Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 35

Repeated Text
I would just make the change myself, but this page seems heavily contested. In the Falun_Gong section it has this text twice.

To start the section off:

"Falun Gong embraces a minimal organizational structure, and does not have a rigid hierarchy, physical places of worship, fees, or formal membership.[53] In the absence of membership, Falun Gong practitioners can be anyone who chooses to identify themselves as such, and practitioners are free to participate in the practice and follow its teachings as much or as little as they like.[54] Falun Gong also does not accept or solicit donations, has no initiation rituals, and no constitution or governing documents, aside from the teachings themselves.[55]"

And then in a paragraph below it:

"According to Anthropologist Noah Porter, Falun Gong embraces a minimal organizational structure, and does not have a rigid hierarchy, physical places of worship, fees, or formal membership.[53] In the absence of membership, Falun Gong practitioners can be anyone who chooses to identify themselves as such, and practitioners are free to participate in the practice and follow its teachings as much or as little as they like.[61]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booster4324 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch.Homunculus (duihua) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment
There is a dispute over inclusions of material in the Controversy paragraph. Specifically, should a New York Times article be used on controversy over interracial children and the "Dharma Ending Period".--PCPP (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll summarise my previous objection again here. The problem, in my view, is that Smith's statement is part quote from Li Hongzhi, and part his own sensationalised paraphrase of Li Hongzhi. The former is properly attributed, and the latter (which you are pushing to include) is not. Another editor, who has a deeper familiarity with Falungong doctrine than either of us, has said that Smith's paraphrase is invalid, and does not reflect Falungong beliefs. He referred you to the policy on identifying reliable sources, which states "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."
 * The part of the Craig Smith quote that you have been edit waring to include is not properly attributed to the primary source, is disputed, and is not corroborated by any other, neutral scholar on Falungong. Therefore, it does not appear to satisfy the above criteria. The way you have currently written it in the article does not even include an inline citation, let alone a rebuttal or anything else that could possibly redeem it as NPOV. If you wish to discuss Falungong's views on the Dharma ending period, there is a separate paragraph at the end of the section that addresses it, but you could certainly find higher quality sources.
 * My other concern, which I raised previously, is whether this is notable as a controversy. It seems to me to be merely an expression of novel Falungong beliefs, about which almost nothing is written in academic discourse on Falungong, and around which there are no real world controversies.— Zujine |talk 06:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. The "Dharma Ending Period" and proported apocalyptic messages of FLG has been debated since it was banned by the PRC government. Per WP:PRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

New York Times falls under WP:RS, and you have not demonstrated nor provided evidence on why the claim is disputed by other authors. An attribution to primary source, as you claimed, is certainly not needed.--PCPP (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Include Smith's statement. Correct preference is being given to secondary sources here. Zujine, if you have a "rebuttal" from a "neutral scholar" (implying that the NYT journalist is biased against Falun Gong is a BLP attack by the way), then include it, but a lack of such a rebuttal does not mean the information is false. Additionally, this information is appropriate for the controversy section because its premise is explaining the controversy about why some people think this group is "worth dying for" and why others think "its followers are misled and its leader deluded" with reference to relevant beliefs and teachings. Quigley (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The dispute here is not about the "Dharma Ending period", as PCPP is trying to claim. Li Hongzhi's teachings contain multiple references to that period of time, and it is a very well-known concept in practically all Buddhist traditions. The sole concern is whether Craig Smith has misquoted Li Hongzhi and/or placed his words out of relevant context. Wikipedia policies clearly indicate that primary sources are the best sources about these sources themselves. Of course, this should be self-evident to any reasonable person. Again, "''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."


 * As we can conclusively prove that the teachings of Falun Gong do not talk about interracial children being the "spawn" of the Dharma Ending period and other stuff like that, Craig Smith's words amount to none, especially since there are no secondary sources who would corroborate his claim. We cannot say that Falun Gong teaches something if it doesn't. There's no wikilawyering around that. This is not an analysis of Falun Gong's teachings but an alleged quote that can be easily checked against Li Hongzhi's lectures, meaning that the primary source takes precedence over any secondary source per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume the lecture and question being referred to in the NYT article is "Question: Can you say a little more about the interracial children?"  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and I have no objection to accurately summarising what has been said there. (Our readers may also be interested in the fact that Falun Gong practitioners are in no way forbidden from marrying a person of another race and having children with him or her. This is also contained in the lectures, and I'll find you a reference. On a personal note, I've never met more Chinese-Caucasian couples and their kids than among practitioners of Falun Gong.) &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for providing the original source. As Olaf said, Craig Smith's wording that PCPP has fought to preserve (ie. "spawn") is nowhere found in the primary source. I'll propose a solution here (Olaf, please tell me if my summary is acceptable from your perspective). How about something to the effect of "Li Hongzhi posits in his teachings that there are distinct heavens for people of different races, and as such, "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." In a lecture to his students in Australia, Li describes interracial children as a phenomenon unique to the Dharma ending period, an era of moral decline described in Buddhist scriptures, but adds "If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault...If you want to practice cultivation, I can help." Homunculus (duihua) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Your version seems to accurately paraphrase Li's words in that lecture and leaves no room for (un)intentional obfuscation. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm glad that's satisfactory. The religion project has a draft policy proposal which, although not yet finalized, is helpful in the matter. With respect to criticisms of religions, it stipulates that "All critical comments should be thoroughly discussed on talk pages with both adherents and non-adherents participating to achieve the most neutral and fair wording possible. WP:Assuming good faith is as important during these discussions as anywhere else in Wikipedia." It also states that "Minor criticisms must be carefully considered before inclusion as to their notability and provenance and should never be afforded equal weight with more notable and substantial criticisms."  I think this is useful when reviewing PCPP's dozens of other contributions as well, in which he added (ever without discussion) numerous other criticisms of Falun Gong whose objectivity and notability may be disputed. But I shall leave dealing with those for another day. What a saga.Homunculus (duihua) 21:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly just an ideological war, the same ideological war that has been fought in the last five years or so and never got resolved. I applaud all of you for your persistence, but I do suggest (with all due respect) that the involved editors all leave this page, pass this entire article to a totally neutral third party, and let them take it from here. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting idea, Colipon, but it's worth noting that the page was stable and the discussions civil for a good long while before PCPP returned. I have said in other forums, and I will say again, that the only way for these pages to be constructive and neutral is for editors to work in good faith, and engage in substantive discussions of content, not ideology or ad hominem accusations of bias. I continue to have full faith that this is possible.Homunculus (duihua) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Homunculus, conversations are bound to be stable and civil when everyone out of lockstep with the "NGO consensus on Falun Gong" is driven away or banned at AE. Colipon, your idea won't work because the stakes are too high for the Falun Gong activists. Here's a horrifying excerpt from the testimony of Ethan Guttman (of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), the contents of which were contested yesterday just a section above: "For many Democrats, it took one Chinese-planted Wikipedia reference alleging Falun Gong was anti-gay to ward off sympathy." Evidently, for Falun Gong and its NGO allies of convenience, their lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies is dependent on their ability to suppress the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's teachings on Wikipedia. If only it were an ideological war. Quigley (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Olaf's claims are completely invalid here, it refers to quoting people directly in Wikipedia articles, and not when the quote is mentioned in a reliable secondary source. What you're essentially doing is Original research.--PCPP (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How does "Democrat sympathy" turn into "lifeblood of U.S. government subsidies"? How has the U.S. government subsidised Falun Gong and what independent source has made such allegations? Of course, no neutral commentators have ever claimed that Falun Gong has an anti-gay social agenda, nor is there anything in Li Hongzhi's teachings that would support such claims. If the readers are left with that impression, there's foul play involved. How practitioners are supposed to act if they want to practice cultivation is another matter, and Falun Gong's outlook on some aspects of sexuality is definitely quite conservative, which makes it no different from many religious traditions.


