Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 34

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I support it only in the sense that I support all good research and relevant argument/information. I could be persuaded otherwise--for example, if we had a top scholar saying that the connection is simply bogus and was a clever piece of Falungong propaganda that got its way into the circulation system. But I don't see any such source forthcoming. Thus, I support the inclusion until proper evidence can be presented as to why it is inappropriate. So far I am distinctly unconvinced by PCPP's arguments (if they could be called that) and his aggressive reverting behaviour, over which I hope I do not have to intercede again. — Zujine |talk 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I looked at Gutmann's article and there is another small piece of information that is relevant. He talks about how video cameras were already set up at Tianjin to monitor the protesting adherents. This indicates that the Party already had something in mind--or why would they set up that kind of surveillance? It is a small point that bolsters the relevance of this general conspiracy narrative, though it is not directly related to the He/Luo connection. — Zujine |talk 17:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * "'For example, the Zhengqing Net is an anti-Falun Gong website and operates under the name of He Zuoxiu, who is the academician of the CAS and also known as the husband of sisters with Luo Gan. The later is condemned by Falun Gong followers as one of the main executioners during the Falun Gong persecution. This point matches the information from the insider which indicates that the Zhengqing Net belongs to the 6.10 Office headed by Luo Gan and founded in June 10, 1999 after Falun Gong’s Zhongnanhai Demonstration in April that year.'(Jia, Minna. 'Impact of Internet on Chinese Authoritarian rule during SARS and Falun Gong Incidents,')"


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


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


 * It must be becoming clear to everyone that it is almost impossible to have a rational debate with PCPP, because he brings up every kind of specious, even contradictory argument, simply to try to win the discussion. Language and argument is just another weapon to try to get the desired result on the page. Anyway, while we still must abide by the fiction that this is actually a debate--that is, until this user oversteps the boundary, does one too many reverts, and finally gets banned from these pages--let me just respond to what he has said:
 * The "this discussion has been had before" argument -- Firstly, yes it has been had before, and the consensus was to include the material. Here is the latest discussion on it. Editors agreed to include it then, and agree again now. Secondly, even if the consensus then was not to include it, new consensuses may be formed. So that is irrelevant.
 * The "no Chinese source/no proof" argument -- this is irrelevant. Since when did something have to appear in a Chinese source? What kind of source would be reliable? Chinese sources, except primary ones, are among the most unreliable on this topic. In any case, the info appears in multiple reliable sources, and we do not require to prove the truth of the claim, merely that it has been made.
 * The "not in Ownby" argument -- this is facile. So let's delete everything off the page that Ownby doesn't agree with? Please.
 * Did I miss any? He has been saying the same three meaningless arguments the whole time, by the way, in case anyone didn't notice. One final amusement: PCPP says that the recent source Homunculus brings up has not been peer-reviewed... but clearly this is not his standard anyway, because Porter's is a peer reviewed thesis/book, and he still rejects that. Clearly this user does not even follow his own standards. At this rate, I suspect that PCPP is rapidly putting himself on the shortlist of editors to ignore. I'll say no more on this unless PCPP brings more actual evidence to light on the topic. I mean reliable sources, not just specious argumentation. -- Asdfg12345 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg you're wasting your time here and learnt nothing from your 6 month ban. I already provided my reasons as why your "sources" are not sufficient enough to establish a fact. You previously stated that Porter's thesis isn't a reliable source,, that his discipline is not on religion, and now turned around and say it is. ... and the fact remains that we have three reliable sources saying this, and several editors supporting the inclusion. If you find some research contradicting the claim, please let us know. -- Asdfg12345 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Chinese sources aren't "unreliable" because you say so. In fact He's campaigns against traditional Chinese medicine has been controversial amongst Chinese media, whereas the Chinese government has long harped about the benefits of TCM.
 * Ownby's study on FLG has far more weight on the subject that the sources you provided. Not only him, but none of the other sources provide speculative evidence on the relations between Luo and He, and that He is somewhat responsible for the FLG ban. You've yet proved that the majority of FLG scholars agreed that He is related to Luo.
 * The source bought up by Homunculus is nowhere new. It was a university essay that did not provide attribution for these claims at all . And guess where did Porter attribute the relations claim? Clearwisdom.net/Faluninfo.net, mouthpieces for the FLG movement.--PCPP (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completely skipping the debate and all arguments. I've already made my statements on why the three sources does not provide sufficient conclusion on why Luo and He are related, which you have yet answered, and now you ask me to provide evidence on how they're not related? Oh please.--PCPP (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

I have added the religion RFC tag as well. I think a few points are relevant here:
 * 1) How is the material in question directly relevant to the topic of this article? This article is about Falun Gong, the movement. So far as I have seen, there is one source which states that these two individuals may be in some way cooperating to the detriment of Falun Gong. There are serious questions about whether that synthesis of material is necessarily of such importance that it has to be included in the main article.
 * 2) Please see WP:SYNTH. I note that none of the sources indicate specifically state that there was any form of cooperation between the two individuals. If the purpose of the material is to imply that there is such a cooperation, then that purpose, however good, would be a form of synthesis not permitted by SYNTH.
 * 3) Are these individuals alive? If either is, or even potentially if their direct families are, WP:BLP would very possibly be a serious consideration here. The idea seems to be to indicate that these two have cooperated actively in some way, and, honestly, the evidence presented does not make that a clear and necessary conclusion. Insinuations of things which cannot be clearly documented by reliable sources are very possibly unacceptable per BLP.
 * 4) National Review, which I myself don't necessarily think is that good a magazine, is a good source for this comparatively straightforward information as per WP:RS. A PhD thesis, unless cited as a source by other independent sources, probably isn't. The third source, as mentioned above, doesn't even mention the individuals by name or in any other way clearly and explicitly, and is, on that basis, not really admissable evidence regarding this subject.

So, on the basis of the above, we have one generally reliable source which mentions that these two individuals are related, and other sources which include information which supports that conclusion, but without making clear and forthright statements to that effect. In all honesty, the National Review, on its own, is probably sufficient for the information to be included, if the material is to be included. The question becomes whether the material is of sufficient importance to be included in this, the main article on the topic. Honestly, I cannot see how it is, based on the clear and non-SYNTH information provided. Now, there are other questions involved.
 * Are these two individuals notable enough in their own rights to have separate biographical articles? If yes, then reference to family is certainly appropriate for such biographical articles.
 * Is the material, perhaps, of sufficient importance to be included in one of the "child" articles? Maybe. That would depend on a number of matters, including the degree of material in the article about the two individuals themselves. Even there, BLP might be a consideration.

