Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 16 February 2012

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:WP1.0

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

In 1992, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong and along with teachings that touched upon a wide range of topics, from detailed exposition on qigong related phenomenon and cultivation practice to science and morality. In the next few years, Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity across China to become the most popular qigong practice in Chinese History. Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science."

According to academics, Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of alternative Chinese science, not religion. The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable amount of literature. Xu Jian stated in The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999): "Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists — so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted. In it, two conflicting discourses became identifiable. Taking “discourse” in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own “truth” about the “reality” of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena. The controversy centers on the question of whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng). The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its super-normal mechanisms or which causative factors which go beyond wht canbe explained by presentday scietific models, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge present day modern science." The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine.

David Aikman has written in American Spectator (March 2000): "Americans may believe that qigong belongs in a general category of socially neutral, New Age-style concepts that are merely subjective, not necessarily harmful, and incapable of scientific proof. But China's scientific community doesn't share this view. Experiments under controlled conditions established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and early 1980s concluded that qi, when emitted by a qigong expert, actually constitutes measurable infrared electromagnetic waves and causes chemical changes in static water through mental concentration. Qi, according to much of China's scientific establishment, for all intents existed."

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

"Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community. But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role."

Andrew P. Kipnis is quoted as stating: "...to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; bur Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific , but was mostly insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries"

The term 'qigong' was coined in the early 1950s as an alternative label to past spiritual disciplines rooted Buddhism or Taoism, that promoted the belief in the supernatural, immortality and pursuit of spiritual transcendence. The new term was constructed to avoid danger of association with ancient spiritual practices which were labeled "superstitious" and persecuted during the Maoist era. In Communist China, where spirituality and religion are looked-down upon, the concept was "tolerated" because it carried with it no overt religious or spiritual elements; and millions flocked to it during China's spiritual vacuum of the 1980s and 1990s. Scholars argue that the immense popularity of qigong in China could, in part, lie in the fact that the public saw in it a way to improve and maintain health. According to Ownby, this rapidly became a social phenomenon of considerable importance.

Membership and finances

Sociologist Susan Palmer writes that, "...Falun Gong does not behave like other new religions. For one thing, its organization - if one can even call it that - is quite nebulous. There are no church buildings, rented spaces, no priests or administrators. At first I assumed this was defensive now, I'm beginning to think that what you see is exactly what you get - Master Li's teachings on the Net on the one hand and a global network of practitioners on the other. Traveling through North America, all I dug up was a handful of volunteer contact persons. The local membership (they vehemently reject that word) is whoever happens to show up at the park on a particular Saturday morning to do qigong."

Finances

In his thesis, Noah Porter takes up the issue of Falun Gong and finance in Mainland China. He quotes and responds to some of the allegations of the Chinese Communist Party that Li benefited financially from teaching the practice. Porter writes that when teaching seminars, there was an admission of 40 yuan per new practitioner and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners--with the repeat practitioners making up for 50-75% of the admissions. He goes on to say with respect to the CCP's claims: "...but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong's first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses..."

Ian Johnson points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg.

James Tong writes about the competing claims by Falun Gong and the Chinese government in 'The China Quarterly' journal, 2003. He writes that the government has attempted to portray Falun Gong as being financially savvy with a centralized administration system and a variety of mechanisms for deriving profit from the practice. He also looks over Falun Gong's claims of having no hierarchy, administration, membership or financial accounts, and that seminar admission was charged at a minimal rate. Tong writes that it was in the government's interest, in the post-crackdown context, to portray Falun Gong as being highly organised: "The more organized the Falun Gong could be shown to be, then the more justified the regime's repression in the name of social order was." He writes that the government's charges that Falun Gong made excessive profits, charged exorbitant fees, and that Li Hongzhi led a lavish lifestyle "...lack both internal and external substantiating evidence" and points out that that despite the arrests and scrutiny, the authorities "had disclosed no financial accounts that established the official charge and credibly countered Falun Gong rebuttals."

Li Hongzhi stipulates in his books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun that practitioners should only voluntarily help others learn the exercises and that this could never be done for fame and money, and also stipulates that practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return for their voluntarily teaching the practice. According to Falun Gong, Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced. Li subsequently withdrew from the organization.

