This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Falun Gong Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Falun Gong |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
So far, the text on Falun Gong being or not being a "cult" looks valuable to me. However, it was kind of a long massive block of text that could lead to reader fatique. It was also a bit of mishmash so I reorganized it by adding some subsection headings and reassembling related text together under those headings. Each subsection could use a bit more introductory text to explain to the reader what the central theses of the section are. -- Richard ( talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Few thoughts: calling this section "The cult debate" elevates it to the status of a ‘debate’, where this is actually not a debate among mainstream academics and journalists. The mainstream does not debate this, only the fringe debates against the mainstream about it.
Secondly, I don't see how these two paragraphs relate to an alleged "cult of personality," since this term isn't mentioned in either paragraph.
Some scholars suggest that Li Hongzhi assumes the role of a supernatural entity within the teachings of Falun Gong: Maria Hsia Chang, for example, opines that "If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in Falun Gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity." [1] However, Ian Johnson suggests that Li emphasises his teachings as simple revelations of "eternal truths", known since time immemorial but which have been corrupted over the course of time. Johnson opines that Li does not claim to be a messiah or god, but "only a wise teacher who has seen the light" [2] Li said in 2004 that it "doesn't matter if [people] believe in me or not. I haven't said that I am a god or a Buddha. Ordinary people can take me to be just an average, common man." [3]
Chang claims that Li's teaching on the "Dharma-ending period", and his remarks about providing salvation "in the final period of the Last Havoc," are apocalyptic. [1] Penny dissuades from considering Falun Gong as one of "these genuinely apocalyptic groups", or "that kind of organisation that believes that the world's going to end next Thursday." He says Falun Gong is "an entirely different thing", and that Li Hongzhi's teachings ought to be considered in the context of a "much more Buddhist notion of the cycle of the Dharma or the Buddhist law." [4]
Thirdly, it's unclear how Randi's personal blog qualifies as a reliable source on this topic. It is a self-published source and as far as I can tell its use here does not fall into one of the accepted categories at WP:SELFPUB -- is this disputed? If not, we can remove that reference. If so, we can take it to a community board. Interested in learning about the above two paragraphs--my suggestion is that they be moved to the teachings page. I'm not sure, but maybe I should start being bold when I have such ideas to chop out info and move it around? Please let me know.-- Asdfg 12345 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have gone bold yet again and removed this entire single-source section. If there are any objections or rewrites please voice it on the talk page. I see no relevance of this entire section and it is mostly fluff and jargon bordering on promotion of the practice. Colipon+( Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll just save the diff and we can look at it later if there's anything useful there.-- Asdfg 12345 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The lead, as it stands in comparison with the contents of this article, has become increasingly inappropriate. It had two paragraphs before I boldly removed it. Paragraph one basically just said that Falun Gong has aroused academic interest in many areas - a frivolous and useless section. Paragraph two was a few out-of-context David Ownby quotes; it is difficult to gauge their purpose in the lede. If there are issues stemming from this change please discuss without resorting to disruptive editing. Colipon+( Talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the following:
“ | Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science." [5] [6]. | ” |
According to WP:BRD I should probably explain. It is not that I removed these because it was positive acclaim for Falun Gong. I fully recognize that Falun Gong has had its share of praise. However, I question the signficance of these awards in relation to the context of the article. 54 large-scale lectures? Is this any different from other Qigong groups? There were hundreds of Qigong groups belonging to this "SQRA". They all held large-scale lectures.
