Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:21, 7 August 2009

Criticism of Falun Gong

Copied from Talk:Falun Gong --Richard (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, "Criticism of Falun Gong" was renamed "Third party views on Falun Gong" and then "Academic views on Falun Gong", where the article is now. There is no precedent of any other movement, spiritual group, or religious group using the term "Academic views" for an article title. A look thru that page's history and discussion and it will be clear that it's just a euphemism that attempts to avoid the use of the term "criticism" and does not conform with WP:CRITICISM. You will see in revisions like this one that at one point the article on criticism was alive and well before all of this content was removed. It sheds some light, even reviewing revisions of this very article from June 2007, how whitewashed this article has since become; almost all criticism was removed either without reason, or with very shaky legitimacy borrowed from WP policies (usually "this is not a reliable source"). It just seems any form of critcism is so sensitive to some editors (as in, a sentence written about Singer brought about an entire paragraph discrediting her) it makes editing, especially incorporating any kind of critical content, extremely difficult. This problem is chronic in all FLG-related content. This has got to change before any solid work can be done on these articles. Colipon+(T) 14:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Academic views of Falun Gong is a strange title for an article. It's also incredibly short at the moment. I would favor either moving it back or recreating an article at Criticism of Falun Gong. There is a solid precedent for articles with titles of the form Criticism of X where X is a religion. --Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would very much agree to moving article to Criticism of Falun Gong, where it originally was. I also support balanced presentation there - not just negative anti-FLG rhetoric. Please check this revision, Richard, and see if that is a good place to start. However, my feeling is that having an article titled "Criticism of Falun Gong" will face certain opposition from Olaf. Colipon+(T) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How can we have a "Criticism of Falun Gong" article without turning it into a WP:POV fork? You must realise that the 'cult' allegations are intimately tied with the discourse that seeks to legitimise the persecution, and cannot be discussed separately; and if we specifically name the article like that, then where are we going to incorporate "criticism of criticism of Falun Gong"? How would that affect proper contextualisation? Should we also have a separate article for "Praise of Falun Gong"? That wouldn't do, and I wouldn't agree with it, either. The article was named "Academic views on Falun Gong", because we need to have an article that is able to present both sides, so that readers can come to their own conclusions. I think "Reception of Falun Gong" could work even better as a name, and it is also recommended by WP:CRITICISM ("criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections.") Devoting an article entirely for negative "criticism" would mean that we could never get rid of cherry-picking and undue weight.

I could support Reception of Falun Gong although Criticism of X is a more common form of title for religions, despite what WP:CRITICISM may say. The way to keep it from being a POV fork is to summarize every major section of the subsidiary article in this article and make sure that all reliable rebuttals are included in Criticism of Falun Gong so that this article doesn't wind up providing a neutral to positive POV while Criticism of Falun Gong provides only the negative POV. --Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reception of Buddhism", "Reception of Hinduism" etc. would not work at all; we really don't have that much access to sources created at the time of, say, Siddhartha Gautama. But Falun Gong has been taught publicly only since 1992. In my opinion, a Reception article is the only viable option, because it can also present a chronological narrative of Falun Gong's reception in the PRC in the early years. Moreover, the term "criticism of Falun Gong" already carries a certain meaning established in an anti-FLG context, see . ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never said there aren't problems with the current articles, but they should be resolved by incorporating diverse content from reliable sources. We have already recognised that POV pushing is a major issue on these pages, so why fan the flames and create an environment that effectively fosters such behaviour? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Olaf, the POV fork argument just doesn't hold water. Look at Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of atheism, even Criticism of Misplaced Pages. Colipon+(T) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not comment on what I said, e.g. my reference to the recommendation on WP:CRITICISM. Besides, I don't think any of the articles you mentioned have faced as serious problems as we have. I am not going to agree with an article that deliberately leaves out any "criticism of criticism", including what has been said about the 'cult' allegations in reliable sources. That would also violate the core policies. Casual readers are unlikely to familiarise themselves with the entire corpus of articles, and excessive differentiation of themes would only lead to fractured contexts, thus distorting the relationship between the parts and the whole.

