Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Characterization of Falun Gong as a "cult"[edit]

So far, the text on Falun Gong being or not being a "cult" looks valuable to me. However, it was kind of a long massive block of text that could lead to reader fatique. It was also a bit of mishmash so I reorganized it by adding some subsection headings and reassembling related text together under those headings. Each subsection could use a bit more introductory text to explain to the reader what the central theses of the section are. --Richard (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few thoughts: calling this section "The cult debate" elevates it to the status of a ‘debate’, where this is actually not a debate among mainstream academics and journalists. The mainstream does not debate this, only the fringe debates against the mainstream about it.

Secondly, I don't see how these two paragraphs relate to an alleged "cult of personality," since this term isn't mentioned in either paragraph.

Some scholars suggest that Li Hongzhi assumes the role of a supernatural entity within the teachings of Falun Gong: Maria Hsia Chang, for example, opines that "If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in Falun Gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity."[1] However, Ian Johnson suggests that Li emphasises his teachings as simple revelations of "eternal truths", known since time immemorial but which have been corrupted over the course of time. Johnson opines that Li does not claim to be a messiah or god, but "only a wise teacher who has seen the light"[2] Li said in 2004 that it "doesn't matter if [people] believe in me or not. I haven't said that I am a god or a Buddha. Ordinary people can take me to be just an average, common man."[3]

Chang claims that Li's teaching on the "Dharma-ending period", and his remarks about providing salvation "in the final period of the Last Havoc," are apocalyptic.[1] Penny dissuades from considering Falun Gong as one of "these genuinely apocalyptic groups", or "that kind of organisation that believes that the world's going to end next Thursday." He says Falun Gong is "an entirely different thing", and that Li Hongzhi's teachings ought to be considered in the context of a "much more Buddhist notion of the cycle of the Dharma or the Buddhist law."[4]

Thirdly, it's unclear how Randi's personal blog qualifies as a reliable source on this topic. It is a self-published source and as far as I can tell its use here does not fall into one of the accepted categories at WP:SELFPUB -- is this disputed? If not, we can remove that reference. If so, we can take it to a community board. Interested in learning about the above two paragraphs--my suggestion is that they be moved to the teachings page. I'm not sure, but maybe I should start being bold when I have such ideas to chop out info and move it around? Please let me know.--Asdfg12345 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an on-going discussion about this at FLGNEW. You may want to contribute. Colipon+(Talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FLGNEW page is about the suggested future structure of the Falun Gong main article, but I acknowledge that if we find a good, neutral, descriptive heading on one page we should probably reuse it on the other. Myself, I rather liked Asdfg's suggestion of "label", but that might be just as bad as "characterization" as you can both forcibly "characterize" someone as something they are not, as you can "label" someone as something they are not. You could even "claim", "contest", "declare" or "insist" on it. Not sure what a "neutral" adjectivized verb would be here. / PerEdman 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why would the mainstream actually debate anything? Debates take place either between mainstream (established) ideas and non-established ideas, or between two or more ideas of which none are (yet) established. I'm trying to understand what you mean when you claim that we should not call "it" a debate because the debate is not between parties who hold the mainstream view, when that seems to be a self-contradictory requirement. If the mainstream view was that Falun Gong was a cult, we would still have to note the Mainstream view AND any notable objections to this, especially those which would be "non-mainstream". / PerEdman 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one has disputed my argument that the "cult of personality" section is problematic, most likely original research, and that the content does not match the title, I'm going to move the relevant stuff to the teachings page and move the bottom paragraph to the section above.--Asdfg12345 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to avoid removing anything, if we decide to integrate this material into the main FG text I would prefer it if we had as much material as possible here. As you know, Maunus wrote what many believe to be a very good segment on the question of cult status which may well take the place of anything we already wrote here. / PerEdman 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultivation"[edit]