 * I remember how the article used to be in a very bad shape because of ideological struggle. Apart from some very few exceptions over the past 5 years, there have been no "totally neutral third parties" involved. It is nothing but a pipe dream to wish that such editors would suddenly appear and edit these articles from some Archimedean point. I, for one, have not been actively involved for quite some time, and the article probably doesn't contain a single sentence I wrote. On the other hand, no matter who's been most active and whether they have been Falun Gong practitioners or not, I've always seen the same people complaining that the article does not read like a tabloid exposé of "the unsavory aspects of Falun Gong's [alleged] teachings".


 * In addition to Falun Gong practitioners and NGOs, it is in the interests of scholars, researchers, students and philanthropists to keep these articles clean, informative and accurate. That's why only the best sources will do, and that's why we cannot make allegations about teachings that do not exist or are placed in a false context. That's why we are debating over and over again. I, for one, have a professional education in this field of studies, and many other editors probably have an academic background as well. Who thought it would be easy? It's not hard only because there are sympathisers and antagonists of Falun Gong, but because this discussion page is a microcosm of the corpus of Falun Gong literature debating with itself. The arguments need to be waterproof. No use complaining if there are pinholes all over.


 * And PCPP... no, it refers to the accuracy of the original quote and whether it has been used correctly. I ask you to read the bolded text once again. It's not ambiguous in any way. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  09:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And no, I think YOU are the one who should reread the page:


 * Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)


 * What you are doing here is Original Research, don't pretend otherwise.--PCPP (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This comes after the quote has been validated as correct. The Wikipedia policies do not function independently of each other. Craig Smith is not analysing or interpreting the material; he claims Li said this, whereas we can unambiguously check that what he said was slightly different. As I said earlier, I have no objection to mentioning the mixed race issue, as long as we don't distort Li's words. If all comes down to what he's said, there's no wikilawyering around the fact that we need to check what he's said and stick to that. (How many more truisms do I need to write today?) &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to disregard the red herrings that now litter this discussion, and recap. The original Craig Smith quote was not a scholarly interpretation of Li Hongzhi's writing; it was a half quote, half paraphrase that Smith attributed to Li Hongzhi. PCPP did not appear to care about having the actual quote in the article; he was fighting to include Craig Smith's paraphrase, which was inflammatory and of disputed accuracy. Given that "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", Sean and Homunculus referred to the primary source. The conclusion was that Smith's paraphrase was not accurate. Homunculus proposed a summary of Li Hongzhi's actual words, which Olaf (who is now our only resident expert on Falungong teachings) found agreeable. PCPP has tried to argue that Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, not primary sources. In general, this is true, but an exception holds when a primary source is describing what the primary source says; in that case, primary sources are superior. PCPP then tried to argue that Homunculus's summary was original research. I would ask him to reead the original research policy; Homunculus was not offering an original interpretation of the primary source, but was quoting and carefully summarising it. This is not in violation of WP:No original research I would also note that the guideline PCPP highlighted itself recommends using additional secondary sources to ensure that there are no novel interpretations of primary sources (by secondary sources). Craig Smith's paraphrase was, evidently, a novel and sensationalised reading of Li Hongzhi's original statement, and his reading is not supported by Falungong experts (in fact, Falungong scholars don't seem to care much about these teachings at all). This is to be expected; Smith is a journalist with his own point of view, not a scholar of religion or an expert on Falungong. We do not have any other, neutral and scholarly sources who would corroborate Smith's paraphrase, and it has now been definitively shown to be wrong through a comparison with the primary source. It simply cannot be included.

Now, my comment: I am glad that Homunculus and Olaf tried to hash out a solution, and if it turns out that mine is a lone voice in the wilderness, I would support their proposal as a middle ground. But I still don't see the notability. PCPP appears to have thrown onto the page every critical statement he could find about Falungong (and rejects any attempt to discuss the neutrality or due weight that should be accorded to these things). Yet he has not explained why Falungong's views on race and heaven are a notable controversy. All religions have novel beliefs that some people will invariably find strange or unappealing, but the presence of these beliefs does not, itself, make a 'controversy.' If that were the case, the article on Judaism would have a lengthy criticism section about the implausibility of auto-combusting bushes. To Quigley, your first statement suggests that Smith's interpretation is germane because it illuminates the question of whether Falungong's leader is deluded. That is not at all the question here, and it is not the place of an encyclopedia article to weigh in on the validity of religious beliefs. WP:Criticisms emphasis the importance of not overemphasising criticisms or controversy, but that is exactly what is happening here.— Zujine |talk 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just been watching, not writing. I'll make one observation on the behavior of the editors. It looks to me like there are some neutral editors (Homunculus, Zujine, Sean Hoyland) who seemed to be engaged in substantive discussions and are willing to collaborate and compromise while being civil. They have different points of view on the subject, but their engagement with the discussion is fair, at least as far as I see it. Then, there are then some editors who are intent mainly on making attacks and accusations against others, which ends up derailing the discussions with politically and ideologically charged rhetoric, and remarks that don't seem to have anything to do with the content on the page (i.e. Quigley, Colipon, PCPP). Isn't Wikipedia meant to be edited by consensus? I would consider getting involved and editing if it did not seem so political. I'm not familiar with the policy, precisely, that decides what is included, but if there are serious and legitimate disputes about content, shouldn't they be discussed before changes are forced onto the page? That's all. --69.181.25.248 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It takes more faith than I have to handle the cognitive dissonance of denouncing the "political" atmosphere of the Falun Gong pages, and then immediately separating users into imagined cliques to attack one of the groups. There is no diversity in viewpoints among a group of users who agree that replacing clear secondary source analysis with such primary quotes as "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." improves the article. There's a good reason why Wikipedia doesn't allow Bible or Quran verses as direct references.


