Talk:Falun Gong/New

New structural skeleton
I invite all editors to edit the below skeleton outline of the future article, one sentence per paragraph. Short discussions below, but for longer ones please create a new sub/heading and perhaps call a vote. This is meant as a quick visualization tool, not a new canon.

(numbered list denotes paragraphs)

Heading and lede

 * 1) "Spiritual practice", Li Hongzhi, history.
 * 2) Exercises/beliefs (zhen-shan-ren), Number of followers,
 * 3) Persecution, organ harvesting. Lobbying against CCP; media groups.
 * 4) Debate about cult, controversies etc.

Beliefs and Teachings

 * 1) Founding, "Falun Gong".
 * 2) "Zhuan Falun", Zhen-Shan-Ren.
 * 3) Influences, "new form of science".

Theoretical background:
 * 1) What is cultivation?
 * 2) Super-/Naturalist views, supernormal abilities.
 * 3) Traditional chinese religion, Daoism, Buddhism; Aikman, Existence of Chi, Connection to Chinese cultural heritage.
 * 4) Qigong as a science.

History
Beginnings
 * 1) Provide background on Qigong movement.
 * 2) Li Hongzhi's training, background.
 * 3) Introduction to public, Ownby on Qigong;.
 * 4) Publication of book, reception.
 * 5) Teaching in New York, invitation abroad, Ownby.

Growth in China
 * 1) Zhao on FG's spread in China, countermodernism, identity of FG, religious fundamentalism etc.
 * 2) Scott Lowe's internet survey. Lowe on macro-sociology.
 * 3) The Economist's article.
 * 4) Scale and extent of growth.
 * 5) Initially sanctioned by gov't and qigong groups.
 * 6) Differentiation from other Qigong groups; Popularity of Falun Gong

Skepticism, Zhongnanhai
 * 1) Initial criticism from Buddhist/Daoist groups, pseudoscience critics, and Tianjin Prof. He Zuoxiu.
 * 2) Reaction to He's paper and BTV interview, silent protests at Zhongnanhai. Trigger for suppression.

The ban (section has separate article: persecution)


 * 1) Xinhua/Gov't statement. Xinhua/Gov't claims on FG. Richardson/Edelman.
 * 2) Li Hongzhi's "Brief Statement of Mine".
 * 3) The Crackdown, 6-10 Office.
 * 4) Government alliance with American ACM's (showing why the alliance benefited both).
 * 5) Academic attempts at understanding/explaining the rationale behind the crackdown.

Falun Gong response to Ban
 * 1) Protests and insurgent actions, gov't reaction to insurgent actions.
 * 2) Public reaction.

Worldwide appeals (Section has separate article.)
 * 1) Human Rights activities and lobbying abroad
 * 2) Kilgour-Matas, organ harvesting, Nowak.

Organizational Structure
Economy and membership structure
 * 1) Porter, Tong, number of followers (all claims and stats)

Media branches & PR strategies
 * 1) Epoch Times; anti-CPC stance
 * 2) Other media organizations; Chinese New Year Spetacular, Falun Gong-related cultural events, draw attention to plight.
 * 3) Distribution of pamphlets, participation in public parades,
 * 4) User of internet; "cybersect", Rahn on "truth somewhere in between".

Lobbying activities
 * 1) support from gov'ts, human rights groups, criticism for being political etc.

Public Debate
The Cult question
 * 1) Maunus' section on cults.

Teachings
 * 1) LGBT issues, interracial marriage
 * 2) demons, aliens, Communist Party etc.

The Human Rights discourse
 * 1) Arguments from HR orgs.
 * 2) Any possible responses from the Chinese Gov.
 * 3) Other misc criticism of HR claims.

