiple reverts. What I'm saying is that dissenting views were ignored and changes were forced on the page outside of the consensus process. So that created bad faith in the consensus process, didn't it? Then to restore ourselves to when we were just equals discussing things, shouldn't it be taken back to that point? I think that's all I'm saying. I'm not necessarily making any commentary on other people, I hope, just pointing out the need for us to play fair and adhere to the objective processes that were established at the beginning. Not doing so would make the process meaningless, wouldn't it? Sorry, really trying to not get caught up in calling people this and that, but it seems the basis of moving forward constructively is respecting processes. Have I clarified anything here?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * or let me put it this way: if someone was saying this to me I'd agree right away and want to do my best, and show that I had done my best, to restore good faith in the discussion process.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at it this way. It doesn't matter at all what version of the article is in place now. What matters is the version that will be put in place when the discussions are over and the protection is lifted. It will not be your version and it will not be their version it will be a compromise between the two that we will start constructing now through discussion. IF, and only if, the group of editors who put the current version in its place want to they can decide to ask Vassyana to revert to your version as a sign of good faith, they are not obliged to do this. And if you try to oblige them to do it then it will no longer be an act of good faith. It is like an apology - if someone makes you apologize it doesn't count anyway. Now, obviously the starting point for the discussion is this: We had a big article. Some editors expressed concerns that there was a lot of material that was beside the poutn and the article could be trimmed down by removing superfluous contents. It seems that actually we all agree that there were passages in the article that were longer than necessary. They removed 20kb and other editors objected. Now we just have to find out which parts of the 20kb should have stayed and which can be removed without problems. It is completely irrelevant for the discussion which version is in place - that is just a question of whether at the end of the discussion we will have to remove or add content to the article, since in all likelihood the 20kb that were removed will be reduced to less than that (but more than 0kb by both sides compromising on a version on the golden middle. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want the article changed in any way at all until this group of editors has shown that we can build wiki material from constructive discussion. Sorry, Asdfg12345, but changing the article again before we discuss the subject matter would be no better than continuing an edit war. PerEdman (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a "this group of editors" who needs to show that we can build wikimaterial from constructive discussion, then you are also part of that group PerEdman.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I am, so are you. This is why I say "this group of editors", "editors" and "we" rather than "some editors", "you", "their version" or "sides". I mean to say all of us editing the Falun Gong pages. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer. There cannot be consensus any other way. PerEdman (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree with this now actually. I realised when I got out of the shower today that the article doesn't actually need to be reverted for things to move forward. One thing is, however, that sort of conduct should never be allowed again. The other thing was, the way to condense that content etc. can be figured out before the article is unlocked and then just instituted directly--which is I think what you were saying. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
Just wanted to inform everyone here that I have began an arbitration enforcement case for User:Olaf Stephanos here. All of your opinions would be valuable. Colipon+ (Talk) 07:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that no discussion about such a case should take place on this talk page. If you're interested, head over to the case. PerEdman (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

anti-FLG?
As somebody who had barely even heard about Falun Gong until yesterday, I would like the opposing editors to point out how and why the current version of the article is "anti Falun Gong". I read it for the first time yesterday (both long and short) and got away with a very positive impression regarding FLG. So list some points that you think would lead a disinterested reader who knows nothing about te topic to get a negative picture of the group. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the current version of the article is particularly "anti Falun Gong"; it's just not very good as an encyclopedia article, and the direct action that was taken to modify it drastically violated our mediator's recommendations. I'm afraid that any discussion on other matters (apart from improving the article) is bound to carry us further away from our goals. It might only lead the regular group of editors to hurl accusations at each other of misrepresenting the difficult issues, i.e. 'whitewashing' or 'denigrating' Falun Gong. If you read through this talk page (and the archives), you will find a lot of this stuff. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OhConfucius was clearly attempting to make this article more neutral - it was a good faith attempt to reorganize the article because recently we've only had all talk, no action. All of his changes are reasonable and only aimed at making the article more neutral. It is unreasonable to say this "drastically violated our mediator's recommendations." Colipon+ (Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BOLD does not violate anything. Breaching the WP:BRD model in a delicate environment with an ongoing mediation case certainly does. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how BRD was "breached". We haven't even had the discussion yet. Please see relevant threads above. Please participate, I beg you! PerEdman (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're talking procedures again. My question was with the intention of finding out where the claim that these changes were implemented by a group of anti-FLG users comes from. If the result is not anti Falun Gong (but merely a bad article), where would anyone get the notion of "anti-FLGism"? Seb az86556 (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From a long and stormy marriage. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain your satirical reply?--Edward130603 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. After barely 24 hours of following this, it was easy to see that you guys are washing laundry that's been bult up over, what? -- the past 2 years?... There's no place for this here. Check your egos at the door and make this article better. Give reasons like "it's a bad article, because..." but not "anti-FLG pig" "raging bull" "Progaganda machine" and all the other stuff I've been winess to. It really sucks. You chose the marriage analogy. Fine. I'd say kindergarten, all of you. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) At first I thought this heading was another one of the endless rows of accusations, but stepping back and trying to put myself in the shoes of other editors, I realize there's a very real possibility that there are readers and editors who believe there to be only two "camps" among editors: For or against. I don't believe it's that simple, but I am willing to try to imagine how such a view affects the view of the article. What type of content should be in the article, if one believes there to be only pro- and anti-Falun Gong editors? How should one proceed to gain consensus? Is it at all possible? IS there anyone here who feels that the current structure or content of the article is "too anti-FLG" and for that reason should be edited somehow? Point it out to me, please, and make me see your point.