I have gone bold yet again and removed this entire single-source section. If there are any objections or rewrites please voice it on the talk page. I see no relevance of this entire section and it is mostly fluff and jargon bordering on promotion of the practice. Colipon+(Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section like that in "Academic views..."? How strange. That should belong in Teachings, I'd say. / PerEdman 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, regroup this large body of text, put it into an article renamed Teachings and Practices of Falun Gong, and then integrate it into that article. It most certainly does not belong here. Colipon+(Talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, whatever. I actually put the section there. Couldn't for the life of me see the relevance of it in Falun Gong outside mainland China, so I moved it. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just save the diff and we can look at it later if there's anything useful there.--Asdfg12345 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The lead, as it stands in comparison with the contents of this article, has become increasingly inappropriate. It had two paragraphs before I boldly removed it. Paragraph one basically just said that Falun Gong has aroused academic interest in many areas - a frivolous and useless section. Paragraph two was a few out-of-context David Ownby quotes; it is difficult to gauge their purpose in the lede. If there are issues stemming from this change please discuss without resorting to disruptive editing. Colipon+(Talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this move. Do the editing and revision, *then* rewrite lede according to what article's body says. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both. The article as a whole has had quite a few edits lately, so it was time for the lead-in to be adapted to the current reality. Good catch. / PerEdman 11:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Qigong Awards[edit]

Regarding the following:


According to WP:BRD I should probably explain. It is not that I removed these because it was positive acclaim for Falun Gong. I fully recognize that Falun Gong has had its share of praise. However, I question the signficance of these awards in relation to the context of the article. 54 large-scale lectures? Is this any different from other Qigong groups? There were hundreds of Qigong groups belonging to this "SQRA". They all held large-scale lectures.

As for the "Beijing Oriental Health Expo" - this should be treated with the utmost skepticism as well. Firstly, what is it? Is it significant? What are these awards? What do they even mean? There are a myriad of 'awards' given out at these expos. A search on Google reveals that mention of this expo is almost exclusively from Falun Gong or Falun Gong-related websites. This is why I am hesitant about including this information. It seemed like Falun Gong promotion to me. Colipon+(Talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also who the question of who the "he" being referred to is. I thought Falun Gong, as a movement, was more of an "it". If that is referring to Li, it should be rephrased to indicate as much. And I heard on The Colbert Report a few days ago about a woman in Connecticut who created what appeared to be a professional organization of nurses and an award ceremony which she paid for to have herself declared "nurse of the year". Of course, she wasn't actually a nurse. ;) It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask that the significance of such awards be demonstrated, which would probably be best done by establishing the independence of the group awarding them and that the awards were of a limited number. If everyone Qigong group got some award, the awards would be not particularly notable. John Carter (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54 lectures sounds quite notable and this kind of research, though certainly pseudoscientific, is exactly the kind of thing I mean by positive criticism of Falun Gong. But how would I, as a western, non-pseudoscientific person measure the notability of such acclaim? I'd honestly be prepared to trust the word of someone who did move in those circles, if only to have something to go on. / PerEdman 14:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is quite disconcerting that there is no mention of this Beijing Oriental Health Expo outside the realm of Falun Gong...