Comments and discussion
Please edit this, you have permission and encouragement. The starting version above is just how the article looks today. I hope this can help us take the next step. PerEdman (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed paragraph notation to numbered lists, clarity improved. :) Keep up the boldness. PerEdman (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese government's criticism

 * One question which definitely comes to mind would be how much space and attention to give the criticism of Falun Gong by the Chinese government in the ban and possibly in the reception sections. Personally, I tend to think that maybe the best way to go to resolve that would be to file a request for comment regarding the subject, and ask as many people involved in the China, NRM, Psychology, Religion, and Human rights related groups to take part in the discussion, so that we can at least get a fairly good idea of at least what the majority of the editors who have some interest in that general topic think. Maybe it won't necessarily resolve anything one way or another, but I still think it is probably worth a try. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How much is enough and how long is a piece of string. :) I hadn't realized HR related groups may have some motivated editors who could participate here. Question is, would those editors perhaps lean towards giving a lot of attention to the HR abuses perpetrated and not enough to the religious aspect? You've got some great leads there, how can I help? PerEdman (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My reason for including them would be that the suppression of religious freedom is the main human rights abuse involved. I would hope that they would have a clear idea how much attention that particular human rights abuse gets globally (and also in Australia, where I maybe incorrectly think that most of the refugees have fled to), and that might be relevant information to have. Ideally, I would hope the section on the government might be able to be ironed out more "point by point" than by exact wordage, and getting as many people involved to establish which points are most important and should be included would probably be a good idea to do now, rather than perhaps later if and when such interested parties get involved in GAC, peer review, or whatever else. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much agree! The human rights abuse in China is what brought me to the subject of Falun Gong to begin with and I believe it to be one of the first things that spring to mind for a casual reader. I just hadn't even thought that we could gain some reinforcements from editors of other/general Human Rights articles. PerEdman (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim of no organization
Falun Gong claims that it has no "organization", let alone organizational structure... don't know if this will be an issue for that heading in the article. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so - reliable sources say it has. We will of course include their claim to being organizationless. Anyway, no structure is also a structure. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the group claims it does not have any sort of formal, official organizational structure, like the Catholic Church hierarchy, is probably relevant to include. But some discussion of the apparent informal structure would reasonably be included as well. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FG's claim that is has no organization should absolutely be mentioned, but so should the existence of http://www.clearwisdom.net, http://www.falundafa.org, Epoch Times, Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, New Tang Dynasty TV, Sound of Hope and Shen Yun Performing Arts. Taken together, it might seem somewhat contradictory. PerEdman (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Specific practices of Falun Gong

 * I think some detailed discussion regarding the specific practices of Falun Gong, which I guess means the exercise and whatever else, should probably be prominently included as well. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. A lot of it is jargon though. As long as we cut down on the jargon everything should be fine. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Contents of Lede

 * I've singled out some things that are listed under lede, but aren't found in outline/article's body. Revert this once it's settled.
 * Rationale: The lede is supposed to be a summary and I prefer that means "as little footnotes as possible." If everything is in the article's body, excessive footnotes in the lede can be avoided.
 * Opinions? Seb az86556 (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Look at Barack Obama. Very good lede there. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. so make some indication where in the article body Number of followers, Nowak, Matas & Kilgour should be. I'd say Number of followers should be under Organizational Structure... Seb az86556 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. As you say, Seb, the lede should be a summary and as such it may be best to write it absolutely last. Or absolutely first, because it can also be used as a microcosm, small scale model, of the entire article before the rest is even written. PerEdman (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved, all points are now in article's body. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Location of Sections
I am at a loss as to whether or not "beliefs and teachings" should come right after the lead or after the "history". Thoughts?? Colipon+ (Talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede should be followed by either Beliefs and Teachings or some variant of the process of founding, including Li Hongzhi's name of course. In my opinion, as I think the beliefs of Falun Gong are one of the first things a new reader will look for. "Who are they, were did they come from, what are they doing?" that sort of thing. PerEdman (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at Bahá'í Faith, Christianity, and Islam -- they all put Beliefs&Teachings first, followed by History... in the interest of consistent structure, this one should do the same. Seb az86556 (talk)