 * No proposals have been put forth to discuss the metaphysics of the Dharma Ending Period, so Zujine's burning bushes analogy is inappropriate. There is only a proposal to include (to restore, really) a conservative amount of secondary source analysis of the doctrines that make Falun Gong controversial. If any of you have relevant rebuttals by "neutral scholars" who you say help vindicate your cause, then include them. But to suppress or obfuscate this essential component of a thorough encyclopedic article on the movement is only a recipe for more edit-warring. Quigley (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I provided the primary source above because I wanted to verify for myself that the quoted material in the NYT article, "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven", was accurate. It was accurate or at least it was consistent with that source. It doesn't mean I care about the primary source or even regard it necessarily as a reliable source for what Li said. The secondary source takes precedence, that is the source being quoted and the NYT is an RS for what living people have said. It's use is consistent with mandatory policies WP:V and WP:BLP no matter what the content guideline Identifying reliable sources says about quotations. When editors argue at length to exclude a report in the New York Times from an article covered by discretionary sanctions because they disagree with the way the journalist interpreted and presented the information available to them, even describing it as a propaganda piece for the CCP, inflammatory, not notable etc, there is a problem. Would any of us have written the article in the NYT using the same terminology and interpretation ? Probably not but it doesn't matter, we aren't RS. We can discuss details about wording, attribution, rebuttals etc but excluding material from the NYT is not an option that policy minded editors have available to them.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows that NYT is a 'reliable source' by Wikipedia standards. It all comes down to the fact that we're dealing with an inaccurate description of what has verifiably been said by a living person. Moreover, the relevant policies state:
 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." (WP:BLP)
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." (WP:V)
 * "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: [...] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended" (WP:V)
 * "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." (WP:V)
 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:NPV)
 * Of course, we could write, "Craig Smith claims Li Hongzhi says... [...] Li Hongzhi says...". In my view, that wouldn't make much sense from an encyclopaedic perspective. While I do not personally oppose the inclusion of the subject matter as long as it's handled accurately, other editors have discussed its significance, and I would also like to see authoritative Falun Gong scholars mentioning the mixed race issue as a notable controversy. I'm not talking specifically about this case, but in general terms, if we wish to have a stable article in the future, we ought to take care that the isolated views and opinions of individual authors or journalists are not given disproportionate weight. So much has been said and written about Falun Gong; it simply would not work if we littered the page with quotes and analysis and views from anyone and everyone, necessitating massive quantities of inline citations and point, counterpoint, counter-counterpoint arguments. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be an argument when a newspaper obviously gets a quote from a religious person wrong, and you can prove it to be wrong. Use the correct quote. How do you think the NYT reporter got the quote? Did he attend the lecture in person? Obviously he also got it online, but didn't pay enough attention and made his own interpretation. The correct source should be used. What's happening on this page is strange. Noting the below restriction on anonymous IPs, I am now going to create an account and begin directly participating in the proceedings. By the way, according to the history, editor PCPP made a series of changes that appear to be related directly to the current controversy. Should they not be reversed while this is discussed, or something? Why has no one done that? --69.181.25.248 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I'm somebody. I believe the appropriate weight to this could simply be discovered from how much it is mentioned in academic papers and books on the subject. One of you will surely have copies of the books listed there, or other books. How many times are Li's racial views noted, how much? Why doesn't the page just look at that and roughly follow it. Argument solved? And for the actual question here: Why is this journalist's sloppy interpretation being used, rather than a reputable scholar on the subject providing a disinterested analysis of Li's views?? Are we saying that this does not exist? Can anyone fill me in? Just drop Smith and use the best professor on the topic. The information gets covered, the needless controversy avoided. Unless I'm missing something. Help.--CommunicatorExtraordinaire (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement that is currently in the article, which PCPP has been edit warring to defend, reads as follows: "Falun Gong's conservative moral teachings have attracted some controversy in the West [...] as well as its views on interacial children, which are described as the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period'... This clearly violates the WP:RS guideline as well as multiple policies, as Olaf pointed out. Even if it had an inline citation and was qualified as the opinion of Craig Smith, if it was presented conservatively and fairly as WP:BLP requires, and even if it was compared with the actual statements from Li Hongzhi as WP:V suggests it would have to be, it would still fail WP:NPV. So would almost all the other things PCPP has added to the page without discussion. No one has yet demonstrated that there is a substantial controversy over the issue of Falungong's beliefs on race, and mainstream scholars of Falungong do not ascribe importance to this issue either as a controversy or as a part of Falungong's philosophy. I really don't know what more needs to be said here. The quote is not properly attributed, it is being given inordinate weight, and it is demonstrably incorrect when compared to the actual primary source it purports to be representing. — Zujine |talk 16:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you continue to lawyer and yet still haven't pointed out the relevant policies. New York Times is a major newspaper and is a reliable source, and you still haven't provided any contradicting evidence on which they are described otherwise. And this article isn't under WP:BLP, as the comments aren't personal attacks on Li, but relevant controversies relating to the practice.--PCPP (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Olaf has clearly stated the policies and guidelines that you contravened with your addition of this and several other items, yet you appear to be refusing to get the point. For your convenience, I will post some of the relevant policies and guidelines below. Given that you are the one insisting that the content be in the article, it seems to me that the burden of arguing for its compliance with policies is on you. Per the policies below, I am going to provide a proper inline citation, and a rebuttal, in order to bring it in line with WP:V. The NPV issue of due weight is still likely going to be a problem, however, as it is for much of the other content you added from marginal scholars and journalists.


 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." (WP:BLP)
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." (WP:V)
 * "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: [...] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended" (WP:V)
 * "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." (WP:V)
 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." (WP:NPV)
 * "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."(WP:RS)

