This 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. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Amidst all the action recently I thought it would be a good idea to do a general tidy up. I don't want to create any disputes about points of view in this, but basically just consolidate, organize, and build slightly on what is already present. This includes combining redundant statements etc. I have just done so for the lead and teachings section. I will do it in chunks. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I noted that the hagiographic Li biography was withdrawn from circulation, (presumably as a Falungong PR image thing).
I changed the subheading from 'Skeptics and critics emerge' to 'criticism and response' because firstly, I think that more accurately reflects the nature of the content in that section, and secondly, after having read most of this talk page, it seems that the other criticism of Falungong, such as from the Buddhist community and Sima Nan, was not particularly notable during this time. And neither was it related to the protests that precipitated the state's draconian response, which is the real main thread that should be articulated in this portion of this article. So it seems to make more sense to name this subsection based on the information it contains.
I also rearranged the introduction to Li Hongzhi and his doctrine slightly, and included some more context about his religious biography.
I have just compared the diffs now, and I think that's about it. —Zujine| talk 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I made a few changes, including adding some images and recasting the part about controversies on the basis of the discussion at the teachings of Falungong page. If there's anything remiss, please note. There are more controversies than what is listed there - something that will need to be improved on later. —Zujine| talk 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the issue of the Falungong being blocked from entering parades, pointed out by another contributor on the teachings discussion page, is one missing controversy. —Zujine| talk 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[ec] Great work. There are surely more controversies, but it's often a matter of which are notable and which aren't. It's been suggested that consulting scholarly works is a good idea for establishing notability--something I'd agree with. -- Asdfg 12345 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Gao Rongrong, a Falun Gong practitioner, died in custody in June after being detained in Longshan Reeducation through Labour facility in Shenyang, Liaoning province. Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, which caused severe blistering and eyesight problems, after she was discovered reading Falun Gong materials in the facility."
The other source comes from Youtube videos which, while not much of a reputable source at all, serves in this case only as one piece of the corroborative evidence. The persecution itself, and treatment of Falungong is well documented, so we do not rely on Youtube or Faluninfo for that - merely instances of what has already been widely documented. Please clearly state any problems, and consider waiting until other editors have given their opinion before removing the image again. —Zujine| talk 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It is a curious fact of these Falun Gong pages that many issues come up again, long after they were first discussed. Sometimes this is for legitimate reasons, sometimes for illegitimate ones. I believe what I present here is firmly within the former category. The issue is whether the alternative narrative of the lead-up to the Falun Gong persecution should be included on the page or not. The standard narrative is that April 25 lead directly to the persecution, as an action-response dynamic. The alternative narrative is that the persecution was already coming, and April 25 was either part of the overall scheme from inside the upper echelons of CCP leadership, or just another thing that happened on the way, possibly speeding the whole thing up. This alternative narrative is probably most clearly articulated in Gutmann (supportive of it) and Palmer (does not seem to believe it), and parts of it hinted at in Ching, Porter, Zhao (kinda). Part of this alternative narrative is actually already in the article currently, too--about how Zhongnanhai may have been orchestrated. Another part that has been the most hotly disputed, for continually unclear reasons (see the first dispute here, second here) is how He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan are brother-in-law. In saying this, I do not actually suggest much change at all to the article. Merely the note that they are brothers-in-law, and a clarification, of probably one or two sentences, that this alternative reading exists. The great difficulty in this debate has been obtaining a clear explanation for why the brother-in-law connection does not belong; first it was said that the sources were poor, something I recently sought a third opinion on; other "explanations" for why it shouldn't be included attacked me and my motives.
And just to allay the fears that I'm rehashing something that has already been totally debunked, let me just comment on the last two responses to when I brought this up.
It may be worth noting that the vast majority of those two discussions are lamentably unrelated to the actual dispute. Anyway, by the second dispute the sourcing was no longer presumed problematic. The RS post linked above also probably puts that to rest. The only other contention is that the sources "present no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters."
My response to this is that it's quite irrelevant whether the sources which mention the connection between the two men do not present evidence that they did what they did because they were married to each others sisters. That is a very obscure point of contention: that the sources do not explain why Luo and He did what they did because of their familial connection wouldn't make sense at all, because who on earth would orchestrate a persecution merely "because" you are brother-in-law with someone. In any case, my response is that it doesn't matter that the sources are not precise on how or why Luo and He planned their activities, merely that a number of sources note the connection and draw attention to its possible significance. Their familial connection implies that they knew about each other's activities, and it implies that their activities were coordinated. It would be original research to include a direct statement of that order, but this is the implication given by Gutmann, Porter, and to some extent Zhao. I will copy, again, what they have each written on this:
"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added
"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added
"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added
It may also be worth noting that the individual who responded to my recent notice on the RS board said: "...I'm no expert in the controversy being written about, but a brother-in-law is pretty much immediate family, and if they are involved in the same political matters it's pretty hard to deem that as unencyclopedic. I mean, if this were a biography of a musician, whose brother in law was in the record business, we would certainly mention that in the article."