 * Excellent. We have a consensus. (I hope). Colipon+ (Talk) 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, please leave the discussion open for at leaast 24 hours to allow other editors to have their say before assuming consensus. That's how it would work if this were a live article, anyway. :) Still, I would like to wait with the archiving for a little while yet, especially since the archives take up more space. PerEdman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * haha okay. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Beliefs and teachings immediately after lede, plz. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Background?
What's background? Looks like the first can be put under Belief&Teachings, the second one is for History...no? Or maybe all of it is for History... it looks confusing...Seb az86556 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Definately history, but part of it seems to be about influences, cultural and mystical. PerEdman (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Along with the above comment, I chose to remove the "Background" heading and replace it with "History" so that there is no border between them. PerEdman (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC) )

Shortcut
The shortcut FLGNEW has been assigned by myself for ease of access into this new page. This is a temporary shortcut and will be removed once the new revision is completed. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversial teachings
I've gone bold and added a "controversial teachings" section. The reason for its notability is due to attention given by mainstream media (TIME, NYT, SFC, etc.) and also treatments given by several prominent academics in the area (Ownby, Rahn, Penny). There is also legitimate debate about whether or not Falun Gong's responses to these controversies deserve mention. Falun Gong seeks a "right of reply" to all of the criticisms levied against it. If we mention Falun Gong's rebuttal in every case, my opinion is that it gets bogged down with unecessary seesaw rhetoric again, severely limiting the merit of the article. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I am for excluding that kinda freak-stuff altogether. Recall my parallel to Mormonism: They, too, have some pretty outrageous junk some of their followers believe (RE: Black people are the result of reincarnated demon-angels from the cursed Ham tribe of a previous pre-natal world and should therefore not hold priesthood...). This, too, has been in the media, esp. in the U.S. recently with what's-his-face running for president ("Romney"?). Yet, there's not a word of that stuff in the Mormonism-article. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that by and large, most "wacky" teachings do not deserve mention in the main article. However, many of these 'controversial' teachings have gained significant media coverage and academic attention and therefore worthy of inclusion according to WP:NOTABILITY (much along the lines of "organ harvesting" warranting inclusion). I myself am unsure about the aliens and demons, but from some sources I have read that they are a major part of the Falun Gong doctrine. Ownby, for example, says that post-ban, Li Hongzhi characterized all supporters of the Communist Party as demons, and that struggling against these demons has ostensibly become a central theme of Falun Gong. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Controversial dogma set out in either of FG's two holy books should be described, though. Are there demons, aliens, racism and homophobia in them? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning notability, Mormonism might not be your special field, but even as a layman who happens to reside close to the Mormon heartland, I can assure you that there's significant writing on Mormon wacky-ism. I also have the book of Mormon here on my shelf and could pull some wacky quotes (it would take me a while). Still it's not in that article on Mormonism. In the interest of equal treatment, I'm still skeptical about including it. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument against including "controversial teachings" is that it opens the floodgates to more POV-warring and endless debates about which controversial teachings are "important" and which are not. In the case of Mormonism, polygamy is a "controveresial teaching" that is considered notable enough to deserve numerous mentions in the articles. In the section for "controversies" in the LDS church article, much POV-warring is still on-going. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on that too. It would be a POV magnet. PerEdman (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that teachings that have received special treatment in the press or academic works might merit special attention. I would include only teachings that have been treated in scholarly works, I don't believe press mentions alone establish notability. However I think it will be necessary to be very cautious when drafting the section to have it represent both the ciriticism and the responses but in coherent manner. Such a section cannot be built by simply by the statement/response model. It will need to include the context of the critique and the answers in roder for it to be informative and useful for readers. The section should not be called "Controversial teachings" but simply teachings, as a subsection of the section public debate it then becomes obvious that we are not including those teachings because of any kind of inherent controversiality (which would be POV) but because they have received special attention in the public debate. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When I said "wacky," I meant the aliens&demons...Seb az86556 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wel, its religion. Its supposed to be "wacky". ;) The point is that if we classify some beliefs as wacky and others as normal we are taking a POV, the guideline for inclusion has to be a factor of the degree to which the belief is described in reliable sources and the degree to which it has fostered public debate.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On recommendation from Maunus I have modified the section heading to "teachings" instead. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've said before: I believe controversial teachings of Falun Gong deserve mention only if they have been notable. If there has been no response to these teachings, there is no reason to bring them up, even though I may consider them offensive, because WP:SOAP. As Maunus says, we can't make that classification if it's on a personal basis. If it's notable and verifiable, it may be Wikiable. If not, then not.
