Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group/Archive1

Page view statistics
One thing that might be of some significance is the page view statistics. For July, the various articles related to this project got the following number of views in July:


 * Falun Gong 66701 views, #3458 in views
 * Qigong - 38569
 * Persecution of Falun Gong - 10977
 * Human rights in the People's Republic of China - 8242 views
 * Academic views on Falun Gong - 5957
 * Teachings of Falun Gong - 3755
 * Li Hongzhi - 3699
 * Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - 2445
 * The Epoch Times - 2240
 * Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong - 1796
 * Falun Gong outside mainland China - 1128
 * Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - 1007
 * New Tang Dynasty TV - 906
 * Wenyi Wang - 300
 * Sound of Hope - 280
 * Human Rights Torch Relay - 194
 * Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital - 62

These vary dramatically from month to month, but are at least somewhat useful in determining in some cases where content can be placed. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should concentrate on improving the high-traffic articles. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensively addressing "sources" issue
Seems to me like every time any critical content is added to articles, several editors always decide to come in and override it with some kind of counter-point as if "criticism" can never stand alone, or to discredit the criticism sections so it no longer sounds credible, or delete the criticism altogether with some dubious argumentation. To me, this is very clearly POV-pushing. Notice the following sources:
 * Margaret Singer: said FLG is a cult; discredited with the vague line "some have questioned her credentials", followed by five references unrelated to FLG.
 * Patsy Rahn: said truth is between FLG and CCP's claims. Olaf continued to insist that we make a point in saying she is a "Bachelor of Arts" and that she is a "B-class soap opera actress", as though this ad hominem evaluation would make all of her research worthless.
 * I am going to reply in more detail when I have time, but here you are intentionally misrepresenting my words, Colipon. I did point out on the talk page that Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress, because that's true (just look at the links I provided to IMDB and her biography), but I never tried to insert this characterisation into the article. You yourself made a point in saying that Margaret Singer is "Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley", among other things, "as though this ad hominem evaluation would make all of her research" worthy.   &#10004; Olaf Stephanos  &#9997;  07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick Ross: completely removed from article. Despite what some editors claim, there has actually been no conclusive consensus on whether Ross is a reliable source. Some third-party editors say it is, some say it isn't. To banish him from the articles completely seems unreasonable.
 * Maria Chang: Used to be on here, but she dealt with FLG in a fairly critical tone. She was completely removed from main article, some of her works have been revived by Richard, I think, in the "Reception" article.
 * Benjamin Penny: Also had some critical material, quite credible, but critical commentary was also completely removed from articles.
 * David Ownby: Selective quotations. Only material that reflect positively on FLG is presented in articles, the rest is missing from the articles. This professor actually says "Falun Gong is undoubtedly controversial" as the first line to his lengthy dissertation in a reputable journal. He also talks about Li's claims to supernatural status, Li's apocalyptic claims, and Falun Gong's political campaign.

We need to discuss how to properly address these sources conclusively and as a group. Contributions from third-party editors would be more than welcome. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several lights in which one can paint a picture. But perhaps it would be better if you state your diffs in a concrete manner, just as you did it recently here: and then we can discuss with the data at hand what's good and what's not good. Sounds fair? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanting to reiterate that any text restored by me was brought back solely on the grounds that the deletion of it had not been discussed and did not appear to have the support of consensus. My restoring text to the "Academic views/Reception" article was not an endorsement of that text but only a repudiation of the unilateral deletion by Asdfg12345. It may turn out that, after we've discussed it, some of the text will be deleted again. --Richard (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want outside input regarding such matters, I would think the best way to proceed would be to file an RfC and notify the various groups which have an express or implicit interest in these articles to offer what input they think fit. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal
Like I said before, Portal:Falun Gong could be in very serious problems. Articles for inclusion in portals should not have any existing quality tags or be called Stubs. Right now, Falun Gong, Academic views on Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Human Rights Torch Relay, Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China, Teachings of Falun Gong, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident are tagged with quality tags, and, at least theoretically, shouldn't be used in portals. Sound of Hope is marked as a stub, and at least theoretically shouldn't be used on a portal. 6-10 Office, Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, Falun Gong outside mainland China, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty TV, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China and Wenyi Wang are neither marked a stub or marked with any quality tags, and so, at least theoretically, are probably the only ones which should be included in the portal. We need either to have the articles with quality tags be improved to the point that the tags can be removed or create enough other articles which don't qualify for quality tags to make the portal seem reasonably solvent. I urge everyone with the time or inclination to at least try to do one or the other. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

People: Critics of Falun Gong
I do get the impression having looked over the pages that link to Falun Gong that there are several individuals who have biographies in wikipedia who are critics of Falun Gong. There do tend to be at least a few categories like those in Category:Critics of religions or philosophies, and, in at least some cases, those articles are at times within the scope of the involved project or work group as well. Would the rest of you think it would be a good idea to categorize those articles where appropriate and tag them for the group? John Carter (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. That would be a good idea.--Edward130603 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Basically this page would list the people as in this page: List of Falun Gong practicioners or should it be as a category as Category:Critics of religions or philosophies? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Main Categories only make sense when you find enough entries. It could be a sub-category such as Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo (only 4 entries).
 * Disagree POV magnet. PerEdman (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, and agree with PerEdman.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * omg (disagree) -- I don't even know if I should participate in this kind of discussion. These kind of lists and things are so silly. There are lists of comic heroes with ice powers, for example. Anyway, all this needs to be based on reliable sources, or it's original research. It's unclear how this is relevant anyway...--Asdfg12345 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Comic book heroes with Ice powers indeed. The subject of critics of Falun Gong fails basic requirements for a Wikipedia page. Too small, too narrow, too ... useless. Unless anyone has a good suggestion for what the use would be, that is? Seems to me we'll just be mentioning all of them on the Falun Gong pages anyway, right? PerEdman (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification I am in general against lists, I don't even understand the "list-frenzy" on wikipedia. Categories are something else, and might be considered. That's what I meant. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreement
(I simply conclude this from above voting)


 * There should not be a list of critics of Falun Gong.


 * (Question of Category yes/no needs more input above)

Seb az86556 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I tend to agree that a separate article listing critics of Falun Gong would probably not be long enough to reasonably exist. However, having a category of critics of Falun Gong and maybe listing in the Academic views on Falun Gong or whatever the names of the critics would probably not be reasonable in this case, until and unless the list gets a lot larger. For what it's worth, I was personally hoping to find more people to include in the list of practicioners as well, but couldn't seem to find any. I don't find any sort of Falun Gong practicioners at adherents.com, which I was kind of hoping to see. If anyone has sources of additional names to add to the list that would meet WP:NOT, please feel free to indicate them so we can see if articles can be created on them. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Potential names for inclusion in the appropriate category, if that's the option taken:
 * Jackie Chan (Personally, I wouldn't, but it's an FA, and we could really use one)
 * Zeng Qinghong (personally, I wouldn't, political opposition does not equal "criticism", same applies to most other government officials)
 * Joseph Zen Ze-kiun (probably would include, but would want more details regarding his criticism in his article)
 * He Zuoxiu (would include)

