Talk:History of Falun Gong/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assessment of the page, suggestions

I will put aside subtlety in the hopes of making an impression. This page is ridiculous in parts. The lead boldly states that it is a fact that the individuals were Falun Gong practitioners, turning the whole idea of NPOV into a farce. It's also unclear why material about the persecution should be forked over two pages. It splits it up and means if people want a full treatment they have to read two pages rather than one. history and persecution are obviously different. This is a relic of the attempt to outright delete the persecution page. I will write some more issues with this page here as I get the time. For now my suggestions are (and I will keep this as a running list)

1. Clean up the propaganda in the lead;
2. Move most of the persecution material to the page that is actually about that topic;
3. Make the general format conform to other "history of..." articles like [Media_history_of_China] or [History_of_China] maybe;
4. Clean up the clear nonsense, like Ostergaard's ridiculous claims about Falun Gong's "three points" raised at Zhongnanhai. who knows what his source is, but other sources give a different treatment. A seemingly non-partisan contributor over at the main page has already pointed out one factual inaccuracy in Ostergaard. So he's clearly a questionable source.
5. Get rid of the original research on "Qigong and health," which is quite similar to the propagandistic "Falun Gong and self-immolation" (all in good faith, I would add) on the immolation page. This is not related to Falun Gong; Ohconfucius's arguments above and failure to engage with my points should make that clear. anything here needs to have an explicit link to the subject, not a synthetic one.
6. suggest breaking things up by years; maybe 1992-1994, 1994-1996, 1996-1999. Then the persecution. Or use a combination. It would just present a bit of a clearer narrative for the reader, so they could see the different things that happened at different times. there could be subheadings in those sections to deal with the issues. After 1999, I'm not sure. It could be 1999-2005, maybe. Then 2005-present? In 2005 things like tuidang started to happen, so that may be a good juncture. Until then Falun Gong practitioners weren't calling for the downfall of the CCP, now they actively encourage people to renounce it. so that is a significant juncture. Just not sure where to find some sources on that.

Okay, those are my basic suggestions. I have not looked at the article closely, but I think some problems are: repetition, one-sidedness, reliance on non-mainstream or primary sources to make tendentious claims, several original syntheses, selective use of secondary source, and some others. Most of the list of refs, for example, is a clear set of sources who take decidedly negative interpretations of Falun Gong (except the final two, Ownby and Schechter). this isn't wrong as such, but there needs to be a balance. This page is a clear example of why several points of view are needed for an article. It's anti-Falun Gong spin par excellence, and undermines any claims editors like Ohconfucius, Colipon et al had to being neutral on the subject, or that they can someone approach it divorced from their own biases. Anyway, this is just some of my own commentary and rhetoric. I hope anyone engaging with this will ignore the emotion and look at the facts, and examine the article carefully on the basis of the sources in it, the sources available, and wikipedia policies. These are just some ideas. Take them, change them, do what's necessary. I hope someone does something, though. I am able to help with research or clarification on anything that is unclear, I have access to all the sources, so I can either send them to whoever wants them, or paste some relevant passages. Finally, these notes are deliberately written in a non-neutral way. It's supposed to generate action, not be an academic appraisal. --Asdfg12345 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not a remark on the value of the other comments above, but the lead does not state that the immolators were Falungong practitioners; read it again. I'd like to assist with this article later. Working on Yan'an Rectification Movement now. Homunculus (strange tales) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article in more depth, and also at the background of your editing, Asdfg12345. I find that you have been banned from editing these articles for advocating a Falungong perspective. So I was a bit wary of your claims above. I agree with some of them, while others seem exaggerated or unfounded. I am going to ask another editor who wrote some lengthy analyses of certain items on the main Falungong page. He/she may be able to take a look at this and clean some things up.
Separately, I have just a few questions/concerns:

• Some information seems to be irrelevant or not directly relevant, like the section about health.
• There seems to be a lot of detail given over to minor issues, like all the times Li Hongzhi was or wasn't in the airport etc. Maybe this could be simplified; an outsider's eyes glaze over.
• The source for Ostergaard's four points from Zhongnanhai is unclear; I had previously only ever read about three. I don't have access to the source, so someone else will need to check that. I noticed this writer was wrong on a previous issue (as documented on Falungong talk page), so maybe he is wrong again.

Regarding issues of structure and layout, I also wonder of the merits of the current format. I don't know why the page is named the way it is when this "History" is only related to Falungong's rise and fall inside China. One solution may be to rename it accordingly; another may be to keep going with the history to include more recent developments.

On another level, the article seems to duplicate much of the information on the main page. I don't know what is proposed to remedy that, or whether the redundancy is acceptable or even desirable.