I also dispute that 54 'large-scale lectures' is notable. How do you define large-scale? Many Qigong masters during this era would hold about 200 lectures a year. Colipon+(Talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict response) I don't disagree with PerEdman, if it could be established that this group were not in some way dependent of Falun Gong itself. Like I said, numerous people and groups have created puppet organizations and such to promote themselves, and, particularly considering that, like is said above, this seems to be mentioned almost exclusively by Falun Gong related pages, there could be some question as to whether it was, directly or indirectly, some sort of Falun Gong related group basically created to give Falun Gong some positive press. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not even that these awards are given out by a FLG-related group. My point is that these awards have no significance 1. in the context of the article (whether we call it academic views or critcism), and 2. in the context of the larger Qigong picture. Many Qigong groups received awards - they were handed out like candy during these years by this so-called Qigong scientific research association. Falun Gong zooms in on one claim and beats it to death with endless references to their own 'achievements' in order to promote themselves. According to WP:BURDEN whoever wrote this section has the burden of proving that these awards are notable and provide a context. They have failed to do so. Thus my removal of this section. Colipon+(Talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon, Penny thinks it's notable enough to bring to attention in his speeches. your speculations about the apparent motivations of Falun Gong practitioners or Li Hongzhi are not relevant to this. It's a reliable source par excellence. Let's go with what the experts think rather than what we think. Obviously the mention of awards gives a context for how Falun Gong was received in China back in the day; if you have another reliable source which argues that they are not significant, then we can put that in as well. But we won't delete a source from the article just because you think it's insignificant. I have restored the text.--Asdfg12345 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the awards seem to have been given out to pretty much every group involved in Qigong. The question of balance thus comes into the picture, by saying that "Falun Gong received awards" as opposed to "virtually every Qigong movement, including Falun Gong, received awards". If there is a question of this type, where it seems that a secondary source may be perhaps selectively mentioning information regarding one particular subject to the apparent exclusion of others, that may well violate WP:NPOV, by giving a unbalanced view of the situation by stressing the involvement of only one group among many, and not all reliable sources are necessarily what we would consider neutral. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to asdfg: if you have another reliable source which argues that they are not significant, then we can put that in as well. Actually, I don't have to prove anything. I could've technically just went and deleted it without giving a reason. The WP:BURDEN is on whoever wrote this section, not me, to prove that these awards are significant. Colipon+(Talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if they are sourced to reliable sources, WP:BURDEN and WP:V are met. Other questions, such as perhaps a specific source giving undue weight to selected information, and perhaps creating a potentially unbalanced appearance in the content might be seen as being probablematic according to WP:NPOV and some related principles. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any sources for about that they were awarded to all qigong groups? if not, then how can we argue that??--Asdfg12345 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per John Carter above. You do a search of this "Expo" and all you find is Falun Gong. Penny is the only known academic to mention this and he words it the same way as Falun Gong websites... almost certainly fails at WP:V. Colipon+(Talk)
I suppose I sort of assumed good faith on the part of the source, and that's naive. I suppose I meant to say that IF there is such an organization and IF it did arrange 54 large-scale lectures, then it MIGHT be notable. I didn't mean to trust the source completely, but I suppose I saw no reason to dispute it. It could, as someone seemed to imply, even be an organization created BY Falun Gong. / PerEdman 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is likely to be controlled by Falun Gong, as it is credited to a state organization, By the way, anyone here ever work for a "state organization", or, in the US, the government? I have. I worked with both the state department of natural resources and the state department of mental health. We had conferences too, and in some cases we even had some form of "recognition". Basically, based on admittedly personal, unadmissable, experience, if the government invites you to an event as a participant in which participants will get an award, trust me, you will get an award, even if the only one they can think of is for having the cutest dog. In some cases, where there is only a specific "lifetime achievement" award or something similar, then maybe not. These awards seem to have been given out during the qigong boom, when the government was apparently supporting Qigong in all aspects, so I myself would expect it to give awards to pretty much everybody who showed up, considering its evident purpose was to spread qigong, and giving out awards is one way to do that. If thats the case, then the real value of the awards could be reasonably called into question. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the phone just now, so couldn't engage with this well. If you do not have a source disputing the significance of the awards, then that they are mentioned in several reliable sources which comment on the topic (like Ownby, Penny) is de facto proof of their significance. If you have a source disputing the significance of the awards then that could also be included, along with the mention of awards.--Asdfg12345 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[[File:Example.jpg--Asdfg12345 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

