Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Towards a general tidy up

Amidst all the action recently I thought it would be a good idea to do a general tidy up. I don't want to create any disputes about points of view in this, but basically just consolidate, organize, and build slightly on what is already present. This includes combining redundant statements etc. I have just done so for the lead and teachings section. I will do it in chunks. Homunculus (duihua) 06:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you still working on this? I think you forgot to remove the InUse tag. Anyway, I am going to follow up on those changes (which seem pretty good). —Zujine|talk 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My changes are basically along the same lines. I took note of the remarks above, and found the things referred to in David Ownby's study. I do not think I want to get too much into the polarising dispute on He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan, but David Ownby's reflections on the Falungong's protests, and some of the backgrounds of the publications in question, are all worthy of mention, in my view.

I noted that the hagiographic Li biography was withdrawn from circulation, (presumably as a Falungong PR image thing).

I changed the subheading from 'Skeptics and critics emerge' to 'criticism and response' because firstly, I think that more accurately reflects the nature of the content in that section, and secondly, after having read most of this talk page, it seems that the other criticism of Falungong, such as from the Buddhist community and Sima Nan, was not particularly notable during this time. And neither was it related to the protests that precipitated the state's draconian response, which is the real main thread that should be articulated in this portion of this article. So it seems to make more sense to name this subsection based on the information it contains.

I also rearranged the introduction to Li Hongzhi and his doctrine slightly, and included some more context about his religious biography.

I have just compared the diffs now, and I think that's about it. —Zujine|talk 07:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell these all look like improvements. The controversies section still lacks thematic structure though, and so does the categorisation section. And 'Public debate' really needs more attention. But I agree that the above are all improvements. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article look great! Colipon+(Talk) 22:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Added images, and minor sundry

I made a few changes, including adding some images and recasting the part about controversies on the basis of the discussion at the teachings of Falungong page. If there's anything remiss, please note. There are more controversies than what is listed there - something that will need to be improved on later. —Zujine|talk 15:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the issue of the Falungong being blocked from entering parades, pointed out by another contributor on the teachings discussion page, is one missing controversy. —Zujine|talk 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Great work. There are surely more controversies, but it's often a matter of which are notable and which aren't. It's been suggested that consulting scholarly works is a good idea for establishing notability--something I'd agree with. --Asdfg12345 15:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image, I hope that is okay. The references were broken, ostensibly taken from the archives of another article. These references need to be checked, because some users have raised the issue that the majority of these images link directly to Falun Gong primary sources that have little credibility. I am not saying that this particular image of Gao Rongrong belongs to a Falun Gong primary source, but a potentially controversial image must be checked thoroughly. Colipon+(Talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the enthusiasm for good sourcing, I hadn't noticed that the citations were done improperly. I have properly cited it to the Amnesty 2006 Annual report, which has this to say:

"Gao Rongrong, a Falun Gong practitioner, died in custody in June after being detained in Longshan Reeducation through Labour facility in Shenyang, Liaoning province. Officials had reportedly beaten her in 2004, including by using electro-shock batons on her face and neck, which caused severe blistering and eyesight problems, after she was discovered reading Falun Gong materials in the facility."

The image I will use comes from Faluninfo.net, which is indeed a primary source. It's natural that, of course, images of Falungong practitioners who have been tortured will come from Falungong sources. Her practitioner colleagues would presumably be the only ones with the means to sneak into a hospital and photograph her condition. I do not see this as a problem - you may have to elaborate on that.

The other source comes from Youtube videos which, while not much of a reputable source at all, serves in this case only as one piece of the corroborative evidence. The persecution itself, and treatment of Falungong is well documented, so we do not rely on Youtube or Faluninfo for that - merely instances of what has already been widely documented. Please clearly state any problems, and consider waiting until other editors have given their opinion before removing the image again. —Zujine|talk 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I want you to know that I hate to edit war. Thus unless I was reasonably sure that the image should not be on the article be it for sourcing or any other policy reasons, I would not have removed it. You may, if you wish, bring this issue to any noticeboard of your choice to gather some opinions. These noticeboards never provided much useful feedback, but it's worth a try. Or if you are confident of your own reasons of putting the image there, just re-insert it. I will not revert it. All Falun Gong sources amount to Self-published sources, whose use should be limited to describing the position of Falun Gong, not to describe any facts. The same applies for Chinese government documents - they represent the Chinese gov't, not the hard facts. We know that there is a propaganda war going on between the two sides, thus it is reasonable to dig deeply on any issue (such as organ harvesting) before we can reasonably conclude that their inclusion is warranted. Using Falun Gong sources to describe the ill-treatment of its practitioners is basically equivalent to using Chinese government sources to describe why Falun Gong is a cult. Both groups have an inherent agenda. Colipon+(Talk) 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case the content of the image is verified by at least Amnesty International, so I think it should be fine. —Zujine|talk 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the Amnesty Report. It does make mention of Gao Rongrong, but no pictures. I wanted to ask a few questions. Which third-party source actually verifies that the picture of Gao Rongrong on Faluninfo.net is actually a picture of the same Gao that appeared on the Amnesty Report? All Amnesty says conclusively is that Gao died in custody. When discussing torture, Amnesty only says that she was "reportedly beaten". Let's assume this is true. Where are these 'reports'? Do they come from Falun Gong websites, or do they come from recognized news organizations? And the YouTube video, well, that's just not considered a reliable source. You can try to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you don't believe me. Colipon+(Talk) 00:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on Colipon. You're not serious are you? The Amnesty thing says she was beaten with electro-shock batons, and AI New Zealand used to have a Q&A with that horrifying picture featured; it's no longer available from what I can tell. Are you saying you don't think that picture is Gao Rongrong? Who else do you think is going to get this information out, as Zujine says, than Falun Gong practitioners? Where does Amnesty get its information? Of course, these are all first and second hand accounts, the vast majority from Falun Gong practitioners themselves. That's not the point though, the point is whether third parties like Amnesty and media organisations believe them and report on them. And they have obviously done both. Further, allow me to defend the work of Falun Gong groups. Ownby says in his preface, for example: "These violations have been exposed and condemned by such well-known human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by numerous Falun Gong organizations whose quite professional publications have been generally accepted as legitimate and trustworthy by these human rights organizations." and in the first page of the introduction that "The ensuing campaign of suppression has been reminiscent of the extremes of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). According to information compiled by Falun Gong—which is generally accepted as accurate by international human rights organizations— since 1999, more than 3,000 practitioners have died in police custody." So I don't think the reliability of Falun Gong sources is an issue here. We have an expert saying they are reliable, and considered reliable by other human rights groups. The photo is obviously genuine, it has been reported by third parties, and unfortunately I think you are trying to wikilawyer its exclusion because you don't like it. For you it's just "positive propaganda" for Falun Gong. What can one say to that? I applaud Zujine's forthright approach here. I hope he is not discouraged by the response. --Asdfg12345 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not reverting anything. I am certain that someone else will come onto this talk page and bring about other reasons for us to take the picture off. It's not just a WP:RS issue. It's also sensationalistic, given undue weight, and not given proper attribution. Since I am thoroughly tired of editing everything Falun Gong, I don't have much energy left to tell the community why the picture does not belong. I am confident the community will reach that decision sooner or later on its own. Colipon+(Talk) 02:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think it's sensationalistic? Again, I think that's just another argument for trying to exclude the image, but which, when you think about it, doesn't really make sense. Which picture of a Falun Gong torture victim would not be "sensationalistic"? Or should the pages be sanitised of all these unpleasant images because you think they are "senationalistic"? Take a look at the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse for example--we had better go and delete them, then, under this logic. Secondly, it's one image used to illustrate the torture meted out to Falun Gong practitioners. If there was a gallery on the page I would also think it inappropriate, but torture is a key part of the persecution, and having an image illustrating that seems quite legitimate. The other problem is that the source may not be reliable--it's attribution is clear, but there may be a complaint that it doesn't belong because it comes from a Falun Gong source. That's simple to respond to: basically any picture of a Falun Gong torture victim in China was taken by a Falun Gong practitioner or supporter, at great personal risk. I remember emailing Minghui to get them to release some of those images, and they refused, citing this. Those images belong to Falun Gong practitioners, they're the only people who could obtain them, and they are the source of these images. So... of course the image comes from a Falun Gong source. The real question is whether the case in question has been verified by third parties, and it has. The rest is just wikilawyering, and a continuation of the strategy of playing down the persecution. I wrote my thoughts about that elsewhere. Suffice to say, I'm not a fan. --Asdfg12345 03:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it's normal to have a photo of the abuse documented in the article. I think it's also normal that such images would come from Falungong groups. If third parties have somehow got these images, we could use them, but Asdfg's remarks about Falungong being the only ones able to obtain such imagery seem to make sense. I don't see the problem. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

