Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 27

Final decision on "Criticism of Falun Gong"

The attempt to take the question of what title should be used for the current Academic views on Falun Gong page to a noticeboard[2] has resulted in no new input and no new editors commenting on the issue. I want a reboot, I won't accept that discussions just stall or are abandoned without a decision. Keep arguments short, to the point. If you want, vote on these alternatives. If not, write Comments, kept short. / PerEdman 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Leave the name "Academic views on Falun Gong".
2. Rename the article "Academic attention on Falun Gong".
3. Rename the article "Reception of Falun Gong".
4. Rename the article "Critique of Falun Gong".
5. Rename the article "Criticism of Falun Gong".

Opinion

• I think Reception of Falun Gong is the best of the ideas voiced. Maybe a title like Falun Gong public debate or Public debate about Falun gong might be even better.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly strongly strongly agree with Maunus. He is clearly a wise person.--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I choose 5. as it is the defacto standard for articles of this type, there are 72 of them already. There are some 3 and 4, but 1 and 2 are unheard of. Criticism can be positive and negative and the article itself will make clear all notable criticism, positive, negative and whatever. / PerEdman 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 is the choice most in keeping with existing standards. An RfC might be possible, if one wanted to go that path, but I have very serious difficulty in seeing how, based on the rather weak reasons for opposing the most standard option available, anyone coming in to comment from outside would choose any other option. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) -
• 5 is the choice that matches with existing religious pages. I strongly support choosing option 5.Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 is the best choice here. It is the standard for religious pages, as Simon said. I support option 5.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5, as per above. Colipon+(Talk) 17:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 I fear that when the actual article becomes editable again, this title will encourage partisan edits but of course, that is what the ban hammer is for.Theleike (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• 5 in line with similar articles for other religions. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

There is little discussion here. The clear choice would be to choose Reception because it is obviously the best!--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to what logic?Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it not obvious?--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No.Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointedly avoided putting in any "Other" category because this discussion and these articles have taken too much of a beating, too many sidetrackings, too many metadiscussions for any more brand new branches to be added. Please choose an option that most closely agrees with you. If you cannot be courteous enough to do that, please avoid involving yourself in what is already a very unstable discussion. This article is on probation for good reason, and has been for a good long while. Please help. / PerEdman 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By not putting in an "other" category you obtain the effect that only your personal suggestions are viable options. I am not going to conform to that - if there are better suggestions anyone is free to make them and to argue for them. That is not a matter of courtesy. I don't think you are helping the debate by restricting the number of possible solutions to the ones that happen to have occurred to you. I also don't think the argument used by several editors about making the title conform to those of other similar articles is tenable - because other articles do it that way that does not mean that this article has to, or that those other articles did the right thing in the first place.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

These are not my suggestions. My suggestion is number 5. That other pages do it this way is one reason for this article to do it as well, as it would follow the expected standard, it would become easier to find for someone searching for it, and would contain content one expects to find in such an article. Aside from that, I also believe "criticism" is the exact term for the content it holds. I do not believe "public debate" is appropriate as it excludes mass media that do not feature debate. What are your arguments in favor of your suggestions? / PerEdman 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put my own suggestions in my statement of opinion. I don't think criticism is good because it gives ideas of a POV-fork, and because I don't think it is true that criticism can be positive. Criticism can be cosntructive - but its still not positive, criticism is nearly always understood as the expression negative opinions about something - we don't want an article containing all the negative viewpoints on Falun Gong - we want all the relevant negative perspectives to be in the main article. If there are to many relavant opinions to fit in the main article we can make a spinout article with the same name as the section that also includes only relevant opinions disregarding whether they favour or criticize Falun Gong. Public Debate does not exclude those media that doesn't debate - a public debate to me is understood to go across media and platforms and simply involved the public voicing of opinions and counteropinions in any form. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether criticism can be positive is a matter of fact rather than opinion. Whether criticism is constructive is a matter of presentation together with suggestions, not whether the central criticism is perceived as positive or negative. If the criticism is valid I would say it is always positive, though you might not feel it at the time. But this is not the place to expound on the meaning of positive and negative, or even criticism. Where you use "debate" above, I would use "discourse" as it includes more forms of communication (but not in this article). The article will not be exclusively given to those opinions that have counteropinions - the existence of both being a requirement of a debate - but also to spontaneous reactions that have resulted in little feedback. / PerEdman 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Maunus here. Although I would be open to "Public debate on Falun Gong", "Criticism" is basically the standard for all religion-based articles. So in order to establish that Criticism is not a viable option, an editor should be able to prove how Falun Gong is so unique to all these other 72 articles to not have a criticism article of its own. If this means a "negative POV fork" then there is certainly a problem with all 72 wikipedia articles with that title - but those articles seem to be doing fine as it is, even Criticism of Christianity, and especially Criticism of Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The normally negative connotations of "criticism" is not a matter of "fact" it is a matter of usage - and the usage of the word is ovewhelmingly about expressing negative opinions about something. And there is a problem with those 72 articles - the same problem that lead to deletion of the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article. Relevant criticism belongs in the main article not in separate articles. I would agree with "falun gong in public discourse" as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are aware of the fact thatm depending on usage, criticism can indeed be positive. Do you believe there is a specific and meaningful risk that the usage of the word criticism in the title will lead readers to assume that the contents of the article cannot be positive?

As a long term goal I agree with you and Jimbo Wales in the Criticism essay) that a really good text integrates criticism naturally into each section where relevant, but I do not believe we can reach consensus on that at this time. It is a suitable goal for FA-level, and we're not even near that now. Baby steps. / PerEdman 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why long term and short term goals should differ in this case. You seem to dismiss out of hand the possibility that we can make Falun Gong live up to the policy expectations of an NPOV article. That's sad in my opinion. I am sure we can make this article portray both the relevant negative and positive views on Falun Gong in a neutral, detached manner and that we can do this through the process of consensus making. A good start in working towards this goal would be for editors here to take a stand and demand that criticism be integrated into the article and that any spinoff articles function merely as repositories for excess material (that is material that is too detailed to be in the main article) - both negative and positive.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and I am jaded by the article's history thus far. I'd like to believe that we can make the article FA status right away, but I don't. I also do not believe that using the title "Criticism against Falun Gong" in any way breaks the policy expectations of an NPOV article, as I do not believe that "Criticism" is inherently negative or positive. What others may interpret cannot always be accounted for. I AM however sure that relevant positive and negative criticism can be gathered, today, under the title of "Criticism against Falun Gong". For now, it would give a breather's pause to not have it inside the main article. Baby steps again. / PerEdman 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that by insisting on baby steps in the wrong direction we are laying out snares for ourselves that we will not realize untill later. The reason I stand against the word "criticism" is that I feel that it might well be a roadblock towards integrating into the constuction of consensus those users who feel that other editors are too bent on "criticising" the falun gong movement. I believe that if we were to choose a more neutral sounding title working with those editors might prove easier.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not enough of a reason to not have a "Criticism" page though - the reason for having a "Criticism" page is not so we can criticize Falun Gong, it's so we can talk about people and groups who have criticized Falun Gong from an objective light - and contrary to what some users suggest, criticism of Falun Gong is not only from the "fringe". Besides which, as far as I can tell no one here is bent on "criticizing Falun Gong" - people here are trying to rescue the articles from the dreadful Falun Gong promotion that they used to be; but that is a meta-discussion that I would rather not delve into right now seeing how much these articles have improved over the past month. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that these baby steps are "in the wrong direction". "Criticism" is the standard and there is both a section in the main article and a separate article dealing with such criticism. Building that content up to a healthy standard under the name that would be expected by an outside reader will still work towards the "right direction" of encompassing all forms of criticism be it public or private, academic or newsworthy, political or religious. Choosing another name, now that would be a step towards obscuring the article from casual readers, which would be in the "wrong direction". / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the possibility of reaching a compromise is always a good reason to kill one's darlings. Especially when there is no compelling reason to let them live. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the compromise? (Or was that just sarcasm?) I am getting confused.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise is not necessarily a middle ground and it is not necessarily an action one takes in every single topic. It is accepting what one does not believe to be the perfect solution now, to include more people in the process. Such as, say, renaming the page "Criticism" and building its content neutrally, towards the real, future goal of a Featured Article where the content from the "Criticism" article and section will be spread evenly and relevantly throughout the article. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't use sarcasm. A compromise would be a solution of the naming dispute that is acceptable to all editors. My suggestion of naming the article "Falun Gong in public discourse" was an attempt to suggest a road towards compromise. However at this point the editors whom I believe will be critical (in the negative sense) of naming the article "Criticism of Falun Gong" are not participating in the debate and so it makes it appear that there is no need for a compromise. I may be wrong and maybe every editor finds the ccriticism title to be the best - in which case I will of course kill my own darling and conform. But I would like to note that it was the premature assumption of consensus that created the editwar that lead to the page currently being protected.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. Only those who participate can be accounted for, and of those, only those who argue their point can be weighed into the decision. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: more arguments in favour of naming the article "reception" can be found in the here where it is also suggested that "criticism" is indeed usually thought of as negative views and that sections combining negative with positive views are suually called reception. It also states that "reception" has been suggested to be the future standard of this kind of section for all major WP articles. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That part of the WP:CRITS essay deals with section headings rather than article titles. The essay's expressed opinion on the word "criticism" and its usage as article titles is being discussed above. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