Right now I do not propose any specific way this information should be included. But I propose that 1) The He-Luo connection is obviously notable and has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources. 2) The reason that has been given for keeping it out so far doesn't make sense. 3) I believe this article should briefly include the fact that they are brothers-in-law.
Further, missing also are notes that make more clear the role of the state in the lead-up to the persecution (such as Ownby's statement that Beijing TV is an official mouthpiece, which was repeatedly deleted also with no good reason), that Falun Gong practitioners were responding to what they considered to be the start of a political campaign, and the general idea that there is a school of thought which considers the persecution premeditated. I expect that in total all this should not add more than 100 words to the article; maybe 50. And it would be sourced to top scholars, views which are so far conspicuously absent. Whatever the case, the Luo-He brother-in-law connection is perhaps the most outstanding issue. And I hope by now it's clear to Colipon that I'm not trying to game the system or bait him. I do not appreciate those remarks. -- Asdfg 12345 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have previously edited the above statement in "response outside China" to include what was stated in the citations. To me this statement alone is ambiguous and lacks the detail that this article should contain. It was reverted once by User:UncleBubba that :"The uncited additions really seem to violate WP:NPOV. Disagree? Let's discuss on Talk page.)" My response was: "It's not uncited and not againt NPO, it's precisely what is stated in the references following this statement." It has now been reverted by another user ( User:Mrund) without any explanations. Can someone please explain why was this edit was continuously reverted? Sjschen ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The bit you inserted was the opinion of a theatre critic in the Daily Telegraph, about one of the performances hosted by Falungong (right?). That doesn't mean that Falungong's activities are generally seen as propagandistic, or that that point of view should not be broadly summarised. Mainly it sounds like more of a label to me, which begs an explanation. I think we would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader, rather than giving them a convenient 'box' in which to place the subject. That would be my approach, to this and other subjects. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Any responses? If not I'll proceed to edit this portion of the article in the next few days. -- Sjschen ( talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Totally fails to mention that Western academics have repeatedly referred to Falun Gong as a cult; simply reading the titles of works on the subject of Falun Gong in the citations section reveals this fact. Why do they call it a cult? Because Falun Gong is a dictionary definition cult, whether you like it or not. You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.129.24 ( talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it: why does the article make you sympathise with the government of communist china? -- Asdfg 12345 13:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The last edit of section "5.2 Controversies" ( diff here) by Mangosour( Talk) appears--at least to me--to completely change the meaning of a couple of paragraphs. The change is significant enough that it seems likely the cited refs are no longer applicable. This seems to be a hot/controversial topic and, while I sure as heck don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR in my travels, neither am I willing to let POV-pushing or spin doctoring go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure, though, there is another editor or admin that will help me look at it. Thank you! UncleBubba ( Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This article still does not express total neutrality. There is pro-Falun Gong bias and not enough attention to the opposite point of view. 97.65.1.140 ( talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide documentation for the assertion, after the link to the Rick Ross site, of the site being mainly communist part sources. Just saying that they are communist party sources is inflammatory and without documentation to back it up, it could legally be construed as slander. You need to delete this assertion or provide positive proof, cited correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.1.140 ( talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A big swastika is there symbol? I don't claim to understand the culture. But the Nazis reached pretty far during ww2. Is it just a coincidence? I think this deserves clarification. I guess it seems unfortunate from a public relations standpoint. Is it partly responsible for their persecution? 98.250.99.163 ( talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the extent to which things need to be cited? I can't help think that this [1] is a FLG practitioner's overly exacting demands for sources for things that are well known. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Some more points:
There are more issues, but here are some ideas for now. -- Asdfg 12345 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair points to raise, but you need sources for your additions. I won't remove them now, pending your providing sources. If you don't source some of the more controversial statements, I will remove them. Particularly after you emphasized the need for rigorous sourcing to TheSoundAndTheFury. —Zujine| talk 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The sources provided explicitly state that Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu are brother-in-law. Moreover, sources are provided relating to the counter-narrative of He and Luo's collusion. I suggest you read the Gutmann article on this topic.
I also noticed a series of reversions occurring between yourself and Asdfg. I do not wish to get involved in this edit war, and will not myself attempt to resolve the problematic points in contention; I trust other editors can work them out. Asdfg did make a number of unsourced edits, and he discusses them above. He was asked to provide citations to support these edits, but has not yet done so. Asdfg, I suggest you get on this.
PCPP, your reversions to Asdfg's edits did not, in all cases, remove unsourced material as you claim. To the contrary, some of Asdfg's edits were in fact correcting improperly attribute sources, and others were correcting grammatical problems. For instance, you reinstated the following statement:
The Falun Dafa Information Center disputed this [the self-immolation]...and further alleged that the event itself never happened... (emphasis mine). I have never seen Falun Gong sources alleging the event itself never happened. This therefore seems like a straw man argument. Asdfg removed this, and you returned it to its place. Please explain.
