This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wasn't going to accuse anybody of bad faith but was going to do the same revert that Asdfg just did himself. I'd suggest putting a draft of major overhauls like that and getting some discussion first. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
that's fine, though I have some problems with some of the material staying on the page now (like Kavan), which I'm going to remove. I'll post my suggested edits below, I'm unsure of the correct procedure of discussion and debate.-- Asdfg 12345 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
yah yah, I'm with you. I actually have to go right now. I'm already late for meeting someone, very bad. I believe that my changes are actually far from controversial, and really the only thing is that lede paragraph that is going to be disputed. The other changes aren't big, they probably just look big all together. The meaning is of course not that Murdoch's currying favor was the impetus for the initial "media coverage" (used broadly, seriously, we have to be careful using these kind of terms when they are printing demonstrable lies and villification, over 300 reports in the first month, 24hr marathons, etc., but yes, our writing should be still sound intelligent and neutral.), but that his son's remark was seen as "Pimping for the People's Republic". It's nothing but bringing the context with which these remarks were received into play, which I would presume is reasonable given that the comments are going to be mentioned in the first place--they certainly don't exist in a vacuum, and the section is about the reception of the cult label. Anyway, really sorry I have to run right now, I'll make some other changes and delineate things in a bit more straightforward way later. By the way, I hope no one is attached to their own writing prowess around here, everyone agrees that their stuff can be "edited mercilessly," and there was a lot of redundancy in that passage. Peace out.-- Asdfg 12345 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's the reasoning for my recent changes: one was to remove "threatened and damaged the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and the social stability of China" -- if this was to be included I guess it could be done so in quotation marks, but it strikes me as problematic to level the accusation of Falun Gong causing physical and mental harm to people without any context for how that claim came about. The CCP actually said all kinds of things, like practitioners killed themselves, killed family members, and so on, all of which is obviously straight up lies and propaganda. My concern is making such statements here without context. The view of the CCP should be expressed though, I also think it can be done so without dragging in these wider issues of how those claims were rebutted etc., which isn't part of the point of the section. These claims could go in a longer section about the anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. The other was to add Ownby and Johnson, which are high-profile figures when it comes to commentary on Falun Gong. I believe their dismissal of the claims is highly relevant and gives clear context as to how the cult label was received by those who make it their business to pay attention to and comment on these issues. stay tuned.-- Asdfg 12345 15:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Confucius, what is your response to the concerns articuled by PelleSmith, above, about the reliability of Kavan here? We've got a source already saying it, I don't see the need to give this woman's opinion's so much space. Are we then going to "balance" it with some pro-Falun Gong stuff? She has a highly negative interpretation of Falun Gong, and her criteria for regarding Falun Gong a cult are really rather different from that normally used: usually it's an organisational, objective definition, not a definition based on ideology. She is a communications professor, and has no background in religions. I'm just not sure how relevant she is here. Her definition of "cult" is also quite problematic. -- Asdfg 12345 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Kavan, H. (2008). Falun Gong and the Media: What can we believe? In E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits like this one are troubling. The edit summary read in part: "they do not need to be constantly refuted just to make FLG look favourable". Both of the pieces of information removed are pretty informative facts about the information they describe ... and not some Falun Gong propaganda. Singer's brainwashing theories are literally fringe views in the social sciences and Kavan's cult definition (see extensive conversation above) is not representative of any mainstream academic theoretical perspectives either. You should question the use of the fringe type material itself and not the disclaimers that are added to make sure people understand the material's reliability or notability in scholarship more generally. When a subject area is plaugued by POV edits from people who identify with the subject it is not helpful to push POV in the opposite direction, or assuming good faith here, it is equally unhelpful to rush to judgment that everything added by the member editors is always propaganda. If POV pushing happens in both directions then you'll always end up with these ridiculously bloated see sawing entries written by editors who justify their own POV pushing as reactionary to that of others. It has to stop somewhere if progress is to be made. PelleSmith ( talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: I restored the deletions that Colipon made of that content. I also think it was relevant and not a tit-for-tat kind of game, which I rather dislike also.-- Asdfg 12345 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that would be ideal. They are distinct claims, so apart from a sentence like "Margaret Singer, who is controversial and whose theories are regarded as unscientific by her peers, says that Falun Gong is a cult because of this reason and that reason." -- or not including Kavan at all, I'm not sure of another way of representing the distinct claims. Ideally we would not have to resort to these sub-par sources, but people insist on them. I guess Singer is good to have. Anyway, in whichever way the context for these claims is given, I think it's okay. I didn't think it was too much of a problem to keep it how it was. The issue is when it gets out of hand, with this counter-claim being refuted by that counter-claim, and so on and so on. If it's grouped logically and everythign doesn't take up too much space, and the key things are gotten across, I think it's fine. I don't think Kavan's unorthodox, and basically misleading (in my view) interpretation of cult should go in the article at all. Failing that, the only thing to do is just to note that her definition of cult is different from normal. Welcome ideas.-- Asdfg 12345 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's fair enough. -- Asdfg 12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