it also sattes that: "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per Wikipedia:Content forking: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." For example the "Criticism" section of Igor Stravinsky should not be moved to a separate article such as "Criticism of Igor Stravinsky"."·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your views. I do wish to make note of the fact, however, that this is the third time these arguments have surfaced and it is a little tiresome presenting the same material over and over again. I will have to refer you to discussions over at WP:FLG, and then after that at WP:NPOV/N. Colipon+(Talk) 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That fork has already taken place. We are now discussing the title of that fork. I repeat that for the long term, my goal is to integrate the content of the fork into the main article. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they keep resurfacing could point to an underlying problem that may not be fixed by simply doing like we have done the previosu times, could it not?

Fair enough, but I honestly still don't see why Falun Gong is so unique it needs to be differentiated from 72 other articles. Colipon+(Talk) 18:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with differentiating it from those - it is choosing the best, least POV suggestive name for this article. The names of the other 72 articles are irrelevant in my opinion. I don't think there is any reason that the mistakes made at those pages shpould be repeated here if we can avoid it. I appear to be outnumbered here and of course we can have a good article with the title "Criticism of Falun Gong" - but I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

How is following an expected standard irrelevant? We cannot always account for suggestion or possible bias. / PerEdman 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[Reply to Maunus above]: We should be absolutely clear what we're dealing with here. The original article name was "Criticism and controversies of Falun Gong". Then the article was moved to "Third Party views of Falun Gong", without much discussion and under dubious reasoning, by Olaf. Then it was moved again to "Reception of Falun Gong". And now we are proposing to move the article back to where it originally was, while omitting the word "Controversies". Colipon+(Talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what influence the history of moves would have on my arguments?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been quite interesting to follow. I support any of the non-POV names, such as Representations of Falun Gong, Falun Gong in Public Discourse, Public Discourse on Falun Gong, Discourses Surrounding Falun Gong, etc., but most of all Reception of Falun Gong. Maunus has no axe to grind and his opinions have been heeded before. "Criticism of..." is a POV magnet and runs the risk of looking like a POV-fork, and it tries to pretend that "criticism" doesn't mean negative commentary, when it obviously does; other religious articles so-titled are mostly POV-forks of negative commentary (judging by the few I looked at). These arguments were all raised. The latter option of "Reception of Falun Gong" is recommended by the essay on criticism, it's clearly neutral, and it clearly defines the scope and content of the article. It does not, inadvertently or otherwise, project a point of view as to the content of the article, and this is the most important point.--Asdfg12345 05:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Manus: "The history of moves does not matter." Fair enough. Let's just move it, without any consensus, and then claim that the history is irrelevant. That's what happened, is happening, what should be happening again. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is irrelevant in how many locations it has been - what is important is that it becomes located at the best title for which we can reach consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There won't be consensus, ever. At least not if you define consensus as unanimous which has apparently become the assumption for this discussion. That's why I have stayed away and only followed it from a distance. If your goal is unanimous consensus, you can give up. It's not going to happen. At some point you will have to realize that some people here need to be flat-out ignored, not in the sense of not listening to what they want to say, but in the sense of not incorporating their views into a final decision. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If that is your view then I see no point in trying to work on this page. If you have already decided that some editors' opinions are not worthy of inclusion then you are the problem for achieving consensus not them. I can't be bothered to try to help out here unless everybody starts assuming good faith from everyone else and listening to arguments instead of just creating and widening divisions. I have better things to do with my time then.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong. :) To have consensus is not the same as being unanimous, so we can continue working on the page, but not if our goal is to please everyone. That is impossible. And some editors opinions, just as the opinions of some sources, are indeed not worthy of inclusion. It is for example not enough to just say no to a suggestion, as the process is not democratic, either. WP:What is consensus / PerEdman 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not said that consensus needs to be unanimous. But I have said that if someone decides out of hand that certain editors opinions invalidate their arguments, with out need to consider them then there will never be consensus. I happen to think that we can come very close to a unanimous consensus on most of the content of the article - this is a belief that has been reinforced by seeing asfdg and olafs sensible approach to discussion. There is a difference between stating that some editors should be ignored (which is how I understand what Seb Az86656 is saying) and saying that any opinion that is not well argued or in line with WP:Policy should be ignored. The second is the correct way to achieve a consensus, by evaluating arguments - not editors. The first way only leads to further polarization and animosity.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus already exists, and it is in fact official policy for articles on wikipidia: neutral point of view. That is one of the main tenants we are to uphold. That is the basis for all our endeavors. That is the life-blood which sustains wikipedia.

A neutral point of view, first and foremost, entails equal treatment for everybody. Throughout history and into the present, there have always been groups who claimed special status and different treatment for themselves, asserting that only they are not as all the others, and that therefore they and only they must be given consideration for their rightful place, a special vocabulary, different titles, as well as immunity from certain views or discussions. The Israelites claimed to be special ("עור לגואים"). The Nazis claimed to be special ("Herrenrasse"). Scientology claims to be special. Those who favored segregation claimed to be special. Henrik Verwoerd, prime minister of South Africa, introduced apartheid and called it "good neighbourliness" for special people.

Only one groundbreaking decision by the Supreme Court of the United States stands out: There cannot be "separate but equal." If anyone wants to launch a discussion on the general merit of having articles with the title "criticism of..." for religious denominations, I am willing to join that discussion as it would definitely be an interesting one to have. As it stands, the word is used throughout wikipedia; singling out any one group for special consideration would be as absurd as separate but equal, and would support those who claim the throne of enlightenment for themselves.