Falun Gong website often state on their pages that "All Falun Gong Activities Are Free of Charge and Run by Volunteers"

In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, mentioning his financial status, Li said : "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars."

1. ^ "Falungong as a Cultural Revitalization Movement: An Historian Looks at Contemporary China." Professor David Ownby, Department of History, University of Montreal, , accessed 31/12/07
2. The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001, , accessed 31/12/07
3. American Spectator, March 2000, Vol. 33, Issue 2
4. Porter 2003, pp. 38-39. Available online:
5. Porter 2003, p 197
6. Johnson, Ian. Wild Grass: three stories of change in modern China. Pantheon books. 2004. pp 23-229
7. James Tong, "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing", The China Quarterly, 2002, 636-660: p 636
8. Tong 2002, p 638
9. Tong 2002, p 657
10. Learning the Practice, , accessed 21 July 2007
11. Li Hongzhi, Lecture in Sydney, 1999, , accessed 21 July 2007

Questionable source: death toll of 65,000/70,000?

I found a citation at Falun Gong#Death Toll, where an article "According to Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies" suggests "a likely death toll based on refugee testimony is approximately 65,000"(The number in the original article is 70000). After checking this article, I was doubtful about the validity of its opinion on the death toll: firstly, the main focus of the article is not Falun Gong but the overall Chinese political situation; secondly, the article provides neither citation of the "refugee testimony" nor any possible sources of them. Though this article provide some useful opinion, I think this article is not enough credible for claim of such a great number.--Inspector (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The source provided does somewhat glance over the topic, but Gutmann is probably the most prolific writer on Falungong today, and this article is one of many that he has written, which together, I think, show the depth of research and corroboration he has conducted. Here’s the quote from the article currently cited followed by some more relevant information:

Beginning in the year 1999, the elimination of Falun Gong became the most potent issue in China, as reflected in the incarceration rates of Falun Gong practitioners (about 450,000 to one million in any single year) and it did not officially subside from that position until the middle of the next decade. At this point, the true casualty rate started to emerge from refugee testimony—approximately 70,000 fatalities, mostly through organ harvesting in military hospitals.

An explanation of how Gutmann arrived at these figures is here, and one example of the refugee testimonies he is referring to is found here. It’s worth noting, as Gutmann does in his personal blog, that his figures are fairly consistent with those of Kilgour and Matas, both estimates being arrived at independently of each other. The number, in my opinion, is valid and certainly notable. —Zujine|talk 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the validity matters. The accuracy is unknowable anyway. We should probably just treat statements by Gutmann the same way we treat official statements by the CPC. That seems to be essentially how it is handled now in the Death Toll section via attribution. I think the issue is more whether reliable non-partisan mainstream/academic sources or respected sources like Amnesty and HRW report Gutmann's estimates. I don't know but I don't think sourcing to the likes of highly partisan sources such as inFocus Quarterly, The Weekly Standard etc help to establish how much weight, if any, we should give to the claims. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. So does Gutmann's method differ greatly from that of Kilgour and Matas? And also, the blog article gives the low and high estimations, so should we use that range instead of the number in the other article?--Inspector (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

When the death toll of a particular incident varies so widely, as from an estimation of thousands according to the NYT to tens of thousands according to Gutmann, it is rational to cast a doubt on either number. I wonder if we need a disclaimer such as "none of the death toll numbers quoted above as well as the alleged causes of the deaths are presented with reliable evidence". This is not to negate the crimes done by the CPC, rather, it is a way to make the article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph already begins with the caveat that "Due to the difficulty in corroborating reports of torture deaths in China, estimates on the number of Falun Gong adherents killed under persecution vary widely." It is assumed that, given the political environment of China, independent verification is not always possible, and some cases are almost certainly never reported. I don't know that this needs to be emphasized further, and I have reservations about making the assessment (without knowledge of their methodology) that the researchers making these estimates lacked 'reliable evidence.' As to the handling of Gutmann's estimate, I just edited it to note that 65,000 is the median estimate he produced.

