Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 30

Please don't do whole sale reverts without explaining why

Hello, this revert is an example of a blind revert. Please don't do that anymore it is not productive. If you have some problems with a particular change, phrase or paragraph, you can highlight your issues on the talk page. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Going for the moral high ground, perhaps??? It strikes me there is a lot of 'pot calling the kettle black' here. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm proactively trying my best to be as honest as possible so sure, you an say that I'm aiming for the moral high ground. Now as far as 'pot calling the kettle black' goes, I would like you to tell me where did I just did whole sale reverts like PCPP without engaging in discussion? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The cult section has been reverted back to the last consensus version - a version of txet by PelleSmith amended for inaccuracies about Kavan. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well the good news is that you at least left a sort of explanation on the talk page. The bad news is that per WP:CCC you still did a blind revert without explaining which edits you found as being wrong and why. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus version? But you refused to engage in discussion about what weight to give those views. This is not right. You cannot just avoid discussion then call it consensus. It's very clear that the cult view is a minority view. The page should reflect that. Wholesale reverts are the worst way to engage in this. I'm putting the version back; if there are changes, please discuss them, make them incrementally, and actually engage in the discussion at hand, please. Or what are we meant to do? You refuse to discuss, then have a monopoly of the content? Please reconsider.--Asdfg12345 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

also added in the Li quote again, and made clear that that part was Kavan's opinion. I really don't see the problem with this stuff?--Asdfg12345 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the Kavan sentence you put it? I couldn't detect a difference..?--Asdfg12345 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Most recent edits

Regarding asdfg's most recent edits, I can hardly call "not cool, not wiki" as per here an even remotely useful edit summary, and frankly I do not believe that he is himself in the position to make such determinations in any event, for the reasons that have been stated repeatedly. Regarding the second and thankfully last in the most recent series of edits by that party, here, I see both reasons given as being, at best, insufficient. First, the sedtion about Kavan's study is obviously about Kavan's study, not "fact". Very few people familiar with most any academic studies come to the conclusion that all studies necessarily report factual information. That being the case, I have to see his addition there as being, basically, an attempt to weaken the material, possibly in accord with his frequently commented upon bias in this matter. And it should be noted that not all things frequently commented upon are fact, either. Regarding his second point, I cannot see how a statement of Li to his followers is even remotely relevant to a statement about what Kavan found in her study, uncless Kavan herself was a follower, which has not been discussed. It could, of course, in an unlikely way, be the case that the addition of the material could be seen as an attempt to persuade any individuals who are followers of Li to abide by his teachings, and that statement in particular, if they are ever asked to take part in such studies, but I doubt very many people at all would be paying so much attention to this article that such a possible attempt at persuasion would be effective. In any event, however, I cannot see how that quotation is even remotely relevant or appropriate to that section. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• This disruptive edit warring must stop. I have placed a warning on asdfg's talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You mean you don't see how the quote from Li is relevant? What he says is about how the practitioners should run the media, the way they should do it. Kavan's comment is about the same thing. How are they unrelated?

About the changes to the cult section, here is what was outright deleted:

The characterization of Falun Gong as a cult, however, is dismissed by leading researchers in the field. David Ownby argues that "The entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun gong and the effectiveness of the group’s activities outside of China." Ian Johnson also rejects the label, writing that it "put Falun Gong on the defensive, forcing it to prove its innocence, and cloaked the government's crackdown with the legitimacy of the West's anticult movement." Practitioners of Falun Gong say they are engaged in merely a "spiritual discipline." According to the United States, State Department, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."

The majority of scholars who have done fieldwork with Falun Gong practitioners come to different conclusions than Singer and Kavan.

Journalists in China who used the cult label would be ensured continued media access, according to Gutmann.

Then there were other changes, like:

1. refactoring the CCP response, slightly;
2. swapping the order of the Western media/scholar paragraphs (so it follows a more logical structure..?)
3. some other changes, can't think right now.

Can you please tell me why the information cited above was deleted? Secondly, can you tell me what was wrong with those changes (in numbers), and could you tell me why there was a need for outright reversion rather than incremental changes, or doing some modifications in a step-by-step way, like I did?

Just as a test, I'm going to put the Ownby/Johnson/USDOS stuff back, and see if it gets deleted. If it does, I think there might be an arbitration enforcement case afoot. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a test, it is provocation, pure and simple. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[ec] by the way, I just want to suggest to Ohconfucius, Colipon and John, to take a step back and consider your conduct. I opened up a discussion about whether the cult label is fringe or not, presenting most of the sources we have available. Two of you refused to engage in the discussion, dismissing it. John said "no" then well PelleSmith took him to task, he changed the subject ceaselessly and eventually broke off the discussion. There is a long list of how different sources treat this issue, and it's clear that the cult label is a minority view. Now, information from the majority view--that Falun Gong is not a cult, and that the label was primarily a propaganda tool--has been repeatedly pulled from the pages with no real justification. Indeed, the discussion about this has been obfuscated again and again. This is just really unreasonable. Please see WP:DUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." and "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view" and "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

A partial list of academic sources on the cult label has been presented, the overwhelming majority do not use cult as a way of characterising Falun Gong, and a good number explicitly reject it. If the information I added again is deleted, we'll see what happens.--Asdfg12345 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: how is adding sourced, mainstream views to wikipedia provocation? You need to play by the rules. Everything I'm doing is trying to make the page conform to the content policies. I just quoted them. You're refusing to engage in the bones of contention and instead accusing me of bad faith. Disappointing.--Asdfg12345 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that asdfg has given no good reason to make this edit, and frankly, it seems to deal with his bete noire, the cult issue, which frankly isn't that important to this article. I have to say that the addition of so much material on what is, for those who are not particularly involved with Falun Gong, even remotely within the confines of WP:DUE. And I have to say that making the kind of edits he seems to prefer, numerous quick edits in quick succession, which, ultimately, can be and has been seen as others as perhaps being an attempt to hide some particular aspects of it, such as the removal of the "cult" word, is probably worse than making a single edit at once, because at the very least a single edit is, well, more honest. I cannot see any good reason for this edit, nor do I believe that the individual in question has received any sort of consensus for changes, or, for that matter, whether he even sought them. Regarding the request for others to "consider their judgement," I cannot believe that this party, who has such a clear WP:COI problem, is even remotely in a position to even be commenting on the judgement of others. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it a violation of WP:DUE, John? Please be specific.--Asdfg12345 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And just so I'm not letting your other issues hang. Doing multiple edits: I actually thought this was easier and what people preferred. Ohconfucius edits like this. It makes it easier to know what each change was, because you see it with each edit summary. If making 10 changes, you don't have time to explain each one in a single edit summary. I try to keep one change per edit most of the time, just for transparency. If we have a consensus on the preferred editing approach, I'm happy to go along with what people prefer. The other thing, about seekign consensus: yes, I started a discussion about whether the cult label was a fringe theory or not. We know how that went. Several people refused to respond, a couple of others said it wasn't without explaining themselves properly, and apparently in the face of an overwhelming majority of sources which don't use the label or criticise it, opposed to two which uphold it... yes, I did seek consensus. Now I'm just adding sourced, mainstream material, and I believe that's what I'm supposed to do.--Asdfg12345 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You made changes without any sort of consensus about a contentious topic. I believe virtually everybody else believes that qualifies as disruptive editing as per WP:DE, which as the template at the top of this page has said for some time, is grounds for someone to be subject to administrative sanctions. I really can't see how your apparent belief that you are entitled to make the changes you want even though, having sought agreement, you received none, is somthing almost anyone else would consider proper conduct. The fact that you have a demonstrable conflict of interest in this subject, as per [{WP:COI]], and still believe that you are somehow uniquely entitled to make the changes you want anyway is I believe a significant cause for concern. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: those who refuse to participate in this 'fringe/not-fringe" issue are merely giving up on this round, having exhausted what they had to say about it previously, and being fed up with the ad nauseum self-flagellation. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pasting the discussion below, which I think is quite indicative of the current situation. Please take a look at it, John, and think about who is violating WP:DUE and who is being disruptive. By the way, we are now getting into mostly pointless meta-discussion. The real question is why the elephant in the room (the cult label being a minority view) is being constantly ignored?--Asdfg12345 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