This cannot be. It cannot be that those who support the neutral point of view policy are suddenly "the problem." It cannot be that those who adhere to our mutual pledge and agreement are "the obstacle." It cannot be that a consensus will override that neutral point of view. It is even policy that consensus cannot change policies. That is why I say that those who favor a breach of policies must be ignored. Those who claim that "their" group deserves a special status must be ignored. The neutral point of view must be upheld. That is what we are here for. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly that neutrality requires that all topics be treated equal. The fact that you stoop to using analogies with apartheid and Nazism are simply saddening. I also disagree very strongly with the notion that users with certain viewpoints have to be ignored. I am not going to attempt to work on this topic if this is the prevailing attitude of the selfproclaimed neutral editors. With this uncompromising attitude you will be repeating the same disputes over and over for eternity, I am not going to be part of that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way. However the concensus here leans strongly in the direction of suggesting that the FLG should be treated the same as other religious groups. If rhetoric occasionally becomes inflamed it is in part because of the obstacles we have reached in achieving this goal because of the actions of devoted pro-FLG editors. No strong and cohesive argument has been put forward for why the FLG should get special treatment.Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:OTHERSTUFF is a pretty cohesive argument that malpractice in other areas of wikipedia is no argument for doing the same in other articles. It is simply not about special treatment and continuing to claim this is a huge red herring. If anything EVERY topic deserves special treatment - we can't just make a template for religions and make them all fit. Go ahead and work with your one-sided "consensus" wikipedia will be losing for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If the goal is to brand defenders of the neutral point of view as "self-proclaimed" then people like Simonm223 and myself will have to leave. My comparisons were absolutely accurate with respect to the point I was making. Therefore: Do you want me to leave? Yes or no? Seb az86556 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not want you to leave. But if you are unable to realize that every view point is valid and that it is possible to collaborate with any goodfaith editor no matter what their view point is then I am going to leave. There is no such thing as neutrality - we all have biases, the trick we are trying to accomplish is to make the article not reflect those biases. This cannot be accomplished by ignoring those who have a bias that we do not share. My bias is in the sociology of religion, for example but that doesn't mean that I think people looking at religion from another viewpoint, say the AntiCultMovement viewpoint should be ignored. Their views should also be included, with sources and their viewpoints should be described as coming from that particular camp and assigned weight according to notability. it really is that simple - but it requires a will to cooperate form all parts.

Every viewpoint cannot be valid, logically, but also specifically in Wikipedia. A viewpoint may very well be "valid" by a completely different standard, but if the viewpoint is used as an argument towards putting something on or taking something off Wikipedia, then the viewpoint also needs to be valid within the framework of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That the viewpoint has merit outside of that framework may be true or not, but is hardly relevant here. / PerEdman 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My point exactly. This discussion is not about the content of the article, where there is ample space to consider all possible sides and gives extensive coverage to different views. This discussion is about the title. There can only be one title. And as such, there is only one point of view that warrants consideration: the neutral one. Everything else is irrelevant.

(As a side, I do not wish to be put into any camp, or given any label. Feel free to do that for yourself, Maunus, but do not tell me what I think or what my beliefs are.) Seb az86556 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the "selfproclaimed" comment was in esponse to you referring to yourself and simon as "neutral editors"·Maunus·ƛ· 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it safe to assume that was a poor phrasing of the fact that they are third-party, uninvolved, neither for or against Falun Gong, the PRC or anything else. Against the backdrop of rather recent insinuations and ad hominem attacks on these talk pages, it may seem funny that anyone would need to call themselves neutral, but you'd have to understand it within the context of the climate that has existed. (Well, you don't have to but I'd believe it wise to avoid upsetting anyone unnecessarily.) / PerEdman 19:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PerEdman has, as usual, hit the nail straight on the head. The truth is that I don't particularly like any religion that much. But that being said I also don't like capitalist-authoritarian single-party governments like that of China very much either. I am not invested in bringing the FLG nor am I in propping it up. I approached this actually because another editor brought it up on one of the message boards I frequent and when I first came to the FLG pages they were a total mess. I have simply been trying to make neutral articles. This is why, you will find, that when edits have been made that reinforce neutrality, even when they are edits that deleted material I put in, I have been happy to let them stand. So yes, I proclaim myself neutral. Because, at the end of the day, I'll be happy when I don't see FLG all over my watchlist every day and I can get to some of the real crazy fringe stuff that is still on other sections of Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do't subscribe to that brand of logics. Every viewpoint is equally valid - because we all have one and there is no way to objectively choose one over the other. But when I say viewpoint I am talking about editors inherent biases - which are not supposed to go in the article. To say that an editor is disqualified from contributing because of his viewpoint is not objective, not in-line with policy and does not contribute to building articles. In the context of wikipedia however, arguments are not equally valid, because we have policies that arguments must conform to. This is why it is possible to objecively choose what goes in an article and what doesn't - and how. What I mean is that editors are not disqualified by their viewpoints - because we do not discuss editors - we discuss arguments. If arguments don't conform to policy we can disqualify those arguments - but that doesn't mean the editor proposing the argument is disqualified form putting forth other arguments. I am reacting here to the notion that some editors are inherently neutral and others are inherently partisan. That is a view that leads nowhere. Judge arguments, don't judge editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I had gathered that you are not an adherent of logic. Sadly this means that your arguments - building as they do on causality - become contradictory and cannot be taken seriously. To put it in another way: Your arguments do not conform to the "policy" of causality. Just as there is a framework for wikipedia, so there is a framework for human communication. That it cannot be subjectively determined if objectivity can be achieved doesn't enter into it.

I think you have made a mistake in this notion you are reacting to. Does that notion really exist outside yourself, or are you just warning others of an artefact of your own interpretation? / PerEdman 19:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard many statements in these pages trying to differentiate between "us neutral editors" and "those pro_FLG editors". So no it is not an artefact. What I said about logics means that I don't believe that all viewpoints cannot be valid - because viewpoints are not governed by logics and no one here has better claims to absolute objective truth than anyone else. If you find my arguments selfcontradictory please point out how so that I can explain.

All viewpoints cannot be valid as viewpoints can be contradictory whose equal validity would lead to paradoxes which cannot exist under a logical system. But the existence of the word "neutral" on these pages has nothing to do with poststructuralist philosophy, it is a reaction to more or less blatant promotion and non-NPOV editing that has gone on. Outside editors were invited and they were called "neutral". It has nothing to do with believing oneself to be perfectly objective, it is a term used in contrast to previous partisanship and conflict on these pages. / PerEdman 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. So let me replace the word then: "certain arguments must be ignored." Seb az86556 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Manus: If your argument is that criticism of... articles are malfeasance (as this is the main "template" related issue at the moment) than that would be an interesting discussion. But the Falun Gong article talk page isn't the best place for it. The FLG should be held to the same standards as other religions. This, of course, applies to titling conventions and other template matters. It also, however, has large amounts to do with the extent to which PoV material is allowed into the articles and what costitutes a reliable source.

Again returning to the Organ Harvesting issue, there is a significant issue with the K&M report on which nearly the whole aricle is based. Experts on the FLG, such as David Ownby have said that the K&M report provides no evidence of organ harvesting specifically targeting the FLG. David Kilgour and David Ownby are not experts in China, Chinese Law or the ins-and-outs of organ donation in China.

The other major source in the article is the Epoch Times, a newspaper OWNED by the FLG which is the original source of the allegations.

A report came out from the PRC which actively disproves the K&M allegations. The FLG fought hard (and IIRC successfully) to have the PRC video report removed, claiming it was not an RS. And yet they fight equally hard to have the Epoch Times and the K&M report considered to be RS despite the fact that they have just as clear a bias as the Pro-PRC material.Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Using biased sources is not a problem as long as the source is identified with its bias and all relevant views are included weighed according to notability. Of coursw the PRC response to the allegations must be included in the article anything else would be unthinkable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy that suggests that because x number articles follow y naming convention every other article about similar topics must do it as well. The agument for conformity has not basis in any wikipedia policy. The decision of what names Falun Gong related articles should have is made by consensus at those Falun gong related articles, not at any other articles. other than actual policy decisions taken in other areas of wikipedia may have a guiding function but nothing more. I of course agree that if the scientific consensus is that Falun Gong is not specifically targeted by organ harvesting then the article should state that, but this is not the present point. The present point is whether to name the section and article about the views of Falun Gong expressed in the public discourse should be called "criticism", "reception" or something else. WP:CRITICISM makes strong arguments in favour of either integrating negative and positive views into the general treatment of the topic or in case of the consensus deciding to isolate those views in a specific subsection to call that section "reception" or something similarly neutral that oes not give emphasis to negative views. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy saying that editors shouldn't edit wikipedia articles drunk. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to edit drunk.