It isn't as many as I thought, actually. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FLG-related Issues
Just another note: there are other articles which are not in the spotlight that also deserve serious attention: Anyway, all of these articles are home to disruptive editing from both sides, and will not improve without due attention from administrators. It is my view that all these articles in their current revision unmistakably resemble Falun Gong promotional material. I thought it would be relevant to raise these issues now. Colipon+(T) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, there is pervasive blanking and disputes at Academic views on Falun Gong, a recent issue I've noted about serious blanking by User:Asdfg12345 can be seen at Talk:Academic_views_on_Falun_Gong.
 * Articles on Falun Gong media outlets Epoch Times, NTDTV and Shen Yun Performing Arts face similar disputes and issues regarding the removal of well-sourced content, both critical and praise - most notably, editors wish to minimize their identity as Falun Gong-related organizations for whatever reason (also, all of these articles have at one point had "criticism" sections, but they have all been intermittently removed).
 * The Organ Harvesting article has been branded as "Falun Gong propaganda" by several editors, but there is currently no consensus on how to deal with it.
 * Persecution of Falun Gong also faces wide-ranging NPOV disputes and heated verbal exchanges that can be seen at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong.
 * Teachings of Falun Gong also has on-going disputes about some of the more "outlandish" claims of Falun Gong, its views on homosexuals, interracial marriage, etc. There has been what looks like an on-going attempt to whitewash any critical content. Pro-FLG editors also accuse editors of undue weight whenever they wish to insert more unconventional claims into that article. See Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong.
 * Li Hongzhi: perhaps one of the most heavily scrutinized articles. The article gives no hint to Li's status as a controversial figure (which has been noted by mainstream American media TIME, NYT, San Francisco Chronicle etc.) and glorifies him with depictions of awards and benevolence. Margaret Singer, for example, says Li resembles many characteristics of a cult leader. This is given no attention in that article.

Agree. I am of the opinion - expressed on the talk page of Academic views on Falun Gong, that it is a section that belongs in the main article, has since been detached on the initiative of known editors who then a few months later want to decommission the detached section. To me, this reeks of hidden agenda. Moving criticism to a separate article and then closing that article down? No! If there are relevant criticism, they should be included in the main article. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not what happened, PerEdman. The article is approximately three years old, and it has undergone two name changes, neither of which were satisfying (mainly because of their vagueness). It is the ambiguous role of this article that lead to suggestions to close it down. As you see, the content removed by Asdfg12345 was mostly favourable towards Falun Gong; but why should we have an article on "Academic views on Falun Gong", even though all the articles are supposed to incorporate academic views? The article was thus redundant, and no alternative name was proposed until recently. Now that we are talking about devoting the article to overall reception of Falun Gong, the original proposal for deletion is no longer valid, of course.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The presumption that I would believe that slashing a forked article down by 89% not worthy of criticism because the deleted content was "mostly favorable" is incomprehensible. If Asdfg123456 believed the article was redundant, he would hardly have created it to begin with.


 * I do however agree with the basic idea that this article is unnecessary. Criticism of Falun Gong can be and should be reintegrated into the entirety of the Falun Gong article, as per Jimbo Wales quote in WP:Criticism. PerEdman (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The purpose of a "Criticism of..." article should be to allow a more detailed discussion of the criticisms.  Each major criticism or category of criticisms should be mentioned in the main article. The criticism article should not serve as a Siberian gulag to which negative content is banished. --Richard (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to further clarify how "Criticism of ..." articles should work. Just because an article is titled "Criticism of X" doesn't mean that the article gets a free-pass to become a one-sided slam on X.  The ideal is to aim for an NPOV presentation of the criticisms and the key rebuttals.  The only reason "Criticism of X" articles should get pulled out of the main article is because the treatment of the criticisms has started to overwhelm the article itself.  As stated before, a summary of the criticisms and rebuttals should remain in the main article. --Richard (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. The Criticism of Falun Gong article is the place to flesh out any critique, commentary or attention garnered by Falun Gong. The perfect example in my view being the "Margaret Singer controversy" from the Falun Gong article, or the Richardson/Edelman paper in Journal of Church and State. Both of these points need quite a lot of space to be even concisely treated and that's exactly the kind of thing you can do on the off-spun article. PerEdman (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha, just noticed the apparent contrast between my previous comment and this last one. I suppose if I can't have it my way, I'll take any way I can get. :) PerEdman (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did think the content was redundant, actually. Why did I put it there in the first place? Well, I didn't put all of it there. I guess I didn't think about it at the time. Hindsight is useful, right?--Asdfg12345 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if we learn from it, friend. Only if we learn. :) I think you had the right idea, once. There's a lot of things, a lot of people, to do with criticism against Falun Gong and if we put all of it into the main article together with all the rest, we get a big-ass article that nobody's going to read. So I say we stick the most important parts in the main article, and then we flesh out anything that needs fleshing out - What Margaret Singer means when she says "cult", what Edelmann and Richardson (sp?) really means, that kind of thing - in the subpage. PerEdman (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested article
It would really help if we were able to establish a List of Falun Gong practicioners, if we have enough articles regarding such people to make one reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A humble question with raised eyebrows: What would the purpose be? General interest? WP:COI sourcing concerns? Search index? Other? PerEdman (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I am not a fan of this "list frenzy" myself, we do see parallels of these lists with other new-age movements. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, one of the purposes is to establish some sort of other article which other new articles, like Jennifer Zeng, can link to and thus not be orphans. Maybe not the best reason, but it was one of the reasons I considered when making it. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And that in turn could be used to cite some of their work so we don't lose that if the reference is deleted from the article. Or something? I've been in similar situations where A is related to C via B but there's no page C and A really should have some contact to C. If you think a list can do that, I support it. PerEdman (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
As I feel that we must strictly adhere to principles and decisions of the Arbitration in 2007, I have created the following shortcuts for everyone's convenience so we can short-hand when discussing about the arbitration. Any or all acronyms can be used and will all redirect to the same page: Colipon+ (Talk) 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:AFLG
 * 2) WP:ARBFLG
 * 3) WP:FLG-A


 * WP:FLG-A & WP:AFLG are two references to the same arbitration document. My point being, do we need all three links? Eh. Nevermind, it's too early in the morning for me. :) PerEdman (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people remember a different acronym from others... it's common practice with these WP-prefixed pages. :) Here I am giving you three choices - pick the one that suits you. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New Draft
The new draft for the article Falun Gong is found at Talk:Falun Gong/New. You can use the shortcut FLGNEW to access it as well. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting article
I hereby request an article on David Ownby. I feel as though if he is going to be quoted this often he probably has enough notability to warrant for his own article, if for Falun Gong alone. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He would have to meet notability criteria as per WP:PROF. If he does, fine. I do note, I think, that the book itself already meets book notability requirements, and could reasonably have its own page if the material to establish the notability of Ownby cannot be found. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Falun Gong