The statement that you put in the article 1) does not have an inline citation, in contravention of WP:V. 2) It is a statement made by an isolated reporter, and is neither corroborated by or found to be notable by reputable scholars on the subject. Inclusion, therefore, seems to contravene WP:NPV. 3) It does not present the statement by a living person in a responsible, impartial tone, contravening WP:BLP; and 4)It is a paraphrase of a quote attributed to a primary source, but the primary source does not contain the wording. The WP:RS guideline says it should be quoted directly from the primary source. Is that clear enough? Can you explain now why this statement should be considered notable? Homunculus (duihua) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't we missing the point a bit ? When Smith says "He said interracial children are the spawn of..." it's just Smith's interpretation not a quote. It's his version of the actual quote "All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period." We don't have to use the word "spawn" (although it's harmless and presumably just means a large number of offspring in the case). It seems to me that the more pertinent points in the NYT article, pertinent to this article, were the actual (and accurate) quote The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven. and Smith's interpretation "As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention." I assume that is derived from the lecture statement "This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved." Again, we don't have to use Smith's words but we should be able to convey the same information, Smith's interpretation attributed to him. It's the NYT. It's inherently notable. I've never seen an argument to exclude an NYT report in all of my years editing Wikipedia. I don't buy the arguments being made here because I don't see this material as particularly negative. It's just interesting and pertinent information from a prominent RS. It's not even presented in a negative way in the NYT article. It's presented as "this is how it is" according to Smith.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sean, what did you think of my proposal earlier in this thread to actually just quote Li Hongzhi (see my proposed wording above). This would seem to accomplish the goal of conveying the meaning, and is furthermore is in keeping with WP:RS while avoiding the problems Smith's wording raised with respect to WP:BLP and WP:V. (By the way, in response to PCPP, quoting from Li Hongzhi and judiciously summarizing his statement is not original research, because it is not an original interpretation. A primary source can and should be used to explain what the primary source says about itself). That solution would be at least satisfactory to myself, Olaf, the new guy (CommunicatorExtraordinaire), and maybe by half of Zujine.
 * As to WP:NPV, however, Zujine does make a good point that this is not considered to be a notable teaching by mainstream scholars on Falun Gong, and there does not appear to be a real controversy, either. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the NYT is inherently notable. Surely, we are not going to put in everything that the NYTimes has ever written about Falun Gong in this article, nor are we going to write a Wikipedia article for everything its reporters have ever said. There is a vast sea of literature on Falun Gong. It is a huge topic, and we need to exercise judgement on what opinions, ideas, and analysis are actually notable against that whole body of literature. As WP:NPV states, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Furthermore, in response to the question "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are 'always unreliable'?", the reliable source gods proclaim "No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual."
 * Anyways, I wrote about this a long time ago, but I think I'm going to write an informal proposal for how we might go about determining notability and consensus views on this topic; that seems like it might help keep this page stable in the long-term. Without that, we'll continue having folks trying to force marginal opinions by third-rate scholars into the page, even though their opinions conflict with scholarly consensus.Homunculus (duihua) 19:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Really so much fuss over nothing. Go ahead read the teachings you'll see how important this issue is, I found the word interracial it only in 3 questions/answers, and it was talking from the point of view of how heavens are structured (as far as I understood). Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Include Smith's statement; the New York Times is a reliable source, and for us to decide which Times writers are more "reliable" than others is cherry-picking.--Miniapolis (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say this, but that doesn't answer to the set of arguments above and does not address the real bone of contention. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I commented on the question raised by the RFC, after reading the cited source.--Miniapolis (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some commentary on the internet about Falon Gong attitudes towards homosexuality and race, and some reliable sources such as the New York Times and The Independent also comment. It is appropriate that these concerns are mentioned in the article, though mentioned as neutrally as possible. It is better to avoid inflammatory language, such as "spawn". It can be helpful to include quotes if the issue is complex, notable or questionable. The current wording is:
 * Falun Gong's conservative moral teachings have attracted some controversy in the West, particularly its views on homosexuality, which is described as "degenerative behavior, on par with sexual promscuity,"[210]as well as its views on race. Craig Smith of the New York Times wrote in 2000 that Li Hongzhi says interracial children are "the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period,' a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration."[138] The Falun Dafa Information Center rebukes Smith's claim, stating that "no such language appears in Falun Gong's teachings."
 * Possible wording:
 * I don't know how well Li Hongzhi speaks English, so it may be that he is struggling to communicate effectively - however, we have the words he said as published by Falun Gong, and two reliable and notable sources which have responded to those words. We don't need to pass judgement, or to over-emphasise the words, or attempt to explain them. Readers can follow the cites and go direct to the three sources. We remain as neutral as possible.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of solution I was aiming for. If we deem this to be notable, it could just state something like 'some journalists have noted, in particular, Li Hongzhi's teachings regarding interracial children (cite references),'  and then proceed to provide a short summary of Li's teachings on the subject.  I don't know if you saw my proposal above.  It's more thorough than yours, but is also quite a lot longer,  which may not be necessary or justifiable based on due weight:
 * "Li Hongzhi posits in his teachings that there are distinct heavens for people of different races, and as such, "once races are mixed up, one does not have a corresponding relationship with the higher levels, and he has lost the root." In a lecture to his students in Australia, Li describes interracial children as a phenomenon unique to the Dharma ending period, an era of moral decline described in Buddhist scriptures, but adds "If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault...If you want to practice cultivation, I can help."
 * The official Falun Gong site here gives their own summary of these teachings, which is probably more accurate than my reading. I will leave it to you to decide if you wish to modify your edit accordingly, but if you don't I think it's fine for now.  One other point, though, is that you may also wish to fold the Ian Johnson quote from that paragraph into the general category of journalists who have noted this aspect of the doctrine.Homunculus (duihua) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky one, and the way forward is always open discussion - as civil as possible, but uncivil if that's necessary to get at the truth. It is better for us to argue bitterly among ourselves in order to hammer out a neutral, honest and accurate article, than to allow an article to remain biased out of politeness.
 * We are not here to put forward the case for Falun Gong; nor are we here to decry it. We simply sum up what reliable sources have said. The sources report that there is concern about Falun Gong's attitudes toward race and homosexuality. We report that, and we cite the words by the Falun Gong spokesman/leader which have given rise to that concern. It's not our role to interpret what Li Hongzhi is saying. The problem with my suggested wording, though, is that it is so short it may not fully explain the context, and may be seen as potentially negative. The explanation by Falun Gong of the situation may be considered for citing in order to provide that context, though with limited summary. Perhaps - "Falun Gong have responded by saying that they welcome homosexuals, and that many practitioners have interracial children."  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with SilkTork here regarding the general issues. There seem to be two distinct questions. One of these is FG's opinions regarding interracial births, and another is about FG and homosexuality. Honestly, the position taken by FG (and as I remember stated by Li himself) is that FG is open to homosexuals, so long as they are not actively involved in homosexual activity. That position is, basically, similar to any number of other religious groups, including many Christian denominations of which I am aware. I personally don't see that the material regarding homosexuality necessarily is due any greater weight in this, the main article on the topic, than it has in similar main articles on other religious groups. The second point, about interracial children, is a bit more problematic. Based on what I have seen in the sources, I get the impression that Li is, basically, saying that individual races/ethnic groups/cultural groups each have their own "heaven"/"afterlife"/whatever, and that the specific such goal of each individal is more or less "assigned" on the basis of ethnicity. Individuals of multiethnic heritage as I remember have been said by Li to not have any "assigned" destination, and can only get one through practice of FG. I will try to find the quotes to verify as much. But, even that seems to be less about "ethnicity" than an attempt to accomodate all the multiple disputed "afterlifes" in a single faith. Their sole hope, as I can remember, is to become FG practitioners voluntarily. Doing so apparently gets both the "highest" results and it seems Li has said that FG is not weighed down by "ethnic" elements, and so it is open to all, regardless of ethnic heritage. I honestly don't know, based on the sources I've seen, whether it crosses the line of OR/SYNTH to perhaps address the matter in the article in the way I do above. I will check. But, as a general idea, I have no objections myself to SilkTork's proposal above. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Falun Gong website cited above makes an interesting distinction between the corporeal and spiritual self as it relates to this issue.Homunculus (duihua) 19:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I suppose I am alone in arguing about the notability. Again, it is nice to see people working together to arrive at a solution. This section is reading much better now, but the paragraph goes back and forth between the race issue and views on homosexuality. I am going to separate the two lines of controversies. Please let me know if there is anything disagreeable in the result. On an unrelated note, PCPP added a sentence that seems to depict a conspiracy involving the 'Rachlin media group,' and cites a poorly sourced conference paper given in New Zealand. On inspection, it appears this organisation does not exist, except in the writings of this one person. It's all so strange.— Zujine |talk 14:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Include - As far as whether or not Craig Smith's article should be included in this article regarding Li's controversial statements about interracial children, clearly it has great relevancy here. Allow me to list some statements from Li's lecture that led to Smith's reasonable paraphrase, He said interracial children are the spawn of the "Dharma Ending Period" :
 * I have already talked about such interracial children. I have only mentioned the phenomena [of interracial children] in this Dharma-ending period. If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault. Anyway, it is just such a chaotic situation brought about by mankind, in which such a phenomenon has appeared. (In other words, interracial children have caused/created/brought about, i.e. "spawned", the chaotic situation known as the Dharma-ending period, through no fault of their own, however.)
 * All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period. People are not to be blamed for it, because everyone is drifting in the tide, and nobody knows the truth. (The situation of mixed races is a regrettable one that people are not to be blamed for, but is simply the nature of our current situation)