In an encyclopedia, in any written work, internal consistency is a very good idea With regard to "Criticism of Falun Gong" it is that internal consistency I am pursuing. Furthermore FLG should not be treated differently from other religions.Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have adressed both of those points several times now. Consistency cannot be used as an argument that "criticism" is a preferable name. And it is not treating FLG ~"differently" either. For all wikipedia topics that are not directly covered by the naming policy discussion of which name is preferable is done locally. What other articles decide is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a standard encyclopedia and the advantage of having consistency in entries doesn't apply - anyway consistiency should only be applied when there is a conscious decision to impose consistency -in this case it is just mindlessly following the practice of others. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Consistency can be used and has been used and is a relevant argument that Criticism is a preferable name, if there is to be a separate article. It is the same reason building floors should be numbered in sequence, regardless of what that sequence is. Usability. That still applies. Nothing "mindless" about that conscious consideration of best practices and their results. / PerEdman 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You should assume "mindfulness" by everyone. I don't think any of us could sustain these long discussions mindlessly. See your own comments above ;) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that was a bad word choice, I am sorry for that. Fact is however that no one has made any arguments about why we should follow the practice of "criticism of x" other than because 72 other articles do it. It may not be mindless but it is short of a rationale.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, this actively sidesteps the discussion about the merits of the name, which is what the discussion should actually be about. --Asdfg12345 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As a writer and an educator internally inconsistent documents irk me personally. It is untidy and unprofessional. Although wikipedia is a hobby and not a profession I still think we should strive to a level of professionality in our structure and policies. Regardless I do not believe that any adequate justification has been provided for not using criticism. And in the absence of a valid reason not to treat the article this way the move to structural consistency becomes a perfectly valid one.Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to address Seb: Colipon points out above that Olaf's moving the article met with no discussion at the time. That isn't the same as moving the page without consensus; since it was undisputed, there was no "consensus" to achieve.--Asdfg12345 05:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Metadiscussion and history of topic

·Maunus·ƛ·, Stop. Fine. Insert your own suggestions, I can't even stop you. I hoped this could be a focused discussion on the suggestions given thus far. If this issue could possibly reach a consensus through lengthy metadiscussion, it would have been resolved months ago. PS: If you do insert your options, could you at least do so at the end of the numbered list? / PerEdman 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiEttiquette

Never before, in my entire time on wikipedia have I EVER seen somebody go into a talk page and delete opinions that disagreed with their own over an issue being discussed in the manner I saw today. I ask that FalunGongDisciple cease and desist with such actions immediately.Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest ban from topic matter, supported by ArbCom probation. I believe they can be invoked directly by a present administrator. / PerEdman 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

John Carter has been bold and effectuated an indefinite block on FalunGongDisciple.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge criticism into main article

It seems Maunus and I have both read and liked the WP:Criticism essay but disagree on how and when to apply it to this article. But because I sympathize with the ideas of the essay, that would be good writing to integrate criticism throughout the subject article and I know User:Asdfg12345, one of the proponents of the current title, hirself proposed that the Academic views on Falun Gong article be deleted, twice. Therefore i put the following alternatives to you:

1. Keep Academic views on Falun Gong (under any name).
2. Integrate the above content into Falun Gong.
3. Other.

/ PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

• I prefer 2. It is my long-term goal anyway, as pointed out by Maunus, it's good writing, even easier to find, and avoids the whole hullabaloo of what to name the article. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is simply avoiding the issue (as you have noticed for yourself below). Seb az86556 (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Change name to: Criticism of Falung Gong a criticism of (religion) page is a standard wikipedia structure. FLG should not get special treatment just because it's members are more active online than the members of other faiths.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer 2 as well, as I have stated. And this has nothing to do with giving FLG members special treatment, it has to do with making wikipedia better and more neutral. We'll neutralize the other article later, but now we're working on Falun Gong.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• 2 at a pinch. Let's see how it goes for integration. I believe that there is a type of material, though, that can only be identified as what people have generally said about this phenomenon. We've had a procracted discussion above about what that might be titled. If this can somehow appear seamlessly in the article and not need its own section, then that's obviates the need to decide...--Asdfg12345 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• 2, on balance. The information about Chinese "science" and the info on certain charges against FG might both deserve coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't know if can usefully make one term cover both issues. And something about the current fork article makes me think we should just delete it, placing the parts that warrant inclusion in the appropriate parts of the main article. Dan (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• 2, as I stated on the other page already. There is nothing standard about having "Criticism of ..." entries in the first place, even if the entries that do exist bare that name. The world's major religions have had centuries to collect notable criticisms. The criticism for almost all NRMs and other recent social movements can easily be summarized in a section of a main entry or else integrated throughout that entry. Otherwise we end up with extremely inflated Criticism of entries which are filled to the brim with meaningless details and names by POV pushers from both sides.PelleSmith (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

...but what would the SECTION be named? :) For now, let's call it whatever it's called now, the contents of it should be distributed among all other sections anyway. / PerEdman 11:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to add the mergefrom-template to the FG page despite the protection? / PerEdman 11:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is not where to put the content but rather what to call it. The point is furthermore that there are certain people who are absolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to "Criticism" and they will stall the discussion into eternity until all goodwill-editors either leave or lose their sanity. You can wait until hell freezes over, those opposed to it will never falter, never waiver, never compromise, and never give in; no arguments, no reasoning, and nothing you say will convince them. Ever. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for moving part of your above comment, please move it back if you disagree. I think you may have misunderstood the gist of the WP:Criticism essay. If one follows the ideas in that, there won't *be* a criticism section because mentioning criticism would become a natural part of the flow of the entire text. So that in the history section, the text would mention the history as claimed by Li Hongzhi, including any criticism thereof. Do you see? Putting criticism in a separate section is in itself a way of separating it - unnecessarily - from the subject being criticized. It avoids the problem of what to call the article by *not having an article* and that's even better. / PerEdman 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're going. Nonetheless, you can expect to get the duct-tape of partisan censorship strung over your mouth once again (regarding the use or mention of the word "criticism"). But we'll see where it goes. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way and I'm sorry that it is my experience of the FG pages as well, but let's work to improve it. If there are solid arguments against using the word "criticism" or no reason to mention it, it doesn't have to be mentioned. If there are vague or no arguments against using the word, and there is reason to do so, it should be mentioned. / PerEdman 12:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we should just start writing the article integrating the criticism into the sections and then see how it goes. If it doesn't work we can always change the approach. We were working on the article at a subpage weren't we? Why don't we all select a section and start writing it up in this way? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I only wish I had more time, right now, to write one up. Instead I am relegated to these many but intermittent commentaries. I'll find the time. For now, if someone starts writing a section, could you please mention what section you're working on, and start integrating the "Reception" section and "Academic views" article's sources and claims into that section. To begin with, I'm sure the sections will grow somewhat, but it'll sort itself out. / PerEdman 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, I understand your criticism, but I also agree with the WP:Criticism essay (which is very good with regards to what makes writing great, highly recommended). To put criticism in a section of its own is to deny that criticism is a natural part of any subject, especially on wikipedia. To report neutrally on any subject, you must take criticism into account. There is no need for a separate section. But if there WERE such a section, I agree that it should be called "Criticism of Falun Gong". But (again) if we cannot gain agreement on that, let's do this another way. / PerEdman 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merged example from main article

My attempt at merging content from the "Reception/Academic Attention/Criticism" section and page into the main flow of the text, this is the "Beliefs and teachings" section.