On another note, Gutmann is a reliable source on Falun Gong. He has published a well reviewed book on contemporary China in a mainstream press, has testified before U.S. and European parliament, and published numerous articles on the topic in reliable sources. One of his latest articles on organ harvesting was cited by David Brooks of the New York Times as one of the best examples of long form journalism of the year. His comments are in no way of equivalent value as statements from the Communist Party, so let's avoid falling into a False balance fallacy again. That said, in the case of citing death toll estimates, all should be given inline citations. Homunculus (duihua) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, we might want to consider depicting these estimates within a table, which would cite the numbers, source of the estimate, publishing date, and a brief account of the methodology employed (if available).Homunculus (duihua) 03:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess Gutmann should have published his research more formally and specificly somewhere, which would be better than that article just mentioned a bit about the persecution of Falun Gong and the death toll. And should we use the range 9,011-120,150 as shown in Gutmann's approach to be more specific?--Inspector (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see Ethan Gutmann cited on question of Falun Gong death toll by secondary sources. Such secondary scholarly citings would not be that hard to find, if he is the most prolific writer on Falun Gong today. Source watch defines his area of expertise broadly though as recognized authority on American business involvement in China's Internet and an advocate of Chinese democracy. If we give his words on death toll weight equivalent to statements from the Communist Party we should make sure that reliable sources do the same. I'm currently, after doing some Google search homework, quite sceptic though that the equivalence tendency could be demonstrated. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Sorry, I forgot about this until now. Inspector, after you raised this issue I edited the page to make clear that 65,000 was the median estimate. I suppose it would be just the same to give the range, however, so go ahead. Published articles in which he mentions this number (but doesn't describe his methodology) are here Describing one's methodology is not the kind of thing that one would publish within the body of an article, obviously, which is why we're left with Gutmann's blog. AgandaUrbanit, I don't understand. Are you looking for sources that cite Gutmann's estimates side-by-side with Communist Party estimates? If so, you'll have a hard time indeed; the Communist Party does not publish estimates on Falun Gong deaths in custody. At most, they occasionally deny that deaths were caused by torture in individual cases. It would probably be prudent for us to make a note of this phenomenon. Case in point: Here, an old woman is "imprisoned... without charge. Officials demanded that she recant her faith. She refused, was beaten unconscious and, on Feb.21, died, according to prison inmates and family members." Her body was found by family members to be bruised and burned from torture, and officials claimed the death was the result of natural causes. It is hard to know just how representative this is, but in the absence of statistics, anecdotal evidence like this is probably all we'll get to represent the official position. Homunculus (duihua) 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, if I was unclear, Homunculus. I'm not looking for false balance between the Communist Party and Falun Dafa. Misplaced Pages is ideally a tertiary source. The references that are being cited, are primary, i.e. by Ethan Gutmann , last reference specifically How many harvested? - is a self published personal blog. Those sources are weak. Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Secondary sources, books, academical peer-reviewed research papers, major news providers like NYTimes or BBC citing Ethan Gutmann numbers are required to establish weight and encyclopedic value of Ethan Gutmann material. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Weekly Standard, Jewish Policy Center, and National Review are not primary sources. They are solid, reliable sources, and Gutmann's articles within them would have needed to pass muster with some strict editorial boards. I included the blog because Misplaced Pages policy permits the use of self-published sources when the author is an established expert on the subject on which they are writing, and the blog provides a detailed explanation of Gutmann's methodology. If you want yet more sources that cite Gutmann's research, I suggest you check these: . I'm very curious how you are defining a primary source. Homunculus (duihua) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I'll elaborate: I assume you're defining Gutmann as a primary source because his conclusions were based, in part, on his own investigative research and interviews. He is a journalist. Conducting interviews and publishing the resulting findings is what journalists do. Gutmann's research has been reliably published on multiple occasions by reliable sources, cited in U.S. Congress, and lauded in the New York Times. Where his findings are provided on the page, they are given an inline citation. I'm really not clear on what you're objecting to.Homunculus (duihua) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for new references, Homunculus. I dont have access to CQ source, but Thomas Lum is a great source and currently being used as ref #8 at Kilgour-Matas report article. Weekly Standard, Jewish Policy Center, and National Review materials are not self-published like EastOfEthan, though the material is clearly by Ethan Gutmann, thus primary. I've tried to look for secondary sources books, academical papers or news articles saying something like: "according to Ethan Gutmann the death toll is 65,000" or talking about median estimations, but failed to find any. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, you have to pay for the CQ researcher. Here's an excerpt: "At least 62,000 were victims of organ harvesting operations from 2000-2008, according to Matas and Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann, an investigative journalist. Matas and Kilgour, who were nominated for a Nobel Prize for their investigation, say the organs were then “sold” to foreign transplant tourists." I appreciate your diligence on this, even though we clearly don't see eye-to-eye on the use of sources. In any case, even if one were to concede that reliably published journalistic findings like these are primary source (and I'm not prepared to make that concession in this case), primary sources can be used in wikipedia articles to describe themselves: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them....A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That is, Gutmann's reliably published research can be used to describe the content of his own research. His notability an an expert on the topic has already been established. Homunculus (duihua) 22:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I could see the "at least" Sarah Glazer's quote here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