At the same time, Falun Gong is known to exaggerate and sensationalize "evidence" as part of its 'counter-propaganda' against the Chinese state. As such we must be extremely careful in using any image whose ultimate source is Falun Gong groups - they are not verifiable. The Epoch Times and other Falun Gong media have been subject to controversy in recent years for using images that are not actually related to the subjects that they describe. Colipon+(Talk) 23:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, the case in question has been verified by a third party, so I do not know what you mean when you say "they are not verifiable". You also didn't respond to the issues other editors raised. I definitely do not want to take sides in the age-old pro/anti-Falungong battle, but one must wonder whether your remarks are motivated by a genuine concern that the article be scrupulously verifiable. —Zujine|talk 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All the YouTube videos on this issue seem to ultimately source itself to a Falun Gong website. Amnesty has only ever said one small paragraph about the issue - even they are reluctant to present it as fact - "Gao Rongrong, a Falun Gong practitioner, reportedly died in custody in June 2005." (Emphasis mine). Amnesty does not verify the authenticity of the pictures, even if you argue that they verify Gao's case. I myself do not doubt that this is a case of Falun Gong-related torture. But when you put an image up like that, it needs to be readily verifiable to a third party. Just look at these search results - all belong to Falun Gong sites. Colipon+(Talk) 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is no dispute that the image is authentic, and we acknowledge that the case has been verified by a third party, then what is the problem? As pointed out above, I believe the demand for a third-party image in this case amounts to a demand for no images. Who else would have this kind of image except a Falungong group? I think a dose of common sense and perhaps wp:iar would be appropriate here. We know the image is genuine, so what need is there for raising technical disputes like this? Isn't this a similar tactic to what Falungong editors are accused of? Do not get me wrong: if there was a legitimate concern that this image was not kosher, that should be raised. Or perhaps you could seek wider community involvement. These are just my views. —Zujine|talk 04:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a sensible perspective. If there is still a problem, maybe try looking at the Beyond the Red Wall documentary (you should be able to find it online). From what I recall, there are images of a practitioner who had his legs burnt. Editors can pick what they prefer: Gao Rongrong's disfigured face, or a guy whose legs were burnt with an iron rod. Either way it shows the despicable nature of the persecution. --Asdfg12345 06:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up an old discussion (Luo Gan)

It is a curious fact of these Falun Gong pages that many issues come up again, long after they were first discussed. Sometimes this is for legitimate reasons, sometimes for illegitimate ones. I believe what I present here is firmly within the former category. The issue is whether the alternative narrative of the lead-up to the Falun Gong persecution should be included on the page or not. The standard narrative is that April 25 lead directly to the persecution, as an action-response dynamic. The alternative narrative is that the persecution was already coming, and April 25 was either part of the overall scheme from inside the upper echelons of CCP leadership, or just another thing that happened on the way, possibly speeding the whole thing up. This alternative narrative is probably most clearly articulated in Gutmann (supportive of it) and Palmer (does not seem to believe it), and parts of it hinted at in Ching, Porter, Zhao (kinda). Part of this alternative narrative is actually already in the article currently, too--about how Zhongnanhai may have been orchestrated. Another part that has been the most hotly disputed, for continually unclear reasons (see the first dispute here, second here) is how He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan are brother-in-law. In saying this, I do not actually suggest much change at all to the article. Merely the note that they are brothers-in-law, and a clarification, of probably one or two sentences, that this alternative reading exists. The great difficulty in this debate has been obtaining a clear explanation for why the brother-in-law connection does not belong; first it was said that the sources were poor, something I recently sought a third opinion on; other "explanations" for why it shouldn't be included attacked me and my motives.

And just to allay the fears that I'm rehashing something that has already been totally debunked, let me just comment on the last two responses to when I brought this up.

• The first is here. The only disputes presented here, not including the run-around I was given, are that the sources are bad (proposed by Colipon, supported by Enric Naval), and that when sources discuss the brother-in-law connection, they do not explain how that connection was significant (Ohconfucius).
• In the second one, it was said that the inclusion "still presents no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters" (proposed by Colipon after Ohconfucius, tacitly supported by Enric Naval and Simonm223)

It may be worth noting that the vast majority of those two discussions are lamentably unrelated to the actual dispute. Anyway, by the second dispute the sourcing was no longer presumed problematic. The RS post linked above also probably puts that to rest. The only other contention is that the sources "present no evidence that He and Luo did what they did because they are married to each other's sisters."

My response to this is that it's quite irrelevant whether the sources which mention the connection between the two men do not present evidence that they did what they did because they were married to each others sisters. That is a very obscure point of contention: that the sources do not explain why Luo and He did what they did because of their familial connection wouldn't make sense at all, because who on earth would orchestrate a persecution merely "because" you are brother-in-law with someone. In any case, my response is that it doesn't matter that the sources are not precise on how or why Luo and He planned their activities, merely that a number of sources note the connection and draw attention to its possible significance. Their familial connection implies that they knew about each other's activities, and it implies that their activities were coordinated. It would be original research to include a direct statement of that order, but this is the implication given by Gutmann, Porter, and to some extent Zhao. I will copy, again, what they have each written on this:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

It may also be worth noting that the individual who responded to my recent notice on the RS board said: "...I'm no expert in the controversy being written about, but a brother-in-law is pretty much immediate family, and if they are involved in the same political matters it's pretty hard to deem that as unencyclopedic. I mean, if this were a biography of a musician, whose brother in law was in the record business, we would certainly mention that in the article."

Right now I do not propose any specific way this information should be included. But I propose that 1) The He-Luo connection is obviously notable and has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources. 2) The reason that has been given for keeping it out so far doesn't make sense. 3) I believe this article should briefly include the fact that they are brothers-in-law.