 * Now I don't usually move in HBT/GLBT circles even as a libertarian and I haven't noticed anyone in the black community even take notice of Falun Gong's plight. Until I have, I can't support editors selecting "wacky" beliefs from "non-wacky", for inclusion. Perhaps as part of a grand overview of ALL teachings? PerEdman (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion reached its rational conclusion. Well done, guys.--Asdfg12345 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which conclusion was reached? / PerEdman  05:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what asdfg is talking about. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * that note was originally under PerEdman's "I've said before..." remark, above. hope it makes sense now.--Asdfg12345 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved the note. Will re-read in context. / PerEdman  17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Asdfg12345, I still don't know what the conclusion was supposed to be. Perhaps I too was being unclear. I believe we need to gather the opinion of minority communities to see if there has been any notable commentary on the beliefs of Falun Gong within the minorities who are "targeted" by the negative commentary of Li Hongzhi. What do gays think about them? Are they even aware? If they aren't, then Li Hongzhi's opinion needn't be expounded on on the Wikipage. / PerEdman  17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To an extent, agreed. One problem with that is that it might be really hard for us to find that information. If someone like Time said something was controversial, it is reasonable to assume that they contacted someone involved with the topic and got a response that it either specifically or generally qualified as contested or controversial or whatever, whether that is specifically mentioned in that source or not. Regarding whether to include information on angels, demons, and the like, this is a somewhat religious group, so I would expect it to say something about such subjects. Maybe not ETs, particularly, but other religions and pseudo-religions, like Raelism, talk about them too. If we can find specific responses from members of the affected community to comments made by Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi, though, that would certainly be useful and relevant. In response to Seb, I might agree if the material were not covered in basic material like, for instance, the main article of an encyclopedia on the subject. My personal opinion, and something I used as a guide when I was more active in the WP:1.0 group, was that if other encyclopedias covered it, we covered it. I don't know if the alien stuff is particularly commented upon in articles on Mormonism in encyclopedia, or in how much detail, but think it makes sense to at least, if the length of the source article isn't excessive, to at least try to cover all the material included in main articles on the subject in other encyclopediae about a subject in our own articles. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's hard to say if the alien teachings is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Some academics talk about it in passing, others analyze it in more detail, but overall it seems to surround bigger ideas - Fa-Rectification, etc. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT issues?
I am inclined to believe that the LGBT issues and controversies do belong because they have been discussed by scholars and mainstream media. Not to mention there is now the standardization of all LGBT topics dealing with religion (whether this is good or bad I am not here to judge, but this is now a de facto standard.).Colipon+ (Talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Can I have a link as example? (Not challenging you, I really didn't know that) Seb az86556 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LGBT issues and Buddhism. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. There is also this for Ownby's commentary on homosexuality. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OH... "yeah, but..." -- that's a separate article. Would that, in the interest of equal treatment, mean we need yet another spin-off... LGBT issues and Falun Gong...? Seb az86556 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a good question and not one that I wish to dwell on as some rest is in order... I am sure another competent editor can provide a satisfactory answer :) Colipon+ (Talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need a separate article / spin-off. This was an example of a "controversial teaching" that has achieved notability and is of interest to a group of people who suffer persecution. It could be listed as "teachings" or as "criticism" or as both. / PerEdman  05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As Pellesmith said somewhere, there is already much too much on Falun Gong, and each article carries with it the risk of it becoming another battleground and POV fork. Let's stick to the KISS principle. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone went and aggregated all of the LGBT topics regarding religion here. I'm not sure if I agree with this treatment of having a specific LGBT article for every religion... but this is what has been done. Whether this should be the same treatment to Falun Gong is debatable. While there has certainly been attention alloted to this issue there may not be enough information (without resorting to much-dreaded WP:OR) to present a solid article. It may be best to just make it a small section. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I've noticed. I just wanted to point it out. Right now, I think there's enough stuff to be done and accomplished with all the stuff that's still unfinished. So just leave it for now. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating "Academic views"
Currently there are five pagaraphs on academic views. Is this really necessary? My view is that part of the section can actually be presented in the body of the article, and instead of saying "Ownby opines this" and "Penny believes that" etc. it may be best to just present it as a fact and cite them as sources. Most of these qualify as WP:RS so I see no reason in making the section a quotefarm of what looks like a salad of opinions - this is not the right way to treat academic articles and I have only seen it done like this on Falun Gong. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree that this is the best general approach, but would have to see which claims exactly we would be sourcing to them.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're still waiting for the verdict on Academic views(a.k.a. Criticism of)-article. That part should be short here, the rest goes into said child-article.... no? Seb az86556 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the criticism and academic views shouldn't be relegated to its own section, but that relevant academic views should be used as sources in the article body. The section "public debate" should only contain those points about which there is considerable debate between academics, pro and anti FLG factions and the general media, such as e.g. the cult issue.