Asdfg also removed the following statement: "Human rights activist Harry Wu also voiced doubts about conclusions of the Kilgour-Matas report." He did so on the grounds that the source cited (a CRS report) did not, in fact, make this statement. It is therefore unattributed. Moreover, Harry Wu has not expressed concerns about the Kilgour-Matas report; his concerns surrounded the earlier Sujiatun allegations. In any case, you reinstated a falsely attributed statement. Please explain why.
Your blanket reversions also removed references to the Luo-He familial relationship against the apparent consensus that has been reached on the talk page.
I should stop here. Asdfg, please make a concerted effort to provide sources for new material you introduced. PCPP, I suggest you allow Asdfg to do this, and retract your reversions. I would be interested in seeing what other editors recommend as a solution. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
PCPP, I linked above to several sources where this connection appears. Let me recap:
"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added
"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added
"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added
This connection may appear in more sources, but at least, it is explicitly stated in the first two above. So, what are you disputing exactly? You are here opposed by at least two (myself and Homunculus) and possibly three (TheSound, though I will let that editor speak for him/herself) other editors. I do not see how I am laying low and "sneakingly inserting them back"? I put the information in, then another editor themselves looked into the matter and fixed it up a bit. I will await your response before undoing your edits. Since we here have two reliable sources on the matter, you are required to provide reliable sources showing that they are not brothers-in-law. Your position here seems quite indefensible. I await your response, and will certainly not revert war with you on it. -- Asdfg 12345 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
As I stated earlier when this issue came up, I agree with the inclusion. Noting the familial connection and its relationship to how the persecution got started is obviously important. —Zujine| talk 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yawn, this is clearly disputed in the last discussion by several editors [2]. The dispute regarding the validity of the source still stands, and you coming back after disappearing for 5 months won't make it go away. You only provided three sources making only passing mentions, the first one comes from a known conservative magazine, the second from a Porter's PHD thesis, and the third source doesn't even specifically mention this. None of the other FLG experts eg Ownby even mentioned this quite significant claim, and none of the three sources even made the claim that Luo specifically targeted FLG because of He's claims, as you're trying to portray. This is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.-- PCPP ( talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
PCPP is editing against consensus. I reverted to give him time to think about it; maybe he is too invested in these Falungong articles. In any case: please provide sources for your points, PCPP. —Zujine| talk 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
[ec] I see Zujine has in fact already done this. -- Asdfg 12345 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added references in all cases. I am now going to explain each change, in number form. It is assumed that people consulting this list will have open on one side of their screen this diff, and on the other my list here. You can then easily compare, point by point, each change I made and see its rationale.
I hope this is enough. -- Asdfg 12345 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
In the interests of utmost transparency and collegial editing and discussion, I am going to note here some of the changes I plan on making over the next some time. This is just meant to be both a friendly indication of intent, and an invitation to dialogue for any other interested party.
We can discuss and refine any of these ideas. Let's all work together. -- Asdfg 12345 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current article does not provide a neutral enough perspective in Falun Gong. I agree with the above poster and Ohconfucius's enforcement motion, that the article is pro-FLG.
I would also contend that this article seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials and heard from my personal encounters with FLG practitioners in that there is a heavy focus on their prosecution by the CCP rather than the overall nature of FLG. There should be a greater exposition of the beliefs and practices unique to FLG, and of the FLG organizational structure. This opinion, of course, by no means is meant to lessen the seriousness of the the atrocities committed by the CCP against FLG followers.