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


 * I want to give my comment on this. I'll get back to you in a few hours. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick word. The material in question is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong. It bears virtually no significance in the biographies of these persons. There is ample research on the significance of the Zhongnanhai manifestation and the preceding Tianjin incident; among the competing narratives on the pre-crackdown era, this version of events is directly supported by many important sources, even if not all of them mention the family relationship between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu. Gutmann in National Review believes the connection is important, and he is not the only source talking about a melange of science, ideology, politics and personal affiliations. Since this context and narrative already exists, we are not synthesising material, only providing the readers with reliably sourced remarks on the circumstances leading up to the crackdown. As far as I see it, there is no encyclopaedic reason to keep this information out of the article. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the passages cited are directly from these sources, certainly not an original synthesis of them. -- Asdfg12345 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I urge you to read WP:SYNTH again, asax it seems to me that you have rather clearly misunderstood it. It is a violation of SYNTH to link together statements in such a way as to cause them to apparently say something that none of them specifically say. The attempt to introduce this material is based on individual editors' interpretation that other texts, which do not specifically refer to this individual by name, are in fact referring to him because of his relationship to another party. Such attempts to get an article to say something that is not said by any of the sources is a very clear violation of SYNTH. Olaf's statement that the material is only relevant in the context of Falun Gong is, to my eyes, completely unsupported by policy and buidelines. And I do not see any sort of direct response to the possible violation of WP:BLP. To be specific, there has been nothing clearly established explicitly from reliable sources which links the relationship of these two individuals to the suppression of Falun Gong, and attempting to get multiple sources to state something that no source presented to date has explicitly said is a violation of SYNTH. According to BLP, we cannot allow such material to any article. If, and I believe only if a reliable source explicitly says that these two individuals have, in some way, colluded or conspired to act, then, perhaps, that might be relevant to the article about the suppression of Falun Gong in China, and, I suppose, an argument could be made that it is relevant here. But I have not yet seen the sources which make the statements which would be required by policy for this material to be included. If those sources exist, than I very strongly suggest that they be produced and that others be allowed to review them to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines are not violated. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The new sections are as follows:

Beliefs and Teachings
 * Categorization
 * Organization and Structure
 * Demographics

History
 * Criticism and Response
 * Tianjin and Zhongnanhai Protests
 * The Ban

Suppression
 * Media Campaign
 * Conversion Program
 * Coercive Measures
 * Response Inside China

Falun Gong Outside China

Reception
 * Controversies

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

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

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

Other notable changes:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * I am of two minds about this... these are certainly big changes, and many of them undiscussed. I disagree with what you call the "extraneous and redundant analysis" about the persecution, since it is one of the most notable aspects of this topic. I have changed a few subheads and re-added one of the important images regarding the persecution. I didn't look at the changes thoroughly but I will over the next few days, and probably have more comments. I do appreciate the work that goes into this though, at the least. -- Asdfg12345 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the reorganization is excellent. Asdfg, do you feel you have a tendency to own the page? It was agreed by several of us that the information about the suppression (I am about to revert your changes to those subsections) needn't be so prominent or extensive. Homunculus is to be applauded for the rigorous scholarship and painstaking research that obviously went into this rewrite. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, though I hope no one will object to my putting back the picture, at the least. - Asdfg12345 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At some later point I would like to open a discussion on the "propaganda campaign" or "media campaign" question. I do not think it is biased to refer to it as the former, since there is no disagreement among sources that we are talking about anything but propaganda. I could find dozens or more references. -- Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my final point, in response to Homunculus's changes, is the notion that people in the West actually think that Falun Gong is a "cult": this is quite an assertion. I give Westerners more credit than that, and in my experience it's not actually the case. Very few people hold such views, and mostly it results from a lack of information. I am wary of Wikipedia inadvertently perpetuating these vague stereotypes (someone reads "people think it's a cult" and then by osmosis start thinking "that Falun Gong, is it a cult?"); my point is not from the standpoint of advocacy, but in terms of how an encyclopedia should inform readers. Practically, I would have thought it would be better to explain the whys and wherefores of the cult label in more depth (i.e., explaining its irrelevance as a legitimate categorisation and its utility as a propaganda label) rather than just say which stereotypes exist. Anyway, a thought. I appreciate the serious engagement with this topic by other editors, even when I don't always agree with the changes; serious consideration of the topic and meaningful editing from "outsiders" has, unfortunately, not been seen for a long time. -- Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A lukewarm reception, but I'll take it. I'm glad the changes are generally acceptable. I encourage people to add or remove info as appropriate, as there remains much work to be done in raising the quality. Bear in mind that these changes mainly represent a reorganisation and more research on a few points more than anything. Asdfg, regarding the propaganda vs. media issue, let's see what the Wikipedia convention is re: propaganda. On the cult issue, I will be a tougher sell. Some Westerners do view Falun Gong as a cult, even if the view is not well supported. Ownby says as much when he notes that the Chinese government's portrayal of Falun Gong as a cult has undermined sympathy for the group. And the article does contextualise this claim, though perhaps not quite as much as it used to. Basically, I'm not really sure what more you want. If you have an edit that will improve the article, I won't object, and I won't claim my edits are necessarily correct, but I hope you can temper your sensitivity some. Homunculus (duihua) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Homunculus, this reorganization is much welcomed. Asdfg, to some extent I share your concerns about the significance of information about the persecution, and that is something that could be better explored going forward, perhaps. — Zujine |talk 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes by Homunculus seem reasonable to me. Regarding the cult information, please read the article published earlier this year, "Falun Gong: Ten Years On" in I believe Pacific Affairs, which states that the government's calling it a cult has led to some individuals outside of China mentally linking it to Aum Shinrikyo and/or the Branch Davidians, and that such comparisons are in fact to the detriment of the group. We really don't have any conventions about "propaganda", other than maybe WP:AVOID regarding possible use of the word to the exclusion of other more neutral words. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
A generic section head, I know. I'll be meticulous in explaining my changes in reverse chron:
 * Firstly, this one because Colipon's personal complaint is not a reliable source we should link.
 * Secondly, adding in all that information from primary source materials is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. I noticed large parts of well-researched information removed with primary source material from FLG teachings added, including some rather novel interpretations. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so this is strictly not allowed. Drawing one's own interpretations is not allowed. If one wants to include such information one must show that it has been written as such in scholarship. You can't just dig through the teachings and present an analysis of your choosing, however closely it is sourced, because no single editor has the authority to determine how certain parts of teachings should be represented, what importance they should be given, what role they play within the larger corpus of teachings, their significance, etc. There's a big Internet out there for blogs of this kind. Wikipedia is in some ways a confined space, so what's here needs to be highly well researched and rather compact. Large wanderings on obscure topics--NB: "obscure" is defined as not having a scholarly interpretation, or several, to back it up, which goes for all the additions I am removing--don't have a space and are not in line with our content policies. There were two changes along these lines, both rather radical. The first on Jan. 16, which put the page from 87,073 bytes to 93,192 bytes, then again on Jan. 19, putting the page from 93,279 to 95,279 bytes (wonder if the timing reflected anything about Hu's US visit?). These are quite radical changes that reflect arguments that have been gone through over and over again, and where consensus has been formed already, more than just once. The sources used were also entirely primary sources, and filled with speculative sentences. Perhaps an overzealous FLG person was feeling lucky?
 * Thirdly, the pinyin. Some of these additions were incorrect, such as karma being pronounced as "Niè. As far as I know, karma is pronounced ye in Chinese. I find the pinyin symbols, the large brackets that accompany them, and their intrusions all over the text, quite distracting and unnecessary. I read a lot of Chinese articles on wiki and never see this. It doesn't look nice, and it gets in the way of the reading. If people want to study Chinese they can go ahead. There's no reason in an ordinary article of this sort for the casual reader to have to be exposed to diacritics and other esoterica. I have removed them, too. That meant basically just pulling the changes all back. But I've explained my reasons as above. The first is pretty watertight, though I would certainly change my view on the material in question if reliable, secondary sources were brought forth--then it would be a question of WP:UNDUE. Such interpretations, however, are not adhered to by the top scholars of Falun Gong, like Ownby or Penny, and that would have to be kept in mind. The page as it stands, if you'll read the long arguments above, represents quite a balanced compromise between the various factions; I suggest such an equilibrium not be too quickly upset. As for the pinyin, let's see what others think. If there's a majority that support it.... well, let's just say I'll be very surprised!--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