As for the "Beijing Oriental Health Expo" - this should be treated with the utmost skepticism as well. Firstly, what is it? Is it significant? What are these awards? What do they even mean? There are a myriad of 'awards' given out at these expos. A search on Google reveals that mention of this expo is almost exclusively from Falun Gong or Falun Gong-related websites. This is why I am hesitant about including this information. It seemed like Falun Gong promotion to me. Colipon+( Talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I also dispute that 54 'large-scale lectures' is notable. How do you define large-scale? Many Qigong masters during this era would hold about 200 lectures a year. Colipon+( Talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
any sources for about that they were awarded to all qigong groups? if not, then how can we argue that??-- Asdfg 12345 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I was on the phone just now, so couldn't engage with this well. If you do not have a source disputing the significance of the awards, then that they are mentioned in several reliable sources which comment on the topic (like Ownby, Penny) is de facto proof of their significance. If you have a source disputing the significance of the awards then that could also be included, along with the mention of awards.-- Asdfg 12345 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[[File:Example.jpg-- Asdfg 12345 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)]]
"That's just the thing - the awards DON'T seem to be mentioned in several reliable sources, they seem to be mentioned by Falun Gong and then retold by other sources." -- This kind of argumentation is rather problematic. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Since these things appeared in these sources, they can be mentioned here. It is a short few pieces of information, and it is also quite relevant because it established how Falun Gong was received in mainland China in the early years. It's unclear where Ownby and Penny got the information, possibly from Falun Gong sources, possibly from other sources. it doesn't matter, particularly. The academics are the experts on the topics, not us, and that they make a point of pointing this out when they speak of the subject shows that it's an important point to mention, as far as they see it. The apparent counterindictions of this are basically that "Falun Gong said it first so it's not reliable," and other statements of opinion/original research. The claim that the remarks are "self-promotional" is also wrong, because what is being sourced are statements from independent experts.
Please see an excerpt from The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001:
In December 1992, Li Hongzhi made the first public demonstration of his skills—at the 1992 Oriental Health Expo in Beijing. Apparently, he caused a paralysed and wheelchair-bound man to walk, destroyed gall and kidney stones and cured ‘difficult and complex illnesses of all kinds’. The director of the fair declared that Falun Gong was ‘the star cultivation system’. At the December 1993 Expo, Li was given two awards: ‘The Award for Advancing Boundary Science’ and the ‘Qigong Master Most Acclaimed by the Masses’. During 1993 and 1994 he gave classes in Falun Gong all over China. By March 1993, when an introductory and laudatory article was written in the journal Chinese Qigong (published by the National Chinese Medicine Association), he had already given classes in Beijing, Changchun, Taiyuan, and in Shanxi province. In July and August 1993, the journal Qigong and Science reported that he gave lectures 10 nights in a row in a 2200 seat university auditorium, with people sitting in the aisles, and, as the article notes ‘no air conditioning at the height of the Beijing summer’. Qigong and Science also reported his appearance on talkback radio in Wuhan in March 1993 while he was giving classes there. On the program ‘Happy Train’ on the Wuhan People’s Broadcasting Station, and later on Hubei Yangtse Economic Broadcasting Station, he conducted hotline consultations and remote healing. Li’s first book, China Falungong was published in April 1993 (preface dated December 1992) through the Junshi Yiwen Press, a publishing house associated with the People’s Liberation Army. A Falun Gong site claims that between May 1992 and December 1994, Li gave 56 public nine-day lectures in all the major cities of China.
And an excerpt from Ownby's The Falun Gong in the New World, published in the European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep 2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306:
It is important to note that neither Li Hongzhi nor Falun Gong was particularly controversial in the beginning. Indeed, Li became an instant star of the qigong movement, celebrated at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos of 1992 and 1993 . Falun Gong was welcomed into the Scienti c Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organise many of Li’s activities between 1992 and 1994. Notable among those activities were 54 large scale lectures given throughout China to a total audience of some 20,000.7 Li’s appeal at the outset seems to have been, as in many other cases, his promise to help followers toward better health. Like other masters, he charged admission to his lectures, although Falun Gong sources insist that his fees were much lower than those of other schools of qigong. And at some point, the success of Falun Gong meant that Li could stop charging admission fees and oáer his vision freely to anyone who wished to attend.
Whatever we think of such commentary and claims, the experts give it paragraphs of explanation, more than what is in the article. It's significant, relevant, and verifiable that Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi received these awards and commendations in the early years in China. I have restored the text.-- Asdfg 12345 04:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was Merged to
Falun Gong
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The article was created 21:07, 7 May 2006 Ed Poor (talk | contribs) (Three issues - off the top of my head - please fill in sources and details)
During the course of its life, this article has had the following moves:
Desperately seeking consensus page move. The current title is unrepresentative of the views which have been published concerning Falun Gong, and limits views of other third parties. The article was originally titled Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, but was moved with discussion involving 3 editors. There are a number of articles about religions which have articles entitled 'Criticism of [religion]' (namely Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of the War on Terrorism ), and I believe that the word "criticism" is not negative or pejorative here at WP, and this convention should be followed here to enable a comprehensive article about the subject. Ohconfucius ( talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this decided by a majority vote now? Discussion has gone out the window? This ignores the arguments that were raised against this and seems an attempt to move the page by force. There are unaddressed arguments regarding how "Reception of Falun Gong" is a neutral name, that it's recommended by WP:CRIT; how the "Criticism of..." is not a formal convention, and that using that as an argument turns the claim for its validity into an axiom; how the articles "Criticism of..." are all full of actual criticism of the subjects they treat, not a neutral analysis of Reception (both positive and negative) of the subjects. Criticism obviously means negative commentary, and the examples you give only exemplify this; the whole page will just violate WP:POVFORK.-- Asdfg 12345 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ω, you said "Based on the article content, the history, the references, and the existence of similar article titles, along with the sound reasoning offered to make the move, presents a clear and compelling case," -- but how does the content, history, references, and similar article titles make a convincing case for Criticism? The reasoning offered is basically that, but connecting these dots may appear more obvious to some than others. I don't see the connection, for example.