[ec] WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." -- Falun Gong practitioners response to the persecution is obviously a notable aspect of this whole topic. Yuezhi Zhao, a communications professor from Canada who has published a number of books about Chinese media and society, and who is not some Falun Gong flunky but, rather, gives a fairly neutral analysis of Falun Gong, wrote: "Falun Gong's spread and sustained activism against persecution may be the greatest challenge to Chinese state power in recent history." Can we discuss the relative merits, or problems, with including this in the lede. Could we also discuss how this aspect of the topic may be otherwise represented in the lede, if it is felt to warrant representation. David Ownby devotes a chapter in his latest book to this topic, called "David vs. Goliath" (if I remember correctly), and in much of the literature of the topic the fact, and significance, of Falun Gong sustained resistance to persecution is brought up and discussed. It strikes me as obvious that this is a notable aspect of the topic. I also think the Zhao quote basically sums it up. Another suggestion would be that her and the Penny quote (about "important phenomenon") are similar, and could be linked to the idea of resistance to the persecution and combined somehow. Thoughts?-- Asdfg 12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Nearly everything these people write is or could be considered "speculation." I mean, it's just their thoughts on the topic a lot of the time. If we are going to make these articles only contain descriptions of actual events in the world, that is another approach, but I don't think it would work. I'm not sure how what you say fits with WP:RS and due, since what these people say is precisely how notable something is, isn't it? If mainstream scholars on the issue all talk about this, doesn't that simply mean that what they say is part of what makes the subject "interesting or notable" and one of the "important points"? I may be missing something. if it is an issue of how China perceives the issue, well, they set up an agency and put someone in the politburo directly in charge of it, and you've read the rest of the story (or have you?), I mean, we don't need to even bother talking about that side of things, it's just like, if these people say this, is it not notable and relevatn?-- Asdfg 12345 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I wish to raise a new discussion about the lede. I have special concerns about this section:
“ | In April 1999 over ten thousand Falun Gong practitioners gathered at Communist Party of China headquarters, Zhongnanhai, in a silent protest against beatings and arrests in Tianjin. [1] [2] [3] Two months later the People's Republic of China government, led by Jiang Zemin, banned the practice, began a crackdown, and started what Amnesty International described as a "massive propaganda campaign." [4] [5] [6] Since 1999, reports of torture, [7] illegal imprisonment, [8] beatings, forced labor, and psychiatric abuses have been widespread. [9] [10] Two thirds of all reported torture cases in China concern Falun Gong practitioners, who are also estimated to comprise at least half of China's labor camp population according to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the US Department of State respectively. [11] [12] [13] In 2006, human rights lawyer David Matas and former Canadian secretary of state David Kilgour published an investigative report concluding that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners have become victims of systematic organ harvesting in China and that the practice is still ongoing. [14] In November 2008, The United Nations Committee on Torture called on the Chinese State party to commission an independent investigation of the reports and to "ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished." [15] | ” |
Now let's look at what this section actually says.
Those are my thoughts. I have not yet made any bold changes. Colipon+( Talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
2c-- Asdfg 12345 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Current revision of the cult section as edited by User:Pellesmith is a good summary. I hope it will become relatively stable. Colipon+( Talk) 07:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Falun Gong practitioners have began a media empire is not mentioned in the article at all. I think we had a good outline going at FLGNEW to discuss how to incorporate that into the article. Please lend your expertise. Colipon+( Talk) 07:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think discussing their media empire should be incorporated in a discussion of their broader PR campaign which also include parade insertions and streetside demonstrations.
Theleike (
talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Three editors, including myself, support the new cult section version. Asdf can I suggest you slow down a second and discuss the matter here before barging ahead. I also want to add that the more general "reception" section you added is entirely unencyclopedic. It is a resume of studies done about the group. We don't list studies done about a subject matter we get information from such studies and integrate it into the entry. Please do not add it back and if you insist on having it please discuss here first. PelleSmith ( talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, I thought about that and thought a summary of what people have said would actually be useful. That section is in itself about how Falun Gong has been received and commented on; including notes about how it has been received and commented on struck me as normal, once I thought about it. Of course, if we don't want to do that I understand as well. There were complaints about how long things were. To actually say what those people said rather than just say they said it would take far more space... Thougths?-- Asdfg 12345 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here are my issues.
Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others.[70] Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English[71][72][7]. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China.[72] They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo.[73] Some scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group.[41][74] Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.
In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[19] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion.[75][76] Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. "[77] The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart".[78] However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.[79]
Next paragraph:
That's about it. I'm going to add a few sentences addressing the most acute of my concerns above, and I ask that you do not delete them, please, while we discuss whether the concerns I raise above are legitimate, and then wheel out sources and discuss them as necessary. -- Asdfg 12345 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
2. We can't expect people to click through links to see the status of these theories. Why don't we have something stating that other scholars consider such theories unscientific, which would make things a bit more clear?
3. I've always thought that this term "cult" should mean something more than just an ideology, it should refer to some kind of organizational structure and concrete actions that people take to do bad things to other people, wrapped up in an ostensible belief system. Just identifying ideological aspects (like the savior concept) and extrapolating this out to mind control seems so silly. Further, Kavan makes so many logical leaps, like "an apocalyptic world view used to manipulate members" -- how is an apocalyptic worldview used to manipulate people? How do Falun Gong practitioners suddenly become members? etc.. These are the problems I see in Kavan's definition and characterisation. They oversimplify, they jumble a whole lot of things together, they give wildly imprecise definitions and leave so many things unexplained. She also lists "alienation from society," when it's well known that there is no such thing among Falun Gong practitioners. Or to put it another way, the definitions she provides and the statements she makes directly conflict with a large body of fieldwork and other academic sources. However this relationship is expressed is fine. Maybe something like "Most scholars and those who have done fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners do not draw the same conclusions," or whatever it is. But DUE requires making differences between fringe and mainstream views clear. This is all.