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


 * I'm not sure. Anyway, would you mind expressing either your support or opposition to the changes? As you know, wiki works by consensus, and expressing your views one way or another will help in that process going forward. I've never seen a rule that because someone took care doing something, that it is necessarily a valuable thing to have done. Nothing against the Pinyin guy. [Update: I'm also going to be bold and ask you to take a look at my changes on the immolation page, and my explanation. Why do I ask you? You'll notice editing these pages is like walking through a mostly empty desert... except for the odd jackal that springs out. It would be helpful to have a critical but rational voice to test things against and beat out a consensus with.] --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


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


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


 * He seems to have gotten the point. We see a reasonable compromise here. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just reverted again... Sir, I think you should become more familiar with policy etc. I could add ten pages of favorite teachings and chuck them on the page, but the key is scholarly research, third parties, etc., and crucially: neutrality and due weight. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

After all, criticising someone else for being wrong does not make you (more) right. A sect or cult (depending on your POV) built almost only on a hatred of a political party won't last, since in history, no political party has lasted forever, and then FLG will have lost its raison d'etre. Jsw663 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you haven't seen this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I was the only Falun Gong practitioner left on the pages. So most of those arguments are fantasy (with a good dose of vitriol). If you want a basis from which to judge the matter, it is suggested that you look at David Ownby's book on Falun Gong. The page in its current form does not differ too much on the key issues from his largely authoritative text. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has a specific content issue they would like to raise with this article, I would be happy to discuss it. Vague allegations of bias from either side are not going to make this article any better. A more civil and constructive environment can be wrought by sticking to discussions of evidence and specific content, not politics.Homunculus (duihua) 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember Jsw663 from the period of Tomananda and Samuel Luo. He did seem quite content at the time the articles were reading like Samuel's personal website. Take a look at the archives from 2006. Nothing more to add here. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think this article does a good job in terms of quantity. I have found more information related to FLG on WP than many other websites. But the question remains, whether the information presented here is well-cited, and if so, whether the sources are balanced and complete. My feeling is that the article has added a lot more material on FLG before the ban in 1999. Still, I wonder if more can be added. For example, in the mid-1990s, there was a mysterious doctor who claimed to have healed many patients in rural China. The man, if I remember correctly, has surname Hu. I wonder if this man has anything to do with FLG? I also wonder if there are any Western sources that support the criminal prosecution of people such as Li Hongzhi while condemning the violent persecution of FLG followers at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Although this is already a pretty ponderous article, I do like the idea of adding some more on the background and Falun Gong in the 1990s. Another editor has been working on revising a timeline of Falun Gong's history,  and perhaps their research can help inform some additions here.
 * Regarding your mysterious doctor, this type of thing abounds in China. Falun Gong emerged in an environment where folk and traditional Chinese medical practitioners, including qigong masters, were prolific. Li Hongzhi rejected the emphasis on healing that characterized so many of the qigong schools, and forbid the practice of healing among his students,  so I doubt this doctor has any connection to Falun Gong (though perhaps there is some connection to the broader qigong phenomenon).  As to "Western sources that support the criminal prosecution of people like Li"... what are you referring to?  Prosecution for what?  As I recall, Chinese authorities in 1999 tried getting Interpol to intercept Li, but they refused.  China also reportedly tried getting the U.S. to extradite him, but the United States found that the Chinese allegations against him were politically motivated, not criminal. It's possible other qigong masters have faced some kind of prosecution, though none come to mind. Homunculus (duihua) 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with the OP, the article is horribly biased and one-sided. I would recommend finding fresh eyes while tempbanning flg-followers. This way the heavy biased might get cleared up. Otherwise, articles like this will be used to show and proof why wikipedia is, not at all, an acceptable source of information. Which would be shameful, because articles that aren't written by people who are projecting their ideology are usually very good. I would hope somebody would step up and clear this one. 85.237.211.249 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I also think that this article is biased in the favor of Falun Gong. There does not appear to be any information on this page that is leans even moderately towards the view of the CPC nor any information concerning any complaints regarding the Falun Gong from government or non-government sources. Basically, I do not think that both the information and tone of this article heavily leans towards the anti-CPC side and should be edited for neutrality and different viewpoints. Matthias Lightbane (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Matthias_Lightbane
 * As far as I can tell the article reflects the preponderance of mainstream academic viewpoints on the topic. Read Ownby. That's the gold standard so far. The article broadly reflects it. The CCP's policies vis-a-vis Falun Gong are not looked upon favorably by many at all in the West. I suggest the tag is misplaced. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I read through the page again with the concern over bias in mind. It may be possible to achieve a greater level of detachment in the tone, and I was also reminded in the process of some areas that could use work. I had previously thought to add to some sections to reflect some underrepresented scholarly discourse. I would be happy to take another pass.  I'm not sure my edits would assuage the concerns other editors have expressed, however, because none of them have provided specific examples of how the page falls short, other than vague (and somewhat facile) arguments to moderation. Again, specific suggestions of what to include would be welcome; for instance, I'm not sure what "complaints regarding the Falun Gong from government or non-government sources" refers to.Homunculus (duihua) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are genuine problems, those raising them should be able to point them out and propose remedies, and then we can work to fix them. It's been nearly a month and no one has done that. I'm going to remove the tag. I haven't read the page for a long time, but just state specifically what's wrong and how it can be fixed if there's a problem. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The cries of bias are absolutely pathetic. So in other words, those who claim this article is not neutral want the authors to include segments that perhaps could justify denying a particular group its human rights simply because of its beliefs.  When we are done editing this article to include more pathetic rationalizations from those who run the most oppressive tyranny on earth, perhaps we can then jump on over to the entry on the Holocaust and make it "more neutral" by giving greater merit to Nazi Party claims that the Jews were behind Versailles, were in control of world banking, were vermin that put "real Germans" out of work and were essentially the root of all evil in the first half of the twentieth century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice Godwinning there. I don't see how the "cries of bias" here are related to Nazism. What it boils down to with this article is how much weight is given to the question of whether FLG is a cult, and how much weight is given to the reports of cruel and violent oppression of FLG practitioners by the CPC. Those with a bias will either loudly insist that FLG is not a cult (and oppression by the CPC may be understated), or that FLG is strongly cultish (and CPC oppression may be exaggerated). And of course, that there is undue weight given to opposing side's viewpoint. The number and quality of references will be debated. What do you expect people to do? Destynova (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been drawn out far more than it merits. To Destynova, it seems you have failed to understand what the other editor was attempting to illustrate with the parallel between the Falun Gong/CCP dynamic to Jews under Nazism. In both cases, an authoritarian government sought to eradicate a religious belief, and employed a variety of rhetorical tools to legitimize the torture, imprisonment, and systematic killing of members of that group. In both cases, such abuses are well document (though they differ in degrees). And in both instances, the accusations leveled by the governments against the religions are held to be groundless works of propaganda. Now, given the sensitivity of analogies to Nazism, it is not a comparison I would draw. Perhaps it's more appropriate to compare the treatment of Falun Gong by the PRC to the suppression of the Bahá'í Faith in Iran. In any of these instances, it is both absurd and facile to argue that neutrality is achieved by giving equal representation to the unsubstantiated propagandizing used by authoritarian governments that persecute these groups. The article on the Ba'hai has achieved featured article status, and for those who are arguing that this article ought to contain more of the CCP's point of view, I suggest taking a look at it. Note, in particular, how little space it dedicated to explaining or legitimizing the Iranian regime's charges against the faith. I would also suggested reading the article on false balance. While you're at it, if you're truly interested in improving this article, I exhort you to actually read up on the Falun Gong in the scholarly literature, or read human rights reports from organizations like the UN or the CECC that deal with this issue. Finally, I hope we can stop treating this page as a forum for general discussion. Homunculus (duihua) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Swastika
Talk about a PR fail: Using a swastika in your logo. I know it's the left-facing swastika which is different from the right-facing Nazi swastika, but still the symbol evokes the wrong kind of feelings in the global crowd. 93.172.56.90 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_36. Your global crowd probably isn't quite as global as you imagine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have read through some of the recent changes and they seem to be in line with what this article has needed for a long time. The treatment Falun Gong gets here is now closer to that given to other spiritual and religious groups on the encyclopedia. But I have a few questions (will add to them as time goes on so no need to respond right away).
 * 1) Where does this come from? "Falun Gong, in its early days, was a polytheistic belief system"??? I've never read that, anywhere. We should not be fast and loose with statements like this. Is the way this statement is dichotomized with the 'Lord of Buddha' quotes indicating that it changed from a polytheistic to monotheistic belief? That seems an absurd claim.
 * 2) Are academic self-indulgences like this really helpful for the reader? "Cheris Shun-ching Chan consider cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred rather than collective worship..." etc. etc. Readers don't care for these theories. People know what a cult is. It's bad. It includes money, deception, a strict hierarchy and organization, control over the members, and so forth. Falun Gong clearly shares none of these characteristics. I'm unsure on what should be here. But given that this label originated in the demonization campaign led by the Chinese state, I wonder about the appropriateness of placing this as just another analytical category for classifying the movement. (It may be fitting to reduce this part and move it to the section that deals with anti-Falun Gong propaganda? I'm not sure.) Perhaps it would be fitting to simply state that Falun Gong has been called a cult by the Chinese state, and then provide the response of scholars or other relevant parties. Though that seems to have been done elsewhere. But since Chan's point here is abstruse and relies on actually defining the term, I suggest it be disposed of.
 * 3) There needs to be something on how Falun Gong is actually practiced by its adherents in the post-suppression context, both inside and outside China. I suggest adding a paragraph on this in the "organization" subsection. We want to know what these people do, how much time they spend doing it, with whom, and under what circumstances. Some detail on the daily experience of Falun Gong practice would be welcome.
 * 4) The last half of the article has no pictures. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A heads up
I just wanted to put in a heads up that I am gearing up to make some edits to the page. I’ll follow up with a detailed explanation of edits, but first, a general note on the objectives.

