Religion: Falun Gong C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Merger proposal
The two articles seem to cover very similar precepts under different names. If the copyvio content is deleted in both these articles, the merger can take place without any burden on article size. Ohconfucius 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) letS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.155.232 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Overhaul
Hi, I just learned how to edit on Wikipedia. This page is currently a mess, I am working on a new version which I am going to replace soon. thanks. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Randy1412Randy1412 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is excellent, well done. I have made some small changes, and put some Chinese terms in. It needs a WP:Lead section, and I think some minor rearranging, but is definitely a very big improvement. --Asdfg12345 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
ref problem
The <ref name=kar /> is broken, could somebody please fix it? Thank You. --89.35.149.202 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's totally weird that that ref is broken. I have looked at it carefully and tried to fix it, it's a complete anomaly.--Asdfg12345 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now it's fixed. A reference above it was not closed, and this impacted the next reference definition. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Tags
I've tagged this article for a few reasons:
- It is almost devoid of wikilinks which would provide contextual help and help build the web.
- It appears to be written from an advocative, rather then descriptive, tone.
- The introduction is opaque to those who are unfamilar with the subject.
When these issues are addressed, the article should be untagged. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- yeah someone just rewrote it. It would help to identify the parts which are advocative rather than descriptive. Specific instances are needed--please help.--Asdfg12345 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think point 1 and partially point 3 is solved. See here: [1]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- We could still do with more work on point 1, I feel. I don't believe that the intro is clear enough yet. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
some notes
apart from hearing what Chris has to say, which will be useful, some things I can think of:
- a proper, normal introduction according to WP:Lead, and explaining in more secular terms what Falun Gong is.
- making some sections into subsections, since this would categorise the ideas better
- thorough copyedit of language, style, tone
- general attempt to give more background/introduction to some of the concepts
um there are some other issues, and this is a tricky topic. A new editor seems to have written the whole thing anew. It's definitely an improvement, in any case. It may be easy both to allow an article like this to enter the realm of advocation, yet equally easy to mistakenly accuse it of such, simply due to the content itself, even if it were presented in a very neutral way. I think what's here now is a solid basis which can be trimmed up and polished. There are definite improvements. I want to do this sometime soon; we'll see how it looks in a week or so.--Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: I just see another editor has put in links etc., this is good. --Asdfg12345 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, it's rapidly getting better. let's see how things work out. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
discussion of lede
Dilip, please see WP:LEDE. I think the version you are proposing is unreasonably large. The lede should provide the essential information for the article, not trying to fit everything in. The lede needn't elaborate on the key points. I think another one or two sentences could be put in about xinxing cultivation and the emphasis on morality, but the version you want seems far too long. (You also introduced a grammatical error into the first sentence.)--Asdfg12345 10:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Dubious claim about karma
The claim in the article that Buddhist karma is strictly about reward and punishment is incorrect. The Falun Gong claim that all karma is negative, that all karma is the source of suffering, is precisely the same view as in Buddhism. It is a bit confusing, though, as to how this same section conflates this teaching with the Christian doctrine, "you reap what you sow," which is the primitive notion of reward and punishment. So, it's a bit confusing how the article contradicts itself -- that is, David Ownby's own observations are self-contradictory. What exactly is meant by "readily traceable" to the Christian teaching? Did karma originate in Christianity? It doesn't make much sense. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
isn't there like 'good karma' and 'bad karma' in Buddhism? I think this is what it means. There's no 'good karma' and 'bad karma' in Falun Gong, just karma and virtue, and karma manifests only as negative returns for doing bad things. I think Ownby is just making a pithy observation in comparing Falun Gong to christianity. I think 'readily-traceable' just means that the connection is obvious, or like, they are quite similar. How do you reckon to make it so anyone who reads it does not get confused?--Asdfg12345 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
What the article says is that the terminology used is different. In Buddhism the term "karma" means both the consequences of both good and bad actions - when you do a good deed you get good karma and bad deed brings bad karma. Good karma leads to god rewards and bad karma leads to suffering. In Falun Dafa the term Karma or Ye Li refers to Bad Karma and the term Virtue or De refers to Good Karma. Just my understanding. Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually Karma is just cause and effect in standard Buddhist practice. As such it is value-neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody believe that the New York Times isn't a valid source?
I found a quote of Li Hongzhi on the New York Times. It was removed. I would like to know why. I mean, come on, the Epoch Times is referenced as a source in FLG articles. The New York Times is one of about the three most respected newspapers in the world! I would like to know a single valid reason why quotes from Li Hongzhi, quotes of things he said to his australian followers no less, printed by the New York Times are not seen as valid for an article on the teachings of the FLG. Please don't give me an essay on forebearance and acceptance and all that. My two questions are simple: 1) Do things Li Hongzhi says to his congregants on the topic of metaphysics count as Teachings of the Falun Gong? 2) Does the New York Times count as a valid source? If the answers to these questions are yes and no or if I get no on-topic answer I am putting the quote back in.Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, the NYT is a valid source. As I wrote to Dilip on the FG talk page: Dilip, The New York Times does reach Wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks PerEdman. If you still need it the date of reference is April 30, 2000. I'm putting it in the section on karma and rebirth as it refers to teachings Mr. Li has provided on post-life fate and its relationship to FLG practice. If there is a different part of the teaching section that you feel it would fit better in I am open to moving it. But this information should be included somewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please let me clarify. The material I listed is sourced from the new york times quoting Li Hongzhi it is NOT a fringe perspective nor does it need to be academically sourced. It is what Li Hongzhi said. So please stop reverting it. That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks PerEdman. If you still need it the date of reference is April 30, 2000. I'm putting it in the section on karma and rebirth as it refers to teachings Mr. Li has provided on post-life fate and its relationship to FLG practice. If there is a different part of the teaching section that you feel it would fit better in I am open to moving it. But this information should be included somewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- If NYT "quotes" Li Hongzhi, and quotes him wrong, I'm not sure the best way of handling that. If the journalist doesn't include the thing in quotes, then it's just the journalists words. Maybe that could be qualified as "according to blah journalist," and some other notes for context. If the journalist says something that does not appear in the teachings, that could be pointed out. I don't see any grounds for excluding NYT as a source here, but there are other sources as well, so a variety of views can be presented. I think that's okay. --Asdfg12345 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I find Dilip's remarks quite persuasive, actually. He has identified some important policy points which make qualifications about when opinion articles are useful and relevant and when they are not. This is quite important. In the end I would suggest some general language that Li's views on this and other topics have been criticised by some journalists, but that Falun Gong claims his remarks have been misunderstood (per faluninfo.net, for example). I think that is a fair compromise between noting that such fringe interpretations exist, without giving undue weight. The real research from scholars like Ownby, Porter, Zhao, etc., carries far more weight and is much more useful than throwaway opinions from journalists--I think it's just about balance and context, and making sure we are presenting something useful and accurate to the reader.--Asdfg12345 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on this from Talk:Falun Gong
I've seen quotes from Li Hongzhi where he has said that children of mixed 'race' are "unclean" and where he has stated that the after-life is racially segregated. I have also heard second hand accounts stating that he has further said that the racially segregated after-life is ranked with better post-death fates for certain ethnicities. I edit from work and most sites about ARGs are blocked so I can't effectively search for the quote. Could somebody lend a hand?Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nowhere is any term with any connotation as "unclean" or anything even remotely carrying such connotation used. I am sure you would seen this claim made in some CCP related website - they can't find anything wrong with Falun Gong - so they resort to ridiculous misrepresentations, like these, to bolster their propaganda campaign.
- Buddhists traditions and Daoist traditions ( and many Indian traditions as well ) have a world-view in which a hierarchy of dimensions are present - systems or ordering in a plane, never arising coincidentally, but as a natural, physical consequence of a deeper, higher dimensional ordering. All that is said, in passing, is that the ordering of this plane of the cosmos has to do with how more microcosmic, higher dimensional planes are ordered - and racial ordering here, as well, exists not by mere chance. Many inter-racial people practice cultivation - So Very Many. What is mentioned in the teachings is that mixing of races, on this scale, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is also said that mixed race people can practice cultivation all the same, and it is said, very clearly, that it is neither their fault nor their parents' - but just has got to do with chaotic cosmic phenomenon beyond their control. Interracial marriages are, in fact, not uncommon among practitioners .
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Falun Gong is not racist. Spit out the bait you accidentally swallowed. I've been practicing for eight years, and I've noticed that mixed-race marriages among practitioners (esp. Caucasians <-> Chinese) seem to be more common than in population at large. I have never heard a practitioner utter a racist slur. Moreover, I've seen hundreds of practitioners of mixed-race origin.
- For more information, take a look at the following accurate description of Falun Gong's "stance" in these controversial issues [2]:
- Knowing the democratic West to be a tolerant, pluralistic, and diverse place, Chinese authorities have sought to brand Falun Gong as contrary to these basic values. In a word, they’ve sought to cast it as “intolerant.” Several journalists have taken the bait.
- The characterization is patently misleading, and rests solely upon an outsider’s uninformed interpretation of doctrine. It’s found to be at odds with lived practice.
- Consider the first of the two major issues Chinese authorities cite: an alleged intolerance of homosexuality. (We can’t help but note the irony of China’s communist rulers having until recently banned homosexuality, labeling it a mental disorder.)
- Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are welcomed by the practice just like anyone else, and not accorded any different treatment. Whether they continue to live that lifestyle, or self-identify with that term, is solely a personal choice and not something anyone in Falun Gong would force upon the individual. Central to Falun Gong is the making of one’s own decisions.
