The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Many of the keep comments can be discounted on the basis of their being based on the commentors experience rather than applicable policy. The argument that this should be kept because it doesn't fit in the main article is somewhat redundant, if it is POV there then it is POV here. There don't seem to be enough sources to warrant a separate article from the parent, and with the quotations removed from the article, it would be best presented in the main article, giving the information the due weight it deserves. Information which would unbalance a main article by giving it undue weight is considered a POV fork when split out. Hiding Talk 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research into health benefits of Falun Gong[edit]

Collection of source material, mostly by Falun Gong supporters, supporting health benefits. Apart from mostly being just quotes, this is also highly NPOV, and nearly all of it is of questionable notability. It appears that the researchers for the "journal" article are connected with the editors for the page, so there may be WP:VAIN problems as well. Philosophus T 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not believable research projects Bwithh 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is to report anything as long as they have a valid source. -- Quite certainly not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you showed me is about reliable source and what wiki is not. I did not see anything wrong on this article in terms of reliable source. Fnhddzs 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the verifiability policy carefully:Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.. One peer reviewed obscure journal article (with a sample size of six subjects ) plus some large scale surveys whose only source is a Falun Gong promotional page is not sufficient here, especially given the enormous claims made by these reports. Bwithh 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pulling out the text for me. I think the article itself did not make outlandish claims, instead, it may just report some seeming outlandish claims and leaves the readers to decide. Whether the sample size is adequate or not is not a question for wiki, but for the journal paper review committee. Fnhddzs 04:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, technically it's not the business of WP to report primary sources in the first place. Our job is to wait until it gets picked up by a secondary source, such as a textbook or compendium, from which we turn it into a tertiary source. ~ trialsanderrors 04:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. that seems a good comment. If I understand correctly, so you mean although the source is a published journal paper, it has to be cited by any other source to be cited on wiki? Although I personally think it is kind of too much, I follow your suggestion to find where it is cited. I found 'two' places.
According to [1], This paper was cited by :
Current awareness on comparative and functional genomics
Comparative and Functional Genomics. 2005, Vol. 6, No. 7-8: 412

But it is not cited by this only one as suggested on liebertonline.com.

According to isiknowledge.com, It is also cited by Zieker D, Zieker J, Dietzsch J, et al.
CDNA-microarray analysis as a research tool for expression profiling in human peripheral blood following exercise
EXERCISE IMMUNOLOGY REVIEW 11: 86-96 2005 [2][3]
Would this look better? -- Fnhddzs 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already listed this on the Talk page, along with the impact score of the journal. This is not really what I'm talking about, but I recommend we continue the discussion at the bottom, where I wrote some comments on what an encyclopedic article requires. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