The changes I intend to make are intended to address a couple persistent complaints about the page. First, the article is huge, and suffers a few organizational problems. I have prepared a slight reorganization of some of the content, but am not making fundamental changes to the article structure.

Over time several editors have intimated that the page is too focused on the persecution of Falun Gong. I am inclined to agree, and further find that the emphasis on the persecution has produced the corollary effect of turning the article into a kind of battleground for debating PRC narratives vs. those of Falun Gong and the human rights community. Another suggestion that has been raised repeatedly—and this goes with the first—is to include more information on both the pre-suppression era, and on the practices and beliefs of Falun Gong.

Finally, there have been persistent charges that the article is biased. I do not know exactly what that means, because no one making the argument has convincingly elaborated or raised specific points of contention. Nonetheless, I decided to look for examples of good religion articles for a reference as to what an NPOV page looks like. The best example (and indeed, one of the few religion articles to achieve and maintain FA status) is on the Bahá'í Faith. This is especially fitting in that the Bahá'ís are also subject to persecution by the Iranian regime, yet the article’s authors clearly agreed that the views of the Iranian government do not define the religion. When the regime’s accusations against the faith are articulated, they are promptly refuted. Human rights violations are described at some length, but the section on persecution is not excessively long and is located at the end of the article. I am not suggesting we need to follow this format exactly, but I think there’s merit to it. Other religion articles that once held FA status include Christianity and Judaism, and they can also provide a point of reference.

Another page I found helpful is Religion, which is a working draft of a proposed policy or guideline. Whether or not it is ever completed or approved, the draft in its current form struck me as a very reasonable way to avoid protracted disputes and personal attacks that have sometimes characterized this page. Indeed, the good religion articles I have found seem to embrace the spirit of the document. One of the main suggestions here is that “religious articles should be written to present the viewpoint of the religion and its followers, while making it clear that this is their perspective and that this is not a form of endorsement of any belief system.” The draft proposes this might be achieved through adopting an “in-universe” voice, similar to what one might find in science fiction writing. Rather than adopting a proselytizing tone, the religion’s views should be described in a neutral, matter-of-fact tone, and readers should be left to make their own assessments of them. The draft generally suggests that a good deal of sensitivity be exercised here, and that while criticisms of religions are fine, they should be worded carefully and thoroughly discussed (even in consultation with the religious believers) to ensure fairness.

All this is to say that my edits are the start of a process to bring this article more in line with the good religion articles. To that end, I am adding a few more subsections on Falun Gong texts, symbols, practices, social views, etc. I have also prepared a new section on its origin as part of the qigong movement, and an expanded history of the practice in the 1990s in China. I intend to remove most of the external links to better conform to the way external links are handled in other religion articles. That is, I will leave only the main Falun Gong websites, and a list of major scholarly books published by reliable sources on the subject. The views of the Communist Party, or “other critical views” parroting them, are out of place here, and the equivalents would not be tolerated on, say, the Bahá'í Faith article or the page on Judaism.