References for above

References

1. Ethan Gutmann. The China Conundrum. inFocus, Winter 2010, Volume IV: Number 4
2. Ethan Gutmann, ‘The Xinjiang Procedure’, Weekly Standard, 5 Dec 2011.
3. Ethan Gutmann, Reluctant Dragon, National Review, Nov 2011
4. Ethan Gutmann, http://eastofethan.com/2011/03/10/how-many-harvested-revisited/ "How many harvested?"], March 10 2011.

Number of followers in 1999

We say in Demography section:

Prior to 1999, widely cited government estimates put the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China at over 70 million adherents. After the government imposed a ban on the group, it adjusted its estimates to approximately 2 million.

It might appear that the quoted material source is faluninfo.net, Number of Falun Gong practitioners in China in 1999: at least 70 million, which also uses the same three sources and arrives to adjustment conclusion. See sources for clarity:

• Renee Schoff's May 1 1999, New-age China: Cult or Cure (found it using faluninfo quote: "“But with more members than the Communist Party - at least 70 million, according to the State Sports Administration - Falun is also a formidable social network...”")
• Seth Faison, "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors," New York Times, 27 April 1999
• Seth Faison, "Followers of Chinese Sect Defend Its Spiritual Goals," New York Times, 30 July 1999

Later we add in 1996–1999 section:

By 1999, estimates provided by the State Sports Commission suggest there are upwards of 70 millions Falun Gong practitioners in China. Wu Shaozu, an official from China’s National Sports Commission, was at this time quoted in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that as many as 100 million may have taken up Falun Gong and other forms of qigong. Wu noted that the popularity of Falun Gong dramatically reduces health care costs, and that “Premier Zhu Rongji is very happy about that.”

Suggestions

1. We should do something about material duplication Demography<->1996–1999.
2. For Demography quoted material we might follow Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, along lines: Falun Gong followers insist that they number at least 100 million, though scholars say a truer figure is probably between 20 million and 60 million. The authorities, not known for their accurate portrayal of the group's followers, say there are only two million."

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of duplicate material. Given that the number of followers in China circa 1999 is relevant to both the history and the demography, I think it's fine to keep it in both places; the mention is brief enough. As to the Seth Faison accounts, there are two articles by him: the first, published in April 1999, cites government estimates of 70 million. The second, published after the suppression began in July 1999, notes the adjusted government estimate of 2 million. The estimate of ~2 million first appeared in mid-July of 1999, and was made public immediately after the campaign began. This is why it's stated that the government adjusted its estimate downwards from tens of millions to two million. I hope that's clear. The page already gives a range of estimates from Western observers of 10 - 70 million. Maybe it should be 10 - 60 million, citing Faison on the high end, and David Palmer on the low end. One could also add a note that estimates vary, in part, because people are measuring different things. Palmer, for instance, is trying to gauge the number of committed disciples, not casual practitioners.

Regarding you edit to the lede, it reads a little choppy to me. Also, I'm sure this was just an oversight, but you got the pronoun wrong. People are "who," things are "which."Homunculus (duihua) 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding lede edit, somebody already fixed which->who.
• Regarding it adjusted its estimates - we can not attribute this material to Seth Faison, 30 July 1999, the source does not note that. We could attribute this observation to faluninfo.net, if other editors agree.
• Regarding 70 millions number, it appears this number comes from the State Sports Commission, according to Renee Schoff's May 1 1999. We have a source in 1996–1999 section where Wu Shaozu, an official from China’s National Sports Commission, raises estimations to 100 millions.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the adjusted estimate, I recommend we source this to the U.S. Department of State: "Prior to the Government's 1999 ban on Falun Gong, it estimated that there were 70 million adherents; the Government subsequently adjusted the number of adherents to approximately 2 million. Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately.". As to the other estimates, what do you propose? Homunculus (duihua) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

