Talk:History of Falun Gong/Archive 2

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.

Editors who camp on this article (notably asdfg12345) continue to insist that FLG-related sources like Clearwisdom, Epoch Times, etc. are "reliable" while all Chinese government sources are branded as propaganda - even if they are used in a context to only present the Chinese government's view without making any kind of moral judgment. The selective POV-pushing is very obvious. Colipon+(T) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is clearly disputed, just like every other article about Falun Gong. I will restore the NPOV tag. A wide array of users report NPOV issues and it is ridiculous that some users continue to remove the tag. Colipon+(T) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give concrete examples? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, you've been carrying on this campaign of slander against editors and attack on pages whose highly sourced content contradicts your personal POV, under a banner of "NPOV", for a while now. Every single line here is sourced - to the most reliable of sources in the Western academia and Human Rights community. The perspectives presented are but the perspective of these sources. You work up a ruckus on these pages under a banner of "NPOV" - while your history shows you have been a strong supporter of "Samuel Luo" - the most disruptive of editors to ever visit these pages, who was banned for life, and then continued to disrupt the pages through socks. I suggest you kindly avoid personal attacks on users, refrain from presenting obviously distorted views, etc. Western academica has commented on Falun Gong human rights related sources as being reliable ( ref: Ownby ). That said, these pages do not rely on primary sources related to Falun Gong - as you may verify for yourself by going through the list of references. Dilip rajeev (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, that was just terribly offensive. Colipon+(T) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. User:Dilip rajeev, we are all trying to calm down a little and work together with a moderator to resolve these issues, perhaps you should join us? Irbisgreif (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How funny is that the only thing you can say is that you think that what Dilip said is offensive? But then how would you characterize your own agenda pushing, which is based on nothing more then thin air and lots of POV? Anyway, the point is that the NPOV tag can not stay there indefinitely. We do welcome third party assessment on it, but after that it must come down even if you don't personally like that. At this point I would like to ask the mediator to advise us on how to proceed with this issue. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs doesn't make a right--PCPP (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• If "Colipon, you've been carrying on this campaign of slander against editors and attack on pages whose highly sourced content contradicts your personal POV, under a banner of "NPOV", for a while now." isn't
  a personal attack, then I don't know what is. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• In my experience,
  ownership of this article is the reason why I stopped editing here. Until this editor is banned, I will not be returning. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

100% agree with OhConfucius. Could not have said it better myself. Vassyana, what is the correct procedure for reporting these problematic users? Colipon+(T) 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't frankly know. I and a few others have made a ruckus about this in the past, but despite the probation placed on the articles by Arbcom, there has never been any serious or consistent effort to police them. Any action which comes is generally too little too late. This explains why this family of articles is like what it is like, and why I am done editing here. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is just really, really sad. Not very encouraging. Here I was thinking that something could still be done... Colipon+(T) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the said user often disappears for months on end, only to find the incremental changes to the article during the time he was away not to his liking. From my recollection, he will then find the last version he has validated and restores it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To me it is very clear that the only solution is to ban some users. Nothing else seems to work. Colipon+(T) 03:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Currently the article is a mess of quotes and opinions bashing the PRC government. Any asshole can have an opinion on FLG and the PRC government but that doesn't mean we should report them all. This article should focus on the reported events leading up and following the crackdown of FLG. Use avaliable media sources eg TIME, CNN, BBC etc to report facts, as well as Xinhua and Clearwisdom on the views of the PRC and FLG respectively. The views of Johnson and others remain opinions - their claims should be sourced to identify that they are views not facts. Their opinions, when needed, should be summarized and to the point. Let the reader decide please.--PCPP (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Using available media sources is no problem. However, the bulk of the article should consist of academic sources instead of newspapers. Also, please refrain from using vulgar language. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think PCPP's suggestion is relatively reasonable. I'd agree with Olaf on the profanities part though. That said, I just don't see this whole obsession with academia to be justified. I am not opposed to using academic sources, but this does not mean that news sources should now somehow be relegated to the background or to non-existence. Colipon+(T) 12:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst some may object to use of the word 'asshole' above, I believe it was entirely appropriate under the circumstances. There was no breach of
  WP:CIVIL in that it was not directed at any other contributor, and it was merely a rhetorical sigh of frustration of editing this family of articles which PCPP has undoubtedly experienced. To be clear, I am not referring to Olaf, with whom I have had few if any prior dealings. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The mediator said, "Reliable sources, especially academic/scholarly sources, are underused and often selectively chosen. The former is especially true of good overview sources that place Falun Gong in a broader context of new religious movements, Chinese religion, and so forth." I don't see why we shouldn't increase the proportion of such sources in all Falun Gong related articles. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that statement was included because of the remarkable dearth of academic and scholarly sources yet used, particularly when there are so far as I remember about 100 or more articles on Falun Gong in JSTOR. We could and should add any material which can be found in those articles to the relevant articles here, but that does not mean that relevant material relating to the subject which are found in newspapers and other