Further, missing also are notes that make more clear the role of the state in the lead-up to the persecution (such as Ownby's statement that Beijing TV is an official mouthpiece, which was repeatedly deleted also with no good reason), that Falun Gong practitioners were responding to what they considered to be the start of a political campaign, and the general idea that there is a school of thought which considers the persecution premeditated. I expect that in total all this should not add more than 100 words to the article; maybe 50. And it would be sourced to top scholars, views which are so far conspicuously absent. Whatever the case, the Luo-He brother-in-law connection is perhaps the most outstanding issue. And I hope by now it's clear to Colipon that I'm not trying to game the system or bait him. I do not appreciate those remarks. --Asdfg12345 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point of contention. I would prefer to wait for further explanation about why the note about their relationship does not belong - getting 'the other side of the story', so to speak. From the above, however, it seems quite appropriate. But I could be persuaded otherwise. Homunculus (duihua) 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Prima facie I would also say it seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't trespass due weight. I don't think it's irrelevant that they were brothers-in-law. —Zujine|talk 06:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it sounds reasonable the way Asdfg12345 presents it - his side of the story. As Homunculus indicates, I am keen to know the problem with the inclusion from the other side. It would also be understandable if previous effective discussion was stymied by personal issues; in that case, if no one can point out what's wrong with the inclusion, it has my 'vote'. I notice Zujine already included some of the peripheral issues mentioned above. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Asdfg12345 presents a very good reasoning for the inclusion of this fact. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no causal link between the two suggested in any reputable sources. The selective few RS that talks about this issue has simply said that the relationship exists, none of them provide any substantial reason for anyone to believe that He Zuoxiu wrote his critical piece because of Luo Gan, nor does it suggest anywhere in reliable sources that the two ever 'collaborated'. This relationship is also notably absent from some of the more notable Falun Gong works, such as Ownby's Falun Gong and the Future of China. If it is so significant, as Asdfg claims, why doesn't Ownby mention it at all? He Zuoxiu is a scientist who has railed against, among other things, traditional Chinese medicine, supernaturalism, and all sorts of Qigong. Luo Gan works for state security, not the propaganda department, nor did he have any role, it seems before 6-10. Some sources contain a few speculative lines or two about this issue (such as Schechter), but no source can substantiate that this relationship had a causal effect on any events that took place. It's fine if we want to include this reference in either Luo or He's article, but inclusion of it here would be nothing more than a synthesis of the events - i.e., postulating that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan did what they did because they were brothers-in-law. Archive is here for previous discussion. All of this, in other words, is speculative, not substantive. I am not responding to Asdfg's essay because I have had terrible experiences in the past that has convinced me that this user is only on this encyclopedia to edit in favour of Falun Gong, and is currently banned for 6 months on these articles for doing just that. If other editors agree with him, that's fine with me, but to me, this is just more 'balancing the POV' tactics to make the article more favourable towards Falun Gong. Judge for yourselves. Colipon+(Talk) 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add on to what I said above, there also seems to be no Chinese language source that actually confirms that He and Luo are even related to begin with (although I am happy to be proven wrong on this). The only sources I can find that discusses this relationship at all appear on Falun Gong websites - such as this one. This is not to mention that I can't even find the reference on Chinese Falun Gong websites that they are actually brothers-in-law - they only charge that He and Luo "collaborated" on the BTV incident, which has also never been verified. Colipon+(Talk) 22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Asdfg12345 show above that there are reputable sources discussing the case? As I see it, the sources that mention their relationship intend to highlight the fact that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan may have well been aware of each other's actions, thoughts and plans in regards to the Falun Gong issue. This has nothing to do with an original synthesis, as long as we don't assert a causal relationship. Postulating that He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan did what they did because of their family ties is different from disclosing their intimate connection in general terms. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• After reading Colipon's note, I have two concerns. One is whether this would be continuing to push an agenda that Asdfg12345 was banned for; the other is, while it may not wander into direct synthesis, of stating that their relationship influenced their behaviour in the Falungong case, doesn't it certainly imply that? And might not that aspersion be a kind of original synthesis? Those are two objections in my mind. Homunculus (duihua) 03:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to suggest that my arguments are invalid because Colipon accuses me of pushing an agenda. Colipon himself believes Falun Gong is an illegitimate belief system, and is dedicated to giving it an unfavourable portrayal on wiki. He has done so for as long as he has edited the pages. He is unapologetically opposed to Falun Gong, in both his speech and editing. So I think the various claims should be assessed on their own merits, and not be implicated in these ad-hominem struggles. I mentioned that fact about Colipon because newcomers to this may not realise that he is not a neutral knight in shining armor, but a partisan editor with a clear agenda. I say no more on this. Aside from the agenda claims, the only issue is whether including this would be a kind of original synthesis. I do not see how. Homunculus, you are right that including the information certainly implies that they were aware of each other's conduct. But that is precisely what the sources do, with Porter even stating that more directly. We are not saying that here. If we said it, it would be OR. Just mentioning it, as it has been shown several sources do, is quite legitimate. This is just narrating the debate more or less as the literature has done. It is clearly part of one narrative of the lead-up to the persecution. And forgive my skepticism with Colipon's appeals to Chinese media. I feel confident that if he had found Chinese Falun Gong websites trumpeting that claim, his argument would have been that I only want it included because it's part of the "Falun Gong line." Since Chinese Falun Gong websites don't mention it explicitly, the argument is instead that it's probably not true. The point is that mentioning their connection is different from making some claim about that. --Asdfg12345 06:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the difference you are making between directly stating something and allowing an implication to stand, as it does in reliable sources. It seems logical. If that is a legitimate interpretation of policy, then I don't see a problem with the inclusion. Homunculus (duihua) 14:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could Colipon also explain why he changed 'symbolic violence' (an accurate term and the one used by the source), and removed the BTV-propaganda remark? There was a good source for that. I am interested to know. —Zujine|talk 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

'Symbolic violence' sounds like a new-fangled term popular among academicians. The point is that these groups were attacked/criticized in the media. Colipon's change gets that across fine. Homunculus (duihua) 06:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Response to these appeals has been mixed."

I have previously edited the above statement in "response outside China" to include what was stated in the citations. To me this statement alone is ambiguous and lacks the detail that this article should contain. It was reverted once by User:UncleBubba that :"The uncited additions really seem to violate WP:NPOV. Disagree? Let's discuss on Talk page.)" My response was: "It's not uncited and not againt NPO, it's precisely what is stated in the references following this statement." It has now been reverted by another user (User:Mrund) without any explanations. Can someone please explain why was this edit was continuously reverted? Sjschen (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "response has been mixed" is better, because it summarises both types of reception to Falungong activities. I think elaboration on how the Falungong and its practitioners' activities are received and interpreted would be good, but not in a crude way - either totally praising or condemning them. A group like this is bound to attract a range of responses. I think that should be represented with some awareness of the complexity of all the views, what is behind them, who holds them, etc. Adam Frank and Richard Madsen have written about that.

The bit you inserted was the opinion of a theatre critic in the Daily Telegraph, about one of the performances hosted by Falungong (right?). That doesn't mean that Falungong's activities are generally seen as propagandistic, or that that point of view should not be broadly summarised. Mainly it sounds like more of a label to me, which begs an explanation. I think we would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader, rather than giving them a convenient 'box' in which to place the subject. That would be my approach, to this and other subjects. Homunculus (duihua) 06:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. —Zujine|talk 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While what I have summarized from the cited articles is decidedly short, I would not say that it's "crude", or much less an attempt at labeling. To be fair, most of this article effectively "boxes" Falungong as being a solely religious organization under the persecution of the PROC, when it is much more than just that. Though I definitely agree that my addition "...would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader...", the same statement could be easily applied to the original pithy summary of the criticisms ("Response to these appeals has been mixed."). A fuller extent of the organization's activities outside of China and the response to it (be it positive or negative) needs to be plainly stated from the sources without the editors' zealous filtering. Sjschen (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is already a good discussion of Falungong practitioners' activities outside China, including how those activities and strategies have been interpreted. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the FLG activities outside China have been discussed, however I am not convinced that these discussion are done in a "good" way. Criticisms directed at FLG in this article seems to be nacred to the point of being imperceptible. Meanwhile the article has been edited to largely show FLG off as an organization of immaculate conduct and intentions which has been endlessly and brutally persecuted for its beliefs. Fact is the FLG is a complex and multifaceted religious and political organization that engages in a whole slew of activities, some prettier and some less so. As wikipedia, an articles on FLG should discuss all aspects of the organization without attempts to cover up the criticisms (or move them to sub-articles) while emphasizing only it sympathy inducing parts, or vice-versa.

Even if there is already a good discussion on a topic does not mean that a statement should be so diluted of content. To that, I can also argue that since good discussion on the history, system of belief, and the oppression experienced by the members of FLG already exists much of this article can be removed and condensed without much loss. At the end the fact is, I wrote one cited sentence. Unless you are championing a particular "side", I don't see why you would object to the inclusion of founded statements criticizing the organization... Sjschen (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I am the original writer of statement "Response to these appeals has been mixed." Although I do agree that this area of contention should be further expanded, I do not agree with your edit to "Falun Gong events have have been noted by some as been laden with propaganda or politically motivated." I am not going to agree or disagree with the general premise, but I intentionally made the statement to be as moderate as possible. Your statement without further expansion is incendiary and would have been the target of vehement pro-FLG edits. Hmm... (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see how my edit could have incited the wrath of certain editors and I assure you this was and still is not my intention. Nevertheless, as much as I do believe in being moderate, I believe that a statement can be made too moderate to the point that it loses its content (anything will have mixed "appeals"). From the articles cited, the journalists reported the opinions and reactions of individuals who have seen and know of the show. They also state more or less that the show pushes the agenda of the FLG through advertising itself as an event about Chinese culture, hence the p-words in my edit "propaganda" and "political(-ly motivated)". Yes, perhaps there are less incendiary way of stating this, but if one has credible citations to back their statement one has the responsibility to state them as such without dilution for the sake of being "moderate". Sjschen (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any responses? If not I'll proceed to edit this portion of the article in the next few days. -- Sjschen (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