4. The claim is only that they took the remark from the CCP, not that (as far as I know) they adopted their own cultic discourse for Falun Gong. See Penny's lecture, paragraph beginning "Before I go further", for one example. Anyway, the point here is just that this language was first adopted and then not used later.
5. I think it's too wordy and watered down as it is. Let me find a key sentence and it will be less space and convey their meaning better. (I think)-- Asdfg 12345 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The current section on "Academic views" seems completely irrelevant to me. It is useless saying "Scholar X did this, Scholar Y did that, but we're not going to say what significance they truly have." As a result I will now remove that entire section as per WP:BOLD. If there are issues resulting from this please discuss. Colipon+( Talk) 08:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg, maybe it is time to discuss some drastic changes to the cult section. You reverted OC saying that they have not been discussed. I put my suggestions up so that they would be discussed on the page. Perhaps you should articulate what about the trim version OC tried to add is not preferable. It is my opinion that this section, like many of these entries, is entirely too bloated. PelleSmith ( talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will open two browsers, compare them, write some notes, get back in 6 minutes. Man, we need to be discussing with google wave.-- Asdfg 12345 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
oh right. i actually jsut deleted a bunch of stuff. My concern is mainly to make clear when and how exactly the cult label came into currency. The context of the discussion is firmly within the CCP's propaganda campaign, and it was made three months after the persecution actually begun, as a way of justifying it retroactively. It was later adopted more widely. This dynamic is important to represent for readers. This is just one thought. let me get back. did you see the chagnes?-- Asdfg 12345 05:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"Still, the government's use of the “cult” label was useful. In the West the anticult movement had been losing steam since anxiety over cults peaked in the early-to-mid 1990s. By the turn of the century most anticult activists were confined to adherents of established religions—in other words, people with a vested interest in attacking new groups.... But China's claim that Falun Gong was a cult gave the western anticult movement a new cause. Many outsiders fixated on the cult label and spent their time debating obscure definitions of Master Li's works, trying to prove that the group was potentially dangerous. One western academic wrote a paper pleading for an understanding of the government's concerns over Falun Gong's teachings, saying it had a legitimate right to fear the group. This even though the government had only interested itself in Falun Gong because of its demonstration in downtown Beijing, not because of its teachings. And most fundamentally, what was often forgotten in the learned discourse was that the government, not Falun Gong, was killing people."
Let me start a section below to outline my thoughts and problems and I look forward to your thoughts in response.-- Asdfg 12345 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
a situation outside of my control forces me to leave my computer in about 3 minutes. It's probably a good thing. anyway, I wrote some points above, I didn't get a chance to look at your wording and share my thoughts. Please compare and see what's most fitting. We want plain english and a clear and simple narrative of the main movements and sources etc., and the historical context is important to preserve. If it does all this then in my view it's great. I always prefer starting with what we have and organically changing it rather than instituting a whole new thing, though, generally. sorry, people are forcing me to get off this computer in a minute.-- Asdfg 12345 05:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, I read it quickly, (still got like 2 minutes), I would suggest that it fails to acknowledge the context with which the term came to exist in referring to Falun Gong, and that this is actuall vital in terms of getting to grips with the meaning of the term in relation to the subject. -- Asdfg 12345 05:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, You performed a revert of numerous significant changes since 311212231, your change comment being: "these changes are so extensive and we didn't even discuss them? what's with this... can we just take things one step at a time?". As I know you are familiar with WP:BRD process, I wonder what you want to discuss. If you believe an edit has been made in error, you discuss that error. By reverting a large number of edits, what is it you want to discuss, specifically? All of them? Were really all edits since version 311212231 something you objected to?
You see; by performing a large revert of many different changes, you are really saying "I oppose to all of these changes, now let's discuss them", and the people who are interested in keeping the material you reverted, should do so. Now... in your case, that means participating in the discussion of PelleSmith's version; mentioned on this talk page: Talk:Falun_Gong#.27Cult.27_section. Please do so now. / Per Edman 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some good faith changes have removed important information and muddled the meaning of some other information. Here are the relevant problems:
By the way categorizing this group as a "cult" does not fit within mainstream scholarship ... only within scholarship willing to 1) adopt fringe definitions of the term cult and 2) willing to assign attributes within these definitions to Falun Gong even if most other scholars do not. From the brief overview I have undertaken it seems more that clear that a vast majority of scholars don't use this classification to describe the group. Some of the changes above distort this reality rather unfortunately. I'm afraid that reactionary measures against the pro-member POV pushing at times overreaches, and I've expressed this concern before. As a point of information I use scare quotes (they are not "ironic quotes") around "cult" because it has become common practice in scholarship at this point in time. I will not argue over this in the entry however. You can chose to follow other style conventions. PelleSmith ( talk) 12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just want to make the observation that the above section is dominated (more than 50% of content) is sourced to one academic, whereas another 2 academics make up another 40%. Ohconfucius ( talk) 05:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just made some changes to the introduction to fit more appropriately with recent changes made to the article. I made these changes while attempting to strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, and I also cut down significantly on undue weight. Please be bold and make corrections to my syntax or make it better organized as a few more sets of eyes are needed to make a good lede. Please do not revert these changes without any discussion or sound reasoning. Colipon+( Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please when removing material:
Thank you! -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll add a few sources, hope you will find it useful and incorporate it (or I might do it after a few hours of sleep).