- Falun Gong’s teachings do suggest that certain behaviors, including homosexuality, generate more karma than others or are not conducive to certain aspirations in the practice. But this it is left at the level of teaching, and not a creed or regulation. How one understands a given teaching, and to what extent he or she applies it, is always a personal matter.
- A second, related point that must be emphasized is that Falun Gong’s teachings on this and other matters do not equate to a “position statement” or “stance” on some social issue. They are intended solely for the individual aspirant, and to be applied to his or her own life; they are not meant to be applied to others, much less non-practitioners. Falun Gong does not have any position on what other people should or shouldn’t do with their lives. It simply offers its teachings on personal change to whomever is interested in its path to spiritual growth.
- What holds true for homosexuality holds true for interracial marriage, if not more so. Falun Gong’s teachings have little to say about the matter. What several journalists have picked up on, prompted by Chinese state media intimations, is the presence of one passage in one book where Falun Gong’s founder mentions the issue in passing.
- Regrettably the said journalists didn’t temper their own, outsider’s reading of that passage with investigation or evidence. They failed to check with any living, actual persons who do Falun Gong, preferring, seemingly, to not let a sensational reading of the passage be spoiled by evidence to the contrary.
- Had they looked into the matter, they would have found their assumptions to be just that, assumptions. Many who practice Falun Gong have married individuals of a different race after taking up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. If Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, it’s doing a poor job of it.
- If the practice does not breed racial intolerance in the life of the individual, one might readily imagine how much less so it translates into a general “stance” on interracial marriage in society.
- The two most frequently cited forms of “intolerance” end up suggesting, upon closer examination, just the opposite. Indeed, if anything, it would seem that something in Falun Gong is instead conducive to greater tolerance.
- ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Essays on Falun Gong practice aside the truth is that I have read quotes from Li Hongzhi on the issue of racial segregation, as I said previously, I just can't find them right now. Please next time you don't have the information I requested it would be sufficient for you to say that you don't believe you have ever read such material. Furthermore please refrain from making personal attacks when you speak to me. It is unwelcome and inappropriate. Thank you very much. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999. I have added the appropriate quote to the "Teachings of Falun Gong" page and will add balancing comments in order to maintain neutrality. As this is a direct quote taken from a source that IIRC does meet Wikipedia's reference standards I ask that it not be removed. I will endeavor to make sure the presentation is neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Simonm223, we're going to need a date reference ... wait, I just realized this is talk about different wikipage. Going to that Talk page now. PerEdman (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Found the quote. It was in the new york times in 2000 and was a quote of a statement made by Li Hongzhi in an interview in 1999. I have added the appropriate quote to the "Teachings of Falun Gong" page and will add balancing comments in order to maintain neutrality. As this is a direct quote taken from a source that IIRC does meet Wikipedia's reference standards I ask that it not be removed. I will endeavor to make sure the presentation is neutral.Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Essays on Falun Gong practice aside the truth is that I have read quotes from Li Hongzhi on the issue of racial segregation, as I said previously, I just can't find them right now. Please next time you don't have the information I requested it would be sufficient for you to say that you don't believe you have ever read such material. Furthermore please refrain from making personal attacks when you speak to me. It is unwelcome and inappropriate. Thank you very much. Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Academic analysis - Ownby, Schechter, etc. never mention anything to such an effect - and these works carry extensive analysis of the Teachings. They don't find anything suggestive of any form of racism or segregation. For a tabloid or a newspaper, such mis-characterization does not count for much. But for an encyclopaedic article, which ought to be of high enough quality to serve as an academic source, such far-fetched claims, unless supported by mainstream academia, in my opinion, are to be avoided. What is said in the teachings has to be understood in the context of over 2000 pages of teachings. If the teachings present, like many Indian and Chinese Traditions, a world-view of a Cosmic Ordering in which is present a hierarchy of material dimensions, and organization in this material dimension arising as a natural consequence of how the system is organized in higher, more microcosmic dimensions, and the teachings, in passing, mention something about racial ordering ( something that occupies just a para or so in over 2000 pages of the teachings ) in this plane arising as a natural consequence of a higher ordering - it has to be presented in the appropriate context - and not be exaggerated and presented in a distorted, out of context and misleading manner. A journalist might do this - sensationalism is part of his job, and he is no position to analyze things in a scholarly manner or to make an academic statement on the issue. But a true Scholar won't - as is evidenced by that prominent scholarly studies of the teachings do not make any such claims.
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- In australia in 1999 Li Hongzhi told followers of his religion that children of interracial ancestry could only get into heaven through his graces. He said that there were separate heavens segregated by colour. How is this not racism?Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dilip, The New York Times does reach wikipedia's reference standards. That Ownby and Schechter do, too, is not a reason to not allow the NYT as a valid source. The quotation may therefore be included in context. PerEdman (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, "is not an indescriminate collection of information". What is presented in the NYT article is but a particular journalist's characterization - who is by no means an expert on the topic. For outrageous claims like these - like that it is said mixed-race people are all "spawn" of this period ( which is a ridiculously misleading representation) - which completely conflicts with what academics say about Falun Gong; and is not supported by scholarly sources and also , by no means, the original source - we must exercise great caution, lest we end up misleading the reader. Highest quality scholarship available on the topic all tell us Falun Gong is a peaceful form of self-belief - what does a particular journalist's sensationalist comments count for, in the face of all that academic analysis?
- "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." - WP:RS .. This article obviously is not a study.. The claim made by the journalist is not even a study, is quite far-fetched and the tone of writing is very misleading as well. Remember, a journalist is no position to pass scholarly comments on the topic. We cannot include every journalist's interpretation and comments in an encyclopaedic article. Further the article, written in 2000 could easily have been influenced by CCP propaganda, which had then infiltrated many western news agencies, according to analysts like Schechter.
- "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."..."For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."..."An individual extremist or fringe source[this is not a fringe source but the claim made is obviously a fringe theory] may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." - WP:RS
- Considering these wiki-policies, and the completely non-academic tone of the content being added, I am of the firm opinion that such sensationalist material ought not be added in without context. For the reasons I adumbrate here, I am keeping it out of the article for now.
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dilip the article in question was not a "journalist's characterization". It was a direct quote of statements made by Li Hongzhi.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- See.. the article ended up misleading you as well. It is not a direct quote. Nor is it even a paraphrase. Using terminology, never found in the teachings like "spawn of" - if anything, it is a very biased and intentional/sensationalist mis-characterization. You may verify this for yourself. The lectures are available online. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dilip the article in question was not a "journalist's characterization". It was a direct quote of statements made by Li Hongzhi.Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) No, Dilip rajeev, just no. You say "It's a characterization", Simonm223 points out that it is not. So you say "Oh, that's just the article misleading you!". I believe Simonm223 has an actual quote, and I do not believe you have more than one other source that says anything different. PerEdman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just because Mr. Li didn't write it down in Zhuan Falun doesn't mean it isn't part of what he taught when he said those things to his followers in australia in 1999. PS: If conversation must continue on this subject can we please do so in Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong?Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The 1999 Lecture in Australia is available on FalunDafa.org as well. You may go through the lecture and verify for yourself.
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the New York Times is a more reliable source than the religious group's website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is a very funny remark, Simon. The Falun Dafa website has all the stuff that Li has published. If it's not there, it hasn't been published. The New York Times doesn't have that stuff, obviously, and they obviously don't have some special access to Li, where they know other things he has said that have not been published. I'd like to see this responded to (i.e., that the spawn remark isn't in the teachings--there's direct proof of that, what do you say?), and secondly, the long argument that Dilip has raised, quoting policies and explaining why the remark doesn't qualify as appropriate. When discussing these things, we need to respond to what the other is saying. Please respond to the points Dilip has raised. My suggestion is a compromise, noting that journalists have raised criticisms, and that Falun Gong claims either willful or guileless misunderstanding.--Asdfg12345 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the New York Times is a more reliable source than the religious group's website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just because Mr. Li didn't write it down in Zhuan Falun doesn't mean it isn't part of what he taught when he said those things to his followers in australia in 1999. PS: If conversation must continue on this subject can we please do so in Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong?Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) What is funny/horrifying, Asdfg, is your claim that the Falun Dafa website has "all the stuff that Li has published", when Simonm223's source is not a published document, it is a quote from an interview. If what you claim was true, then we could just throw out all sources that are not present on the Falun Dafa webpage, but for obvious reasons, this being a wikipedia article, we cannot possibly do that. We must use all sources at our disposal, using wikipedia guidelines to discriminate between them.
What we cannot possibly do, is use the Falun Dafa webpage to make that discrimination, because this is Wikipedia, rather than Clearwisdom.net. PerEdman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that things Li Hongzhi says to his followers in a religious context only count as teachings if they are then published by his publishing firm? That makes little sense.Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not the source I have a problem with - but the non-contextual manner in which the material is currently presented. WP:RS itself tells us: "Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context." We need to present things in an academically sound manner. Also, the article nowhere claims it is a direct quote. Kindly address the WP:RS concerns I raise above. It is not the source in itself - but the source being a newspaper article, and what it claims not being supported by academia that concerns me. We need to form a consensus here on talk before adding the material in. And, if we must add it in let us do so in an encyclopaedic manner, providing appropriate context. Till then, I request you exercise restrain and to please not keep re-adding the content while discussion is underway.
- Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dilip rajeev, Please read MORE of the text in WP:RS, for example the part about allowing even for opinion pieces. Or even the start of the paragraph you chose to quote so selectively:
- For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment. -WP:RS
- There will never be a complete context inside the wikipedia article itself - that is why we have references; so we do not have to reproduce everything on wikipedia. A wiki page cannot tell people what to believe, but it can show them the sources so that people can make up their own minds.