That's just the thing - the awards DON'T seem to be mentioned in several reliable sources, they seem to be mentioned by Falun Gong and then retold by other sources. As you can certainly see, that doesn't mean one source becomes many just because it has been reused by someone else. Read WP:BURDEN carefully, it's one of my favorite fields. / PerEdman 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And simply being mentioned by reliable sources doesn't necessarily establish any sort of proof of significance. It can and generally is an indication of significance, but if there are counterindications, that can be a factor in determining how much if any attention they receive in any given article. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Zhang Hongbao's Zhong Gong claimed much the same type of fame for itself, so did Xiang Gong and other similar "Gongs", a lot of it in their original materials distributed around China to entice people into becoming part of their Qigong group over another. It's frivolous and self-promotional, there is no question. Colipon+(Talk) 20:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"That's just the thing - the awards DON'T seem to be mentioned in several reliable sources, they seem to be mentioned by Falun Gong and then retold by other sources." -- This kind of argumentation is rather problematic. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Since these things appeared in these sources, they can be mentioned here. It is a short few pieces of information, and it is also quite relevant because it established how Falun Gong was received in mainland China in the early years. It's unclear where Ownby and Penny got the information, possibly from Falun Gong sources, possibly from other sources. it doesn't matter, particularly. The academics are the experts on the topics, not us, and that they make a point of pointing this out when they speak of the subject shows that it's an important point to mention, as far as they see it. The apparent counterindictions of this are basically that "Falun Gong said it first so it's not reliable," and other statements of opinion/original research. The claim that the remarks are "self-promotional" is also wrong, because what is being sourced are statements from independent experts.

Verifiability is exactly the problem I am highlighting when I say that the QiGong awards have not been mentioned in several reliable sources. That these claims have been retold is a measure of notability, not a measure of verifiability. Please be more specific than "Since these things appeared in these sources" because it does matter where Penny and Ownby got their information. Is it their own theory, is it verified by a third party, is it reliable information, is it propaganda from the CCP, that kind of thing. Don't dictate what's relevant and not, tell me why. Wikipedia is not about trusting in the beliefs of experts, it's about Verifiability. You even say it yourself just a few sentences before, then you forget it towards the end. / PerEdman 10:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see an excerpt from The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001:

In December 1992, Li Hongzhi made the first public demonstration of his skills—at the 1992 Oriental Health Expo in Beijing. Apparently, he caused a paralysed and wheelchair-bound man to walk, destroyed gall and kidney stones and cured ‘difficult and complex illnesses of all kinds’. The director of the fair declared that Falun Gong was ‘the star cultivation system’. At the December 1993 Expo, Li was given two awards: ‘The Award for Advancing Boundary Science’ and the ‘Qigong Master Most Acclaimed by the Masses’. During 1993 and 1994 he gave classes in Falun Gong all over China. By March 1993, when an introductory and laudatory article was written in the journal Chinese Qigong (published by the National Chinese Medicine Association), he had already given classes in Beijing, Changchun, Taiyuan, and in Shanxi province. In July and August 1993, the journal Qigong and Science reported that he gave lectures 10 nights in a row in a 2200 seat university auditorium, with people sitting in the aisles, and, as the article notes ‘no air conditioning at the height of the Beijing summer’. Qigong and Science also reported his appearance on talkback radio in Wuhan in March 1993 while he was giving classes there. On the program ‘Happy Train’ on the Wuhan People’s Broadcasting Station, and later on Hubei Yangtse Economic Broadcasting Station, he conducted hotline consultations and remote healing. Li’s first book, China Falungong was published in April 1993 (preface dated December 1992) through the Junshi Yiwen Press, a publishing house associated with the People’s Liberation Army. A Falun Gong site claims that between May 1992 and December 1994, Li gave 56 public nine-day lectures in all the major cities of China.

And an excerpt from Ownby's The Falun Gong in the New World, published in the European Journal of East Asian Studies, Sep 2003, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p 306:

It is important to note that neither Li Hongzhi nor Falun Gong was particularly controversial in the beginning. Indeed, Li became an instant star of the qigong movement, celebrated at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos of 1992 and 1993 . Falun Gong was welcomed into the ScientiŽ c Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organise many of Li’s activities between 1992 and 1994. Notable among those activities were 54 large scale lectures given throughout China to a total audience of some 20,000.7 Li’s appeal at the outset seems to have been, as in many other cases, his promise to help followers toward better health. Like other masters, he charged admission to his lectures, although Falun Gong sources insist that his fees were much lower than those of other schools of qigong. And at some point, the success of Falun Gong meant that Li could stop charging admission fees and oáer his vision freely to anyone who wished to attend.