reliable sources shouldn't be included, particularly if that material is of compartively high importance to the article. John Carter (talk

) 17:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Even reading through David Ownby's works, who is referenced to death in these articles, I found that the quotes and material to be extremely selective (the material selected seem to suspiciously reflect only positive things about FLG). For example, Ownby calls Falun Gong "undoubtedly controversial" right off the bat in his essay, he does a very fine job of portraying FLG in the context of other qigong forms and also highlights Li's supernatural claims as well as "scientism" - making claims related to science in order to legitimize the FLG doctrine. None of this is presented in the article at all. Colipon+(T) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments moved to main Falun Gong talk page, entered here in error (sorry). Thanks for comment Mrund --Snowded ^TALK 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done! You're exactly the kind of person the various FG articles need to get into shape. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A mass improvement drive is under way for all FLG-related articles. A good approach would be to revert to this revision. It is likely the closest the article ever got to conforming to

now I get it. Then Ohconfucius went ahead and did so. I noticed again there was no discussion. There's no question that the article needs improvements, but I question whether large-scale reverts without any discussion is the best way to proceed. In some of these cases, dozens of kilobytes of text has actually just been deleted. In many cases this could just be cleaned up, trimmed down, and tightened... instead of simply deleted. It's quite time-consuming to pick through diffs like this in an attempt to establish what was changed and what was simply lost. --Asdfg12345 15:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: can we make a gentleman's agreement? It's basically to, when deleting anything, do it in one step, so it's clear that something was removed. Example: you want to rearrange a section, delete some parts, rewrite some parts, move some parts up and others down. First just delete the parts you think should be deleted, then carry on as usual with the rearrangements. This way it will be clear what was actually taken from the article and what was merely changed. That's it. Hope I expressed this concept clearly.--Asdfg12345 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note: since the lede is an important part of the article, I am reverting it back to how it was before. I am of the belief that we should discuss large changes like that. I don't disagree with much of it, from what I can see (and I am pleased with the overall efforts to improve the page, and I'm not saying this sarcastically), but whoops. I only changed the start sentence I think. --Asdfg12345 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Final assessment, just in the interest of giving credit where credit is due: good changes, welcome changes, changes which improve the article.--Asdfg12345 17:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I took some text from a previous version which both of us had worked on, replacing some of the more pointed material which had superseded. However, looking back at the efforts yesterday, I realised that it looks a bit of a hatchet job. I have started some combing through the finer details today. I aim to take this where we left off, and get it to Featured Article level. It can be done, but probably with still quite a lot of effort. It's a complex topic, but should be less of a challenge without unproductive sniping from the sidelines. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know how to take you sometimes.--Asdfg12345 20:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OhConfucius really wants to make the article better and more neutral. That is how to take him.Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I do

not afraid to remove large quantities of text which are not relevant or compliant with WP policies and guidelines. I believe that if there's something worth saying, it's worth being brief and to the point. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not a novel.