 * Copied from Talk:Falun Gong --Richard (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, "Criticism of Falun Gong" was renamed "Third party views on Falun Gong" and then "Academic views on Falun Gong", where the article is now. There is no precedent of any other movement, spiritual group, or religious group using the term "Academic views" for an article title. A look thru that page's history and discussion and it will be clear that it's just a euphemism that attempts to avoid the use of the term "criticism" and does not conform with WP:CRITICISM. You will see in revisions like this one that at one point the article on criticism was alive and well before all of this content was removed. It sheds some light, even reviewing revisions of this very article from June 2007, how whitewashed this article has since become; almost all criticism was removed either without reason, or with very shaky legitimacy borrowed from WP policies (usually "this is not a reliable source"). It just seems any form of critcism is so sensitive to some editors (as in, a sentence written about Singer brought about an entire paragraph discrediting her) it makes editing, especially incorporating any kind of critical content, extremely difficult. This problem is chronic in all FLG-related content. This has got to change before any solid work can be done on these articles. Colipon+(T) 14:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Academic views of Falun Gong is a strange title for an article. It's also incredibly short at the moment.  I would favor either moving it back or recreating an article at Criticism of Falun Gong.  There is a solid precedent for articles with titles of the form Criticism of X where X is a religion.  --Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would very much agree to moving article to Criticism of Falun Gong, where it originally was. I also support balanced presentation there - not just negative anti-FLG rhetoric. Please check this revision, Richard, and see if that is a good place to start. However, my feeling is that having an article titled "Criticism of Falun Gong" will face certain opposition from Olaf. Colipon+(T) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How can we have a "Criticism of Falun Gong" article without turning it into a WP:POV fork? You must realise that the 'cult' allegations are intimately tied with the discourse that seeks to legitimise the persecution, and cannot be discussed separately; and if we specifically name the article like that, then where are we going to incorporate "criticism of criticism of Falun Gong"? How would that affect proper contextualisation? Should we also have a separate article for "Praise of Falun Gong"? That wouldn't do, and I wouldn't agree with it, either. The article was named "Academic views on Falun Gong", because we need to have an article that is able to present both sides, so that readers can come to their own conclusions. I think "Reception of Falun Gong" could work even better as a name, and it is also recommended by WP:CRITICISM ("criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections.") Devoting an article entirely for negative "criticism" would mean that we could never get rid of cherry-picking and undue weight.


 * I could support Reception of Falun Gong although Criticism of X is a more common form of title for religions, despite what WP:CRITICISM may say. The way to keep it from being a POV fork is to summarize every major section of the subsidiary article in this article and make sure that all reliable rebuttals are included in Criticism of Falun Gong so that this article doesn't wind up providing a neutral to positive POV while Criticism of Falun Gong provides only the negative POV. --Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reception of Buddhism", "Reception of Hinduism" etc. would not work at all; we really don't have that much access to sources created at the time of, say, Siddhartha Gautama. But Falun Gong has been taught publicly only since 1992. In my opinion, a Reception article is the only viable option, because it can also present a chronological narrative of Falun Gong's reception in the PRC in the early years. Moreover, the term "criticism of Falun Gong" already carries a certain meaning established in an anti-FLG context, see .  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  06:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never said there aren't problems with the current articles, but they should be resolved by incorporating diverse content from reliable sources. We have already recognised that POV pushing is a major issue on these pages, so why fan the flames and create an environment that effectively fosters such behaviour?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Olaf, the POV fork argument just doesn't hold water. Look at Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of atheism, even Criticism of Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You did not comment on what I said, e.g. my reference to the recommendation on WP:CRITICISM. Besides, I don't think any of the articles you mentioned have faced as serious problems as we have. I am not going to agree with an article that deliberately leaves out any "criticism of criticism", including what has been said about the 'cult' allegations in reliable sources. That would also violate the core policies. Casual readers are unlikely to familiarise themselves with the entire corpus of articles, and excessive differentiation of themes would only lead to fractured contexts, thus distorting the relationship between the parts and the whole.