I would also contend that after the year-long domination of this article by pro-FLG editors (asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos and HappyInGeneral) with the edits by FLG practitioners (Dilip rajeev, FalunGongDisciple, etc), the results of their dominance still linger. With the degree of controversy surrounding this group as evidenced just by this talk page, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the controversial nature of the group in the intro. Even under the controversies section, the section seems to white-wash the arguments used by opponents of the FLG by not including the details of the conservative nature of the group (eg. regarding mixed-raced couples, rock music, etc), omitting the more fanciful claims by the leader (eg flight, walking through walls, etc) and dismissing the controversy as a cultural misunderstanding while emphasizing the gentle nature of the group. I also find the omission the the controversies surrounding the health claims, particularly those surrounding FLG cancer patients being urged not to receive chemotherapy particularly egregious. Hmm... ( talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read David Ownby's book on Falun Gong? I think it's a good place to start. The arguments you make here are interesting, but the question is how much weight real scholars give the issues you raise. Does Ownby (or any other scholar, for that matter) find Falun Gong's teachings on medicine to be extremely important? Could you please provide references to substantiate that? Also, in Falun Gong there is no such thing as urging someone not to receive chemotherapy if they have cancer. I practice Falun Gong and if someone who practiced it got cancer I would suggest they get treatment, if they really had cancer. There are no rules about what people have to do, it is without form. Also, I think the arguments are documented clearly in the article already. Falun Gong is not against mixed-race marriages, as evidenced here. Finally, cherrypicking statements the "leader" of Falun Gong has made and highlighting them may be undue weight, if it couldn't be shown how third parties consider such things so important. I also do not see how the fact that people have a lot of ideas about this practice automatically makes those ideas important. Sure, they ought not be ignored, but that's not what the article is primarily about: it should be more factual rather than a stream of opinions. And I think the current set-up, where there is an opinion then another opinion, is quite fair. Or, should we delete all the opinions that try to make Falun Gong understandable? Do we seek to, rather than illuminate and help people understand the topic of the article, have them form negative ideas about the subject? My view is that the purpose of the article is to provide information about the topic, not to try to persuade readers that it is good or bad. Explaining what people find problematic about Falun Gong, then explaining how Falun Gong responded to that, and what other people think--this is fair, isn't it? Marriage is controversial, too. The article on marriage doesn't leap into the controversies associated with it in the introduction. -- Asdfg 12345 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I am curious as to how many of the editors on this page fall into these following categories: One, you have lived in China prior to Li Hong Zhi's flight to the United States. Two, you have personally attended Li Hong Zhi's public seminars while he still resided in China. Three, you have relatives or close friends who practiced Falun Gong. In my experience regarding this subject, if you do not fall into all 3 aforementioned categories, then you have no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. If you did not personally hear Li HongZhi speak, then you cannot have an educated opinion regarding whether he was an enlightened individual or a nutcase. If you cannot understand Falun Gong's texts in its native Chinese form (not one of the badly translated English copies), then you cannot form a proper interpretation. If you were not in China to witness the rise and fall of Falun Gong, and your only source of information are articles written by Western Authors (Or the CCP Media), then you do not have even the slightest clue as to what really happened. Having personally witnessed many aspects of Falun Gong while it was still practiced in China (protests, lectures, watching relatives practice), I can attest to the fact that much of the information on the articles related to FLG are either misinterpretation of facts or flat out lies.
In response to the comment made by Asdfg12345, The controversy regarding Falun Gong practitioners refusing medical treatment is no myth. It may not be written specifically in the teachings of Falun Gong but it did not stop the less educated public in China from interpreting it as such. You cannot pretend a controversy doesn't exist simply because you do not perceive it as one. Falun Gong caused many adverse health issues while it was in practice in China, with the most extreme cases documenting practitioners slicing their stomaches open with a steak knife looking for the "Fa Lun". Zkevwlu ( talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the initial comment that the article places too much emphasis on the relationship between Falun Gong and the party-state, and that insufficient attention is given to the practice and beliefs, organizations, and related issues such as demography. Moreover, while much of this information is present in the article, it is not coherently organized; the article jumps abruptly from a general overview of Falun Gong's philosophy into a historical narrative, followed by accounts of state suppression, and then back into organization of the practice. I am willing to volunteer myself to try to consolidate this information, and give somewhat more weight to matters of the practice, including its very socially conservative morality, etc. On another note, that an article "seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials" does not mean that the article lacks neutrality or is not academic per se. Neutrality is not achieved by striking a perfect balance between two competing narratives. It is achieved by following the evidence and engaging in thoughtful analysis of the best information available. Homunculus ( duihua) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have done some Reorganizing to harmonize with WP:NRM.MOS, No content has been removed or added. Some further work can be done like Trimming the Persecution Section as its nearly half the article and some of that can be more appropriately used in the history part The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the need for a reorganization of sorts as well to achieve a similar effect. That is, placing more emphasis on the practice itself (practice and beliefs, organization, categorization, demography, etc.), and consolidating some of the information that had been scattered on the page. So I applaud the effort. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the manner in which this organization was done. There is now a great discontinuity from the history in China to the ban; sections that used to lead into each other (Zhongnanhai -> the statewide suppression) are now separated by vast amounts of text. Moreover, the suppression of Falun Gong does not constitute a controversy in the conventional sense, and I don't think that's the appropriate header. I would suggest that the order of sub-sections might look something like this: 1) Practice and Beliefs 2) organization 3) categorization 4) public debate 5) History in China 6) Statewide suppression 7) Response (outside and inside China) Homunculus ( duihua) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be two issues here: the organisation of the page and the He/Luo information.
Viz. the organisation, I think we are safe putting it back to how it was before TheResidentAnthropologist's changes, which seemed deliciously bold; this was Asdfg12345's edit which has just been discussed above. I will make this change presently on the assumption that Homunculus and John Carter just formed that understanding. If I am mistaken, and in fact, it is thought that TheResidentAnthropologist's reorganisation of the page is desirable, then please do not hesitate to revert me.
The second issue is the He/Luo connection. That is still under discussion. PCPP, I don't believe the problem is that the material lacks citations. There are several sources cited. For the record, I see no reason that the sources brought forth so far should be excluded—though I could be convinced by new information.