But you missed another point: even if we have an article named "Criticism of Falun Gong", it still wouldn't mean that it could be devoted to "negative" criticism, i.e. sources that make Falun Gong look bad. This is the idea I am opposing, because you may have such intents. WP:POV fork states: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." I am opposing the name just because the word "criticism" is easily misunderstood (see my previous reply). ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are convinced you are "right" and that I am "wrong", that's fair. I am not here to convince you that anyone is right over anyone else. But really, right now as it stands all of these Falun Gong articles are nothing more than POV forks themselves set up to present FLG in only a positive light. It's not hard to see that the articles are whitewashed of criticism. So many third-party editors have come onto this page to express this. Colipon+(T) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are issues with these articles, and practically all of us have agreed on that even before the mediation case. I am concerned about what seem like structural modifications that would only serve the interests of some editors. Instead of building a consensus, you seem to want to have your own arena just to make Falun Gong look bad without distraction. If some editors have been here to "whitewash" criticism, then your objective doesn't differ that much: you just want to denigrate, throw in some black paint and take your revenge. Honestly, Colipon, I haven't seen too many expressions of consensus-building and collaborative mentality in your writings, even though it was the only way pointed out to us by the mediator. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No. While I would not mind your continued ad hominem attacks against myself, Vassyana particularly reminded us to not engage in this back-and-forth exchange of rhetoric and refrain from personal attacks. I have avoided making any personal commentary against you. I only ask you to do the same. You will not convince me, I will not convince you. We seem to assume each other's bad faith. That's fine with me. I'm just fed up with SPAs, I'm fed up with article ownership, I'm fed up with arbitration principles being violated over and over again, and I am certainly not alone. Look at OhConfucius, a good faith editor who has been accused of a sockpuppet of Sam Luo and who has written an entire rant about these pages, look at PCPP and Simon, both personally attacked repeatedly for being lapdogs of CCP, look at Mrund, a fellow Scandinavian who was also discredited and attacked for no good reason and who wrote a blog about this article to express his frustration, even just look at your commentary on John Carter below... Colipon+(T) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted User:Asdfg12345's blanking of major sections of Academic views on Falun Gong as it seemed obvious from the Talk Page that there were objections to it and not much support for it. We should probably leave which discussion of which past revision is best to the article's Talk Page but since we have started the discussion of the article's title here, we may as well continue it here. I prefer Criticism of Falun Gong over Reception of Falun Gong but I can support "Reception of...". Does anybody have strong objections or to either or these article titles? I see this decision as being relatively minor and the real issue being how to clean up the article once it is renamed to allow all views, not just "academic" ones. --Richard (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support "Reception of Falun Gong" and strongly oppose "Criticism of Falun Gong" per Misplaced Pages:CRITICISM#Neutral point of view, and because 'Criticism' can be erroneously understood to mean only negative criticism. Besides, the risk of anything in these articles to become a POV fork is highly elevated, and since we have so much "criticism of criticism" available in reliable sources, it must be included and given due weight. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would much prefer "Criticism of Falun Gong" over "Reception of Falun Gong". To me, reception is just another euphemism to avoid using "Criticism" in the title. These euphemisms swim in Falun Gong-related articles like it's no one's business. I'm really tired of using these euphemisms. But if the majority of users support "reception" I will go with that. Colipon+(T) 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I also tend to agree. The argument about how people might "misunderstand" the meaning of the word "criticism" in the title is not I believe a factor which would gain any support from the people at WP:NC or the appropriate noticeboard, which I think would probably be WP:CNB, although anyone seeking to protest the use of the word on that basis could easily post a message there and see what sort of response is gotten. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think "self-criticism" during China's Great Cultural Revolution meant giving a balanced evaluation of one's good and bad sides? No. People were forced to produce "either written or verbal statements detailing how they had been ideologically mistaken, and affirming their new belief in the party line." When the CCP talks of "criticism of Falun Gong", there's nothing but anti-FLG propaganda involved. For instance, one Reuters article published on January 15, 2001 says: "Last week, state media published a barrage of criticism of Falun Gong and Li, its exiled leader, accusing them of being a cheap tool of Western forces trying to topple the Communist Party." We must be sensitive to the context and the environment. The reason I'm opposing the term 'criticism' is that, given this context, it already sets a certain tone, whereas 'reception' is completely neutral. Honestly, I cannot understand the real reasons for using the former term, especially since WP:Criticism says that "it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections", just to make it clear that the article is not merely intended to gather stuff that argues there's something wrong with the subject. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yet another thing. Falun Gong has been taught publicly since 1992. We have access to various reliable sources that describe the reception of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China during the early years. In order to present a cohesive overall picture, it is crucial to include this information in the same article. There are some interesting differences in the pre-crackdown discourses and the post-crackdown discourses, as the 'cult' allegation only surfaced with the latter. And as I said above, the term 'reception' cannot be argued against based on some subtle tones of meaning that it carries in various cultures. I see no point in opposing it, aside from attempts to make use of the popular connotations of 'criticism'. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support "Criticism of Falun Gong" and oppose "Reception of Falun Gong". But the main article must of course also refer to criticism to avoid a POV fork. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• I support "Criticism of Falun Gong" but I do not oppose "Reception of Falun Gong". Either one would be okay although I think "Criticism of Falun Gong" would be better.--Edward130603 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did anyone consider that having a "Criticism of Falun Gong" article would necessitate having a "Praise of Falun Gong" article? Does that not seem silly? Really, this article should have been called "Reception of Falun Gong" all along. --Asdfg12345 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, no one considered that because it is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by "criticism". In this sense, "criticism" is simply commentary by outsiders, good or bad. Also, if there were the slightest chance that there would be a need for the "praise" articles to which the above editor refers, I am virtually certain that any of the other philosophies or religious groups which already have such "criticism" articles would by this time also have "praise" articles. I don't remember having ever seen any such "praise" articles, however. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• John perhaps you are right in the USA, but for the ex-communist countries I can assure you that criticism there strongly means the following quote (taken from the criticism page) "The term can be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Falun Gong is not a literary piece, nor a painting, nor a musical composition. It is not an aesthetic object. If it belonged to one of these ontological areas, your arguments would sound perfectly valid. But "in other contexts," as pointed out in the Misplaced Pages article on criticism, "the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support Reception of Falun Gong, because frankly I don't see how "Criticism of Falun Gong" could work based on WP:CRITICISM --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• John Carter, why do you disagree with just making it "Reception of Falun Gong" ? --Asdfg12345 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading Olaf's lengthy commentary and a barrage of other comments and on this issue I am now even less convinced that "Reception of Falun Gong" will be a viable option. Olaf's idea that people might "misunderstand" this title (Olaf: because 'Criticism' can be erroneously understood to mean only negative criticism) made me solidify my belief that naming an article "Reception of Falun Gong" has to do more with POV-pushing than anything else, and is a deliberate attempt to avoid using the word "Criticism". John Carter makes excellent points about comparisons to other religious articles, which I feel has not been refuted adequately. I must say my support is now behind "Criticism of Falun Gong". I am not surprised that this is facing such uncharacteristic opposition from editors like Olaf and asdfg. Colipon+(Talk) 23:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages after all and there is a essay cited by you and Olaf about WP:CRITICISM. Also there is WP:NPOV and isn't Reception already as neutral as it can be? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, just yesterday you suggested "level-headed" editors to agree with you on restoring a two-year old revision of the article, one that's basically an anti-FLG essay violating every Misplaced Pages content policy, written by User:Samuel Luo and User:Tomananda who were investigated by the ArbCom and found guilty of things like being a "prominent anti-Falun Gong activist", "promoting a viewpoint consistent with outside activism", and "attempting to use Misplaced Pages for ideological struggle and advocacy". This certainly made me solidify my belief about why you want an article called Criticism and why you oppose to Reception. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, trying to advertise Luo's ban and then trying to instigate that I somehow have a connection to Luo does not somehow conclude that all content in that revision is invalid. Colipon+(Talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It just shows that you are ready to accept, support, and even endorse egregious POV pushing, as long as the POV is yours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how constantly attacking me and accusing me of these things is helping improve the article. I am trying to be as non-hostile to you as possible, Olaf, and when I speak of you I only talk about your edits or your postings, not you. I do not use ad hominem attacks against you, and I expect you to do the same, out of politeness and respect, if not out of good faith. Colipon+(Talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking you. I am holding you accountable for your words. In your past, you have expressed a desire to "expose" Falun Gong in the style of Samuel Luo, and despite several simple requests, you've never retracted those words. How can you expect to cultivate a cooperative atmosphere by actually endorsing Samuel's version of the article and hoping for "level-headed" editors to support you? How can you not come across as someone who's here only because he has an ax to grind? Tell me, Colipon! I, too, am trying to be non-hostile to you, and I genuinely expected that the mediation case would make us focus on developing the content of these articles. Because you are "unconvinced at this point that anything other than a user ban will be effective" , it seems to me that you've tried to stir up a ruckus, and that's why you only focus on the problems (and their perceived causes) instead of the solutions. You've constantly tried to frame my edits as "personal attacks", even though they very clearly address your arguments and your words on Misplaced Pages. All this seems to me like an attempt to scream and shout: "Look! Look! I'm so hurt! Get this guy off me! Ban him for good!" Even your excessive focus on Asdfg12345's blanking of Academic views on Falun Gong looked like just another attempt to build a "case". You didn't revert, you took "no partial position on whether the blanking is in relation to positive or negative content", but you still kept touting it as an example of terrible "abuse" on these pages.