dude, that's a bit unreasonable. You guys are refusing to engage in discussion about how the cult label is a minority view, even when it's proven to you that it is by the sheer number of sources supporting/ignoring/opposing it. Then, when I try to add in sourced, relevant information from impeccable sources, it's repeatedly deleted from the article. And the only reason I had to add it like that is because you guys wouldn't budge on how to frame the whole section, basically insisting on making a minority view the dominant interpretation. The whole thing is poor behaviour, in my view. If that paragraph is deleted again, I'm going to start an AE case.--Asdfg12345 01:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are unreasonable to accuse me of not discussing the issue, as I have done plenty of that, I also wrote a further explanation last night. There is no point discussing the 'fringe/not-fringe' issue, as it is irrelevant as to whether we talk about the issue at all, and whether it should be in the lead. You appear to want to sideline the whole 'cult debate' thing (including repeatedly changing the title to 'cult label' - which I have a major NPOV issue with), hence, IMHO, weakening the raison d'etre of the whole family of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is whether the cult label is a fringe theory or not irrelevant? This is precisely obfuscating discussion. It's a perfectly legitimate question. In assessing how to treat the topic in the articles, one of the main questions is its prevalence in the literature. If it's very clear that it's a minority view, then why isn't it being treated as such? I don't want to "sideline" the issue, I want the articles to conform to NPOV, and specifically, WP:DUE. The neutral point of view is derived from the literature on the subject, not from editor's brains. And WP:DUE discusses the majority/minority thing. How can you say that by refusing to discuss whether it's a minority view (same as fringe, essentially, and blindingly obvious by looking at the sources), that you are being reasonable? That's just wacky, don't you think? (and noting that the cult label is, in fact, a label, which is how the mainstream sources regard it--a label applied by the CCP to Falun Gong as a way of deligitimising the practice--also conforms to WP:DUE.) You seem to think that you decide what is neutral and what isn't. You don't. The sources decide that, and our debate should be grounded firmly in what they say. But when I try to take the discussion in that direction it's "irrelevant." What gives?--Asdfg12345 01:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, please do not take this personally. I don't understand why we can't just dispassionately look at the sources and policy, and just go from there. This just gets swept up in personal rubbish and the whole thing gets turned into something else. That's not what it's about. This is like solving a maths problem or playing chess. The raw material is there (sources), the policies are there, it's just like a jigsaw puzzle. Minimal creativity required. You just do the basic processing function of turning academic articles into summarised sentences, then line them all up in the article, along with some other stuff, like delinking dates. Really.--Asdfg12345 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, It is unfotunately becoming increasingly clear to me that you are so blinded by your own obsession iith the word "cult" that you are at this point completely unable to make any sort of rational judgement regarding this subject. Therefore, I very strongly urge you to, possibly for the first time, abide by WP:COI and refrain from any further edits to the article without receiving consensus first. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I would really appreciate it if you laid off the personal stuff and just responded to what I'm writing about the content of the article, the sources, and the policy. I just want you to respond to that.--Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have learned a lot from my past experiences here and try very hard not to take anything here personally any more. I told you I accepted PelleSmith's version as the consensus version, and I sincerely believe this to be the case, although perhaps it could be even more concise and more objective. You and Happy are clearly outside this consensus as you keep on trying to introduce stuff which counters it, or take stuff out which is not favourable to FLG. I have little time to dedicate to this today, but will try and prune this PelleSmith version down on Monday. Furthermore, I feel your attempts are increasingly disruptive, as you are clearly not going to change any opinions by your edit warring or your filibustering on that 'fringe/not-fringe' issue. Take the dispute to AE if you will, but I feel that you are unlikely to be vindicated. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." -- who is pushing minority views, again? It's not me.--Asdfg12345 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is also funny: "Does not engage in consensus building:

• repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
• repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."

Who is doing this?--Asdfg12345 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I pull the plug on the fruitless discussion on my talk page, and it moves here within a flash. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(What's the point in copying this from a talkpage/private conversation? Personal war? Blackmail? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To keep things germane, let me ask a final time: is the regarding Falun Gong a cult a minority view or not? I propose that it is, and I gave a long list of sources about it above. Does anyone disagree that it is a minority view? (note, the word has changed from "fringe" to "minority"--maybe this won't meet with such resistance). Can we get some views? for now, I'm going to do other stuff and will come back later. I'm feeling like this whole thing is a bit twilight-zoney. --Asdfg12345 02:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The cult label and WP:DUE

I submit that:

1. The cult label with regard to Falun Gong can properly be considered a Fringe theory;
2. It should be treated as so in these articles, according to WP:DUE;
3. Including it in the lead, between two words which are not fringe theories, and having a section which does not detail how it is a fringe theory, according to researchers, violates WP:DUE.

Can we discuss these points? I think it's just the most upfront and simple way to go about this. I know it's been brought up before, but this is just silly, to some extent, when David Ownby is repeatedly pulled out of the cult section, and the sources which clearly say that it's a fringe theory are pulled out. I'm adding Ownby and Johnson back now--it's clear that both of them are exemplary sources, and their statements on the topic are highly notable and warranted. Let's discuss the other aspects. Please remember that reliable sources are king here at wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 09:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your exclusion of the word cult from that particular part because it clearly says "There is a debate"; it thus doesn't make any claims about the truth or merit of that label. Within that one sentence, it cannot possibly mislead anyone into assuming or inferring anything other than what it says: a debate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll find a far more sensible way of resolving this when we address the real issue: is it a fringe theory or not? This is the locus of debate, really. It was not actually resolved last time when PelleSmith began the discussion. Here's the link he compiled:

Use cult

• Kavan, Heather
• Singer, Margaret

Don't use cult

• Bell, Mark R. ("Falun Gong and the Internet: Evangelism, Community, and Struggle for Survival," Nova Religio)
• Boas, Taylor C. ("Falun Gong and the Internet: Evangelism, Community, and Struggle for Survival," Nova Religio)
• Burgdoff, Craig A ("How Falun Gong Practice Undermines Li Hongzhi's Totalistic Rhetoric," Nova Religio)
• Chan, Cheris Shun-ching
• Edelman, Bryan
• Fisher, Gareth ("Resistance and Salvation in Falun Gong: The Promise and Peril of Forbearance," Nova Religio")
• Irons, Jeremy ("Falun Gong and the Sectarian Religion Paradigm," Nova Religio)
• Lowe, Scott ("Chinese and International Contexts for the Rise of Falun Gong," Nova Religio)
• Lu, Yungfeng ("Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong," Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion)
• Ownby, David
• Palmer, Susan
• Porter, Noah
• Richardson, James T.
• Penny, Benjamin
• Wessinger, Catherine ("Falun Gong Symposium Introduction and Glossary," Nova Religio)

Reject the cult label

• Ownby, David
• Porter, Noah
• Edelman, Bryan
• Richardson, James T.
• Johnson, Ian
• US State Department[1]
• Amnesty International [2]

NOTE: Very often, actually, in all the cases above, a rejection of the cult label goes along with a statement that it is essentially a propaganda tool. I didn't put that in the sub-section name, just to keep things simple, but I'm noting it here.

Another issue is, the "reject" category includes all those in the "don't use" category. I would think that an overwhelming majority of "don't use" compared to "use" would be enough to conclude that the "use" pile is fringe (particularly when the credentials are questionable, such as Singer, and when Kavan is trained as a media professor--the case against Kavan here is not as strong, but at the least, she carries far less weight than people like Ownby on this issue)--Asdfg12345 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. Looks like a "debate" to me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a fringe theory?

Here, it says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."