Also for the record, I agree with John Carter's assessment on the Bahai comparison. Looking forward to the new reorganisation that Homunculus comes up with. —Zujine| talk 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Amidst all the action recently I thought it would be a good idea to do a general tidy up. I don't want to create any disputes about points of view in this, but basically just consolidate, organize, and build slightly on what is already present. This includes combining redundant statements etc. I have just done so for the lead and teachings section. I will do it in chunks. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I noted that the hagiographic Li biography was withdrawn from circulation, (presumably as a Falungong PR image thing).
I changed the subheading from 'Skeptics and critics emerge' to 'criticism and response' because firstly, I think that more accurately reflects the nature of the content in that section, and secondly, after having read most of this talk page, it seems that the other criticism of Falungong, such as from the Buddhist community and Sima Nan, was not particularly notable during this time. And neither was it related to the protests that precipitated the state's draconian response, which is the real main thread that should be articulated in this portion of this article. So it seems to make more sense to name this subsection based on the information it contains.
I also rearranged the introduction to Li Hongzhi and his doctrine slightly, and included some more context about his religious biography.
I have just compared the diffs now, and I think that's about it. —Zujine| talk 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I made a few changes, including adding some images and recasting the part about controversies on the basis of the discussion at the teachings of Falungong page. If there's anything remiss, please note. There are more controversies than what is listed there - something that will need to be improved on later. —Zujine| talk 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the issue of the Falungong being blocked from entering parades, pointed out by another contributor on the teachings discussion page, is one missing controversy. —Zujine| talk 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[ec] Great work. There are surely more controversies, but it's often a matter of which are notable and which aren't. It's been suggested that consulting scholarly works is a good idea for establishing notability--something I'd agree with. -- Asdfg 12345 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Gao Rongrong, a Falun Gong practitioner, died in custody in June after being detained in Longshan Reeducation through Labour facility in Shenyang, Liaoning province. Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, which caused severe blistering and eyesight problems, after she was discovered reading Falun Gong materials in the facility."
The other source comes from Youtube videos which, while not much of a reputable source at all, serves in this case only as one piece of the corroborative evidence. The persecution itself, and treatment of Falungong is well documented, so we do not rely on Youtube or Faluninfo for that - merely instances of what has already been widely documented. Please clearly state any problems, and consider waiting until other editors have given their opinion before removing the image again. —Zujine| talk 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It is a curious fact of these Falun Gong pages that many issues come up again, long after they were first discussed. Sometimes this is for legitimate reasons, sometimes for illegitimate ones. I believe what I present here is firmly within the former category. The issue is whether the alternative narrative of the lead-up to the Falun Gong persecution should be included on the page or not. The standard narrative is that April 25 lead directly to the persecution, as an action-response dynamic. The alternative narrative is that the persecution was already coming, and April 25 was either part of the overall scheme from inside the upper echelons of CCP leadership, or just another thing that happened on the way, possibly speeding the whole thing up. This alternative narrative is probably most clearly articulated in Gutmann (supportive of it) and Palmer (does not seem to believe it), and parts of it hinted at in Ching, Porter, Zhao (kinda). Part of this alternative narrative is actually already in the article currently, too--about how Zhongnanhai may have been orchestrated. Another part that has been the most hotly disputed, for continually unclear reasons (see the first dispute here, second here) is how He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan are brother-in-law. In saying this, I do not actually suggest much change at all to the article. Merely the note that they are brothers-in-law, and a clarification, of probably one or two sentences, that this alternative reading exists. The great difficulty in this debate has been obtaining a clear explanation for why the brother-in-law connection does not belong; first it was said that the sources were poor, something I recently sought a third opinion on; other "explanations" for why it shouldn't be included attacked me and my motives.
And just to allay the fears that I'm rehashing something that has already been totally debunked, let me just comment on the last two responses to when I brought this up.
It may be worth noting that the vast majority of those two discussions are lamentably unrelated to the actual dispute. Anyway, by the second dispute the sourcing was no longer presumed problematic. The RS post linked above also probably puts that to rest. The only other contention is that the sources "present no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters."
My response to this is that it's quite irrelevant whether the sources which mention the connection between the two men do not present evidence that they did what they did because they were married to each others sisters. That is a very obscure point of contention: that the sources do not explain why Luo and He did what they did because of their familial connection wouldn't make sense at all, because who on earth would orchestrate a persecution merely "because" you are brother-in-law with someone. In any case, my response is that it doesn't matter that the sources are not precise on how or why Luo and He planned their activities, merely that a number of sources note the connection and draw attention to its possible significance. Their familial connection implies that they knew about each other's activities, and it implies that their activities were coordinated. It would be original research to include a direct statement of that order, but this is the implication given by Gutmann, Porter, and to some extent Zhao. I will copy, again, what they have each written on this:
"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added
"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added
"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added
It may also be worth noting that the individual who responded to my recent notice on the RS board said: "...I'm no expert in the controversy being written about, but a brother-in-law is pretty much immediate family, and if they are involved in the same political matters it's pretty hard to deem that as unencyclopedic. I mean, if this were a biography of a musician, whose brother in law was in the record business, we would certainly mention that in the article."