References for above

References

1. Renee Schoof, "Growing group poses a dilemma for China," The Associated Press, 26 April 1999
2. Seth Faison, "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors," New York Times, 27 April 1999
3. Seth Faison, "Followers of Chinese Sect Defend Its Spiritual Goals," New York Times, 30 July 1999
4. Seth Faison, "In Beijing: A Roar of Silent Protestors," New York Times, April 27, 1999; Joseph Kahn, "Notoriety Now for Movement’s Leader," New York Times, April 27, 1999; Renee Schoff, “Growing group poses a dilemma for China,” Associated Press, April 26, 1999.
5. “An opiate of the masses?,” U.S. News and World Report, February 22, 1999.
6. Phillip Adams, Media and Internet Censorship in China, Late Night Live, Radio National Australia

Organ Harvesting

The idea of the Chinese harvesting the organs of Falun Gong prisoners against their will while they're still alive and selling them on the black market is almost as interesting as it is horrific, to me anyway. With the way the People's republic of china seems to be silently castrating almost all Misplaced Pages articles concerning it I have to say I'm not surprised. If I was more knowledgeable about editing these pages I would take it on myself to fight the suppression of free information about China but as lowly ignorant consumer of Misplaced Pages's greatness I have to leave that to all of you. I hope that the Kilgour-Matas Report is found worth mentioning in this article and also that the tank picture is returned to the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 article...I really doubt the copyright owner is more concerned with his dues than preventing the power of his image from being suppressed and hidden from the world by the Chinese. '

File:Falun Gong science.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Falun Gong science.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda

Nice propaganda in this article.

-There has never been any conclusive evidence for the allegations of organ harvesting or even the allegations of widespread torture of Falun Gong members. The allegations should be classified here as opinion, not stated as fact. Significant doubts have been raised concerning many of these supposed human rights abuses.

-Falun Gong was outlawed because of it's political motivations and it's threat to stability in China, not because of it's "spiritual teachings". Anybody who believes that is completely ignorant of the objective, observable reality. There are countless Qigong based spiritual groups operating in China openly, without any kind of persecution. Falun Gong was banned when it became increasingly political, culminating when 10'000 members staged an illegal demonstration at Zhongnanhai.

-Academic classifications of what Falun Gong actually is are varied. Margaret Singer, Berkeley professor and considered by many to be the world's foremost expert on cults, considered them a cult. This deserves mention.

-Absurd figures such as "70 million adherents in Mainland China", "more followers than the members of the Chinese Communist Party" are not consistent with reality and are not academically sound by any standard. How was this laughable data collected?

-Mention should be made of Falun Gong's control of/association with propaganda outlets such as The Epoch Times, Shen Yun Performing Arts and New Tang Dynasty Television.

-Proper mention should be made of the high profile murder and suicide cases involving Falun Gong members, as well as the hundreds of instances of FLG members perishing as a result of refusal to take medicine or recieve medical treatment

Honestly, this article reads like something straight off of clearwisdom. It's a laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAimlessRoad (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Gallagher and Ashcraft source

I noticed that an editor added to the section on teachings a paragraph about Falun Gong's understanding of the current "apocalyptic" period. There is no academic consensus on whether Falun Gong's message is apocalyptic, in what respect it might be, or what the implications of that are. This is why that discussion is currently represented in the controversies section. Gallagher and Ashcraft appear to have written a reference work on Falun Gong, and as far as I can tell, did not do field work or serious textual analysis to come to their conclusions about Falun Gong's teachings. Furthermore, Eugene Gallagher also lacks a background in Eastern religions, and I can't even find a professional affiliation for Ashcraft. As long as they are making generally accepted statements, they're a fine source as a reference work. But given that they have no Falun Gong-specific expertise, I would suggest they are not qualified to be treated as the authoritative source on Falun Gong's "apocalyptic" message. As far as I'm concerned, Benjamin Penny is the closest thing to an authoritative source on this aspect of Falun Gong's teachings; he is an expert in eastern religion, and has published prolifically on Falun Gong, including on this subject specifically. I recommend putting the paragraph that was added into the broader discussion on this aspect of Falun Gong's teachings, which is at the end of the page (but condense it to come closer to due weight).Homunculus (duihua) 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Gallagher - Eugene V. Gallagher Rosemary Park Professor of Religious Studies. BA, La Salle University; MA, PhD, University of Chicago