Ender and  Peter  20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Li, the biosphere[s] of people of different ethnicities are so incongruent that a rift is created within interracial children which can only be amended through Li's help: I can help, and I can take care of it. It cannot be done to a non-practitioner. And so, Li tells his followers that the chaotic situation brought about by mankind, that is, the situation of interracial children that are a sign of the Dharma-ending period is a solvable issue. It is wholly appropriate for the wikipedia article to make mention of these views, as we have both primary and secondary sources that describe them. Care can certainly be taken to not paraphrase Li towards any particular bias and there is no compelling reason to avoid mentioning his statements. Ender  and  Peter  21:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the material is certainly relevant for inclusion in wikipedia. FWIW, my own opinion is that there is probably too much attention paid to this single article, and the article itself may well be made unduly combative by a variety of people trying to get their own preferred material in the main article. I tend to think myself that, in most situations, maybe the best way to go would be to see what kind of information is placed in the main articles on a given subject in other reference works, like encyclopedias, overviews, etc., and using that information to determine what material belongs in the main article, and what in the offshoot articles. I don't know that such has necessarily been done in this case. Would anyone be interested in maybe checking to see what reference sources contain such articles, and what they do and do not discuss in their articles? John Carter (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: As I have I think said elsewhere, I have a whole slew of articles from newspapers, magazines, journals, and what have you on this subject. Somewhere around 1000 or so, I think. If any interested parties would wish me to do so, and were willing to trust, to some degree, my judgment about what articles relate to which topics, I would be more than happy to e-mail those articles to anyone requesting them. I have to stress that all of this would be, basically, dependent on my own judgment regarding the relevance of the articles to particular topics, but I have read them all and have made at least personal notes as to which of these published articles seem at least to me most relevant to the various extant and yet-to-be-created articles in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I ended up adding a portion to this article that referred to Li's lecture in Sydney which contained the contentious material Smith spoke of. I'll leave it to others to decide if they want to integrate any of Smith's other remarks here. In fact, some parts of the article already do this. I do find Smith's writing wholly relevant to this article, but his paraphrasing of "spawning", although not inaccurate, may be too negatively charged to include here. Quoting Li's views about interracial sources straight from him and neutrally reporting the nature of the controversy is a better way to go, in my opinion. As far as what "type" of sources other Wikipedia articles on religion use, it will vary widely. Since any and everyone edits good ol' Wikipedia, you'll find a diversity of approaches. The guidelines have been extremely effective in making the project an incredibly useful compendium of knowledge and information. The spirit of verifiability has been the project's greatest asset in the quest to archive scholarship. Feel free to add any information you have access to if you feel it hasn't been mentioned in this article already or you feel you can improve what's been contributed.

