Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Quotes

"Dafa disciples just wanted to do their cultivation, and weren’t asking for too much. A handful of people don’t understand us. We will give them time to come to know us, then. You can curse and you can attack, but we won’t treat you the same way."

"Others may treat us badly, but we can not treat them badly. We must not look upon people as enemies." Li Hongzhi --Hoerth 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If Li Hongzhi's statements are upheld by his disciples, why is Olaf's attitude towards these banned users who he considers enemies nothing but hostile? Why is he rejoicing and unable to control his accusations at a time when self-control is preached by LHZ himself? Jsw663 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Olaf. But i think it is not right for Practitioners to get emotional when arguing. I don't like arguing. If someone attacks Falun Gong, i just make it clear to him that if he does that right now, it might result in people not making their own judgements of Falun Gong and therefore ignoring the persecution, which helps the persecution to go on. If he still doesn't care, i leave it at that. If people on wikipedia attack Falun Gong, i would just make my own website and point things out there. --Hoerth 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

I suggest that this article is renamed to "Third-party views on Falun Gong". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong" would be better. "Third-party views on Falun Gong" for this specific article is too vague, since many other Falun Gong related articles also express the views of third parties. "Surrounding" is better than "about", because the controversies are not limited to Falun Gong per se. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify about which others also express third party views on Falun Gong and why it would not be suitable for a name here? There are different kind of analyses that people have done on the teachings and their meaning, the role of Li Hongzhi, criticisms of the teachings or of Li Hongzhi, there are also defences and counter-criticisms. So there are a variety of things people have written about Falun Gong. Some are controversies and some are not. Either maybe those other things would not be reported on wikipedia (like analyses of parts of the Teachings or of the role of Li Hongzhi), or there would have to be another page, because they often do not really constitute being called "controversies" (like things Ownby or Penny has written about the teachings or about Li Hongzhi, some of which is here), so I don't know where this stuff fits in. For example, in the "differences between Qigong and other beliefs" section, much of that actual content is not actually critical. The way it has been presented and some of the OR and weasel words Tomananda added in made what was not originally into a kind of criticism. Getting rid of all this and simply presenting third-party views on Falun Gong, including criticisms, analyses, defences, I think that is most appropriate to go on one page, and not all of it constitues controversy. I think it is a simple point I am making that I have taken too long in making. In the end I advocate "Third Party views on Falun Gong". The other article that include some account of third party views are fine to be there in their sections (like comments about Li Hongzhi on the biography page because they pertain directly to Li Hongzhi, comments by third partys on the persecution page because they pertain directly to the persecution, third party stuff on the Falun Gong outside of mainland China page because they pertain directly to that subject..) but this page would be more generally on Falun Gong, rather than on one of the related issues associated with Falun Gong. So there is a difference and they are not only controversies.--Asdfg12345 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the name be changed to "Third party views on Falun Gong" at any moment. We have had three long term editors agree with this, not to mention the stuff about POV forks and on WP:Criticism. Let me quote now:

POV fork: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article."

Also from the nutshell on the Wikipedia:Content_forking page: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject."

One should also read WP:Criticism, maybe this part is useful for understanding the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate_articles_devoted_to_criticism.2C_trivia_or_reception_.28history.29

According to my thinking, according to NPOV the article should treat both views on the subject, equally, and should therefore be called "Third party views on Falun Gong", and weigh up all aspects of the various issues. On any particular issue, let's say homosexuality, there should be the voice of critics, some citation of the teachings as appropriate, a link to the relevant section on the teachings page, as well as the voice of a defence, counter criticism, analysis, or whatever other relevant, reliably sourced third party voice.

In this way the issues associated with Falun Gong as such, in as far as they concern specific third parties, can all be presented in a neutral kind of way. I think super-caution should be taken to ensure that Li Hongzhi quotes are presented in the blandest of possible ways, and since sometimes different subjects are presented from different angles, the various things he has said about a subject should be presented briefly, so as to give a complete representation of the teachings on a particular subject rather than a single angle. Some thoughts for now. I will now go ahead and change the title of the cult section. I don't really know how to change article names. Would be good to hear from other editors about the name change and ideas I have mentioned. I would like to try to foster an intelligent, friendly, consensus building and policy-based editing environment.--Asdfg12345 17:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment below about why "Third Party Views" doesn't make any sense. When you report what critics say, or when you report the controversies about a particular group (like the Scientologists) it's standard practice to make a separate page to address the controversies about that group. I don't understand how that is not policy based editing, because in fact it is a standard practice in other articles I have read in Wikipedia. --CaptainKarma 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Some other matters

I will just make some points here about this page in no particular order:

• Can someone please archive the old discussion and only keep what is recent and relevant (i.e., maybe to just the stuff after the ArbCom)

• That section about the CCP and Falun Gong is excellent, especially the translation, but I think it is not really a criticism, and should go on the page about the "suppression" or "crackdown"--whatever it will be called. Perhaps there could be a section outlining this. By the way, I think it is great and rather important, but if that translation is unofficial, can it be used? I doubt it has been altered by the translator, but is there any official way we can find out. Perhaps to use it we need to find it from the Epoch Times in english, or from some journal or other reliable source, translated into english. I don't know if home-made translations cut it.

• Reminder about cutting all original research from this article and moving the relevant sections about homosexuality and the Fa-rectification onto the teachings page and expanding or decreasing them according to WP:Undue weight and their relevance in the teachings as a whole. To be discussed further presumably.

• Renaming the page to "Third party views on Falun Gong"

• Rewriting the introduction to conform to WP:Lead, so essentially it introduces and summarises the content of the article, maybe saying quickly some of the different issues that have been raised about Falun Gong and that there are pro and con voices on some different views, and some academics have different analyses (I think some of that content in the introduction currently is excellent wikipedia material, and should definitely be incorporated elsewhere in the article, or perhaps in other articles.) Rahn's analysis of the conflict between FLG and the CCP could be better placed on the persecution page, perhaps. We might need to discuss this point, as there is an abundance of third party analyses associated with the persecution. This may all be better positioned intelligently on the persecution page, rather than on this page.

• the "Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs" is a good section to highlight how this article could play the role of neutrally presenting different third party views, some neutral, positive and negative. I remember reading some stuff ownby has written about this as well. Probably Porter, Rahn and a swathe of academics have also written something about this. There are also things in the Falun Gong teachings which could be blandly pointed out with links to parts on the teachings page or maybe a “notes” section on the bottom of the article with some mini-compilations of relevant Li Hongzhi quotes that don’t have their own place on the teachings page.

• The allegations of money-making is probably better placed on this page. So to stop duplication it may be better made into a stub on the Li Hongzhi page, with a quick, both-sided summary, the allegation and defence.

• probably the section about rewards and recognition needs more detailed material which is either neutral, or in defence or support of Falun Gong, in order to evenly balance the presentation on the issue

• the stuff about mixed raced seems completely irrelevant in that section and may be better placed as a stub or not at all on the teachings page. Of course, if there are some third party commentaries on this, criticism or analyses, these should be put here (I am sure there are, it is just that they are not cited here)

• Some academics have said things in response to Rahn about allegations of exclusivity, so this ought to be presented. This section, in order to reflect a representation of a kaleidoscope of third-party opinions rather than just criticism, may better be renamed to something like “Falun Gong and its interactions with society”, or “Falun Gong and society”—or something like that, to express the angle of analysis, support or criticism relevant third parties are engaging in.