“ | US State Dept.: China Continues To Persecute Religious Groups, State's Birkle Says
United States urges systemic reform and human rights improvement in China (2005) “According to the State Department official, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control." “The suffering of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners has been especially intense,” Smith said. “Whatever one may say about the merits of their beliefs, the evidence is very clear that Falun Gong practitioners are peaceful individuals who want to be left alone to practice their beliefs as they see fit.” From: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/July/20050722172621wkoaix0.3967707.html |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Falun Gong persecution spreads to Canada Ottawa does little to counter campaign by Chinese envoys by John Turley-Ewart 20 March 2004
[Professor] Ownby (who is not a member of Falun Gong) believes that while some of their beliefs are eccentric, the group does not exhibit any of the classic tendencies of what, for a lack of a better word, are often described as "cults." Li urges his followers to remain in the world, not to isolate themselves. He and his followers do not believe in any utopia. Adherents of Falun Gong are not asked to give money to Li, and he does not intervene in their personal lives. In fact, Ownby thinks the moral grounding of Li's teachings is likely to make Falun Gong practitioners "more responsible citizens." |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Ambassador Mark Palmer
“If the Falun Gong is an “evil sect” or “cult” then so are Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Buddhists, for all are persecuted and jailed by the Chinese Communists. We all must support this common cause.” From: http://www.cesnur.org/2001/falun_july05.htm |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Barry Beyerstein, a psychology prof and cult expert at Simon Fraser University, is clear that Falun Gong displays none of the typical characteristics – psychological, financial or physical coercion or deceptive recruiting practices. "They don't fit the profile," he says. | ” |
From: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=146197&archive=24,27,2005 -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Amnesty International
The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations The word “cult” has been frequently used in English to translate the label recently put by the Chinese government on the Falun Gong and other similar groups. However, this translation is misleading. The expression used in China for this purpose, “xiejiao zuzhi”, refers to a large variety of groups and has a far broader meaning than “cult”. “Xiejiao zuzhi” is the expression used in Chinese legislation, official statements and by the state media to refer to a wide range of sectarian and millenarian groups, or unorthodox religious or spiritual organizations, and other groups which do not meet official approval. Xiejiao zuzhi can be translated as “heretical organization”, or “evil”, “heterodox” or “weird religious organization”. The translation “weird religious organization”, for example, is used in one official translation of legislation published in the PRC. In this report we use the translation “heretical organization” to convey the meaning of the Chinese expression, though the word “cult” appears occasionally in the text when it is part of a quotation from a text or report available to us in English. It is worth noting that there is no precise legal definition for “heretical organization” in China. Furthermore, the government’s current crackdown on these groups raises the question of who is entitled to determine which group is “heretical”. From: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html , http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170112000 |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | REPORTS OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF FOLLOWERS OF THE FALUN GONG
Amnesty International is deeply concerned by reports that detained followers of the Falun Gong have been tortured or ill-treated in various places of detention in China…The government, apparently concerned by the large number of followers in all sectors of society - including government departments, declared it was a "cult" and a "threat to stability" and launched a nationwide propaganda campaign against it. The campaign was described as an important "political struggle". |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Regimenting the Public Mind: The Modernisation of Propaganda in the PRC by Anne-Marie Brady. I expect there will be no problems with using this term to describe the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda.-- Asdfg 12345 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Colipon, it is not clear from your edit summary why you made the following revert [1]. Based on WP:LEDE "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." I think that the Teachings are important and it is a good summary to say "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure" [16], and as being, at different levels, common to both Taoism and Buddhism." then to say that "Its teachings are influenced by both Taoism and Buddhism." which does not say anything about the teaching itself. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
{undent} It strikes me as a weak attempt to position the Falun Gong as a morally positive force, making those who oppose the Falun Gong (PRC for example) a morally negative force. As such it seems like it edges on WP:WEASEL and WP:NPoV considering this I rather object to it's positioning in the lede. "Influenced by Taoism and Buddhism" is much clearer and more neutral. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Colipon, could you please address your point on the talk page, regarding your recent revert [2]? Even if the quote is WP:SPS (which was not an issue raised until now), it does not change the fact that this is how the teachings are presented by the author, and the quote is attributed. I think that it is good for this encyclopedia to include how the Falun Gong promotes its teaching. As for NPOV, I'm not sure which point is not included or how do you claim that it is biased. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I worked extensively over the course of today to make some major changes to the main article "Falun Gong" to eradicate some of the POV bruises that the article still suffers from. I also aligned, moved, added, removed, and reorganized content based on the skeleton at FLGNEW. Some copy-editing would be appreciated, as well as some more eyes to just assess the content.