On the WP:NPOV page there is some related language about WP:DUE, related to the fringe guideline:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Is it clear by now that the cult label is a minority view, a fringe theory? I'm not asking whether there is a "debate," and "debate" isn't the metric wikipedia uses to evaluate arguments and sources. There's a "debate" between Darwinism and creationism--but one is certainly a fringe theory and the other not. There are also a bunch of other theories. The proponents of them call it a debate; the mainstream calls them fringe. What we're interested in here is the preponderance of the term in mainstream sources, and how it is treated in them. I'm showing that it's 1) not used by mainstream sources as a descriptor of Falun Gong, and 2) often rejected by mainstream sources as a propaganda tool. I believe this makes it clear that the cult label in relation to Falun Gong is a fringe theory. Any dispute?--Asdfg12345 09:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"any dispute?" is mere rhetoric on your part. Apparently, there are other opinions; if it was so clear-cut, people would not have included it in the first place. You don't need to wiki-lawyer me into getting a brain, I already have one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just another point: It just dawned on me that the list of "don't use the cult label" is every academic article which is not in the first list. That's a tautology, obviously, but the point is that that "don't" list can already be considered to be maybe another couple of dozen names long, since it is only a very few, specific academic sources (like Kavan and Singer) which use the cult label with regard to Falun Gong seriously. --Asdfg12345 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for your response, Seb. Would you like to elaborate on what you mean further? You seem to be suggesting that you disagree that the cult label is a fringe theory, but you don't explain why, or offer any sources in support. Please note that you are required to justify your stance with reliable sources.--Asdfg12345 09:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) It is a known fact that the Chinese government incessantly uses the words 'evil cult' to refer to Falun Gong. It features prominently in all statements issued from state media, and a very large number of mainstream sources report that. Whether they necessarily agree with that is another matter - actually, most just cite it these days e.g. 'Falun Gong spiritual movement, which the government refers to as "an evil cult"'. SO whether we like it or not, it is a prominent element in that debate, even though the concept is largely deprecated in academic circles. Personally, I think that academics have gone utterly 'politically correct' (meaning soft) in this regard because there are/have been undoubtedly manipulative/destructive cults, but I digress. Again, I'm not saying FLG is a cult of any sort. The 'cult' in the lead asdfg objected to is merely a placeholder for the debate which is in the cult section of the article, and it is clear enough there is absolutely no endorsement for what FLG should be classified as, be it cult, NRM, or just spiritual movement. I really don't see what the issue is, and what WP:UNDUE has to do with anything in this context. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen. I was waiting for Ohconfucius to -- once again -- express it in a more civil manner, because I am about to lose it here. (and just like you don't have to wiki-lawyer me into getting a brain, I don't need advice on sources) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We are attempting to establish whether the cult label is a fringe theory or not. Neither Ohconfuncius's comment nor Seb's addresses, or even attempts to address this. You don't see what the issue is? But I've spelt it out several times: is the theory that Falun Gong is a cult a fringe one or not? I've presented policy and a pile of sources suggesting that it is. If there's no attempt to argue with this (that it's a fringe theory that Falun Gong is a cult), then we have nothing to discuss, and we can conclude it's a fringe theory and deal with it accordingly in the article. Or, do either of you seek to disagree?--Asdfg12345 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to list all sources, give a number in weight, then based on that mathematically decide how much weight (mention) one or the other deserves. Sounds fair? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are so fond of policies, read Ohconfucius' rationale again, and go to WP:N. It's not like just some wacko came up with it, it's te Chinese government, one of the major players in this whole debate, controversy, dispute, pick your wording. If some jerk on the street came up with a fringe-theory, nobody would give a damn. The CCP's using it makes it notable, whether you like it or not, and there is no endorsement of this anywhere in the sentence. Fringe theories are by definition held some loon who sits in his office and dreams up junk without influence. A government with an army and a police-force isn't a fringe theory anymore. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We may be getting somewhere. You seek to dispute that the cult label is a fringe theory on the basis that the CCP was the first to use it, and promotes the term as a descriptor of Falun Gong? That's an unexpected argument. Just so things are clear, Ohconfucius, do you support this assessment? Seb, are you arguing that the CCP is a reliable source on Falun Gong, and on evaluating the cultic or non-cultic nature of religious beliefs and practices? Or are you saying that regardless of the reliability of the CCP as a source, the cult theory is not a fringe theory, simply because the CCP has an army and a police force? I'm not sure if I follow your exact argument. If you gave me some policy to chew on it might help. What you're saying seems odd to me right now...--Asdfg12345 10:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You understood me. I am neither endorsing nor disputing the word. I am not saying the CCP is a "reliable source", just like I would not argue that Hitler was a "reliable source" on Jews, or Verwoerd was a "reliable source" on black people. Fact is: CCP (with a lot of influence) uses the label; therefore, it is notable, under whichever specific policy you want to dig up, and it deserves being mentioned in this article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you may have linked the wrong policy. WP:N is specifically about what qualifies for an article. It's in the "nutshell" and the first sentence: Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article...--Asdfg12345 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you're not disputing that it's a fringe theory then there's no dispute. The cult label is a fringe theory. It should then be treated in the article as such. This is about WP:DUE, which says things like "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." -- if you're admitting that the CCP is not a reliable source, that also makes sense. The real thing is how academics have taken up the cult label. And we see above how. If you are not really disputing that it's a minority view, there should be no problem amending the article's current condition to reflect this. Here's another: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." -- there are more. It's all over there at WP:NPOV. Just to sum up, so the state of this discussion is perfectly clear:

• a list of academic sources which use, don't use, and reject the label was presented. -- you did not dispute this.
• the policy about fringe theories was presented, and I argued that the label was a fringe theory in light of the policy and the sources -- no clear dispute here, either.
• I repeatedly asked if there is a dispute that it's a fringe theory -- no clear dispute, no sources produced, no policy referred to.
• You keep saying that the term is notable. Not arguing. It's notable insofar as it's a fringe viewpoint.

My conclusion, based on the policy, sources, and lack of response, is that the cult label in referring to Falun Gong is a fringe theory. We all know that the article should reflect the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject, as NPOV and DUE make very clear. Now we also know, it would appear, how reliable sources treat the cult label with regard to Falun Gong. The article is quite far from reflecting this at the moment. I'll make some changes that I think will remedy this now. --Asdfg12345 11:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the master at reading with blinders. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seb, you didn't respond to any of the points I raised, what am I to think? I can only conclude that you simply have no response. If you have something substantive to bring to the table, in terms of a policy item I've missed, or an interpretation of policy, or some sources, please go ahead and bring it forth. Those are the germane issues here.--Asdfg12345 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded, you are blind, not my fault. Go ahead and change whatever you want to change, it's not worth my time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please quote the relevant part of your response or provide a diff, so it is clear which response are you referring to? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, we've been through this. The PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'" whether you like it or not. And journalists say 'PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'"' whether you like it or not. It's immutable and notable fact, and one that people looking up 'Falun Gong' will expect to see addressed in this article. If it's such a reader doesn't see it there, xhe will probably say 'WP is crap because it doesn't even have the basic fact but instead harps on about some boring farty academics saying nobody uses "the c word" any more', and they would be right. If it is an editor, xhe may well insert it, and they would be right. It may be a theory which belongs on the fringe, but it sure ain't a fringe theory any more. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"The PRC says "Falun Gong is an 'evil cult'"", right nobody is disputing that, however the question is just how much of the academics and media say that the PRC is right. When there is a debate, then it is actually questioned whether that branding is correct or not. Right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another point we keep going over is that we are only after verifiability not truth. Its pretty clear that Wikipedia does not share a paradigm with FLG, so I would advise you guys to stop trying to apply or force your paradigm onto Wikipedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia policy on truth vs. WP:RS. It is just interesting to note, how a different page requires a different standard. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have very serious difficulties not jumping to the conclusion that this whole discussion is some form of POV pushing. The use of the word is at least discussed significantly by the Chinese government, and by the sources independent of the government. The index in Ownby lists for "cults" pages 3-5, 19-20, 23-24, 43, 127, 161, 164, 168, 173, 176-182, 195, 223, 226, 229-230, and I can verify right off that most of the later items listed above deal specifically with the term as it applies to Falun Gong. I have no reason to believe that the word should be, in some form of censorship, excluded from the article. Exactly how much attention should be given to it, however, is another matter entirely. It is clearly among the most often used words used to describe Falun Gong by the government, however, and very reasonably should be included in the material describing the government's later reactions to Falun Gong. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I always have a chuckle to myself when I'm reading the archived press articles on Clearwisdom where the word 'cult' is systematically replaced by [slanderous word]. It strikes me that some are trying to push us in that direction. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have certainly exhausted my assumption of good faith from a select few COI users on this article, I did what I must. Noting all the opposition to asdfg's changes I reverted the article to an earlier revision. These edits are completely discouraging and I must yet again remind the users that this article is on probation. The Wikilawyering is painfully obvious to any third party, and the editing habits are growing to be rather offensive. I am in pain every time I look at a discussion like this. Enough is enough. Colipon+(Talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to have it on record again, I do not want the word excluded from the article. But to quote John "Exactly how much attention should be given to it, however, is another matter entirely.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If we were to apply the 'Ownby index of "cultability (sic)"' to the issue, I would guess it comes pretty high on the scale that it would merit a mention in the lead of the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and did I mention page 3 is in fact the first page of real text in the book, so, in effect, the question of FG's status as a "cult" is almost the first thing he talks about? John Carter (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We all know that the CCP uses the word a lot to slander Falun Gong, but that's unrelated whether it's a fringe theory or not. No one has directly come out to respond on that. Let me just clarify that it was never my thought for the term to be removed from the article--I was calling for whether we have a consensus that it is a fringe theory or not. In the article currently, it is not treated as a fringe theory, it's made out to be an ongoing debate within the academic community on Falun Gong. But it's just not, and the article shouldn't portray it to be. It's fine that the issue is brought up by Ownby on his first page, and that Reuters and AP always use it--this shows that it's not such an insignificant minority viewpoint as to warrant exclusion from the article. It shows that it's something like a minority viewpoint as outlined by Jimbo, above. We can name a prominent adherent: Singer. But the term doesn't have traction among the academic literature, and it's mostly rejected and understood as a clever label from the Central Propaganda Department. Since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources which discuss this issue seem to take this stance, this is how it should be in the article, right? Let me quote this piece of NPOV again: 'Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.' -- at the moment, nothing has been shown which would suggest that the cult label isn't a minority viewpoint. --Asdfg12345 16:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And, as I referenced directly above, if you read it, Ownby begins to discuss the question regarding Falun Gong's cult status on the first page of his book. I am glad to see you referencing something other than WP:NOTABILITY, but I cannot see how a subject referenced on the very first page of the most recent reliably sourced book on the subject does not qualify as sufficiently notable for reasonable inclusion in this article. I believe that, ultimately, your arguments are completely unconvincing to anyone taking part in this discussion who may not have a preexisting bias in favor of Falun Gong. That being the case, I believe there is very little point in continuing this discussion in the current form. A posting to a relevant noticeboard or a request for outside comment through RfC might be reasonable, but, considering this is evidently far from the first time this discussion has been made with no satisfaction, I cannot see any purpose to be served by continuing the discussion in the current fashion. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, regarding: "but I cannot see how a subject referenced on the very first page of the most recent reliably sourced book on the subject does not qualify as sufficiently notable for reasonable inclusion in this article.", do you mean that the cult word, having it's own subsection is not reasonable mentioned in this version? Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a notable label, that's not in question. I just want to get a consensus on whether it's fringe or not. It's fine that we take it to another forum if we're at a deadlock, but the question I've raised is actually a very simple, very straightforward one, and we can establish an objective metric for weighing it up. It's actually got nothing to do with preexisting bias in favor of Falun Gong. By saying that you are effectively painting yourself into a corner. Apparently, then, PelleSmith must have a pro-Falun Gong bias, simply because he's suggesting that the cult label in terms of Falun Gong is a fringe theory in academia? (the label, by the way, is a fringe theory in general. In terms of Falun Gong it is doubly problematic, given its uptake in communist propaganda.) Anyway, you've said you think it's not a minority viewpoint, so that gives some way for a start to the discussion. Since it's fairly important to make clear how the cult label will be treated in this article, if we cannot agree to how it will be treated on this page--and agreement for how it should be treated on this page is unrelated to how we personally feel about it--then sure, let's take it to another forum and get other people to decide for us, so we can get on with it. It's good to bring these issues out and just get things real clear.--Asdfg12345 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