laughably skewed article

Totally fails to mention that Western academics have repeatedly referred to Falun Gong as a cult; simply reading the titles of works on the subject of Falun Gong in the citations section reveals this fact. Why do they call it a cult? Because Falun Gong is a dictionary definition cult, whether you like it or not. You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.129.24 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it: why does the article make you sympathise with the government of communist china? --Asdfg12345 13:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list which Western academics you refer to? I understood that this was a 'fringe theory' (as previously argued by Asdfg12345). There was a list somewhere, but I don't have the time to pursue that now. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china.", marvelous, I might save that quote. Yes, better to give specific sources as examples. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This from the BBC in 1998 doesn't look very fringe "World: Asia-Pacific Falun Gong: A new cult emerges" Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "dictionary definition of cult" and that's the whole point. See any good dictionary gives you at least 3 totally different definitions of a cult ranging from ritual practices to a group with theist beliefs that aren't mainstream to an authoritarian and exploitative organization resorting to violence and forced labor. If you just say "cult" and then back it up with references of scholars that also used the term cult, then that's no good cause those scholars might have simply meant "a group with theist beliefs that aren't mainstream". So instead you should always use clear terms. Of course the Communist Party uses the term and means it in an extremely derogatory way. But it's made clear in the article that they mean it in such a derogatory way. Whereas in your BBC article for example it's not clear at all which of the definitions is meant and it's not even necessarily meant in a derogatory way at all. Actually the only time the BBC article says something negative about Falung Gong is when it quotes the Communist Party. --Hoerth (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoerth identifies the issue properly here. It should be obvious that a BBC article soon after the Zhongnanhai demonstration, mostly quoting official sources, is not nearly as authoritative as a decade of scholarship. Homunculus (duihua) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Suspected WP:NPOV violations?

The last edit of section "5.2 Controversies" (diff here) by Mangosour(Talk) appears--at least to me--to completely change the meaning of a couple of paragraphs. The change is significant enough that it seems likely the cited refs are no longer applicable. This seems to be a hot/controversial topic and, while I sure as heck don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR in my travels, neither am I willing to let POV-pushing or spin doctoring go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure, though, there is another editor or admin that will help me look at it. Thank you! UncleBubba (Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously a troll. —Zujine|talk 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added about five references to substantiate the point that the cult label is not part of mainstream scholarship. There are many more, I am sure. This is not a controversial point. —Zujine|talk 10:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This article still does not express total neutrality. There is pro-Falun Gong bias and not enough attention to the opposite point of view. 97.65.1.140 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Points of view should be presented in proportion to their representation in the most reliable sources. In light of this, are you able to substantiate your argument? What should there be more of? Homunculus (duihua) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide documentation for the assertion, after the link to the Rick Ross site, of the site being mainly communist part sources. Just saying that they are communist party sources is inflammatory and without documentation to back it up, it could legally be construed as slander. You need to delete this assertion or provide positive proof, cited correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.1.140 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

what's with the symbol

A big swastika is there symbol? I don't claim to understand the culture. But the Nazis reached pretty far during ww2. Is it just a coincidence? I think this deserves clarification. I guess it seems unfortunate from a public relations standpoint. Is it partly responsible for their persecution? 98.250.99.163 (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See swastika. Seeing the swastika as a Nazi symbol is a Western thing. I see swastika's very often in my part of the world on temples etc as do hundreds of millions of other people where it retains it's original symbolic meanings. As it says in the article "Swastikas can be found practically everywhere in Indian and Nepalese cities, on buses, buildings, auto-rickshaws, and clothing." and that is a pretty big understatement about their geographical distribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The extent that citations are needed

What is the extent to which things need to be cited? I can't help think that this[1] is a FLG practitioner's overly exacting demands for sources for things that are well known. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good if things can be cited properly. In other news, how is this part relevant to the history: During its anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign the Chinese authorities countered these claims, asserting that Li was merely a former army trumpet player and grain clerk at the Changchun Cereals Company, having plagiarised Falun Gong from existing qigong systems.-- this appears in the history of the practice section? Doesn't appear to be relevant here. I haven't removed it in case it's controversial. --Asdfg12345 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more points:

• Li made statements that activism to defend Falun Gong was an essential aspect of Dafa cultivation, and, according to David Palmer, adjunct professor of anthropology and religious studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, "would separate the false disciples from the true ones." -- The way this sentence is structure is misleading. Why quote a professor on what Li said, rather than quote Li directly? If we quote Li directly, it would show that he is not saying Falun Gong practitioners must become activists, lest they not be considered true disciples. He was saying that practitioners’ response to criticism showed something of their heart, but he was not saying that right thoughts needed to manifest as activism.
• Needs info on the studies commissioned by Luo Gan and friends to seek evidence that Falun Gong was xie jiao. Nor is the mounting surveillance or discrimination against practitioners mentioned.
• Jiang’s April 25th letter not mentioned
• Not much description here of the Zhongnanhai protest or other protests themselves. I suggest drawing on James Tong for this.
• There’s nothing here about the conclusion of the negotiations, where Falun Gong representatives were assured that the government was not against them, etc.
• No information about the evolving counter-narrative about how the Zhongnanhai protest was a set-up
• In the discussion of the banning, info between April and July is entirely missing.
• Elizabeth Perry wrote about the very early CCP rhetoric against Falun Gong, noting that the Party was positing there was a dichotomy between religion and science, and that Falun Gong undermined the CCP’s narrative of history. It’s interesting stuff. Could be included.
• Suggest adding a little more meat to the analysis of the causes for the persecution. I.e. Falun Gong was the largest independent civil society group in China. It undermined the CCP’s sources of legitimacy (not deliberately, but implicitly). Jiang was jealous, etc.

There are more issues, but here are some ideas for now. --Asdfg12345 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair points to raise, but you need sources for your additions. I won't remove them now, pending your providing sources. If you don't source some of the more controversial statements, I will remove them. Particularly after you emphasized the need for rigorous sourcing to TheSoundAndTheFury. —Zujine|talk 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate the civil discussion and the chance to figure this stuff out. I will certainly add the references you suggest. No Problem. Right now I will just make one more tentative edit that may be bold and need some tweaking, but which has been discussed extensively and is important or even crucial: providing the "counter-narrative" about Zhongnanhai, which suggests that the persecution was not an action-reaction type thing, but was rather a deliberate build-up on the part of some elements in the Party, who orchestrated the whole thing against Falun Gong. There are some reasonable sources on this. I'm just going to add a framework narrative now, and we can discuss, refine, etc. After this, I need to go. --Asdfg12345 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Gutmann's presentation of the counter-narrative on Zhongnanhai. It is compelling (as far as conspiracy theories go), but it feels like undue weight to give this narrative its own sub-section. Moreover, while I commend your attempts to write out the theory, it is lacking in citations and involves a fair bit of conjecture. I propose splitting the difference by folding this into the body of the main section by including relevant, verifiable facts within the chronological narrative. Scholarly interpretations of the event, the individuals involved and their motives can be summarized briefly at the end. In the interest of being bold, I took a stab at doing this, and would welcome further edits/discussions to improve it. Homunculus (duihua) 06:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe Asdfg put back allegations that He and Luo are related, despite an extensive discussion months ago. No reliable sources actually proved that these two are actually related. This seems like another attempt to discredit FLG's critics.--PCPP (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, this question was already resolved. numerous credible sources note the familial connection between the two. Please do not assume ulterior motives. If you would like to pursue this further, the burden of proof that Luo and He are not related lies with you. Homunculus (duihua) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, neither the articles on Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu mentioned that they are related, both in English and Chinese. The "sources" provided only had passing mentions - there's no concrete evidence on their relations.--PCPP (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose next you’ll be demanding to see He and Luo’s birth certificates?? The point is that this information is in other reliable sources. It does not strike me as unusual that their short Wikipedia biographies do not make mention of who their relatives are. If you believe it is relevant information to include in their biographies, however, I am happy to remedy this and note the connection on each page. I suspect, however, that this may appear to be giving undue weight. In any case, even the incorrigible Colipon assented to this edit, and now we have an outside editor paying attention to the page and finding the claims veracious. I'm not sure what more there is to say? --Asdfg12345 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool heads, please. This discussion need not deteriorate into birther comparisons. PCPP, again, if you wish to challenge the familial connection, I suggest that you find explicit evidence that they are not related. If you can find this, then we can revisit this discussion and include the conflicting evidence in the article. In the meantime, let's more on.Homunculus (duihua) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The hell? I think you're the one that needs to find explicit evidence that the are related. None of the sources you provided does this. Adding unsourced conspiracy theories about how He is responsible for starting the FLG crackdown is not in the spirits of NPOV.--PCPP (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided explicitly state that Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu are brother-in-law. Moreover, sources are provided relating to the counter-narrative of He and Luo's collusion. I suggest you read the Gutmann article on this topic.