 * But you missed another point: even if we have an article named "Criticism of Falun Gong", it still wouldn't mean that it could be devoted to "negative" criticism, i.e. sources that make Falun Gong look bad. This is the idea I am opposing, because you may have such intents. WP:POV fork states: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." I am opposing the name just because the word "criticism" is easily misunderstood (see my previous reply).  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are convinced you are "right" and that I am "wrong", that's fair. I am not here to convince you that anyone is right over anyone else. But really, right now as it stands all of these Falun Gong articles are nothing more than POV forks themselves set up to present FLG in only a positive light. It's not hard to see that the articles are whitewashed of criticism. So many third-party editors have come onto this page to express this. Colipon+(T) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are issues with these articles, and practically all of us have agreed on that even before the mediation case. I am concerned about what seem like structural modifications that would only serve the interests of some editors. Instead of building a consensus, you seem to want to have your own arena just to make Falun Gong look bad without distraction. If some editors have been here to "whitewash" criticism, then your objective doesn't differ that much: you just want to denigrate, throw in some black paint and take your revenge. Honestly, Colipon, I haven't seen too many expressions of consensus-building and collaborative mentality in your writings, even though it was the only way pointed out to us by the mediator.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. While I would not mind your continued ad hominem attacks against myself, Vassyana particularly reminded us to not engage in this back-and-forth exchange of rhetoric and refrain from personal attacks. I have avoided making any personal commentary against you. I only ask you to do the same. You will not convince me, I will not convince you. We seem to assume each other's bad faith. That's fine with me. I'm just fed up with SPAs, I'm fed up with article ownership, I'm fed up with arbitration principles being violated over and over again, and I am certainly not alone. Look at OhConfucius, a good faith editor who has been accused of a sockpuppet of Sam Luo and who has written an entire rant about these pages, look at PCPP and Simon, both personally attacked repeatedly for being lapdogs of CCP, look at Mrund, a fellow Scandinavian who was also discredited and attacked for no good reason and who wrote a blog about this article to express his frustration, even just look at your commentary on John Carter below... Colipon+(T) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Asdfg12345's blanking of major sections of Academic views on Falun Gong as it seemed obvious from the Talk Page that there were objections to it and not much support for it. We should probably leave which discussion of which past revision is best to the article's Talk Page but since we have started the discussion of the article's title here, we may as well continue it here. I prefer Criticism of Falun Gong over Reception of Falun Gong but I can support "Reception of...". Does anybody have strong objections or to either or these article titles? I see this decision as being relatively minor and the real issue being how to clean up the article once it is renamed to allow all views, not just "academic" ones. --Richard (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support "Reception of Falun Gong" and strongly oppose "Criticism of Falun Gong" per CRITICISM, and because 'Criticism' can be erroneously understood to mean only negative criticism. Besides, the risk of anything in these articles to become a POV fork is highly elevated, and since we have so much "criticism of criticism" available in reliable sources, it must be included and given due weight.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer "Criticism of Falun Gong" over "Reception of Falun Gong". To me, reception is just another euphemism to avoid using "Criticism" in the title. These euphemisms swim in Falun Gong-related articles like it's no one's business. I'm really tired of using these euphemisms. But if the majority of users support "reception" I will go with that. Colipon+(T) 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also tend to agree. The argument about how people might "misunderstand" the meaning of the word "criticism" in the title is not I believe a factor which would gain any support from the people at WP:NC or the appropriate noticeboard, which I think would probably be WP:CNB, although anyone seeking to protest the use of the word on that basis could easily post a message there and see what sort of response is gotten. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think "self-criticism" during China's Great Cultural Revolution meant giving a balanced evaluation of one's good and bad sides? No. People were forced to produce "either written or verbal statements detailing how they had been ideologically mistaken, and affirming their new belief in the party line." When the CCP talks of "criticism of Falun Gong", there's nothing but anti-FLG propaganda involved. For instance, one Reuters article published on January 15, 2001 says: "Last week, state media published a barrage of criticism of Falun Gong and Li, its exiled leader, accusing them of being a cheap tool of Western forces trying to topple the Communist Party."  We must be sensitive to the context and the environment. The reason I'm opposing the term 'criticism' is that, given this context, it already sets a certain tone, whereas 'reception' is completely neutral. Honestly, I cannot understand the real reasons for using the former term, especially since WP:Criticism says that "it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections", just to make it clear that the article is not merely intended to gather stuff that argues there's something wrong with the subject.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos  &#9997;  21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another thing. Falun Gong has been taught publicly since 1992. We have access to various reliable sources that describe the reception of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China during the early years. In order to present a cohesive overall picture, it is crucial to include this information in the same article. There are some interesting differences in the pre-crackdown discourses and the post-crackdown discourses, as the 'cult' allegation only surfaced with the latter. And as I said above, the term 'reception' cannot be argued against based on some subtle tones of meaning that it carries in various cultures. I see no point in opposing it, aside from attempts to make use of the popular connotations of 'criticism'.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  06:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support "Criticism of Falun Gong" and oppose "Reception of Falun Gong". But the main article must of course also refer to criticism to avoid a POV fork. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support "Criticism of Falun Gong" but I do not oppose "Reception of Falun Gong". Either one would be okay although I think "Criticism of Falun Gong" would be better.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did anyone consider that having a "Criticism of Falun Gong" article would necessitate having a "Praise of Falun Gong" article? Does that not seem silly? Really, this article should have been called "Reception of Falun Gong" all along. --Asdfg12345 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no one considered that because it is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by "criticism". In this sense, "criticism" is simply commentary by outsiders, good or bad. Also, if there were the slightest chance that there would be a need for the "praise" articles to which the above editor refers, I am virtually certain that any of the other philosophies or religious groups which already have such "criticism" articles would by this time also have "praise" articles. I don't remember having ever seen any such "praise" articles, however. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * John perhaps you are right in the USA, but for the ex-communist countries I can assure you that criticism there strongly means the following quote (taken from the criticism page) "The term can be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Falun Gong is not a literary piece, nor a painting, nor a musical composition. It is not an aesthetic object. If it belonged to one of these ontological areas, your arguments would sound perfectly valid. But "in other contexts," as pointed out in the Wikipedia article on criticism, "the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism."  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Olaf, READ the entire article if you're going to pick cherries from it. This is an academic context. Are you just hoping no-one will check up on your throwaway references and trust you on your word? PerEdman (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is here: "In literary and academic contexts, the term most frequently refers to literary criticism, art criticism, or other such fields, and to scholars' attempts to understand the aesthetic object in depth. In these contexts the term "critic," used without qualification, most frequently refers to a scholar of literature or another art form. In other contexts, the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism." Is this literary criticism? Art criticism? Other such field? A scholar's attempt to understand the aesthetic object in depth? Are we talking about scholars of literature or another art form? What is your point?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Reception of Falun Gong, because frankly I don't see how "Criticism of Falun Gong" could work based on WP:CRITICISM --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * John Carter, why do you disagree with just making it "Reception of Falun Gong" ? --Asdfg12345 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading Olaf's lengthy commentary and a barrage of other comments and on this issue I am now even less convinced that "Reception of Falun Gong" will be a viable option. Olaf's idea that people might "misunderstand" this title (Olaf: because 'Criticism' can be erroneously understood to mean only negative criticism) made me solidify my belief that naming an article "Reception of Falun Gong" has to do more with POV-pushing than anything else, and is a deliberate attempt to avoid using the word "Criticism". John Carter makes excellent points about comparisons to other religious articles, which I feel has not been refuted adequately. I must say my support is now behind "Criticism of Falun Gong". I am not surprised that this is facing such uncharacteristic opposition from editors like Olaf and asdfg. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia after all and there is a essay cited by you and Olaf about WP:CRITICISM. Also there is WP:NPOV and isn't Reception already as neutral as it can be? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Colipon, just yesterday you suggested "level-headed" editors to agree with you on restoring a two-year old revision of the article, one that's basically an anti-FLG essay violating every Wikipedia content policy, written by User:Samuel Luo and User:Tomananda who were investigated by the ArbCom and found guilty of things like being a "prominent anti-Falun Gong activist", "promoting a viewpoint consistent with [...] outside activism", and "attempting to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy". This certainly made me solidify my belief about why you want an article called Criticism and why you oppose to Reception.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, trying to advertise Luo's ban and then trying to instigate that I somehow have a connection to Luo does not somehow conclude that all content in that revision is invalid. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. It just shows that you are ready to accept, support, and even endorse egregious POV pushing, as long as the POV is yours.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how constantly attacking me and accusing me of these things is helping improve the article. I am trying to be as non-hostile to you as possible, Olaf, and when I speak of you I only talk about your edits or your postings, not you. I do not use ad hominem attacks against you, and I expect you to do the same, out of politeness and respect, if not out of good faith. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not attacking you. I am holding you accountable for your words. In your past, you have expressed a desire to "expose" Falun Gong in the style of Samuel Luo, and despite several simple requests, you've never retracted those words. How can you expect to cultivate a cooperative atmosphere by actually endorsing Samuel's version of the article and hoping for "level-headed" editors to support you? How can you not come across as someone who's here only because he has an ax to grind? Tell me, Colipon! I, too, am trying to be non-hostile to you, and I genuinely expected that the mediation case would make us focus on developing the content of these articles. Because you are "unconvinced at this point that anything other than a user ban will be effective", it seems to me that you've tried to stir up a ruckus, and that's why you only focus on the problems (and their perceived causes) instead of the solutions. You've constantly tried to frame my edits as "personal attacks", even though they very clearly address your arguments and your words on Wikipedia. All of this seems to me like an attempt to scream and shout: "Look! Look! I'm so hurt! Get this guy off me! Ban him for good!" Even your excessive focus on Asdfg12345's blanking of Academic views on Falun Gong looked like just another attempt to build a "case". You didn't revert, you took "no partial position on whether the blanking is in relation to positive or negative content", but you still kept touting it as an example of terrible "abuse" on these pages.