PerEdman, I'm also sorry that I have felt it necessary to keep repeating myself. You even use the word criticism to mean negative commentary when just generally discussing things (which is perfectly normal). My point is that the word obviously means negative commentary, this is how it's used, and it strikes me as silly to use it that way as normal, then say it means quite something else when it's an article title... it strikes me as doublethink. Also, all these other articles using Criticism in the title are, actually, about negative commentary on the subject, which this article is not supposed to be--again, how does using that as an argument make sense, unless Criticism of Falun Gong is supposed to follow their lede (which everyone says isn't the case)? I'm just seeing inconsistencies in every direction, and not sure if anyone has understood me when I've attempted to point them out. But I really want to say no more on this subject. At this point I think we should just abandon the article and integrate the most relevant material into the main one. This is just my humble opinion. My last request is that the issue receives input from a significant, uninvolved audience before decisions are made.-- Asdfg 12345 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You know my resoning, just in case I add the following link where it was discussed before, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.E2.80.9CReception.E2.80.9D_or_.E2.80.9CCriticism.E2.80.9D. In a summary I support the renaming of this article into Reception of Falun Gong. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There is also some criss-crossing of the discussion. The resolution to that one would obviate this one and vice versa. I don't understand the need for overlapping discussions, yo. -- Asdfg 12345 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Falun Gong Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Falun Gong |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
So far, the text on Falun Gong being or not being a "cult" looks valuable to me. However, it was kind of a long massive block of text that could lead to reader fatique. It was also a bit of mishmash so I reorganized it by adding some subsection headings and reassembling related text together under those headings. Each subsection could use a bit more introductory text to explain to the reader what the central theses of the section are. -- Richard ( talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Few thoughts: calling this section "The cult debate" elevates it to the status of a ‘debate’, where this is actually not a debate among mainstream academics and journalists. The mainstream does not debate this, only the fringe debates against the mainstream about it.
Secondly, I don't see how these two paragraphs relate to an alleged "cult of personality," since this term isn't mentioned in either paragraph.
Some scholars suggest that Li Hongzhi assumes the role of a supernatural entity within the teachings of Falun Gong: Maria Hsia Chang, for example, opines that "If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in Falun Gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity." [1] However, Ian Johnson suggests that Li emphasises his teachings as simple revelations of "eternal truths", known since time immemorial but which have been corrupted over the course of time. Johnson opines that Li does not claim to be a messiah or god, but "only a wise teacher who has seen the light" [2] Li said in 2004 that it "doesn't matter if [people] believe in me or not. I haven't said that I am a god or a Buddha. Ordinary people can take me to be just an average, common man." [3]
Chang claims that Li's teaching on the "Dharma-ending period", and his remarks about providing salvation "in the final period of the Last Havoc," are apocalyptic. [1] Penny dissuades from considering Falun Gong as one of "these genuinely apocalyptic groups", or "that kind of organisation that believes that the world's going to end next Thursday." He says Falun Gong is "an entirely different thing", and that Li Hongzhi's teachings ought to be considered in the context of a "much more Buddhist notion of the cycle of the Dharma or the Buddhist law." [4]
Thirdly, it's unclear how Randi's personal blog qualifies as a reliable source on this topic. It is a self-published source and as far as I can tell its use here does not fall into one of the accepted categories at WP:SELFPUB -- is this disputed? If not, we can remove that reference. If so, we can take it to a community board. Interested in learning about the above two paragraphs--my suggestion is that they be moved to the teachings page. I'm not sure, but maybe I should start being bold when I have such ideas to chop out info and move it around? Please let me know.-- Asdfg 12345 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have gone bold yet again and removed this entire single-source section. If there are any objections or rewrites please voice it on the talk page. I see no relevance of this entire section and it is mostly fluff and jargon bordering on promotion of the practice. Colipon+( Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll just save the diff and we can look at it later if there's anything useful there.-- Asdfg 12345 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The lead, as it stands in comparison with the contents of this article, has become increasingly inappropriate. It had two paragraphs before I boldly removed it. Paragraph one basically just said that Falun Gong has aroused academic interest in many areas - a frivolous and useless section. Paragraph two was a few out-of-context David Ownby quotes; it is difficult to gauge their purpose in the lede. If there are issues stemming from this change please discuss without resorting to disruptive editing. Colipon+( Talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the following:
“ | Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science." [5] [6]. | ” |
According to WP:BRD I should probably explain. It is not that I removed these because it was positive acclaim for Falun Gong. I fully recognize that Falun Gong has had its share of praise. However, I question the signficance of these awards in relation to the context of the article. 54 large-scale lectures? Is this any different from other Qigong groups? There were hundreds of Qigong groups belonging to this "SQRA". They all held large-scale lectures.