There are some things that I am still unsure about and therefore have not been bold in editing. I would like to ask for input from other editors on the following issues:
I am encouraged by the progress. Recently there has been much less disruptive editing on these articles. Hope to hear from editors soon. Colipon+( Talk) 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wasn't going to accuse anybody of bad faith but was going to do the same revert that Asdfg just did himself. I'd suggest putting a draft of major overhauls like that and getting some discussion first. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
that's fine, though I have some problems with some of the material staying on the page now (like Kavan), which I'm going to remove. I'll post my suggested edits below, I'm unsure of the correct procedure of discussion and debate.-- Asdfg 12345 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
yah yah, I'm with you. I actually have to go right now. I'm already late for meeting someone, very bad. I believe that my changes are actually far from controversial, and really the only thing is that lede paragraph that is going to be disputed. The other changes aren't big, they probably just look big all together. The meaning is of course not that Murdoch's currying favor was the impetus for the initial "media coverage" (used broadly, seriously, we have to be careful using these kind of terms when they are printing demonstrable lies and villification, over 300 reports in the first month, 24hr marathons, etc., but yes, our writing should be still sound intelligent and neutral.), but that his son's remark was seen as "Pimping for the People's Republic". It's nothing but bringing the context with which these remarks were received into play, which I would presume is reasonable given that the comments are going to be mentioned in the first place--they certainly don't exist in a vacuum, and the section is about the reception of the cult label. Anyway, really sorry I have to run right now, I'll make some other changes and delineate things in a bit more straightforward way later. By the way, I hope no one is attached to their own writing prowess around here, everyone agrees that their stuff can be "edited mercilessly," and there was a lot of redundancy in that passage. Peace out.-- Asdfg 12345 20:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's the reasoning for my recent changes: one was to remove "threatened and damaged the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and the social stability of China" -- if this was to be included I guess it could be done so in quotation marks, but it strikes me as problematic to level the accusation of Falun Gong causing physical and mental harm to people without any context for how that claim came about. The CCP actually said all kinds of things, like practitioners killed themselves, killed family members, and so on, all of which is obviously straight up lies and propaganda. My concern is making such statements here without context. The view of the CCP should be expressed though, I also think it can be done so without dragging in these wider issues of how those claims were rebutted etc., which isn't part of the point of the section. These claims could go in a longer section about the anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign. The other was to add Ownby and Johnson, which are high-profile figures when it comes to commentary on Falun Gong. I believe their dismissal of the claims is highly relevant and gives clear context as to how the cult label was received by those who make it their business to pay attention to and comment on these issues. stay tuned.-- Asdfg 12345 15:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Confucius, what is your response to the concerns articuled by PelleSmith, above, about the reliability of Kavan here? We've got a source already saying it, I don't see the need to give this woman's opinion's so much space. Are we then going to "balance" it with some pro-Falun Gong stuff? She has a highly negative interpretation of Falun Gong, and her criteria for regarding Falun Gong a cult are really rather different from that normally used: usually it's an organisational, objective definition, not a definition based on ideology. She is a communications professor, and has no background in religions. I'm just not sure how relevant she is here. Her definition of "cult" is also quite problematic. -- Asdfg 12345 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Kavan, H. (2008). Falun Gong and the Media: What can we believe? In E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits like this one are troubling. The edit summary read in part: "they do not need to be constantly refuted just to make FLG look favourable". Both of the pieces of information removed are pretty informative facts about the information they describe ... and not some Falun Gong propaganda. Singer's brainwashing theories are literally fringe views in the social sciences and Kavan's cult definition (see extensive conversation above) is not representative of any mainstream academic theoretical perspectives either. You should question the use of the fringe type material itself and not the disclaimers that are added to make sure people understand the material's reliability or notability in scholarship more generally. When a subject area is plaugued by POV edits from people who identify with the subject it is not helpful to push POV in the opposite direction, or assuming good faith here, it is equally unhelpful to rush to judgment that everything added by the member editors is always propaganda. If POV pushing happens in both directions then you'll always end up with these ridiculously bloated see sawing entries written by editors who justify their own POV pushing as reactionary to that of others. It has to stop somewhere if progress is to be made. PelleSmith ( talk) 13:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: I restored the deletions that Colipon made of that content. I also think it was relevant and not a tit-for-tat kind of game, which I rather dislike also.-- Asdfg 12345 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that would be ideal. They are distinct claims, so apart from a sentence like "Margaret Singer, who is controversial and whose theories are regarded as unscientific by her peers, says that Falun Gong is a cult because of this reason and that reason." -- or not including Kavan at all, I'm not sure of another way of representing the distinct claims. Ideally we would not have to resort to these sub-par sources, but people insist on them. I guess Singer is good to have. Anyway, in whichever way the context for these claims is given, I think it's okay. I didn't think it was too much of a problem to keep it how it was. The issue is when it gets out of hand, with this counter-claim being refuted by that counter-claim, and so on and so on. If it's grouped logically and everythign doesn't take up too much space, and the key things are gotten across, I think it's fine. I don't think Kavan's unorthodox, and basically misleading (in my view) interpretation of cult should go in the article at all. Failing that, the only thing to do is just to note that her definition of cult is different from normal. Welcome ideas.-- Asdfg 12345 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's fair enough. -- Asdfg 12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