I also noticed a series of reversions occurring between yourself and Asdfg. I do not wish to get involved in this edit war, and will not myself attempt to resolve the problematic points in contention; I trust other editors can work them out. Asdfg did make a number of unsourced edits, and he discusses them above. He was asked to provide citations to support these edits, but has not yet done so. Asdfg, I suggest you get on this.

PCPP, your reversions to Asdfg's edits did not, in all cases, remove unsourced material as you claim. To the contrary, some of Asdfg's edits were in fact correcting improperly attribute sources, and others were correcting grammatical problems. For instance, you reinstated the following statement:

The Falun Dafa Information Center disputed this [the self-immolation]...and further alleged that the event itself never happened... (emphasis mine). I have never seen Falun Gong sources alleging the event itself never happened. This therefore seems like a straw man argument. Asdfg removed this, and you returned it to its place. Please explain.

Asdfg also removed the following statement: "Human rights activist Harry Wu also voiced doubts about conclusions of the Kilgour-Matas report." He did so on the grounds that the source cited (a CRS report) did not, in fact, make this statement. It is therefore unattributed. Moreover, Harry Wu has not expressed concerns about the Kilgour-Matas report; his concerns surrounded the earlier Sujiatun allegations. In any case, you reinstated a falsely attributed statement. Please explain why.

Your blanket reversions also removed references to the Luo-He familial relationship against the apparent consensus that has been reached on the talk page.

I should stop here. Asdfg, please make a concerted effort to provide sources for new material you introduced. PCPP, I suggest you allow Asdfg to do this, and retract your reversions. I would be interested in seeing what other editors recommend as a solution. Homunculus (duihua) 06:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edit and looked at this discussion, and it is clear that PCPP is behaving inappropriately. I would remind everyone that editors of these pages are subject to discretionary sanctions. I have no interest in entering into this particular dispute, but I would like to see that the rules of the road are followed by all parties. Those rules include engaging in meaningful discussion on points of contention, and refraining from blanket reversions. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am going to make some edits to tone down or remove some of the more excessive or problematic edits that Asdfg made. If you would like to dispute my edits, please don't hesitate, provided you can give citations this time.Homunculus (duihua) 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I am about to add the references for the stuff I added previously. I haven't edited wiki for a while so I have gotten rusty. I am usually scrupulous in providing references for my additions. In half an hour all the additions I made will be referenced. -- Asdfg12345 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the supposed family connection of Luo and He reads like a conspiracy theory at best. A number of editors has already objected to the insertion of these material, and what you're essentially doing is laying low and sneakingly inserting them back. This material doesn't fly on their own articles, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.--PCPP (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, I linked above to several sources where this connection appears. Let me recap:

"It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann, Ethan. "An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin," National Review, July 20, 2009). Emphasis added

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter, Noah. "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study," University of South Florida, 2003). Emphasis added

"A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao, Yuezhi (2003). Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning Inside and Outside China. Rowman & Littlefield publishers, inc.. pp. 209–223 in Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran.) Emphasis added

This connection may appear in more sources, but at least, it is explicitly stated in the first two above. So, what are you disputing exactly? You are here opposed by at least two (myself and Homunculus) and possibly three (TheSound, though I will let that editor speak for him/herself) other editors. I do not see how I am laying low and "sneakingly inserting them back"? I put the information in, then another editor themselves looked into the matter and fixed it up a bit. I will await your response before undoing your edits. Since we here have two reliable sources on the matter, you are required to provide reliable sources showing that they are not brothers-in-law. Your position here seems quite indefensible. I await your response, and will certainly not revert war with you on it. -- Asdfg12345 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier when this issue came up, I agree with the inclusion. Noting the familial connection and its relationship to how the persecution got started is obviously important. —Zujine|talk 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, this is clearly disputed in the last discussion by several editors [2]. The dispute regarding the validity of the source still stands, and you coming back after disappearing for 5 months won't make it go away. You only provided three sources making only passing mentions, the first one comes from a known conservative magazine, the second from a Porter's PHD thesis, and the third source doesn't even specifically mention this. None of the other FLG experts eg Ownby even mentioned this quite significant claim, and none of the three sources even made the claim that Luo specifically targeted FLG because of He's claims, as you're trying to portray. This is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.--PCPP (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please identify specifically which editor is opposed to the material, except you? Why should the political persuasion of the magazine the information appears in matter? Porter's thesis has been published as a book. It is not a synthesis to present the information as it appears in the sources. There is a growing consensus on this, and you are the only one opposed to it. You are also just repeating the same short, stock phrases, like always. Since three editors now support the inclusion, I am going to put it back. You need to provide reliable sources that back up your perspective. -- Asdfg12345 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

BS. I challenged the validity of these tree sources and you've yet responded. Writing a book based on a thesis doesn't not warrant automatic inclusion. You're taking these three claims at face value, and somehow that because they said it then it must be true. The claim is a serious allegation not supported by FLG scholars (Ownby et al), nor any available Chinese sources. Furthermore you're using the claim to synthesis a conspiracy theory claiming that He is somewhat responsible for Luo's crackdown on FLG.--PCPP (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Note that after three editors have all supported the inclusion of this information, as well as the other discussion where Colipon even says "If other editors agree with him, that's fine with me," about including this material. Then over on that discussion four editors came to support the inclusion, after the evidence was presented and we had a discussion, and now, it has been brought up again, and three editors support it, and it has good references. Now you are denying it and have no sources, and are opposed by everyone. I strongly recommend you don't edit war on this. (UPDATE: in response to the above: 1) I did respond to your challenge of the validity of the sources. I said that the political persuasion of the magazine does not matter--it is you who didn't respond to that. Secondly, I said Porter's thesis is published in a book and is and was a reliable source. You also didn't respond to that. It is true that no source warrants automatic inclusion, but I'm not arguing for automatic inclusion. Myself, and others, are suggesting that this information is reliable and pertinent, and all agree that it should be included. The allegation is indeed supported by relevant scholars. It does not matter if it is not supported by Chinese sources--since when was that a requirement? Finally, the claim has not been used as a synthesis, because everything in there now is merely a direct reflection of what is to be found in reliable sources. There is no synthesis. Indeed, the meaning that is drawn from these three (Porter, Gutmann, and Zhao) is that the connection between He and Luo was relevant to the persecution. This is what the sources say. Again, I invite some other editor to revert, and if PCPP again fails to produce a source to support his views, and continues to revert, other things can happen. -- Asdfg12345 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

PCPP is editing against consensus. I reverted to give him time to think about it; maybe he is too invested in these Falungong articles. In any case: please provide sources for your points, PCPP. —Zujine|talk 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

[ec] I see Zujine has in fact already done this. -- Asdfg12345 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm opening a RFC on this--PCPP (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is already a consensus forming on this topic here, over two rounds of discussion. Nevertheless, you can seek outside input for ideas, though they are not binding. The key thing is reliable sources, and you do not have any of them. When you write the RfC, be sure to provide the citations I have above, and try to write it as neutrally as possible. -- Asdfg12345 17:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember this? [3] You've yet brought up the "reliable sources" you were saying you are going to find months ago. This sounds like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me.--PCPP (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have presented three reliable sources, two which directly mention it, one which mentions it indirectly. This is the same forum. The outcome of the last discussion was to insert the material. The outcome of this is to insert the material. You have produced zero sources to support your views. z e r o . -- Asdfg12345 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation and list of changes, Nov. 24

I have added references in all cases. I am now going to explain each change, in number form. It is assumed that people consulting this list will have open on one side of their screen this diff, and on the other my list here. You can then easily compare, point by point, each change I made and see its rationale.