I did add some information to the persecution section, mostly elaborating on the rationale behind the ban. I integrated a couple more scholarly and journalistic perspectives there. I added a bit of information on the lawsuits launched by Falun Gong, including against Cisco. I might at a latter time write something about the lawsuits launched inside China by Weiquan lawyers on behalf of Falun Gong.

I hope these edits sound reasonable. I can provide a more specific summary as well.

After I’m finished, however, some major issues remain. Note that I tread very carefully when it came to deleting content (I moved some things around, reduced some redundancies, but ultimately deleted very little). The end result is the addition of around 2,000 words. It’s a pretty huge article, and while I think caution is warranted in reducing its length, it’s probably a worthwhile endeavor if we can reach consensus on how to do this.Homunculus (duihua) 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds well thought out and quite time consuming; well done for making the effort. It may be worth consulting with Olaf Stephanos on matters of Falun Gong doctrine and faith, to ensure the information is presented as intended. Or, if you put in what you've got he can just change it if he sees improvements to make. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look through the changes and overall I think it's a good improvement, though I would bet that we could continue editing this article forever and never please all the constituencies. Glad to see richer content on the practice and beliefs element, particularly the origins of Falungong. I think the approach to controversies is also good - I saw that you brought down some content that used to be elsewhere on the page and consolidated them in that section. Also, I agree with trying to cut some things down to size, particularly the persecution section. By the looks of it, you reduced its prominence only relative everything else, but didn't actually trim it down. In the future, I could try to help summarise it, and we can move the rest over to the persecution page. By the way, I don't know for how long this has been a problem, but looks like the footnotes could use a clean-up, if there's an enterprising soul out there interested in such tedious tasks. — Zujine |talk 03:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume that my preemptive justification for edits is sufficient so far, and that I don't need to provide a further detailed explanation for each change. If any particular thing is problematic, however, I'm happy to discuss it. As to shortening things, if you could make an attempt on the persecution section, that would be excellent, but try to preserve the crucial information. At some point, it would also be nice to see a reduction in the amount of scholarly exegesis that is scattered throughout the article.  I appreciate having this here, but the page sometimes read like a lengthly literature review, and may be prohibitively long for most readers. Maybe we can move some of the scholarly discussions into the endnotes, and just state the essential points as clearly as possible. This approach will not work for issues where there are conflicting interpretations, of course; I mean only to do this where there is a general consensus. Homunculus (duihua) 03:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit accuses Cisco of aiding Chinese repression of Falon gong
Here is something I think should be added to the page

From CNET:

Cisco Systems designed a surveillance system to help the Chinese government track and ultimately suppress members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, according to a lawsuit the group filed against the network equipment maker.

Link to read the rest of the CNET story

Mattsky (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed - very interesting. Falun Gong has a record of filing lawsuits outside China to seek redress for alleged torture and wrongful imprisonment, though to my knowledge this is the first against a U.S. company. I have a list of things I had volunteered to do on this page, and I can add this to that list (unless someone wants to get to it first). In your view, should the allegations be folded in under the section on persecution, or should the lawsuit itself be noted in the section on Falun Gong outside China? Homunculus (duihua) 04:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This should not be just an allegation with 2 lines in the article. This is really a big case from a history and hi-tech standpoint.  We really need editors with a law background on this one. Problem is that this is not even at the point of Group1 vs. Group2 yet with a court date.  Benjwong (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fair to have a short description of the case in the article, presenting it just as has been done in the NYTimes, WSJ, Reuters, etc. This would include mention of Cisco's denial that it administers or customizes networks in China. Some of the evidence on which the case is based is also drawn from Ethan Gutmann's book Losing the New China, and we could refer to that. But otherwise I agree with you. When the discovery process begins, and more evidence is made public, it may be fitting to even have a separate article on the topic. If we can find an editor who is familiar with the alien torts claims act, that would be helpful. On a related note, a handful of other Chinese dissidents have filed their own case against Cisco with funding from the Laogai foundation, apparently hoping to piggyback on this one. So yea, it might very well merit its own article at some point. Homunculus (duihua) 02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We really don't need editors with a law background, actually, just editors who can access the material from reliable sources relating to the subject. I have found at least a few RS's so far on the subject, and personally believe that the subject probably deserves an article of its own, provided notability can be established, which shouldn't be a problem. I tend to believe in general that there is a reasonable basis for quite a few more articles on the subject of Falun Gong than exist to date, and would welcome seeing anyone make an effort to find sources for them. I am in the process of reviewing available literature myself, and might have a few suggestions. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding status of Falun Gong content on wikipedia
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group about the existing status of our content related to Falun Gong on wikipedia. I would very much welcome the input of any and all interested parties. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He and Luo, two years later.
I see that the issue with He and Luo is still basically unresolved. Did we just run out of steam like every other instance and let it be? See: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_37, and my arguments prior to my departure from Falun Gong articles: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_34. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for my edit on the Controversies section
1) PCCP's statement about non-scholarly anti-cult activists like Rick Ross is undue weight next to the opinions of numerous credible scholars. 2) The references were also messed up and misplaced in his earlier edit. 3) He included material that was taken out of context, like Palmer's quote about the "absolute centralization" of money, organization, and healing. The quote was explaining that local practice sites are not allowed to take money; it's not about Falun Gong being tightly organized. 4) He added in Craig Smith's quote saying that Falun Gong believes mixed-race people are the "spawn" of the dharma-ending period. The primary sources (i.e. Falun Gong's teachings, the sole corpus of teachings that determines what Falun Gong "believes") do not include such allegations. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your edit (or at least the one part that I was paying attention to). On the one hand we have a reliable secondary source, the New York Times, in an article about Falun Gong saying that Li Hongzhi "said interracial children are the spawn of the Dharma Ending Period, a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention." and on the other we have a Wikipedia editor talking about what primary sources say as the basis for the removal of the WP:V compliant material. Please could you explain how the removal of the material is consistemt with policy ? Thanks. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to reject the idea of including what Li Hongzhi has said about the the mixed-race issue; I'm talking about the opinionated, inflammatory wording in that article. There are no reliable academic sources contesting the idea that Li Hongzhi's lectures are the sole criterion for determining what Falun Gong "teaches". In fact, many sources explicitly state just the opposite. In this case, the primary sources are in no way ambiguous nor can they be dismissed when we evaluate what has definitively been said. Using another source is just like playing Chinese whispers—the further we get from the source, the less likely we are able to preserve the original meaning without distortion.


 * This is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the verifiability of sources. "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." Craig Smith is very partisan; all his articles by this era had become propaganda pieces for the CCP, a fact we can easily corroborate by comparing them with scholarly accounts of Falun Gong. Given that his account is contentious (i.e. the "spawn" thing, and the idea that people of mixed race are doomed without Li's intervention), we should seek an additional source on it. And since no other sources make these same claims, it shouldn't be included.