Apart from those minor issues, I don't see what the big problem is. I am probably not as well read on the topic as others, but I have read my fair share. The article appears thoroughly researched and neutrally written. In that sense, the accusations you make against the other two editors seem unfounded. Obviously a lot of research has gone into this, and that should be recognised.

From what I can see, it just needs some attention from an expert to take a close look at those particular issues. Improvements might include a wider range of perspectives on certain issues, and verifying the accuracy/relevance of a few specific points (including the relative weight they are given). That's beside the question of information duplication between this and the main article, and this and the article on the persecution. I would be happy to participate in a discussion which attempted to resolve that. Homunculus (strange tales) 14:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Homunculus, I concur with the points you make. I will attempt to answer some of your questions. The Qigong and Health section is relevant, but needs to be scaled down. The reason it's relevant, in my view, is that without a good understanding of the Qigong movement (the backdrop on which Falun Gong rose to prominence) it is impossible to understand Falun Gong itself. I would ask you to be bold to just delete the parts that you think is irrelevant, and any objections can be raised on the talk page. The fact that this page duplicates a lot of the information on the main page is a problem of the main page, not vice versa. The main page should be written in summary style.

I have not read Oostergaard's piece thoroughly, although I do know that it is part of the book Governance in China by Jude Howell, which is used as an authoritative text on the study of Chinese politics in recent years. While Oostergaard does write the chapter from the view of academic argumentation, in my view he describes the events with great academic rigour and scrutiny. I.e. he is a reliable source.

I support the inclusion of more recent developments, but there was too much drama going on over at the "Persecution of Falun Gong" article and I just got too tired in participating in that discussion. But in my view that article should simply be a part of this article.

Asdfg, along with three other users, are Falun Gong practitioners. They have an obvious conflict-of-interest in these articles, which has made editing these articles difficult to impossible. Luckily all of them are now either banned or restricted. Colipon+(Talk) 14:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that my input is not completely worthless just because I practice Falun Gong. I've read everything you have. Homunculus, I appreciate the staid assessment. The rationale for the ban is more complex than you suppose. Some changes had already been made from a previous version of the page I remember, so I apologise for accusing Colipon and ohconfucius of bad faith editing. They have engaged in their share of point-pushing, however. Colipon, regarding the health issues, there is far more than what is just listed here. It would certainly be fine and well to have a section about Falun Gong and health--there's even a study in a peer-reviewed journal article on it. But what's currently in the article has no connection at all with Falun Gong. Furthermore, why would it be a section with the Tianjin protest inside it? Makes no sense. Some explicit link between the info in the article on health, and Falun Gong, needs to be made or it's just WP:COATRACK. Finally, it's silly to say that Ostergaard "describes the events with great academic rigour and scrutiny" when he has made several errors of fact, his piece is an anti-Falun Gong screed, and no other scholars of Falun Gong have even cited him. I think you just like his chapter because it's so negative, so you say it's highly neutral. At least I admit that Schechter is biased. I would be interested in anecdotal or documentary evidence that Governance in China has been used "as an authoritative text on the study of Chinese politics in recent years". Finally, it may be worth noting that Colipon would prefer to have the persecution page deleted and have no more than what's on this page about Falun Gong practitioners' treatment in wiki. But the persecution page exists, it's not going away, and I hope in time it will provide a full account of the subject. In that sense there's no point splitting the content across two pages. And Homunculus makes a basic point of logic: either this page has to keep going into contemporary times, explaining things in more depth at each step, or it needs to be renamed to make clear it's just about the early days in China. (sorry for the argumentative tone of my message, in future I will actively try to write more gently. But I think I should point out the hypocrisy now and then.) --Asdfg12345 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a series of changes that I believe respond to some of the concerns and issues raised above. Homunculus alerted me to the discussion. I will link my change and provide an explanation. I'll use bullet points as I did with changes on the Falun Gong page, but won't be as exacting as before because this covers some of the same ground.