 * We all agree that the status quo of the articles is not good, but instead of developing them to better meet the Wikipedia requirements, I have perceived your conduct as attempts to undermine any hints of consensus-building. Nobody has edit warred on these pages after the mediation case, or tried to enforce some particular wording, but you still conceptualise the situation as if all hell was breaking loose and disruptive editors were jealously clutching onto each and every element of the current articles. Our mediator pointed out the way to proceed: WP:BRD and utilisation of community noticeboards. Are you doing that? No. You just want to get editors banned, because you're "sick and tired" of argumentative discussion. In other words, there's too much pressure, the work is too demanding, and your desired outcome is still uncertain (because deep inside you know that there are more reliable sources that question and expose the anti-FLG discourse; the Chinese-speaking world may be different, but that's how the situation stands in the English-speaking world of Western academia and mainstream press). Am I correct? Note that I'm not trying to put words into your mouth or thoughts into your head; I am just writing down my assessment of the current situation, and it may or may not be correct.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some new info here: A search for "Reception of" is not convincing me that anything similar to a movement like Falun Gong should have a "reception of" title. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not an answer to any of the concerns raised above, nor does it address the recommendation on WP:Criticism. I'd like to hear your say on those matters.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, your WP:Criticism contention has been adequately addressed by John Carter long ago, and also addressed in this very discussion. Please just read it. If you have issues with it, John Carter said you could always go to the noticeboard. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I have not seen this sentence addressed: "[I]t is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections." Besides, the other arguments are still unanswered. Let me reiterate. A) The term 'Criticism of Falun Gong' is a part of the existing anti-FLG discourse and the persecution (violently converted practitioners are forced to write "criticisms of Falun Gong" in detention centers and labour camps to indicate their allegiance to the Party line); B) the meaning of 'criticism' in Communist and post-Communist countries is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, and the CCP's campaign against Falun Gong greatly resembles it; C) 'Reception' is a perfectly neutral term that carries no such load from any point of view; moreover, it allows for better inclusion of sources about how Falun Gong was received in China in the early years (the pre-crackdown discourse); D) The Wikipedia article on criticism currently says that "in other contexts [outside the ontological areas of music, literature, and other arts], the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism."  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first other point seems to me to fairly clearly not assume good faith of others. While I acknowledge the "recommendation" is valid. The meaning of "criticism" in communist countries which do not generally speak English is not particularly relevant to the English wikipedia, and is thus not of particular importance in this wikipedia, although I acknowledge it might be relevant elsewhere. The third point is not unreasonable. The fourth point, referring to an alternate meaning of the word with the implication that it is the primary meaning, is not particularly well taken. Having said all that, I do acknowledge that "Reception" would also be an acceptable term for use in the title. The current title, using the phrase "Academic views" is I think though clearly problematic. It would seem to limit itself to exclusively academic views, and such views are not the only relevant ones. Leaders of other churches, for instance, may well have made comments regarding Falun Gong which deserve inclusion in such an article, even though the leaders of such bodies might well not qualify as "academic". John Carter (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I probably did not express my first point clearly enough. I didn't mean to say that the supporters of the 'Criticism' title would want to link it to these "criticisms of Falun Gong". I just meant that a corresponding Chinese word is used in converting Falun Gong practitioners and making them "repent", and the CCP also talks of "criticism of Falun Gong" in its anti-FLG campaign directed at the public, so the term does carry some of these connotations, whether we want it or not. In most other cases (Criticism of Buddhism, etc.), that is definitely not the case. It goes without saying that the phrase "Academic views" is problematic, and we all want to get rid of that.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those connotations however would only be known by a very small minority of the possible readers, and it is a serious question, although I admit a real one, whether we are ever to construct articles based on how a comparatively small segement of the potential readership would read it. We are, after all, meant for the general reader. That means that we should be constructing it, for the most part, toward being able to be understood by people who are not familiar with the topic already. And, as stated before, it is also intended for people who primarily read English, and I'm not sure how many people who would even know the corresponding Chinese word would be coming to the English wikipedia, rather than to the Chinese one. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is not about whether they know the corresponding Chinese word. This is a heavily China-related subject, and anyone who knows something about the recent history of Chinese society, or history of Communism, does recognise these connotations of the word 'criticism'. It is definitely not a small minority of possible readers. English is the lingua franca of today, and this Wikipedia reaches a global audience. I assure you that the situation in Europe or Asia is different from the U.S. in this regard. Another point, namely that the word's primary meaning depends on the ontological area in question, should also be addressed; you simply called it "not particularly well taken". Let me ask it this way: what are the problems in using the word "Reception", when it is both a recommendation and a neutral term, and it allows for better coverage of the pre-crackdown reception of Falun Gong?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what your view of Wikipedia as a whole is, but for me it's a place to go for anyone new to a subject. A primer, if you like, on any subject in the entire world. What you are saying above is that people who are already very knowledgeable of China, Chinese society and the history of Communism, these highly knowledgeable people, may misunderstand the meaning of the English word "criticism" and so the title of the article should be changed - to the detriment of almost all other readers for the benefit of a highly skilled minority who know a whole lot about China, but not the word criticism? I think you shall have to convince me that this is any significant minority before I can accept that argument against the name "Criticism of Falun Gong" as the article title. Do you have any numbers on how many these people are, and how many of those would be looking for the article in question on English Wikipedia? Perhaps this can be resolved simply by putting a wikilink to the word "criticism" in the lede? Or even explain it in the lede? PerEdman (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. If you don't know something, it doesn't mean that a significant minority wouldn't know it. Next, I expect you to address all of these points: 1) the word's primary meaning depends on the ontological area in question; 2) the word allows for better coverage of the pre-crackdown reception of Falun Gong; 3) what are the problems in using the word "Reception", if, by your definition, it means exactly the same thing?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Criticism of Falun Gong as thisis the defacto standard for articles on criticism. PerEdman (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How does your "defacto standard" overrule the recommendation on WP:Criticism?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The existing consensus, as per WP:CONSENSUS, seems to prefer that title over the existing one. The "recommendation", which is after all only a recommendation, is something to be considered, but not necessarily to be seen as dictating an outcome. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is this "existing consensus" you are talking about? The votes given above? Are you sure the community does not actually prefer "Reception" in controversial cases (because nobody has changed the recommendation on WP:Criticism), but the naming of the existing "Criticism" articles has not been disputed by anyone, and thus they are left intact?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for John Carter, but I mean de facto in its most common meaning. The recommendation from WP:Criticism is to place criticism evenly throughout an article where relevant, but the practical state of articles today is that "Criticism of..." is the standard. If you want to change that, you have your work cut out for you:
 * Criticism of Christianity
 * Criticism of Judaism
 * Criticism of Islam
 * Criticism of Buddhism
 * Criticism of Hinduism
 * Criticism of socialism
 * Criticism of libertarianism
 * Search for "Criticism of "
 * Not "academic attention", not "critique" or "critical reception"... and not a single one of them lacking in dispute, I assure you. If someone were to go looking for the article on criticism of Falun Gong, they would not start with the search term "Academic attention", so this is a matter of style, consistency and accessibility as much as it is a question of recommendations. If you do want to standardize Wikipedia, I welcome it! PerEdman (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the articles you mentioned could be named "Reception of..."; all of these topics have been with us for several hundred or even thousands of years. The recommendation stays on WP:Criticism, and my point is perfectly valid: it appears that in controversial cases, or where the word "criticism" could possibly be misconstrued, the community does support "Reception". If we cannot reach an agreement on this, we should request for comments on some Wikipedia noticeboard by presenting all the arguments for and against using either one of these words. As long as we get enough editors taking part in the discussion, I will accept the outcome.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that none of those articles should be named "Reception of...", and neither should the Falun Gong counterpart. Which noticeboard did you have in mind to resolve such a failure to reach agreement? PerEdman (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "Criticism of..". Per WP:CRITICISM and because it would terribly narrow down the range of topics we could discuss in it, I support "Reception of Falun Gong" - which is neutral and allows for discussion of various perspectives, as opposed to something like "Praise of Falun Gong" or "Criticism of Falun Gong". Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stronly support "Criticism of..." for reasons given under Comment (see below). Read through the string three times and couldn't find any other argument apart from the one regurgitated ad infinitum. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?
What about just Critical Reception of Falun Gong? That seems to be a good balanced name. Agree? disagree? comment? Colipon+ (Talk) 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If, by your definition, "criticism" and "reception" mean the same thing, that's what the Swedish call tårta på tårta, or an unnecessary repetition of the same concept. But I don't think that's the case; even if you don't admit it, I suppose you are aware that the words have different connotations in this context, with "reception" making no value judgments whatsoever and "criticism" having a negative tinge to it.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't be necessary. As PerE has documented, "Criticism of xyz" is a common article title on Wikipedia. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Critical reception" is a term in use (237 000 Google hits) and do not agree with Olaf that it would be a tautology (Please use English, not Swedish on Talk pages), but due to the context and the defacto standard, I need to see better arguments against the "Criticism of ..." form before I can agree that any other variant is better. PerEdman (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Counting votes
Okay so we have the regular balance of views then - Olaf, Happy, dilip for "reception", and PerEdman, Mrund, myself for "criticism". Edward, Richard and John Carter favourable towards "criticism" but not altogether opposed to "reception". Votes as of now favour "criticism" over "reception". Do we consider this enough votes to warrant action on the move? Remember that if we cannot agree on this the article stays at "Academic views", which is something that none of us want. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be working quite well at Talk:Falun Gong actually. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several unanswered points in the discussion above. If we cannot reach a consensus here, we'll have to go to the community noticeboards and present arguments in favour of and against both alternatives.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And then you'll submit to the discussion on the noticeboard, but not to a discussion on the project talk page? Is that correctly understood? PerEdman (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Unmistakably filibustering. Probably want to look at that 2005 Quebec Superior Court case (Judge Jeannine M. Rouseau) which concludes: "Falun Gong is a controversial movement. It does not accept criticism." As it stands right now, it speaks volumes to this discussion. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As to "several unanswered points"; I can identify only the argument that "criticism can be taken to mean negative criticism only", an argument I mean to be irrelevant to the content of the article. It will not be negative only, it will be clearly written, it will not be possible for anyone more interested than a casual reader with a preexisting bias, to interpret the word "Criticism" as negative-only. Is there any other "unanswered point" that I fail to see, Olaf? PerEdman (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment
One of the main points raised against "criticism" seems to be that in the new-speak of the Chinese government, the word has been turned into a witchhunt-tool. That point is well taken. Nonetheless, said point is absolutely out of place -- we are writing in and for the English wikipedia. Those who are against the use of the word "criticism" are actually endorsing Chinese policy. I am not willing to have the English language butchered and re-defined by Chinese authorities. If there was a wikipedia article where the phrase "final solution" was appropriate, I would use that phrase, regardless of what Hitler said, because I am not a Nazi and extremists should be ignored rather than get their way. Seb az86556 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the Chinese authorities. It is nearly one half of the entire world, the former Eastern bloc of countries. I recommend you read books such as Paul Hollander's From the Gulag to the Killing Fields: Personal Accounts of Political Violence and Repression in Communist States (2006). The similarities between other Communist political campaigns and the persecution of Falun Gong have been extensively discussed in reliable research, and this discourse is highly pertinent to the subject, whether we agree with it or not.