Please help by editing the text. When you do, read the content from the Falun Gong article, both from the section itself and from the "Reception" section; and also read the Academic views on Falun Gong article. Use claims and sources from all three to improve the synthesis. / PerEdman 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The teachings of Falun Gong cover spiritual, religious, mystical, and metaphysical topics. The introductory book Falun Gong introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises. The main body of teachings is Zhuan Falun, published in 1994. According to the texts, Falun Gong is a system of mind-body "cultivation practice" based on the principles Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. These are regarded as fundamental and omnipresent characteristics of the universe. In the process of cultivation, practitioners are supposed to assimilate themselves to these qualities by letting go of "attachments and notions," and returning to the "original, true self."

Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of Chinese alternative science. There is a debate in this field between "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory. Rational and metaphysical advocates disagree on whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng). The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine.

Falun Gong draws on oriental mysticism and traditional Chinese medicine, and Li Hongzhi uses concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, which can make Falun Gong appear religious. Li Hongzhi criticizes modern science of suffering "self-imposed limits" and views traditional Chinese science as an entirely different, yet equally valid knowledge system. However, when describing "cosmic laws" Li Hongzhi does borrow the language of modern science.

This is a rough edit and it's lacking in references; the point is to see if we can merge criticism into context today. I have basically taken what's in "Academic views" and the "Reception" and must say - the latter reads much more as a link repository than it actually adds anything to the content today. What do you think? Can we do it? / PerEdman 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

YES we can! ;)·Maunus·ƛ· 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, instead of "which can make Falun gong appear religious" we will find academic sources stating that Falun Gong is a religious movement and why and we will include the Falun Gong claim that they are not. "Li Hongzhi uses concepts" isn't informative we need to mention what and who says it looks religious.Both sources and statements will go into the latter paragraph. The claims about government encouraging science and chinese science being unscientific needs citations. I think the debate about naturalism and supernaturalism needs to be explicitly sourced - Who advocates what. And Falun gong needs to be put into either a naturalist or supernaturalist category (with sources) for that debate to be informative. That is we need sources that explicitly state that Falun Gong teaches that the practice can give supernatural abilities (to FLG literature or academic sources- or both). Possibly there is varying opinion on this within Falun gong? That would also be relevant. I would suggest a more explicit paragraph going something like: "While Falun Gong Maintains that they are a cultivation practice and not a religion (source) scholars have noted several traits in FLG practice that would fall under standard definitions of religion(a footnote about which definitions?). E.g X has noted that Y (source) Z has noted that W (source) and U has noted that Q"·Maunus·ƛ· 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I just tried to tidy the text up a bit and simplify things. Can we get some sources on x, y, z and the other odds and ends Maunus is enquiring about?--Asdfg12345 05:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, "Appear religious" came from Academic views, where it was sourced. Same with "concepts" and support by government, but not all claims there were sourced with refs, some with names only. I disagree that Falun Gong "needs" to be put in a naturalist or supernaturalist category. According to the claims in "Academic views", this is just a question on how to analyze Falun Gong and Qigong in general: To see natural or supernatural "explanations". I also don't believe we need to state, in text "X has noted that Y", the text can simply note "X has been claimed (Ref here to Y source)" where the ref gives the who and when and why, so as not to clutter up the text with namedropping. / PerEdman 10:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think that "appear religious" is too vague - I am sure we can find a better quote. Same for concepts. i think it is important to think about what the point is of writing something, to make sure that it gives relevant information about the topic. Thats my beef with the naturalism/supernaturalism thing for that distinction to be relevant it needs somehow to be put into the context of Falun Gong (and I think it is relevant that at least some practicioners believe that Falun Gong does give them supernatural powers). The mutiple instances of "has noted" was not supposed to be taken literally, has claimed, written, stated, observed all work equally well.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We could use other phrasing along the lines of "Falun Gong incorporates beliefs from several eastern religions and philosophies. Because many of these ideas are themselves seen as being "religious", this has led to the conclusion by some that Falun Gong is itself basically "religious" in nature, although Li has denied that." The reasons for the denial could be elaborated on, but if sources were found I think they would probably include something like a statement that the beliefs themselves are not "religious" but based on a series of beliefs which are common across a number of religions. In this context, I think use of the phrase new religious movement might be appropriate, because that term does not itself necessarily refer to a new "religion" but can also be used to refer to new applications or practices based on not-so-new religious and philosophical systems. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(re-capitalized Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance per WP:MOS/Platonic or transcendent ideals.) Seb az86556 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

that is interesting.--Asdfg12345 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If capitalization was missing, it was missing also from the "Academic views" page. I'm leaning towards Dan's idea, the "Academic views" page should just be scrapped and cannibalized for parts. / PerEdman 10:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, the text really does need simplifying. As you can see if you compare this to the "Academic views" text, I have skipped very large parts of quotations just to catch that little gist of concrete comment in the middle of a lot of pseudoscientific blubber. There's good material in there. Agree. / PerEdman 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Text moved from Academic views on Falun Gong

Accuracy in describing members of this religion

Practicioners obfuscates the fact that FLG is a religion. I understand PerEdman's issue with worshippers as FLG doesn't worship a god (unless you count Mr. Li). So what term do we use? parishoners evidently doesn't work. Would adherents pass muster? Any other suggestions?Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with practicioners - thats the term used by most of the academic sources I have read thus far. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me of the typical strategy of this religion to deny that they are a religion at all and I don't think wikipedia should be party to helping a religion obfuscate what they really are.Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not about who they really are. It is about how FLG selfidentify. You telling FLG practicioners what they really are is subjective and POV just like it is also POV and subjective to use their own term for themselves. However we have a policy that says that when people or countries or groups selfidentify by a different name than what others call them we use their own name. Thats why Muhammad Ali is at Muhammad Ali not Cassius Clay. (I just cant find that policy right now, but I read it only yesterday)·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point about Mr Li, I hadn't thought of that. But even in personal cults, you only very rarely call their followers "worshippers". I think "followers" is more common. So far I have had no issues with "practitioners", but it is the word Falun Gong ...practitioners use of themselves rather than the words used by others. Is there a contesting term used commonly by scholars when writing of Falun Gong? Even if FG does use a "strategy" here, let's not fall into the trap of responding to that strategy. / PerEdman 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsure about the answer to your questions but I would have no complaint with followers PerEdman.