I'm not even sure what the problem is. The labeling of the group as a cult is both 1) notable because of the Chinese government's political rhetoric while being 2) fringe/minority in the academy. As long as the "cult" label is used contextually in the entry there is absolutely no problem with it being there. Does anyone object to the current version? I believe this is a more accurate reflection of the "cult" issue with a couple of minor exceptions. The Frank reference could go back in to neutralize it a tad, but it really does seem at this point that academic consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of not using the word at all and we should reflect this more clearly than it was in the version I scaled down a while ago.PelleSmith (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Content

As far as I can see, a balanced treatment of the cult issue now goes something like this:

• Chinese gov't labels Falun Gong a cult, but that is wrong because Ownby says so.
• Social scientists and everyone else reject the cult theory.
• Richardson and Edelman see political ramifications - cult label is exploited by the Chinese gov't.

We also notice that the following was removed:

For example, Cheris Shun-ching Chan considers cults to be new religious movements that focus on the individual experience of the encounter with the sacred rather than collective worship; that cults are less demanding of their members and more tolerant of other religions than sects are; that have a strong charismatic leadership and that they lack clear boundaries of membership. Chan claims that Falun Gong is neither a cult nor a sect, but a new religious Movement with Cult-like characteristics.

I have no more energy to run these circular arguments. ASDFG's edit summary was misleading, and makes it seem like a 'consensus' was reached at the talk page, when really he is just inserting content favourable to FLG and removing content that criticizes it. This is absolutely unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 18:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. The fact is that scholarly consensus has nothing to do with what is or isn't favorable towards Falun Gong. You make it sounds like Ownby is alone in calling Chinese political rhetoric what it is or in rejecting the cult label when his position seems entirely mainstream. I've said this before but this entry needs less knee jerk reactions coming from both sides. Your position seems to be that if certain editors are making an edit it must be completely exaggerated nonsense meant to push a POV. Provide a reasonable argument based on reliable sources please and if you think content that has been deleted should be re-added then find a way to do so.PelleSmith (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if we argue endlessly on WP:UNDUE and WP:N, we notice that in ASDFG's edit, much reliably sourced material was removed. And if we go into this edit and see which parts were removed, we notice handily that parts portraying Falun Gong in a negative light had disappeared. Then, if we go into ASDFG's history on this very talk page, we notice almost everything he has written is about getting rid of content critical of Falun Gong. I frankly don't give a damn about whether or not Falun Gong is a cult. What I am concerned about is these users with a clear conflict-of-interest in the subject constantly editing to advance Falun Gong's case. If you disagree with my analysis, so be it. Go make some bold edits if you must to make the content more balanced. I am sure you are a good faith editor just trying to take a neutral and just perspective. As for me, I am just too fed up with these SPAs. Colipon+(Talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) I think it should also be pointed out, believe it or not, according to Ownby, that there is a mountain of material in China critical of Falun Gong, and he doesn't explicitly state that he believes all of it is necessarily generated by the government. By the way, I really wish someone else had some of the other books to cite. I think I can get hold of The End of Days, but that might take awhile. I also indicate again that I have copies of all the articles stored on JSTOR available to anyone who asks for them. Just send me an email and I'll send them to you. I haven't had the chance to read them all, but it could well be that some of them relate to this as well. And, as an addendum, if you believe disruptive editing has taken place, such editing is a violation of the ArbCom sanctions. I don't think anyone who actually edits here would see themselves as being uninvolved enough to take action, but the sanctions were put in place to prevent anyone from making disruptive edits. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, could you upload it to mega download or other temporary upload download site, so we can all access them?

Yes, I believe disruptive edits happened here and here, just to mention a couple of them. But since the discussion is ongoing, I did not want to take it further, just yet.

Also John, since I see that you read some about this subject would you like to take a stance and express which one of the edits you think is good, or perhaps if there is a third version you would seem more appropriate? Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a violation of JSTOR's terms of use to upload the material, which more or less states it is for private use only. Regarding the content dispute, Give me a few days to finish finding articles about the UAE and tagging them, and ask me again later. I'm not trying to be evasive, but I really can't do as many things at once as I would like. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"I really can't do as many things at once as I would like" => It's OK, don't worry, I totally understand. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I have read some of these pre-1999 critiques of Falun Gong but unfortunately much of it is not available online, and when it is, it has always been labeled as just more Chinese gov't propaganda. Sima Nan is one of Falun Gong's strongest critics within China before the crackdown. Sources are very scarce. I am trying to get through some of these JSTOR articles but unfortunately real life is catching up to me. Colipon+(Talk) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In China the Government controls all form of it's media and historically any persecution is first prepared with critics in the media. Against Falun Gong this started since at least 1996. I know this from the documentary A decade of courage, part 1, made by NTDTV. Let me see if I can find some other sources saying similar stuff. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries made by yet another FG subsidiary. I think I'll go along with what the JSTOR articles say. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure JSTORE is fine, but is good to have a starting point, right? Otherwise information is just hidden in a billion of pages. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Through his reorganisation of the secton, asdfg apparently removed Frank and Kavan. This resulted in non-sequiturs/lost context and broken references in the text. I have reverted the section to an old version. I am beginning to feel rather frustrated by this constant unproductive battle. I feel that this removal of two key paragraphs may be related to his wanting to remove the [slanderous word](sic) from the lead - the possible logic being if we banish the cult debate in the article, there is no further need to mention it in the lead. Of course, this is going about it all the wrong way. Verifiability over truth is the way of WP, not "truth compassion and forbearance". As time goes on, my forbearance is approaching its limit. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius please note your POV is clear as well. And since nobody is owning the document isn't it normal to establish what is fringe in the academia and what is not? If you would answer the questions directly, the whole thing would be a lot quicker, so just who's patience should run thin by now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• You and asdfg are the only people who are pushing for this. Everyone else believes it is necessary to mention the "c-word" in the lead. Whether the existence of "cults" is fringe or not is not what's at issue. Something can be fringe and still merit a mention in the lead, and this is the perfect example. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pushing what to be more exactly? Did I ever say that the cult word can not be mentioned? The question to which the answer is being avoided is if the cult label of Falun Gong is a fringe theory or not between the western academia. If it is a fringe theory, then it should be portrayed as such in the cult section. Right?--HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will further continue in this discussion in the event of a paradigm shift at Wikipedia. Failing that, I feel that we are done. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Same here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing new in your reaction. This is EXACTLY avoiding the question presented above. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of things. The first is that I'm most interested in making this article conform to the content policies. I think PelleSmith's compromise of putting "cult" in quotation marks works. The second thing is that I noticed Colipon's discussion sets up a kind of pro-Falun Gong and anti-Falun Gong dichotomy. I won't speculate on why, but I'll just say that I think this is a counter-productive way to approach things. Let the conversation revolve around sources and policy instead, and we'll get away from this stupid pro/con discourse. It's not about a bit of salt outweighed with some pepper. Ideology isn't the driving factor in content, it's sources and policies. Not much else to say for now. I hope we can get everyone's views on whether the cult label is fringe or not.