We all agree that the status quo of the articles is not good, but instead of developing them to better meet the Misplaced Pages requirements, I have perceived your conduct as attempts to undermine any hints of consensus-building. Nobody has edit warred on these pages after the mediation case, or tried to enforce some particular wording, but you still conceptualise the situation as if all hell was breaking loose and disruptive editors were jealously clutching to each and every element on these pages. Our mediator pointed out the way to proceed: WP:BRD and utilisation of community noticeboards. Are you doing that? No. You just want to get editors banned, because you're "sick and tired" of argumentative discussion. In other words, there's too much pressure, the work is too demanding, and your desired outcome is still uncertain (because deep inside you know that there are more reliable sources that question and expose the anti-FLG discourse; the Chinese-speaking world may be different, but that's how the situation stands in the English-speaking world of Western academia and mainstream press). Am I correct? Note that I'm not trying to put words into your mouth or thoughts into your head; I am just writing down my assessment of the current situation, and it may or may not be correct. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some new info here: A search for "Reception of" is not convincing me that anything similar to a movement like Falun Gong should have a "reception of" title. Colipon+(Talk) 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer to any of the concerns raised above, nor does it address the recommendation on WP:Criticism. I'd like to hear your say on those matters. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your WP:Criticism contention has been adequately addressed by John Carter long ago, and also addressed in this very discussion. Please just read it. If you have issues with it, John Carter said you could always go to the noticeboard. Colipon+(Talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not seen this sentence addressed: "t is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections." Besides, the other arguments are still unanswered. Let me reiterate. A) The term 'Criticism of Falun Gong' is a part of the existing anti-FLG discourse and the persecution (violently converted practitioners are forced to write "criticisms of Falun Gong" in detention centers and labour camps to indicate their allegiance to the Party line); B) the meaning of 'criticism' in Communist and post-Communist countries is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, and the CCP's campaign against Falun Gong greatly resembles it; C) 'Reception' is a perfectly neutral term that carries no such load from any point of view; moreover, it allows for better inclusion of sources about how Falun Gong was received in China in the early years (the pre-crackdown discourse); D) The Misplaced Pages article on criticism currently says that "in other contexts , the term describes hostility or disagreement with the object of criticism." ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FLG-related Issues