- Nor can you read WP: guidelines as you read a holy writ. Just because WP:RS makes the reservation that newspapers can misrepresent results or report discoveries (this about scientific discoveries, nb) does not mean that you can just quote that part, out of context, as an argument against the quotation presented by Simonm223.
- If you believe context is missing, add context but do it in the wikipedia spirit, and please don't just remove the claim. PerEdman (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dilip rajeev, Please read MORE of the text in WP:RS, for example the part about allowing even for opinion pieces. Or even the start of the paragraph you chose to quote so selectively:
It is about academic topics ( not scientific topics) and this is clearly an academic topic.' There are several issues pointed out above - and they all need to be sufficiently addressed. For an academic topic, a newspaper report is one of the last sources one would look into - especially when its view conflicts with that of mainstream scholarship. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- For reporting Li Hongzhi's words the New York Times constitutes a reliable source. Please stop with the straw-dog arguments and inappropirate reverts.Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It would have made more sense, in terms of adding it to the article, if the remark opined one way or another on the topic of those teachings. It's actually just a snatch of poor journalism. The basic thing seems to be that these teachings are not a notable part of the corpus of Falun Gong teachings--is there any evidence to the contrary? Do we have a good source linking the notability of Falun Gong to these teachings? This would be useful stuff. Anyway, for now I think it's okay to simply mention it, along with Johnson's useful characterisation, which gives some context as well as drawing attention to the topic. --Asdfg12345 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would say it is incredibly notable that Li Hongzhi, the person from whom all FLG teachings descends, made racist metaphysical statements. How could you possibly consider this to be non-notable?!?!Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Racist metaphysical statements? Do you not see the contradiction in terms here? Also, it's only your own interpretation that his remarks are "racist" -- that's what you add to it, not the nature of his statements. Beside that, none of this matters because it's just our own argumentation and original research. The point is that such statements are barely related to the notability of the topic, as far as I can tell. Is Falun Gong famous because of this? No. The only reason they would be mentioned here at all, I guess, is that journalists have mentioned them. Notability claims stem from what reliable sources say, not from what we say. These things have been mentioned a few times, but they're just one small part of a whole corpus of teachings of thousands of pages. I don't think it's a deal to mention them. Mention them, it's fine. They're mentioned now and even contextualised. I don't see a problem.--Asdfg12345 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't remove the quote again there won't be a problem over that specific issue. All I ever wanted was for you to stop removing the quote.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rewriting the quote and including unproven and unverified and uncited statements such as that the author was a FLG critic is NOT a move. If you read the article it's actually more critical of the PRC than of the FLG. Please don't try things like that. If you want to move without rewriting I will not revert.Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
He's a critic. I don't mind not saying he's a critic, but it's not a false statement. You can call it uncited and remove it, fine. I don't have a citation so I won't argue. My main problem is that it's not true that Li said the "spawn of the Dharma ending period" thing. (check search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=spawn&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&Search=+Find+ a search of the site). The next part of the quote is left intact. The last part of the quote was "have no place in heaven without Li's intervention," which also doesn't seem accurate (search.freefind.com/find.html?oq=spawn&id=46344703&pageid=r&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&scs=1&query=intervention&Find=Search&mode=ALL). You're welcome to call me on third party sources that I introduce which aren't accurate--just show how they aren't and make it good. At the moment the note sums up the journalists view without introducing any inaccuracies. What do you say? (Note: could not embed the links, some problem, just copy and paste into browser, and maybe add a http:// )--Asdfg12345 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- The 'spawn of dharma end times' comment is very relevant. Please stop trying to exclude information that people should be able to see.Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I've explained myself point by point; please do me the same courtesy. Wikipedia needs some kind of instant messaging function!--Asdfg12345 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
How is it "relevant"? How do you respond to the fact that this is not at all found in the teachings? Should we have another sentence explaining this? It's the same with the intervention statement. If you want to put them in, then we will have to include the fact that such statements are not found in the teachings. You take your pick.--Asdfg12345 19:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your arguments for it's falseness are baseless - derived from FLG hosted transcripts. Unless you have the NY Times printing a retraction... or unless you have evidence that Li Hongzhi successfully brought libel action against the Times. Do you?Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Times does not claim that those were things that Li directly told the paper. It just says he says them. Everything published by Li is in the falundafa.org website. If it's not there, unless a newspaper claims he told them directly, then we cannot find the source. Since the newspaper makes a reference to a statement to Australian practitioners in 1999, it's clear that their source is not from first-hand listening, but from what was published by the Falun Gong website. As I say, if we have those two precise things quoted, there needs to be a sentence that a search of the Falun Gong website returned zero results for those search terms. The other option is to paraphrase the quote. As I say, please choose which you would prefer. You understand what I'm saying, right?--Asdfg12345 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice to sort this out now, if possible. Since you did not like the paraphrase approach, after a period of grace I'll append the sentences with search links, assuming you prefer that resolution.--Asdfg12345 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Li said it, the Times reported it. The rest is immaterial. The quote stays.Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting problem. Here's what Olaf wrote on the talk page:
The New York Times article is explicitly referring to the Australian lecture in 1999, therefore it is the stated original source. Apart from what is available on falundafa.org, Falun Dafa does not have any additional lectures. Every interpretation has been made on the basis of these same lectures, transcribed word-for-word from Li Hongzhi's speech. PerEdman seems confused about "the word of Li Hongzhi during an interview"; this is not what the New York Times article is talking about. If there is an obvious discrepancy between the lectures and any derivative sources, which one do you think is correct? And if we choose to include such text from a derivative source, how should we articulate this discrepancy in the Wikipedia article? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What complicates the matter, further to the two points above (that the "spawn" comment and the "intervention" comment are not found in any of Li's teachings), is that the quote attributed to Li from the Australian 1999 lecture, is not said by him in that lecture at all. Look here -- this is the only lecture given in Australia in 1999, and the quote simply isn't there. This is the source that Craig Smith claims he got his quote from, but upon inspection it is found to be mistaken, or perhaps fabricated. Li has certainly made remarks on this subject, but not as Smith portrays them. I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that the journalist got it wrong, or just added his own ideas in--journalists do such things. What we have is an important discrepancy between a claimed original source and the actual original source. If the quote is to include these mistaken parts, the discrepancy must be pointed out.--Asdfg12345 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you won't accept any paraphrasing of the quote in question--which is demonstratibly inaccurate--I've simply added the (referenced) note about those words not appearing in the teachings, and non-existence of the quote attributed to Li, and Faluninfo.net's remark on the issue.--Asdfg12345 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unacceptable. The fact is that the absence of the quote from faluninfo.net is NOT anything resembling proof that Li didn't say what he is quoted as saying. Again I ask you for a retraction from NY Times or proof of Libel litigation between Li and NY Times over this 'quote'Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Point accepted. It's not proof he didn't say it. Just like NYT is not proof that he did say it. But it doesn't turn up in the database of teachings, and that we can say. Let's allow readers to make their own conclusions. --Asdfg12345 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the NY Times article IS proof he said what he said. Because they quoted him. And did not retract the quote and were not sued for Libel.Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it's proof that they published that article quoting him saying that. It's not proof that he said it. That's a fairly simple concept, right? I won't revert your recent removal of the quote; I would consider that edit warring. I've been happy to go back and forth for now, because there has always been some haggling and changes. Now you have stopped that and are simply removing sourced information. Since the three searches from Falundafa.org are of a different nature than the direct quote from Faluninfo.net, I'll restore the latter and leave the former out. If you remove the latter again, I will not put it back. Next, since you keep stopping any attempt to paraphrase any part of the quote or provide any clear attribution, I am going to put the whole thing in quotation marks, for the purposes of clarity. Finally, I'm going to start a third opinion process about the discrepancy between what Li is quoted as saying in Australia 1999 and what he doesn't say there. I'm sure similar things have come up in other wikipedia articles, and that there is some precedent (say, for in such cases to simply quote what the conflicting views are and leave it at that, rather than for editors to try to establish the truth of the various claims for themselves). Note, that I am not asking for something proving that Li didn't say something, just as the NYT is not proof that he did. My point is merely to establish what each says. Let's take it to a third opinion. --Asdfg12345 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's not notable what your organization's webpage doesn't say. It is notable what the NY Times does say. This is simple.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It really doesn't take much thought to see that this is a misleading statement in this context. A list of things that falundafa.org (it's not "my organization" thx) doesn't say would not be notable. It is notable, however, that a quote attributed to Li from a particular lecture does not actually appear in that lecture. This is a case of a secondary source wrongly attributing a primary source. All I am seeking is that this discrepancy be pointed out. It's obvious that the "spawn" and "intervention" remarks are the journalist's own phrasings, too--but since he attributes them to Li, it is also relevant that there is no other record of Li saying them. All I'm seeking is to have this information included; that is the most objective way to deal with this issue. Let's get some third opinions; I'll be interested for precedents on this, because as I say, I'm sure it's happened on wikipedia more than once.--Asdfg12345 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I will only be satisfied if the third party is not a FLG appologist. Until then I will aggressively defend the article AND the quote therein.Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. In an article about Falun Gong's teachings, the only website where Falun Gong practitioners go to read Li Hongzhi's lectures is a highly notable primary source. We're not talking about removing the New York Times quote. But as there is discrepancy between the sources, we are entitled report it. This is fully consistent with the policies.
- Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- No need for aggression, we're all working on the same thing here. I created a section for commentary here. I hope you don't define as "FLG appologist" anyone who would say it is reasonable to provide the note about this discrepancy... By the way, as I've made clear, I am not seeking to break your quote, merely to note that the quotation attributed to Li is inconsistent with what Li is recorded as saying. --Asdfg12345 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- just one more thing, tbh it seems like such a silly point of dispute. It's like someone writes in a newspaper that such and such book says some quote; and in the end the book doesn't say that quote, and it turns out the journalist just made it up. So just quote the journalist if they managed to get their piece into NYT, and then simply note that the quote doesn't appear in the book. I don't see the issue, in the end. Let's see what others think.--Asdfg12345 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on this I'm restoring the deletes references.--Asdfg12345 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- That was highly irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? You totally need to respond to this. This is an issue of wikipedia policy and respecting concensus and guidelines. I'm reverting. You just have to learn to live with it.--Asdfg12345 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Simonm223 I have made a post on the edit warring noticeboard about your conduct. The current situation is as follows: you are repeatedly removing text that has been supported by three editors (including myself), who have each referred to policy and made argumentation for keeping it. You have no referred to any policy, have stopped explaining what is wrong with the text (except the broad term "POV-pushing"), and have just repeatedly gone ahead with reverts. Here's the report.--Asdfg12345 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
RfC on the issue
The question here has to do with verifiable sources, legitimate sources and the insertion of POV. The FLG supporters argue that the New York Times is not a reliable source for information on things Li Hongzhi has said. I say that the New York Times is a reliable source and feel it is not notable that a Falun Daffa webpage which purports to contain transcripts of the interview does not include these comments. I assert that the Falun Gong may have edited their transcripts for PR purposes, something supported by the fact that the New York Times has not printed a retraction and Li Hongzhi has not brought libel charges against them for that statement. I have not removed statements derived from Falun Gong sources when those statements state what the website does say. Rather I have simply removed editor commentary on what is not said.Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The Falun Dafa webpage does not purport to contain "transcripts of the interview." This dispute has absolutely nothing to do with what Li Hongzhi said to the journalist. The NYT article refers to Li Hongzhi's lecture in Australia, which is publicly available on the website. Are you intentionally trying to mislead, or have you not realised what we're arguing about? Do you understand the policy reference I made? "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Can you spell "Dafa" correctly? So many questions, so few answers. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The argument from ASDFG12345 has been that the Falun Daffa webpage has a transcript of the australia lecture which does not include Li Hongzhi making the questionable comments attributed to him in the New York Times article. As far as I'm concerned the only reason that would be notable is in commenting on the fact that the Falun Gong is aware that Li Hongzhi's comments on a racially segregated afterlife would not play well in the west. As such I find the internal source to be very questionable in veracity compared to the original quote in the New York Times. Despite this I have left up statements made by the Falun Gong site with regards to the New York Times quote. I just have refused to let you cut the "spawn" issue from the post and have deleted editorial commentary on the absence of certain terms from the Falun Gong site records. The edit log will support my position if anyone watching cares to look. In fact I'd say that the edit log speaks to the core of this conflict much more concisely than the pages of FLG rhetoric now on this talk page. To be blunt, unlike some (but not all) of the people involved in this dispute, my account is not essentially a single-use account devoted to the Falun Gong and I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours a day reading through the reams of text typed by pro-FLG supporters over this issue. This is my defense for their claims that I have not responded on the talk page to their satisfaction. However they have consistently failed to get a third party review of the data. After they offered to do so they posted a very vague (and not entirely accurate) enquiry on the reliable sources notice board, got an equally vauge reply and then tried to claim that as third party justification for POV edits. I am tired of this dispute. I was directed here by a third party a few weeks back and, being interested in China and being interested in Religions I came by and found that the Falun Gong sites were, in general, a train wreck of POV. They advocate for the FLG, block sources that portray the FLG in a negative light, even when valid, use weasel words almost constantly, and give undue weight to pro-FLG sources, including FLG webpages and a very small number of academics that support them. I tried to help. The result was this... mess... which is the same result whenever a disinterested third party tries to fix the FLG articles, it would seem, according to the archives.Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Simonm223, some of the things you have said are misleading. I never said NYT was not a reliable source. I'm not interested in the rest of your comments, I think they're also inaccurate, but whatever. This is a bit silly, because the dispute is actually very simple. Since I already summed it up very clearly, I'm copying the language here. If you believe there is a problem with this, please explain:
The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings. [caveat: for the sake of clarity, I'm not claiming what Li has or hasn't said, I'm only pointing to the discrepancy in sources, not making some objective comment.]
The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however."[1][2][3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.
What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?
- Again: there are two sources which say different things (or, one doesn't say things that the other says it does, same difference) -- what to do? The WP:RS policy, which has been quoted a million times now, says "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." What's the problem? (finally, again, the other option is to simply paraphrase the quote so it doesn't include the things falundafa.org source shows as nonexistent. I don't mind which approach is taken, though this would make sense, for brevity.) Finally, the idea that originally the lecture had these comments and that later they were removed is a conspiracy theory. I don't even know how to respond to it. Whatever the case, it can't be proven--we can't even investigate it, so it's basically irrelevant.--Asdfg12345 21:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Simonm223, if you have no reliable source for your outlandish conspiracy theory, you can do nothing about it. I find it ridiculous, but what I think doesn't really matter. There is no way you can act upon your own speculation, not provide a reference to back it up, and blank content from the article based on your hypothetical cover-up behind the scenes. If such a thing would have happened, why can't you find even one single source to discuss it?
- I will briefly comment on your other accusations: the articles do not contain weasel words (or if they do, point them out); they accurately represent the viewpoint of the most notable researchers in the field; there are not many links to FLG published sources, and even when they are found, they're not used as secondary sources. The articles mainly rely on academic third party references, and give them due weight in proportion to their relevance and status. You can keep ranting about this for as long as you want, but all you say is empty talk if you don't prove your point by reliable sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Simonm223 please respond when you get a chance. --Asdfg12345 07:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Characterising my concern about the neutrality of a Falun Gong website in reporting on the Falun Gong as an "outlandish conspiracy theory" is precisely the sort of misrepresentation I see almost every day on these talk pages from FLG single-use-account members and those who are very nearly so. And the "viewpoint of the most notable researchers in the field" include a single pro-FLG academic from Montreal, a Canadian politician with no specific expertise in the field, and the Epoch Times - a newspaper owned by the FLG. Meanwhile interviews of Li Hongzhi and quotes of Li Hongzhi taken from journalists working for publications such as Time and the New York Times are deleted, distorted or "contextualized" by cutting key sections of the quotation "to make it more punchy" and then following it with a FLG sourced disputation of the quote frequently up to twice the length of the original statement. If you care to look at the history of the article in question this is clear.Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Simon, please cut the rhetoric and deal with the issue at hand. --Asdfg12345 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, one more thing: Ownby did years of fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners, he has got a bunch of articles in peer-reviewed journals, a bunch of book chapters, and his own book on the subject. He's an expert on the subject, and maybe the most qualified out there. Not sure how he counts as "pro-FLG." Along with responding to the current issue (see above), maybe you could substantiate this claim. As mentioned in previous notes, Kilgour is a notable public figure, has written a report on the subject, regularly speaks on it at conferences around the world, has had columns on the subjects published in newspapers, is someone newspapermen go to to ask about the subject, etc.--not sure what else one would need to do to be considered an expert on the topic. Maybe you could help explain what else he would need to do to be considered an expert on the topic. Lastly, the Epoch Times isn't being cited in this article I don't believe. It would be regarded as a self-published source on this topic. Finally lastly, that's an inaccurate characterisation, and please respond to the issue. I'm gonna repost the thing on the RS noticeboard. Since you haven't pointed out what was wrong with the question, I'm going to assume nothing is wrong with it. If you would like to reframe it, please just add your remarks underneath. Will link to it in a moment.--Asdfg12345 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Repost.2C_need_opinion.2C_Teachings_of_Falun_Gong_dispute -- please see. I expect that if you find my summary of the dispute lacking that you will supplement it with your own understanding and explanation.--Asdfg12345 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ownby is given undue weight WP:UNDUE My concern is not so much with the inclusion of Ownby as it is with the exclusion of other sources. As I have referenced, repeatedly, in this discussion. The over-use of Ownby, of the highly flawed Kilgour anti-china propaghanda and of the FLG-mouthpiece, Epoch Times, are secondary to the concerns I have over these exclusions. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that Ownby is overused, I would like that to be remedied also. Your note about Kilgour is obviously unfounded--find some sources or drop it. About the Epoch Times sources, where is this being wrongly used? In any case this source is cited it should be sparingly, when needed, and treated as any self published source. Please give examples and let's look at them. Otherwise, please respond to the noticeboard thing or it will be considered that you had your chance (again) to characterise the dispute as you wished and didn't take it. --Asdfg12345 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I did respond on the notice board. I referred them here. Once again you are latching onto my secondary concerns and disregarding my primary concerns - the deletion of valid statements under a pretext that they are not valid by highly pro-FLG users, including yourself, Olaf Stephanos, Dilip Rajeev and Happy In General.Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- (the deletion of which valid statements?)--Asdfg12345 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Just look at the history log.Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, give us the diffs you are talking about. You have made a direct accusation against named editors, and the burden of proof lies on you. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Olaf the proof is visible in the history log. Unlike some of those I have named I am not a single-purpose user. I don't have the time to go back through the history log and point out every instance where FLG member-editors have deleted viable information or categorized experts (EG: every cult expert ever mentioned) as non-expert or non-reliable. The neutral third parties this RfC was founded to invite to comment are perfectly able to read the log of edit history and see for themselves what has been done. In fact that is what I have been asking for all along. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I've been asking all along is strict adherence to policies and guidelines, transparent arguments, and direct proof. Comments from any third parties are welcome. So called "cult experts" with personal websites just don't qualify, period, unless they meet the clear-cut requirements in WP:RS. Are you getting the point? If you want to suggest one of those guys, please evaluate the source against that policy page, and explain the issue to other editors by directly quoting it. Thank you.