As I say, I do not believe there is anything like one camp for and one camp against. We all have our sets of impressions of religions, cults, skeptics, anti-cult movements, gymnastics, spirutualism. We all have our own experiences, our own goals, opinions, influences, histories. We're born in different parts of the world - Me and Olaf in two of the ones closest to each other, believe it or not, and even though we might not agree on whether or not Margaret Singer is the right person to ask (nevermind that she's dead) if Falun Gong is a cult or not, we can at least agree that we want an informative Falun Gong article on Wikipedia. If we did not believe that, none of us would be here. Right? So for those points we CANNOT agree on, let's not touch them. For those we can, let's work together. If I feel that there is some detail of Falun Gong that I feel that I "cannot allow" to be one way or the other, I should definately not edit that detail in the article, because my point of view would be anathema of consensus (Unless I should be so lucky as to hold that one opinion that we all already agree on, heh heh) and I should abstain from any votes on the matter.

But this is all still Meta and I want us to move forward with the subject matter, the wikipedia article, the content and structure. Because it caused the protection to fall, I thought the most pressing issue should be what we all think of the basic idea of moving content off from the main namespace to the many subpages we are already furnished with, but I can imagine there are many other points of contention aside from that. What I do not want to discuss is whether or not person A or person B is a "pro-FLG" or "anti-FLG". Not when it comes to sources, and certainly not when it comes to specific editors. Please remember to Edit while you are at your best. Thank you, all. PerEdman (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with PerEdman about this: "I realize there's a very real possibility that there are readers and editors who believe there to be only two "camps" among editors: For or against. I don't believe it's that simple, but I am willing to try to imagine how such a view affects the view of the article."


 * I must emphasize this, not because I want to drone on this "meta-discussion", but because it affects the editing process in a very real way. The flurry of reverts and edits in the last 24 hours seem to paint the picture that this is the typical "two side" content dispute issue, and we are all given the impression that some people here are "anti-Falun Gong", some are "pro-Falun Gong". This is an absurd notion. No one who has participated in the discussion of late has been "anti-Falun Gong". Everyone who is "Anti-Falun Gong" has been banned, or have left due to frustration. As it stands we have an article that is unquestionably favourable towards Falun Gong in almost every way.


 * I must stress this: We cannot move forward on any edits if we continue to have this notion that one neutral-minded edit in good faith has the same standing as an edit that is clearly looking to counteract that neutrality. In my view it is very clear that OhConfucius' edits was in good faith and aimed at neutrality, but the reverts of these edits are given the same legitimacy, as though we need to seek a middle ground between them. What you are seeing then, is no longer a content dispute with two clear sides, it is users trying to deliberately prevent this article from becoming neutral. And the end result is the article state that has went back and forth in the last two years. This is what needs to stop. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Colipon+, I don't want to discuss past history. I want to reach an agreement on SOME point of the content, any point of it, within the week. Not content from two years ago. Not someone's edit comment two weeks ago, or some thinly veiled insults from singular editors. There are other processes and probably other pages to handle those things, not this talk page and absolutely, positively not now. I mean this sincerely and respectfully, without malice.
 * If there are users who do see the subject as bilateral, monochrome, or who believe there is an "enemy" who is the cause of all sources and claims of a certain category, be it "for" or "against", I would very much like to hear from such an editors on how we should proceed, to see if there is any way of reaching consensus. PerEdman (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I am not as hopeful as you that we will be able to "reach a consensus" on much anytime soon, I am willing to try. Your point is well taken. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's not use anti-Falun Gong and pro-Falun Gong. Done deal. Also, let's not violate the consensus-building approach again.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Thought you'd all like to know that Vassayana has protected the page so that only admins can edit it. Presumably this might have been done, at least in part, to prevent anyone from engaging in conduct which could get them blocked or banned. Now that we are, as it were, stuck with the existing content unless there is substantial agreement on the talk page for a change in the content, I wonder if it might be possible to rationally discuss any proposed changes in advance, please? John Carter (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That was the idea. And a good one. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've protected the article for two weeks. Please hash out the disagreement in discussion. Refrain from personal commentary and focus on the content. The edit warring, accusations, and otherwise antagonistic conduct needs to stop. There is a mediator and new neutral editors attempting to help out here. The entire topic area is under arbitration probation. Participants should take the opportunity of the former and heed the warning of the latter. The protection should serve the purpose of preventing the edit war from becoming more entrenched and resulting in multiple blocks. Additionally, I hope that it will serve to focus attention on rational, polite discussion. --Vassyana (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The conduct that just went on, with mass deletions without consensus, then continual reverting the restoration of that content, is unacceptable. It's not an edit war. It's about the article getting gutted without any proper discussion; that simply should not be allowed. This is among the worst conduct that has been seen on the pages so far, and is most destructive to coming up with a decent article and having rational discussion.


 * Going forward, let's hear proposals for dealing with content section by section, and let's discuss the value of each sentence and each paragraph. What I think would be useful is if we agree to restore the content deleted from the body of the article, then start our discussion from the lede and work our way down. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Asdfg12345, I would still like to see your opinions in the discussion above, about the material that was moved to the relevant subpages. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, let me rephrase that last part: No discussion until the 20kb of text in the body of the article is restored. It simply would not be right to acknowledge the above process, where a team of editors effectively decided among themselves, with no consultation with myself, Olaf, or others, to delete a third of the article. That text all needs to be restored, then we can start discussion. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid issuing ultimatums (ultimata?) isn't a very good way to start a discussion. I doubt that such an attitude will get you anywhere - this is an issue of The_Wrong_Version.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)If a clearly less-disputed version were available or a previous well-reviewed version (good or featured article), I would revert to such a version gladly. However, the common good practice is to protect it as you find it, which does often result in the wrong version being protected. In the absence of a clear relatively uncontroversial point for reversion, it will have to remain in the "wrong version" until some consensus is worked out about how the article should appear. --Vassyana (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] I think the plural of ultimatum is just ultimatums, but to be honest, I like the ring of "ultimata." It's not an issue of the wrong version, not by any means. It may be difficult to appreciate the complexity of what just went on, if this is your first exposure to the subject. A group of what have been termed "anti-FLG editors" deleted one third of the page; this was supposed to be part of the BRD cycle. When this was challenged several times, instead of going back to discussion, Seb simply reverted again. I thought there may have been a misunderstanding, so I reverted again just to check. That's really what happened. So when we have people stamping all over the consensus-process, we need to address that. We can't continue pretending that that didn't just happen. It just happened and it needs to be fixed, then we'll move on.