 * Relevant academic views should permeat all articles on the subject, the child-article about criticism should focus on some of the controversies in greater detail and the criticism-section of the FG-article could be seen as a lead-in or summary of that child article, leaving out more insignificant bits. PerEdman (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only are there five paragraphs, they are very intertwined as well. As our little prototype shows, certain authors are mentioned several times, mingled with the others and it's not because the paragraphs are categorized by topic. We need to reshape the section like the others so that each paragraph deals with related concepts and (if possible) flow into one another logically. PerEdman (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points seemingly not taken into account in addressing the "cult issue." We have evidence that it is 1) a minority view and one upheld by few sources which pass reliability (I mean, less than I could count with the toes on one foot), and 2) a term which was primarily used as part of the CCP's campaign about the practice. As long as these two basic points remain the case (and I've not seen them disputed), putting the issue in the lede and giving it a subsection which fails to appreciate these contexts seems mistaken.--Asdfg12345 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about how the "cult" section as written by me fails to appreciate these contexts? I personally believed that fact that the term originates with the CCP anti-FLG campaign and has emanated from that AND that it is not considered to be a scientifically valid viewpoint by most scholars are the two main points of that entire section. I don't think you can argue that it is a minority view to label Falun gong as a cult - as the section shows the label has been applied by chinese government, media and western media, american anti-cult movement and even by a minority of scholars (depending on their definition of the word). It is a very notable viewpoint and one that has attracted a large amount of debate and commentary.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, in you preious comment to the section you mentioned that certain prominent academic viewpoints were left out. Could you be more specific about which viewpoints this would be?·Maunus· ƛ · 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Cult being a minor fringe view, and should be treated as such" argument has been rehashed so many times on this discussion and it's not very convincing. I would argue that Maunus' treatment of the issue and his/her write-up does a very good job of explaining the issue from multiple perspectives and should be incorporated into the article as soon as possible. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Asdfg12345, What evidence did you have in mind for 1) and 2)? I believe 1) should rather be supported by a lack of evidence, than any evidence of a lack. Besides, ·Maunus· ƛ · already wrote an in-depth segment on this, one I can find no immediate fault with. If you have any criticism of that, I'd be very glad to see it. / PerEdman  18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry sorry sorry, let me get back to this tomorrow; I don't mean to write spare and dismissive remarks which just say something negative offhand but don't elaborate or give you some meat to chew on--I read again and realised that's what it was. I can't do this tonight though; it's basically just that the reason I think it's a minority viewpoint is for the reasons you state: that it comes from the CCP, and has been predominantly used by the ACM and fringe scholars (see Singer) -- these are minority viewpoints, no? Mainstream scholars like (I hate to say it) Ownby, reject the label; then you've got Ian Johnson, who won the pulitzer, also rejecting it; in mainstream western discourse the label does not have much traction--that is, it's not seen as an accurate description of Falun Gong itself. Of course, it's an accurate description of how the CCP describes Falun Gong, and these other fringe sources, but it's not a mainstream viewpoint. Please advise any thoughts on this. I was going to look for some more sources tomorrow.--Asdfg12345 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a minority viewpoint of the CCP, but because it is the CCP viewpoint, it is a significant minority's viewpoint, one that is implicit in the subject matter and one which should be mentioned due to its notability. Do you mean your above references to Singer, Ownby, Johnson and the CCP as an argument against Maunus' "cult" paragraphs? / PerEdman  05:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "cult" is a "fair" characterization of Falun Gong is dependent on people's individual POVs. What asdfg is saying is essentially that the cult label is "wrong", therefore we shouldn't present it at all, or we should only do so in relation to the pretext of Chinese government crackdown. I don't buy this argument one bit. The "cult" issue indeed, warrants large amounts of discussion, and Maunus' treatment of the issue is very well done. So please, when you respond, I would like to hear some direct arguments challenging what Maunus' wrote, not this rehashing of POV rhetoric that we have heard for the past two years. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another important point in the "cult" section is that the "cult" label is not wrong, whether it is right depends on the viewpoint from which it is said and the definition used. When the Chinese government calls an organization a xiejiao it basically means "An organization we don't like" since that is what they have been calling organizations they don't like since 1949. The meaning of the section should not be to state that it is right or wrong to call it a cult - but to explain to the reader what different parties mean when they call it a cult or why they choose not to.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I go with Per above: when the supposed minority who hold that view is not just some jerk on the street but the very authorities in power, it becomes significant. Manus' passage is excellent and can be copy-pasted "as is" into any new article; the description is as NPOV as it can get, and if the rest of the article manages to develop a similar tone, it will be a true achievement. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Analyzing current revision of "Academic views"
The scholar Benjamin Penny of the Australian National University has given a detailed treatment of Chinese Buddhist publications and has written on Falun Gong. Scholars Susan Palmer, David Ownby, and anthropologist Noah Porter, have made ethnographic studies of Falun Gong as it is currently transmitted and practiced in the United States. James Tong has written about the development of the campaign to repress the practice in Mainland China and discussed the use of the Communist states' media outlets in its portrayal of Falun Gong as a well-financed organisation.

David Ownby, director of the Centre of East Asian studies at the University of Montreal, has analysed Falun Gong from a historical Chinese perspective as well as commented on his personal experience of meeting modern Falun Gong practitioners. Ownby has also speculated on Falun Gong as a cultural renewal of ancient Chinese cultivation forms starting in the Ming dynasty. Stephen Chan has written about Falun Gong's relationship to Buddhism and other qigong, as well as commenting on deeper reasons behind the ban in Mainland China. Barend ter Haar argues that Falun Gong "and the state's response to it cannot be understood without reference to the recent history of the People's Republic of China".

Ownby states that Falun Gong is "by no means a cult" as the People's Republic of China asserts it to be. Livia Kohn, Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies at Boston University and a scholar in Daoism, claims Falun Gong has "a high success rate in creating friendlier people, more harmonious social environments, and greater health and vitality." Benjamin Penny considers many aspects of Falun Gong "deeply traditional", at the same time, the system, "completely modern." According to him, "The best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2,500 years."

Psychologist Margaret Singer called the practice a "cult" at a Seattle conference, claiming that practitioners' relatives had approached her with concerns about the practice. Singer's credentials regarding this matter have been questioned. At the same conference, Patsy Rahn argued that "the crackdown on Falun Gong in China has helped the movement's reputation in the United States, because most of the news accounts here focus on the issue of human rights violations by the Communist government in Beijing." Rahn has also said that she believes the true story lies somewhere between the Communist Party's description of Falun Gong as an "evil cult" and the American news media's portrayal of Communist China as an "evil empire". Political scientist Patricia M. Thornton at the University of Oxford refers to Falun Gong as a cybersect, due to the group's reliance on the internet "for text distribution, recruitment and information-sharing among adherents".