Eight thousand words later, shall we call this RfC as resolved?Homunculus (duihua) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. As far as I can tell, it seems resolved. Smith's NYT article is referenced in many places (including in regards to interracial children-gate) and Li Hongzhi's words from his Sydney lecture are shared here to shed more light on where he was coming from. So, if there are no other objections, I nominate you to pull the RfC plug :-) Ender  and  Peter  02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Organization section
I just updated the organization section of the page, adding in a sub-section on organization within mainland China. This is one facet of Falun Gong that has been thoroughly expounded upon, and we have available to us a number of high quality, peer-reviewed academic sources that discuss the topic. Also fortunately, there is very little substantive disagreement among these scholars on the features of Falun Gong organization (reading the previous version, one might think there is a lively scholarly debate. There is not). On account of that, there is no reason why the section should rely so heavily on selective quotations and inline citations; this is not a literature review, after all. Instead, it is possible for us to make neutral, widely agreed-upon statements of fact. I hope that is what I have done here. In addition, I added a new paragraph expanding on Falun Gong organization outside China (here, I mainly drew on Burgdoff, Porter, Palmer, Ownby, and some others), and also expanded the discussion of the organizational evolution within China in the 1990s (James Tong being the authoritative source here). There is now considerably more content, but I think it's also tighter and more clearly stated than before, so the length is actually quite comparable. If anyone has a divergent interpretation of the sources or other feedback, I would be grateful to hear it. Homunculus (duihua) 05:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1RR/week restriction
Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG, pending final disposition of a related AE request, this article is placed under a 1RR/week restriction. All editors are restricted to one revert per rolling 168 hour period, excluding reverts of IP edits and clear vandalism. Violations of this restriction will be dealt with by escalating blocks, starting at 24 hours. T. Canens (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The AE request has now been closed, so this restriction is lifted. T. Canens (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Suppression picture
I have removed would remove the suppression picture if there are no objections: AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) While it is important to put "a human face" on the horrors of the Falun Gong suppression by the Communist Party, the photo used could not be taken as neutral; neither would just one picture be fair.
 * 2) The number of secondary independent sources who published this picture is not impressive.
 * 3) If the caption text is important, it should be worked into the article in text form with the Amnesty International Report 2006, China, page 90 cited as a source.
 * If you did so I would disagree. I would reinstate it. Obviously the suppression is an important part of this story. Why should it be removed for political sensitivities? No single picture of anything would be fair. The point is that it is a representation of the subject. I'd like others' views. Your arguments don't make any sense to me. I doubt it would get you far to delete pictures of genocide on other pages, claiming that they are not neutral. Might as well delete all the descriptions of the torture etc., because that's all "not neutral." So, I disagree. --CommunicatorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute---I reread your note and my note and the page. Sorry. Your point is that there could be a better image, not that no image need be there. No one would disagree with that. Do we have a better image? PS: I put Professor Ownby as the lead reference. --CommunicatorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Falun gong in new york city.jpg - an image of Falun Gong practitioners enact torture scenes in New York City appears as a good substitution, and definitely more appropriately licensed. Would anyone object using this image instead of the current one? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's important to include images from both sides of the propaganda war. I think the current image is a good example. It comes from one of the parties involved but unfortunately it's presented as the truth via the caption. I have to say, too many people editing this article (who haven't been topic banned yet) seem to have difficulty resisting the urge to advocate on behalf of Falun Gong as far as I can tell. It's worse than the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. If that same picture were from an Amnesty/HRW report or a source like Reuters/AFP etc I would prefer to keep it (ignoring license issues that might arise). If we keep the current image sourced from the Falun Dafa Information Center I think it should be presented for what it is, part of a public relations=propaganda campaign, and attributed to source rather than using the currently synthetic connection to the Amnesty International source cited. Ideally I think it should be replaced with something similar that comes from a reliable source, something that shows the brutal reality according to Falun Gong supporters and it should be presented in that context but licensing is usually an issue. I don't have any objections to the proposed replacement though.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse Sean's view. I have only seen that picture on Falun Gong websites and Falun Gong promotional pamphlets. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The image is sourced to Amnesty International. Are there any objections to its being restored? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the image sourced to Amnesty ? Can you provide a link to the Amnesty source that contained that image ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My phrasing was imprecise. I should have said that Amnesty has used this picture. They made a point of highlighting Gao Rongrong's case in 2005, apparently. See the report here: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA17/014/2005/en and search her name. Their image function may have gone funny, because while there are spaces for her images, they are not visible (at least on my computer? YMMV?). I have seen the photo on an AI website before, though. The caption for the second invisible picture says "Gao Rongrong ten days after she was hospitalized in May 2004." Presumably it's the same image. In either case, the image is of a high-profile persecution case and is perfectly suited for exhibition on this page. Hope that helps. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen that report already. The only reason I agreed to the image being replaced is that we couldn't directly connect it to an RS like Amnesty rather than just the FG advocacy site which I don't regard as an RS by itself. I can't see the images in Amnesty's PDF either. However, I can see them here in an Amnesty USA document. Here is the Wiki page in May so you can see the deleted picture. It's not exactly the same image but it's clearly the same subject in the same place showing the same injuries. That seems close enough to me.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that the caption will need to be changed to reflect the various narratives rather than presenting the FG narrative as the truth. The other thing is perhaps we can get the exact picture AI used from the FG site so there is an exact match. I haven't looked but I assume it's available somewhere.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick point: when it comes to issues like these, FG's narrative accords with that of third parties, and third parties regard Falun Gong human rights monitoring to be more or less accurate (albeit difficult to corroborate in individual cases). It is intellectually lazy to suggest that there is an equivalence between FG and CCP narratives; what matters is truth, not false balance. When it comes to this photo, the suggestion that we need to qualify it as part of FG propaganda implies that there is reason to doubt whether the photo is real. In other words, you're essentially suggesting that there is strong reason to believe that Falun Gong (or AI, in this case) is doctoring photos—a claim that no reliable sources have made, and that we shouldn't unduly imply. Homunculus (duihua) 14:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...But if you are simply saying that we should cite the source of the image in the caption, without our own editorializing, there can be no objection. Is that what you were aiming to do with the propaganda poster by naming the artist? If so, the artist's name is less relevant than the department that commissioned and released the image (similarly, the name of the person who photographed Gao Rongrong is less important for our purposes than the fact it was published by AI). Do we have that information? Homunculus (duihua) 15:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that anyone is doctoring photos nor am I being intellectually lazy. I'm saying that there are multiple narratives presented in the source to explain the evidence represented by the image. I'm saying that we need to comply with NPOV, a mandatory policy. When there are several narratives presented by the secondary source, which in this case there are, we need to allow the readers to see them. We can't present one without the other. As for the name of the artist, I added that simply because I think an encyclopedia should include the name of the artist when it presents their work. It's not all about the FG vs CCP wars. We're still an encyclopedia.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will not press you on the definition of art ;) Best, Homunculus (duihua) 15:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, okay guys. Let me get a little practical. In the end we're going to have Gao Rongrong's disfigured face and a photo caption saying that this is an image taken of her after ten days in hospital, right? What are the other narratives as to how the woman's face got disfigured? In any case, the picture accompanies a report in AI that she was shocked with electric batons. I think that's sufficient. Readers will join the dots. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in the AI report. AI are clearly making an effort to be neutral by using words like 'according to', 'reportedly', 'claimed' fpr both sides rather than stating things as fact. We need to use a similar approach if we are going to say anything about the injuries. In summary from the report
 * According to reports, ...subjected to seven hours of torture ...using electric-shock batons on Gao Rongrong’s face and neck and reportedly caused her severe blistering and difficulties with her eyesight...reportedly attempted to escape by jumping through the window of the first-floor room where she was being held, breaking several bones in her foot, leg and pelvis...According to some sources, officials at the hospital...claimed that the injuries ...were sustained when she jumped from the first-floor window
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you compare the caption that was used here "Gao Rongrong, in hospital after being tortured by Chinese security forces. Amnesty writes that officials had reportedly beaten her using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, causing severe blistering and eyesight problems. She was recaptured and died from abuse in custody" with the way AI write about it you will see why so many people were recently topic banned.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that the Falun Gong activists did not see the need to provide the fig-leaf of "reportedly" whenever the torture incidents were discussed; but we should of course do that. When you stick a woman's burnt face there in the context of a known religious persecution, the term "reportedly" obviously does not mean much. But yes, we ought to keep up these appearances. (It's reported that Sean Hoyland is going to restore the image.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rwityk edits
I have reverted edits by user:Rwityk. Those changes appear massive and substantial, so might require gaining a consensus on the article talk page first. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some recent edits that involved matters of judgement about the relative importance of matters of how Falun Gong is presented in an encyclopedic treatment. Such decisions are always fraught with caveats and second-thoughts. As far as I can tell I was cleaning up some of the mess from a recent POV-war about how Falun Gong's beliefs are represented. Some of the information was incomplete or oddly sourced, leading to a skewed presentation. At least, that is the impression it gave me, and going by my memory of reading everything on this subject some years ago. My memory is not extremely fresh. One could consult with Ownby on it, I suppose, but I tried to prune what I thought were gratuitous details that had been inserted as part of making a point. I could be wrong. If there's a problem we should discuss it (said to the invisible reader). Overall a very professional treatment synthesizing a vast number of sources. People I work with get paid a lot of money to do that--and here Wikipedians are, giving it away for free. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I flipped him back as well. We should discuss the changes. I think some of them are good but that's a whole lot of new material and there are standards for inclusion; much of the information was lacking in sources, seemed a bit editorialized, or was attributed to primary sources, which are generally avoided on Wikipedia. But clearly this user is a serious contributor and I think we would all welcome a discussion of the proposed changes, and could even assist in the locating of quality secondary sources to that end. Does anyone disagree with my action and response? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I am a grad student doing a semester Wikipedia project on Chinese propaganda. I picked the FG controversy as a case study. My aim is to describe the CCP's propaganda campaign against FG, which is why I used official press releases and academic research as sources. I'm not here to make an anti-China or pro-FG point, nor am I interested in a Wiki war. I'm going to repost my changes because I'm doing a presentation tonight on my research, save a PDF of that version, and send it to my professor. So feel free to delete what I wrote after 9:30 pm EST 12-1-11. Until then, I will continue to reverse your edits. Discuss away, and Cheers! Rwityk (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your approach is baffling. Why would you insert your work into Wikipedia and then save it as a PDF and send it to your professor? Are you going to say: "Look, Prof., I got on Wikipedia!" That's not what the encyclopedia is for. Since you did not explain the problems I raised with your edits, I will assume that you do not disagree, and will revert you. Your remark above indicates that you are not interested in following the norms of this community, either, and I do not think anyone investigating an edit war that you consequently initiated would rule in your favor. In fact, tell me your professor's email and I'll let him in on this little scheme of yours. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Go easy. Rwityk, I you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, and it is apparent that you have done some good research. I think it's great that there are professors out there encouraging students to contribute in this forum, but I hope you can appreciate that your professor's likely intent is not merely to have you demonstrate that you are capable of doing some research and having it (briefly) added to the page. Rather, I'm sure he/she also hoped that you could learn about the processes, standards, and norms that govern Wikipedia.  If you can successfully navigate these and add content that makes a long-term contribution to the encyclopedia, then you deserve kudos. And if you can do this on an article as historically contentious as this one, you deserve an A.
 * So here are a couple pointers: first, be mindful of giving due weight (see WP:NPV).  You added a great deal of information to one section of the article. Doing this may be seen as giving disproportionate emphasis to one aspect of the topic. In this case, I would recommend trying to condense and summarize your contributions. You'll also want to be very picky about the quality and applicability of your sources.  Your representations of the topic were rather accurate, actually, but you used quite a lot of primary source information, which should be used sparingly.  To that end, you might want to see WP:V. Best of luck with your project.  TheSound, if you have a chance, you might want to look at doing some general edits to the prose in that whole section. If you don't have time I'll get to it one of these days.
 * Oh, and a last note, there is an easier way to show your prof what you did:  Homunculus (duihua) 04:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My directions were to create a Wikipedia page or contribute to an existing page, on the topic of foreign propaganda. I believe I have satisfactorily completed the assignment. I'm getting the feeling that the biggest problem with my contribution is that I invaded some editors' "territory" and didn't consult with anyone before posting. So, I extend my condolences for anyone's pride that was bruised during the process, and wish the offended luck with their control complexes. Conversely, I also appreciate the sincere advice I've been given here, and if I ever get the urge to update a Wikipedia page again, I'll keep your comments in mind. 96.231.119.96 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Rwityk
 * No, it's because you didn't bother to check Wikipedia rules before driving your grad-student car in and doing donuts over the pages. Best wishes with your assignment. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, seems like I went from "serious contributor" to "donuts." Putting my contributions in the context of an academic assignment was an attempt to extend a courtesy to those who reverted my edits, to explain why I had to undo the reverts quickly and unceremoniously, without allowing time to observe the usual discussion protocol...especially considering the zeal with which this page is checked. I felt that to simply undo reverts without explanation was implying uniform disregard for others' opinions, which is not the case; I only mean to disregard the opinions of the unnecessarily hostile. 96.231.119.96 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Rwityk