 * update to vassyana: I didn't mean to restore the content in the protected version, actually. I see the article as effectively in stasis now. I mean when it is unlocked, that material needs to be restored, then we can start discussion about the value of paring it down, summarising parts of it, or deleting parts of it. The BRD cycle dictates this, which is one of the things you set down at the beginning of this. you said that failure to adhere to the BRD cycle would lead to arbitration enforcement. What we have now is a clear example of the violation of this cycle and a violation of the consensus-building process. That's all I'm bringing attention to. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the material in question has not been deleted - it has been moved off into the already-created relevant subpages. I understand that you do not agree with this, but I still lack your arguments for that position. Please clarify. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is the version before Ohconfucius's deletions. If editors wish to show their desire to build a rational and reasonable editing atmosphere, they can express their wish that the page be taken back to this version. After this, the 20kb was deleted bit by bit. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you meant that the starting point for the discussion of the new structure should be the current protected version + the 20kb of removed text then that is something else entirely. Of course it should. What you will have to establish now is a consensus to remove those 20kb or not. Or to remove only five or ten. Or to reword it or move it. But get that consensus. it does seem that Seb Az86556 may have been a little to quick to see a consensus in the discussion and implementing it quickly without allowing time for opposing voices to make themselves heard. He (she?) can make amends for this now by making sure that whatever course the article takes is supported by a genuine broad consensus. Probably this will require both sides of the argument to compromise on their preferred solutions.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "What you will have to establish now is a consensus to remove those 20kb or not. " -- yah, exactly. And my point is that such discussion is meaningless while the 20kb is still deleted off the page. The process of discussion/deletion was very destructive to the editing environment here.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Small correction: Seb Az86556 was the user who suggested the change, but Ohconfucius was the user who boldly implemented the change. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And continuing to discuss changes which cannot now be changed, rather than actively proposing how the content could be changed for the better, is something I cannot see is in any way constructive to the editing environment either. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Just wanted to thank the mediator for placing the ban. This charade has got to end. OhConfucius is known elsewhere on Wikipedia as an extremely valuable contributer and his NPOV record is extremely solid. He has done extremely good work in other controversial articles. I fully stand behind his changes to the article by said user as they are clearly in good faith.


 * We have got to wake up. It should be apparent now that this is not a pro-FLG, anti-FLG see-saw "edit war". This is about curbing the Falun Gong promotional, advocacy, and propaganda material on this encyclopedia - which have been endemic ever since the anti-FLG activists were banned. That should be our task at hand, not discussing theology, "reliable sources", hurl personal accusations, and weasel to have our way. Honestly. Wake up. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Situations like this are a weakness of Wikipedia's consensus policy. How can there be consensus between contributors who wish to describe the subject fairly, and contributors who primarily want to describe it favourably? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There can be consensus, but only after non-NPOV, and WP:UNDUE have been ignored, as these cannot be given equal attention. PerEdman (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, that is your point of view; it is not shared by anyone but like-minded editors. I think we have already agreed to disagree, and that's exactly the reason we decided to have the mediator to help us get forward. I am here to describe this subject fairly and transparently, and I am strictly in favour of the approach suggested by User:Vassyana. But now, a group of editors have breached the WP:BRD rule and started an edit war after removing 20 kilobytes of the original article. Do you remember what we're supposed to do when no consensus is found? Right. Consult the community noticeboards.


 * In his comment above, Colipon seems to have revealed us his true motives with the words "not discussing [...] 'reliable sources'". He seems to be here as an activist; he does not have the patience to respect the mediation case at hand, and he tries to get around it by defining a major part of the articles as "promotional, advocacy, and propaganda material" (which is undoubtedly agreed upon by other anti-FLG editors). In some peculiar way he seems to assume that direct action can be taken, and he calls for others to join him – "we have got to wake up"; "that should be our task at hand"; "Honestly. Wake up." I wonder what the ArbCom would say about that, especially after he files the arbitration enforcement case against me and presumably gets a warning for misusing WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing how apparently all the involved editors have chosen to engage in petty meta discussion and namecalling instead of trying to move the article forward with positive suggestions i wouldn't be surprised if ArbCom were to issue TopicBans to all involved editors on both sides.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maunus, everyone knows the problems are serious, but at least I had sincere hope in mediation. I have done my best to follow the mediator's advice, and I wish others would do the same. Seriously, I don't know if we have any chance of getting forward, as long as some editors openly affirm their support for direct action. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No one here is "anti-FLG". Martin's point can't be more accurate. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you expect to convince me, Colipon? Actions speak louder than words. In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull – but let's leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Whatever the case, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be welcome here, as long as you follow the rules. Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC) &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You giving your opinion on whether or not Colipon is a "raging anti-FLG bull" will not help to improve this article. Let's actually try to focus more on the content of this article.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing Colipon to a young Robert de Niro is nevertheless quite flattering, don't you think? (-; Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol-Raging Bull! Seriously though, we need to end the namecalling and useless discussion.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. See next section. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys really don't have a sense of carnivalesque humour, do you? &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do like the way you skip out into that 'Who? Me?' and claim it is carnivalesque humour when it is pointed out you have engaged in a personal attack. Please get back to discussing the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That goes for you too...
 * and you too....
 * and you too....
 * and you too....
 * etc.
 * ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Editwar
I encouage users to stop the editwar at once. I remind you that this article is on probabtion and that the disruptive editing that both sides are currently engaged in may result in topic bans.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And that those bans could, conceivably, be extended to all parties involved in the edit war. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
I suggest that editors of the page take advantage of the timeout period in which the article is protected to undertake a more thorough survey of consensus about the proposed new structure of the article. It seems that at least one editor's opinions and arguments have not been taken into account. Please be sure that consensus is consensus before continuing the implementation of the new proposed structure. I suggest that during the next couple of days editors add their arguments for and against the new structure in an rfc format with "for", "against" and "comment" headers to make an emerging consensus more visible. You are of course welcome not to take this suggestion, but it has worked for me in other content disputes.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph discrediting ACM
Is this edit here necessary? What do third-party and mediators think? Is it necessary to put an entire paragraph discrediting the American Anti-Cult movement, when 1) it's already in the "Academic reception" article and 2) it is a direct response to the cult-related statements of the ACM and aimed at discrediting it? Colipon+ (Talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that paragraph was needed when you insisted on the ACM's views as being valid. Now I think it would use a rewording. Perhaps Olaf can do it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my personal view, when you present an argument or a claim, which has no standing in the academic community - it ought to be made clear. Otherwise, we'd just be deceiving and misleading the reader. And, as editors here, we ought to contribute in a responsible manner - not turn articles into a collection of random, cherry-picked statements. Since Singer's view is obviously fringe - either it should be mentioned with appropriate background, or not mentioned at all. If editors feel we are giving undue weight to a fringe perspective by discussing it in the main article, the entire section related to singer's statement ought to be moved to the respective sub-article.