• Removed health information[1]: Only the first and last part of this was explicitly related to Falun Gong. The rest is unrelated. A combination of information explicitly about Falun Gong's health effects, mixed with information not about Falun Gong but about negative health effects of qigong, may be misleading to the reader, who may believe that the information in the middle is also about Falun Gong. I don't understand that particular configuration of information. The point Colipon makes is well taken, but proper scholarship demands a higher standard of sourcing.
• Reconfigured sections[2]: this should be clear. The notes about registration issues don't appear to belong in the section about protests.
• Removed information on critics or alleged critics[3]: This had some of the same problems exhibited on the main Falun Gong page. The first two sentences here appeared there and were found lacking. For a full explanation of what is wrong with this particular use of the Rahn source, see my remarks there[4]. The next few lines are not related to Falun Gong. Then comes Sima Nan, whose criticism of Falun Gong was discussed at some length on the main Falun Gong page. The same mistaken citation (to Ownby and to a Taoism wiki) is given here. Finally, a claim that would appear to violate wp:blp is presented. In a similar fashion to the health information, some of this is related to the subject, much of it isn't, some of it is poorly or wrongly sourced, and the significance of it all is unclear. For all those reasons I simply deleted it. There are good sources which give a contextualised and intelligent narrative of Falun Gong's vicissitudes in China, and I think these should first be consulted for a framework.
• Reducing long explanation of Li's airport times; removing the "four demands"[5]: I changed the lengthy analysis of the putative airport stay times of the Falun Gong founder and made it one sentence. It seems quite unnecessary to delve into that level of detail. Such detail is interesting on an investigative level, but in terms of giving useful information to the reader I think it's enough to re-present the contested claims rather than re-narrate all details involved. Secondly, I removed the four points from Ostergaard. What that writer actually proposes is slightly different to this. He says there were five "interests or ideas" articulated before April 25, but the only references he provides for this is to Li's own writings. This interpetation is therefore the opinion of only Ostergaard, and for reasons explained on the main talk page I would be wary about deferring to him on matters of such broad interpretation. There are far stronger sources which can be relied on for this, if necessary. In the current case I think it's quite enough to provide the three demands that FLG made at Zhongnanhai. This is, after all, all within the context of the Zhongnanhai incident. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not have time to look through everything now, but I am unsure as to why there is such an insistence to remove Sima Nan. He is cited to Ownby's "Falun Gong and the Future of China" page 166, which is exactly where it appeared. Although Sima's criticism was initially directed towards qigong and not Falun Gong in particular, Sima made a turn against Falun Gong in the late 1990s. Ownby explains Sima and other criticisms in context of how it affected Falun Gong. A crucial piece of history would be missing if we removed all of the qigong context and simply discussed Falun Gong as though it is a standalone thing. It is not. Understanding of Falun Gong is contingent on understanding qigong itself. Colipon+(Talk) 02:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone is challenging the anti-Falun Gong orthodoxy around here. Sima Nan's input appears in one sentence in that page of Ownby's book. If Sima Nan made a turn against Falun Gong in the late 1990s, then that's the context in which it should be discussed--I totally agree on that point. And it is now, even sycophantically, on the main page. The thing about Master Li installing a Falun and having it rotate "the wrong way" is patent nonsense. Another issue I'll raise is something that has been avoided in these pages so far: the behaviour of practitioners at Zhongnanhai. This is noted in a number of sources, how they picked up the cigarette butts of the cops, didn't eat or drink so they wouldn't use the bathrooms in the surrounding area, and stood to the side of the sidewalk to allow passersby passage. Ownby spends some number of sentences on this--certainly more than he spends on Sima Nan--and singles it out as an important consideration. I think this should be mentioned. I will find a number of sources on it and present them later. --Asdfg12345 06:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I reread the pages in question and Colipon's point makes sense. To the extent that Sima Nan and other debunkers' efforts shaped Falun Gong's public representations, they are relevant here. To that end I've reinserted some text, actually from the next page in Ownby's book, which elucidates this point. Colipon is correct that Falun Gong did not emerge in a vacuum, and these dynamics warrant mention.

Asdfg12345, maybe if you established notability for what you are saying it could be considered for inclusion - with some degree of circumspection, one should add. By the way, I'm not trying to 'challenge' any 'orthodoxy.' The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TheSound. I still feel as though there is a 'piece of the puzzle' missing from the picture. Why was Falun Gong being distanced with other qigong movements? What criticism did qigong receive from scholars and Buddhists? What was the Chinese public's perception on qigong? Indeed, every one of the serious academic treatements of Falun Gong I've read so far have explained the qigong movement in detail to give sufficient background to Falun Gong. I don't think this article should be different. Right now it reads as though Falun Gong just popped out of nowhere when Li Hongzhi "brought it public". Obviously the previous 'qigong and health' section did not deal with this in an adequate fashion, but leaving out the qigong context entirely is unreasonable. I could also fix this issue myself in the future. Anyway, good work. Colipon+(Talk) 04:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job here, TheSoundAndTheFury; glad I asked for you to look at it. Later on I would like to remedy the double-up of information between this and the main Falun Gong page. Homunculus (duihua) 13:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that I recently took away a lot of detailed information from the main page. I need more time to figure out what is already here, and to integrate what's missing and not replicate information over here. So I will add a lot to this page soon I expect. Or if someone else wants to do it so much the better. The diffs are all there on the main page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)