There are plenty of articles out there which have grown organically, through different editors dumping text in. I take all the content, sift through it, review what the sources are and what they say, rework it, giving it structure and focus. I treat all articles alike, regardless of whether they are of controversial topics or no. I'm not only interested about Falun Gong, and I'm not interested in partisan bickering - that's the reason why I stopped editing FG articles. my record speaks for itself. That's how to take me. Ohconfucius (talk

) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[1]--Asdfg12345 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the issue that we are not sure of the copyright status, or the representation? Clarification: appreciated.--Asdfg12345 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

btw, I looked at every diff just now and somehow agree with all of them! what's going on?! (except maybe Colipon's date linking, which just isn't cool)--Asdfg12345 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to coincide is better than coincides as correlation does not equate to causality. Coincide suggests causality while seems to coincide allows for greater ambiguity while not denying the possibility of correlation.Simonm223 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical was actually a joke. Confucius is a longtime campaigner against date linking. The 'seems to coincide' or 'coincides' is neither here nor there, for me. The best would be "seems to coincide, according to Nowak" or "coincides, according to Nowak" -- where it clarifies what the source himself has said rather than leaving that ambiguous, right? Haven't checked the source though.--Asdfg12345 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what it is that asdfg is trying to get across. If the question deals with why Gao Rongrong's image should not be on the page - this issue has been discussed earlier. It is very sensationalistic, POV-pushing and does not belong on an encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the discussion? How is the image sensationalistic, and what point of view does it push?--Asdfg12345 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's over at "organ harvesting" talk page. Colipon+(Talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The article cites Kilgour & Matas as sources about the establishment of the outfit. Seeing that they were in no position to know this, and was not even involved in FG matters at the time, they could only have known about it second, third or fourth hand. Perhaps it would be better to have more credible, direct sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a paragraph there about the Chinese Overseas Press reporting something. The sources listed are Julia Ching, apparently writing in a single Overseas Chinese publication and some random masters student's thesis. I don't believe the latter is a notable source and I don't think Ching counts as the entirety of the Overseas Chinese Press. I can understand that if these allegations are notable their inclusion is valid but as it was the language surrounding the allegations was vague to the point that it could mislead the reader into suggesting that all Overseas Chinese publications were saying the same thing about what happened then. This is not something confirmed by two sources, one of which is highly dubious.Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• That was a very strange paragraph when I tried to unwind the citation. The article originally cited the World Journal, but I read the Porter thesis and found that that citation was verbatim from Ching quoting the Chinese overseas press. Academics often write like that, but perhaps it's a bit too convoluted for Wikipedia. Incidentally, I also found a few copyright violations, which I straightened out. Do what you must with that text. I was only going through the various sources checking the facts in this phase. There is so much superfluous detail that the culling was going to follow. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So is Ching the only source then? Does she cite a source for her claim?Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have the url to the paper, or the paper itself? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The link in the references section doesn't lead to the paper.Simonm223 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Julia Ching? I might be able to find that. Also, please see this.--Asdfg12345 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No actually we meant the master's student. You know what I'm going to say about yet another Kilgour link. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Noah Porter (Masters thesis for the University of South Florida), Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study, 2003

Reference 28 in the article <ref name=schechter>p. 28</ref> is not a proper nor complete citation. It would be great if someone could complete it with the url for verification purposes. I am already on record as saying Schechter is a partisan source. I would employ Dilip's argument (somewhat facetiously) that tabloid journalists are not serious academics, and argue that his writing deserves more careful evaluation and scrutiny, if not outright removal. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How is he a tabloid journalist? You can't just remove a source cause you think the guy's a crock. People who are highly respected are not necessarily good, and good people are not necessarily highly respected. It's all related to what we can actually prove out with other reliable sources. I thought the fellow had quite a lot of credentials. The constant character assassination and source-second-guessing that happens on these pages is a little out of hand sometimes, don't you think? Anyway, maybe it's the only way when people push Rick Ross. havingwritten a book in itself bestows some kind of usefulness. I understand he also makes movies and stuff. TBH I don't see the big deal. Maybe he's overused though, I haven't read the article for a long time. I should stop commenting and edit more.--Asdfg12345 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Several of us feel that the article has an undue POV, please leave the tag in place until the matter is resolved. There is some use of passive voice (normally it is liked by me) that seems a bit irresponsible. Make sure you don't destroy 'who' thinks something by saying "it is thought...". This is the reason for the weasel tag, and I don't suspect bad faith on the use of the passive voice. Voicing is a complex subject and I am aware of it's many implications. Finally, this /is/ a current event, is it not? As such, the current event tag seems quite appropriate, and noncontroversial, I'd think. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag has been removed again by dilip. I'm honestly surprised an editor like dilip is still able to take free rein on these articles. He looks like an SPA, has a known history of edit wars, has been banned, had nurtured sockpuppets, there's even a critical blog written about him. He's being constantly reported as a problem user. This is absurd. Colipon+(T) 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Get together some evidence and report the account then, I don't see why it's 'okay' to remove a tag when there /is/ a dispute. Whatever we might think about everyone involved in the dispute. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly just don't have to time to keep track of all of these disruptions. Just look at this: [2]. Every time someone comes in and inserts these POV statements, removes tags etc., it takes about ten times as much energy to keep watch than it is for them to come in and do their reverts. It's tremendous stress. Colipon+(T) 04:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to take a look. And after seeing this guy, I feel much more like working with Happy and Olaf, who thankfully know how to behave. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The request was denied. I think we'll have to bring it up on [[3]]. Would you be willing to do this? Irbisgreif (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also added a notice here User_talk:Vassyana#Persecution_of_Falun_Gong.2C_NPOV_tag.2C_please_advise hope this will help. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please point out which part of this article has a POV, so it can be changed into more desirable descriptions. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I looks like the neutrality of article is not discussed any longer. I have asked to establish the what alleged points of view are that infringe the neutrality of this article. However, this has NOT been possible to find out. Instead what has been possible to establish, is that this article still needs some major reworking. I therefore change the tag accordingly. Mootros (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, editors are starting to work on the problems. If you feel you are in a position to neutralise the article, please be