Right now I do not propose any specific way this information should be included. But I propose that 1) The He-Luo connection is obviously notable and has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources. 2) The reason that has been given for keeping it out so far doesn't make sense. 3) I believe this article should briefly include the fact that they are brothers-in-law.
Further, missing also are notes that make more clear the role of the state in the lead-up to the persecution (such as Ownby's statement that Beijing TV is an official mouthpiece, which was repeatedly deleted also with no good reason), that Falun Gong practitioners were responding to what they considered to be the start of a political campaign, and the general idea that there is a school of thought which considers the persecution premeditated. I expect that in total all this should not add more than 100 words to the article; maybe 50. And it would be sourced to top scholars, views which are so far conspicuously absent. Whatever the case, the Luo-He brother-in-law connection is perhaps the most outstanding issue. And I hope by now it's clear to Colipon that I'm not trying to game the system or bait him. I do not appreciate those remarks. -- Asdfg 12345 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have previously edited the above statement in "response outside China" to include what was stated in the citations. To me this statement alone is ambiguous and lacks the detail that this article should contain. It was reverted once by User:UncleBubba that :"The uncited additions really seem to violate WP:NPOV. Disagree? Let's discuss on Talk page.)" My response was: "It's not uncited and not againt NPO, it's precisely what is stated in the references following this statement." It has now been reverted by another user ( User:Mrund) without any explanations. Can someone please explain why was this edit was continuously reverted? Sjschen ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The bit you inserted was the opinion of a theatre critic in the Daily Telegraph, about one of the performances hosted by Falungong (right?). That doesn't mean that Falungong's activities are generally seen as propagandistic, or that that point of view should not be broadly summarised. Mainly it sounds like more of a label to me, which begs an explanation. I think we would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader, rather than giving them a convenient 'box' in which to place the subject. That would be my approach, to this and other subjects. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Any responses? If not I'll proceed to edit this portion of the article in the next few days. -- Sjschen ( talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Totally fails to mention that Western academics have repeatedly referred to Falun Gong as a cult; simply reading the titles of works on the subject of Falun Gong in the citations section reveals this fact. Why do they call it a cult? Because Falun Gong is a dictionary definition cult, whether you like it or not. You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.129.24 ( talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it: why does the article make you sympathise with the government of communist china? -- Asdfg 12345 13:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The last edit of section "5.2 Controversies" ( diff here) by Mangosour( Talk) appears--at least to me--to completely change the meaning of a couple of paragraphs. The change is significant enough that it seems likely the cited refs are no longer applicable. This seems to be a hot/controversial topic and, while I sure as heck don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR in my travels, neither am I willing to let POV-pushing or spin doctoring go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure, though, there is another editor or admin that will help me look at it. Thank you! UncleBubba ( Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This article still does not express total neutrality. There is pro-Falun Gong bias and not enough attention to the opposite point of view. 97.65.1.140 ( talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide documentation for the assertion, after the link to the Rick Ross site, of the site being mainly communist part sources. Just saying that they are communist party sources is inflammatory and without documentation to back it up, it could legally be construed as slander. You need to delete this assertion or provide positive proof, cited correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.1.140 ( talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A big swastika is there symbol? I don't claim to understand the culture. But the Nazis reached pretty far during ww2. Is it just a coincidence? I think this deserves clarification. I guess it seems unfortunate from a public relations standpoint. Is it partly responsible for their persecution? 98.250.99.163 ( talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the extent to which things need to be cited? I can't help think that this [1] is a FLG practitioner's overly exacting demands for sources for things that are well known. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Some more points:
There are more issues, but here are some ideas for now. -- Asdfg 12345 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair points to raise, but you need sources for your additions. I won't remove them now, pending your providing sources. If you don't source some of the more controversial statements, I will remove them. Particularly after you emphasized the need for rigorous sourcing to TheSoundAndTheFury. —Zujine| talk 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The sources provided explicitly state that Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu are brother-in-law. Moreover, sources are provided relating to the counter-narrative of He and Luo's collusion. I suggest you read the Gutmann article on this topic.
I also noticed a series of reversions occurring between yourself and Asdfg. I do not wish to get involved in this edit war, and will not myself attempt to resolve the problematic points in contention; I trust other editors can work them out. Asdfg did make a number of unsourced edits, and he discusses them above. He was asked to provide citations to support these edits, but has not yet done so. Asdfg, I suggest you get on this.
PCPP, your reversions to Asdfg's edits did not, in all cases, remove unsourced material as you claim. To the contrary, some of Asdfg's edits were in fact correcting improperly attribute sources, and others were correcting grammatical problems. For instance, you reinstated the following statement:
The Falun Dafa Information Center disputed this [the self-immolation]...and further alleged that the event itself never happened... (emphasis mine). I have never seen Falun Gong sources alleging the event itself never happened. This therefore seems like a straw man argument. Asdfg removed this, and you returned it to its place. Please explain.