 * Regarding the paragraph pointing out CCP's manipulating on ACM stuff to bolster it's persecutory campaign.. to claim the entire paragraph "discredits" the ACM is quite misleading. What it does is delineate the view of the academic community on an issue of central relevance to this topic. Even if it ends up "discrediting" anything, it is not the editor who added the material who has "discredited" it, but the mainstream academic community. And, hence, the material is obviously of relevance and deserving of the reader's attention.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Criticism against the anti-cult movement should be in the article about that movement, not here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dilip rajeev, which wikipedia policy are you referring to in stating that "Since Singer's view is obviously fringe - either it should be mentioned with appropriate background, or not mentioned at all." Please note that I do not agree with the claim that Singer's view would be a fringe view, I am just asking you this as a matter of procedure. Since Singer's view is obviously fringe - either it should be mentioned with appropriate background, or not mentioned at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerEdman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By "fringe" I meant not-in-line-with / in-direct-conflict-with the perspective of mainstream scholars on the topic. Please see my edit below as well.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not ask why you believe Singer's view is "obviously fringe", but even so I do not agree that ANY opinion not in line with mainstream is automatically fringe. What I did ask was which wikipedia policy you are using as the basis of the claim that her opinion should either be mentioned "with apropriate background, or not mentioned at all". I'm sorry I was unclear. PerEdman (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article in Journal of Church and State is named Imposed limitations on freedom of religion in China and the margin of appreciation doctrine: a legal analysis of the crackdown on the Falun Gong and other "evil cults". It is a Falun Gong related article that calls the ACM a "lackey of the party". What Edelman and Richardson say about the ACM discourse in relation to the 'cult' allegations is extremely relevant for this group of articles. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the court ruling is specifically about something called "Theory of Coercive Persuasion", and not about Singer's expertise in cults, and not about Singer's views in general, and not about his view of Falun Gong? I understand that Margaret Singer testified in some 200 court cases before her brainwashing theory fell in disgrace in front of the APA and then her testimony was no longer accepted? Also, those three sources are two primary (court reports) and one secondary. The secondary one is "Women, the Law, and Cults" which actually defends Singer's theory of "cult rape" and brainwashing, I quoth:

""But not all courts have accepted the premise that cults impose mind control. For instance, in United States v. Fishman, a California federal court excluded proffered testimony by experts, including that of Dr. Singer, because the Court was not convinced that the application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults was widely accepted in the medical community (...) The Fishman court recognized the historical underpinnings of the theory of coercive persuasion as having its beginnings in studies of American prisoners of war during the Korean conflict in the 1950s. (...) Nonetheless, the Fishman court did not accept the coercive persuasion theory in the context of cults. In addition, courts are reluctant to embrace the application of coercive persuasion theory to cults for reasons of freedom of religion under the federal and state Constitutions. (...) There are substantial hurdles to overcome in prosecuting cult-rape--such as courts’ emphasis on the use of force, despite the victim’s mental vulnerabilities (...) Nevertheless, law is always evolving and as more cult-rape cases are brought, perhaps changes beneficial to victims will occur.""


 * So, that text is using two primary sources to make a conclusion that the secondary source doesn't do. Also, it's unrelated to Falun Gong being identified as a cult, since it doesn't say anywhere that Singer can't recognize cults, quite the other way around, it says that she is an expert in cults. This should be removed from here and merged to the Margaret Singer article where it belongs. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that long quote of yours is related to the issues at hand, but I agree that these court case references aren't really that good and can be removed. Frankly, I haven't thought about this matter for a while, as I've focused on what is discussed above. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The issue that I am trying to bring to light here is that it is completely unecessary and unreasonable to bring in outside criticism of a source just make a critical source appear as though they are invalid. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very real question how much information regarding the American anticult movement should be in this, the parent article, at all. Personally, I would think that most of that content should be in some more focused article. Having said that, I have to believe that inclusion of so much material is, at least to me, a fairly blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. Also, regarding the "reliability" of the AAM, it is our general policy that we don't duplicate material in multiple articles. I think most of that content should probably be included in some article directly about the AAM, as that is the most reasonable place to see it. If there is a link to that article, wherever it is, in this article, that should probably be enough, although it might not be unreasonable to add a simple clause regarding the group's reliably sourced apparent opinions on the matter. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% with John Carter. Do you think a sanction based on arbitration rulings is necessary here for these POV edits? Colipon+ (Talk) 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with John Carter. The paragraph is out of place. Criticism of the "anti-cult movement", who they might be, who they might serve, is better treated in a separate article and should under no circumstances feature in this article in anything but a passing mention. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I said, I don't oppose to removing the references to the court cases. But there must be a subsection in one of the Falun Gong articles (probably "Reception of Falun Gong") discussing the 'cult' allegations – I assume we all agree on that. In that section, the quote from Journal of Church and State is perfectly valid, as it is not merely a general critique of the ACM, but directly points out how its discourse has been utilised to legitimise violations of international law in the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. I would also like to add that I see Colipon's comment above as an indication of extremely bad faith. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Edelman/Richardson article is now weblinked and can be read by anyone who wants to form their own opinion of what it is and is not. PerEdman (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion
Those who have taken time to research this topic must be aware by now that Falun Gong is not considered a "cult" in mainstream academia ( Ownby, Schechter, Penny, Kilgour Matas, Amnesty Reports, US Congress Resolutions, Congressional Reports - all address how the label is merely a manufactured tool of repression ).[ "by no means a cult", according to Ownby; "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2500 years " according to Penny, etc.] And I believe I can safely assume experienced editors here would have no trouble accepting the mainstream view on the topic.