bold, and do so. Otherwise, comments like yours above does not appear all that helpful in solving our problems. If, however, you have concluded after reading the article that all it now needs is a cleanup, then I apologise for having reverted your cleanup tag in favour of the NPOV tag which was there. Ohconfucius (talk

) 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that what it needs a cleanup. Where is the PVO? Which part is discussed? I think, it is rather messy than lacking neutrality through some POV slant. Mootros (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading the content of the above in context of the whole article, I contend that it is too windy and esoteric for our purposes here. The entire section is convoluted gobbledegook. I would say that it privileges two sources only. The arguments completely one-sided, and should be pared down and rewritten. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really looking forward to when I will have time to read through everything and give it a big assessment. For now I can only say that as long as it's in good faith, you should make those changes that you see fit to improve the article. Err on the side of condensing/neutralising rather than "oh, this is badly worded, BALETED!" But the key information and claims and studies should get across in the quickest way possible, removing the bloat, but keeping the meat.--Asdfg12345 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at this article more carefully tomorrow, but I'm a little concerned with the use of Kavan to kick off the whole background section. She gives quite a... shall we say "unique" interpretation to Falun Gong's reception in China in the early years. I'm not saying she should not be quoted, but using a single source like that to orient the entire issue seems quite

I see that she was quoting Deng and Fang--that's a bit of a joke. We need to be careful and specific with this kind of thing.--Asdfg12345 03:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• FG argues that He Zuoxiu is an agent provocateur, yet the obverse that he was merely the red rag to the bull are merely caricatures of the persecution timeline. Well, the persecution didn't happen overnight, and the FG way of reporting how it was due only to two incidents linked to He Zuoxiu is a bit implausible or simplistic. That these hundreds of appeals occurred is not all that well known, but does not seem to be a matter of contention. Therefore, kicking off with Kavan, who sets the scene about there having been hundreds of 'appeals' over the years by practitioners for fair treatment and right of reply, and how it escalated over the years seems to make sense. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I will have nothing to complain about when the best sources are used. Deng and Fang just aren't. I understand what you mean, of course it is more complex. Did you read Gutmann's piece, "An Occurence on Fuyou Street"? You will be able to find it online. I think the article will do better with these different narratives in there--Asdfg12345 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to raise the concern that, while this article appears to be well-sourced, many of the sources are not

That is a good suggestion. However, it's not actually the

agenda platforms that have evolved over the last two years, and more and more editors are jumping on board. The worst POV abuses have already been addressed. I would say this very article is probably now the most serious POV bruise to the Falun Gong family on Wikipedia, and have thus suggested that it be moved per reasons given above. Colipon+(Talk

) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to work on content, but so far everything is sidetracked by the number of page mergers and renames. And unfortunately I do have a limited amount of time that I can allocate to these articles daily. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the appropriate way to deal with the issue of moving / renaming is to take individual material that is NOT about persecution, and remove it from this page and move it to the appropriate page. If, after that has been done, there is not enough material to warrant a standalone page, then maybe the page could be merged. But I am highly doubtful that this topic is not notable...it seems very solidly notable based on coverage I have seen. Cazort (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, you mean the initial 'background' section up to 'the ban'. We tried in the past to prune it down, but the FG editors always argue that the background is necessary to supply context to the persecution. It is back to the size (and more) than before I trimmed it. From this, I judge the most appropriate manner of treating this material is if this was actually part of the 'history of FG' article. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the background section being problematic--my concern would be that it reads like a monolithic narrative--something that is to be strongly avoided on controversial pages--that is, the individual facts may be well-sourced but the overall structure represents a particular POV. It also sounds like you're describing editing by editors with a conflict of interest, which would be a serious concern of mine. I am potentially very concerned about COI's relating both to those with an interest in Falun Gong, and those with an interest in the Chinese Government. Ideally, both of these parties should exercise great restraint when editing (or engaging in discussions) on this article. Cazort (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• My understanding is that that's exactly what's been tried over the past two years (to no or hardly any avail). Stick around, and you'll see how frustrating things can get here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Welcome, indeed! The good news is that there were once four Falun Gong
  SPAs defending the article and a maybe three or four overtly pro-CCPs. The CCP guys largely lost patience with the FG filibuster and made errors which got them banned. The tide has turned definitively. Now, the CCP supporters are background chatter. and I am optimistic that the whinging and whining from Falun Gong SPAs will go that way soon. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are problematic SPA's here, it's going to be a problem until they are banned from editing certain topics or banned outright. I don't see how a move, page deletion, or even deleting certain material is going to fix the problem. If your narrative is true, then I'm confident that a ban of these accounts editing related topics would be warranted. Engaging in a "filibuster" until the "opposing side" makes mistakes that gets them banned is a clear example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system, and in my opinion, enough to warrant a ban. But I want to be cautious here...I just came into this debate and I'm not entirely convinced I agree 100% with your analysis of things. Cazort (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears you may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. The filibustering is actually mainly coming from pro-FLG editors. The rest of us have made large efforts to keep moving on towards a properly referenced, neutral, set of articles on this controversial religion. As this means treating propaganda of both sides of the conflict (CCP and FLG) with equal skepticism and as the FLG editors have become accustomed to people assuming communism bad, FLG good this has invariably led to tensions.Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very amusing: there is a FLG banner I frequently see which says "Falun Dafa good/法輪大法好" Ohconfucius (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion between mature editors with more than about 8 FLG articles on our watchlist. I may be overstating or simplifying the problem, but that's how I genuinely perceive it. In that sense, perception is reality. I am of the view that this discussion would happen because there appears to be a

SPAs in the picture. I believe the cause and effect in your hypothesis may be incorrect - I don't think the FLG disciples' necessarily filibuster to get others into trouble, but the Consensus WP works by fails to function when a 'minority of one' refuses to shut up; FLG disciples seem to be obstinate people by nature, and discussions therefore often end up going around in circles or are inconclusive. Being without the FLG SPAs merely depolarises the whole effort, eliminates the filibustering, moralising and takes the stress out. Ohconfucius (talk