1. demonstration > peaceful protest -- it is important that these activities are described both accurately and precisely. Please check Ownby, Tong, and Palmer, who all use the word "peaceful" a number of times. It is not biased to describe a peaceful activity as a peaceful activity. Nor is it gratuitous. It is a matter of historical fact that needs to be properly recorded. I intend to add further information on this point, actually (about how well behaved the individuals were in these protest actions. Several good sources have spent some paragraphs elaborating on the specifics of this, if you would believe that.)
2. thus claimed by Li to be... -- it's not necessary to say it was claimed by Li. Of course this is according to Li. It's the same difference as saying "Falun Gong says it is based on Zhen Shan Ren", when clearly it's better to just write "Falun Gong is based on..."
3. nationalism -- I changed this to Chinese culture, because that's what the reference I could find supported. I had misremembered this. If I find support for the nationalism claim, I will fix it. Please see the Ownby document: it is a good read, and will give you some better background on the topic.
4. operated outside the official sanction of the stage -- I have elaborated on this slightly and attributed it to Palmer. Context is crucial here, given all that followed.
5. tone began to shift to curb growth of the groups -- this is simply a well known fact of the period. I don't know what particular source or page states it. It's in Palmer, for example. Have you read that book? He describes the whole process. Citations are needed when something is controversial, this isn't particularly controversial.
6. Allegations > reports -- let's just say they reported it, which is a fact. Is there reason to doubt what they said? If so, allegations may be more appropriate. If this point comports with the rest of the information (which it surely does), then I see no reason to use language to make it seem more dubious.
7. long-term, complex, serious struggle to eradicate... -- referenced both points.
8. those who died were not actually Falun Gong -- I've referenced a Pan article, I believe it is this one.
9. number of torture cases -- it was less than I had said. This was a good catch. I have attributed it.
10. whether the torture was officially prohibited or not -- this detail I found facile. I simply removed it. Of course it was part of the official structure of the campaign. Read Johnson's account? They are linked on the main page. It is clear that torture was part of the whole process. Tong is being typical Tong, and not every minor point he makes needs to be repeated here, but mainly the broad, important points that comport with the wider body of research. It is not news that the CCP publicly says it doesn't believe in torture. The point is to get at the fact about how this persecution is conducted and report that, according to relevant sources. If we want a part here saying how the CCP denies what it does to practitioners, that is fine (though I think it would be largely irrelevant).
11. anti-Falun Gong campaign -- this was an error on my part. I misread the context. I've clarified that this is referring to Falun Gong's media response, not the persecution campaign.

I hope this is enough. -- Asdfg12345 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that I made more edits here, but I accidentally pressed enter when writing the edit summary. The summary would have been something like: "miscellaneous additions; sourced; should not be controversial; mostly elaborations." or something. If there's any problem with the diff please advise. -- Asdfg12345 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested/planned edits

In the interests of utmost transparency and collegial editing and discussion, I am going to note here some of the changes I plan on making over the next some time. This is just meant to be both a friendly indication of intent, and an invitation to dialogue for any other interested party.

• Add brief info on the studies commissioned by Luo Gan and friends to seek evidence that Falun Gong was xie jiao, and on the mounting surveillance or discrimination against practitioners.
• Jiang’s April 25th letter to politburo
• Zhongnanhai protest and details.
• Brief detail on period between April and July.
• Briefer and more meaningful introduction and discussion of the propaganda campaign (and suggest changing the section head from "media campaign" to "propaganda campaign"). For example, Elizabeth Perry wrote about the very early CCP rhetoric against Falun Gong, noting that the Party was positing there was a dichotomy between religion and science, and that Falun Gong undermined the CCP’s narrative of history. Seth Faison also looks at the propaganda themes. The important point is the evolution of the propaganda tactics; the cult label came at some point during this evolution. It was not the initial rationale. This context can be brought out more and thematised.
• Some more meat to the analysis of the causes for the persecution. I.e. Falun Gong was the largest independent civil society group in China. It undermined the CCP’s sources of legitimacy (not deliberately, but implicitly). Jiang was jealous, etc. (All this needs sources of course).
• What did the ban actually look like, to begin with? (trucks with speakers, book burnings, etc.; a few lines on that only)
• Quotes from actual victims of the conversion programme on what it means to be subjected to those techniques (a few lines).
• More proper explanation of the structure of Falun Gong practice inside China (a lot of this information is in fact on this talk page).

We can discuss and refine any of these ideas. Let's all work together. -- Asdfg12345 04:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article not neutral or academic

In my opinion, the current article does not provide a neutral enough perspective in Falun Gong. I agree with the above poster and Ohconfucius's enforcement motion, that the article is pro-FLG.

I would also contend that this article seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials and heard from my personal encounters with FLG practitioners in that there is a heavy focus on their prosecution by the CCP rather than the overall nature of FLG. There should be a greater exposition of the beliefs and practices unique to FLG, and of the FLG organizational structure. This opinion, of course, by no means is meant to lessen the seriousness of the the atrocities committed by the CCP against FLG followers.

I would also contend that after the year-long domination of this article by pro-FLG editors (asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos and HappyInGeneral) with the edits by FLG practitioners (Dilip rajeev, FalunGongDisciple, etc), the results of their dominance still linger. With the degree of controversy surrounding this group as evidenced just by this talk page, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the controversial nature of the group in the intro. Even under the controversies section, the section seems to white-wash the arguments used by opponents of the FLG by not including the details of the conservative nature of the group (eg. regarding mixed-raced couples, rock music, etc), omitting the more fanciful claims by the leader (eg flight, walking through walls, etc) and dismissing the controversy as a cultural misunderstanding while emphasizing the gentle nature of the group. I also find the omission the the controversies surrounding the health claims, particularly those surrounding FLG cancer patients being urged not to receive chemotherapy particularly egregious. Hmm... (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read David Ownby's book on Falun Gong? I think it's a good place to start. The arguments you make here are interesting, but the question is how much weight real scholars give the issues you raise. Does Ownby (or any other scholar, for that matter) find Falun Gong's teachings on medicine to be extremely important? Could you please provide references to substantiate that? Also, in Falun Gong there is no such thing as urging someone not to receive chemotherapy if they have cancer. I practice Falun Gong and if someone who practiced it got cancer I would suggest they get treatment, if they really had cancer. There are no rules about what people have to do, it is without form. Also, I think the arguments are documented clearly in the article already. Falun Gong is not against mixed-race marriages, as evidenced here. Finally, cherrypicking statements the "leader" of Falun Gong has made and highlighting them may be undue weight, if it couldn't be shown how third parties consider such things so important. I also do not see how the fact that people have a lot of ideas about this practice automatically makes those ideas important. Sure, they ought not be ignored, but that's not what the article is primarily about: it should be more factual rather than a stream of opinions. And I think the current set-up, where there is an opinion then another opinion, is quite fair. Or, should we delete all the opinions that try to make Falun Gong understandable? Do we seek to, rather than illuminate and help people understand the topic of the article, have them form negative ideas about the subject? My view is that the purpose of the article is to provide information about the topic, not to try to persuade readers that it is good or bad. Explaining what people find problematic about Falun Gong, then explaining how Falun Gong responded to that, and what other people think--this is fair, isn't it? Marriage is controversial, too. The article on marriage doesn't leap into the controversies associated with it in the introduction. --Asdfg12345 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Western Academics and Press is overwhelmingly sypathetic to thier religion persecuation, thus we have a slight bias as most western sources are in either english so that is possible Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7's assessment strikes me as about right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, though this is to be expected in an English article especially with so many practitioners contributing to this article. Overall it's improved though I feel ~ at least all opinions are backed with sources, even if they may be biased. My main issue and I think many have brought this up in the past is that the entire article still seems to focus on FLG and it's relationship with China. The whole theme is surrounding the persecution and acceptance of the practice; it's image rather than it's substance. For spiritual/physical practice I think its is lacking in addressing the following as it's central topics 1) What is the theory behind this 'gong' 2) How is it actually practiced, what forms or methods are performed 3) How is it applied to relevant aspects of life (i.e. health, strength building, socializing). With so many practitioners contributing, I'd hoped these would be easily covered. BTW, Marriage is not controversial, a more suitable comparison would be gay marriage. Bedbug1122 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. I find it particularly interesting that most of the falungong activities in other parts of the world and well as the sometimes negative responses to them have been quite diligently hidden or obscured. Jeanpetr (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hidden or obscured in what sense? CCP officials trying to hide them? --Asdfg12345 22:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the CCP would most likely try the opposite. For the most part, this article reads something like: " Falun Gong is immaculate and a persecuted symbol of human rights and freedom. All who criticize Falun Gong are members of the CCP or unfairly influenced by them." At best, this is a bit tiring, at worse, it is an attempt at white washing. CCP is persecuting Falun Gong, everyone knows, but Falun Gong with its numerous publicity campaigns, voice boxes, and sometimes exaggerated reports, is not exactly neutral either. Jeanpetr (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to how many of the editors on this page fall into these following categories: One, you have lived in China prior to Li Hong Zhi's flight to the United States. Two, you have personally attended Li Hong Zhi's public seminars while he still resided in China. Three, you have relatives or close friends who practiced Falun Gong. In my experience regarding this subject, if you do not fall into all 3 aforementioned categories, then you have no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality. If you did not personally hear Li HongZhi speak, then you cannot have an educated opinion regarding whether he was an enlightened individual or a nutcase. If you cannot understand Falun Gong's texts in its native Chinese form (not one of the badly translated English copies), then you cannot form a proper interpretation. If you were not in China to witness the rise and fall of Falun Gong, and your only source of information are articles written by Western Authors (Or the CCP Media), then you do not have even the slightest clue as to what really happened. Having personally witnessed many aspects of Falun Gong while it was still practiced in China (protests, lectures, watching relatives practice), I can attest to the fact that much of the information on the articles related to FLG are either misinterpretation of facts or flat out lies.