[ec] WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." -- Falun Gong practitioners response to the persecution is obviously a notable aspect of this whole topic. Yuezhi Zhao, a communications professor from Canada who has published a number of books about Chinese media and society, and who is not some Falun Gong flunky but, rather, gives a fairly neutral analysis of Falun Gong, wrote: "Falun Gong's spread and sustained activism against persecution may be the greatest challenge to Chinese state power in recent history." Can we discuss the relative merits, or problems, with including this in the lede. Could we also discuss how this aspect of the topic may be otherwise represented in the lede, if it is felt to warrant representation. David Ownby devotes a chapter in his latest book to this topic, called "David vs. Goliath" (if I remember correctly), and in much of the literature of the topic the fact, and significance, of Falun Gong sustained resistance to persecution is brought up and discussed. It strikes me as obvious that this is a notable aspect of the topic. I also think the Zhao quote basically sums it up. Another suggestion would be that her and the Penny quote (about "important phenomenon") are similar, and could be linked to the idea of resistance to the persecution and combined somehow. Thoughts?-- Asdfg 12345 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Nearly everything these people write is or could be considered "speculation." I mean, it's just their thoughts on the topic a lot of the time. If we are going to make these articles only contain descriptions of actual events in the world, that is another approach, but I don't think it would work. I'm not sure how what you say fits with WP:RS and due, since what these people say is precisely how notable something is, isn't it? If mainstream scholars on the issue all talk about this, doesn't that simply mean that what they say is part of what makes the subject "interesting or notable" and one of the "important points"? I may be missing something. if it is an issue of how China perceives the issue, well, they set up an agency and put someone in the politburo directly in charge of it, and you've read the rest of the story (or have you?), I mean, we don't need to even bother talking about that side of things, it's just like, if these people say this, is it not notable and relevatn?-- Asdfg 12345 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I wish to raise a new discussion about the lede. I have special concerns about this section:
“ | In April 1999 over ten thousand Falun Gong practitioners gathered at Communist Party of China headquarters, Zhongnanhai, in a silent protest against beatings and arrests in Tianjin. [1] [2] [3] Two months later the People's Republic of China government, led by Jiang Zemin, banned the practice, began a crackdown, and started what Amnesty International described as a "massive propaganda campaign." [4] [5] [6] Since 1999, reports of torture, [7] illegal imprisonment, [8] beatings, forced labor, and psychiatric abuses have been widespread. [9] [10] Two thirds of all reported torture cases in China concern Falun Gong practitioners, who are also estimated to comprise at least half of China's labor camp population according to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, and the US Department of State respectively. [11] [12] [13] In 2006, human rights lawyer David Matas and former Canadian secretary of state David Kilgour published an investigative report concluding that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners have become victims of systematic organ harvesting in China and that the practice is still ongoing. [14] In November 2008, The United Nations Committee on Torture called on the Chinese State party to commission an independent investigation of the reports and to "ensure that those responsible for such abuses are prosecuted and punished." [15] | ” |
Now let's look at what this section actually says.
Those are my thoughts. I have not yet made any bold changes. Colipon+( Talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
2c-- Asdfg 12345 19:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Current revision of the cult section as edited by User:Pellesmith is a good summary. I hope it will become relatively stable. Colipon+( Talk) 07:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Falun Gong practitioners have began a media empire is not mentioned in the article at all. I think we had a good outline going at FLGNEW to discuss how to incorporate that into the article. Please lend your expertise. Colipon+( Talk) 07:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think discussing their media empire should be incorporated in a discussion of their broader PR campaign which also include parade insertions and streetside demonstrations.
Theleike (
talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Three editors, including myself, support the new cult section version. Asdf can I suggest you slow down a second and discuss the matter here before barging ahead. I also want to add that the more general "reception" section you added is entirely unencyclopedic. It is a resume of studies done about the group. We don't list studies done about a subject matter we get information from such studies and integrate it into the entry. Please do not add it back and if you insist on having it please discuss here first. PelleSmith ( talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, I thought about that and thought a summary of what people have said would actually be useful. That section is in itself about how Falun Gong has been received and commented on; including notes about how it has been received and commented on struck me as normal, once I thought about it. Of course, if we don't want to do that I understand as well. There were complaints about how long things were. To actually say what those people said rather than just say they said it would take far more space... Thougths?-- Asdfg 12345 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here are my issues.
Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others.[70] Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English[71][72][7]. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China.[72] They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo.[73] Some scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group.[41][74] Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.
In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups[19] and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion.[75][76] Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. "[77] The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart".[78] However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.[79]
Next paragraph:
That's about it. I'm going to add a few sentences addressing the most acute of my concerns above, and I ask that you do not delete them, please, while we discuss whether the concerns I raise above are legitimate, and then wheel out sources and discuss them as necessary. -- Asdfg 12345 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
2. We can't expect people to click through links to see the status of these theories. Why don't we have something stating that other scholars consider such theories unscientific, which would make things a bit more clear?
3. I've always thought that this term "cult" should mean something more than just an ideology, it should refer to some kind of organizational structure and concrete actions that people take to do bad things to other people, wrapped up in an ostensible belief system. Just identifying ideological aspects (like the savior concept) and extrapolating this out to mind control seems so silly. Further, Kavan makes so many logical leaps, like "an apocalyptic world view used to manipulate members" -- how is an apocalyptic worldview used to manipulate people? How do Falun Gong practitioners suddenly become members? etc.. These are the problems I see in Kavan's definition and characterisation. They oversimplify, they jumble a whole lot of things together, they give wildly imprecise definitions and leave so many things unexplained. She also lists "alienation from society," when it's well known that there is no such thing among Falun Gong practitioners. Or to put it another way, the definitions she provides and the statements she makes directly conflict with a large body of fieldwork and other academic sources. However this relationship is expressed is fine. Maybe something like "Most scholars and those who have done fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners do not draw the same conclusions," or whatever it is. But DUE requires making differences between fringe and mainstream views clear. This is all.