 * Again, I remind you that there are several points above that haven't been addressed at all.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can address other points later ("one at a time"). The other examples you bring up are once again of people regimes whose views no sane person should be willing to endorse, even indirectly. That should de-bunk this one argument. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the meaning of a word is never separate from the discourses that employ it. Language is intersubjective, contextual, and shaped by human actions. Ignoring these aspects runs counter to the nature of language itself; and when this is intentional, the connotations are exploited to cast the subject in a certain light.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well taken. This is English. Use an English context, e.g. the context which the vast majority of English speakers deploy the word in on a daily basis. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no one "English context". As for the use of the word in everyday language, the following description is given on the Wikipedia article on criticism (emphasis mine): "In literary and academic contexts, the term most frequently refers to literary criticism, art criticism, or other such fields, and to scholars' attempts to understand the aesthetic object in depth. In these contexts the term "critic," used without qualification, most frequently refers to a scholar of literature or another art form. In other contexts, the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism. Sometimes context, and the contentiousness of the subject, are the only differentiating factors between these two approaches. In politics, for instance (as in the phrase "criticism of U.S. foreign policy"), criticism almost exclusively refers to disagreement—while in an academic, artistic, or literary context (as in "criticism of Romantic poetry") it usually refers to the activity of subtle interpretation or analysis."


 * May I ask you: did you not know about these context-dependent uses of the word?  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  20:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not get into a personal debate. As for your quote, it's from a "multiple-issues" article, including "disputed," so do not present it as evidence. And no, I did not know that "criticism" in China means something different from the English context. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not up for quibbling. Those are the meanings of the word in English. Let's continue this discussion when you have found an encyclopedia that claims otherwise.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How are those other contexts under which "criticism" takes on another meaning relevant to the articles on Falun gong? In what way do you believe it will become a problem in this particular case. That it may conceivably become a problem in some contexts, especially where the writers botch the job, I believe everyone can agree to. PerEdman (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand this, really. If you want to create an article of "Criticism of Falun Gong", wouldn't there also be an article called "Praise of Falun Gong," just to keep things neutral? What kind of joke would that be. Or is criticism somehow more relevant than praise? Why on earth wouldn't we just call it "Reception of Falun Gong" and be done with it. Included therein should be all the reception, not just criticism. And yes, "criticism" is a synonym with "negative" most of the time; I don't see why we can't just avoid this POV conflict and just call it reception. The bone of contention now seems to be arguing about how "criticism" can have other definitions, rather than acknowledging that it means negative, and just calling the page Reception.--Asdfg12345 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see you missed the entire discussion about the meaning of "Criticism". All the better for you, actually. In academic contexts such as Wikipedia and the articles we use as sources, even in daily newspapers, the word "Criticism" both means positive, negative and neutral commentary on a subject matter. This is why someone who reviews films for a magazine is called a "critic" even when he or she is positively glowing about a certain flick.
 * The article on criticism of Falun Gong would contain the very same things that a "Reception" article would. Outside responses, what people say about Falun Gong - good and bad. People who have no opinion, or have a neutral opinion, have a tendency not to scream that opinion from the mountaintops, for various reasons. PerEdman (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a field of "literary criticism", "art criticism", or "other such field", nor is it about "scholars' attempts to understand the aesthetic object in depth". Seriously. I'm not going to argue about this, it's common sense to any educated English speaker. Falun Gong is a contentious subject, and in this context (as in other similar contexts), "the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism". The following dictionaries all acknowledge this meaning: The Free Dictionary (primary meaning of the noun: "1. fault-finding or censure") ; Merriam-Webster (primary meaning: "1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably") ; Dictionary.com (secondary meaning: "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding") ; Answers.com (primary meaning of the noun in thesaurus: "A comment expressing fault: blame, censure, condemnation, denunciation, reprehension, reprobation. Informal pan. Slang knock. See praise/blame.") . How much more do you need? You told me to use "the context which the vast majority of English speakers deploy the word in on a daily basis". You got it, dude.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude: a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner. fastidious: scornful. Please refrain from personal attacks by using the words dude and fastidious according to all possible meanings recorded in Webster's dictionary. Failing to do so will constitute a violation of WP:PA. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does take an educated English speaker to know the multiple uses of criticism, but I do not agree that all of them are relevant to the Wikipedia article about Falun Gong. No-one is suggesting that the word "criticism" should be used in isolation where it can be construed to mean "anything". It be quite clear that the article thusly named contains more than "comments expressing fault". It's hardly the only heteronym in the English language and it won't be the first one abolished from Wikipedia because it can be taken to mean more than one thing.