In response to the comment made by Asdfg12345, The controversy regarding Falun Gong practitioners refusing medical treatment is no myth. It may not be written specifically in the teachings of Falun Gong but it did not stop the less educated public in China from interpreting it as such. You cannot pretend a controversy doesn't exist simply because you do not perceive it as one. Falun Gong caused many adverse health issues while it was in practice in China, with the most extreme cases documenting practitioners slicing their stomaches open with a steak knife looking for the "Fa Lun". Zkevwlu (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong in my view. It would be better if editors had no opinions about or experience of either Falun Gong or the CCP but had 100% fidelity when it comes to complying with Wikipedia policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Then there wouldn't be much to write about, would there? However it does seem as if Zkevwlu's comment above is inviting original research in the article - in fact literally suggesting that anyone without direct experience with the subject has "no business editing this article for the purposes of maintaining neutrality" which is quite ridiculous. It seems that Zkevwlu has misunderstood the fundamental premise of Wikipedia - to explain topics impartially, giving notable references that you did not create. Meeting his listed preconditions should perhaps even preclude an author from editing FLG-related articles on Wikipedia due to the inherent bias from being too close to this contentious subject. Destynova (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ownby's book mentions at least a few cases where FG practitioners have refused medical treatment. If I remember rightly, that refusal was once in a while related to other factors, like cost of treatment, as well, but they did indicate one of their reasons for such refusal was their belief that Falun Gong would save them. And, for what little it might be worth, I myself have not found that the published books in English on Falun Gong are necessarily overwhelming biased in favor of FG, although there is the problem that a lot of the editors who themselves are so biased might cherrypick material for their own purposes. In general, though, I think all this material would benefit greatly if there were fewer editors involved who supported either the CCP or FG. Unfortunately, while there are a few such editors, like, well, me, we tend to have other matters to deal with as well. And I have noted that some other editors have indicated that they have been, effectively, driven away from the content because of their perception that some editors, including the pro-FG editors, create more drama and trouble when changes are proposed or made than those other, uninvolved, editors really think is required, and that such actions drive some of them away. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, John Carter, the situation is not quite so simple. The editors who support either FLG or CCP represent only a part of the bias. I think everyone here believes that he or she is the one acting most rationally; this is nothing new. Any commitment to a belief system, including secular materialism or some social theory, has ostensibly lead some "uninvolved" editors to varying degrees of ideological editing. On the other hand, among the "involved" editors there are some people, including myself, with a post-graduate academic background in the study of religions and cultures. Overall, looking at the world's phenomena from an Archimedean point is hardly possible for a human being. Some of what you call "drama" and "trouble" has frequently been brought into play when the proposed changes have indeed been problematic and called for a careful scrutiny on the talk page, even if their proponents would rather have had it their way without much ado. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My view has always been that the less meta-discussion the better. Just focus on the nuts and bolts of editing the actual article. --Asdfg12345 06:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the initial comment that the article places too much emphasis on the relationship between Falun Gong and the party-state, and that insufficient attention is given to the practice and beliefs, organizations, and related issues such as demography. Moreover, while much of this information is present in the article, it is not coherently organized; the article jumps abruptly from a general overview of Falun Gong's philosophy into a historical narrative, followed by accounts of state suppression, and then back into organization of the practice. I am willing to volunteer myself to try to consolidate this information, and give somewhat more weight to matters of the practice, including its very socially conservative morality, etc. On another note, that an article "seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials" does not mean that the article lacks neutrality or is not academic per se. Neutrality is not achieved by striking a perfect balance between two competing narratives. It is achieved by following the evidence and engaging in thoughtful analysis of the best information available.Homunculus (duihua) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response at the end of this page. The persecution is one of the most notable features of Falun Gong, so naturally it would occupy a large portion of the page on the topic. If this logic is wrong, please correct me... typing out loud here. -- Asdfg12345 04:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reorganized