4. The claim is only that they took the remark from the CCP, not that (as far as I know) they adopted their own cultic discourse for Falun Gong. See Penny's lecture, paragraph beginning "Before I go further", for one example. Anyway, the point here is just that this language was first adopted and then not used later.
5. I think it's too wordy and watered down as it is. Let me find a key sentence and it will be less space and convey their meaning better. (I think)-- Asdfg 12345 21:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The current section on "Academic views" seems completely irrelevant to me. It is useless saying "Scholar X did this, Scholar Y did that, but we're not going to say what significance they truly have." As a result I will now remove that entire section as per WP:BOLD. If there are issues resulting from this please discuss. Colipon+( Talk) 08:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg, maybe it is time to discuss some drastic changes to the cult section. You reverted OC saying that they have not been discussed. I put my suggestions up so that they would be discussed on the page. Perhaps you should articulate what about the trim version OC tried to add is not preferable. It is my opinion that this section, like many of these entries, is entirely too bloated. PelleSmith ( talk) 04:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will open two browsers, compare them, write some notes, get back in 6 minutes. Man, we need to be discussing with google wave.-- Asdfg 12345 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
oh right. i actually jsut deleted a bunch of stuff. My concern is mainly to make clear when and how exactly the cult label came into currency. The context of the discussion is firmly within the CCP's propaganda campaign, and it was made three months after the persecution actually begun, as a way of justifying it retroactively. It was later adopted more widely. This dynamic is important to represent for readers. This is just one thought. let me get back. did you see the chagnes?-- Asdfg 12345 05:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"Still, the government's use of the “cult” label was useful. In the West the anticult movement had been losing steam since anxiety over cults peaked in the early-to-mid 1990s. By the turn of the century most anticult activists were confined to adherents of established religions—in other words, people with a vested interest in attacking new groups.... But China's claim that Falun Gong was a cult gave the western anticult movement a new cause. Many outsiders fixated on the cult label and spent their time debating obscure definitions of Master Li's works, trying to prove that the group was potentially dangerous. One western academic wrote a paper pleading for an understanding of the government's concerns over Falun Gong's teachings, saying it had a legitimate right to fear the group. This even though the government had only interested itself in Falun Gong because of its demonstration in downtown Beijing, not because of its teachings. And most fundamentally, what was often forgotten in the learned discourse was that the government, not Falun Gong, was killing people."
Let me start a section below to outline my thoughts and problems and I look forward to your thoughts in response.-- Asdfg 12345 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
a situation outside of my control forces me to leave my computer in about 3 minutes. It's probably a good thing. anyway, I wrote some points above, I didn't get a chance to look at your wording and share my thoughts. Please compare and see what's most fitting. We want plain english and a clear and simple narrative of the main movements and sources etc., and the historical context is important to preserve. If it does all this then in my view it's great. I always prefer starting with what we have and organically changing it rather than instituting a whole new thing, though, generally. sorry, people are forcing me to get off this computer in a minute.-- Asdfg 12345 05:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, I read it quickly, (still got like 2 minutes), I would suggest that it fails to acknowledge the context with which the term came to exist in referring to Falun Gong, and that this is actuall vital in terms of getting to grips with the meaning of the term in relation to the subject. -- Asdfg 12345 05:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg12345, You performed a revert of numerous significant changes since 311212231, your change comment being: "these changes are so extensive and we didn't even discuss them? what's with this... can we just take things one step at a time?". As I know you are familiar with WP:BRD process, I wonder what you want to discuss. If you believe an edit has been made in error, you discuss that error. By reverting a large number of edits, what is it you want to discuss, specifically? All of them? Were really all edits since version 311212231 something you objected to?
You see; by performing a large revert of many different changes, you are really saying "I oppose to all of these changes, now let's discuss them", and the people who are interested in keeping the material you reverted, should do so. Now... in your case, that means participating in the discussion of PelleSmith's version; mentioned on this talk page: Talk:Falun_Gong#.27Cult.27_section. Please do so now. / Per Edman 09:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Some good faith changes have removed important information and muddled the meaning of some other information. Here are the relevant problems:
By the way categorizing this group as a "cult" does not fit within mainstream scholarship ... only within scholarship willing to 1) adopt fringe definitions of the term cult and 2) willing to assign attributes within these definitions to Falun Gong even if most other scholars do not. From the brief overview I have undertaken it seems more that clear that a vast majority of scholars don't use this classification to describe the group. Some of the changes above distort this reality rather unfortunately. I'm afraid that reactionary measures against the pro-member POV pushing at times overreaches, and I've expressed this concern before. As a point of information I use scare quotes (they are not "ironic quotes") around "cult" because it has become common practice in scholarship at this point in time. I will not argue over this in the entry however. You can chose to follow other style conventions. PelleSmith ( talk) 12:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just want to make the observation that the above section is dominated (more than 50% of content) is sourced to one academic, whereas another 2 academics make up another 40%. Ohconfucius ( talk) 05:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just made some changes to the introduction to fit more appropriately with recent changes made to the article. I made these changes while attempting to strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, and I also cut down significantly on undue weight. Please be bold and make corrections to my syntax or make it better organized as a few more sets of eyes are needed to make a good lede. Please do not revert these changes without any discussion or sound reasoning. Colipon+( Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please when removing material:
Thank you! -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll add a few sources, hope you will find it useful and incorporate it (or I might do it after a few hours of sleep).