Just another note: there are other articles which are not in the spotlight that also deserve serious attention:

• For example, there is pervasive blanking and disputes at Academic views on Falun Gong, a recent issue I've noted about serious blanking by User:Asdfg12345 can be seen at Talk:Academic_views_on_Falun_Gong#Serious_Blanking.
• Articles on Falun Gong media outlets Epoch Times, NTDTV and Shen Yun Performing Arts face similar disputes and issues regarding the removal of well-sourced content, both critical and praise - most notably, editors wish to minimize their identity as Falun Gong-related organizations for whatever reason (also, all of these articles have at one point had "criticism" sections, but they have all been intermittently removed).
• The Organ Harvesting article has been branded as "Falun Gong propaganda" by several editors, but there is currently no consensus on how to deal with it.
• Persecution of Falun Gong also faces wide-ranging NPOV disputes and heated verbal exchanges that can be seen at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong.
• Teachings of Falun Gong also has on-going disputes about some of the more "outlandish" claims of Falun Gong, its views on homosexuals, interracial marriage, etc. There has been what looks like an on-going attempt to whitewash any critical content. Pro-FLG editors also accuse editors of undue weight whenever they wish to insert more unconventional claims into that article. See Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong.
• Li Hongzhi: perhaps one of the most heavily scrutinized articles. The article gives no hint to Li's status as a controversial figure (which has been noted by mainstream American media TIME, NYT, San Francisco Chronicle etc.) and glorifies him with depictions of awards and benevolence. Margaret Singer, for example, says Li resembles many characteristics of a cult leader. This is given no attention in that article.