Asdfg also removed the following statement: "Human rights activist Harry Wu also voiced doubts about conclusions of the Kilgour-Matas report." He did so on the grounds that the source cited (a CRS report) did not, in fact, make this statement. It is therefore unattributed. Moreover, Harry Wu has not expressed concerns about the Kilgour-Matas report; his concerns surrounded the earlier Sujiatun allegations. In any case, you reinstated a falsely attributed statement. Please explain why.
Your blanket reversions also removed references to the Luo-He familial relationship against the apparent consensus that has been reached on the talk page.
I should stop here. Asdfg, please make a concerted effort to provide sources for new material you introduced. PCPP, I suggest you allow Asdfg to do this, and retract your reversions. I would be interested in seeing what other editors recommend as a solution. Homunculus ( duihua) 06:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
PCPP, I linked above to several sources where this connection appears. Let me recap:
"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added
"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added
"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added
This connection may appear in more sources, but at least, it is explicitly stated in the first two above. So, what are you disputing exactly? You are here opposed by at least two (myself and Homunculus) and possibly three (TheSound, though I will let that editor speak for him/herself) other editors. I do not see how I am laying low and "sneakingly inserting them back"? I put the information in, then another editor themselves looked into the matter and fixed it up a bit. I will await your response before undoing your edits. Since we here have two reliable sources on the matter, you are required to provide reliable sources showing that they are not brothers-in-law. Your position here seems quite indefensible. I await your response, and will certainly not revert war with you on it. -- Asdfg 12345 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
As I stated earlier when this issue came up, I agree with the inclusion. Noting the familial connection and its relationship to how the persecution got started is obviously important. —Zujine| talk 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yawn, this is clearly disputed in the last discussion by several editors [2]. The dispute regarding the validity of the source still stands, and you coming back after disappearing for 5 months won't make it go away. You only provided three sources making only passing mentions, the first one comes from a known conservative magazine, the second from a Porter's PHD thesis, and the third source doesn't even specifically mention this. None of the other FLG experts eg Ownby even mentioned this quite significant claim, and none of the three sources even made the claim that Luo specifically targeted FLG because of He's claims, as you're trying to portray. This is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.-- PCPP ( talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
PCPP is editing against consensus. I reverted to give him time to think about it; maybe he is too invested in these Falungong articles. In any case: please provide sources for your points, PCPP. —Zujine| talk 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
[ec] I see Zujine has in fact already done this. -- Asdfg 12345 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added references in all cases. I am now going to explain each change, in number form. It is assumed that people consulting this list will have open on one side of their screen this diff, and on the other my list here. You can then easily compare, point by point, each change I made and see its rationale.
I hope this is enough. -- Asdfg 12345 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
In the interests of utmost transparency and collegial editing and discussion, I am going to note here some of the changes I plan on making over the next some time. This is just meant to be both a friendly indication of intent, and an invitation to dialogue for any other interested party.
We can discuss and refine any of these ideas. Let's all work together. -- Asdfg 12345 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current article does not provide a neutral enough perspective in Falun Gong. I agree with the above poster and Ohconfucius's enforcement motion, that the article is pro-FLG.
I would also contend that this article seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials and heard from my personal encounters with FLG practitioners in that there is a heavy focus on their prosecution by the CCP rather than the overall nature of FLG. There should be a greater exposition of the beliefs and practices unique to FLG, and of the FLG organizational structure. This opinion, of course, by no means is meant to lessen the seriousness of the the atrocities committed by the CCP against FLG followers.