Fnhddzs 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aside from the issue of basic verifiability in terms of the scientific method, the only source for the large scale surveys is a Falun Gong promotion page. Take the large scale surveys out, and you're left with a sample size of six with six control subjects in a peer reviewed journal, which, well, raises the issue that not all peer reviewed journals are equally believable. Verifiability depends on reliable sources. Bwithh 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The surveys are gone (again). Your feelings about journals aside, I think in this case you would have to show the unreliability of the Journal before it could be ruled out. CovenantD 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer review is not sufficient to guarantee reliability of a source. Anyway, regarding the research study example which remains - this study, according to its full abstract takes 6 (six) Falun Gong practitioners who exercise in a Falun Gong way for 1-2 hours a day (and possibly exercise in other ways too for more time - the abstract isn't clear), for at least one year previously, and up to 5 years. These Falun Gong exercisers are then compared to a control group of 6(six) people who have not followed any exercise program of any kind for 1 year or possibly longer. This second group of people are called a "normal and healthy" group by the research authors. Now, I'm kind of a couch potato, but even I know that doing NO exercise whatsover for a YEAR is not "normal and healthy" (unless you're in some kind of manual labour job), and even a 6 year old can predict that the 6 who are doing special exercises 1-2 hours a day (more than most people!) possibly besides any other exercising will turn out to be healthier than the control group. Again, peer review is not the hallmark of sound research. Now I'm off to the gym machine. Bwithh 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted some impact data on the journal and the lone cite to the article on the Talk page. As I mentioned there, the article is probably worth a one-liner, with a caveat about micronumerosity. For those who don't know the scientific publishing industry,m at the bottom of every specialiaztion there are a lot of journals that are essentially scams that milk university libraries for shitloads of money. This journal, by impact factor, seems slightly above that level. It's still not anywhere near what I would consider a sole reliable source for a science article, not to mention that the article itself should write about seconday sources (textbook science), not paraphrase primary sources at length. Again, I can only recommend organizing a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's up for peer review now. CovenantD 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is to report something. It is a daughter article of the main article Falun_Gong#Research_into_Health_Benefits. It does not have POV issue. All editors working on the main article have had agreed to splitting the main article and link to the daughter articles. Could you tell me where the content to go if the article is deleted? Go back to the main article will make the main article lengthy again. I agree to wikify it or improve it. But I disagree to delete it. Fnhddzs 19:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, on the name, I would recommend health effects rather than health benefits, but that's a minor issue. Second, I'm still pushing for a WP:PR, but it seems like only one of the active editors is interested in it. Third, I tend to agree that health effects of FG warrants its own article if there is in fact a research field on the topic. And I'm less sanguine than you that this field actually exists in any meaningful way. Discussing one unvetted article at length is simply non encyclopedic, regardless of its scientific value. So the question is: what other material is there to turn this into an encyclopedic article? I see that the editors are trying to comply with WP:NPOV, but as long as that's the only piece of clay they have, it'll never turn into a sculpture. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't quite understand what you mean by "distracting"? The parent article was too long. So it got split. Almost each section of the pararent article has a daughter article. Anyway, if this article is deleted, the content may have to go back to the main article since it was there. Fnhddzs 01:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No it won't. The same problems that have spawned this AfD prevent it from being transported back into the main article in it's current form. I think the compromise is the best that can be done, given the quality of the one and only source we have. CovenantD 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks. But could you please educate me the problems in detail? I think in the main article it would be a totally different story. I don't object to compromise somehow, though, since it is improvable anyway. The number of the source of one may seem to be few. but the quality seems good to me:). Fnhddzs 01:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the problems with the journal: Not well established (11 volumes). Publisher without reputation. Low impact indicates cursory peer review at best. Here are the problems with the study: Micronumerosity makes external validity extremely suspicious. Major sample selection problems. Study design problems. Single cite mean this paper has not been sufficiently vetted in the scientific community. Here is what speaks in favor of the journal: Online version available at cdlib.org. Here is what speaks in favor of the study: Authors are researchers at respectable medical centers. In summary, I second Nick Y.'s proposal, especially since none of the defenders of the article are willing to subject it to a peer review. ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for educating me. But regardless how many volumes (it was published on vol. 11 as of Feb 2005, but now it is June 2006), it is NIH publication searchable on NIH website[4]. I would be proudly putting on my professional resume if I have such a publication (I know disqualified publications weakens my resume). Fnhddzs 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I add that as "in favor of journal" then. Note also that I don't condone removing this source (unlike the "survey" which should be canned as blatantly unscientific). It should just be pared down to size according to its academic status. And if it is the only credible piece of scientific evidence discussing health effects of there is little reason to keep this outside the FG article. ~ trialsanderrors
So do you know of any research into the health effects of FG? ~ trialsanderrors 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I happened to just find an article on MNdaily.com[5]. It is not a research, just an interview. Also here has the words said by Mr. Da Liu [6][7]. I could try to find more[8][9]. Here is a new one [10], it mentioned "Because of its self-discipline and healthy approach – practitioners do not smoke or drink alcohol and have a rigorous moral code – it was encouraged by the authorities.". Sadly, in terms of organ harvesting,

Administrators tell inquirers: "Yes, it will be a Falun Gong, so it will be clean."

which suggest everybody know practitioners are usually healthy. Fnhddzs 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these references qualify as relevant research or even just research, never mind authoritative research Bwithh 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know what. I think the word "Research" implies some negative doubts on the object following it. It does not mean this article has to be about academic research. I am willing to change the title of the article. But I am ok with this current title too. I hope people could understand what I mean. Thanks. Fnhddzs 03:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

202.83.32.153 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above user has brief Falun Gong centred edit history Bwithh 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above user has brief Falun Gong centred edit history Bwithh 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me at least, testimonials as to the effectiveness of Falun Gong is not an arguement for keeping the article, especially when the cause for deletion is original research. --TeaDrinker 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First congratulations to the great health benefits HappyInGeneral received. I would say although Falun Gong practitioners all say Falun Gong is good (even after 7 years of persecution), they say it with a solid reason of which health benefits are significantly correlated. Yeah, maybe personal testimonials here are not very to the point. But media reports mentioning health benefits would be helpful, I will try to find more of that. By the way, the cause for nomination of deletion was POV, now it changed? Anyway, we are doing a vote. Cause is not that important, I think. Fnhddzs 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

although science would probably be unable to completely prove health benefits of Falun Gong and qigong practices - since there is still an issue of belief and enlightening - there are at the same time hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases. Alot are also documented as self evident testimonies.
It would be silly to ignore the experience of such a huge number of people just because they hadn't published it in a well known newspaper.
Falun Dafa never bragged about being able to cure people, this is not a main purpose of the practice and there is no need to show those to prove or validate for Falun Dafa. It stands for itself in all its glory and splendor.
For Wikipedia, which aims to have factual information, health benefits surely happened and there is no problem to mention it.
Just my opinion, Kobi Lurie.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobi_Lurie (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More