Anyway, all of these articles are home to disruptive editing from both sides, and will not improve without due attention from administrators. It is my view that all these articles in their current revision unmistakably resemble Falun Gong promotional material. I thought it would be relevant to raise these issues now. Colipon+(T) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I am of the opinion - expressed on the talk page of Academic views on Falun Gong, that it is a section that belongs in the main article, has since been detached on the initiative of known editors who then a few months later want to decommission the detached section. To me, this reeks of hidden agenda. Moving criticism to a separate article and then closing that article down? No! If there are relevant criticism, they should be included in the main article. PerEdman (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not what happened, PerEdman. The article is approximately three years old, and it has undergone two name changes, neither of which were satisfying (mainly because of their vagueness). It is the ambiguous role of this article that lead to suggestions to close it down. As you see, the content removed by Asdfg12345 was mostly favourable towards Falun Gong; but why should we have an article on "Academic views on Falun Gong", even though all the articles are supposed to incorporate academic views? The article was thus redundant, and no alternative name was proposed until recently. Now that we are talking about devoting the article to overall reception of Falun Gong, the original proposal for deletion is no longer valid, of course. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The purpose of a "Criticism of..." article should be to allow a more detailed discussion of the criticisms. Each major criticism or category of criticisms should be mentioned in the main article. The criticism article should not serve as a Siberian gulag to which negative content is banished. --Richard (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to further clarify how "Criticism of ..." articles should work. Just because an article is titled "Criticism of X" doesn't mean that the article gets a free-pass to become a one-sided slam on X. The ideal is to aim for an NPOV presentation of the criticisms and the key rebuttals. The only reason "Criticism of X" articles should get pulled out of the main article is because the treatment of the criticisms has started to overwhelm the article itself. As stated before, a summary of the criticisms and rebuttals should remain in the main article. --Richard (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Priority assessments and missing articles

OK, I think most people would agree that Falun Gong is probably the single most important article to the subject. Generally, the other articles which receive "Top" importance ratings for a group are the primary daughter articles. These general standards if applied here would include History of Falun Gong, Criticism of Falun Gong, Beliefs and Teachings of Falun Gong, and probably Li Hongzhi. What other articles, if any, deserve "Top" importance rating?

Also there is a question what other articles should be developed. I think that there are sufficient sources out there for a biography of Jennifer Zeng, for instance. What other articles are currently missing? John Carter (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Page view statistics

One thing that might be of some significance is the page view statistics. For July, the various articles related to this project got the following number of views in July:

• Falun Gong 66701 views, #3458 in views
• Qigong - 38569
• Persecution of Falun Gong - 10977
• Human rights in the People's Republic of China - 8242 views
• Academic views on Falun Gong - 5957
• Teachings of Falun Gong - 3755
• Li Hongzhi - 3699
• Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident - 2445
• The Epoch Times - 2240
• Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong - 1796
• Falun Gong outside mainland China - 1128
• Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China - 1007
• New Tang Dynasty TV - 906
• Wenyi Wang - 300
• Sound of Hope - 280
• Human Rights Torch Relay - 194
• Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital - 62

These vary dramatically from month to month, but are at least somewhat useful in determining in some cases where content can be placed. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should concentrate on improving the high-traffic articles. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensively addressing "sources" issue

Seems to me like every time any critical content is added to articles, several editors always decide to come in and override it with some kind of counter-point as if "criticism" can never stand alone, or to discredit the criticism sections so it no longer sounds credible, or delete the criticism altogether with some dubious argumentation. To me, this is very clearly POV-pushing. Notice the following sources:

• Margaret Singer: said FLG is a cult; discredited with the vague line "some have questioned her credentials", followed by five references unrelated to FLG.
• Patsy Rahn: said truth is between FLG and CCP's claims. Olaf continued to insist that we make a point in saying she is a "Bachelor of Arts" and that she is a "B-class soap opera actress", as though this ad hominem evaluation would make all of her research worthless.