Manus, my main concern with FLG articles has been a culture of special treatment I've seen on Wikipedia, prior to the concerted effort made recently to clean these articles up (with thanks to everybody who has worked on that) of allowing editors who are FLG followers to have what ammounts to special priveleges to refute their point and insert PoV. The FLG does this in an attempt to get sympathy, concession and, ultimately, to help prostelytize their faith. This includes: denial of status as a religion, refusal to have a criticism of page, and inclusion of pro-flg pov in articles that probalbly shouldn't be considered notable!We don't let Buddhism get away with those sorts of things, nor do we let Catholicism. I just think that the FLG shouldn't be treated with kid gloves. Case in point: organ harvesting. Nobody disputes China harvests organs from death row inmates. Nobody disputes China suppresses the FLG. Although there isn't any clear evidence of this happening it wouldn't be a stretch to even confirm that some FLG death row inmates may have had their organs harvested. There is, however, no clear evidence of organ harvesting targeting the FLG because of their faith and yet there is still a large Wikipedia page devoted to the allegations of this that come directly from FLG owned newsmedia and a single inexpert report penned by an otherwise insignificant Canadian politician and a Canadian human rights lawyer, neither of whom is an expert of China.Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been working at Jehovah's Witnesses where the editors are pretty evenly divided between Witnesses, Ex-witnesses and outsiders. We have been able to build the article up untill the point where the only thing we can argue about is whether certain phrasigs about their beliefs should be stated as "has been called" or "is called". This was achieved by pro-witnesses, antiwitnesses and neutrals working together, respecting and listening to eachothers arguments and not trying to paint the camps into different spaces. When you write that the FLG does so and so to get sympathy or proselytize that is not helpful - it shows that you have closed yourself to their arguments and suppose that they are not made in goodfaith. It could be that FLG members are simply interested in wikipedia showing their faith in a way that is most consistent with the way in which they see it themselves? This is no crime - and as long as the FLG viewpoint is exposed as such and is not given undue weight relative to other viewpoints then there is no problem with including FLG views. This is not giving special treatment this is simply observing the standard article and neutrality building process of wikipedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I try to assume good faith on the part of FLG editors. However when editors do things like delete talk page text that disagrees with their position, when I need to RfC to get a neutrality tag on a clearly PoV article, when I have to fight tooth and nail to include a quote of Li Hongzhi because it might embarras the FLG, it gets hard to maintain that assumption of good faith.Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That editor has been blocked. I don't know what Li Hongzhi quote you were trying to add, but maybe it jsut wasn't that relevant or necessary?·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Several of the involved editors in those disputes have since been blocked. The fact, however, that those disruptive behaviours occured from multiple editors causes me to remain apprehensive of the good faith of pro-FLG editors. As I said before, I do try. The quote in question is still debated by asdfg, it's the 'spawn of dharma end times' quote from the NYT.Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to do more than try. The fact that some editors who have been fans of Jon Bon Jovi have been disruptive does not mean that we can assume that all Jon Bon Jovi fans are disruptive. In my optics the fact that disruptive editors have been blocked means that the eeditors who are now left are not disruptive. try using that approach. or alternatively if you actually find an editor to be disrutive currently use the appropriate dispute resolution venues - and if she is diruptive she will certainly be blocked like the other disruptive editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Simonm223, just because you cannot harbor good will towards previous Falun Gong editors should really not be a reason to doubt the good will towards any OTHER or NEW Falun Gong editors. In my experience, it is too easy to fall into the trap of stooping to someone elses's low level where they will soundly beat me with experience. :( / PerEdman 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that user:FalunGongDisciple was most likely an agent provocateur? He was parodying the apparent "Falun Gong viewpoint." Anyway. Regarding the dispute on the Teachings page, this has been taken to a noticeboard twice and on both occasions it was ruled that the Falun Gong website can be referenced. The disruption here isn't caused by me. We need to respect consensus and process even when we do not agree with it.--Asdfg12345 16:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if that was an honest person, an agent, double-agent, triple agent or whatever. It was a disruptive editor who made very little difference and was handled promptly (for which I am thankful). I could speculate that the editor very quickly found the many articles over which our discussions are spread and was likely not new to wikipedia or the topic.. but what would those speculations get me? / PerEdman 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of this subsection, I would suggest terms such as "practitioners" or "adherents." The literature often users "practitioners," and this has become something of a default on this topic. It's not biased, and it's not treating the subject with kid gloves, it's just normal. See MOS:IDENTITY. I'm not sure if you have read some of the academic texts treating this topic, they often use "practitioners."--Asdfg12345 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's obvious at all that user:FalunGongDisciple was anything other than a disruptive pro-flg editor. If adherents would satisfy you I would consider that a fair compromise.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I should think the readability of the text could be improved if we had more than one term to vary ourselves with. "Adherents" and "practitioners" seem inoffensive and descriptive, was "followers" OK with everyone too? / PerEdman 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me.Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with what Maunus points out: "I don't see the problem with practicioners - thats the term used by most of the academic sources I have read thus far." As for individual views someone might consider it a religion, others may see it as a system of self-cultivation or 修煉 - but those are just personal views. Even if you prefer to see it as a religion, the term "pracititioner" does apply - as in "a Daoist practitioner", "a practitioner of Buddhism", "Buddhist practitioner", etc. Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly object to "followers"; I agree with changing it up, though. If a source deliberately uses "followers," then that's different when quoting that source. If we still find that varying between these two terms (adherents, practitioners) is getting a bit stale, we can use some other term as well--let's cross that bridge when we come to it. 2cents.--Asdfg12345 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with "follower"? I can see the argument against "worshipper", but "follower" is often used in the same meaning as "adherent". / PerEdman 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I like more the "adherent" and "practitioner" terms over the "follower", because, although the difference is subtle, as I see it they carry the connotation of voluntary and of understanding what they are doing. In Falun Dafa people should understand what they are doing, it's not a practice of blind belief. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity I think it should be "practitioners" --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a voluntary choice to follow something? If it was involuntary, I would definately not call it "follower", I would call it some sort of prisoner or devotee or recruit or something along those lines. To follow may not be to lead, but it is still a choice anyone can make or unmake. I don't believe ANYONE believes their own belief is a blind belief, but they can still believe that they follow some plan greater than themselves, or some principle they believe will come to good. I have no particularly strong reason to insist on "follower", but as I said before, I think it would be better writing if we had a few more words to use of Falun Gong practitioners; using the same word repeatedly stars looking strange after a while. / PerEdman 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "followers" fails MOS:IDENTITY because it is not in common use. / PerEdman —Preceding undated comment added 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

I would tend to favor "practicioner" or possibly "follower". Part of that is based on the fact that it would certainly be possible for all I know, based on my comparatively limited knowledge, to perform the basic exercises simply for stress reduction or similar purposes, and that person might specifically use the Falun Gong exercises because of the ease of accessing information on them. I think the question ultimately becomes is whether we here will use the term "Falun Gong" to most specifically describe the exercises or the belief system behind the exercises. But, as it seems at least possible to me that someone might perform the exercises without necessarily believing all the philosophy attached to it, I would myself be inclined to not refer to all involved people as adherents of the "Falun Gong" faith. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with John Carter's argument that "adherent" is specific to those who ascribe to the faith/philosophy whereas "follower" and "practitioner" are relevant also to those who perform the practices only. / PerEdman 19:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So can we call it a consensus on "practitioner"? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support "practitioner". There are thousands of mentions each of "qigong practitioner" and "zen practitioner" on Google. If zen and qigong is practiced, then falun gong should also be. It doesn't strike me as cult doublespeak. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had consensus on practitioner for a long time, I think. The question here is also what else practitioners can be called. John Carter's distinction is helpful, but I would have prefered a greater selection of words, to vivify the text. / PerEdman 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still leaning toward adherents for an alternate word.Simonm223 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Love that word "vivify." Practitioners and adherents pretty good, maybe sometimes can throw in "Falun Gong students," even?--Asdfg12345 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Students of Falun Gong". Hm. Yeah. I like that. If it's okay, that is. :) / PerEdman 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page

Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359

A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.

I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.

Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All changes have been thoroughly discussed by all users making those changes over several days. You did not participate in the discussion. If you do not participate, you cannot now go and revert everything. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip just reverted the best part of two weeks' collective work. He did it at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident‎ as well. Disruption of this type and scale is simply unacceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).

I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.

The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.

I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.

• Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [3]

• Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [4]

• Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [5]

• Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [6]

I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.