 * Don't worry about it. TheSound actually didn't revert all your edits; you'll notice that quite a lot of what you contributed is still there. In the future, if you plan to make major contributions to a page—particularly one that is heavily watched or contentious—you may want to preemptively provide an explanation, and (ideally) attempt to gather consensus or suggestions. I think your edits were undone because you did not partake in this discussion for quite a long time after making substantial changes, which may have given the impression of a rogue contributor. In any case, I hope you don't let the experience sour you on Wikipedia, and if you do choose to continue to contribute, I'm happy to provide advice if you desire it. Homunculus (duihua) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 August 2009‎ (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 August 2009‎ (UTC)

Questionable source: death toll of 65,000/70,000?
I found a citation at Falun Gong, where an article "According to Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies" suggests "a likely death toll based on refugee testimony is approximately 65,000"(The number in the original article is 70000). After checking this article, I was doubtful about the validity of its opinion on the death toll: firstly, the main focus of the article is not Falun Gong but the overall Chinese political situation; secondly, the article provides neither citation of the "refugee testimony" nor any possible sources of them. Though this article provide some useful opinion, I think this article is not enough credible for claim of such a great number.--Inspector (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The source provided does somewhat glance over the topic, but Gutmann is probably the most prolific writer on Falungong today, and this article is one of many that he has written, which together, I think, show the depth of research and corroboration he has conducted. Here’s the quote from the article currently cited followed by some more relevant information:


 * Beginning in the year 1999, the elimination of Falun Gong became the most potent issue in China, as reflected in the incarceration rates of Falun Gong practitioners (about 450,000 to one million in any single year) and it did not officially subside from that position until the middle of the next decade. At this point, the true casualty rate started to emerge from refugee testimony—approximately 70,000 fatalities, mostly through organ harvesting in military hospitals.