According to Brian Edelman and James T. Richardson writing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Church and State, China has incorporated many theories of the "anti-cult movement" into its campaign against the Falun Gong. "However, most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack empirical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community." Moreover, Edelman and Richardson argue that "the definition [of a 'cult'] allows the government to employ the restrictive anti-cult legislation to target a wide array of religious and spiritual organizations. The evidence suggests that this is precisely what has happened." As for the anti-Falun Gong legislation in China, "such infringements are not within the bounds of state discretion. As a result, they are in violation of international customary law. Furthermore, although China's discretion in relation to its restrictions on religious practice is greater, its actions also seem to overstep the bounds of the margin of appreciation. State edicts and legislation appear to be discriminatory in nature." The researchers conclude that "the anti-cult movement and its ideology have served as useful tools, helping efforts by the party to try to maintain a delicate balance and create the illusion that the rule-of-law has been upheld, even as actions in violation of international customary law are being taken against the Falun Gong."

Reading this section above, it strikes me how irrelevant some of this material is. Much of it is vague, selective quotes that don't say much about anyting at all. Palmer, Ownby et al's "ethnographic studies" have to be put in context or else they do not serve a purpose in this article. Chan's findings are easily incorporated into earlier sections (such as "history"), same with Ownby's view that it's part of cultivation system developed in Ming Dynasty.

Kohn's findings about "friendlier people" have to be looked into - as I don't think there is enough differentiation between Falun Gong creating friendlier people and Qigong doing so in general. Penny: "Benjamin Penny considers many aspects of Falun Gong "deeply traditional", at the same time, the system, "completely modern.". This frankly strikes me as bs. Singer's views have been incorporated into the "cult question" heading and therefore can also be striked. Rahn's writings can probably fit under the "PR campaigns" section, so it also doesn't belong.  Thornton's findings also belong under the PR and lobbying sections. Edelman/Richardson has been debated before and the general consensus I'm gauging is that it fits under the "rationale for supression" section and not here.

In short, this entire section looks quite useless. I say, strike the whole thing and reincorporate parts back into the article body. As a result of this analysis, I will now boldly delete this "academic views" section from the skeleton altogether. Feel free to disagree. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree. I put a second (separate article) note into the skeleton. Move all of this over into *that* article. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seb, I've decided to strike the second separate article. I see no practical use for it because the contents can all be found in the article(s) body anyway; there is no need to "aggregate" the "academic views". If believe differently, please explain the reason for having a second section, maybe I misunderstood. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I guess by now I was confused as to what "separate section" we're referring to. (Maybe you could add the names of each of these separate articles into the skeleton. Nerds like me might get confused again.) Seb az86556 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose the section be restructured along themes similar to the ones in the rest of the article: What attention is given to the teachings of FG, what attention to the background, its effect on current China, things like that. I also suggest that not quite so many names need to be mentioned in the text itself - that's what refs are for. / PerEdman 18:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok to remove it for now. But if any of the specific points turn out to have received sufficient public commentary we can include them one by one. I think the question of tradition vs renewal in Falun Gongs roots may be such an issue. The "happier people" viewpoint seems neither truly academic or notable. The ACM alliance with the Chinese Government should go in the history section.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the decision to strike it, though not necessarily for the reason offered by Colipon--we're mostly not here to argue about the merits of what reliable sources say. The whole academic article was like this, actually, which is why I wanted to delete it. It's here for reference now anyway, so we can always dip into it if necessary. PerEdman: mentioning names can often avoid making opinions seem like facts, which I think is important sometimes.--Asdfg12345 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose they could, but referencing the same person five times in one section can make the fact seem like opinion. / PerEdman  21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Content time
Any editors object to beginning to add content in? Or should we wait a day or two before the skeleton solidifies. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate section for books
The Encyclopedia of Religions by Stephen Jones indicates that this is a group whose beliefs are based on the texts by Li. It's generally the case that when a religion is based on a given set of books, a rather prominent place in the article is given to discussing those books. On that basis, I think that maybe adding a section on the books either at the beginning of the beliefs and practices section, or maybe directly before the beliefs and practices section, would probably be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it can easily be included in the "Teachings and Practices" section. Li's books serve as the holy word of Falun Gong there is no doubt. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they're already included with our new 'skeleton'. :)Colipon+ (Talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)