 * Moreover, the idea is already touched upon in the Ian Johnson quote. If you think that more needs to be said about it, you should attempt to accurately present these beliefs by first checking them against Li Hongzhi's teachings, and then refer to credible scholars of Falun Gong for insight into how to understand them. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  08:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have written thousands of pages on Falungong, but that does not mean that everything they have said should be included in this article simply because their writing it is verifiable. In determining whether this particular quote should be included, we need to ask, first, if the quote attributed to a living person is accurate; second, if it is given due weight; third, if it is relevant.

The answer to the first question is disputed, and the most inflammatory elements of the NYT article are not properly attributed. On those grounds alone, I would be reluctant to include it. To the question of due weight, we currently have two quotes in this section (one from Smith, one from Johnson) that touch on this topic, but no response from Falungong, and no evidence that this is actually notable. Which brings me to the third point of relevance. I checked Ian Johnson and David Ownby’s writings to see if they say more on this subject of mixed races, and they do not. Both only allude to the issue in passing as an example of novel Falungong beliefs, but do not return to it. Ownby devotes a lengthy chapter to exploring Falungong’s teachings, but does not think that this one is sufficiently notable to warrant any further discussion. Furthermore, this section of the page is about controversies. Craig Smith was not reporting on a controversy caused by this teaching (if anything, it seems he may have been trying to manufacture one). Aside from the fact that Falungong’s views on mixed races are antiquated and idiosyncratic, there’s nothing notable here. The single reference by Ian Johnson is certainly enough on this topic.

There is a legitimate controversy that is not currently explored in the article, which is the question of Falungong’s teachings and impacts on health. Namely, the charge that it discourages conventional medical treatment. On this topic, quite a bit has been said—not only by Falungong and PRC sources, but more importantly by academic observers. I will work on drafting this section when time allows.

Regarding the David Palmer quote, I agree with Olaf’s assessment that it was quoted in the article to convey quite a different meaning than was intended. Palmer recognizes that Falungong is loosely organised, just as do Ownby, Tong, (Susan) Palmer and others, so his statement should not be used to present the impression of dissent on that particular issue. Information from that section of Palmer could be included in a discussion of Falungong funds, but his statements should be used to explain the issue, not dramatise it.— Zujine |talk 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed that an editor attempted to restore his preferred version of the page, ignoring edits that have been made in the interim, and disregarding the discussion process. In so doing, he reintroduced edits that do not seem to comport with WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP, deleted source content, and mangled some references. I restored to the last version of the page, and suggest that any potentially controversial edits be discussed on the talk page.Homunculus (duihua) 05:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the NYT reference, considering that none of you offered concrete evidence that why it fails WP:RS, and seemed to edit upon a personal dislike of the NYT article. The controversy section was distorted to read like an apology for FLG controversies and make as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the Chinese government.--PCPP (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * PCPP, I don't like being accused of bad faith in your edit summaries. It seems that you have fallen back into your old patterns of reverting without discussion. Other editors have offered sound reasons for removing the NYT quote. In addition, you have not provided any justification for your other edits, which are problematic. A controversy section should be balanced. That is, it should present actual controversies, giving due weight, and explaining the different perspectives on those issues in accordance with their importance and value. I suggest you cool off. Homunculus (duihua) 06:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're the one who should cool off, considering that you continued in your own pro-FLG edit-warring and seemed content in removing all critical material. All I added are sourced and verifiable materials from third parties, and you have not yet offered any concrete evidence on why they shouldn't remain. As I said, Craig Smith's article comes from a reliable source that's easily verifiable. If Ownby or Johnson disagree, then add their viewpoints instead of reverting the entire section because you dislike one change.--PCPP (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of engaging in an edit war with you. I recommend you read the above discussion for reasons why your edits and reverts were problematic. For the record, my involvement here is minimal; since your series of edits in September, other editors made changes to the page. They have discussed these changes, and in my view provided sound reasoning for partially undoing some of your edits. They also contributed some new, sourced materials. I got involved when I noticed that you had begun to revert others' contributions without discussion, which is unfortunately a familiar pattern. Homunculus (duihua) 07:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should stop trying to paint a false picture, because all Olaf (a known FLG activist) did was revert all of my changes on the controversy section. And all your reverts has been specifically targeting my changes regardless of merits. I asked for concrete evidence on why the NYT article should be removes, and so far you haven't provided any.--PCPP (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see there that PCPP made several reversions in order to restore his version of the page. It took some time, but I parsed through the differences between his version and the one that he kept reverting:

1.The most obvious difference is that PCPP’s version claims, without attributing a primary source, a disputed claim that Falungong believes people of mixed-race are the “spawn” of the Dharma ending period. The secondary source that is used as reference does not properly attribute this wording either; it is the interpretation of the author masquerading as a quotation, and thus fails verifiability policy for quotations from living persons. If it were changed to read “Craig Smith believes that Falungong teaches mixed-race children are the spawn of the Dharma ending period,” it would satisfy WP:RS, but serious questions as to its notability, neutrality, and compliance with other policies would remain.

2.He changed this sentence:

The view that Falun Gong is a cult, widely used as part of Chinese state propaganda against the practice and adopted by some members of the anti-cult movement, is mostly rejected by mainstream scholarship.

to this:

The Chinese government's view that Falun Gong is a destructive cult, widely used as part of Chinese state propaganda against the practice, is largely criticized by mainstream Western scholarship, while a minority of members of the anti-cult movement claimed that Li meets their definition of a manipulative cult leader.

These sentences essentially say the same thing, and both allude to this small minority of anti-cult activists who see Falungong as a cult (in the pejorative sense). Yet the sentence structure employed in PCPP’s version places emphasis on the views of the non-scholarly minority, while skirting over the academic consensus. Alone, this is a pretty minor issue, but it seems that PCPP’s version fails WP:UNDUE, and is part of a broader pattern to try to undermine scholarly consensus when it does not comport with the perspective of Falun Gong’s critics.

3. The previous version of the page included this sentence on the entomology and usage of the Chinese term “xiejiao,” or evil religion:

In the context of imperial China, the term "xiejiao" was used to refer to non-Confucian religions, though in the context of Communist China, it has been used to target religious organizations which do not submit to the authority of the Communist Party.[192][193]

PCPP has removed this three times now, without explanation.

4. PCPP rearranged the order and wording on two paragraphs discussing the issue of Falungong’s practice fees (or lack thereof) and how much money Li Hongzhi made. It looks like both versions are more or less the same in terms of content and references, though he did remove the sentence that, I think, provided a better introduction to the subject. I don’t think there’s anything untoward here, other than a preference for his version.

5. To a discussion of whether or not Falungong is organised, PCPP added several sources that would appear to support the Chinese government’s (mostly discredited) view that Falungong is highly organised, and deleted references that suggested otherwise.