Whatever we think of such commentary and claims, the experts give it paragraphs of explanation, more than what is in the article. It's significant, relevant, and verifiable that Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi received these awards and commendations in the early years in China. I have restored the text.--Asdfg12345 04:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the whole, I tend to agree that the reception described by Ownby and Penny merit mention, probably including the awards, if it can be demonstrated they were not self-awards. We all know how the Chinese authorities react to things they don't like. They have the power erase them from history, or rewrite it entirely. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone clarify what is meant by "self-awards"? Does it mean that it is claimed that these awards were actually Falun Gong practitioners rewarding them to Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi? Sorry, bit confused. If this is the claim, obviously the burden is on demonstrating the veracity of such claims, rather than disproving them. Apologies if I misunderstand something. I've never heard of this before. It sounds a little far-fetched, just to put my own 2cents in.--Asdfg12345 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume it pertains to awards given to you at a venue where you are one of the organizers or sponsors. It's not entirely unheard of in the pseudoscientific business of healers, psychics and crystal monglers. / PerEdman 10:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's it. We need to avoid giving credence to awards made in flagrant conflict of interest. However, as it is mentioned without qualification by serious academics, I think it is safe to take it at face value. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understand what you mean now. I think bringing up this point would have been meaningful if there were sources on it. --Asdfg12345 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Merged to Falun Gong
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

history[edit]

The article was created 21:07, 7 May 2006 Ed Poor (talk | contribs) (Three issues - off the top of my head - please fill in sources and details)

During the course of its life, this article has had the following moves:

Ah, the time capsule. I'm surprised that the first suggestion for "Supression" was actually "Crackdown" but a few days later changed to "Persecution". Colipon+(Talk) 03:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion[edit]

Desperately seeking consensus page move. The current title is unrepresentative of the views which have been published concerning Falun Gong, and limits views of other third parties. The article was originally titled Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, but was moved with discussion involving 3 editors. There are a number of articles about religions which have articles entitled 'Criticism of [religion]' (namely Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam,Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of the War on Terrorism ), and I believe that the word "criticism" is not negative or pejorative here at WP, and this convention should be followed here to enable a comprehensive article about the subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this decided by a majority vote now? Discussion has gone out the window? This ignores the arguments that were raised against this and seems an attempt to move the page by force. There are unaddressed arguments regarding how "Reception of Falun Gong" is a neutral name, that it's recommended by WP:CRIT; how the "Criticism of..." is not a formal convention, and that using that as an argument turns the claim for its validity into an axiom; how the articles "Criticism of..." are all full of actual criticism of the subjects they treat, not a neutral analysis of Reception (both positive and negative) of the subjects. Criticism obviously means negative commentary, and the examples you give only exemplify this; the whole page will just violate WP:POVFORK.--Asdfg12345 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that, for my part, I'm only here to provide a WP:3O due to the article being listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. To directly address your concerns though, I can say that WP:CRIT, aside from the fact that it is an essay and therefore does not have wide community consensus, is primarily targeted at sections within an article. That doesn't mean that it's inapplicable to an article title, but it's usefulness only enters the picture after considering the main WP:TITLE guideline. Based on the article content, the history, the references, and the existence of similar article titles, along with the sound reasoning offered to make the move, presents a clear and compelling case. Also, WP:POVFORK is decidedly more about the content of the article itself (plus, see especially WP:CFORK#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). The title of the article does not automatically render the article a POVFORK.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible suggestion: 'Reception' just sounds like a party. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ω, your comments are appreciated.
@Asdfg12345: The purpose of this is to get 3rd/others' opinions. Those of us who have been discussing this for a long time all know were we stand, and I for one do not see any use in repeating my arguments to people that have heard them before, nor do I (obviously) feel the need to argue with those I agree with. Rest assured that once a new user puts his/her voice into the "oppose" list, I will respond. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asdfg12345, "Criticism obviously means negative commentary" - restating this same claim several times does not make it any more true. Please join the discussion rather than repeat yourself. / PerEdman 10:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have again failed to link this page because I can never remember the capitalization or whether it uses "on" or "of" or "views" or "attention". In that regard, even "Reception of" would be better, but a standard name that anyone can remember is still much preferred. / PerEdman 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ω, you said "Based on the article content, the history, the references, and the existence of similar article titles, along with the sound reasoning offered to make the move, presents a clear and compelling case," -- but how does the content, history, references, and similar article titles make a convincing case for Criticism? The reasoning offered is basically that, but connecting these dots may appear more obvious to some than others. I don't see the connection, for example.