 * An explanation of how Gutmann arrived at these figures is here, and one example of the refugee testimonies he is referring to is found here. It’s worth noting, as Gutmann does in his personal blog, that his figures are fairly consistent with those of Kilgour and Matas, both estimates being arrived at independently of each other. The number, in my opinion, is valid and certainly notable. — Zujine |talk 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the validity matters. The accuracy is unknowable anyway. We should probably just treat statements by Gutmann the same way we treat official statements by the CPC. That seems to be essentially how it is handled now in the Death Toll section via attribution. I think the issue is more whether reliable non-partisan mainstream/academic sources or respected sources like Amnesty and HRW report Gutmann's estimates. I don't know but I don't think sourcing to the likes of highly partisan sources such as inFocus Quarterly, The Weekly Standard etc help to establish how much weight, if any, we should give to the claims.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. So does Gutmann's method differ greatly from that of Kilgour and Matas? And also, the blog article gives the low and high estimations, so should we use that range instead of the number in the other article?--Inspector (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When the death toll of a particular incident varies so widely, as from an estimation of thousands according to the NYT to tens of thousands according to Gutmann, it is rational to cast a doubt on either number. I wonder if we need a disclaimer such as "none of the death toll numbers quoted above as well as the alleged causes of the deaths are presented with reliable evidence". This is not to negate the crimes done by the CPC, rather, it is a way to make the article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The paragraph already begins with the caveat that "Due to the difficulty in corroborating reports of torture deaths in China, estimates on the number of Falun Gong adherents killed under persecution vary widely." It is assumed that, given the political environment of China, independent verification is not always possible, and some cases are almost certainly never reported. I don't know that this needs to be emphasized further, and I have reservations about making the assessment (without knowledge of their methodology) that the researchers making these estimates lacked 'reliable evidence.' As to the handling of Gutmann's estimate, I just edited it to note that 65,000 is the median estimate he produced.
 * On another note, Gutmann is a reliable source on Falun Gong. He has published a well reviewed book on contemporary China in a mainstream press, has testified before U.S. and European parliament, and published numerous articles on the topic in reliable sources. One of his latest articles on organ harvesting was cited by David Brooks of the New York Times as one of the best examples of long form journalism of the year. His comments are in no way of equivalent value as statements from the Communist Party, so let's avoid falling into a False balance fallacy again. That said, in the case of citing death toll estimates, all should be given inline citations. Homunculus (duihua) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, we might want to consider depicting these estimates within a table, which would cite the numbers, source of the estimate, publishing date, and a brief account of the methodology employed (if available).Homunculus (duihua) 03:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess Gutmann should have published his research more formally and specificly somewhere, which would be better than that article just mentioned a bit about the persecution of Falun Gong and the death toll. And should we use the range 9,011-120,150 as shown in Gutmann's approach to be more specific?--Inspector (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see Ethan Gutmann cited on question of Falun Gong death toll by secondary sources. Such secondary scholarly citings would not be that hard to find, if he is the most prolific writer on Falun Gong today. Source watch defines his area of expertise broadly though as recognized authority on American business involvement in China's Internet and an advocate of Chinese democracy. If we give his words on death toll weight equivalent to statements from the Communist Party we should make sure that reliable sources do the same. I'm currently, after doing some Google search homework, quite sceptic though that the equivalence tendency could be demonstrated. AgadaUrbanit (talk)


 * Sorry, I forgot about this until now. Inspector,  after you raised this issue I edited the page to make clear that 65,000 was the median estimate.  I suppose it would be just the same to give the range, however, so go ahead.  Published articles in which he mentions this number (but doesn't describe his methodology) are here   Describing one's methodology is not the kind of thing that one would publish within the body of an article, obviously, which is why we're left with Gutmann's blog. AgandaUrbanit,  I don't understand.  Are you looking for sources that cite Gutmann's estimates side-by-side with Communist Party estimates?  If so, you'll have a hard time indeed; the Communist Party does not publish estimates on Falun Gong deaths in custody.  At most, they occasionally deny that deaths were caused by torture in individual cases.  It would probably be prudent for us to make a note of this phenomenon.  Case in point:  Here, an old woman is "imprisoned... without charge. Officials demanded that she recant her faith. She refused, was beaten unconscious and, on Feb.21, died, according to prison inmates and family members." Her body was found by family members to be bruised and burned from torture, and officials claimed the death was the result of natural causes. It is hard to know just how representative this is, but in the absence of statistics, anecdotal evidence like this is probably all we'll get to represent the official position.  Homunculus (duihua) 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, if I was unclear, Homunculus. I'm not looking for false balance between the Communist Party and Falun Dafa. Wikipedia is ideally a tertiary source. The references that are being cited, are primary, i.e. by Ethan Gutmann  , last reference specifically How many harvested? - is a self published personal blog. Those sources are weak. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Secondary sources, books, academical peer-reviewed research papers, major news providers like NYTimes or BBC citing Ethan Gutmann numbers are required to establish weight and encyclopedic value of  Ethan Gutmann material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Weekly Standard, Jewish Policy Center, and National Review are not primary sources. They are solid, reliable sources, and Gutmann's articles within them would have needed to pass muster with some strict editorial boards. I included the blog because Wikipedia policy permits the use of self-published sources when the author is an established expert on the subject on which they are writing, and the blog provides a detailed explanation of Gutmann's methodology. If you want yet more sources that cite Gutmann's research, I suggest you check these:. I'm very curious how you are defining a primary source. Homunculus (duihua) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I'll elaborate: I assume you're defining Gutmann as a primary source because his conclusions were based, in part, on his own investigative research and interviews. He is a journalist. Conducting interviews and publishing the resulting findings is what journalists do. Gutmann's research has been reliably published on multiple occasions by reliable sources, cited in U.S. Congress, and lauded in the New York Times. Where his findings are provided on the page, they are given an inline citation. I'm really not clear on what you're objecting to.Homunculus (duihua) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for new references, Homunculus. I dont have access to CQ source, but Thomas Lum is a great source and currently being used as ref #8 at Kilgour-Matas report article. Weekly Standard, Jewish Policy Center, and National Review materials are not self-published like EastOfEthan, though the material is clearly by Ethan Gutmann, thus primary. I've tried to look for secondary sources books, academical papers or news articles saying something like: "according to Ethan Gutmann the death toll is 65,000" or talking about median estimations,  but failed to find any. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, right, you have to pay for the CQ researcher. Here's an excerpt: "At least [Falun Gong practitioners] 62,000 were victims of organ harvesting operations from 2000-2008, according to Matas and Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist. Matas and Kilgour, who were nominated for a Nobel Prize for their investigation, say the organs were then “sold” to foreign transplant tourists." I appreciate your diligence on this, even though we clearly don't see eye-to-eye on the use of sources. In any case, even if one were to concede that reliably published journalistic findings like these are primary source (and I'm not prepared to make that concession in this case),  primary sources can be used in wikipedia articles to describe themselves: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them....A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."  That is, Gutmann's reliably published research can be used to describe the content of his own research. His notability an an expert on the topic has already been established. Homunculus (duihua) 22:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I could see the "at least" Sarah Glazer's quote here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)