I have done some Reorganizing to harmonize with WP:NRM.MOS, No content has been removed or added. Some further work can be done like Trimming the Persecution Section as its nearly half the article and some of that can be more appropriately used in the history part The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A major determinant of what is to be included and how much space it is to take up is about notability, right? I mean, what the topic is notable for. If this assumption is correct, then I would think the persecution information should occupy a substantial portion of the article, since that is one of the most notable features of Falun Gong (i.e., its being persecuted). If either of these assumptions are not the case (notability influencing quantity/focus, and persecution being particularly notable) then I stand corrected and we should do something about that, after establishing the truth of both those claims.-- Asdfg12345 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We have its own article so it can be covered adequately covered in detail. [[Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles]We really only need a short summary]] of the main article. The Family International is a "sex cult," Scientology is known for suing people and Xenu. These are popular and important topics centered around these groups but are only one aspect of the group itself. Thus We have a summary here and give it the full monty elsewhere. I am not advocating the topics removal or negating the importance of the topic. Merely pointing it out it has undue weight as its own lengthy section. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. You didn't say much, but you write persuasively, and I think you make a good point. Let's see what we can do about that. The article is too long, as it is. Not just about the persecution, but some of the other sections. They spend a lot of words to get where they are going. -- Asdfg12345 05:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the persecution is the longest so that is what I am most concerned about. I agree other section need trimming too and others need expansion. Most sections here can be adequately covered in maybe 3-5 paragraphs at most. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. It takes five paragraphs just to adequately explain what happened around Zhongnanhai, though. And if you look at some articles like Holocaust, you are in for a long read. This is a massive and important subject. It seems hard to balance the demands for complete coverage and those for brevity and ease of access. For now my strategy is to try to help construct a coherent and complete account of the key points on this page, and then when that is mostly done, start farming it out to the daughter articles, leaving the key parts here. It is hard to get an idea of what is the crucial information required here and what is tangential when it is not all here. I wanted to write more into the persecution section and many other sections, and then start taking it apart again. I just wrote the same point twice in different ways. I think you know what I mean. I can see the sense in the direction you are proposing. Asdfg12345 05:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah lol Perhaps your right, I was over optimistic with a 3-5 paragraphs but I am glad you follow my reasoning as I follow yours. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the need for a reorganization of sorts as well to achieve a similar effect. That is, placing more emphasis on the practice itself (practice and beliefs, organization, categorization, demography, etc.), and consolidating some of the information that had been scattered on the page. So I applaud the effort. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the manner in which this organization was done. There is now a great discontinuity from the history in China to the ban; sections that used to lead into each other (Zhongnanhai -> the statewide suppression) are now separated by vast amounts of text. Moreover, the suppression of Falun Gong does not constitute a controversy in the conventional sense, and I don't think that's the appropriate header. I would suggest that the order of sub-sections might look something like this: 1) Practice and Beliefs 2) organization 3) categorization 4) public debate 5) History in China 6) Statewide suppression 7) Response (outside and inside China) Homunculus (duihua) 02:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that We should follow the manual of style for of style for these movements. The State wide suppression mostly should be trimmed and included into the history section. I agree The cohesion right now sucks and It needs clean up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless I'm missing something, the manual of style offers very loose guidance on the article's structure, stating only that it should include, at a minimum, the beliefs and teachings, history, and reception. In what order, with what emphasis, and what additional sections appears to be left open-ended. While this article is certainly imperfect, frankly I'm not too concerned about its ability to conform to the requirements of the style manual. In any case, if you are generally in agreement over the proposed order, I can attempt to implement it as such. Whether the suppression is its own section or is folded into the history section is up for discussion. I'm not very partial, though I should note that at present, both the History of Falun Gong and Persecution of Falun Gong have their own, fairly extensive articles. It might therefore make more sense that they have their own sections within the Falun Gong article. Homunculus (duihua) 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wp:summary style explains how articles of this sort should be broken up etc. I agree with Homunculus' proposed reordering, though I would put categorization and public debate somehow under the same rubric, or maybe even combined, and change the subhead from 'statewide suppression' to just 'suppression.' Also, it's unclear how relevant the NRM manual of style is here: Falungong is not necessarily an NRM, though there are some writers who consider it such. Primarily it should be understood in its indigenous context, as a traditional Chinese gongfa, not a "new religious movement." Homunculus, do you want to get onto that reordering? I might also add that I think the controversies, categorization, response, all can be shortened. I agree with Asdfg12345 that they are verbose and take too long to make their points. The non-crucial information can be shipped out to sub articles. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a new reorganization now. It may take a couple days, so hold tight. I will provide explanation on the changes, which I'm sure will prove to be a wildly entertaining read. Homunculus (duihua) 05:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to this next attempt, and I hope it is better than the first. I am sorry to report, ResidentAnthropologist, but I found your changes utterly confounding and I am about to reverse them. I hadn't looked until now. I disagree with nearly everything about the changes. I appreciate the attempt to fix the article and be WP:BOLD about it, but I think it was much better how it was (it was logically sequenced, to a large degree, at the very least). So I'm putting it back, and I hope we can all wait for the new attempt that Homunculus is going to make. I will also say that it's great to see some other editors engaging seriously in this topic. -- Asdfg12345 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am equally sorry to report that WP:COI indicates that editors who have a clear conflict of interest are not supposed to make unilateral changes to content about which they have a clear conflict of interests. On that basis, I am reverting the last changes made to the article, and feel required to warn any individuals who have such conflicts of interests that they may be eligible for sanctions if they engage in such unilateral changes again. If they honestly oppose such changes, I believe they would be best advised to file an RfC to get the perspectives of more neutral editors before making such changes again in the future. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is most bizarre. The last change made by Asdfg did not change content, and was not unilateral. He was, instead, reverting a previous unilateral edit which saw the content of the page reorganized. Asdfg reverted to the previous version of the page only after both myself and TheSoundAndTheFury agreed that the attempted reorganization missed the mark. Please explain, specifically, how this violates a conflict of interest policy, because I simply don't see it. Homunculus (duihua) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't look at the history, obviously, and screwed up big time in so doing, for which I apologize. Having said that, I have to believe that there are serious questions about how much space to give the material on persecution in China. I do note that the online Britannica (I think that's the source - I haven't checked lately) does have a separate article on the persecution, but that is only one of several outside generally reliable sources, and even that source has, as I've seen elsewhere, at times a bit of a bias toward Western (English-speaking and European) perceptions. Having said that, I would myself think the following changes would be in order:

1) Having a "History in China" and a separate "Statewide suppression" section seems to give the two aspects of the history equal weight. Also, there is no indication of "history outside of China", which is I think relevant. I cannot see how we could not have, reasonably, a single "History" main section, with three subsections, pre-crackdrown, post-crackdown, and history outside of China. Certainly, there are multiple books which deal with the external history of Falun Gong, but no section of the article as yet. Why?

2) As far as I know, there is only one FA class article about a religious faith, Bahai Faith. That faith, also, has been the subject of somewhat extreme persecution at times. In that article, the repression comes as the 7th major heading, not the 3rd. I can see no particularly good reason why this article would require a completely separate form and structure than that article, particularly considering the number and degree of similarities between the two.

Having said all that, however, I do have to apologize for my early edit, which was done without clear thinking and with obviously incomplete review, and thus apologize again. Feel free to revert my own action, although I myself would honestly like to see discussion of perhaps following the format of the Bahai article first. Also, it would probably help if we consulted any other extant encyclopedias or other works to see how they format their articles on the subject, because I have a feeling that they might be useful templates. But, yeah, I screwed up. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a still an issue here, however, with Asdfg's previous insertion of a large amount of uncited material[4], in particularly claims of family links between Luo Gan and He Zuoxiu which was clearly disputed by previous discussions.--PCPP (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

John, No worries. I can see how what looked like a very significant edit by Asdfg would raise some flags. To your other points, I think your suggestions are valid. See my discussion here on plans for reorganization. I will take your recommendations here into account, for sure. Homunculus (duihua) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here: the organisation of the page and the He/Luo information.

Viz. the organisation, I think we are safe putting it back to how it was before TheResidentAnthropologist's changes, which seemed deliciously bold; this was Asdfg12345's edit which has just been discussed above. I will make this change presently on the assumption that Homunculus and John Carter just formed that understanding. If I am mistaken, and in fact, it is thought that TheResidentAnthropologist's reorganisation of the page is desirable, then please do not hesitate to revert me.

The second issue is the He/Luo connection. That is still under discussion. PCPP, I don't believe the problem is that the material lacks citations. There are several sources cited. For the record, I see no reason that the sources brought forth so far should be excluded—though I could be convinced by new information.

Also for the record, I agree with John Carter's assessment on the Bahai comparison. Looking forward to the new reorganisation that Homunculus comes up with. —Zujine|talk 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I myself might favor something like the following structure: (1) beliefs and practices, (2) texts, (3) history, (3A-3?) subsections on persecution, FG outside China, etc., (4) demographics, (5) organizational structure (or lack of same - related entities, like Epoch Times and Shen Yun could be mentioned here), and the standard ending sections. The relevant questions that might impact this include when the texts were created, and whether the history prior to them was involved in their creation. If yes, then maybe the texts section would appear after the history. Maybe. In the Bahai article, texts precedes history, but that subject has a longer history since the texts were written, so it makes sense to have the bulk of the history come after the texts section, because that reflects the historical reality of most of its history being after the texts. If FG is expected to last for a considerable time, we should probably follow that lead. If not, and from what I know of some of the Chinese NRMs over time they do somewhat regularly disperse after the deaths of their founders, that might be different.

Also, I have gathered together at least a few reviews and similar works on the various extant books in English which discuss FG to a significant degree. I think that this subject, like a lot of others, would very much benefit from having a clear section or separate article on Bibliography of Falun Gong, with either separate articles on the books included therein or separate sections of the Bibliography article discussing the books. I will myself work on the bibliography article and individual articles as time permits, but there are very few of them even extant at this time and Falun Gong not being at the real beginning of the English alphabet, it might be awhile before I get there. If anyone would want the material I have gathered together to work on themselves, send me an e-mail and I will go on the sites in question and have them send to that address the citations, reviews, etc., I got from them. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)