As for the "Beijing Oriental Health Expo" - this should be treated with the utmost skepticism as well. Firstly, what is it? Is it significant? What are these awards? What do they even mean? There are a myriad of 'awards' given out at these expos. A search on Google reveals that mention of this expo is almost exclusively from Falun Gong or Falun Gong-related websites. This is why I am hesitant about including this information. It seemed like Falun Gong promotion to me. Colipon+( Talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I also dispute that 54 'large-scale lectures' is notable. How do you define large-scale? Many Qigong masters during this era would hold about 200 lectures a year. Colipon+( Talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
any sources for about that they were awarded to all qigong groups? if not, then how can we argue that??-- Asdfg 12345 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I was on the phone just now, so couldn't engage with this well. If you do not have a source disputing the significance of the awards, then that they are mentioned in several reliable sources which comment on the topic (like Ownby, Penny) is de facto proof of their significance. If you have a source disputing the significance of the awards then that could also be included, along with the mention of awards.-- Asdfg 12345 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[[File:Example.jpg-- Asdfg 12345 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)]]
"That's just the thing - the awards DON'T seem to be mentioned in several reliable sources, they seem to be mentioned by Falun Gong and then retold by other sources." -- This kind of argumentation is rather problematic. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Since these things appeared in these sources, they can be mentioned here. It is a short few pieces of information, and it is also quite relevant because it established how Falun Gong was received in mainland China in the early years. It's unclear where Ownby and Penny got the information, possibly from Falun Gong sources, possibly from other sources. it doesn't matter, particularly. The academics are the experts on the topics, not us, and that they make a point of pointing this out when they speak of the subject shows that it's an important point to mention, as far as they see it. The apparent counterindictions of this are basically that "Falun Gong said it first so it's not reliable," and other statements of opinion/original research. The claim that the remarks are "self-promotional" is also wrong, because what is being sourced are statements from independent experts.
Please see an excerpt from The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001:
In December 1992, Li Hongzhi made the first public demonstration of his skills—at the 1992 Oriental Health Expo in Beijing. Apparently, he caused a paralysed and wheelchair-bound man to walk, destroyed gall and kidney stones and cured ‘difficult and complex illnesses of all kinds’. The director of the fair declared that Falun Gong was ‘the star cultivation system’. At the December 1993 Expo, Li was given two awards: ‘The Award for Advancing Boundary Science’ and the ‘Qigong Master Most Acclaimed by the Masses’. During 1993 and 1994 he gave classes in Falun Gong all over China. By March 1993, when an introductory and laudatory article was written in the journal Chinese Qigong (published by the National Chinese Medicine Association), he had already given classes in Beijing, Changchun, Taiyuan, and in Shanxi province. In July and August 1993, the journal Qigong and Science reported that he gave lectures 10 nights in a row in a 2200 seat university auditorium, with people sitting in the aisles, and, as the article notes ‘no air conditioning at the height of the Beijing summer’. Qigong and Science also reported his appearance on talkback radio in Wuhan in March 1993 while he was giving classes there. On the program ‘Happy Train’ on the Wuhan People’s Broadcasting Station, and later on Hubei Yangtse Economic Broadcasting Station, he conducted hotline consultations and remote healing. Li’s first book, China Falungong was published in April 1993 (preface dated December 1992) through the Junshi Yiwen Press, a publishing house associated with the People’s Liberation Army. A Falun Gong site claims that between May 1992 and December 1994, Li gave 56 public nine-day lectures in all the major cities of China.