I am going to reply in more detail when I have time, but here you are intentionally misrepresenting my words, Colipon. I did point out on the talk page that Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress, because that's true (just look at the links I provided to IMDB and her biography), but I never tried to insert this characterisation into the article. You yourself made a point in saying that Margaret Singer is "Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley" , among other things, "as though this ad hominem evaluation would make all of her research" worthy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rick Ross: completely removed from article. Despite what some editors claim, there has actually been no conclusive consensus on whether Ross is a reliable source. Some third-party editors say it is, some say it isn't. To banish him from the articles completely seems unreasonable.
• Maria Chang: Used to be on here, but she dealt with FLG in a fairly critical tone. She was completely removed from main article, some of her works have been revived by Richard, I think, in the "Reception" article.
• Benjamin Penny: Also had some critical material, quite credible, but critical commentary was also completely removed from articles.
• David Ownby: Selective quotations. Only material that reflect positively on FLG is presented in articles, the rest is missing from the articles. This professor actually says "Falun Gong is undoubtedly controversial" as the first line to his lengthy dissertation in a reputable journal. He also talks about Li's claims to supernatural status, Li's apocalyptic claims, and Falun Gong's political campaign.

We need to discuss how to properly address these sources conclusively and as a group. Contributions from third-party editors would be more than welcome. Colipon+(Talk) 04:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several lights in which one can paint a picture. But perhaps it would be better if you state your diffs in a concrete manner, just as you did it recently here: and then we can discuss with the data at hand what's good and what's not good. Sounds fair? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanting to reiterate that any text restored by me was brought back solely on the grounds that the deletion of it had not been discussed and did not appear to have the support of consensus. My restoring text to the "Academic views/Reception" article was not an endorsement of that text but only a repudiation of the unilateral deletion by Asdfg12345. It may turn out that, after we've discussed it, some of the text will be deleted again. --Richard (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If we want outside input regarding such matters, I would think the best way to proceed would be to file an RfC and notify the various groups which have an express or implicit interest in these articles to offer what input they think fit. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom sanctions

I regret to say that, even in the short time I have paid any attention to this topic, I have seen a number of comments since I first arrived at this topic that seem to me to be fairly clearly in violation of the existing ArbCom sanctions regarding this topic. I also have a feeling, perhaps misguided, that one of the reasons some editors might stay away from this topic is the frequency of such behavior. On that basis, I have to at least ask myself whether it might not be better for the topic if sanctions as per the existing arbitration ruling were applied more frequently. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, please, apply all the sanctions necessary. I have tried to bring the issue of ArbCom sanctions to light for ages now (RfC, Admin/N, NPOV/N etc)and I have not received much attention from admins whatsoever. Please see to it what sanctions should be applied and tell me your thoughts. I personally think the "POV and disruptive editing" heading is the most prominent here. I have show several solid diffs of this on the Talk:Falun Gong page. Please see to it that these be treated with the right sanctions. Colipon+(Talk) 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Arbcom sanctions should be enforced.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The correct forum for such discussions is, I think, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to bring it to this place so long as you provide your guidance for us on this, John Carter. I have never done this before so may I ask for some admin assistance? Besides which you probably have a more 3rd party and "neutral" view of the article anyhow - that would be useful in balancing out my own views. Colipon+(Talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From the summary of ArbCom sanctions at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions regarding sufficient cause for sanctions to be imposed regarding Falun Gong, "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I think in this case "editing restricted" refers to a block or ban of length to be determined through discussion there, possibly not being able to revert information on some pages, requirement to discuss and have approval for making any changes to articles, and some form of civility restrictions, like the other individuals listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, and that "disruptive" very likely refers to the the way that term is applied at WP:DE, and the specific terms for this particular arbitration can be found and the complete terms for artibtration in this particular instance can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. I regret that I am not myself as familiar with this aspect of wikipedia as I could be, having I think only taken part in one or two discussions there. But, in general, indicating who has acted in violation of the arbitration, through links to the particular comments or actions made by that party if possible, and just answering any questions which arise after the request is made is generally enough. Following the format of the other requests listed on the page, and letting the party in question know that the discussion is taking place, probably through a note on that party's talk page with a link to the discussion, would probably be enough. Not knowing precisely whom anyone else might think has acted in violation of these sanctions, I'm not sure if any additional comments from me would necessarily be particularly useful, but I have got the page on my watchlist and would probably offer any comments I think appropriate should I see a discussion I know anything about taking place there. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)