- Olaf the proof is visible in the history log. Unlike some of those I have named I am not a single-purpose user. I don't have the time to go back through the history log and point out every instance where FLG member-editors have deleted viable information or categorized experts (EG: every cult expert ever mentioned) as non-expert or non-reliable. The neutral third parties this RfC was founded to invite to comment are perfectly able to read the log of edit history and see for themselves what has been done. In fact that is what I have been asking for all along. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You come across as someone who is not here for constructive editing, but to right what you perceive as great wrongs. You have personally attacked against me and others by repeatedly calling us "single purpose accounts", while you've failed to give us references to reliable sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors: You often talk about single purpose accounts in article discussion. Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. I have never attacked against your militant atheism and pro-Marxism, even though you are explicit about your beliefs on your user page, and I see some ideological patterns in your edit history. If you have something against my edits, fine, let's take a closer look at them by raising some tangible issues on the table. Don't expect to circumvent your responsibilities as an editor by saying you don't have time. None of us would really have time for this. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am an athiest and a marxist. That doesn't change the fact that what I have tried to achieve here is a fair and balanced article rather than the nonsensical mishmash of PR and POV that we have right now in the FLG articles. I have responded to your questions repeatedly but you keep insisting I have not. It's getting old.Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You come across as someone who is not here for constructive editing, but to right what you perceive as great wrongs. You have personally attacked against me and others by repeatedly calling us "single purpose accounts", while you've failed to give us references to reliable sources. Take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Characteristics_of_problem_editors: You often talk about single purpose accounts in article discussion. Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. I have never attacked against your militant atheism and pro-Marxism, even though you are explicit about your beliefs on your user page, and I see some ideological patterns in your edit history. If you have something against my edits, fine, let's take a closer look at them by raising some tangible issues on the table. Don't expect to circumvent your responsibilities as an editor by saying you don't have time. None of us would really have time for this. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) "Olaf the proof is visible in the history log." Simon, no that answer is not acceptable. Basically you are saying that you know it's your fault but I'm not telling see Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#SCO_vs._IBM. This is wikipedia Simon, please refrain using uncertainty and doubt to spread your propaganda here. Olaf asked you prof, you can either provide it, or drop the issue. "I have responded to your questions repeatedly", just by stating that you have, you actually did not. Please provide diffs. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just commenting as to the tag issue. It seems to me that it is justified its use on the article given the discussion--LexCorp (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain why? Maybe point to some wikipedia policies, make some references, that is wrong because, etc? If you don't do that then you are just keeping things vague and spreading, perhaps unknowingly I can agree to that, but non the less spreading FUD. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just commenting as to the tag issue. It seems to me that it is justified its use on the article given the discussion--LexCorp (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Simon, your edit patterns seem to suggest taht you want the material presented without context, in a misleading way. It was repeatedly pointed out that the source is a news article, and wikipedia cautions us newspapers are likely to misrepresent things - and they are not the preferred aource in academic or scientific topics. This source is clearly an academic one. When Asdfg attempted to provide context, you blanked that material out.
The way you present it is, by no standard, academically sound. Further, you have not answered any of the concerns I raised regarding this above. Your "replies" just slickly avoid the concerns pointed out. I request you to kindly address the issues, and make your rationale clear before you add the stuff in. Out of context, unencyclopedic characterizations of things are obviously not helpful and are not welcome. Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Taken at face value, the NYT should be considered a reliable source in almost any situation. I do not know much about Falun Gong other than what I read in the media. I do know that what has been said in the media has often been conflicting given that, it is important that whatever is put in this or any article should have a proper context included with the addition. This probably means more work for the person adding to the article, but that is what it is going to take. With that in mind, I must say that I found this article very difficult to follow. After reading it, I am left with more questions about what Falun Gong is about than less.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Questions like? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
To answer Simon's original question, I certainly wouldn't trust an op-ed piece in the New York Times on the subject of a disputed translation from the Chinese. Now, I don't see anyone explaining how the translator could have gotten it wrong, and I find it odd that nobody seems to have mentioned the language issue before (why not, if it can really explain the problem?) But if in fact the allegation concerns the linked lecture on the FG website, then logically the group must dispute the translation, because their own translation says nothing like this. If we include the Smith version, we should try to get a clear picture of the dispute and spell it out there in the article.
Remember too that frequently editing other articles does not rule out bias, whether we're talking about Chinese Marxists or Falun Gong members on Wikipedia. Dan (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify about all this: the whole dispute could have been avoided if Simonm223 did not insist on including the full quotation of the NYT piece, which was inaccurate in referring to its cited primary source. I don't mean to make a personal remark, but this is simply the dynamic. He insisted on that, and the next thing was to include a reference to the primary source about the things it was claimed to have said but (apparently) did not say. This was taken to a community board twice and affirmed on both occasions. The deal is done, and this shouldn't be in dispute anymore. One other option is to actually paraphrase the NYT quote as originally suggested, or for another disputant to take the issue to a board again, if they want the reference to the primary source removed (I just reverted PCPP's removal of it, also threatening some sort of administrative action if it were restored). Sorry, just to clarify. I'm not a bare-knuckles kinda guy, but honestly, this is a waste of time at this point.--Asdfg12345 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am aware that the FLG makes unfounded claims that the NYT article misquotes Li. However there is no proof that this is the case; no retraction from the NYT, no pending lawsuits, not even a direct statement from Li himself on the issue. The issue could be avoided if the FLG was not so adamant about trying to use Wikipedia as a propaghanda tool.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- This was ruled twice on the relevant noticeboard. If you wish to dispute that I suggest following the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. I understand that tendentious editing etc. is no longer to be tolerated on these pages.--Asdfg12345 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- And the website information was left in. THe ruling did not apply to the inclusion of word searches which clearly violate WP:ORSimonm223 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- This was ruled twice on the relevant noticeboard. If you wish to dispute that I suggest following the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. I understand that tendentious editing etc. is no longer to be tolerated on these pages.--Asdfg12345 16:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please see the two notes on it.--Asdfg12345 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Information from the website was left in, as per those discussions, for weeks. The only stuff that has been pulled, the same stuff I pulled today, violates WP:OR; it's a text search of a FLG website for goodness sake! Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since you, at least in word, have acknowledged that the community noticeboard discussions are meaningful, let me reiterate what they said exactly. I would have thought you would have looked at them by now. All this discussion, it uses time. Copied below (emphasis mine):
Reliability does not care if a source is Primary or Secondary. Both types of sources can be reliable and both types can be unreliable. Before answering your question... this sounds very like someone is playing "gottcha" with quotes to make a point... consider this: does this quote really need to be discussed in the article at all. Is it crucial to the article to mention it? (in other words... would it harm the article to simply ignore the entire issue?) If the answer is that it does need to be mentioned, then you are correct in saying that it is best to mention what both sources say without saying which is correct. See WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In other words... we have a classic case of "he said, she said" between two sources that in this instance should be considered equally reliable. According to WP:NPOV, when two equally reliable sources disagree, we should present what both sources say, giving them equal weight. So, something along the lines of "Craig Smith in the NYT quotes Li Hongzhi as saying 'X'. The Falun Gong website quotes him as saying 'Y'", without inserting our own judgement as to which quote is "correct", is the right approach here. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Simonm, we can not take the lack of a demand for retraction as evidence that the NYT accurately quoted him (some people don't go about demanding a retraction when they are misquoted). Nor could we take a demand for retraction as evidence that they did misquote him (some demands for retraction are unwarrented, and simply issued to save face). About the only "evidence" that could be conclusive here would be an audio tape of the lecture, demonstrating that he did or did not utter the words attributed to him. Barring that, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the NYT says he said X while the FG website says he said Y. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is clear that the decision to include both sources was supported on the community board, and the dispute (about NYT saying words that the records apparently do not show he said at those times) was clearly narrated and responded to with reference to policy. Notably, the uninvolved editor only reiterated what I had already said here, but anyway. I am going to, again, restore the text. I again warn you that continuing to edit in this way (like, if you revert again) will result in some kind of administrative action on my part.--Asdfg12345 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- As this isn't an article where I intend to do much editing it, I would comment that the above views by Blueboar are sensible, and in line with my understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. I take no sides as to whether the text being battled over conforms to the recommended treatment when inserted in the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you took no sides on that, then why did you undo it? The discussion is very clear. Please let's not play games.--Asdfg12345 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is getting nasty, but no, I'm not playing games. I changed my mind and decided to look at it, but it still doesn't mean I'm taking sides.
If you looked at my edit carefully, I did not "undo".I removed exactly one sentence and its associated "references", which are not references in any meaningful sense.There were several other sentences I left untouched.If "yellow heaven" etc is not there in the text, you cite another piece of text which refutes it. What you don't do is point the reader to to their own online search of faluninfo, because it seems to be a misuse of the cite function; it is clearly WP:SYN. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is getting nasty, but no, I'm not playing games. I changed my mind and decided to look at it, but it still doesn't mean I'm taking sides.