 * But let me turn the question around: What would it take for you to accept the use of the word "Criticism" as a heading for the article on criticism of Falun Gong? If you cannot imagine such a circumstance, you cannot discuss and you cannot agree. PerEdman (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only case would be if all the arguments above (both in favour of and against the use of either word) were presented on a community or RfC noticeboard, and a significant number of uninvolved editors would agree on it.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do this tomorrow.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (undent) Why is a "community" or RfC noticeboard more relevant, more convincing to you - with the same arguments - than this project talk page? PerEdman (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because this project talk page is swarming with editors on a mission. There's Colipon, who has systematically refused to retract his sympathies to Samuel Luo's agenda; there's Martin, who was off-wiki canvassing in March 2008: "I think it would be good if some of Aard's readers joined me in making improvements to the article. [...] Let's leave the pro-FG and anti-government material untouched and just introduce a solid anti-FG perspective." ; there's Seb az86556, who seems to have been invited by Ohconfucius – or at least his words arouse suspicions : "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"...". On the other hand, community noticeboards are relatively free from people with an ax to grind, and their use was recommended by our mediator. If you are sincerely interested in neutrality, none of you should oppose using them extensively.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  12:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks and partisan propaganda has never helped a subject matter. PerEdman (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A reminder: "Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked." Do you mean to say normal talk page discussion has broken down at this point? Please note that I am not arguing that you should not use the RfC noticeboards, I am simply making sure that you know how they are normally used. PerEdman (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These very personal accusations need to stop. Focus on the topic at hand. I have no agenda. I don't even remember Sam Luo ever replying to me. I did not follow the arbitration process when it happened in 2007, and for the last two years I have only visited these articles occasionally to watch them morph into their sorry state now, my efforts at improving it futile because of the constant hostility. Saying that I need to "deny having an agenda" with Sam Luo is absurd because there is nothing to deny. I have endorsed all third-party appraisals of the articles so far and I have called for their implementation. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how we have had several basically uninvolved editors already give their input that "Criticism of Falun Gong" is preferred, asking noticeboards in this case would not be reasonable, nor would it indeed even be necessary. If anything it is just another attempt at stalling the discussion so no move takes place. This needs to stop. Nothing is getting done. Move this article already. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. There are more arguments in favour of "Reception" than criticism, and many of them have been presented after the editors have given their comments. All of the above arguments must be addressed properly and logically, only then we can proceed. Saying that they are refuted does not amount to refuting them. Not taking part in the discussion means dropping out of the consensus-forming process. At the moment, the fastest way would be to get input from community noticeboards. I remind you again of what is said in WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion."  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The chief argument that was given in favour of "Criticism" was that it's a perfectly neutral term. I have proven above how this is not true (see the dictionary references). By now, the only NPOV choice is "Reception".  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  07:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The only person who has used the term "perfectly neutral term" is you, on 15:21, 7 August 2009. Characterizing the arguments of others in your own words can be used to show understanding, but it can also be misunderstood as a straw man argument, so let's be careful. You have pointed out that the word can be used ambigously, which no-one has denied. What we deny is that the word criticism should be avoided for the reasons you have pointed out before as A), B), C) or D). Wikieditors should take care to provide background for terms used. In my view, using "Criticism" as the title of an article containing the content currently on the page, does not constitute such ambiguity or any greater risk that any significant number of readers will interpret the wording as an expression of your example A) from 15:21, 7 August 2009. Counter-arguments? Specific numbers as to affected readers? PerEdman (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but as long as there are so many reasons not to use the word, and the community recommendation in controversial cases is "Reception" per WP:Criticism, and no arguments have been presented against the neutrality of the term "Reception", your case is not very strong. Of course, we can always take this to the WP:CNB noticeboard, as suggested by User:John Carter above, if we make sure that all the arguments are laid out clearly and concisely.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tell me what I am missing. You say the word "criticism" can be misunderstood to mean "only negative criticism". That's one reason to refrain from using the word, not so many. The community essay recommendation from WP:Criticism sadly does not hold a single candle against the defacto use of the "Criticism of..." form. But we can't just rehashing the very same claims over and over again, that's not a discussion. You must make others believe that you have read and understood the arguments of others, or this is not a discussion. If you cannot do that, then the noticeboards are certainly the right place to continue. PerEdman (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to go RfC or Noticeboard this. With Seb's newest addition it's quite clear that the balance has tipped towards "Criticism" over "Reception". The only people who persisitently want "reception" are dilip, HappyInGeneral, and Olaf. And only Olaf has managed to come up with a few coherent arguments on why - all of which have been either irrelevant or refuted handily by a multitude of editors (not to mention he chooses moments to launch into interludes of unproductive personal attacks). Colipon+ (Talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion, not voting. Logical arguments will never be overruled by straw polls. The community recommendation on WP:Criticism is on our side, and besides, Seb was e-mailed by Ohconfucius about a "total war" on the Falun Gong articles. We shall RfC to see if the arguments are "either irrelevant or refuted handily". Enough said.  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I ask again: What would cause you to rethink your view of the "Criticism of..." form? Last time I asked your answer was that you would be convinced if an RfC noticeboard was given all the same arguments already and they decided on something, and that's not quite what I had in mind. If I am being unclear, I'd be happy to clarify. PerEdman (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The current arguments in favour of the 'Reception' title are so well-founded and logical that its opponents must come up with a good set of rebuttals before I would consider changing my view. Apart from some vague references to "de facto standards" (that have never been explicated in any Wikipedia article), they haven't produced any arguments that would oppose the word "Reception". Let me restate: it is a community recommendation; it is perfectly NPOV; it allows for better coverage of the pre-crackdown events; the topic does not belong into an ontological area reviewed by art or literary criticism; the primary meaning of the word does not leave room for misconstruction; and it is 100% free from the baggage of Communist political campaigns. All of these are valid arguments; if you disagree, let's go to the community noticeboards and see if they are "either irrelevant or refuted handily".  &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that WP:CRITICISM is an essay, which, according to the box on the top of the page, "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion". An essay is according to WP:ESSAY "the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established." Essays are by definition no form of official policy or guidelines, but rather a statement of opinion by one or more editors which has, more often than not, failed to receive sufficient support to become anything more official. It is, basically, a statement of opinion by one or more editors. It has nothing remotely like any sort of official standing in wikipedia, and it would be misleading and inaccurate for anyone to indicate otherwise. It is in fact a gross misstatement of fact to indicate that that page has "community consensus", as has been stated above. So, basically, it is an idea, nothing more. The above statement that it is a community recommendation is misleading, as it is one group of editors recommendation to the community, but in no way any sort of recommendation of the broader community to any group of editors dealing with the subject. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How were the eight hypertext wikilinks to articles named "Criticism of..." vague? I haven't claimed the wikipage belongs to the same area as art or literary criticism, I said it belongs to academia. Repeating ones own arguments and pretending not to notice the arguments of others is hardly a discussion. PerEdman (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, Dilip rajeev and HappyInGeneral, you also voted against the change, one way or another. Since Olaf Stephanos may not be able to continue his side of the argument, would any of you like to expound on your opinions? As you can see above, I was most interested in the opinion that "Criticism" should not be used because it can be misunderstood. Asdfg12345, I think I noticed you making a similar argument, would you care to continue that discussion?