He added the following from David Palmer:

''Palmer writes that Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master, Li Hongzhi, "whose authority was strictly moral and ideological".[85]''

These quotes are correct, they do belong to Palmer, and Palmer is a good source on Falungong. The problem, which myself and Olaf pointed out, is that the Palmer quote is being misused here. It is nestled between Falungong’s claims of having no formal organisation or hierarchy and the consensus of other scholars that Falungong’s organisation is minimal. By placing it in this position, it is made to give the impression that Palmer is dissenting. If you actually read this page of his book, however, you see that he is not. I actually think some more of this material from Palmer should be included on the page, but this wasn’t the appropriate place for it, so Olaf and Homunculus removed it, and PCPP thrice restored it without answering to the concerns raised by others.

PCPP’s version also added a description of Falungong’s organisation from the state-run People’s Daily, and added another source describing the increasingly “militant” (militant how?) nature of Falungong’s locally autonomous groups in response to an escalation of tensions from the Chinese state. The second source, like the Palmer reference, could be put to good use on this page, but probably not where it is now. The People's Daily source is not inappropriate here, as it is describing the Chinese government's position, but the decision to include it is again part of a pattern of POV editing.

His version did include a good summary quote from James Tong. But he also deleted a different, equally a important quote from Tong, as well deleting two other sources without explanation. PCPP deleted the very plain assertion from David Ownby and Susan Palmer (which is also supported by Tong, David Palmer, Porter, and others) that Falungong is not highly organised or hierarchical. That one sentence came the closest to encapsulating the scholarly consensus on this topic. By deleting these sources and adding in several others to support the opposing view, PCPP has substantially changed the meaning of this section in a direction that goes against the scholarly consensus. (On a side note, there is already a section in the article on Falun Gong's organisation. Isn't that enough?)

6). As described in point #1, PCPP added a disputed account of Falungong beliefs written by Craig Smith. I won’t repeat what I said above, but one thing strikes me as interesting here.  Craig Smith’s statement included, within it, a properly attributed quotation from Li Hongzhi.  It also included Smith’s own, inflammatory paraphrasing of Falungong beliefs. What is interesting is that, in his last revert, PCPP decided he needed to leave in Smith’s paraphrasing—which is considerably more offensive—but not the actual, attributed quote to Li Hongzhi. This does not seem like the behaviour of an editor interested in following policy or accurately presenting this topic, but rather serves only to sensationalise the group's beliefs.

7. The previous version of the page included the following:

In discussing the portrayal of Falun Gong as “anti-gay,” Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

It was hard to see from the diff what PCPP did to this statement, but I am always up for a good game of ‘spot the difference.’ He decided to remove “Buddhism”, leaving only Abrahamic religions behind. The original text to which this is attributed does includes Buddhism.

8. The previous version of the page included a request for citation from the following statement:

Li maintains that mankind has been destroyed 81 times, and, according to some interpretations, that another round of destruction may be imminent.

PCPP removed the citation request, but did not provide a reference. He did add in two other opinions on the question of whether Falungong contains an apocalyptic message (as the Chinese government purports, and Falungong denies), both of which indirectly seem to endorse the Chinese government position.

This is a pretty exhaustive summary of the changes PCPP has been edit waring to preserve. His current version is what is on the page now because other editors are evidently less willing to hit “undo” repeatedly. I hope this is helpful to anyone looking in on this discussion, and I hope that PCPP can—without resorting to personal attacks or accusations of bad faith—answer for each of these edits.— Zujine |talk 21:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1) The Dharma Ending Period statement is widely quoted and is not something made up by Smith and the NYT. For example, C. Schafferer "Understanding modern East Asian politics" P.94 - "Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading us to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the "Dharma ending period" of "the apocalypse", "the Great Havoc", and the "end times" (mojie).

2)So? If anything, my addition certainly improved the intro, and noted which cult crtics made the statements, whereas the previous version dismissed that any criticism of FLG are Chinese propaganda. Furthermore, the wording it complete inapppriate for a criticism section, and reads like a FLG apology piece. What you're doing here is simply lawyering with Wikipedia guidelines and synthesize a claim about "academic consensus".

3)The Xiejiao claim was moved because it covered in the speculation section.

4)More nitpicking. I don't need an analysis from you of ever word I change.

5)Since when is the FLG "organization" decredited? By you? Here's another source on FLG's organization: S. O'Leary, "Falun Gong and the Internet", "Yet, although the attempt to depict Falun Gong as a non-political, non-religious group appears rather convincing, the fact remains that it is a massive group that is organized, though perhaps not in a clear, structured fashion... One comes away from the various Falun Gong Web sites groups with a distinct impression of an effective global network that is indeed organized and connected by virtue of the Internet."

6)Sorry, You still have not demonstrated how Smith engaged in "inflammatory paraphrasing" despite your empty rhetorics. NYT is a reliable source, full stop.

7)Wow, I removed an extra word! Alert the presses!

8)Li's '81 times' claim has been widely reported and sourced. B. Penny "The rast, present and future of Falun Gong", "Li says, ‘I made a careful investigation once and found that humankind has undergone complete annihilation 81 times’. Several times in his writings, Li says that we are living in the ‘last days of Last Havoc’, the last of three phases of evolution of the universe, and that he has chosen this time to make Falun Gong public."

I added the changes because the previous version is frankly contains no controversy whatsoever, and contains carefully plucked sources to paint a picture as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the Chinese government, which clearly violates NPOV. Furthermore, I am simply defending my right to edit Wikipedia, as Olaf has completely reverted the controversy section and Homunculus seems content in engaging in edit warring.--PCPP (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Too much stuff to review now, but for now:


 * 1) secondary sources &gt; primary sources. And oral quotes from Li are of course not going to appear in the written material, unless all his discourses are transcribed in that material. And, just like the sources, it should specify that those were things said by Li in discourses, not written down stuff.


 * 3) the speculation section doesn't mention the original meaning of "xiejiao" anywhere, and the controversie section looks like the most adequate place for explaining the original meaning of that word, and it is important to distinguish between the traditional and the modern meaning of the word, PPCC, I think that either it should be restored where it was, or it should be moved to the speculation section, probably after the sentence that says "any group that does not come under the control of the Party"