• Perhaps a section on interpretations of Li Hongzhi’s role would serve the job better than the current “Li as a savior or supernatural entity”—in fact, there is a section on the Li Hongzhi page about this, so Chang’s stuff might be better place there. From another perspective, the issue she is raising seems to be more related to whether Falun Gong should be considered a religion or not. There is a wealth of academic writing about this. Along with Chang’s perspective, Porter has written some stuff. Some of this is on the theoretical section on the main page and may be incorporated here. This section could become a more meaningful analysis and surveying of the academic writing on Falun Gong and whether it is a religion or not.

• Last thing. At a later time I will order these according to how they appear on the page, and make subheadings for each section, with a few points under each subheading. This could be used as an ad-hoc type of to-do list, with every editor being welcome to alter, add, or cross out items as they see fit. This could serve as a kind of working draft about the issues that will need to be addressed on this page.--Asdfg12345 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

guide

I am going to just organise some of the stuff about. I will make items for action for each section and assume they can be added to etc., and discussion take place. If after proposing something there is no discussion I will assume tacit agreemeent and feel free in changing it. This is like my own to do list for the page and for anyone else who wants to edit, things I think are good to do to improve the article. This can be used commonly and anyone should add to it other good things in line with policy. Let's refer to WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD specifically, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:A of course, plus the others.

Introduction

• Rewriting the introduction to conform to WP:Lead, so essentially it introduces and summarises the content of the article, maybe saying quickly some of the different issues that have been raised about Falun Gong and mentioning that there are pro and con voices on some different views, which parts of society they come from etc., and some academics have different analyses--maybe also mentioning the different issues that will be treated in the article that have been raised by the academic community, too.

--rewritten to conform to LEAD, looks more like summary of article now. --Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs

• the "Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs" is a good section to highlight how this article could play the role of neutrally presenting different third party views, some neutral, positive and negative. I remember reading some stuff ownby has written about this as well. Probably Porter, Rahn and a swathe of academics have also written something about this. There are also things in the Falun Gong teachings which could be blandly pointed out with links to parts on the teachings page or maybe a “notes” section on the bottom of the article with some mini-compilations of relevant Li Hongzhi quotes that don’t have their own place on the teachings page.

Li as a savior or supernatural entity

• needs a change to a surveying and weighing up what different people have said about Li Hongzhi. Some change of the title to maybe "The role of Li Hongzhi in the teachings of Falun Dafa", or something like that, not as clunky, but blander definitely would be a good idea.

• There is plenty of commentary about this and Chang seems to have just mentioned it from the point of view that Falun Gong should be considered a religion because of Li Hongzhi's role, so there are others which can be mentioned too. Perhaps a section on interpretations of Li Hongzhi’s role would serve the job better than the current “Li as a savior or supernatural entity”—in fact, there is a section on the Li Hongzhi page about this, so Chang’s stuff might be better place there. From another perspective, the issue she is raising seems to be more related to whether Falun Gong should be considered a religion or not. There is a wealth of academic writing about this. Along with Chang’s perspective, Porter has written some stuff. Some of this is on the theoretical section on the main page and may be incorporated here. This section could become a more meaningful analysis and surveying of the academic writing on Falun Gong and whether it is a religion or not.

Allegations of exclusivity and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics

*Some academics have said things in response to Rahn about allegations of exclusivity, so this ought to be presented. This section, in order to reflect a representation of a kaleidoscope of third-party opinions rather than just criticism, may better be renamed to something like “Falun Gong and its interactions with society”, or “Falun Gong and society”—or something like that, to express the angle of analysis, support or criticism relevant third parties are engaging in. -- now in a more neutral context, with much of the unrelated commentary taken out. this may be placed in some other spot. much was straight OR at the end of the actual third party quotes. This blending of personal editor opinion, quotes from Li Hongzhi, and a third party is typical of the kind of editing Tomananda was doing. this has been cleared up. There was, in the end, very little actual third party quotations. If anyone has the 2000 Rahn "Falun Gong:Behind the headlines" please let me know--I could not access it and my university is not subscribed to their cultic studies journal (surprise)--Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

*probably the section about rewards and recognition needs more detailed material which is either neutral, or in defence or support of Falun Gong, in order to evenly balance the presentation on the issue--more sensible to simply move this information to the overseas page. The page is specifically for this kind of content. This page should be more about academic findings/analyses on different aspects of Falun Gong. Actual events/disputes/general issues related to Falun Gong outside Mainland China should all go on that article. This obviously belongs there since these are those kind of issues. There are clear sections there for this information and it can all be encorporated on that page.--Asdfg12345 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of making money from Falun Gong

*The allegations of money-making is probably better placed on this page. So to stop duplication it may be better made into a stub on the Li Hongzhi page, with a quick, both-sided summary, the allegation and defence. --this has been reorganised and some stuff added addressing the claims and issues--Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinese authorities and Falun Gong, Patent, and WOIPFG Investigation on a Falun Gong critic

*I think all these three should simply be expunged from the page. Having scrappy little stubs like the last two does not seem very professional or encyclopaedic. The issue of the CCP on Falun Gong can be addressed on the persecution page and is more appropriately placed there. I don't know if a homemade translation is acceptable for wikipedia, either. I think that needs to be published in a reliable source first, not just translated directly onto wiki. This kind of thing may be more appropriate on the persecution page somewhere. --expunged. the patent section was a real non-sequitor, and the other two were odd things, out of context and tacked onto the end of the article, so I just took them out. including the " Falun gong responses to criticism" -- completely OR. I did not notice this thign was back or would have zapped it earlier.--Asdfg12345 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

--Asdfg12345 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Article

Since this article is more or less related to Buddhism, can i suggest putting in the views and comments from Buddhism too? From my understanding, the Buddhism do not agree to FG being part of the Buddhism community, neither do they accept FG teaching as the supreme one. Instead, it appeared in Mahayana sutra that no being is allowed to say in name or above Buddha, who is recognised in Buddhism as the highest stage of enlightenment.

From what i read in this article, it seems like FG supporters are turning this into a supporting website for their religion/ cult. Yes, you can agree to what your Master said, but can comments from Buddhism be added in too?

Welcome friend! I think that it is excellent that you are interested in this subject. I took a look at the citation. Here is some of it:

"After the Dharma-Image Age came the Dharma-Ending age. The Orthodox Dharma Age lasted for one thousand years. The DharmaĠImage Age lasted another one thousand years. That is two thousand years in all. The Dharma-Ending age continues for ten thousand years. We are now living in the Dharma-Ending Age. What does the phrase 'Dharma-ending' mean? It means that the Dharma has nearly come to an end and is about to disappear. The 'disappearance' of the Buddhadharma involves disappearance of faith in the Buddha. In the Dharma-Ending Age living beings' faith in the Buddha is not firm. When the Buddha dwelled in the world,peoples' faith was so firm that if you held a person at knife-point and threatened his life saying, 'Renounce your belief in the Buddha or I'll murder you,' he would rather die than surrender his belief. . . .

In the Dharma-Image Age things were different. If a person believed in the Buddha and someone said, 'If you believe in the Buddha, I'll kill you,' he would say, 'Fine, I won't believe in the Buddha.' People would change their minds because their faith was not firm."

I am not sure what you make of that. I think the citation in itself was not inaccurate, according to the text above. I kind of support removing it though, since I think it was just tacked on there as a pro FLG thing, to make FLG look more legitimate. It may be appropriate to have some citation of this, though. Perhaps it could be better worded--maybe you have some suggestions?

I would like to respond to what you have said very briefly. If you would like, this conversation can be continued on my talk page. Falun Dafa just teaches Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. Do not label Falun Dafa a cult. You may understand it to be a religion. I do not understand it to be a religion. The word "cult" has been successfully used by the CCP to demonise and persecute horribly the practice, as a tool of Communist dictatorship state suppression, and has caused untold suffering to thousands of people. I don't know if you have read anything about the persecution. I will post you some links at the end of this comment to check it out. Since you are an anonymous user I cannot leave this note on your talk page, otherwise I would opt for that. It is not strictly appropriate to use this talk page for explaining a matter not directly related to improving the article. By the way, they also persecute, torture to death and severely mistreat practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism, another peaceful spiritual practice whose practitioners are innocent. I urge you to think about whose side you are on and whose cause you are really supporting when you use such labels. Perhaps you are a Buddhist. Then even more should you be more understanding and solemn about something like this.

About the article: It does not really have much at all to do with Buddhism. There is a section about the differences between Falun Dafa and other beliefs. Basically the bulk of the content in this section should be sourced to reliable sources, and should just be recounting their analyses, criticisms, or comparisons that they have published between Falun Dafa and whatever other beliefs. One of the other beliefs that scholars have compared Falun Dafa to is Buddhism. This is fine. Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote directly parts of the teachings of Buddhism, Falun Dafa, or whatever else to clarify the actual teaching against the scholar's analysis. Or perhaps this information could be put in a notes section down the bottom, since this page is mainly for third-party sources. Perhaps also, since if you know a thing or two about Buddhism, you would be able to help well in working out what would be an appropriate part of the canon of Buddhist teachings to quote at an appropriate time. But that is really a miniscule part of all this.

You may like to check out these links. I will just give you three. In particular, the third is extremely grave. Whatever your beliefs, you have nothing to worry about in terms of Falun Gong practitioners. For me, I just want to cultivate my heart, and the only thing I want from other people is that they are against the unjustified, violent and cruel persecution in China happening right now. I am not just opposed to the persecution of Falun Dafa, but all persecution of innocent life, Falun Dafa practitioners, Christians, Muslims or Buddhists: http://www.falundafa.org/; http://www.faluninfo.net/torturemethods2/; http://organharvestinvestigation.net/--Asdfg12345 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone on this board who is not a Falun Gong practitioner? It seems to me that changing the title of the Criticism page to "Third Party Views" is an attempt to make the Falun Gong look like a Sunday school picnic. Also, it's inaccurate to say "third party views" because the Criticism page pretty much is about Criticism about the Falun Gong, so although the critics are "third parties" they also have in common that they are critics. So what is the justification for removing the word criticism from the criticism page anyway? There are many other articles in Wikipedia that have a daughter page called Criticism or controversy about something, so why not for the Falun Gong? To take this title away would be a big distortion of what's inside the article, even though I understand that pratitioners don't accept criticism very kindly. --CaptainKarma 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Tomananda. I'm sorry, but after receiving an indefinite ban, you aren't supposed to participate in discussions, either. All currently involved editors, Fire Star included, supported the renaming. We're going to reorganize the content on these pages. Any third-party views on Falun Gong that don't fit anywhere else, positive or negative, will be moved into this article. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the chunks of original research in the article now. It has been a while since the long post discussing this, and there seemed to be at least some tacit agreement from longtime editors on the main talk page, which I could dig up. I am referring to the section on the Fa-rectification, homosexuality, mixed races etc., which cite no third parties and are not really criticisms, but selective interpretations of parts of the teachings. These should be incorporated into the Teachings page, observing a NPOV.--Asdfg12345 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

I think some of this has to be rewritten, because the following sentence does not make much sense:

Patsy Rahn states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.”

It does not make sense because it refers to municipal awards and recognitions where, the House Concurrent Resolution (I think, or it's the House of Congress?) states unanimously something positive about Falun Gong. So actually the Government does support Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Homophobic teachings?