) 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on cutting back on relying exclusively on the Munro source and I also find that other articles are critical of it. I would want to keep the section though: there seem to be enough sources out there for a big section and it's an interesting and important topic, at least I think. Most importantly, it has context and relates to other topics. What about this perspective? [4] ? Or [5]? [6]? There are a great deal of sources here...particularly because China has a long history of using psychiatry for political purposes. For example, this source: [7] puts the treatment of Falun Gong in a historical context that begins in the cultural revolution. Cazort (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Kleinman and Stone were once cited in this article (see here, for example). Somewhere along the line, Munro, and that rather low-grade source (my opinion) Lu & Galli got front billing. Stone disappeared altogether, and Kleinman got hacked down so that all that was left was "He responds to Lee and Kleinman's doubts by saying..." I tend to agree with it all having its roots in the Cultural Revolution. FLG and the CCP are a double act, and are often mirror images of each other. They have the same paranoid mindset, the same tactics and behaviour. The Cultural Revolution shaped them both. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's important to source statements such as "FLG and CCP are a double act"...do you have any authoritative statements drawing this analogy? Otherwise it's
  reliable sources that echo them. Cazort (talk
  ) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read upwards of fifteen academic papers on Falun Gong and having been involved extensively with editing this article for two months now I would not go around and arbitrarily utter nonsense from my mouth if it didn't have a reliable source backing it up. Colipon+(Talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Cazort might be well advised to go through the archives and get up to speed on the history of this two-month long debate.Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The debate's actually been going since the archaic epoch of Samuel Luo. That would be a better place to start: somewhere in early 2006. But in the interest of Cazort's time, yes, the archives of this discussion would be sufficient. I think Cazort is contributing in good faith, but does lack a bit of understanding in terms of where the issue has come and where it is going. But I encourage him to offer his view. Colipon+(Talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have spent a great deal of time reading the archives and haven't even gotten through this whole thing...honestly, it does not look as clear-cut to me as you make it out to be. I've also done some searching on my own for sources, and turned up criticism of the organization...what do you think of the narrative contained in this article? [8], a shorter article: [9]. Yes, it starts looking like a rather loopy new-agey cult...and it also seems tied to the Epoch Times, which seem to be very biased, and also has some questionable ties (such as the reporter who unfurled a banner at the white house: [10]). But I still haven't turned up a single source (a) drawing an analogy between CCP and and Falun Gong, or (b) backing up the other bold claims about the strategy to gain sympathy in the west. Is it possible you all were exaggerating somewhat? Please if you have sources to back, do share, it's not fair to expect me to sift through the entire archives to find these myself. Thanks. Cazort (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is the Kazan paper, the ombudsman's report from the CBC, certain commentary from the (usually FLG sympathetic) Ownby. All these have been mentioned, and referenced, and those are just the good sources. Borderline and unacceptable sources (Singer, Ross, etc.) make simmilar claims but have been ruled out as RSes.Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What "Kazan paper"? I see nothing containing the word "Kazan" (1) cited as a source on this article or (2) on the main Falun Gong article, or (3) on this talk page or (4) in archives 1 or 2. A search for "Kazun falun gong" in google and google scholar didn't turn it up. I am asking for explicit references. I also don't know what this "ombudsman's report" is; the only CBC reference on this page is a broken link and Falun Gong doesn't contain a single source from CBC...please give me a reference so I can read it. I have already gone above and beyond digging through discussions looking for things that aren't there. This is starting to border on absurd. The claims being made are very bold and need explicit references. It is never sufficient to assert that "this has already been discussed" or assert that the sources are out there without showing them, because that can always be used to mask a fallacious argument. Show me. Cazort (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

{undent} My appologies, typo, It's Kavan. And here's a reference for you to read it:

• Kavan, Heather (July 2008). "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?" (PDF). E. Tilley (Ed.) Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Wellington. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to remind User:Cazort that if there is a specific phrase in the article that s/he is skeptical about, it is okay to bring it here and challenge the source's reliability, and present ideas for possible rewrites or modifications. If the doubts are purely about user comments and claims on this talk page, then it would not be particularly useful to start an RS ruckus if it is not going to directly affect the article. For example, OhConfucius' statement about CCP and FLG being a

WP:OR. That is a policy for article content, not talk page content. Users are not levied a burden of proof to voice their opinions, so long as they do not transfer this POV to editing the article itself. Colipon+(Talk

) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon, the Kavan article was an interesting read; it provides a compelling narrative...whether or not it's an accurate analysis, I'm not 100% sure. I understand that I must seem unusually adamant here about asking for sources. My issue is not that I think people are "not allowed" to say what they want--merely that I don't find arguments with bold, unsourced assertions to be at all convincing (or constructive--because they can stir up controversy, whereas, providing sources usually calms controversy and focuses debate on key points by delineating who is advocating which POV). Cazort (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because of the intensity of the propaganda war on both sides of this issue it is sometimes hard finding good references that aren't just PoV pieces. Kavan is about the best I've found and, coming - as I do - from a sociological background I have no issue with a participant observation research methodology.Simonm223 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Kavan's analysis is most unique among all the academic analyses of this phenomenon you will find. She is, for example, the first academic I have seen which accepts the CCP's language and definitions for referring to Falun Gong. She's also one of the very few I've read which attempt to seriously downplay the persecution of the practice in China. I think a genuinely neutral analysis is Zhao's, and some of Ownby's are also great. This topic is so bizarre and complex though, I guess I ultimately recommend reading everything. When you read a couple of dozen of these 'academic X's take on Falun Gong and the CCP', though, you realise that Kavan is standing out there somewhere, between Margaret Singer and the CCP, and there are miles between she and researchers like Ownby, Zhao, and others (and they're not really pro-Falun Gong people, I just think there's far more rigour in how they support their arguments.)--Asdfg12345 08:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Caveat: I support the move.

However, it is clear that there needs to be a home for further discussion, and also that the previous discussion is in fact concluded, there had been no updates for some time. I am going to mark the discussion closed, so that new editors won't have their posts lost in the old discussion. This does NOT mean that the ISSUE is closed, only that trying to discuss a new proposed move (the other one is done) in the midst of the old !vote discussion would be a gigantic mess.- Sinneed 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Edit - Sinneed 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can agree that this is a time for open discussion of the issue, not to !Vote, so please consider all options and thoughts about a possible article move. I want to thank everyone in advance for their open and courteous discussion of the issues.- Sinneed 14:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I can't see my previous comment now but I wanted to say that the move was done with a clear consensus and I strongly support it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this conclusion. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Having observed the recent discussion and action, it appears to me that there are strong sentiments to rename the article Persecution of Falun Gong. However, I cannot see that there is a general agreement among the commentators that it should be called History of Falun Gong. I personally think that this title is inappropriate, if not deliberately misleading. It is playing fast and lose with the term history that implies the study of the human past. Not only is there no historiographical method deployed by most of the authors on the subject, but also because of the existing controversy whether events have happened like this and if so whether they have ceased now. Those who advocate such a name (i.e. History of Falun Gong) will have to ask themselves whether they are taking a specific position in that existing controversy rather than merely describing it. Mootros (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I offer some rationale behind the move in the #Clarification section above, as well as at the beginning of the moves section. It wasn't simply that we decided "Persecution of Falun Gong" was a bad name, and therefore we should move it to a better one. It was because there were larger considerations that dealt with the bigger picture surrounding all Falun Gong-related content on this encyclopedia, and this will be quite clear after reading exhaustive archives on this matter. I also think that the discussion above provides very sound logic to move the page. Colipon+(Talk) 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part is logic? Mootros (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, to a degree, that this title is perhaps not the best title for some of the content. However, the discussion of the previous page seemed o imply, in a sense, that the "History" was a subtopic of the "Persecution" which struck me then and still strikes me now as backwards thinking. I agree that there probably is a basis for a separate Persecution article in addition to this one, but that, as the Persecution is a subsection of the broader history, it makes more sense to work out how much coverage to give the persecution within the history as opposed to the opposite. So, in effect, in response to the implicit request that some of this material be moved, I tend to agree. I should note that the leading authority on Falun Gong in the west,Ownby, states that both he and the "international community" or whatever you want to call it take Falun Gong's word for the numbers of persecuted, So, while much of this content doesn't belong here, this topic is itself sufficiently notable to exist, and much of the material in it will be moved to an article on "Persecution" or whatever as soon as we decide how much coverage to give the persecution in the broader history article. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with John. Lots of work needs to be done and eventually we may decide that 'persecution' should be spun out into its own article under History. But we need to work on the "history" part first. Colipon+(Talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you want to recreate the Persecution of Falun Gong, however I'm still not clear when, or why was it even necessary to "loose" it in the first place? Wouldn't it be more natural just to create the History article then move out everything not related to persecution from the persecution page to the History page? That is why I see no sense for the rename. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You are putting words into his mouth. He merely said that we need time to properly develop a 'History' article properly, and that there may come a time when a 'Persecution' article is justified in terms of the availability of material, and its disposition compared with the material in other Falun Gong articles as a whole. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)