 * 7) errr, can't we simply restore "Buddhism" and get on with it? I mean, if it really appears in the source (which I haven't checked) then it should also be there. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have put back the "xiejiao" definition and readded "Buddhism" per Enric's suggestions.--PCPP (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for ceding some ground here, but this solution does not address some of the more significant problems PCPP's edits introduced, such as the removal of three reliable sources, removal of the citation request (which referred to the second part of the statement, not the first, I believe), the misuse of the Palmer quote, and the disputed Craig Smith quote which, again, seems to violate verifiability policy for quotations from living persons (among others). There are some instances where primary sources are better than secondary sources, and quotations is one of them.
 * I don't expect that PCPP is himself going to make these changes, so I will prepare a version that I hope will be somewhat agreeable to all (or somewhat disagreeable to all, maybe). I also intend to move out the discussion on organisation, and put any valuable information into the main section on Falungong organisation where it was originally.— Zujine |talk 22:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is funny—I came here to say that I was pleased to see some earnest collaboration to resolve the issue, but then I noticed that PCPP reverted again.Homunculus (duihua) 05:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Noted that Zujine engaged in deceptive editing and reverted back to his preferred version while a discussion is going on. Again, he is trying to portray as if all of FLG's controversies are manufactured by the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Poster in media campaign section
Do people want to keep the poster that is currently in the media campaign section ? If so, it needs a fair use rationale as the image only has one for the Persecution of Falun Gong article at the moment. I would like to replace the image with a color version too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Attributing the Persecution
Hi Sean, regarding your attribution of the persecution to Falun Gong practitioners, as I understand that you did here, I wonder if it is fair. Because saying this would imply that Falun Gong practitioners consider the attitude of the Chinese government as being persecution, and not something that is objectively happening, while the "Amnesty International Report 2011" states: "The authorities renewed the campaign to “transform” Falun Gong practitioners, which required prison and detention centres to force Falun Gong inmates to renounce their beliefs. Those considered “stubborn,” that is, those who refuse to sign a statement to this effect, are typically tortured until they co-operate; many die in detention or shortly after release." As I see it this amounts to both persecution and genocide. Don't you agree? Thank you in advance :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. Who are we trying to be fair to, Falun Gong, the CPC or the readers ? I don't think it's Wikipedia's place (or consistent with NPOV) to takes sides and tell readers that it is "persecution" (or "genocide") as a matter of objective unattributed fact using Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice when those descriptions would be disputed by something a significant as the Chinese Government. Amnesty and other human rights groups (whose efforts around the world I wholeheartedly support by the way just to declare any possible conflict of interest on my part) don't define objective reality anymore than the CPC from our Wikipedia editor perspective. It's certainly been described as persecution amongst many other terms by many sources but we're supposed to be impartial and just describe disputes rather than participate in them. When we use value-laden labels like "persecution" without attributing the opinion I think we cross a line and start partipating in the advocacy efforts of Falun Gong, Amnesty etc. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling that to Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Copts, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of people with albinism, Persecution of Ahmadis, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and the editors of other similarly named articles on Wikipedia? After you've done that, whether Falun Gong practitioners are persecuted in China is still not a matter of opinion or viewpoint. Torture, severe mistreatment, extrajudicial punishments and the extraconstitutional "610 office" amount to that by definition. No serious scholar on Falun Gong has ever claimed otherwise. Yes, we're trying to be fair to the readers. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV compliance doesn't allow for the exclusion of prominent viewpoints in a dispute. The Chinese government would dispute that description and their view can't be ignored whether we like it or not. We're required to be impartial, it's mandatory. Attributing loaded terms is necessary and routine. It simply makes it clear who's using the term. The term is still there. Regarding the other articles, your request is duely noted although I have to say I don't really appreciate your tone. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The stance of the Chinese Communist Party is a fringe view that serves to advance their persecutory agenda. Yes, we can say that the Chinese government doesn't regard it as a persecution, but placing this viewpoint at par with more reliable (scholarly) views is just another instance of "he says/she says" type of unproficient journalism. There are people who deny the Holocaust, including some high-profile Iranian authorities. Wikipedia does not work that way. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos  &#9997;  15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the Chinese government's preferred term is 斗争 (struggle/battle, used specifically in the context of mass political campaigns to denounce a particular group). Other preferred wording adopted by the Chinese government with reference to the campaign against Falun Gong include "eliminate" and "exterminate."  The process of extrajudicial imprisonment and coercion is "transformation through reeducation."  Oh, and according to the Chinese state media,  people who practice Falun Gong are not quite human; I believe they are, instead "like rats running across the street, in need of extermination."  Should we be sure to give credence to this, lest we omit an important viewpoints? Probably not, just as the Iranian regime cannot be allowed to hold definitional power over Baha'is.
 * Let's not waste time with Orwellian language games. I'm pretty sure this question has been litigated before, with the conclusion being that we should describe things as they are described by the preponderance of reliable sources. In this particular case, it's fine to use "suppression" or "campaign," though alternatives can also include "crackdown" or "persecution", the latter being a common description given by neutral sources. These terms can be used interchangeably. We should stay away from genocide, unless we are discussing the views of specific sources who have used the term.Homunculus (duihua) 15:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The agenda of the CCP isn't relevant to content decisions like this but their stance clearly is because they are a prominent party to the dispute that can't be dismissed as fringe. I didn't say that we should put it on a par. I said that we are required to factor in prominent views to ensure NPOV compliance. I know how Wikipedia works. We are talking about the use of loaded terms in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Attributing loaded terms like "persecution" to ensure NPOV compliance is not the same as giving undue weight to those who deny the meticulously researched historical fact that millions of people were systematically murdered in the Holocaust. Should we be concerned about the use of loaded terms in this article. Let's look at the Amnesty report The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called "heretical organizations", a report by an organization whose only job it is to advocate of behalf of people facing human rights abuses. It has 17942 words with 3 instances of "persecu". This article, which is about Falun Gong in general in an encyclopedia with a mandatory neutrality policy, has 18066 words with 9 instances of "persecu" and another 5 if you include references. Seems odd, no ? Something is wrong. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest you check out the article Bahá'í Faith. It is, to my knowledge, the only page on a major religion that has achieved featured article status.  Although it is considerably shorter than this page, the text of the article contains 11 unqualified instances of persecuted/persecute/persecution (2 more than this page!). Persecution is not necessarily a loaded term.  It is a common word with a clear definition, and the treatment of Falun Gong by Chinese authorities very clearly satisfies that definition, according to more reliable sources than we can count.Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, actually if you recall I was contesting the fairness of your attribution, because done like that can be misleading, and that actually fails the spirit of WP:NPOV because it is introducing a bias, by assuming that it's only practitioners who view it as a persecution. So as I see it WP:NPOV requires fair presentation of all view points, so I would include both CCP's view point, that it considers Falun Gong practitioners to be subhuman worthy to be punished for their faith (please help me out here with a quote) as well as the fact that the Argentine judge Octavio Araoz de Lamadrid after studying the matter for 4 years arrived at the conclusion that the Chinese communist government actions are "The genocidal strategy" with “The designated purpose - the eradication of Falun Gong". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Yea, this is what happens when we obfuscate on simple matters. Now it's even more complicated. I am going to change to "suppression," and assume that's agreeable to everyone (correct me if I'm wrong).Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Persecution is the semantically correct, most accurate term to describe what is beyond any reasonable doubt happening to Falun Gong practitioners in China. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Olaf, it is still referred to as a persecution in several other places. As I said, I think these terms can be used interchangeably. Moreover, the persecution is described at some length on the page, so I don't think you need to be concerned that anyone will fail to get the point. I trust that most readers can tell the difference between state-santioned torture and a pleasant stroll through the park. Fair enough?Homunculus (duihua) 16:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)