Also what do they mean about Homophobic teachings? The teachings do not interdict people to be what they want to be, it only states that homosexuality is a sin, but then again it also says that sex outside marriage is also a sin. Which is well I guess pretty normal for any orthodox belief system. IMHO the teachings would be homophobic only if they would ask practitioners to go out and interdict and convert homosexuals, however the teachings do not require that, they only require a code of conduct for practitioners own behavior basically it's only saying that if you understand that something is not good, then try to let it go. --HappyInGeneral 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no source then you can remove it.--Asdfg12345 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's up to the reader to judge whether FLG is homophobic, and FLG in deed have been criticised by LGBT groups for the allegations.[1] [2] Maybe remove the excessive commentary, but leave the dispute passages.--PCPP 06:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I think what you are saying is reasonable. The dispute should be mentioned with some kind of response commentary. Good idea. I reckon we should make this a subsection to a section called "Falun Gong and Society" -- which should be what critics and commentators have said about how Falun Gong relates to society. Some have said negative things and some have said positive things. This would be a part of that, with some critics saying that they think it is wrong that the teachings of Falun Gong say that homosexuality is a sin. This section would replace/incorporate the "Allegations of exclusivity and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics", and be more about what commentators have said about Falun Gong and its relation to other people/society/non-practitioners, and how the things relate. So obviously this homosexuality question would need to be considered here. --Asdfg12345 07:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

currently, as of 21 July 2007

Just an update. I am going through the checklist above and trying to fix up the article. Most of it is done now except the comparison with other teachings section, which might include some other commentators and their views, plus what people have said whether Falun Gong is a religion can be a subsection of this. This section should be broken into subsections for ease of digestibility, and maybe not rely so heavily on just penny, also maybe picking out the salient points in his commentary and presenting those. Also, after looking through the original article I can see the obvious information pieces and comments of Penny that are strangely not included here.--Asdfg12345 15:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Some time ago, I tagged the article {{quotefarm}}. Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a {{copyvio}} template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the sections

I believe that the article should have sub-sections based on the type of criticism, and not according to the critic who levied criticism. I will work to restructure this accordingly. Ohconfucius 08:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also please note this is not a critic only page, this is third party, and in order to be NPOV, it should always include the favorable views of the third party as well. --HappyInGeneral 09:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

probably minor issue as long as it's all there. i have gotten rid of the huge chunks of copy-pasting in the anti-cult movement stuff, but that is yet to be done with the 'falun gong is a cult' stuff. Also, penny's section needs some attention, and Chang's comments need to be better presented. There is some odd OR going on there, and also all throughout penny's section. These two are holdovers from the bad old days that just have not been cleaned up yet. --Asdfg12345 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that the "CIA theory" is relevant to the article since the CIA is not involved in the FLG crackdown matter, and it is aimed at the wider group of cult critics rather that FLG alone--PCPP 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

but it is still quite relevant to the discussion. They are debunking the whole brainwashing/cultic studies field, which is where these people are coming from. it is quite relevant.--Asdfg12345 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Evil Cult to be eliminated

I think that Falun Gong faces harsh persecution by the Communist Party and that there are more than 1000 forced labor camps with mainly Falun Gong followers in them is undisputed - even by the National Congress. Therefore 99,99 % of your debattes are related to the accusations of Falun Gong being an "evil cult".

I don't understand why this issue seems to be causing so much controversy. The implications of "cult" in the context here are very clear:

an exploiting, capitalistic organisation with a hirachical command structure and a single deityfied leader on top, decieving new recruits by promising them "Heaven on Earth" and than exploiting them financialy or physicly by means of forced labor at the cult's farms or facilities, and using violence and brainwashing to force their cooperation, having satanic and superstitious rituals to harm themselves and others etc.

Also the Cult's leading elite is said to have close ties to corrupt government officials and other people in power, allowing them to controll and manipulate the world's media with the goal of eventually seizing world-wide power and enslaving humanity. Also according to the Encarta such a cult ussually posses a huge arsenal of weapons or even has a private army and uses violence under the pretext of "liberating" people from earthly suffering.

I will not say if Jews can be discribed this way, but the Nazis descriped them that way.