“ | US State Dept.: China Continues To Persecute Religious Groups, State's Birkle Says
United States urges systemic reform and human rights improvement in China (2005) “According to the State Department official, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control." “The suffering of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners has been especially intense,” Smith said. “Whatever one may say about the merits of their beliefs, the evidence is very clear that Falun Gong practitioners are peaceful individuals who want to be left alone to practice their beliefs as they see fit.” From: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/July/20050722172621wkoaix0.3967707.html |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Falun Gong persecution spreads to Canada Ottawa does little to counter campaign by Chinese envoys by John Turley-Ewart 20 March 2004
[Professor] Ownby (who is not a member of Falun Gong) believes that while some of their beliefs are eccentric, the group does not exhibit any of the classic tendencies of what, for a lack of a better word, are often described as "cults." Li urges his followers to remain in the world, not to isolate themselves. He and his followers do not believe in any utopia. Adherents of Falun Gong are not asked to give money to Li, and he does not intervene in their personal lives. In fact, Ownby thinks the moral grounding of Li's teachings is likely to make Falun Gong practitioners "more responsible citizens." |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Ambassador Mark Palmer
“If the Falun Gong is an “evil sect” or “cult” then so are Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Buddhists, for all are persecuted and jailed by the Chinese Communists. We all must support this common cause.” From: http://www.cesnur.org/2001/falun_july05.htm |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Barry Beyerstein, a psychology prof and cult expert at Simon Fraser University, is clear that Falun Gong displays none of the typical characteristics – psychological, financial or physical coercion or deceptive recruiting practices. "They don't fit the profile," he says. | ” |
From: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=146197&archive=24,27,2005 -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Amnesty International
The crackdown on Falun Gong and other so-called heretical organizations The word “cult” has been frequently used in English to translate the label recently put by the Chinese government on the Falun Gong and other similar groups. However, this translation is misleading. The expression used in China for this purpose, “xiejiao zuzhi”, refers to a large variety of groups and has a far broader meaning than “cult”. “Xiejiao zuzhi” is the expression used in Chinese legislation, official statements and by the state media to refer to a wide range of sectarian and millenarian groups, or unorthodox religious or spiritual organizations, and other groups which do not meet official approval. Xiejiao zuzhi can be translated as “heretical organization”, or “evil”, “heterodox” or “weird religious organization”. The translation “weird religious organization”, for example, is used in one official translation of legislation published in the PRC. In this report we use the translation “heretical organization” to convey the meaning of the Chinese expression, though the word “cult” appears occasionally in the text when it is part of a quotation from a text or report available to us in English. It is worth noting that there is no precise legal definition for “heretical organization” in China. Furthermore, the government’s current crackdown on these groups raises the question of who is entitled to determine which group is “heretical”. From: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/011/2000/en/7a361a8e-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/asa170112000en.html , http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170112000 |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | REPORTS OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF FOLLOWERS OF THE FALUN GONG
Amnesty International is deeply concerned by reports that detained followers of the Falun Gong have been tortured or ill-treated in various places of detention in China…The government, apparently concerned by the large number of followers in all sectors of society - including government departments, declared it was a "cult" and a "threat to stability" and launched a nationwide propaganda campaign against it. The campaign was described as an important "political struggle". |
” |
-- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see Regimenting the Public Mind: The Modernisation of Propaganda in the PRC by Anne-Marie Brady. I expect there will be no problems with using this term to describe the CCP's anti-Falun Gong propaganda.-- Asdfg 12345 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Colipon, it is not clear from your edit summary why you made the following revert [1]. Based on WP:LEDE "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." I think that the Teachings are important and it is a good summary to say "The teaching are presented as a "discourse at different levels on the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure" [16], and as being, at different levels, common to both Taoism and Buddhism." then to say that "Its teachings are influenced by both Taoism and Buddhism." which does not say anything about the teaching itself. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
{undent} It strikes me as a weak attempt to position the Falun Gong as a morally positive force, making those who oppose the Falun Gong (PRC for example) a morally negative force. As such it seems like it edges on WP:WEASEL and WP:NPoV considering this I rather object to it's positioning in the lede. "Influenced by Taoism and Buddhism" is much clearer and more neutral. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Colipon, could you please address your point on the talk page, regarding your recent revert [2]? Even if the quote is WP:SPS (which was not an issue raised until now), it does not change the fact that this is how the teachings are presented by the author, and the quote is attributed. I think that it is good for this encyclopedia to include how the Falun Gong promotes its teaching. As for NPOV, I'm not sure which point is not included or how do you claim that it is biased. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I worked extensively over the course of today to make some major changes to the main article "Falun Gong" to eradicate some of the POV bruises that the article still suffers from. I also aligned, moved, added, removed, and reorganized content based on the skeleton at FLGNEW. Some copy-editing would be appreciated, as well as some more eyes to just assess the content.
There are some things that I am still unsure about and therefore have not been bold in editing. I would like to ask for input from other editors on the following issues:
I am encouraged by the progress. Recently there has been much less disruptive editing on these articles. Hope to hear from editors soon. Colipon+( Talk) 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)