oh, and about my edits of the article. I removed Chun (is it?) because it just seemed to take the discussion in yet another direction. That was a single source, a few hundred words. Her theory is distinct yet again. Do we accord each source space to state their own theory, or are we supposed to use some judgement and convey those they are the most common? I don't mind, as long as there is some logic to the process. The western media section was yet another non-sequitor. Finally, I'd urge people not to do blanket reverts, but instead make changes to supplement and improve the changes of others. This will create a much more collegial environment, I think. Of course, use your judgement, if something is really inappropriate, then revert, or do as you feel best, but when someone has taken time to change wordings and really weighed things up, in terms of the clear consensus of sources presented on the talk page, and you come along and pull it all down with one click, that doesn't help to create a feeling of "working together."--Asdfg12345 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Ohconfucius, please be sure to give your stance about whether it's a fringe theory or not.--Asdfg12345 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seem this cult issue is one of the central points of debate on this topic. Would I be correct to assume that there is not a large body of scholastic work or extensive schools of thought regarding this issue available? If this were to be true, wouldn't it in the spirit of inclusiveness and diversity, be acceptable to allow coverage of whichever academic that has given input on the topic? Why is there the need to condense and distill this particular sub-topic when it's obviously generating much discussion and contention? I see above a list of pro/anti authors; wouldn't this be a much better illustration to have in the actual body than resorting to subjective labelling? To me, seeing such a list lets me draw on my own an impression that there is a general consensus on the issue. But when the word 'fringe' is used I immediately reflect that by scientific standards, when a topic is fairly new and only contributed by a few dozen sources, it is wholly inappropriate to label any one theory as 'fringe'. Of course the dualistic way to classify each scholar's interpretation and their own definitions of what a cult is, is another issue. Basically, I'm trying to say - be more inclusive. 136.159.169.6 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where to ask this, but why do we have the Cheris Shun-ching Chan reference? On the surface, Chan seems to use an entirely different definition of "cult" and doesn't seem that relevant. Dan (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington File

Quick question, if Singer/Chen/Kavan is notable and reliable enough here, even though they are sustaining a fringe view per scholars, then how is it that the following source: " According to the United States, State Department, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control." " is being reverted for the third time now? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So far there is only the following explanation in the revert summary: "Cherry picking: The act of selecting words that support your PoV in a manner that distorts the text it is derived from. Gain consensus on talk before restoring please." Well, judge for yourself, here is the full quote:

"

Birkle also noted that the Chinese government labeled Falun Gong an “evil cult” in July 1999 and has engaged in a harsh crackdown of its members.

According to the State Department official, whether or not a group is classified as a cult depends on the Chinese authorities and is "based on no discernible criteria other than the Government’s desire to maintain control."

Birkle also expressed concern at "overly broad and arbitrarily enforced" laws and regulations that make it "difficult for citizens seeking to express their political or religious views peacefully to ascertain the line between the permissible and the illegal."

"

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth does this distort the original meaning of the source? I don't understand what you mean. Did you read the original source? I'm restoring it, and I'll assume it was just a momentary lapse of judgement.--Asdfg12345 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If the added material said "US State Department," and not "US State Department official," based on the information above, that is a distortion. I haven't read the source, because it wasn't actually clearly linked to, but unless the official were clearly officially speaking with the voice of the State Department, at an official State Department event, it would be a misrepresentation to label the statements as coming from the State Department. Otherwise, he would be seen politically as speaking only for himself, and, personally, I rather doubt any individual state department official's opinion regarding this matter is significant or notable enough to merit inclusion in the article. The same would hold true for most other lower-echelon government officials as well. It can be and often is the case that individuals, for whatever reason, will mischaracterize a statement of a government official or employeed as being an official statement of the body that individual works for, when in fact it was not. As someone who used to work with the government here, I can say the government itself knows the difference quite clearly, and often makes it a point to make it absolutely clear whether the individual in question is speaking officially or not. However, in general, just because a statement is from someone associated with a government or any other body doesn't mean that the statement should be construed as being from the body for which that person works. Trust me, the diferentiation there, however slight, is a very significant one to the governments and other entities who make such differentiations. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

did you follow the link? It's on the USDOS website. The statement was def made under the aegis of the USDOS, as far as it appears. Contrary evidence welcome. It should be linked though, and you can take a look. I don't know what grounds there would be for disqualifying this source?--Asdfg12345 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the comment which originated this thread, you will see that there is, in fact, no link there that I can see, just a citation. Given that you personally have made at least several edits since this thread was begun, and the comment which started this thread didn't include a specific link to a particular revision, I wasn't myself sure whether what was available to be seen know even remotely resembled the revision that was altered. Also, given the previous discussion regarding whether a statement mentioned in a partcular press release were a statement from the UN, the NGO the lady worked for, or the lady herself, it seemed reasonable to me to make it clear that there was such a distinction. It would help to include links to specific revisions questioned in the future, given the number of times this article seems to be edited in quick succession sometimes. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, I think if you look more closely you will see that I started the thread with the original text removed, and that contained the citation to it as well. Also after 15 minutes, I added a second text where the revision link to the revert was provided and the full quote from the source was also provided to increase visibility. For time and date and exact diff see here. Is that the information you where looking for? Can I make it anymore visible? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could make it more visible like so. Now, the quote comes from a State Department official testifying before a House Subcommittee, apparently to explain for them the policy of the State Department. (Almost immediately after the quote we see: In light of these problems, the Department of State has taken various steps to promote increased respect in China for international human rights standards and democratic principles, according to Birkle.) I don't know if you want to call that the USDOS position, but it has more legal significance than an official government press release and I doubt China considered it the view of a private citizen. It clearly belongs in the article. Dan (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

resources regarding Falun Gong in China

This is some of the material I can most quickly find regaring this matter, of course, at this point, all from Ownby, as that is the source I have most readily at hand.

• Pp. 162-164 "[A]s a researcher, I find myself before a mountain of evidence produced by the Chinese state (much of it extremely repetitive) and a mountain of evidence (equally repetitive) produced by Falun Gong. Both mountains of evidence are full of names, pictures, and various other "facts," and most Western journalists writing on Falun Gong have tended to take some "facts" from each pile of evidence in an attempt to write a "balanced story" - thus producing their own mountain of "analysis" which, more often than not, is of questionable value (because the journalist could verify neither the claims of the Chinese state nor the claims of Falun Gong, which means that the "balanced story" is largely a matter of conjecture or convention.)"
• Although I tend to accept much Falun Gong documentation as trustworthy in its broad outlines, not all of the organization's reports stand up to strict academic scrutiny. Footnotes in such reports, for instance, often cite journalistic accounts which, in turn, cite Falun Gong sources; for Falun Gong practicioners, this is a way to enhance the credibilty of their claims by saying, in effect, "Reuters believed us," but the circularity of the chain of evidence remains problematic for the scholar. In addition, such reports often refer to other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations or media without acknowledging that affiliation. ... The evidence put forward by Falun Gong concerning the crackdown in China is more convincing than that put forward by the Chinese government. ... That being said, thre is for the moment no "proof" of the numbers of those tortured or killed in China, or of the means of torture employed, which goes beyond the record produced by Falun Gong practicioners."
• (regarding qigong) P.166 - "(In early 1994) an internal state council document entitled "Recommednations for Strengthening Our Work in the Popularization of Science"... launched a campaign against "pseudo-science." In parallel, Sima Nan, a well-known anti-qigong print and television journalist, argued in books, articles, and documentaries that qigong was nothing more than dime-store magic, and influential intellectuals like He Zuoxiu, Zhang Honglin, and Zhang Tongling jointly penned an article published in the People's Daily on 2 june 1995, which likened qigong to the feared Aum Shinri kyo sect in Japan... Later that month, Southern Weekend, an important weekly newspaper with a national profile, published the results of the report of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal... a highly negative report."
• P. 168 - "In June 1996, the influential national newspaper Guangming Ribao (Enlightenment Daily) published an article denouncing Falun Gong, condemning Zhaun falun as a "pseudo-scientific book propogating feudal superstition," deriding Li himself as a "swindler," and calling on all right-thinking people to join in the arduous fight against superstition. Some twenty major newspapers followed suit... In January and June 1997, the Ministry of Public Security authorized two nationwide investigations into allegations that Falun Gong was carrying out "illegal religious activities," and then concluded on each occasion that no such problems existed. In July 1998, the same ministry carried out another investigation into charges that Falun Gong was a "heterodox cult" ... the outcome again was inconclusive."
• P. 169 - (possibly interesting) "David Palmer argues that the roots of Falun Gong's "militancy" are to be found in this period [going so far as April 1999], protests and demonstrations having become a part of Falun Gong practice, just like reading Zhuan falun and doing Falun Gong exercises. My sense is that, while Falun Gong's contentiousness does indeed date to this period, it overstates the case to see protests as having been elevated to a form of cultivation practice."