As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Dilip, you know it's unacceptable to swoop in and undo people's good-faith work like that. It's vandalism. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, you bring up those comments about the emails a lot. You do realize that if we were trying to be sneaky meatpuppets, I would have removed the comment as soon as Colipon put it on my talk page so that others wouldn't see it. Anyway, bringing up such things would only hinder the progress that has been made recently to these articles.--Edward130603 (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip, If you choose to revert two weeks of changes by several editors, you are at least expected to initiate a discussion, such as Asdfg12345 has done on the Talk page to that article. It is completely unacceptable that you would revert that much work, ignore the BRD procedure and "request admin attention" without having followed the expected procedure. Not that I mind admin input, but you are at least expected to discuss something before assuming that the discussion has already broken down. / PerEdman 12:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur, discussion is paramount in an article of this potential level of controversy.Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of the breakdown in discussions, I have put the question of merging these articles up on the NPOV noticeboard, here: Organ harvesting in China: Weight given to Falun Gong victims. / PerEdman 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Karma

It has already been stated that reliable sources as mentioned in the #Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Joens section above indicate that Falun Gong has a very physical conception of karma. Does anyone know of any scientific studies which have addressed whether this conception is supported by any real scientific evidence or not? John Carter (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just hit the Skeptical Inquirer website, the only piece they have archived which mentions Falun Gong is an article on the history of qigong, which contains only a passing reference and would be of no use for this purpose. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean research into

a) FG's beliefs about karma, or

b) the physical properties, if any, of karma?

Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he is looking for c) research into the FG's beliefs about the physical properties, if any, of karma.Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically (c), yeah. Information like whether the black or white substance referred to in the Encyclopedia article has ever been detected, where in the body it might be located, how substantial it might be, any other physical properties it might have, that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my question again, John. If the karma substance exists, then it has nothing to do with FG in particular. Do you want to know if there's research about a) FG's beliefs, or b) karma substance? Don't tell me you believe it exists!? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any studies specifically about whether FLGs conception of Karma is physiologically sound - I think most scholars would agree that this is indeed irelevant and that it is the existence of the belief that is interesting.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Mrund, yeah, my apologies, I was asking (B). In response to Maunus, the lack of evidence might not be particularly relevant, although if it has been noted that would probably be worth including. If there were any evidence of its tangible existence, I think that would be very relevant to the article. Also, if there were clear evidence (and I mean clear evidence) that the "official" statements were in any way altered, or no longer repeated, after it was shown that there might not be any physical evidence of the substance's existence, that might be worth including as well. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

{undent} As I pointed out at the Rational Skepticism project page you are essentially looking for proof that the sky is not, in fact, puce. If Karma were a blackish substance that builds up in the body it would have been observed and reported on. As it is not (it's just an indian word meaning "consequence" with metaphysical connotations) there is no information confirming the absence of it.Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The physical manifestation of karma in Falun Gong is a testable, falsifiable claim made by Li Hongzhi. As such, it is interesting. But would we be mentioning it to make a point, perhaps? I believe that if the article mentions the "blackish substance", and if this belief is central enough to Falun Gong that it should be mentioned, then it might also be prudent to point out that such a substance has never been detected except in heavy smokers...  / Per Edman 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we would necessarily be adding it to make a point. However, as indicated, it is something that was considered important enough by Ownby to describe it with at least a little length in the article in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Personally, I think that if other encyclopedias include information in what are their often somewhat short articles (in this case about three pages), then there is reasonable cause for us to include it here. I acknowledge that without a clear source stating "no one's seen it" it would probably be a violation of WP:SYNTH to join any other statement which doesn't specifically address it directly. But if there is any sort of documentation anywhere to the effect that it was looked for and not found, or perhaps found, that might well be worthy of inclusion as well. And I do believe, like I said, that if it's significant enough for what is probably the most respected religious encyclopedia in the English language to include, we should probably include it here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ummm, these aren't scientific claims. They aren't testable, aren't falsifiable, aren't empirically verifiable. Not scientific. Just to clarify.--Asdfg12345 18:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Regardless if why one would claim it, if you DO claim that karma is a physically manifested black substance present in the physical body, that is indeed a testable claim. I'm well aware that it's not scientific, but not because the claim isn't testable, but because if you do test it, you'll find that the claim finds no support what so ever.  / Per Edman 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

James Randi as a reliable source?

This page contains some information which rather clearly compares Falun Gong to Scientology, and it is written by one of the best known and most respected "debunkers" in the world today. Some of the information, such as how Li changed his birthday, probably couldn't be sourced from this page, but some of the other material in the article, considering it is coming from an expert in the field of pseudoscience, seems to be at least potentially relevant. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally have deep respect for the inestimable Mr. Randi. However his areas of expertise could be said to be the application of the scientific method to testing of supernatural claims and stage magic. Exercise caution with Randi comments.Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article in question I would say that it would not constitute a valid source. The information offered is quite clearly Randi's opinion and is not sourced. Sorry.Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the only things I was really even thinking of considering "sourced" from that article, maybe, would be saying that Falun Gong has been compared to Scientology, Church Universal and Triumphant, etc., in terms of some of their claims and activities. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You could say that James Randi compared Falun Gong to the Church of Scientology because he claims that falundafa.org does not contain information on the core theology of the religion and attempts to frame the religion as a non-religious movement. However avoid "has been compared to" as unattributed references fall under WP:Weasel. And you will still abutt against the fact that Randi is not a recognized expert in comparative theology.Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it either it seems a bit like citing Penn and Teller for comparing Alcoholics Anonymous to a cult.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And like the latter it's not necessarily that I disagree... it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who originally cited that page here. I think Randi is a good example to refer to if you wish to point out that many people without any connections to the CCP see FG as a cult, which was what I tried to get into the article at the time. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know it had been used here before. I just found it while looking for information regarding Karma like I mentioned above. :) John Carter (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Wikipedia's standards are something that take some getting used to. My personal opinion regarding AA is rather more strident than my opinion regarding FLG and yet I would contend that Penn and Teller, who share my opinion, are not an appropriate source on that subject. Likewise Randi, although in line with many of my personal sentiments, is not appropriate as a ource on this subject. Hope this helps.  :) Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

James Randi is a reliable source on his own opinion. Randi is certainly notable enough, the question is his relevance to this particular article. I suppose we could mention his opinion, in context, if we have such a context as he would fit into, but let's not create one just to get him in there. :)  / Per Edman 22:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS also comes into play here. --Asdfg12345 18:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, we shouldn't rely on sources published e.g. by Falun Gong sympathisers. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, no. James Randi is more than a self-published source, he's an authority and a prominent figure of the skeptical movement. You could just as well delete Li Hongzhi quotes with WP:SPS as a reason (I'm not saying you should, because you really should not).  / Per Edman 22:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Source concern