I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to determine if or if not Falun Gong also fits into this criteria. So of course you should mention IN DETAIL all those accusations including all of their implications, but at the same time you should also make it VERY CLEAR that it is those accusations and those very implications which made the persecution possible to beginn with.

--Hoerth 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

rewrote the penny section (got the article from uni database) which was I think the last of tomananda's schemes on this page. also integrated the 'falun gong and society' and 'anti-cult movement' sections, since there was a good deal of repetition between them. as for a third party page on falun gong, this article could do with a big more analysis on the meaning of the persecution in China, like its societal repercussions etc. I have only read this kind of thing from Falun Gong magazines, so I am not sure too much about what is out there. Some of it is well written though, and not written by Falun Gong practitioners, so it may be interesting to include some of this; the latest Compassion magazine is a good example. I hope to get my hands on the Chang and Schecter books also before too long, and I think there could be some relevant things to put in this article. I think Schecter gives some analysis either on the net or in his book about how falun gong was interpreted by the media at the beginning of the persecution -- I don't think this stuff belongs on the persecution page. It is related to the 'media war' section, but that section would get too long to include everything, and there is no other obvious place for it. This page should hold whatever doesn't neatly fit anywhere else, I think. There should be more relevant things which go on this page which would constitute new sections--the media example might be a good one, and there is a wsj article about this too actually... I am beginning to think that well thought out analyses of the persecution would find a good home on this page, because they can't fit on the persecution page and there's nowhere else they go. the introduction on this page also needs some livening up, and the work of Barend ter Haar is not really mentioned. There is also much more Ownby has written which could go under the Penny commentary. Will consider these things. --Asdfg12345 14:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of "CIA theory"

I doubt the relevance of the paragraph in the anti-cult section, which is a criticism of the anti-cult movement rather than counter-criticism to anti-FLG allegations.--PCPP 15:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is the same theory they are using to critise flg which that paragraph treats.--Asdfg12345 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Kavan section

This will need to be severely cleaned up. It seems you have lifted everything from that link. Falun Gong is mentioned only in passing. To frame it the way you have you'll need to dig up something far more substantial. Let me explain.

The first sentence qualifies as original research, because it is a new synthesis: In contrast to Kilgour and Matas's assertions, Dr Heather Kavan, a specialist in world relgions, saw Falun Gong as a "potential terrorist group" --That article you linked does not say this. Please read it carefully again. It does not say just that. You cannot take two ideas contained in the article then put them together to create a new idea, even if that is inferential.

The rest of the paragraph you put in does not mention Falun Gong AT ALL. And this follows the form of the article. this is attempting to confuse ideas in the readers mind, since you first mention Falun Gong, then say some other more general things that could easily be taken to be referring to Falun Gong. I don't know if you meant to do this or not. I find it completely unacceptable to use sources like this. You'll need to find Kavan's original work and be far more clear about what she says explicitly about Falun Gong. Wikipedia is definitely not the place for inferences and implications, and what you have inserted is nothing but that.--Asdfg12345 12:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply used Dr Kavan's points to compare and contrast with Kilgour and Matas's, which does not fall within WP:O. The rest of the paragraph is an official university announcement and is an academic source. See also Project Megiddo. Kavan's theories are no more original research than Noah Porter's thesis or two unacccredited Canadian politicians's claims. --PCPP 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• You have to actually find that article and refer to it. That university announcement has serious problems. It only mentions Falun Gong at the beginning, then says a whole bunch of other stuff. I am not sure if the reader is meant to make that connection, that those other things are meant to refer to Falun Gong or not. whatever the university does with its publications, we can't help that. But with wikipedia we can do better, and not confuse the reader, make clear points, not say one thing then elaborate on another thing, suggesting they are related, but aren't really. This is a slimy way of writing. There's surely something about this in WP:NPOV or in some policy. It's the very poor construction of the paragraph along with having no actual source for Kavan. I'd suggest finding the Kavan source and write a normal paragraph about her views.--Asdfg12345 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)