Still working on finding other relevant information. Not all of the above might be particularly useful, but I thought it all at least worth bringing before everyone. Give me some time to finish tagging and assessing for the UAE and I'll see if I can find any more in Ownby, or in the Chiang book which I can try to mine for information as well. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think much of what was written above can be used to support current writings in the 'Skeptics and Zhongnanhai' section. Colipon+(Talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

John, can you state which book these quotes are from? Colipon+(Talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. David Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China." John Carter (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mind control is fringe

Kavan uses a definition for "cult" in her work that includes mind control techniques in it as an aspect of such groups. Mind contol theories are fringe in the relevant disciplines (sociology and psychology). Suggesting that they may not be fringe in other disciplines is entirely irrelevant. Specific disciplines claim expertise in specific areas of study and other disciplines have no purchase on such expertise. This brings me to the point I tried raising some time ago: why is a communications professor sporting a fringe theory on "cults" being used in a discussion about how to classify a social group? Her fieldwork methods may be sound and the information she has gathered on this group is valuable but these facts are quite seperate from the cult label issue and I mean that both ways. Her emperical research is in no way invalidated by this nor does the strength of that research change how out of her element she is when classiying social groups.PelleSmith (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. I do have one question however, which isn't intended as a criticism of the above. Having not myself read the piece in question recently, would Stockholm syndrome and similar forms of indirect "control" potentially be included in or maybe even be what is being referred to? I acknowledge that even Stockholm syndrome hasn't apparently had any proven cases, as per that article, but I'm not sure if it is counted as "fringe" or not. It and other articles are, apparently, at least included in the Category:Mind control, though. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the study of "cult" recruitment and member retention mind control refers to various related concepts like brainwashing, thought reform, etc. It does not simply include any/all forms of psychological manipulation or coercion. The theories in question are those that follow Singer and Lifton predominantly. Neither the APA nor the ASA consider them scientifically sound and a vast majority of scholars agree with them. Scholars who actively associate with anti-cult institutions as well as non scholarly anti-cult writers still maintain versions of these fringe theories. Kavan either is unaware of the situation or agrees with these writers despite it all. Either way in this context mind control refers to fringe theories.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe or not - one question at a time

Without comment on whether or not "cult" should be mentioned in the lead please answer the following question so we can move on: Is using the cult label to describe Falun Gong a fringe position in scholarship?PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it is a fringe position in scholarship.PelleSmith (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Now watch them get to work lawyering that... Ohconfucius (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you just state your arguments? It would be more productive. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you mind answering the question so we can see if this is in fact agreed upon by editors here? Until this is settled it will continue to confuse issues like whether or not mentioning the label in the lead is appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Yes it is a fringe position per list provided here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• No - because I believe the question is misframed. I think a more accurate description of the current state of affairs would be something like, "China says Falun Gong is a cult. Is it? Well, based on what we westerners can see, no." But I very much believe that the question as phrased is kind of putting the cart before the horse. The western academics have, in general, little if any knowledge regarding the subject, so they hven't yet made up their mind. I think a better summary of the current academic situation would be something like what I added in quotes above. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes -- and the question is perfectly sensible. There is a specific provision in wikipedia content guidelines for fringe theories. The sources I list above show clearly that it's a fringe theory. Just read about what a fringe theory is. It's not necessarily bad, it's just an objective assessment of the uptake of a particular theory in a field of study. John, what do you mean when you write "western academics have, in general, little if any knowledge regarding the subject, so they hven't yet made up their mind" ? There are dozens of scholars, China scholars, sociologists, and others, who have researched and written about Falun Gong. There's a list just above. The vast majority don't adopt cult discourse, and the majority also actually refute it and say it was a CCP propaganda label. I'm just repeating what's in the sources here. PelleSmith is right when he says we need to get clarity on this point, or it's going to keep coming up. So, everyone involved, please make your position clear and be prepared to defend it.--Asdfg12345 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are dozens of scholars at each of the thousands of universities in North America, as well. And only a very few, percentage-wise, have spoken on the subject. Therefore, it is my belief that this subject itself is one which is so generally not understood or spoken of that, in a sense, there hasn't been time for the academic community as a whole to come to any sort of conclusions. Obviously, they will follow the lead of most of those who say it isn't, but the fact that so many have to refute the theory rather explicitly is itself evidence that the belief that Falun Gong is a cult is still one which apparently has some weight. Very few of the sources on the life of Jesus go into any degree of detail regarding the numerous fringe theories about how he survived the crucifixion, so that clearly is a fringe belief. The fact that so many people, even within the last year or two, have to devote so much space to the cult question is, to my eyes, at least a form of backhanded evidence that the belief is still current enough to not qualify as "fringe". And I hope that I don't have to ask others to defend their behavior, as well as their statements, as well. I have read the page several times, and find it presumptuous that anyone would be so arrogant as to indicate that I had not. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • John there are dozens of scholars at each of the thousands of universities in North America and only a very few, percentage-wise, have spoken on virtually 99.999% of all subjects studied by other scholars. Pick anyone you want. That doesn't disqualify those who have spoken on the subject, among whom there are countless years of expertise in Chinese religion, in the study of NRMs, etc. etc. I continue to fail to understand your argument in this regard. The debate over the cult label seems to be one between mainstream scholarship and various non-scholarly perspectives. No evidence has been presented to the contrary and and within scholarship the criteria you have referred to regarding what may or may not be considered a cult is actually a well established fringe position.PelleSmith (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• No The status of the FLG is contentious and I don't think that the academic community, let alone the public, is of one mind on the issue.Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But do you agree that the majority of academics do not use the label or refute it? And, do you agree that in our lists above, there are only two academics who uphold it, and many more that explicitly refute it?--Asdfg12345 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The question is not conducive to improving the article. Currently that section of the article merely states that most social scientists reject brainwashing theories, and that they apply this avoidance of "cult" to almost all NRMs that have cult-like character. In mainstream scholarship, scientology is also not a "cult", branch dravidians is also not a "cult", and mormonism and JW are most certainly not "cults". If we apply this purely academic definition, then FLG is not a "cult" either. But the debate over the controversial nature of each of these groups most certainly exists, and currently we seem to be narrowing in on the word "cult" and have become overtly obsessed with discussing its inclusion, when we can better spend our time discussing the points of contentions and controversies in general, which immensely lack the due weight it deserves in the article. In any case, the current treatment of the "cult" issue is, in my view, the best we ever had. It does not in any way define Falun Gong as a cult, but merely clarifies who has what views. Colipon+(Talk) 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Judging from the warring over the use of 'New religious movements', we are headed for another round of fruitless discussion there after people tire of this "c-word" one. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius and Colipon, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you simply do not want to engage in a straightforward discussion about whether the cult label is a fringe theory with regard to Falun Gong or not. If you did, you would have said whether you think it is or think it isn't a fringe theory, and would have given your views. Instead, the question is being delayed and obfuscated. It's just a very, very basic question, and it's all about how things are presented on the pages, and things need to be presented according to the mainstream sources. The reason for proposing this question is to make sure we have a consensus on what mainstream scholarship says about Falun Gong, which is a requirement of wikipedia policies. At the moment, the article doesnt' reflect what the mainstream says. The purpose here is to reach a consensus on it. If you are refusing to answer, I find that highly problematic. I reiterate: Is the view that "Falun Gong is a cult" a fringe theory in the academic literature on the subject or not? It's very simple. I've compiled a list of sources above.--Asdfg12345 16:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• No - There is not enough academic study in terms of time, scope, or diversity to qualify any single idea to be labeled as fringe. The above list of sources conclude that there is a minority opinion that it is a 'cult' by whatever definition. But 1 in 3 is a minority too. Fringe delimits the far bounds of sloping landscape. When your landscape consists of only 15 relevant sources, what's the body when you start designating fringes? Consider using a less extreme word. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." -- it's not just the 15 sources listed, we could dig up another dozen or so, maybe. But that doesn't particularly matter. The scholarship on Falun Gong isn't huge to begin with. The point is that among the existing scholarship, how does this theory stand? And above, we have a really clear picture of it. Two sources out of 15, right? It's not about using extreme language. This is the language that wikipedia uses. Fringe theories are a specific provision within wikipedia. I'll make a noticeboard thing about this.--Asdfg12345 14:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• @Bedbug: Regarding: "There is not enough academic study in terms of time, scope, or diversity to qualify any single idea to be labeled as fringe" => there are 24 sources presented above (you did not mention which one is not relevant), of which only one (Singer) is using the term cult to characterize Falun Gong, Kavan does not use the term cult. The other one that comes close, say that it is not a cult, only he perceive that it has cult-like characteristic (which a chess club might also have if you ask me). Also Singer in her later years, was discredited by the academia, because she is the one who encouraged forced methods (against the person's free will) in the "deprogramming" method. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, technically, because the scholarly community wouldn't use words like "cult" the way China does. But I think we should focus on concrete changes to the article. Who's with me? Dan (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement regarding dropping the discussion regarding whether the term in this context is a fringe theory or not. It is hard for some of us not to come to the conclusion that using the specific term relevant to WP:FRINGE might not be either now or in the future an attempt to perhaps alter content on the basis of that guideline, rather than through a more direct discussion of the content itself. Regarding the use of the word "cult" in the article, other policies and guidelines, in addition to WP:FRINGE, could be seen as reasonably applying as well. Regarding the point about Chinese usage as opposed to Western usage of "cult", the same can very definitely be said about the word "religion" as well. In fact, Ownby points out as I remember that one of the reasons the Chinese do not use that word to describe native religious movements is because the Chinese word for "religion" is a loan word from Japan first brought into the language in I think the 18th or 19th century because, at least in part, they needed a term to describe the "big 5". I'm doing other things today, but will try to find the sourcing for that and maybe we can see to it that such material is added to the Religion in China page, where I think it definitely belongs. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dan as well, but then again this discussion would never have taken place should people have come to answer as honestly has he has. The notion that we can't be completely upfront for fear that doing so may empower the POV pushers in future endeavors is entirely the wrong way to go about things. Entirely too much is made of this "cult debate" in the first place and it in fact obscures the critical perspectives out there from respected scholars. I will say this one last time to those out there who actually believe that "cult" is a meaningful category of religious groups. It is not. When you refuse to move beyond this you simply drag any legitimate critical perspectives on the group in question through the proverbial mud. If you ask me it was a mistake for Kavan to bring that anti-cult "cult" definition into her scholarship even if she barely suggests that Falun Gong may fit it. I find it ironic that those who want us to respect her work the most have highlighted one if its flaws so grossly. It is clearly a minor part of her work, and has little to do with the type of analysis that fits within her area of expertise. Why not focus your efforts on what she does bring to the table as a scholar of communications instead.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it clean

A friendly reminder, the question above is: Is using the cult label to describe Falun Gong a fringe position in scholarship?