- I do not mean to be nasty. I hope you understand that the only interpretation I was faced with is that you were saying you agree with the content of the third party assessment from the community board, but do not see how it relates to this, and yet in the same stroke make a change to the article that would indicate that you did not, in fact, agree with the essence of that discussion. That is obviously
inconsistentcontradictory, but now you have said something else which I don't understand. I will try my best to refrain from any kind of comment that could be regarded as personal from now on. About this topic, there is a demonstratable difference in what the primary source says and what the NYT article says it says. There are two ways to resolve this. The first is to paraphrase the NYT source so it does not contradict the source; the second is to keep it and mention that it is inconsistent with the source. The only way of doing that is by sourcing that these words do not exist in the database of teachings. It's the same as if someone said Li Hongzhi didn't say something which he said--a direct reference could be given to him saying that, if that was appropriate (honestly, I think it really is ridiculous that the discussion has come to this extent. Honestly. The NYT thing should just be rephrased. We are arguing over nothing) -- but in this case it is a source which says he said something he didn't say, and I know of no other way than showing that discrepancy.
- I do not mean to be nasty. I hope you understand that the only interpretation I was faced with is that you were saying you agree with the content of the third party assessment from the community board, but do not see how it relates to this, and yet in the same stroke make a change to the article that would indicate that you did not, in fact, agree with the essence of that discussion. That is obviously
- This gives me an idea. We are at the chain-jammed-in-crank part of the bold, revert cycle. I'm going to paraphrase the NYT thing, putting the ball in someone else's court. I look forward to when this discussion is but the dimmest of memories.--Asdfg12345 06:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've read the NYT article, and would say that it could feasably be differences attributable to culture and translation. However, it's infinitely more difficult to prove the existence of something than it is to disprove. It is difficult to disprove what Li reportedly said in the interview - we don't know what language it was conducted in or how the journalist arrived at the conclusion he did, so it's too steps too remote. One solution is to bring out the text of ZF to contrast the NYT article. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- metaphysical race comments weren't in the cited lecture at all (aus1999). It's just sloppy journalism. I hope things are resolved now.--Asdfg12345 06:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) As we discussed (extensively) in early july, there is no valid basis for deleting parts of the quotation just because the FLG doesn't admit Li said those things. Please stop; this particular, protracted, edit war is not helping improve the article.Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I've outlined above the two ways this issue could be resolved: either paraphrase the NYT so it doesn't introduce inaccuracies, or include the Falun Gong viewpoint which expresses that there are inaccuracies. You have resisted both attempts, and it is unclear why. This seems to a show a total unwillingness to compromise, presuming you understand what this dispute is about. I'll attempt another formulation for clarifying the relationship between what NYT says Li said and what the Falun Gong website says Li said. Please consider the overall situation. If you insist on the full quote (and I've heard no particular reason for doing so, and even the third party view expressed above suggests it's not advised) then the discrepancy must be mentioned--yet you are blocking every attempt to list the discrepancy. What gives? OC, since you have stepped into this, please consider sharing your thoughts, too. This situation strikes me as somewhat unreasonable.--Asdfg12345 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let me reiterate again: this article should be a reliable and accurate explanation of the teachings of Falun Gong. Where there is a direct contradiction--which is different to an issue of interpretation--between what a source said Li said and what he is recorded as saying, either the inaccuracy should not be introduced, or the discrepancy should be briefly noted. It's very, very simple, and this is firmly within the spirit of wikipedia policies. We are writing an encyclopedia reference work here, so things should be at a high standard. Simonm223, the ball is in your court now. I believe continuing to refuse to actually engage in the real issue here will be detrimental for you in the long run, for example, if an arbitration enforcement case were to be opened, where your conduct would be examined. So far, you have refused to heed a third party recommendation, and you have also continually resisted a collaborative attempt to resolve the issue, even as there are a number of possible ways of resolving it. I strongly recommend you think twice before reverting again.--Asdfg12345 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I edited your revision for tense and grammar and included a single "according to the falun gong" to the data where you were presenting the flg position as if it were fact. Otherwise I left it as is. As it now stands I am satisfied. If you try to remove part of the NYT quote again I will not be.Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am pleased that this was resolved amicably.--Asdfg12345 19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd just like to make an observation: an article written by Jay Nordinger was cited in the 'Persecution' article. The piece write about Jiang Zemin's experience in a 'novellish' and metaphorical/metaphysical fashion. Asdfg argued strongly to retain it. Now we have had fierce arguments about a similarly 'novellish' piece in the NYT, which resulted in a huge ruckus and heavy edit-warring. All I can say is that I'm glad it's resolved. Appears ironic tto me. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
regarding the image
This is the edit summary: "sorry OC. I do not mean to be argumentative on every point. I do not see how this is promotional. If some uninvolved editors see it as promotional, that is fine, I just don't think it's an issue, and don't want to spend time digging up another image."
more: if you find another reasonable image, please replace it, I would be happy to indulge (what I see as) such trifles. It's just that I think the article requires images to help the reader along, for a number of reasons, and I don't want to spend time looking for and uploading them when the job has already been done. I don't see how this image is promotional. I don't want promotional images in the article. It's a nice capture, that's fine, but it's just too people meditating. Very picturesque, you might say. It's an illustration of the practice. If there's a consensus (from some other than the usual suspects) that this is promotional, we would not want that, because it would undermine the credibility of the article to an extent. As I say, any other reasonable picture will be accepted. My dispute here is very practical. --Asdfg12345 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I like the sound of "If there's a consensus (from some other than the usual suspects)"... Hardly seems fair, as you would be discounting the views of all established editors who do not believe FG should santise its own image or promote itself on WP. I'm not going to war with you over it. I'm sure that now that editing here is no longer an exclusive FG club, it will be removed in due course. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana made it clear to begin with that disputes should be taken to community boards. That's what I meant. I'm not going to pretend that people do not have their own views on this topic, and that they will not influence specific discussions such as this. Your referring to "FG sanitising its own image or promoting itself on WP" is a clear example. This kind of commentary and attitude is what we should avoid, and instead simply outline our own views on the specific topic, rather than speculating those of others, and then when we cannot agree make recourse to a wider audience. You could simply explain how you find it promotional, for example. If it's just the vibe, well then that's a simple disagreement. In that case, for you to replace it with a reasonable image of your own choosing, I think is fair enough, since you wish to remove an image from the article, and it obviously needs illustrations. I'm really not trying to get into a big argument here. I don't care if you don't like the pic, just put a new one in. --Asdfg12345 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you did that already, great! --Asdfg12345 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
faluninfo.net and the race issue
I reviewed the FLG reference that pro-FLG users insisted on including as a rebuttal to the NYT article. I have modified the section accordingly. All new material is derived directly from the FLG source. There is no synthesis. If you want to use the faluninfo.net source I would suggest not trying to delete these recent additions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- For my use of the word "segregated" to describe "separate but equal" heavens based on race please see: Separate_but_equal. It was the language employed by the united states to describe racial segregation! Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that such euphemisms shouldn't be copied over; thus, I moved it outside the quotation-marks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized it was within a quote.Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that such euphemisms shouldn't be copied over; thus, I moved it outside the quotation-marks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Excessive Quoted Material
This article (excluding the final Controversies section) is more than fifty percent (50%) quoted material (4,362 of 8605 words).
--Trelawnie (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Quotations is a means for Falun Gong to borrow legitimacy from 'third-parties' when they see that their own legitimacy has been compromised. Basically means, "I didn't say it! Scholar X said it." Colipon+(Talk) 15:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Colipon, your bitterness and cynicism is astonishing. --Asdfg12345 23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Controversies
There is no doubt in my mind, having read the page, that many of Falun Gong's teachings would be regarded as controversial (at least among my peers). But I have encountered some irregularities with the sourcing, again. I refer to the final paragraph of the lead, and the section entitled "controversies." Here are the problems I found, along with some ideas for responding to them.
- In the lead, the claim that Falun Gong is homophobic links to "Downtown Express," which is part of a "Community of Newspapers" that included Gay City and others. I do not mean to disparage this cause - I myself take an interest in questions of human sexuality, and am sympathetic to concerns of religious intolerance - but I wonder whether a small publication of this sort is an appropriate source for a scholarly article, particularly in making prominent claims that are not backed up by mainstream scholarship. Moreover, the article is referred to five times, as much as one of Benjamin Penny's pieces. Surely there must be a better source for this. I would defer to mainstream scholarship on points of contention in Falun Gong beliefs.
- The lead also says Falun Gong has been criticised as pseudoscience, and this is referenced to p. 166 of Ownby. On that page, however, this claim does not appear, but a general discussion of the attacks on qigong during the mid 1990s. It could be extrapolated that Falun Gong was also criticised as pseudoscience, and that criticism was certainly made, but it doesn't appear on p. 166 of Ownby.
- It's unclear how Palmer's observation that parts of Falun Gong doctrine appear messianic, moralistic, and apocalyptic (and who wouldn't agree?) are actually criticisms. If these are merely aspects of Falun Gong doctrine, and Palmer points this out, should that be characterised as "criticism"? I don't think so. I would suggest this be otherwise framed. Palmer does not suggest he means it as a criticism, so it's unclear why it should be presented on Wikipedia as such.
- The first part of the controversies section seems informative, but a few things stand out. The first is, what is the significance of these teachings to the people who believe in them? At the moment it seems a bit tabloidish. The assumption appears to be that the reader will consider them weird and move on. A more valuable input would be some explanation as to what place these teachings hold in the minds of followers, and how they have been interpreted by scholars. What we have here at the moment, while a good start, is still a little crude.
- The final sentence of the lead of the controversies section was shown on the main discussion page to have been a synthesis.