PerEdman, I'm also sorry that I have felt it necessary to keep repeating myself. You even use the word criticism to mean negative commentary when just generally discussing things (which is perfectly normal). My point is that the word obviously means negative commentary, this is how it's used, and it strikes me as silly to use it that way as normal, then say it means quite something else when it's an article title... it strikes me as doublethink. Also, all these other articles using Criticism in the title are, actually, about negative commentary on the subject, which this article is not supposed to be--again, how does using that as an argument make sense, unless Criticism of Falun Gong is supposed to follow their lede (which everyone says isn't the case)? I'm just seeing inconsistencies in every direction, and not sure if anyone has understood me when I've attempted to point them out. But I really want to say no more on this subject. At this point I think we should just abandon the article and integrate the most relevant material into the main one. This is just my humble opinion. My last request is that the issue receives input from a significant, uninvolved audience before decisions are made.--Asdfg12345 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first point that I would make is that most of your issues seem to be content issues, which is something that should be addressed separately from the article title, and is an issue that I'm not particularly interested in myself. As for specifically using "Criticism of" in the article title here, there is an obvious but informal standard established to follow this pattern on Wikipedia right now. If you read some of the examples which are highlighted above then you'll see that the title does not automatically mean that the content is not neutral If you feel the need to argue the content (which seems obvious) please feel free to carry on in another section of this talk page. In terms of the article title though, it's fairly clear that it should be Criticism of Falun Gong
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know my resoning, just in case I add the following link where it was discussed before, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.E2.80.9CReception.E2.80.9D_or_.E2.80.9CCriticism.E2.80.9D. In a summary I support the renaming of this article into Reception of Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You don't have to feature your reasoning on this page, but if you are going to, I suggest doing it briefly rather than in an extended link, for the benefit of uninvolved editors. / PerEdman 19:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some criss-crossing of the discussion. The resolution to that one would obviate this one and vice versa. I don't understand the need for overlapping discussions, yo. --Asdfg12345 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

Third Option[edit]

  • Merge any relevant information into a criticism section of the main Falun Gong entry, or integrate it into the entry text itself and redirect all the suggested titles to that page. This entry, like most other such entries, is many times the size it ought to be in the first place. "Criticism of ..." entries invite POV pushing from both sides to the extent that the reception of the entry's subject matter seem like a much bigger deal than it really is. Major world religions which have been around for centuries have enough notable criticisms to warrant their own entries, NRMs hardly ever do do. Criticisms can usually be summarized neatly in much less space, unless every critic and every supporter gets their own couple of sentences and I see no reason why that should ever be the case. Please consider this option.PelleSmith (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are considering it. Feel free to join. Seb az86556 (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing that out. It appears that the emerging consensus is to merge. I would suggest that holding both of these discussions at the same time may not be the best idea unless the contain all of the same options. The emerging consensus here is to rename the page as opposed to merging it. Just a thought.PelleSmith (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the only thing anyone can do is refrain from adding to one discussion and joining in the other. No-one has the authority to stop the old discussion even though a third option has been proposed. / PerEdman 14:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ a b Chang, Maria Hsia (2004) Falun Gong: The End of Days (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press) ISBN 0-300-10227-5
  2. ^ p 212
  3. ^ Li Hongzhi, Teaching the Fa at the 2004 International Fa Conference in New York, from falundafa.org, accessed 20/5
  4. ^ Radio National, Falun Gong: Cult or Culture?, produced by Chris Bullock, [1], accessed September 19, 2007.
  5. ^ The Past, Present and Future of Falun Gong, A lecture by Harold White Fellow, Benjamin Penny, at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, 2001, [2], accessed 31/12/07
  6. ^ Clearwisdom.net, Awards and Recognitions
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Academic_views_on_Falun_Gong&oldid=1217257116"