And an excerpt from Ownby's The Falun Gong in the New World, published in the European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep 2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306:
It is important to note that neither Li Hongzhi nor Falun Gong was particularly controversial in the beginning. Indeed, Li became an instant star of the qigong movement, celebrated at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos of 1992 and 1993 . Falun Gong was welcomed into the Scienti c Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organise many of Li’s activities between 1992 and 1994. Notable among those activities were 54 large scale lectures given throughout China to a total audience of some 20,000.7 Li’s appeal at the outset seems to have been, as in many other cases, his promise to help followers toward better health. Like other masters, he charged admission to his lectures, although Falun Gong sources insist that his fees were much lower than those of other schools of qigong. And at some point, the success of Falun Gong meant that Li could stop charging admission fees and oáer his vision freely to anyone who wished to attend.
Whatever we think of such commentary and claims, the experts give it paragraphs of explanation, more than what is in the article. It's significant, relevant, and verifiable that Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi received these awards and commendations in the early years in China. I have restored the text.-- Asdfg 12345 04:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was Merged to
Falun Gong
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The article was created 21:07, 7 May 2006 Ed Poor (talk | contribs) (Three issues - off the top of my head - please fill in sources and details)
During the course of its life, this article has had the following moves:
Desperately seeking consensus page move. The current title is unrepresentative of the views which have been published concerning Falun Gong, and limits views of other third parties. The article was originally titled Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, but was moved with discussion involving 3 editors. There are a number of articles about religions which have articles entitled 'Criticism of [religion]' (namely Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of the War on Terrorism ), and I believe that the word "criticism" is not negative or pejorative here at WP, and this convention should be followed here to enable a comprehensive article about the subject. Ohconfucius ( talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this decided by a majority vote now? Discussion has gone out the window? This ignores the arguments that were raised against this and seems an attempt to move the page by force. There are unaddressed arguments regarding how "Reception of Falun Gong" is a neutral name, that it's recommended by WP:CRIT; how the "Criticism of..." is not a formal convention, and that using that as an argument turns the claim for its validity into an axiom; how the articles "Criticism of..." are all full of actual criticism of the subjects they treat, not a neutral analysis of Reception (both positive and negative) of the subjects. Criticism obviously means negative commentary, and the examples you give only exemplify this; the whole page will just violate WP:POVFORK.-- Asdfg 12345 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ω, you said "Based on the article content, the history, the references, and the existence of similar article titles, along with the sound reasoning offered to make the move, presents a clear and compelling case," -- but how does the content, history, references, and similar article titles make a convincing case for Criticism? The reasoning offered is basically that, but connecting these dots may appear more obvious to some than others. I don't see the connection, for example.
PerEdman, I'm also sorry that I have felt it necessary to keep repeating myself. You even use the word criticism to mean negative commentary when just generally discussing things (which is perfectly normal). My point is that the word obviously means negative commentary, this is how it's used, and it strikes me as silly to use it that way as normal, then say it means quite something else when it's an article title... it strikes me as doublethink. Also, all these other articles using Criticism in the title are, actually, about negative commentary on the subject, which this article is not supposed to be--again, how does using that as an argument make sense, unless Criticism of Falun Gong is supposed to follow their lede (which everyone says isn't the case)? I'm just seeing inconsistencies in every direction, and not sure if anyone has understood me when I've attempted to point them out. But I really want to say no more on this subject. At this point I think we should just abandon the article and integrate the most relevant material into the main one. This is just my humble opinion. My last request is that the issue receives input from a significant, uninvolved audience before decisions are made.-- Asdfg 12345 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You know my resoning, just in case I add the following link where it was discussed before, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.E2.80.9CReception.E2.80.9D_or_.E2.80.9CCriticism.E2.80.9D. In a summary I support the renaming of this article into Reception of Falun Gong. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There is also some criss-crossing of the discussion. The resolution to that one would obviate this one and vice versa. I don't understand the need for overlapping discussions, yo. -- Asdfg 12345 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)