- The section "Views on homosexuality" appears to be an almost complete synthesis, referring only to Li's teachings and the Downtown Express piece. If it was necessary to bring these sources together to have a section, that means Wikipedia editors have decided how to frame it and what its importance is, rather than deferring to scholarly authorities. The words "homosexuality" do not appear at all in the Index of Ownby, Palmer, or Schechter, Tong, or Chang's books. This tells me that it is a tiny minority view. I would be pleased to be shown otherwise - religious intolerance should be unmasked - but I have seen no evidence that scholars regard that to be the case here. By omission, the contrary appears to be so.
- The same appears to be the case for interraciality. The secondary source used is an article by a New York Times reporter, the other two are both primary Falun Gong sources. Consulting Ownby, it seems clear that this is an almost irrelevant belief for the Falun Gong. He mentions it in passing. The significance of these beliefs in the overall body of Falun Gong beliefs needs to be explained, because at the moment it remains quite unclear. If these issues have not been discussed in the sources the way that they are currently discussed in Wikipedia, that means there is a synthesis taking place.
- Ditto for "apocalypse." It becomes clear from sources on the main page that scholars of Chinese religion do not think this important. But the argument used to show its putative importance here appears to be a single quote from an individual follower.
- My suggestion is, and this is contingent on new evidence in response to what I wrote above, to compress the size of the section, get rid of the subheadings, and defer to scholars in discussing these controversial beliefs. I wouldn't refer to Downtown Express, nor to Craig Smith of the New York Times. The former appears to be a small-time rag, and the latter provides more heat than light. The purpose should be exposition and explanation, rather than soundbites and ridicule. A similar discussion has been had on the Ching Hai page, and funnily enough, on the Michel Foucault page. There needs to be clear explanation for how these things are significant to the subject, and if such is not forthcoming, it means they are not significant and can be mentioned more briefly. The long elaborations from primary sources appear odd. I don't know how it happened that the section in its current form came to be, but it doesn't accord with proper scholarship, in my view. It would be perfectly OK for a blogger to assemble this type of montage, but presumably our standards of research are much higher than that.
Apart from the above the page has a lot of other problems, including whole repeated paragraphs, high-schoolish prose, a sense of gushiness in extolling the virtues of FLG, and extreme verbosity. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- What you are seeing on this page is the inevitable result of years of Falun Gong advocacy and other editors, disgusted by this, adding material that they think would 'balance out' the article to make it more NPOV. I take no position on whether this was done correctly, all I know is that I have avoided touching this "Teachings" article because I was afraid of abuse from the Falun Gong cabal. I have archived a page on the criticism of Falun Gong - which was deleted, moved, trimmed, and deleted again; I saved it because there are some sources on there that could be of use when discussing Falun Gong's controversies, and I urge you to take a look at it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Colipon, we have seen enough to declare that it was never in your interests, nor in the interests of other anti-FLG editors, to create anything that resembles a neutral article. Me, Asdfg12345 and others raised many of these issues a long time ago. How come the above criticism is suddenly more valid than ours?
- TheSoundAndTheFury, Zujine and others have had little to say about the article content that makes Falun Gong seem approachable and does not dehumanise its practitioners. How come the first "outsiders" who really seem to know something about Falun Gong research are pointing their fingers at the work of your cabal? You are even willing to admit that the pages are a result of "disgust" and "adding material that [...] would 'balance out' the article", and now you "take no position on whether this was done correctly"! Basically you're saying that substandard, unprofessional methods are acceptable, as long as they paint Falun Gong in an unfavourable light. Moreover, on your personal user page, you still dare to claim that "FLG SPAs" have taken over the articles and assumed their ownership.
- What TheSoundAndTheFury has pointed out are merely some cherrypicked expressions of completely inexcusable behaviour. Each and every bit of these articles will be scrutinised in the near future. The soldiers of your total war ([3] [4] [5] [6]) have done everything in their power to make the articles conform to their preconceived notions, and now that the light of reason has started flooding in, they have retreated from the discussion and have not made the slightest effort to excuse themselves.
- "This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Completely agree. And in the above remark, Colipon distances himself from the state of the article that he is in large part responsible for, if not directly then indirectly. TheSound, and anyone else, please be aware that the page Colipon refers to was compiled by Samuel Luo and his partner, Thomas Brown, who were both indefinitely banned from wiki for ideological struggle. Further, it was deleted by consensus, because it's nothing but innuendo and anti-Falun Gong propaganda. I suggest staying away. --Asdfg12345 23:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- "This is the way the world ends; not with a bang but a whimper." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have introduced some of the changes indicated by TheSound, or, rather, my understanding of them. May others evaluate my work and proceed with what they see as necessary. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think TheSound's observations on the sourcing and argumentation were meant as an invitation to restart old battles. That said, I agree with his analysis of the problems, and Olaf Stephanos seems to have stepped forward with removing some of the sub-par content.
I'm not so much a beliefy kind of person, so maybe someone else can check out the page devoted to controversies that Colipon refers to, and dig up the best sources for representation here. Otherwise, the article needs a working over generally; it exhibits all the issues indicated above and more. —Zujine|talk 02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think TheSound's observations on the sourcing and argumentation were meant as an invitation to restart old battles. That said, I agree with his analysis of the problems, and Olaf Stephanos seems to have stepped forward with removing some of the sub-par content.
- I don't mind The Sound scrutinizing these articles at all. He has done a very commendable job with these articles so far. I don't care if he deletes the entire controversies section if he finds the sourcing has been inappropriate. You will see that I never opposed him scrutinizing any sections of any article, and also have offered to work with him on other qigong related articles that don't have as much controversy so I don't have to face constant abuse from Falun Gong SPAs. Comments like the one above was precisely what got you banned, Olaf, and I kindly ask you to withdraw it.
I also wanted to respond to Asdfg's claim that I am "responsible" for the state of the article. I don't recall editing this article much at all. Most of it is clearly jargon and a quotefarm. I specifically said above I have always tried to stay away from this article (I have made a grand total of 3 edits on this article in its entire history, one of which was minor, compared to Asdfg's 119 edits, I can't help it but think that accusation is quite hypocritical). I will be happy to edit this article if only users without a conflict of interest edit it. Otherwise the Falun Gong cabal is free to have a free run with it. I will not be reverting anything for my own sanity. Colipon+(Talk) 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Colipon, please allow me to clarify. What I meant was that you participated in, and to some extent led, if I may put it that way, a concerted campaign to discredit Falun Gong on Wikipedia. Adequate sourcing and other policies were thrown to the wind in pursuit of that agenda. That's what I meant with my remark, and I think you know that. Valid input was dismissed based on who said it, and not what was said—maybe that was partly driven by an intense dislike (dare I say hatred) that you have developed toward Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners. You are avoiding that now and turning it around into something else. Anyway, I'm not going to harp on this. What's done is done. I'm just glad that there are now some serious efforts to enforce the wiki content policies. And I apologise if my remarks have come across as mean. But you have consistently played down the persecution Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to—going so far as attempting to have that page deleted—and generally adopted a dehumanising discourse towards Falun Gong. I find all that extremely distasteful. --Asdfg12345 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind The Sound scrutinizing these articles at all. He has done a very commendable job with these articles so far. I don't care if he deletes the entire controversies section if he finds the sourcing has been inappropriate. You will see that I never opposed him scrutinizing any sections of any article, and also have offered to work with him on other qigong related articles that don't have as much controversy so I don't have to face constant abuse from Falun Gong SPAs. Comments like the one above was precisely what got you banned, Olaf, and I kindly ask you to withdraw it.
- Amen to that. I am not blaming Colipon for the state of this particular article. However, if some of these new editors had never appeared, and I or Asdfg would have presented exactly the same criticism, it would have been mocked, marginalised and dismissed through sheer anti-intellectualism. It doesn't seem to matter that I have a Master's Degree that is directly relevant to the topic area, or that many of the high-quality sources introduced by Asdfg attest to sophisticated research and knowledge in the subject. The way our elaborate arguments have been treated by the anti-FLG editors is not too far from the treatment of "class enemies" in a Communist state. I can only speak for myself, but this is the root cause of my "comments like the one above". ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Changes by User:PCPP
The parts changed by PCPP are variations on the theme that was discussed in some depth above. PCPP gives no response to that debate, does not explain how his inclusions are pertinent, why they're notable, etc. He is merely using bad sources to push a point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am thoroughly tired of this. Someone please revert him and add your voice to the RfC, for the sake of the encyclopedia and normal peoples' sanity. It's not even a question, at this stage, whether the content has merit. It's about having the most basic wikiquette of engagement, discussion, etc., none of which PCPP seems capable of. --Asdfg12345 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my sanity is not in danger, but as with the Falun Gong edits I do not like this behaviour. There is a lot of discussion about this above, why did PCPP ignore it? The points TheSound raises are entirely legitimate: if these are notable issues, they should be in scholarly sources. Religious groups pushing an anti-homosexual agenda should not be able to hide from public discourse, but that is obviously not the case here. Trying to make something that has appeared in a few local newspapers sound like a significant controversy is tendentious editing.
If there are quality sources explaining the significance of Falungong's beliefs on sexuality and providing interpretations, I never found them during the course of my research. Just now I opened to Palmer's exposition of Falungong beliefs, which doesn't soft-pedal, and I couldn't find mention of homosexuality. Like any quasi-fundamentalist belief system, Falungong clearly regards homosexuality as 'immoral'; but that is different from having a public agenda. The low-quality sources brought forth so far do not show how it is a notable part of the Falungong teaching. —Zujine|talk 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I might add that I believe it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that Falungong regards homosexuality etc. as 'violating the standards of morality', or whatever language they use (I have forgotten). Nobody should try to avoid this point. —Zujine|talk 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my sanity is not in danger, but as with the Falun Gong edits I do not like this behaviour. There is a lot of discussion about this above, why did PCPP ignore it? The points TheSound raises are entirely legitimate: if these are notable issues, they should be in scholarly sources. Religious groups pushing an anti-homosexual agenda should not be able to hide from public discourse, but that is obviously not the case here. Trying to make something that has appeared in a few local newspapers sound like a significant controversy is tendentious editing.
- The homosexuality issue is noticeable because they were actually controversy and active protests over the issue, and an attempt by San Francisco legislators to nominate LHZ for a Nobel Peace Prize was rescinded. I agree with the removal of the interracial children and apocalypse issue, however.--PCPP (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will leave it to someone else to repeat the major points, but let's put it this way: it's original research to dig through primary sources and pull out a few select quotes to show a POV. The article on the teachings of Falungong should discuss the teachings roughly in the same way that reliable sources discuss them - roughly. That doesn't include cherrypicking quotes from the primaries to push a point. Secondly, the Bay Area reporter isn't a reliable source on a religious group (as a "San Francisco gay, lesbian and bisexual political newspaper" that "offers commentary on local social, sexual, and economic issues") - just like Orthodox Christian Weekly isn't a reliable source on the 'depravity' of homosexuality. This should be obvious.
The bottom line is that no major writers on Falungong have found this worthy of much note at all, and often of zero note. Until that is shown otherwise it will remain a tiny minority view. Pushing the point with partisan sources and cherrypicked quotes from Li's doctrine will not win friends or influence people. —Zujine|talk 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will leave it to someone else to repeat the major points, but let's put it this way: it's original research to dig through primary sources and pull out a few select quotes to show a POV. The article on the teachings of Falungong should discuss the teachings roughly in the same way that reliable sources discuss them - roughly. That doesn't include cherrypicking quotes from the primaries to push a point. Secondly, the Bay Area reporter isn't a reliable source on a religious group (as a "San Francisco gay, lesbian and bisexual political newspaper" that "offers commentary on local social, sexual, and economic issues") - just like Orthodox Christian Weekly isn't a reliable source on the 'depravity' of homosexuality. This should be obvious.
- How so? It's these passages by Li that caused criticism of FLG by the LGBT community, and as demonstrated by the articles, they do have significant social impact. Academic notability is not the only guideline on the inclusion of material, as FLG's views on homosexuality significant press coverage. And you're systematically dismissing The Bay Area Reporter because of LGBT focus, when in fact the article only covered the event and in fact interviewed several FLG practitioners. --PCPP (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are now admitting to an original synthesis by a combination of cherrypicked quotes with an LGBT source to make a point. You have not responded to one of the key arguments TheSound and Zujine put forward: if this was a notable issue, why was it ignored by Ownby, Palmer, etc.? There's no evidence that it has received "notable press coverage" at all. The homosexuality complaint is just another CCP tactic to smear Falun Gong's reputation. There is also no evidence that there has been a "significant social impact" or anything else showing real notability or significance. Dredging up a fringe newspaper article and combining it with cherrypicked quotes to make a point... I can only sigh. --Asdfg12345 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Original synthesis? LMAO I simply outlined the controversial passages by Li and the news articles that makes references to them, which in fact caused a significant political dispute. A simple search on Google news archive shows plenty of articles that reference FLG's views on homosexuality [7]. I'm sure the San Francisco LGBT is secretly planted by the Chinese Communist Party. Keep making excuses for your master's words.--PCPP (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- A few articles in a local LGBT rag does a "significant political dispute" make. Let's get that straight. Not a single scholar writing on Falun Gong, as far as I am aware, has thought this significant enough to even include in a book. There may be many articles on Falun Gong's views, but when they are blogs and local newspapers they don't count for anything. You have a pattern of using bad sources to push a point. In this case you are violating the rules by cherrypicking Li's quotes. Why don't you find some academic works that prove the point you want to push? It's so obvious that you are doing this in bad faith. The dispute is not notable, get over it please. --Asdfg12345 08:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am thoroughly tired of this. Someone please revert him and add your voice to the RfC, for the sake of the encyclopedia and normal peoples' sanity. It's not even a question, at this stage, whether the content has merit. It's about having the most basic wikiquette of engagement, discussion, etc., none of which PCPP seems capable of. --Asdfg12345 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
A quick look for journal articles:
D Schechter, Falun Gong's challenge to China: spiritual practice or "evil cult"?
Some of Li Hongzhi's viewspoints doesn't sit well with Western readers, such as when he blames "homosexuality and sexual freedom" for interfering with practitioners' cultivation...It upholds three main virtues - compassion, forbearance, and truthfulness - and warns against forms of moral "degeneration" such as rock music, drugs, and homosexuality.
E Davis, Encyclopedia of contemporary Chinese culture
The literature of Falun gong describes a world of moral morass for which the practising self can escape through a regimen that assures the mitigation of karmic debt of avarice, commodity fetishism, competition, dipsomania, divorce, homosexuality, and lust.
H Kavan, Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe? -
They also removed English translations of Zhuan Falun 11, a book in which Li makes several scientific slip-ups (such as mistaking a light year for a measurement of time) and offends potential supporters by condemning homosexuality and Buddhism...Further, as Deng and Fang (2000) observe, English translations of Li’s speeches have a less strident tone, they sometimes differ from the original Chinese in critical parts, and the most anti-gay, racist and anti-human scriptures have never been translated into English.
I Johnson, Wild grass: three stories of change in modern China
These three principles require people to live upright lives, to not lie and follow hetereosexual, monogamous lives. Homosexuality is dealt with in only one of Master Li's teachings, but he sharply criticized it, a stance that critics abroad have used to show Falun Gong's intolerant nature.
J Howell, Governance in China
Li fulminated against "degenerate influences" like homosexuality, television, sexual freedom, rock 'n roll, women's liberation, and also the aliens that are taking over humanity via cloning
J Miles, Chinese nationalism, US policy and Asian security
Yet the canonical writings of the cult's leader, Li. Hongzhi, are imbued with a sense of ethnocentric conservatism, with diatribes against homosexuality, feminism and modern fashions.
M Goldman, From comrade to citizen: the struggle for political rights in China
In addition to its exercises, the Falungong also advocated "truthfulness, benevolence, and forbearance" and comdemned drinking, smoking, and homosexuality.
N Porter, Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study
I think that Li Hongzhi's teachings are generally morally sound (although that I'm not convinced that some of the things he says are immoral actually are, such as homosexuality, rock music, abortion, and so forth)...Bad deeds include, but not limited to: murder, homosexuality, and drug abuse
R Munro, Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses
Possible examples of the latter include the sect’s underlying hostility towards homosexuality and its belief, as taught by Master Li Hongzhi, that human intelligence and civilization were originally brought to planet Earth by aliens from outer space.
Strategic Comments, China's battle with Falun Gong - The party's weaknesses exposed
Li's teachings rail against feminism, homosexuality, popular music and unconventional dress styles.
--PCPP (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Great. I absolutely agree that this is how it should be presented on wikipedia: it's a passing comment, along with a lot of other moralistic beliefs. Simple. That doesn't mean having a portion of the article dedicated to it. (by the way, I'm still rubbing my eyes: the first time PCPP has ever done any real research to back up his POV!) --Asdfg12345 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the terrible significance as claimed for this controversy. Sure it's 'controversial'. Falungong is a controversy magnet, and there are things like this happening all the time: this award is given, that one not given, this parade they are allowed to march in, that one not, this protest they cannot attend, that one they get kicked out of for being 'too political', and so on and so on. Recently there has been a controversy about a fine given to a Falungong follower in Taiwan: [8][9][10][11]. Coverage includes the two major English language newspapers in Taiwan, China Post and Taipei Times. In terms of coverage, that's more significant than a LGBT community publication that arguably has an ax to grind against conservative and moralistic religious groups.
That said, I would still mention it. PCPP got it mostly right with his last edit, in my view. I'm just going to rewrite it a bit to make it flow more smoothly.
I felt it necessary to point out that on the scale of things, this is obviously not a significant controversy. Homunculus (duihua) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the terrible significance as claimed for this controversy. Sure it's 'controversial'. Falungong is a controversy magnet, and there are things like this happening all the time: this award is given, that one not given, this parade they are allowed to march in, that one not, this protest they cannot attend, that one they get kicked out of for being 'too political', and so on and so on. Recently there has been a controversy about a fine given to a Falungong follower in Taiwan: [8][9][10][11]. Coverage includes the two major English language newspapers in Taiwan, China Post and Taipei Times. In terms of coverage, that's more significant than a LGBT community publication that arguably has an ax to grind against conservative and moralistic religious groups.
- While you're at it, would you be interested in trimming the rest of the article? It's just a huge quotefarm glorifying Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, I did not even read it carefully. I am more interested in the political aspects of the Falungong issue. But I suppose simply deleting stuff from the page should be easy, if that's all that's required. I will read the article and take you up on that challenge (later, I should add). Homunculus (duihua) 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Search of falundafa.org for phrase "spawn"[search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=spawn&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&Search=+Find+]
- ^ Search of falundafa.org for phrase "intervention" [search.freefind.com/find.html?oq=spawn&id=46344703&pageid=r&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&scs=1&query=intervention&Find=Search&mode=ALL]
- ^ Search of falundafa.org for phrase The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven. [search.freefind.com/find.html?oq=The+yellow+people%2C+the+white+people%2C+and+the+black+people+have+corresponding+races+in+heaven&id=46344703&pageid=r&_charset_=UTF-8&bcd=%C3%B7&scs=1&query=%22The+yellow+people%2C+the+white+people%2C+and+the+black+people+have+corresponding+races+in+heaven%22&Find=Search&mode=ALL&search=allpage]