• @John: Since your question is: "China says Falun Gong is a cult. Is it?" could you please create for it another section? It would be more appropriate.
• @Asdf: Please answer the question yes or no. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• @John, is my assertion above wrong? Is there any reason why you don't want to move your question to it's appropriate section? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming entangled. Please create a section for each issue and in that section discuss that issue, otherwise in the end it will not be possible to evaluate what was answered and what was not and anybody can claim that the question was repeated ad nauseum. No honest editor should want this to happen again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not a vote, it is a simple question about how people perceive scholarly consensus to fall on the use of cult to describe the group. I see absolutely not legitimate reason not to answer yes or no, besides either not having enough information to answer the question (which ought not to be the case given the prior discussion) or affirmatively believing that there is no scholarly consensus. I also implore you all to simply get this over with so you can move on to more fruitful endeavors. Please also keep in mind that the inclusion of the clearly notable use of the label by entities outside of the academy is not in danger of being wikilayered out because of an affirmation of scholarly consensus. Accurately reflecting what sources say should be the simple solution to both problems.PelleSmith (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I personally think the FLG is a cult I don't think there is any scholarly consensus on the issue. Kavan says yea, Ownby nay, etc. ad nauseum. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you consciously say ad nauseum when the sources where listed multiple times. What scholar classifies them as a "cult" other than Kavan and Singer?PelleSmith (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly the most heavily studied subject in academia. So I'd say that even two major voices using the lable are sufficient to confirm that there is not a concensus in academia. You asked for my opinion, I gave it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: "So I'd say that even two major voices using the label are sufficient to confirm that there is not a concensus in academia." => Do you have a way to quantify what make a voice major here? Or is that just a personal opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't yet seen a real definition of the word cult which is uniformly agreed upon, which I would think kind of required to decide whether any group qualifies as one or not, my impression is that it probably isn't a negative impact on its practicioners, which is I think one of the factors in determining "cult"-status. It does seemingly take an unusual amount of time on a daily basis, and that can and today often does raise eyebrows, and its members do, like those of many other newer religions, display an almost slavish adherence to the words of its leader. That doesn't help public perception either. So, while many of its members are often what others would call extreme in their related activities, I think that's probably more about the individuals themselves, rather than of the system they follow. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking anyone to decide themselves, that would be a WP:NOR violation. I am asking about scholarly consensus. I'm not sure why people are avoiding answering this question. Regarding your comment, there was a more uniform definition of cult within sociology and there now is a uniform understanding by sociologists of what anti-cultists refer to when they use the term. The problem is that today "cult" is rarely used as a meaningful term by scholars of any stripe precisely because popular usage comes with various association which have little to no empirical basis. People here seem to think that "cult" is a meaningful classification for a group with various negative qualities and if they admit openly that scholars don't use this term to describe a certain group then somehow the group can claim to have vindicated itself from any activity it engages in that could be considered negative. This is simply not true. It has already been pointed out that scholars like Ownby are fully capable of taking a critical perspective despite not using this term. So what's the problem here? Are we all that hard up on using this term despite the fact that experts consider it useless?PelleSmith (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry for misreading earlier. I guess the answer to that would be how much weight to give the various Chinese officials who have described it as a "cult". My guess is that, in the west, including academics, it is perceived primarily as a fringey new religion, but not necessarily as a cult. The question then becomes how much weight to give the allegations out of China regarding its effect there. One of the points in defining a cult is unquestioning regard for the words and actions of its leader, and certainly Falun Gong members seem to follow Li almost to the letter, according to what I read in Ownby, anyway. I think the defining characteristic of the term when it is used in a perjorative sense is whether being an adherent of the school is damaging to the individual. There are numerous allegations in China of such damage, generally put out by the government there. The devotion its adherents give it could be seen as being indicative of that as well. So, I guess, from what little I've seen, the people in the west apparently think it possesses some of the characteristics we associate with "cults", but not demonstrably to the degree that would justify use of that word. Most other religions fall in the same general grouping as well. I think the west also tends to discount the statements out of China in general, which I think throws out most of that data. So, probably, a group with uniformly highly devoted members, yes, a cult, no. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John I think you are not fair regarding "One of the points in defining a cult is unquestioning regard for the words and actions of its leader, and certainly Falun Gong members seem to follow Li almost to the letter, according to what I read in Ownby ... The devotion its adherents give it could be seen as being indicative of that as well." simply because if we were to generalize this broadly, we could just as well start to argue that we are cult members just because we spend over 2h almost daily on Wikipedia, and speculate that the editors must have an irregular family life, back problems, eye problems, etc...

Why would anyone in his right mind want to start speculation like that? For one we are not forced to edit Wikipedia, the same is true for the people who practice, we find it meaningful to edit here, so do they.

The Chinese governments label as a cult is not based on any science, cases of practitioners who died of illness is not correlated with the general illness factor in the country. This is something very normal when the label is used just as a propaganda tool. Based on that I would accord near zero academic value to what the PRC says. Of course, I might have a POV, but if you have better reasoning on why the PRC's label should be given more academic value, please state it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the cult page, where extreme devotion to the words or actions of a leader is in fact listed as being one of the characteristics of cults, in the "According to secular opposition" section. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read it again. To be a cult is way more complex then that. To quote completely your source: "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." The point is that to be a cult it has to be coercive. Do you agree? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also thank you for answering the question, now I guess this discussion is for the sake of broadening our understanding. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You did see where I said at the end that it seems that it probably doesn't meet the definition of "cult", but that it possesses several of the characteristics of them, right? Most religions do possess several of those characteristics, but aren't cults. Personally, I think given the comparative newness of this group, and its circumstances, it is probably not unreasonable for an uninformed person to raise the question of whether it is or is not a cult, but that the evidence available doesn't support particularly well the contention that it is a cult. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John the specific issue at hand regards a scientific or expert consensus which is unrelated to 1) how you or any other editor may classify the group based upon matching up qualities of the group with a criteria for "cult" you have accepted or 2) whether or not Falun Gong is considered a "cult" in Western mass culture. The former is clearly OR and the latter is wholly besides the point if we are trying to figure out what is mainstream in expert discourses and not popular ones. It seems like you are saying that based upon your perception that Western scholars don't know enough about Falun Gong you are willing to dismiss the perspectives they do have. That sounds rather anti-intellectual and against the grain of WP:V and WP:RS regarding expert sources. Within academic discourses there are mainstream perspectives and there are fringe perspectives (and much more rarely there are even disputes). There is no justification for dismissing expertise in this area of scholarship based upon our own perceptions. Also FYI, in the "cult" entry "secular opposition" is a less clear way of saying Anti-cult movement. We should not use the criteria of the anti-cult movement to determine whether or not a group is a "cult". This should have been obvious from the section title which has the word "opposition" in it. This would be akin to taking a criteria for what constitutes "science" from the Discovery Institute.PelleSmith (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may sound like that to you. However, having read the work of Ownby, who spent a good deal of time in China investigating it, I have to say that, however good his opinion is, it is based on a rather small, although probably scientific, study of a comparative few individuals he could find. I think he's right, in saying it isn't a cult, but scientific sampling can be wrong, as we all found out after the 2004 US Presidential election, which so many studies indicated Bush would lose.

And, ultimately, although I personally do discount most of the effort, it is extremely hard for me at least to say that the one body which has had the opportunity and interest to study the matter, the people of China, primarily active with the government, are themselves, basically, wrong. Even Ownby acknowledges that many of the claims made by the Chinese government regarding old people who refused medical treatment because they thought Falun Gong would heal them read as realistic. And, of course, no outsiders have had the opportunity to really study the matter, so in those cases the Chinese government's claims are all we can work with. If true, that would put Falun Gong, somewhat, on basically the same footing as Christian Science. Is that a cult? I think that depends, also, upon who you ask. Experts at fundamentalist Christian universities will define Christian Science as a cult, some others might not. So, basically, on a term which has no definition set in stone, like "cult", there is not only the matter of whether Falun Gong is a "cult" but also the matter as to what a "cult" is.