I would also contend that after the year-long domination of this article by pro-FLG editors (asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos and HappyInGeneral) with the edits by FLG practitioners (Dilip rajeev, FalunGongDisciple, etc), the results of their dominance still linger. With the degree of controversy surrounding this group as evidenced just by this talk page, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the controversial nature of the group in the intro. Even under the controversies section, the section seems to white-wash the arguments used by opponents of the FLG by not including the details of the conservative nature of the group (eg. regarding mixed-raced couples, rock music, etc), omitting the more fanciful claims by the leader (eg flight, walking through walls, etc) and dismissing the controversy as a cultural misunderstanding while emphasizing the gentle nature of the group. I also find the omission the the controversies surrounding the health claims, particularly those surrounding FLG cancer patients being urged not to receive chemotherapy particularly egregious. Hmm... ( talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read David Ownby's book on Falun Gong? I think it's a good place to start. The arguments you make here are interesting, but the question is how much weight real scholars give the issues you raise. Does Ownby (or any other scholar, for that matter) find Falun Gong's teachings on medicine to be extremely important? Could you please provide references to substantiate that? Also, in Falun Gong there is no such thing as urging someone not to receive chemotherapy if they have cancer. I practice Falun Gong and if someone who practiced it got cancer I would suggest they get treatment, if they really had cancer. There are no rules about what people have to do, it is without form. Also, I think the arguments are documented clearly in the article already. Falun Gong is not against mixed-race marriages, as evidenced here. Finally, cherrypicking statements the "leader" of Falun Gong has made and highlighting them may be undue weight, if it couldn't be shown how third parties consider such things so important. I also do not see how the fact that people have a lot of ideas about this practice automatically makes those ideas important. Sure, they ought not be ignored, but that's not what the article is primarily about: it should be more factual rather than a stream of opinions. And I think the current set-up, where there is an opinion then another opinion, is quite fair. Or, should we delete all the opinions that try to make Falun Gong understandable? Do we seek to, rather than illuminate and help people understand the topic of the article, have them form negative ideas about the subject? My view is that the purpose of the article is to provide information about the topic, not to try to persuade readers that it is good or bad. Explaining what people find problematic about Falun Gong, then explaining how Falun Gong responded to that, and what other people think--this is fair, isn't it? Marriage is controversial, too. The article on marriage doesn't leap into the controversies associated with it in the introduction. -- Asdfg 12345 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I am curious as to how many of the editors on this page fall into these following categories: One, you have lived in China prior to Li Hong Zhi's flight to the United States. Two, you have personally attended Li Hong Zhi's public seminars while he still resided in China. Three, you have relatives or close friends who practiced Falun Gong. In my experience regarding this subject, if you do not fall into all 3 aforementioned categories, then you have no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. If you did not personally hear Li HongZhi speak, then you cannot have an educated opinion regarding whether he was an enlightened individual or a nutcase. If you cannot understand Falun Gong's texts in its native Chinese form (not one of the badly translated English copies), then you cannot form a proper interpretation. If you were not in China to witness the rise and fall of Falun Gong, and your only source of information are articles written by Western Authors (Or the CCP Media), then you do not have even the slightest clue as to what really happened. Having personally witnessed many aspects of Falun Gong while it was still practiced in China (protests, lectures, watching relatives practice), I can attest to the fact that much of the information on the articles related to FLG are either misinterpretation of facts or flat out lies.
In response to the comment made by Asdfg12345, The controversy regarding Falun Gong practitioners refusing medical treatment is no myth. It may not be written specifically in the teachings of Falun Gong but it did not stop the less educated public in China from interpreting it as such. You cannot pretend a controversy doesn't exist simply because you do not perceive it as one. Falun Gong caused many adverse health issues while it was in practice in China, with the most extreme cases documenting practitioners slicing their stomaches open with a steak knife looking for the "Fa Lun". Zkevwlu ( talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the initial comment that the article places too much emphasis on the relationship between Falun Gong and the party-state, and that insufficient attention is given to the practice and beliefs, organizations, and related issues such as demography. Moreover, while much of this information is present in the article, it is not coherently organized; the article jumps abruptly from a general overview of Falun Gong's philosophy into a historical narrative, followed by accounts of state suppression, and then back into organization of the practice. I am willing to volunteer myself to try to consolidate this information, and give somewhat more weight to matters of the practice, including its very socially conservative morality, etc. On another note, that an article "seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials" does not mean that the article lacks neutrality or is not academic per se. Neutrality is not achieved by striking a perfect balance between two competing narratives. It is achieved by following the evidence and engaging in thoughtful analysis of the best information available. Homunculus ( duihua) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have done some Reorganizing to harmonize with WP:NRM.MOS, No content has been removed or added. Some further work can be done like Trimming the Persecution Section as its nearly half the article and some of that can be more appropriately used in the history part The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the need for a reorganization of sorts as well to achieve a similar effect. That is, placing more emphasis on the practice itself (practice and beliefs, organization, categorization, demography, etc.), and consolidating some of the information that had been scattered on the page. So I applaud the effort. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the manner in which this organization was done. There is now a great discontinuity from the history in China to the ban; sections that used to lead into each other (Zhongnanhai -> the statewide suppression) are now separated by vast amounts of text. Moreover, the suppression of Falun Gong does not constitute a controversy in the conventional sense, and I don't think that's the appropriate header. I would suggest that the order of sub-sections might look something like this: 1) Practice and Beliefs 2) organization 3) categorization 4) public debate 5) History in China 6) Statewide suppression 7) Response (outside and inside China) Homunculus ( duihua) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be two issues here: the organisation of the page and the He/Luo information.
Viz. the organisation, I think we are safe putting it back to how it was before TheResidentAnthropologist's changes, which seemed deliciously bold; this was Asdfg12345's edit which has just been discussed above. I will make this change presently on the assumption that Homunculus and John Carter just formed that understanding. If I am mistaken, and in fact, it is thought that TheResidentAnthropologist's reorganisation of the page is desirable, then please do not hesitate to revert me.
The second issue is the He/Luo connection. That is still under discussion. PCPP, I don't believe the problem is that the material lacks citations. There are several sources cited. For the record, I see no reason that the sources brought forth so far should be excluded—though I could be convinced by new information.
Also for the record, I agree with John Carter's assessment on the Bahai comparison. Looking forward to the new reorganisation that Homunculus comes up with. —Zujine| talk 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)