"One of the fundamental purposes of education in the liberal arts: to situate students’ experience in the “here and now” in terms of multiple instances of “there” (other cultures) and “then” (other times). The comparative study of religion aims to fulfill that purpose by inviting students to entertain a variety of “what if” questions that can provide multiple points of entry into the religious worlds of others. That process of entertaining seriously how others make meaning of the world through their religious acts and convictions, much more than the factual knowledge it yields, is the beginning of religious literacy." - Eugene Gallagher

• Ashcraft Wm. Michael Ashcraft Dr. Ashcraft at Truman since 1996. He holds his doctoral and master’s degrees from the University of Virginia. He received his Master of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and his bachelor’s from the University of Tennessee at Martin.
• Both appear to be editors of Nova Religio
• I'm not an expert, but the source in question appears academical and decently sourced also in Falun Gong section. Gallagher-Ashcraft cited widely Though, you are absolutely right the material should be attributed, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying their affiliations, but you don't address the main points I raised. These researchers do not have an expertise in Falun Gong or Eastern religions specifically; the focus of their research is on Western religions. They wrote a survey book on new and alternative religions in America. As I said, it's fine to use as a reference work for generally accepted statements, but there are many more high quality sources available on Falun Gong. Noah Porter or Craig Burgdoff have published the results of their extensive field work, and are quite good. Even better are experts on Eastern religion and Falun Gong like David Ownby or Benjamin Penny. Given that there are superior sources, and that they do not have a consensus on the question of the apocalyptic teachings, I'm saying that we shouldn't elevate the Gallagher / Ashcraft reference work to such an authoritative position in such a prominent place in the article. I recommend putting the substance of their writing into the relevant section on controversies. I'm not trying to disparage this book, but the views of the scholarly community should be presented according to their notability and prominence. Gallagher and Ashcraft, simply put, are not experts on Falun Gong teachings.Homunculus (duihua) 02:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not clear. I don't have problems with David Ownby, for instance, which is also published by Nova Religio, according to sources in this article. I believe schoolars in comparative study of religion would be an appropriate source. Their work is decently sourced. Though you could take it to WP:RSN if you believe Eugene V. Gallagher; W. Michael Ashcraft (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America: African diaspora traditions and other American innovations. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-275-98717-6. Retrieved 4 February 2012. is unreliable for Falun Gong specifically and should be excluded from this article. Though I doubt such a move would be accepted, since Misplaced Pages needs to be balanced from multiple points of view. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that I believed the source to be unreliable. I said twice that I think it is fine as a reference work, particularly for statements that are generally accepted. The problem is that scholars disagree about one of the key statements Gallagher and Ashcraft made — that Falun Gong espouses apocalyptic teachings. There is currently a section in the article that describes that debate, and it is in the 'controversies' section. My argument is that, given the presence of this debate, we cannot regard Gallagher and Ashcraft's word on the matter as authoritative, which is what you have done. That is why I recommend that it be moved down into the relevant section in controversies, and shortened to reflect the weight that should be given to Gallagher and Ashcraft's views. I recommend this precisely because "Misplaced Pages needs to be balanced from multiple points of view." You cannot have non-expert scholars (non-expert on Falun Gong, I mean) saying definitively that Falun Gong is apocalyptical, and fail to note the divergence of views among scholars who actually have conducted field work or possess expertise in eastern religion. Do you follow? There is a hierarchy of sources. People like David Ownby and Benjamin Penny are considered experts on Falun Gong, and Gallagher and Ashcraft possess only general knowledge of it in the context of a new religious movement in America. I can make this change if you're not sure what I mean. Homunculus (duihua) 14:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no one takes Gallagher and Ashcraft as authoritative, that's why we have attribution. I've added more sources to reflect the controversy and Li's denial, per ref name="Schechter2001". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think you understand what I was saying. There was already a section in the article that describes the academic debate around Li's views of the apocalypse. As such, that is where this material belongs. It should be stated using the views of the best and most notable sources, and should not be given undue weight. Please understand that this article would be unreadable if it became an indiscriminate repository of everything that every scholar has ever said on Falun Gong. The section on "core teachings" should reflect the most essential teachings, as agreed to and as noted by the best sources on Falun Gong. It should not become a place to cite at will every scholar's views on every aspect of Falun Gong morality and cosmology. I will revisit this later to try to clean it up more.Homunculus (duihua) 19:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main body of the article is not the a place to hash out debates on Falungong's views by quoting a handful of academics selectively (by the way, I recognized very few of the sourced AgadaUrbanit used; most seemed, like Gallagher, to be survey works on contemporary China or new religion). The body of an article should present clear summaries of the most important practices and beliefs that scholars generally agree upon. If you read Ownby, Porter, Palmer, Burgdoff, Penny, and others, I think you'll find that it does a fairly good job in its current form. To that end, Homunculus is right that the debate about 'apocalyptic' teachings, if it exists, should be in the controversies section. My own view is that the debate is at least partly imagined, because people are fixating on the classification as apocalyptic or millenial, rather than the substance. Ideally, we could use superior sources to tell us in simple, uneditorialised terms, what exactly Li says about this subject. I will also note that 'Fa rectification' is an important aspect of Falungong teachings, if a poorly understood one (Ownby makes no attempt to veil his confusion. At least he's honest). It's not as prominent as the more basic teachings, but has become more important since 1999. I would suggest that Penny's latest book is the best source to describe it. When I have a little more time, I can try to write something, and will propose it first on the talk page before trying to put it in the article.—Zujine|talk 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Something on Fa rectification can be included, but yes, let's agree to it before making unilateral changes to the page. I took issue with AgandaUrbanit's edit because 1) I embrace in nuance, not sensational labels like "apocalyptic," 2) I once spent a lot of time cleaning up all the soundbites and scholarly "debate" on the page, when more often than not, it was totally unnecessary and served only to make things unreadable, and 3) I believe in only using only the best sources for controversial subjects, and hold that different sources have different uses. Homunculus (duihua) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus,