 * There seems to be a general lack of knowledge in even academics in regards to Chinese history and qigong history. Many people new to these subjects seem to allow themselves to be swept away by FG from a general anti-China sentiment and a desire for human rights for all. I do a agree Chinese authorities' treatment towards FG practitioners have been exceptional brutal, but the resulting resentment bias the analysis of the FG group itself.


 * Take for example Danny Schechter's book "Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or 'Evil Cult'?" It was reviewed by Patricia Thornton at the School of Oriental and African Studies and published by Cambridge University Press, which stated that it was not critical due to a lack of knowledge regarding the subject.


 * "...its main weakness is that it provides little, if any, critical reflection. Key questions about the history of the movement that are likely to be raised in a classroom setting, for example, regarding the reasons for the sudden dissolution of the Falun Dafa Research Society in 1995, Li's quiet departure from China in 1996 and his continuing reticence, are not addressed by the author."


 * "Schechter was approached by falun gong practitioner and spokesperson Gail Rachlin in 1999 because she perceived him to be a " 'friendly' and ::internationally-oriented media person"( p. 2)... Shortly thereafter, Rachlina and Schechter produced a video designed to win support for falun gong's ::perspective among a wider audience."


 * "Yet Schechter's sympathies and his unfamiliarity with modern Chinese history result in a lopsided and unsatisfying account. No serious consideration ::is given to the case made in the Chinese media against falun gong, nor is the movement placed in a larger context of other qigong practices, either ::past or present. The latter shortcoming is particularly noteworthy, given the author's stated concern with human rights:falun gong is by no means the ::only group targeted for repression in the current crackdown, yet virtually no mention is made of the other groups suffering the same fate. ... and ::the brief discussion of "What does falun gong believe?"offers only a superficial sketch of Master Li's ideas. The reader is left to marvel, not only ::at the vehemence of the official Chinese reaction, but equally at the throngs of loyal believers ready to risk their lives for such seemingly banal ::practices and simple beliefs."

User:theleike (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And this Singer stuff - I believe I can say, without fear of mistake, is fringe.

I am of the opinion a significant portion of the reception/academic views section ought not to be wasted for the sake of presenting and then countering a fringe view. Instead, we ought to give more attention to Falun Gong's reception in mainstream academia. We could look into many sources by experts in the field for this matter. And reception by academia certainly goes far beyond the refutation of an engineered 'cult' label.

My point being: Lets break out of this - 1. present a fringe view 2. use up a paragraph to counter it - style of editing and just directly convey to the reader the mainstream's perspective. Regarding the 'cult' label: its origin ( 3 months into the persecution when legislation was created to outlaw "cults" and retroactively applied to Falun Gong - effectively "legalizing" the persecutory campaign through use of the label ), academic perspectives on the label, etc., could be discussed in detail and with appropriate background and context, in the sub-article.

Also, presenting a fringe view to the reader without proper context is, in my opinion, to be avoided, if possible. We can't just present a fringe view as if it were something that has standing in the academic community. And if such a view has no standing, the question then is why would it be relevant enough to be presented without explanation, context or background.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are editors here who deemed it 'significant minority'. I would not go so far as to base my argumentation on excluding the viewpoint entirely. Let's see how the situation develops after we rename the "Academic views" article to Reception of Falun Gong. Giving due weight to sources, no more or less, is the only way out of this situation in the long term. The only thing I'm hoping now is getting into an efficient workflow. The (content reform : discussion) ratio is frustratingly low at the moment. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilips' resequencing
The reason I reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&oldid=306632489 is that it put more text by Penny in a strange place: Penny is mentioned already at the start of the section, why he reappears further down in the text is confusing, especially when the reason for the edit was "sequencing". PerEdman (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason of the edit was not reordering alone. I thought the summary made it clear. It was also to expand a bit on the perspective conveyed by Penny. The start of the section merely says Penny has commented on the matter. I don't understand why it is a "strange place" to present an academic perspective from Penny - could you kindly clarify? I am restoring the material and will make things clearer in my edit summary.

The Change I made is:


 * Addition of: "Benjamin Penny considers many aspects of Falun Gong "deeply traditional", at the same time, the system, "completely modern." According to him, "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2,500 years." "


 * Swapping the position of two paragraphs. The purpose being to bring focus to the perspective of mainstream scholars.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "mainstream scholar" Penny was, as I said, mentioned already earlier in the first paragraph. Adding him later on doesn't focus the perspective, it divides the comments of Penny into two segments. Also I do not understand in what way you "bring focus" by moving those segments around. Are you trying to move sources that have something in common closer together? Then why is Penny suddenly in two places? I still do not agree with this edit. Perhaps you can explain better why you did it? PerEdman (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Add what Colipon noticed below, with Dilip rajeev's version of the order, the word "cult" is first mentioned by someone stating that it is "not" a cult. This is a very odd order of events. If something has happened, and that something is first mentioned by quoting someone who says "This something has not happened", you would become suspicious immediately, I hope. PerEdman (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article should "cult" first be mentioned?
Dilip's reshuffle directed my attention to something funny. You have to read 2/3 of the extremely long article before you learn that anyone in the world considers FG to be a cult. This is currently mentioned for the first time when a person denying this characterisation is quoted. I think it should be mentioned in one of the first paragraphs that FG is considered a cult. Anyone got a suggestion for whom we should quote on this matter? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a majority view that the 'cult' allegation is an intimate part of the discourse that attempts to legitimise the persecution. It should be first mentioned in this context, no matter where we do it. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a small minority view, myself. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see reliable sources to substantiate that claim. Personally, I'm unsure whether the inflammatory word "cult" should be used much at all, given its emotional impact and lack of clear meaning. Having said that, I do think that the reasons for that term being used should probably be at least allunded to in the lead section, which is supposed to summarize all the contnet of the article, and that the specific negative criticisms of Falun Gong should be discussed in the "Reception" section before the the apparent "responses" to those claims, because that seems to me at least to be pretty much inherently logical. We don't after all in wikipedia don't they "they're wrong" before going into detail about what they said that was allegedly wrong first. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of mentioning early on that FG is considered a "cult", repeated attempts have been made to call FG a "controversial movement". These attempts have sooner or later been reverted as part of the continuous whitewashing campaign. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can't see any problem with using the phrase "controversial movement", because (1) the controversy with the Chinese government is fairly clearly verifiable, and (2) the phrase itself doesn't indicate how well justified in fact the controversy is. There have been numerous controversies in Hollywood over less than well sourced allegations (lies), and I think most readers when seeing that phrase would not rush to any conclusions but rather see what the controversy is about in the following sentences or paragraphs before jumping to any conclusions. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "controversial movement" would be a good phrase to use here.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should mention in the lead that there are a number of controversies related to Falun Gong, including most notably its suppression by the CCP. We could then add that its characterization as a cult is one of the controversies.  Something like "Although some have characterized Falun Gong as a cult, the mainstream of academic opinion rejects this characterization."  And then you better back that up with a bunch of citations to reliable sources.  Actually, it would be better to find a really reliable source who says "the academic mainstream rejects the cult characterization" rather than providing citations to individual sources that reject the characterization.  The problem here being that it is difficult to prove that 5 or even 10 sources represent the academic mainstream whereas one single reliable source saying that it is the position of the academic mainstream is a much stronger case. --Richard (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Richard's approach. There used to be a thread on this talk page where I actually defended using the word 'controversial' (but for some reason, I couldn't find it in the archives – has somebody made a mistake? – so I had to link to page history instead). Martin's recent edit is OK with me. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos  &#9997;  20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Richard. State there is controversy, then list the controversies. Very good. PerEdman (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mrund, I beg to differ with you on your blanket characterization of Falun Gong as a "controversial movement." What is this "controversial movement" term meant to covey there in the lead? Isn't it in direct conflict the majority of recent scholarship? Why exactly do you prefer the term with vague connotations to say, The "peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China" ( House Concurrent Resolution 188 ) or "The traditional system of self-cultivation" ( Penny, Ownby, etc. ), or The "spiritual way of living" ( World Book Encyclopaedia, 2002)?

Such vague characterization is not only misleading but the connotations carried by it are in conflict with mainstream scholarship. Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It becomes really symbolic when we begin debating about where to place a few paragraphs, to show the extent of how far this subtle POV-pushing can go.Colipon+ (Talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, saying that Falun Gong is "controversial" is clearly quite reasonable. David Ownby writes: "Falun Gong is undoubtedly controversial" to begin a dissertation that is endlessly cited in these pages. Olaf has read this document, but insists that "controversial movement" be left out. Looks like to me like an all-out attempt to just censor anything that would portray Falun Gong in a bad light, or even a slightly negative characterization is frowned upon by these users. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, so then we'll have a to-and-fro in the lede, where Falun gong is first characterised as "controversial", then "a peaceful form of personal belief," then "a cult," then something that is so healthy and good, etc.. can't we just play it really dead-pan and not include value judgements without context (and the lede does not particularly allow for great amounts of contextualisation, as you might imagine...--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 21:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh and BTW, if it's just the sentence "The Encyclopedia Britannica characterises Falun Gong as "controversial."" then I think that's not a problem; it's just when the word is used as a descriptor that the sentence loses its balance. It's like if we had "Falun Gong is a peaceful spiritual practice..." or whatever. Just don't use these kind of adjectives; if we ref the controversial thing, that's okay. We had that in before. I'm actually just going to put it right back!--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about "David Ownby says Falun Gong is 'undoubtedly controversial'"? He seems to receive a lot of attention on this article. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Colipon, regarding your comment about what I "insist", perhaps you'd better check your eyesight. I can't imagine you would say that on purpose. Wait. Or can I...? Comment retracted on behalf of Olaf on 12 August 2009 --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Olaf Stephanos, just say what you want to say without malice, or don't say it at all. PerEdman (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you don't consider his words "Olaf has read this document, but insists that "controversial movement" be left out. Looks like to me like an all-out attempt to just censor anything that would portray Falun Gong in a bad light, or even a slightly negative characterization is frowned upon by these users" just a wee bit malicious? Especially since that comment resulted from not even reading what I wrote above, but Colipon's automatic assumption that this must be my opinion? Especially while he is at this very moment preparing to lose his face by blatantly misusing the arbitration enforcement process against me to gain an upper hand in content disputes? And while you say disparaging things, such as "focussing on improving the article is still a better cause than putting too much weight on the opinions of disruptive editors" (and did not even understand what HappyInGeneral said below)? Alright, perhaps it is somewhat malicious. Sorry about that. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That you again choose to criticise other participants does not alter the fact of your disruptive edits and discussion comments. Please, focus on the subject matter. I freely admit that I do not understand what you were trying to say at 22:14, 7 August 2009 and if it contains anything relevant to the subject, I urge you to reword your message. PerEdman (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I will try to make this easy for you. Read what I wrote at 20:11, 7 August 2009. Then read Colipon's comment at 21:03, 7 August 2009. Is there something you still don't understand? &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  10:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it still makes no sense to me. I do not know what it is you "can't imagine" or whether you really can imagine that. It still comes across as some sort of vague, petty accusation against an individual participant, and that can't possibly be right. PerEdman (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that can't possibly be right. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied that it was simply an innocent comment that I could not understand. PerEdman (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)
 * From Olaf: "There used to be a thread on this talk page where I actually defended using the word 'controversial' (but for some reason, I couldn't find it in the archives – has somebody made a mistake?"
 * From Colipon: "Olaf has read this document, but insists that "controversial movement" be left out."

Based on WP:AGF this must be a mistaken attribution.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It "must" not. Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet, since it fails to assume the assumption of good faith if the perceived assumption of bad faith is not clear-cut. To continue to assume good faith from a person who writes about magic spells and checking others eyesight would be naive in the extreme. Focussing on improving the article is still a better cause than putting too much weight on the opinions of disruptive editors. PerEdman (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Richardson/Edelman; Discrediting Margaret Singer (cont'd)
We need to make a decision on whether or not to leave the paragraphs in the article. It seems neither Eric Naval nor PerEdman want to keep it in there (Mrund also said Singer's criticism belongs to the article on Singer, not on the FLG article). Olaf's justification and the defence of asdfg and dilip is unreasonable. The content is seen elsewhere, not to mention its sole purpose here is to discredit the ACM (discredit any sources critical of Falun Gong) so criticism can't stay alone. I propose the paragraph be removed or the content restructured by a third-party user to reflect NPOV. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I meant that the references to criticism of the Anti-Cult movement belong in the article about that movement. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed. They should be in the ACM article, not the Falun Gong article. Colipon+ (Talk) 07:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the paraphrasing of Richardson/Edelman is far too meaty to be placed in an article about Falun Gong and I have the creeping suspicion that it has been readded in this manner just because the source "should" be included somehow. That it has been rewritten is a result of my earlier criticism that the Richardson/Edelman article did not in fact state what it was claimed in the Wiki as stating. The current version is Olaf's attempt to save the source from exclusion. But if it cannot be concisely stated what relevance the source has to Falun Gong, it makes for much better readability not to include that source. In my opinion, that is. Wikipedia is no place for essays. PerEdman (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kick it out, belongs into Academic views on Falun Gong Seb az86556 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The sentence discrediting Singer can be removed, while the Richardson/Edelman reference belongs to the same place where we discuss the views of the ACM. I'm not saying it should be here or there, as long as it's not removed from that context. It seems a bit bloated at the moment and should be rewritten (I can do that), but it is a) a more highly ranking source (peer reviewed) than the ones you suggest about Singer, Rahn, and others; b) directly related to Falun Gong, because the Richardson/Edelman article is specifically about how the ACM's unscientific discourse has been used to discriminate against Falun Gong. If you have any problems with that, consult the NPOV noticeboard, or write a request for comment. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Colipon. It shouldn't be in the main article.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ownby (cont'd)
I would also like to bring to attention the fact that David Ownby is quoted endlessly on this article but the fact that he says "Falun Gong without a doubt controversial" somehow never makes it onto the article. Ownby also says Li Hongzhi is a "obscure former clerk" and "trumpet player" on the very first page of his essay. Thoughts? I suggest we insert the "without a doubt controversial" line in the Ownby section of "reception". There's an on-going attempt to hide this and only show Ownby's "positive reflections" of Falun Gong. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, but keep it short. Anything beyond short goes into Academic views on Falun Gong Seb az86556 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ownby did write a lot of things. When you include something from him, please make sure that it is in it's proper context. For example he did explain what he meant in controversial, otherwise if you keep bare just the word controversial itself, it does not say anything actually, but it is a loaded word in the sense that people might imagine just about anything based on it. This is good only if we would like to write a WP:SOAP and would like to give a certain light and music to a painting. To avoid that, see Richardson's advice, so far this approach seems to be the most attributed and thus it is the most fare. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would a Wikipedia editor NOT use quotes in proper context, HappyInGeneral? PerEdman (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mistakes or hidden agenda, would you suggest any other reason? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to assume a mistake or a hidden agenda in this case. PerEdman (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Choosing the most relevant quotes is always difficult. I suggest getting your hands on Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownby. It was published in 2008 and is therefore more recent than the article in question. I agree that saying "Falun Gong is without a doubt controversial" without elaborations on why Ownby thinks that way looks like cherry-picking, unless we write a honest, truthful summary of the article to accompany it. Case in point, Ownby has also said that "neither Falun Gong nor Li Hongzhi were particularly controversial in the beginning." ("The Falun Gong in the New World," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306) I think that quote says a lot more; it admits that Falun Gong became controversial later (because of the CCP's reaction), but also points out what Ownby thinks about Falun Gong's initial reception. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  09:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the Reception of Falun Gong (currently Academic Views) has to be made extremely long before we can start abridging it. Only at the point when we have a lot of different material from various researchers can we start to see how the article should be structured, what themes are prominent, which views should be presented together, and what is the most concise way to express what is said in a particular source. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  09:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we then remove also the barely-contextual quote "by no means a cult", without elaboration on why? I happen to agree and I am fully prepared to remove the quote for the very good reasons you list. The meaning of the quote about "the beginning" is most significant in what that quote does not contain. The article we are writing here deals also with what is today.


 * I find your theory on article-writing extremely peculiar. Do you have any guideline or policy sources for your idea that the Criticism against Falun Gong must be "made extremely long" before it can be rewritten as an efficient piece of WP:V writing? I certainly see no reason to bloat an article and then strip it. Better to stick with adding ONLY that which is WP:V to begin with. PerEdman (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any quotation to the effect that FG is not this or that should be preceded by a well-sourced statement to the effect that it is. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PerEdman: I can find good references for David Ownby's views about Falun Gong not being a cult. He has never claimed otherwise. My point is that we can find so much verifiable, reliably sourced material on the reception of Falun Gong that the article will inevitably be longer than what is healthy. But since we don't know the full extent of all the various themes we need to cover, I consider it a lot easier to have a bloated article that is then abridged. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should intentionally bloat the article. However, in the future, we may have so many references that one study might have to be condensed into a very concise description to make the article readable. At this point, it is hard to know.


 * I did not mean to say that Ownby has claimed that Falun Gong is a cult. I merely responded to your claim that the quote "Falun Gong without a doubt controversial" should not be included, by stating that neither should the claim "by no means a cult", for the same reasons. You really should not go searching for quotes that support your opinion.


 * Again, please explain to me how your personal opinion on bloated articles is compatible with wikipedia policies. I would suggest you use a sandbox to perform such experiments, rather than experimenting with the live article in a manner inconsistent with policy. PerEdman (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, PerEdman, I am proposing something that I believe could work as an approach to write an article that is not too long, but still incorporates a diverse array of views. If you have a better suggestion, you are free to express it. In your next reply, I would also like to see the reference that backs up your words "in a manner inconsistent with policy". Thanks. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would then suggest that you take your belief and proposition to a sandbox rather than experiment with live articles governed by guidelines and policies. This is my better suggestion, freely expressed. PerEdman (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I already told you that I can open up the context for the words "by no means a cult" by writing more about Ownby's views regarding this matter. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good. While you are on it, could you also take the time to open up the context for the words "Falun Gong without a doubt controversial"? Thanks! Oh, and please keep it concise. PerEdman (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin: Wikipedia does not have such a policy or guideline. The relative weight of sources is guided by WP:DUE, and if we cannot reach a consensus, we will consult the community noticeboards. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  10:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue of Wikipedia policies. It's about how a well-structured piece of text is laid out. If I drop a sentence into the article about the squirrel saying "The squirrel is not subject to veneration among Coptic Christians", then the reader will be really confused and wonder if anybody's ever suggested that the squirrel is, and if so, who. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is what you mean, then alright. I misunderstood your words. By no means should we have a Reception article that only consists of yes–no interchange of views. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability of FG materials advertised
Currently the article's first paragraph advertises that "The books, lectures and exercise materials have been translated into multiple languages and are freely available on the Internet." This should be in the "Further reading" section, not up top, IMHO. Thoughts? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it belongs to the lede. The idea is to point out the cost-free availability of Falun Gong materials to anyone who's interested in them; it is really a core aspect of understanding the practice's decentralised nature, and that there is no revenue generation model in Falun Gong. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And why is the cost-free availability of Falun Gong materials to anyone who's interested in them relevant to an objective article in another cost-free medium freely available to anyone interested in it (Wikipedia)? Christianity also has cost-free bibles and the bible itself is featured prominently on the web, but no-one would think of placing that fact in the lede to the article on Christianity, nor is it in any way indicative of decentralization in that case. (I compare to christianity here not as another way of claiming that FG is a religion, but as a parallel to the "freely available" documents).


 * Is there any policy precedent for either? PerEdman (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When I read up on an organisation in an encyclopedia I do appreciate a link to their core publications on-line. It's a really useful thing to have. But I don't expect the link to be in the first paragraph. It's a bibliography thing. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the content of the article. Right now, I don't see that the material is mentioned to any degree in the remainder of the article, so I'm not sure how including it in the lede "summarizes" anything. While I can and do understand that being able to possess the information for no cost may be somewhat important, I do very much question whether it is unique enough to be included in the lede. With the exception of Scientology and, maybe, of the Hare Krishnas, I think one can easily get ahold of any of the basic documents of any religious belief system for free. In fact, in some cases and situations, it's hard to not wind up being given copies of such documents, whether you really want them or not. That being the case, while it may be important to Falun Gong, it is not so unique that I think it necessarily deserves special mention in the lede. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "further reading" section at the bottom is a good idea. Trouble is, there already is one such section, so it would have to have a different name ("publications by Falun Gong"?) A list like that could be worked out here, on the discussion-page and then moved to the article once completed (there could simply be a section on this talkpage that says "preliminary suggested list. discuss content of list in separate section(s), not here") Seb az86556 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The current "Further Reading" section links to FG's two core books. We could perhaps add links to one or two further works deemed important by FGers. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * About mentioning the cost-free availability of the books, it can just be pared down to a sentence "The books in multiple languages are available freely online." -- this isn't a big deal and keeps mention of it, because actually, a lot of qigong systems charge for exercise teaching etc., and as Olaf says, one of the key aspects of the phenomenon is its decentralised nature. Noting this briefly in the lede is a useful way of illustrating that fact.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But surely not in the intro, or in the first paragraph. This is after all an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the sentence is informational: it provides the information that Falun Gong the books are available freely on the internet; at the same time, it quickly establishes other important aspects of Falun Gong, such as its decentralised nature. This could also be done with a sentence about how the practice is decentralised, but this does both. Being such a central aspect of the practice, too, and being so few words, what's the objection?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good -- so here we go....Seb az86556 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I dunno. I'm slowly coming 'round to Asdfg12345's angle here. A comparison to christianity may be unfair - it's common knowledge that there are free gideonite bibles out there, or that you can search bible gateway for all versions of the english translation, but if you instead compare to Scientology, where the material is NOT freely available, heck or even if you compare with an ordinary training or medidation regimen, you'll discover that the material is rarely free. It might be a significant enough trait that it could be mentioned in the lede. The alternative would be not to mention the main books at all, and that too would be strange. If one spiritual practice had a book that always was black, I would definately mention this in the wikipedia article. Same if it was free. PerEdman (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We are capable of rational discussion and consensus-building--this is encouraging. So we'll pare it down to "The books in multiple languages are available freely online," and PerEdman gets 3 Goodwill Points. (I've got a chart up on my pinboard tracking this stuff.)--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested additions to "Further Reading"
- ''This is a list of publications suggested as an expansion to "Further Reading" at the bottom of the article. Please comment above, not here''


 * (one)
 * (two)
 * (three)
 * (four)

-