As an outside observer I'd like to caution against using the Kavan source as a good example of an academic reference to Falung Gong as a "cult" (scare quotes used by Kavan). The source has several weaknesses: 1) The paper is not peer reviewed -- conference papers are low quality academic sources, 2) while Kavan seems to have been researching religion for some time as a journalism professor she does not come from a methodological field which uses coherent and precise definitions for groups like "cults" and 3) the definition she does use reflects this problem in that it reproduces popular misconceptions about these groups to the extent that it is virtually meaningless. Regarding this last point read her working definition of "cult" (on page 12). In religious studies or sociology this definition would be a perfect example of "popular definitions" that have no practical utility ... one could just as easily apply this definition to the Catholic church for instance. Now I understand that per WP:V we report what reliable sources say and don't judge the merits of their content by our own standards. However I think it is prudent to keep these things in mind when assessing the usefulness of what is already a low quality source (per #1). Just something to consider.PelleSmith (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the first sentence and perhaps even the name of the subtitle somewhat obfuscate the real issues in this. David Ownby states that the cult label was a red-herring from the beginning, and Ian Johnson also dismisses it. It is not really a debate in many, many sources on Falun Gong, it is dismissed and understood merely as a very clever propaganda move. This may have been neglected while assembling these things. I think that while some of Kavan's writing may be relevant in some contexts, she is a communications professor, right? I don't see the religious expertise coming through. --Asdfg12345 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my dismay at witnessing how asdfg1234 has turned the carefully crafted neutrality of the cult debate section into a pro Falun Gong opinion piece. Then I am off for an extended wikibreak. Falun Gong is off my watchlist. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict. I will respond to Maunus] Here's my general thinking behind my changes, I'm sure there will be some discussion. Firstly, Kavan is not an authority on the teachings of Falun Gong etc., she is a communications person. I'd also point to the above concerns by PelleSmith, which I share. Basically if we are just going to be repeating low-quality sources and vague arguments here, the section could be 2000 words, and each of us could wheel out an absolute bunch of them. Secondly, I felt there was too much padding in between words, making for hard reading. Thirdly, I felt that as a consequence the actual things that people were saying about the cult label were being obscured to some extent. Fourthly, the genesis of this "debate" are important to clear up at the beginning. Fifthly, that it has been rejected by serious researchers is highly notable, and this isn't a matter of how they engage in the analysis of Falun Gong necessarily, and then choose one way or another of approaching the cult label, it's that they are directly calling out the CCP on the cult label--this is a matter of WP:DUE. Sixthly, Edelman and Richardson was too long. Seventhly, that paragraph in the middle, I felt, didn't reallly say much of anything. Eighthly, Adam Frank doesn't seem to mention the cult thing too much, at least not in the quoted passage, but his insights are relevant, so maybe they could go elsewhere.

Summary of changes in paragraph form, I suggest using this diff to compare. first paragraph: the lede acts as a summary of the origin and notable reception of the cult claim, the later paragraphs elaborate more on the discourse surrounding those issues. second: moved up third: shorten things a bit, remove Kavan per above remarks, not to mention relevance fourth: shorten, remove explanatory sentence about what the anti-cult movement is, add context regarding the way in which the cult label appeared fifth: delete because it didn't say much and was quite wordy; this is tangentially related to the issue, I felt. Definitely not a criticism of the writing or who wrote it. (You don't know how many thousands of words I've written on these pages that were useless. I even tried to delete them myself once but got in trouble for it (on the academic page)) sixth: just tighten it up a bit, delete some parts of the edelman and richardson quote.

Please click the diff open in another tab (I actually prefer to use another window and alt-tab) and compare my comments with the changes and assess whether they are sensible, fair, reasonable, and importantly, reflective of the sources available. By the way, I think there may be some meta-argumentation here, about, for example, the notability of certain claims and the reliability of certain sources. I'm prepared to have that discussion. All of the above, I humbly submit --Asdfg12345 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[Update]. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be accused of bad faith. I've reverted the edit. I suggest the same: check the diff, check my explanations, and let's discuss.--Asdfg12345 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

'Cult' section

Reading the merged content in context of the main article, I contend that it is too windy and esoteric for our purposes here. The entire section is convoluted gobbledegook, and should be pared down and rewritten. I would say that this is the same applies to the Psychiatric abuse section in the 'Persecution' article, only that it privileges two sources only, and is much worse there. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The current cult section shows clear signs of being written one sentence by a FG apologist, the next by an anti-FG writer, the third by an innocent bystander etc. It needs rewriting by a clear-headed and neutral person. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the current cult section in one piece - do you suggest I have multiple personalities? it is the same section about which you wrote:[7]. There was a wide consensus to include it at the time I wrote it. (aug 10) and nobody found it to be longwinded convoluted gobbledygook. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a rewrite below. Please do not take offense to the section that singles out possible OR. My concern with those statements is simply that as presented they are not clearly about the specific subject matter at hand. Maybe there are better ways to include the material. This rewrite is just a suggestion from an outside party.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage with the kavan source and Li Hongzhi (the part you call Or and i agree) was the only part I didn't write - but was inserted later. I wouldn't object to striking that altogether.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that I think my version is better :) - I think you are boiling the complex issues too much down. Mine is longer and more informative and accurate. Also there is no citation needed for the aum shinrikyo and davidian comparison - Frank mentions that the government made that comparison if i am not mistaken.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I simply tried to eliminate text that seemed unnecessary. Some of it is simply stylistic (making no content changes), but some is also content based. I don't think you need all the longer explanations of more general sociological issues in the entry. Good wikilinking and succinct tidbits should suffice. Regarding the comparison to Aum, etc. that's fine, it simply isn't clear unless the reference follows the statement. I also agree about Kavan in general as per my comment below. Unless everyone thinks my suggested changes are useless I would suggest discussing specific issues like the sections I moved to the possibly OR section below and/or any information that my shorter version removes that is deemed vital to the entry. I have to say that in general the section seems way too long. I commented before that from my brief overview of this topic area there seems to be a lot of overwriting (too much unneeded text) and I think this is an example. That should not be taken to reflect upon the writers. I overwrite myself all the time.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to object if you condense it - I just had to say that i wrote it that way because I thought that was the best way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite

Debate exists over whether Falun Gong should be classified as a "cult", a classification which is more common in some social contexts than in others. Since the 1999 ban the Chinese government has repeatedly classified them as a xiejiao, which means "evil cult" in English. The government uses the term to classify groups they claim are harmful to social stability in China. They also claim that Falun Gong damages the physical and mental health of the Chinese people and have compared the group to the Branch Davidians and Aum Shinrikyo. Scholars have suggested that the government's labeling is a "red herring" or a "social construction" perpetuated in order to de-legitimize the group. Practitioners of Falun Gong deny being an "evil cult" and in fact deny being a religious group of any kind.

In scholarship applying the "cult" label to Falun Gong has depended on how the term is being defined and most scholars refrain from using the label for a variety of reasons. However, following the stance taken by the Chinese government, western anti-cult groups and associated scholars like Margaret Singer have considered Falun Gong a cult based upon on their perception that practitioners are influenced by brainwashing or other forms of psychological coercion. Journalism professor Heather Kavan, also contends Falun Gong is a "cult", based upon similar reasoning. " The Western media's response was initially quite similar to that of the anti-cult movement. In this vein Rupert Murdoch echoed the Chinese government when he described Falun Gong as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" that "clearly does not have China's success at heart". However, it was not long before the media started using less loaded terms to describe the movement.

Most social scientists and scholars of religion reject "brainwashing" theories and do not use "cult" definitions such as Singer's or Kavan's. For example, Cheris Shun-ching Chan considers cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred more than on collective worship, that are less demanding of their members and more tolerant of other religions than sects, that have a strong charismatic leadership and that have fuzzy membership boundaries. She claims that Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a New Religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics. Other scholars avoid the term "cult" altogether because "of the confusion between the historic meaning of the term and current pejorative use" These scholars prefer terms like "spiritual movement" or "new religious movement" to avoid the negative connotations of "cult" or to avoid miscategorizing Falun Gong as a "cult" when it doesn't fit mainstream definitions. Yet other scholars argue against using the term "cult" in relation to Falun Gong and similar groups because classifying these religious movements as cults or sects rather than religions often allows governments to deny them the special privileges and legal protection that are normally offered to religious denominations.

References

Maunus' original version

Maybe we should just restore the original version by Maunus? It seems someone came in to this section and added various statements to tip the POV in favour of Falun Gong again - much the same pattern as before. I just tried reverting some of these obviously POV edits. Colipon+(Talk) 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a fairly good version by Maunus. Colipon+(Talk) 13:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The above version was an attempt to trim that version. PelleSmith (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)