There is another matter, which Ownby acknowledges, I think (believe it or not, I don't have the book with me today), which is itself, according to him, something that, basically, outsiders will have trouble addressing. This is a touchy issue, but probably a relevant one. Having given some study to the matter myself over time, which is inadmissable I know, something that often plays a role in people engaging in "cult"-like behavior is lack of what we call formal education. This isn't explicitly included that I can see in the cult article, although it is somewhat implicit in points 2 and 5 in the "in psychology" section of that article. Ownby surveyed many western adherents, and found their education and economic opportunities high, even compared to other westerners. He also acknowledges that the same probably doesn't hold true in China, but this also hasn't really been studied by any outsiders, so their opinions are just that. However, people with little knowledge of the broader world, which is a cult characteristic, are more likely to act in accord with the beliefs of the group they know whether that is to their apparent benefit or not, and it could reasonably be argued that some of the observable activities of Falun Gong adherents in China indicates it may be true of many of them.

So far as I can tell, the purpose of asking this question is basically to determine if WP:FRINGE applies here. To an extent, I agree it should, at least the part that says theories should be described "with representation in proportion to their prominence", and there is every evidence that the opinion of the Chinese government is a very prominent one. However, I personally believe that there is a very real chance, given the previous behavior of several individuals regarding this content over the years, that formally declaring it a fringe theory will result in individuals trying to minimize the amount of content relative to the Chinese government, or spinning it out to some other article, and I believe that would be inappropriate. You could say that violates AGF, but I find it reasonable to not necessarily assume good faith of all individuals involved in a topic that ArbCom has placed under sanctions. And, yes, I have to say that, even according to the most recent scholarly book on the subject, much of the information which would be required to make a reasonably accurate determination of Falun Gong's status as a cult within China itself is unavailable to outsiders. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John I am at a loss to understand what the reliability of election polling in the United Sates has to do with determining what the mainstream scholarly position on classifying Falun Gong is. The latter issue has nothing to do with scientific sampling -- a literature review perhaps, but that is rather different. Your main argument above seems to be that the truth about Falun Gong's status as a "cult" has not been fully ascertained, so therefore we cannot trust our current standards of verifiability. This is completely contra to standard Wikipedia policy and practice. In determining scientific consensus go by what peer reviewed journals and academic presses publish on various topics, and in this case doing so clearly supports the notion that classifying the group as a "cult" (for WHATEVER REASON) is a minority position. Counter arguments I am hearing from you amount to 1) your own value judgment about the state of scholarship on Falun Gong and 2) your own original research in taking qualities of the group and matching them with qualities associated with "cults" in popular and anti-cult definitions of the term. Neither are appropriate, and the latter would be original research even if the definition of cult you were working with was itself mainstream (but it isn't even that). Of course I can't blame you for failing to grasp what type of definition you seem to be working from since you're using sections of the "cult" entry which are still highly misleading in their presentation of fringe materials. The Chinese government's opinion of a socio-political adversary is not "prominent" in any meaningful way related to this discussion (which is about scholarship and not politicized rhetoric), nor is their opinion to be considered any more reliable than Falun Gong's opinion of them. This does not mean excluding the Chinese government's opinion, but treating it within the proper context and with due weight. Lastly I can't care less if someone fails to assume good faith of a group of editors who are more often than not disruptive POV pushers, but when doing so leads to blind push back and the failure to recognize accurate information for what it is then one becomes a walking example of why things like WP:AGF and focusing on content instead of the behavior of editors aren't simply about being nice to people but serve a practical purpose in maintaining the quality of this project.PelleSmith (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Christian Science example is a bit off the mark since I'm unaware of "experts" at Christian universities who call Christian science a "cult". In order for these individuals to be meaningfully considered experts in relation this issue they would have to be scholars of religions movements of some kind. Are you honestly telling me that you can show me peer reviewed work by such experts which does what you claim? I'm sure I can find "experts" in the physics department of MIT who consider the Catholic Church a cult as well. Again ... mainstream scholarship is determined by reliable publications which themselves more or less regulate expertise.PelleSmith (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you do seem to discount all the material published by the academic presses of China over the years regarding this matter. I don't. In fact, I would contend that probably constitutes the bulk of the academic research on the topic. What you are saying is that the western academic press takes priority, and I cannot see how that is the case. By your own statements, unless those reports are specifically refuted by outside sources, who are generally seen as more reliable, I agree, then there isn't any reason to discount them, as seems to be the impression here. Also, I note that you ignored the final point. I reiterate, I cannot see how having this discussion, at this time, really is of any positive benefit. And I have not seen how it is even directly relevant to any other discussions taking place. Therefore, with no prejudice, I will decline any further participation in what seems to me to be a discussion which has no particular benefit to be gained from it, given the vagueness and lack of apparent relevance to any particularly current discussions. If I can see through later discussions some specific reasons to believe that this discussion is even remotely relevant to any particular points regarding this article, maybe that would change. However, at this point, I have to say I have seen no real reasonable reason put forward for why it is even taking place. Without some specific indications of real relevance to any other issues, I have to say any further discussion on this topic is probably both moot and, in so far as it focuses attention away from other matters, probably at least somewhat counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

John, the whole discussion was about whether or not we should classify the cult label of Falun Gong a fringe theory. You led the discussion off course then PelleSmith tried to respond and explain things. Then you abandoned it altogether, still without properly answering the question. About Chinese scholars: everyone editing these pages shoudl know that the CCP controls all public discourse in China, and everything in the media and scholarship in China since 1999 has received the Party stamp of approval.--Asdfg12345 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy and John, this discussion seems irrelevant. Let's get clear on what the consensus in scholarship is. At the moment it's looking very much like the cult label is a fringe theory. Any problem there?--Asdfg12345 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that getting answer is the priority, however John already did answer in the section above and this section was made for discussions. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg, with all due respect, may I ask how you came to the conclusion that 'it's looking very much like the cult label is a fringe theory'. I believe the above response rests 3 'yes's and 3 'no's. Thanks Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the number of sources, what they say, policy, and good old common sense. When you say it's black though, some people will just say "white." Even when it's staring at you in the face. Let's bring this to a wider audience.--Asdfg12345 15:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Scholars from China

Hi John, a few questions:

1. Who are the scholars from China? Can you list them?
2. When did they wrote their studies regarding the cultishness of Falun Gong? As far as I know this term was ordered by Jiang Zemin, so if there are such works they are after 1999.
3. Should studies that happened after the official ban implemented be used? If a work is made after it is like using a work from Hitler's time on why Jews are subhuman, right?

--HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy, the date makes no difference regarding the Chinese sources unless you have reliable sources that say so. On the other hand I am also curious about the Chinese sources. Why have they not been listed or used to this point? John can you list these sources please.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Pelle, would you have any doubt that if such material is found then it isn't just a propaganda piece to slander Falun Gong? Thus I am questioning on how could study that is not verifiable be reliable? I welcome such sources, per what I asked above, still I have the assumption that if those are from PRC, then there is no way that those could be some sources that where somehow verified independently. Also as I know, there are lots of sources praising Falun Gong even just before July 20, 1999. Not sure how many of those are still online though. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. However, I believe that, in general, we give the greatest "respect" as it were to the leading expert in the field. There is one individual who was chosen to write the article in the Encyclopedia of Religion regarding Falun Gong, who also discusses in his book how he became a bit of a celebrity in Falun Gong circles, has been repeatedly asked to appear on North American media to discuss the subject, and even makes jokes about being allegedly the leading authority on the subject but his dean still won't return his phone calls. All this before his book on the subject came out, as it is included in his book. That man is David Ownby, who is the individual I indicated treats some of these studies with respect. It should also be noted that, on page viii of his book, and I quote, "[T]his book is not a judgment as to whether Falun Gong should be seen as a cult; instead, one might take the book as a demonstration that this is not the right question to ask." Now, I also acknowledge, much to my chagrin, that he doesn't include any reference to himself in the index, so I will have to go through the book to find the pages pretty much page by page. Before I potentially waste my time doing that, however, I want a solid, direct, answer from the rest of you regarding something. If and when I do find the pages which contain the material you reference, will it be taken as what it, to all intents and purposes is, the statement of opinion on at least one of, if not the, leading authority in the west on the topic, or will I see further attempts to dismiss the information? I ask because I do have other things to do as well, and do not wish to devote too much time to a matter which might well face what seems to me questionable argumentation. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As scholarly research goes, as far as I know he did exactly that, so he must qualify, right? Thus I have no problem with Ownby as a source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has a problem with Ownby as a source. The problem is with attempts to make him the only source. Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any attempt to use him as the only source. Can you point out any instances of such? Please note User:John Carter/Falun Gong articles, which lists most of the other articles I have regarding this subject in my email account (it's not done yet). Anyone is free to send me an e-mail to request any of them, and I encourage them to do so. However, the fact that I have repeatedly cited that source, because I in fact have his book, does not mean that others are not free to cite other sources as well. I do not hold myself responsible for providing all the sourcing for these articles, even though I will try to access and read all those which time and circumstances permit in relatively short order, given other constraints. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only have there been attempts to make him the only source, there have been attempts aplenty to cherrypick only the most praiseworthy of what he wrote about FLG. Because I do not have access to his works, and such was the cherry-picking, I always thought until recently Ownby was a 'fully paid-up member'. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are Chinese academics critical of FLG long before the ban, such as Sima Nan and He Zuoxiu.--PCPP (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)