 * The article certainly needs a name change, because I believe that the critical evaluation of Faun Gong is coming from all quarters, and not just the academic arena. I think 'Reception' is another namby-pamby title, just like 'Academic views'. I would support the "Criticism" title, as would I "Critique". For reasons of convention, the former is better; for reasons of lack of ambiguity, I prefer the latter. On balance, as this is en:WP, I believe we should follow convention. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you wait 1 or 2 days for me, right now I'm in vacation and my internet access is not so good. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have already stated your opinion within reasonable time. I have no problem with waiting for another two days for you to argue your points. In fact, I insist each vote should be kept open 1-2 days to let all time-zone-denziens the chance to voice their view. :) PerEdman (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ("Critique" is a subcategory reserved for works in the arts. That's what we do in art school Seb az86556 (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Support Criticism it's good enough for mainstream religions, it's good enough for the FLG.Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - But is "Criticism" normally used of other spiritual practices? / PerEdman  18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spiritual Practice is a term used by various adherents of religions, similar to an Endonym Seb az86556 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have about 128 article pages using the term "spiritual practice" as per here. Personally, I don't know how many even have multiple articles yet, so I don't know, but I have no reason to think that the answer would be any different for those articles than for other religious/spiritual traditions. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments we've heard so far... (Summary for reference)

 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] The word criticism has more than one meaning and could lead to misunderstandings, such exclusively negative criticism
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] The word criticism has been redefined by the Chinese government and can therefore not be used in this context
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] The word reception is neutral
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] The word criticism will invite a POV-fork
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] Any Criticism of-article mandates a Praise for-article
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] The word reception would allow for inclusion of pre-persecution events
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] WP:CRITICISM is a rule that strictly forbids such wording
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] The word reception is a better choice because of historical circumstances and the topic's recentness
 * [[Image:Red x.svg|20px]] A majority opinion is to be overruled since wikipedia is not a democracy, and the minority should prevail


 * Number of individuals holding these opinion(s): 4


 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] Many other articles concerning religions/belief-systems are titled Criticism of and this one should be in line with that de facto standard
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] The possible different meanings of criticism are "fringe-meanings" and do not apply for most readers
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] In common English usage, the word criticism has not been appropriated by the Chinese government
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] The word reception constitutes a euphemism
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] Criticism of-articles do not mandate Praise for-articles because the word criticism simply means any commentary by outsiders, negative and positive
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] Not using the word criticism will be to the detriment of the majority of readers who are not intimately familiar with the Chinese context
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] WP:CRITICISM is not a rule but an essay, a recommendation
 * [[Image:Green check.svg|20px]] Not using the word criticism would be a tacit endorsement of Chinese newspeak


 * Number of individuals holding these opinion(s): 9

--


 * What on earth is this? You put some ticks and crosses and tally some numbers and that is supposed to close the deal? I'm taking this to a community noticeboard now.--Asdfg12345 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A summary, that's all it is. To keep track of the long string above, and not to get lost in it. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it would probably be better placed on the talk page of the appropriate article, where it is if nothing else less likely to be archived as soon. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's for quick reference and goes with the discussion above. Seb az86556 (talk)

Content of criticism page and summary section
This seems to me to be likely to be the most agreeable "compromise" regarding what negative "criticism" of Falun Gong to include and how to phrase it, but I would welcome any other input. Granted, this doesn't address how much space to give them individually, or where to place such information. In this regard, my own preferences, which are clearly just those of an individual, would be to place the statements of the books in first priority and importance, because the practice is, more or less, based on those books. Verifiable beliefs of practicioners would be of secondary importance. Chinese government allegations would be of tertiary importance, and, unless supported somehow by significant reference in some independent reliable sources or by either of the other two, maybe shouldn't even be in all cases specifically mentioned. Something similar would probably to my eyes also be the best way to structure the content, with material from the book first, practicioners second, and Chinese government allegations third. I also think that if there are reliable independent sources indicating that practicioners hold some beliefs, and apparently ascribe those beliefs to their involvement in Falun Gong, whether mentioned in the books or not, it would be reasonable to include such information, although not necessarily of the same priority as information from books. Our Lady of Fatima and other apparitions are, to the best of my knowledge, not formally, dogmatically, considered by the Catholic Church or others as things which anyone is required to believe, but are still beliefs held by literally almost all members of that body. Some bodies can and do use refraining from making "official" statements of more or less universal "belief" as a way of avoiding criticism regarding those beliefs, and I don't think that any group should be allowed to use such lawyerly tactics to avoid criticism, if there is sufficient cause through reliable sources to believe that the belief is in fact closely related to the belief system. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If either of the main books of Falun Gong says in a clear way, for instance, "Homosexuality is evil," "Bestiality is good," or anything else which seems out of line with current mainstream social thought, it could reasonably be added to the article in phrasing along the lines of, "(Book) says..."
 * If the Chinese government alleges something, and is apparently the sole source of the allegation, it could reasonably be added in the phrasing "The Chinese government alleges..."
 * If independent reliable sources indicate either a large number of practicioners agree with or explicitly believe something said by either above, that could be added with phrasing like, "and several practicioners actively believe..."


 * What? How would Falun Gong books saying "X topic is " be relevant for such a page, and not for the page about the teachings of the subject?--Asdfg12345 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you picked some messed up examples. It would be simpler to put your remarks in general terms, rather than use something like "bestiality is good," as if such a creed is a likely part of the corpus of Falun Gong teachings. I don't know why you would use such an example.--Asdfg12345 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First point is a good one, actually. Statements from the book would be relevant for the teachings page, if they are in fact, from the book. Best option would be to include them there first and with the material from the book included primarily there so long as WP:UNDUE is observed, and then, if there is direct evidence of Falun Gong having received criticism for that belief in independent reliable sources, including some statement regarding that reception of criticism in the criticism article, as well as any information which was omitted from the teachings article because of weight concerns. Basically, I was thinking primarily how to prioritize points of criticism within the article, rather than discussing how to deal with its inclusion in multiple articles, but it does make sense to include the bulk of the material directly relating to the teachings in that article. Regarding the second point, I myself do have a rather perverse sense of humor, as I think I've indicated more than a few times over the years, and the second example was simply intended as a weak attempt at such humor roughly parallel to the first one. It never occurred to me for a second that anyone might take it in any way as a serious statement, and my apologies if anyone took it as anything but such. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Asdfg12345 is right, many of these subjects will probably fit better on the Teachings page, but for subjects Falun Gong may feel are insignificant parts of their teachings, but still cause significant notability, those subjects would probably fit better under Criticism (or attention, or reception, you get the idea). / PerEdman  18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue taken to NPOV board
Please see. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV list added to Noticeboard-entry. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Priority assessments and missing articles
OK, I think most people would agree that Falun Gong is probably the single most important article to the subject. Generally, the other articles which receive "Top" importance ratings for a group are the primary daughter articles. These general standards if applied here would include History of Falun Gong, Criticism of Falun Gong, Beliefs and Teachings of Falun Gong, and probably Li Hongzhi. What other articles, if any, deserve "Top" importance rating?

Also there is a question what other articles should be developed. I think that there are sufficient sources out there for a biography of Jennifer Zeng, for instance. What other articles are currently missing? John Carter (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are David Ownby, Barent ter Haar and Yuezhi Zhao, all referenced heavily from the Falun Gong article, covered already? Typing this without checking links. PerEdman (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To qualify as separate articles, individuals have to meet notability requirements as per whatever the specific notability criteria for their profession according to WP:BIO and its various subpages, The Zeng biography qualifies for inclusion on the basis of her book qualifying as per WP:BK and having at least all the content of that subject included within its own content. So far, I haven't seen how David Ownby as an individual necessarily qualifies as notable, although I do believe the multiple reviews of his book indicate that it does qualify for a separate article, and his book doesn't include much biographical content, so it doesn't help in terms of making an "end-around" like an autobiography does. I don't know myself whether either of the other two qualifies under the relevant notability guidelines, but haven't seen any evidence that they do. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)