A Please don't remove sourced material without explanation, with misleading edit summary: "Moving this into controversies, where it belongs. Will revisit to clean up more later." Please restore:

1. According to Dillon, philosophical vision underlying Falun Gong teaching is that humanity is moving towards apocalypse, only true believers would achieve salvation. per Michael Dillon (2009). Contemporary China: an introduction. Routledge. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-415-34319-0. Retrieved 15 February 2012. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)
2. According to Schafferer, Li predicts that human kind will be destroyed, because people have mutated (bianyi). Li said that he established Falun Dafa "to provide salvation to mankind ... in this final period of the Last Havoc". per Christian Schafferer (2005). Understanding modern East Asian politics. Nova Publishers. pp. 94–05. ISBN 978-1-59454-505-4. Retrieved 15 February 2012. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)

B Please don't distort what sources say using neutral factual Misplaced Pages narrator voice. Please restore attributions:

1. GallagherAshcraft2006 distortion
2. Schechter2001

Please fix A and B

Let me make it clear: from looking at logical structure of this article the location under International reception -> Controversies is bit strange, when multiple sources provided discuss the controversy under Falun Gong teaching topic. Misplaced Pages editors are just citing monkeys and should comply to sources.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidently we have different understandings of the role of Misplaced Pages editors and the desirable presentation of information. My belief is that we are not simply monkeys quoting any and all scholars—regardless of expertise or notability—at will. In my view, it is our job to provide coherent, clear narratives for the reader, based on careful readings and summaries of the best reliable sources available. These sources should be used in proportion to their quality and prominence in the academic discourse. This is why I removed some of the sources you added: they are not notable experts on Falun Gong teachings, their contributions did not add anything new that would actually enhance a reader's understanding of the subject, and providing a lengthy paragraph in which scholars are quoted indiscriminately ended up giving this subject undue weight on the page. I meant no offense in removing some of your research, but really, I hope you can appreciate my point that articles should not just be a repository of quotations that fail to actually illuminate the subject. If you refer to articles that have achieved good or featured article status, I think you will find that they would never have paragraphs that do that.

As to the charge that I distorted sources, I don't know what you mean on the Schechter one. I could see how my change to the use of the Gallagher source might be construed as original synthesis, though, so will fix it. As to the organization of the page, you raised a good point: the controversies section should probably stand on its own, rather than as a sub-section of international reception. Homunculus (duihua) 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• Religion articles needing attention
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles