Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Rv of July 26, 2020 "Truthfulness"

Just explaining this rv [1]. There are two matters at play, and I'll state my views on both. First is the deletion of what the Falun Gong believe. This is the oft-heard "truthfulness" etc. Believe it or not, that is what is in the doctrines and scriptures and is repeated regularly in the literature — so obviously that stuff has to say. We can personally not believe it, but we cannot delete it for that reason. The second is the Kavan addition. Firstly, the source is a conference paper which as anyone who has experience in academia would know, are not nearly equivalent to a peer reviewed paper. Secondly, we could debate her credentials — she is an NRM scholar, does not speak Chinese from what I can tell of her bio (a fairly significant deficit for a scholar who wishes to opine on a Chinese religion) — but I guess it's not necessary given the first problem. And thirdly, she didn't quite say what Bink said she said. Her interpretation of the quoted line is in question anyway. It may be helpful to compare Kavan's work to something like Penny and Ownby. There is a reason they are the leading scholars on this. Scholarship is not about simply dishing out one's opinions; and not every opinion that appears by anyone with a job to ever be published is suitable for us to quote. If it were, this page would be 10x longer than its current length.

As a general rule, we should prefer facts (or the closest we can get to them) over opinions. And if we are getting into opinions, which we always will, then they should be discussed thematically. For instance, the generic problem she is discussing is how the Falun Gong represent their beliefs. I'm actually not sure how much this comes up in the scholarship — but at the very least, extrapolating from a throwaway line that a non-Chinese speaking expert of somewhat dubious credential (at least versus actual experts) says in a conference paper... certainly does not do all the work we might wish, such as allowing us to delete what the core beliefs are and instead assert that the core beliefs are lies. Which the source does not even say. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Heather Kavan of Massey University is a fine source. Analyzing the Falun Gong's activities in the West does not require Chinese language skills. She writes, "However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls 'high level things' to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters... Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs, and resort to formulaic principles and repetitions of their slogan ‘truthfulness, compassion, forbearance’." This instruction to lie undermines very significantly the moral philosophy of truthfulness. Once we know that the truthfulness principle has this internal contradiction, we cannot tell the reader that truthfulness is in fact part of Falun Gong. Rather, we can describe how truthfulness is taught as a moral principle, and that the principle is parroted to outsiders, and then set aside when it's inconvenient.

Kavan's "conference paper" is echoed in her published paper titled "Victims, Martyrs, Crusaders: Archetypal Figures in News Stories about Falun Gong", published in 2017 in the scholarly journal Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review.[2] In that paper, Kavan writes, "They have the impossible task of trying to persuade people that “Falun Gong is good” when the dominant story is more painful than good, and they are expected to proclaim “truth, compassion and forbearance” while zealous members aggressively bait, disrupt and avenge." In the same journal, Kavan published "Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy"[3] in which she says that "innocent members" of the Falun Gong "genuinely embrace" the three moral principles, but that these people are harmed by contradictions when they are instructed to conduct psychological warfare against hostile outsiders.

Buddhist scholar Lao Cheng-Wu (Doctorate of Philosophy from Hong Kong Buddhist Institute) writes that the three moral principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" were invented by Li on January 1, 2001, as a way to gloss over his new and contradictory instructions to his disciples not to tolerate "evils" whereas previously they were taught tolerance with the three moral principles of "Truthfulness, Benevolence and Tolerance". Lao Cheng-Wu says that the three principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" were said by Li to represent "cosmic law" rather than the much more defensible idea that they are a good criteria of daily life. Lao Cheng-Wu says that the three moral principles espoused by Li are inauthentic in practice. See The Refutation and Analysis of Falun Gong in the chapter titled "What Is 'Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance'?"

So we have scholars talking about how the principle of truth is contradicted by Falun Gong's own leader. This fact must be part of the narrative we relay to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is indeed relevant, and should be covered here. It also fits a larger pattern. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a conference paper by a speechwriting professor is not sufficient to outweight the decades of scholarship, including intensive fieldwork, that contradicts her findings. The claim that "Truthfulness, Benevolence, and Tolerance" were invented as Falun Gong principles in 2001 is absolutely stunning: from the time of its introduction Falun Gong's core texts centred on these principles, and one need only consult contemporaneous reliable sources to see that.TheBlueCanoe 12:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, a lot of what you've written there appears to be a defense of original research — i.e. the source still doesn't say what you put in the article, but now you've come back with your own interpretation of how the general idea is true. Doesn't work like that. The stuff about 2001 is fairly silly, isn't it? Wasn't Zhuan Falun, the FLG bible, published in the 1990s? I don't think we need to spend a lot of time with material that is demonstrably wrong. We're interested in the cumulative knowledge in the body of scholarship, and we distill and represent the most reliable facts from that. We do not cherrypick the specific opinions that accord with our own and write the article based on them. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I spent my limited daily reading time today reviewing Kavan’s papers. Kavan’s essay, ”Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy"[12] was interesting and I ended up reading every word.

My conclusion: arguments about the reliability of this source aside, Binkersnet has not accurately represented the content of this essay.

This essay makes no claims about FG being “instructed to conduct psychological warfare”, contrary to Binksternet’s representation. The essay makes no claim about FG members acting under “instructions”. Much less does the essay support Binksternet’s overarching claim about such instructions originating from Li Hongzhi.

To be fair, the essay indicates (though not quite explicitly) that some members of FG use harmful psychological tactics on misidentified enemies. However, the essay, in the same breath, makes it clear that such tactics are not shared by all, and in fact, damage “the reputations of innocent members who genuinely embrace ‘truth, compassion and forbearance”. Kavan also speaks about her receiving messages from the Falun Dafa Association, where “the author apologised for members harassing me”. Finally Kavan does not rule out the possibility that many of these harmful tactics may originate from Falun Gong impersonators, though Kavan seems dubious about this.

If Binksternet’s claim is true, then the Falun Dafa Association must either be rebelling against Li Hongzhi, or Li has no control over the Association. Both contradicts Binksternet’s claims.

Crucially, Kavan’s essay ends with the following final thoughts: “the irony of the conflict is that scholars and practitioners have much in common. Both engage in mental challenges that require intense focus—practitioners in meditation and scholars in academic discovery. Both seek knowledge—for practitioners, spiritual revelations, and for academics, nuggets of information. Most important, both aim to be loyal to their values regardless of political influences, with practitioners upholding their right to religious freedom and scholars upholding their right to academic freedom.”

Here is my concern about editors presenting a lot of sources, and representing them without care. A lot of this misinformation finds its way into wikipedia, simply because other editors do not have the time to verify such claims. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Is there are reason why we still have massive block quotes on the page? The LA Magazine article that is excerpted at great length does not even appear to exist. TheBlueCanoe 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How could it not exist? The link is dead?? That seems weird. Might be a temporary error in the website. If it's not back up within a day or so, we could just link out to the archive.org version of it. Although I don't think it should be in blockquotes anyway. If the material in the piece was false then it's possible that they removed it, but in that case one imagines they would have written a statement explaining as much. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The language of "media extension" is still in the article. Bloodofox, where are you getting that specific language? I have not seen it in any of the sources cited. This seems to be persistent original research. I'm going to delete it if a source is not provided. My understanding of the technical nature of the relationship between FLG and these media properties comes from the Ownby text and some ethnographies; they are fairly clear that the media are all founded and largely run by FLG believers. But they do not say "extension," as far as I've seen. The idea seems to be to assert that there is a central organization, but again all of the ethnography again contradicts that claim. Why not simply accurately represent the sources, rather than forcing them to yield claims that they do not actually contain? This is a recurring pattern I've observed from the edits of both bloodofox and Binksternet. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Already explained aboved. The media sources aren't going anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the part where the extensive use of blockquoting was and unsupported original research was explained.TheBlueCanoe 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As you're quite aware, "extension" is fully appropriate wording for the tentacled situation with Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, etc. We could, of course, have a discussion about whether we should be using the "propaganda" wording that some sources use for these groups or we could flatly refer to these groups as "Falun Gong" groups, as well. Maybe we should consider that approach. Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What original research? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It is original research to claim that these are "extensions" that are "administered" by Falun Gong. This claim is not supported. Note that I am not, and have not, claimed that there is no connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong (there clearly is). But that connection should be defined accurately.

No one has explained why there are still massive block quotes on the page, one of which refers to an article that appears not to exist.TheBlueCanoe 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is amply covered in reliable media sources, as it is covered in the article. "Extension" is fully appropriate. This sort of lawyering is unhelpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think "extension" is appropriate? Although, perhaps it doesn't matter. It is unsourced, vague, and original research. You've simply reasserted your personal opinion, and by doing so have made clear that you think your opinion is more important than our actual content policies. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternately, we could just say "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]) or "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), but "extension" is also perfectly accurate and valid. Again, this sort of lawyering is going nowhere. If you're floating echoign the The Epoch Times and their claim that they're somehow totally separate from Li or The Epoch Times, you're barking up the wrong tree: The Epoch Times and related Falun Gong media extensions are not a reliable sources—and that's not likely to change anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK so you didn't answer my question. Each word we use should be accurate and sourced. Using our own terms, as you now admit you're doing, is inappropriate and original research. All I'm actually insisting on is that we take care to be accurate. Part of being accurate is not engaging in original research, or coming up with our own terms that aren't reflected in the literature. The relationship between the Falun Gong faith and the Epoch Media Groups seems fairly straightforward: it's founded by believers and staffed almost entirely by them. We should simply say that rather than come up with our own ways of framing it. When official Falun Gong spokespeople say that the Epoch Media don't represent the Falun Gong community, we report that; when Epoch Media people say they don't represent Falun Gong, we report that; when media and scholars say that as far as they're concerned, they do look at those media companies as a sign of what Falun Gong believers think, we report that too. In the article, we can just give a clear account of the relationship between the two (i.e. between the faith/practice/group and the media) and subsequently refer to the media by name. For me it is more about nuance and accuracy rather than bluster and anger; so, take it easy with the spiels. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Media sources since 2016 make it pretty clear that there's more going on here than a bunch of adherents independently striking up a bunch of coordinated Falun Gong propaganda arms—in other words, extensions. Now, calling these extensions "Falun Gong media" is also fine by me—or, better yet, we could just quote these sources directly by simply referring to them as "propaganda". In fact, there's a very good case for that, and perhaps I'll compile a collection of sources that does exactly that here soon—I can think of several, and I'm sure there will soon be plenty more. Then again, extensions is in fact perfectly valid and obviously not original research; Falun Gong media, Falun Gong extensions, religious-political propaganda, you get the picture. And, of course, we don't parrot sources that fail WP:RS, of which you're well aware: We're simply not here to conjure up artificial balance and we're not here to regurgitate whatever The Epoch Times is up to today. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda arms, while correct, would be a bit blunt in an encyclopedia article except as part of a quote. I agree to any reasonable alternative like outlet, extension, associated group, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New ABC News Australia article: "The Power of Falun Gong"

ABC News (Australia) recently published an article on Falun Gong, Dragon Springs, and Falun Gong extensions like The Epoch Times:

• Campbell, Eric & Hagar Cohen. 2020. "The Power of Falun Gong". ABC News, July 202, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 27, 2020.

A few quotes:

As a young child, Anna came to believe Falun Gong’s teachings too, but there were some that raised deeply personal questions for her. Among them was being taught that she was different to other children because her mother was Chinese and her father was European.

"The leader of Falun Gong claims that race mixing in humans is part of an alien plot to drive humanity further from the gods,” says Anna. “He says that when a child is born from an interracial marriage, that child does not have a heavenly kingdom to go to.”

Some practitioners have explained Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth. At 11 years old, her mother read her the teachings about mixed-race children.

The family started spending weekends and holidays at The Mountain, flying across the breadth of the US to be closer to the movement’s global base .

“It was my mother’s dream for our entire family to eventually live at Dragon Springs.”

... But for Anna, The Mountain was no haven. The presence of Falun Gong’s leader, Master Li Hongzhi, seemed to pervade the complex.

I've seen the comments from Li regarding aliens and 'race-mixing' come up quite a few times now, but it is nowhere in the article. The same goes for Shen Yun's attitude toward medicine. Given the state of the article until it received scrutiny a few months ago, this is hardly a surprise, but Li espousing alien plots and racism is deeply fringe stuff, and notable.

Further, on the closeness between Falun Gong media entities and Trump campaign figures:

Dragon Springs is just a small slice of an expanding empire connected with Falun Gong. Practitioners set up The Epoch Times, once a free newspaper which is now published online and printed across the USA, Australia and other countries. Last year, in an advertising blitz, The Epoch Times spent nearly $US2 million on Facebook ads which pushed a pro-Trump message. Its YouTube news channel also appeals to a conservative audience.

Another media outlet linked to Falun Gong is the broadcaster NTD (New Tang Dynasty Television), which has collaborated with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon to produce Claws of the Red Dragon, a drama critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Jonathon Lee insists Falun Gong is not politically aligned but many of the practitioners see Donald Trump as an ally in the fight against the CCP.

The Epoch Times maintains it is not owned or operated by Falun Gong, but Ben Hurley, who worked on the Australian English-language edition, says it is in every sense a Falun Gong outlet. “Everyone who works there is a Falun Gong practitioner. They have a few people, a few token non-Falun Gong practitioners that they point to every time, but those people are outside the fortress. They’re not a part of the organisation.”

A group of editors entrenched on this page regularly attempts to downplay anything and remove anything found on this article that does not adhere to Falun Gong's narrative about itself, including discussion of Dragon Springs. Sections regarding Falun Gong's approach to medicine, race, homosexuality, and aliens are also relevant and should be in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those issues are, in fact, addressed in the article. To determine what kind of weight these things should be accorded, we should refer not to a single source, but should look at how these aspects are treated across the body of literature on Falun Gong teachings, representing different sides fairly and proportionally, so that we don't end up giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic, or to one perspective on it. There is no section dealing with the approach to medicine, which is worth adding.TheBlueCanoe 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic of aliens is solely covered in a quote that you're hoping to cut out of the article, for example.

A reminder that we're here to report on what reliable sources say. We're not here to be "fair" to any entity in particular; we're not looking to undercut reliable sources for "balance" in favor of any entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I second what Bloodofox said. In addition "To determine what kind of weight these things should be accorded, we should refer not to a single source, but should look at how these aspects are treated across the body of literature on Falun Gong teachings, representing different sides fairly and proportionally, so that we don't end up giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic, or to one perspective on it.” appears to be proposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE which we are supposed to avoid. You appear to misunderstand the WP:DUEWEIGHT component of the NPOV policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed all of our disputes here come down to questions of due weight. But how due weight is arrived at is via discussion among us. When some editors are constantly attacking other editors in personal terms and questioning their motives, this does make discussion difficult. Bloodofox, in all the time you have been editing the page, have you sat down and read the seminal literature on the topic? May I ask, which scholarly books about Falun Gong have you read? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic: We're here to report on what reliable sources say, and we have plenty of quality media sources discussing these topics from which to draw. In a few years, we'll no doubt also have plenty of academic sources discussing Falun Gong's post-2016 far-right pivot, including the organization's Epoch Times conspiracy theory-mongering and Trump campaign promotion. We can then cite those in addition. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If you know of such non-affiliated/independent scholarly sources, please share them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New Editing Restrictions

@Horse Eye Jack, Bstephens393, Bloodofox, Cleopatran Apocalypse, TheBlueCanoe, and Binksternet: Due to the continual edit warring, I have full protected the article until you all can assure myself or another administrator that all of you will play nicely with one another. Until that time, all edits to the article need a clear consensus here on this talk page. Once that happens, please use {{Edit fully protected}} to ask an administrator to implement the change. Further, everyone pinged here is placed under a 0RR for this article and will be notified of this sanction on their talk pages. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered that Binksternet was not formally aware of the discretionary sanctions within this topic area and can not be the subject of sanctions. I withdraw my comment vis-à-vis him. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, thanks for the note of explanation. I've suggested before that such a remedy be put in place, and think that mediation of this sort would be very helpful (the only alternative at this point may be to request a new arbitration case, which is time consuming for all involved).

The problem here is that the version of the article that is now locked is a new version that never came close to achieving consensus, and contains some frankly embarrassing material that is contradicted by the vast majority of reliable sources. The editors who edit warred to keep this version of the page have demonstrated, in their responses above, that they do not intend to address the concerns raised with respect to those edits. So what is to be done? Shall I provide (again) a detailed, point-by-point explanation of what is wrong with this version, give them an opportunity (again) to reply, and if they refuse (again) to engage constructively on the merits of those edits, then an admin changes them back? TheBlueCanoe 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (For reference: this[4] is the thread in which I raise several concerns with the lede section, in which Bloodofox and Binksternet declare their unwillingness to address those concerns).TheBlueCanoe 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Numerous users have in fact repeatedly responded to the questions you repeatedly raise, often between your attempts to scrape media sources from the article. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox and TheBlueCanoe: I do not know what version is the correct version of the article. You all need to come to a consensus about how the article should proceed. If you all find that it is impossible with the current cadre of people who comment here, you should consider launching an RfC to bring in additional editors. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently No Page Has Ever Been Protected As The 'Right' Version. <humor/> I am certainly willing to engage constructively, but I was never going to agree to debate every single point regardless of the value of the debate point. Binksternet (talk)

@Guerillero: I’ve made one edit on the main page since the 10th, in that time I’ve made 12 edits on the talk page. No comment on the others but I don’t think I'm edit warring or not trying to work things out on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: This edit was part of the chain of multi-party slow-moving edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep thats the one edit. Ok, I can see that. I thought I was returning it to status quo until the talk page conversation was completed. Apparently I misunderstood what was going on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero:Might I suggest restoring the 02:34, 29 June 2020 version per WP:STATUSQUO?
Here is that version:[5]
Here is the diff from the current version:[6]
Anyone who was involved in the edit war and thinks that we just protected the wrong version might want to consider whether the 02:34, 29 June 2020 version is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: If there is a consensus to revert --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

While the differences are not extensive, my impression is that the current version is an improvement, other than for sources that have been removed leaving various extant statements without citations. Possibly that in the interim those could have been tagged as primary or unreliable instead, until those paragraphs can be reworked and sources potentially replaced. Primary sources may also still be usable to support noncontroversial/nonselfserving facts... —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(Comment, as someone who was involved in aforementioned edit war): Paleo, the differences in the lede section are quite substantial. I detail a number of the problems with the current version in this thread,[7] noting that many of the problems relate to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I would add one more point to illustrate: the current version of the lede does even not describe the core beliefs of Falun Gong ("Truth, Compassion, Forbearance," which it takes to be the essence of the Dao or the moral law of the universe. These teachings are highlighted very prominently the academic literature on this topic). But it does highlight how a dance company related to Falun Gong has anti-evolution views (there are less than two full sentences in reliable sources talk about this). If that's not a problem of undue weight, I don't know what it. TheBlueCanoe 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources discussion controversial aspects of both Shen Yun and Falun Gong more broadly, including anti-evolution propaganda, Falun Gong's notorious opposition to medicine, and the well-covered alien stuff from Li, aspects of the new religious movement which need more extensive coverage in the article. I oppose this reversion in part because it leaves out large sections that we've added since, such as Falun_Gong#Fei_Tian_College_and_Fei_Tian_Academy_of_the_Arts.

BlueCanoe's complaints about the lead are invalid: It's all extremely well sourced. BlueCanoe's historic attempts at stripping media sources (literally going through and scrubbing them from the page, again and again and again, ad nauseaum, ad infinitum—yes, those are all different diffs!) and regularly bombarding the page with complaints (that read as if they were written by the organization itself) are more than old at this point. Additionally, for all these complaints, readers will notice that BlueCanoe very rarely actually brings sources to the table—especially not media sources or, really, any sources from the past several years—instead repeatedly referencing vague material from before Falun Gong's quite visible hard-right turn around 2016, emphasizing a persecution narrative, and downplaying or ignoring anything that has occurred since then, particularly if it reflects in a 'negative' manner on the organization. That's not how to build a Wikipedia article, and we need a stronger response to this sort of behavior. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The good media coverage of that material is what convinces me that it's due criticism rather than minor personal opinions. Moreover, that paragraph appears to summarize the "political involvement" section. —PaleoNeonate – 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding: that paragraph was already discussed before and the ANI thread points at instances of its restoration including mine, —PaleoNeonate – 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede section (again)

Apologies if I'm repeating myself a bit here, because the last time I started this thread it was derailed. Over the last two months or so, changes have been made to the lede section that either were not discussed, or which failed to achieve consensus on this page. In my last edit, as before, I've tried to retain some of the new information that was aded where it had merit, but keeping in mind the principles of WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV. I'll explain the rationale here:

• Citations: This is partly a stylistic preference, but I'll propose that we should avoid overburdening the lede section with redundant inline citations. The policy here, per WP:LEDE, is that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation," but further notes that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." In my view, one high quality and uncontested citation is generally sufficient where such citations are necessary at all.

• Deer Park: I've moved the reference to Deer Park from the second sentence to the bottom of the lede, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. The location of Falun Gong's "informal headquarters" in the United States is not the defining feature of a decentralized practice that has millions of worldwide adherents. Similarly, the location of dance schools is not the defining feature of Falun Gong. I can see the rationale for keeping a reference to Deer Park the lede, but not in the opening paragraph, for the simple reason that this receives very little attention in the reliable sources. For the dozens of books and academic journal articles that have been written on Falun Gong, there are perhaps three pages total written about Deer Park, plus one or two news articles. Andrew Junker's 2019 book is the first scholarly source that mentions it, and even there, it is not discussed as a defining feature of Falun Gong.

• Administered extensions - the claim that Falun Gong "administers various extensions" is veering into original research. Sources do not say this, and given what reliable sources do say about the organizational structure (or lack thereof) of Falun Gong, the assertion does not really make sense. For example, Falun Gong, a registered 501(c)3 in the United States, does not "administer" the Epoch Times.

• Activism abroad - I've restored a more neutral and comprehensive description of Falun Gong's activities undertaken in response to persecution. This paragraph should be made using a neutral voice, presenting different views fairly, and not giving undue weight to any particular perspective. That should be easy in the lede section, because all we're doing here is offering a factual descriptions of things. In a previous thread I provided an example of what such a neutral, fact-based description could look like, by referencing a similar (but long) paragraph in Junker's book.

• Descriptions of Shen Yun and Epoch Times - Related to the previous point, the description of activities undertaken by Falun Gong adherents should be made in a neutral tone, and should be quite general. A previous version of this paragraph contained assertions like "Shen Yun has also received significant media coverage for its emphasis on, for example, anti-evolution..." Significant media coverage in this case is a single article, which includes two sentences that glancingly mention Shen Yun's apparent anti-evolution views. That is not significant, and certainly not significant enough to merit inclusion in the lede section of an article about Falun Gong.TheBlueCanoe 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to improve a bit of the language. I'm not sure what the source is backing up the idea that the Dragon Springs complex is an "informal headquarters." What is that based on? I was looking for the "dubious" tag in order to highlight it again; as far as I'm aware there is no claim that it's a headquarters of any time. What is it headquartering? The Falun Gong does not have a central structure, so in what sense could it be a headquarters, even if informal? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The "informal headquarters" language is used by the Radio France International source. We don't have to use the same language if there's some more accurate term, but it can be used.TheBlueCanoe 15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

All of this has already been discussed above, and this is all very well sourced. The media soures aren't coming out of the article. As an aside, describing Falun Gong activities like that of its Epoch Times extension as "undertaken in response to persecution" is at this point disruptive. Spare us the spin. The Dragon Springs headquarters is obviously very important, and should obviously be in a visible and primary spot in the article. Again, spare us the spin. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, these issues are not settled, because you have repeatedly refused to engage with the substance of the concerns being raised. Instead asserting—without evidence—that your interpretation is "obvious" and definitive. It is not. Do you intend to actually respond to the concerns raised above, or will you just keep edit warring to enforce your position?TheBlueCanoe 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here. We have plenty of sources, and we'll continue to use them: That includes media sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The one-liner approach will not work anymore. Let's just state that every editor who wants to be involved will agree to a civil point-by-point discussion of the merits and demerits of the challenged additions and removals, including structure and due weight. All of this has been avoided by certain editors, but it must change from now on. This has nothing to do with disputing WP:RS; it is the discussion and argumentation process that is being viewed with total contempt by the same editors. Bstephens393 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I get that there are a group of editors here who want the media sources removed, yourself included, but they simply aren't going anywhere, and we can expect plenty more where they came from. Consistently emphasizing a persecution narrative over the activities of the organization, including its activities in politics, is obviously inappropriate: English Wikipedia isn't here to parrot Falun Gong talking points. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are shadowboxing and replying to imaginary comments in your head. There have been dozens of legitimate points raised about issues that are central to building a Wikipedia article. I have never argued that we should not make use of reliable newspaper sources. Bstephens393 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

After conveniently coming out of a long dormancy to suddenly edit this page, your role here had been restricted to aiding a group of editors who aggressively edit to ensure that the article maintains Falun Gong talking points. That is, until you stepped in today to revert in their favor. It's hardly a mystery. Again, these sources are simply not going anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have defended the inclusion of the NRM label, as well as every other reasonable suggestion, based on my grasp of the topic as a scholar in a closely related field. Needless to say (since I've said it so many times and my actions prove it), I am not against including newspaper sources and have never argued against them. What I have consistently opposed is narrative-building for the sake of expediency instead of a scholarly approach. I started paying attention to this page because of the surprising coincidence between China's offensive in HK and a sudden explosion of activity. If this makes some editors hallucinate arguments and viewpoints that I don't hold, that is unfortunate but outside my control. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bstephens393, you are calling for every point of debate to be answered? I routinely ignore irrelevant debate points as I do not wish to get stuck in the tar baby. Discussion and process are important, but participation here is not a mutual death pact. I am not required to engage wasteful, trolling, nonsensical or irrelevant debate points.

We are not here to write the pro-Falun Gong narrative of persecution and martyrdom. Rather, we are here to write about the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints about Falun Gong, including many negative assessments. Blue Canoe's very disruptive removal of NBC News should have resulted in a block. Cleopatran Apocalypse's disruptive bit about "Following the persecution in China" is another egregious example of pushing the pro-Falun Gong narrative. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I take this to mean that you and I fully agree on the intent of this article. I could have written the first two sentences of your second paragraph myself. I think we only disagree on the extent that discussion and process have been followed, and how much of those are needed to actually produce a good result that avoids all kinds of confirmation biases and takes the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints into account. The issue is one cherry-picked master narrative vs. documenting what the reliable sources say, warts and all. I have consistently advocated for the latter. Since I am not pro-FLG or anti-FLG, various people who've picked their side over the years have characterized me as either, since I've always refused to subscribe to any preferred storyline. The only things I am really opposed to are narrative expediency and totalizing discourses. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Over the years"? As in, sometime back in 2013? Because that was the last time you decided to edit Wikipedia before you suddenly popped up on May 20, 2020 to lend support to TheBlueCanoe on this very page ([8]). Among other edits, that same day saw you jumping into pro-Falun Gong editor Celopatran's attempt to have me topic banned (Cleopatran had also appeared out of nowhere), where you decided to go after yours truly ([9]). Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Wikipedia again on that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I claim that I'd been characterized as both pro-FLG and anti-FLG here, on this talk page? I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I'm involved with East Asian research on a professional level. Do you think I would have any interest in paying much attention to what's been going on with this article if this was not the case -- if I didn't know extensively about related topics?

If you remember, I tried to work with you in a very civil manner and even refrained from editing for a long time because I hoped for a reasonable discussion. I endorsed your suggestion for including the NRM label, and a single cherry-picked master narrative was the only thing I was ever opposed to, since reliable sources do not support that. Didn't work. The center did not hold. You kept engaging in ad hominem attacks against other editors unlike anyone else. Of course such behavior will antagonize everyone who has reasonable disagreements with you, and curbing such goofballery is not unreasonable at all. To make it clear: I am not opposed to your viewpoint or the sources you propose. I'm not opposed to fundamental disagreements. All this time I have been talking about the form of the process, not the content. To be frank, I do believe that you actually understand what I'm saying, but admitting that would seem like a concession. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please take it to my talk page. There we can discuss the finer points of your edit history since your sudden return from 2013 to lend talk page support and reversions to TheBlueCanoe and crew. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Let me get back to you within a few days to discuss and try to work it out. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn, in a 2002 paper that we already cite, says "In 1998 New York City became the headquarters for the group and the Falun Gong website was established."[10] This corresponds to Li Hongzhi moving to New York in 1998. So the headquarters of Falun Gong is clearly connected to Li. And Rahn establishes importance to the fact of the group having a "headquarters". Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Archived and other unused sources

I was looking through old versions of the article, and other reports about Falun Gong, and found some sources that we could use. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hudson Reporter, "Shen Yun returns." December 2011. Talks about the "political underpinnings" of the Shen Yun performance, portraying Falun Gong persecution along with a skewed and biased version of Chinese history.
• Heather Kavan, "Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy". November 2017. Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review. Kavan talks about how Falun Gong members wooed her as a scholar and then harrassed her after she began publishing her critical analysis.
• UK Guardian, "Shen Yun". February 2008. Mentioning how the Shen Yun show is modern propaganda, not a portrayal of Chinese history as advertised.
• The Ledger. Opinion piece: "Propaganda posing as entertainment". January 2016. Talking about how Shen Yun is Falun Gong political propaganda, including anti-gay, anti-atheist and anti-miscegenation.
• PRI. "Why China Fears the Falun Gong". July 2014. An explanation of Falun Gong in the format of question and answer.
• Washington Post. "In the face of criticism, China has been cleaning up its organ transplant industry". July 2017. Update on organ harvesting in China.
• UK Guardian

We should also mention Samuel Luo, an ex-Falun Gong member who exposed a lot of the group's inner workings on a website some time around 2003 or 2004 (I'm guessing.) The Press Telegram says Luo was hounded by Falun Gong who tried to suppress his website. SFGate reported the same thing, as did the San Diego Union Tribune. He's also in the New Yorker piece that we already cite. Roman scholar Leonardo Sacco cites Samuel Luo in his scholarly article "Is Falun Gong a Sect or a Religious Movement? A Comparative Approach?" published in 2011. Samuel Luo is part of the Falun Gong story. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As for Samuel Luo, I don't think he's an ex-member? His name seemed vaguely familiar, and then I remembered encountering it in the archives. Voilà. Apparently he is/was an anti-Falun Gong activist who in 2007 received an indefinite topic ban by ArbCom with the following rationale: "Aggressive SPA edit warring on Falun Gong articles; stated intent to disrupt and go out with a bang." [11] Thereafter, he seems to have set up a number of sockpuppets that eventually got banned as well, and based on this his disruptive editing was so exceptional that he was specifically mentioned in a notice on top of this article's talk page for a very long time. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Leonardo Sacco cites the following:

• Samuel Luo, What Falun Gong Really Teaches, « Cultic Studies Review », ii, 2003, at International Cultic Studies Association, http ://www.icsahome.com (accessed November 23, 2009)

This page by Michael D. Langone, "The PRC and Falun Gong", hosted at ICSA, says Samuel Luo was a family member of Falun Gong practitioners, so I'm wrong about him being ex-Falun Gong.

Luo's paper may be found within a PDF of Cultic Studies Review, volume 2, number 2, 2003. The PDF is a Google drive link on the ICSA website.[12] In the paper, Luo says he first became alarmed at Falun Gong when his practitioner mother started talking about aliens living in the world among us, that the world is ending and only Li Hongzhi can save people. Luo discusses the aspects of Falun Gong that are religious, and the aspects that are cult-like:

One of the most important and common methods that cults use to control their followers can be called "exclusion of the outside world." Cult members are taught not to trust people outside of the group, including family members. This component of mind control is definitely found in the Falun Gong teachings. Falun Gong practitioners are made to distrust the moral thinking of non-practitioners who are called "ordinary people". This is done intentionally by master Li, who repeatedly teaches: "As a practitioner you cannot act according to the ordinary people‘s standards."(15) This manipulation technique not only isolates practitioners from non-practitioners, including family members and friends, but also creates a system where practitioners only share information with other practitioners. As a result, practitioners mutually reinforce each other‘s belief in the teachings, thereby eliminating any conflicting or alternative views.

Since Sacco cites Luo, and since Luo was published by ICSA, I think we can include some of Luo's conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what User:Bloodofox told me a few weeks ago about a peer-reviewed article published in 2003: "An article from 2003 is of historic interest, and that's the extent of it. That was 17 years ago. [...] Passing off an article about the NRM from 2003 as if it is still relevant in 2020 is, to put it politely, laughable." Assuming that he's consistent, I don't think he would agree with the inclusion? What do you think? Bstephens393 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am more inclusive than that one statement by Bloodofox, probably a hot-headed reaction. I accept sources for their relevant place in time. We Wikipedia editors are expected to balance the sources in the process of summarizing them. In some cases, an older paper will still be relevant, while in others it will not. Or the older paper might be presented as a moment in time, representative of the thinking at that time. Or parts of the older paper might still be good even though other parts will have been superseded. In all cases, we must judge the literature ourselves and balance it to compose an accurate summary. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn's paper[13] which we already cite compares Falun Gong to previous religious sectarian rebellions in China, the most recent being Yiguandao. We should tell the reader about the extensive experience of sectarian revolt in China, which was not always damaging to the government, but was viewed suspiciously because of the great damage possible. Successive governments quashed every sectarian rebellion except the one led by Zhu Yuanzhang who overthrew the government in 1368 and established the Ming dynasty with himself on the throne. The Yiguandao sect was suppressed by the Qing government, the Nationalist Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. All of these Chinese governments agreed that a religious sect with millions of followers was a dangerous entity to allow within China. Something about this, explicitly naming Yiguandao, should be in the article. At the very least we should cite Rahn in the first paragraph of the section "Causes" which is looking for a citation. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a dominant theme and certainly deserves to be covered properly. What is also sorely lacking is the overall context of state-sanctioned qigong in the 1980s and 90s and the sociopolitical environment in which Falun Gong grew and was popularized, since the sectarian revolt narrative leaves out a number of important considerations about the internal power politics inside the CCP and China's scientific community. I recently saw this Capstone Essay which contains a number of high-quality academic sources that we should take a close look at, even though we shouldn't directly link to it. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In 2012, the Atlantic ran a piece about the stability (or not) of the Chinese government.[14] They said that the Chinese Communist Party's crackdown of Falun Gong seems "less surprising" after considering that the Qing Dynasty succumbed to internal pressure from anti-Manchu secret societies (also to foreign pressure), and the Kuomintang succumbed to a movement from inside China (also war with Japan). Which explains the harsh defensive measures taken by the CCP in 1999, who were trying to prevent another internal movement taking over the government. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Junker is cited in the article but he wrote another piece which would be very useful: "The Transnational Flow of Tactical Dispositions" (2014). Junker compares Minyun and Falun Gong tactics in their two very different forms of protest against the Chinese government. Among the interesting observations delivered by Junker are that the two groups have some overlap in membership, that Falun Gong was aware of the failure of Minyun tactics, and that the Falun Gong movement is both religious and political in aim. Junker says that the Falun Gong's practice of "clarifying truth" to outsiders is for spreading the group's story of persecution, not for recruiting. Junker calls Li Hongzhi a faith healer in the early years of Falun Gong. In 2019, Junker published another comparison of Minyun and Falun Gong: "Comparing Falun Gong and Minyun as Movements". We should incorporate some of this material. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Junker's observations are certainly worth including. There are a couple ways to do this, and perhaps a few sections where the content would be relevant. One area is in the section on Falun Gong's organization, where we might benefit from one or two lines summarizing Junker's observation that, as the persecution in China forced Falun Gong to develop the approaches of a social movement with political aims (i.e. ending persecution), its decentralized and hierarchical character made it more effective at mobilization than other anti-CCP social movements such as Minyun.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reuters: "Facebook removes small pro-Trump network based in Romania"

Falun Gong and "Falung Gong media" again in the news, this time for more pro-Trump shadow groups and in Romania, as reported by Reuters:

Facebook previously removed much larger and better-connected networks that supported Trump, including one connected to the Epoch Times here which was founded by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and often criticizes the government of China.

Facebook said on Thursday it had removed another network that reposted content from the Epoch Times and other Falun Gong media in a follow-up action.

Source:

• Menn, Joseph. 2020. "Facebook removes small pro-Trump network based in Romania". Reuters. August 6, 2020. Online.

At this point, "Falun Gong media" seems to be the better phrase than "extensions". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Falun Gong media," like "extensions" that are "administered" by Falun Gong, is ambiguous and imprecise. There is no direct administrative relationship between Falun Gong (as a faith system, a registered not-for-profit, or community of believers) and these organizations. What is accurate and precise is to say that these organizations were founded by Falun Gong adherents. Unless otherwise stated, they do not claim to represent Falun Gong in any broader sense.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We should word it as close as possible to the sources, and in this case it reads "which was founded by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and often criticizes the government of China", for instance. It doesn't say that it's centrally controled, but does say that it's affiliated via supporters. —PaleoNeonate – 09:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. There's absolutely no doubt that these media are affiliated with FLG supporters, and that has to be made clear to understand their political leanings, especially in regard to the PRC. I support the idea of using the wording from the source. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We have several sources that just refer to these entities as "Falun Gong media", and given that these media extensions operate as arms of Falun Gong in every way, this is by far the most accurate way of referring to these entities. The attempts at playing down Shen Yun and The Epoch Times as 'just having been founded by Falung Gong members' by the embedded supporters here is both transparent and unhelpful, particularly when we even have Li referring to entities like The Epoch Times as "our media". As the many media sources we have on this topic make clear, this is a topic only controversial among adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated restriction

I have downgrade the protection to extended confirmed protection and downgraded the consensus required restriction to "All edits to the article need a clear consensus on this talk page for the change if challenged" after the past month of full protection. Please let me know if you have any questions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to Dragon Springs

Please, under the Dragon Springs compound in Deerpark, New York section, add a {{Main|Dragon Springs}} template and on the sentence "Falun Gong operates out of Dragon Springs, a 400-acre compound located in Deerpark, New York." link to the page Dragon Springs. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It currently reads: "400 acre" (sans hyphen); it should be corrected to read: "400-acre". This is a minor, uncontroversial copy-edit, and therefore permitted under the rules of editing full-protected pages. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, "mid to late 1990s" should read: "mid-to-late 1990s". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done (all three). The article protection has been downgraded to extended confirmed protection. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Under the section about media outlets controlled by Fulan Gong, a new media outlet known as China Uncensored is gaining popularity and it is controlled by the religious movement. [15] [16] 173.79.246.41 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Thank you very much for your suggestion! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems to me that there also should be space dedicated to the criticism of elements of Falun Gong, such as the cult-like environment, the cult of personality of Li Hongzhi, the opposition to homosexuality, the opposition to Western evidence-based science and medicine, all of which are not mentioned at all in the article. One thing that is mentioned, but briefly, is its involvement with far-right political groups and media Eccekevin (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Other criticisms include how they have disrupted happy, family-oriented cultural events such as Christmas parades with gruesome photos and protests, and how they have hounded those who published negative findings about them. Around their headquarters in New York state near Pennsylvania, they have been criticized for ruining the rural, small-town atmosphere. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no agreement amount reliable sources that Falun Gong has a "cult-like environment." To the contrary, most scholarly sources say that it does not display the features (particularly the more invidious features) that are typically associated with "cults." The whole cult categorization is of dubious value in any case, as it lacks a clear definition depending on the discipline. Most of the content you're proposing would be better integrated into the relevant sections of the article, with factual and neutral descriptions. Falun Gong's teachings against homosexuality, for example, are dealt with under 'social practices,' and that seems appropriate. Whether or not a person regards sexually conservative teachings as "controversial" is entirely subjective and contingent on the reader's system of values and beliefs. There should be a section, I believe, that deals holistically and in a balanced fashion with Falun Gong's relationship to modern medicine and the (dispute) impact it has on practitioners' health.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A contradictory aspect is that intolerance of homosexuality is not an expression of universal peace, truth, etc. In the modern world, anti-LGBT and anti-feminism activism is controversial. As for the cult definition or environment, a charismatic leader is one of the critera used by experts to classify them, for instance. Another is the level of friction with the world. It will be difficult to find reliable sources contesting such (necessary to reorient the article). —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT and anti-feminism activism is a different position from religious/metaphysical essentialism of most traditional (and, in FLG's case, traditionally influenced) religions and spiritual practices. For instance, I'm pro-LGBT rights myself, but I don't consider Tibetan Buddhism, Islam, Falun Gong and other religions inherently unacceptable or problematic as long as their adherents are not trying to impose a socio-political agenda on others. Of course, we're not concerned about my opinions or any other editor's opinions per se; what I'm saying is that we must take a look at the descriptions in various reliable sources and represent them honestly, i.e. without an a priori filter based on whatever we happen to postulate as orthodoxy or heresy or even "social justice." Bstephens393 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You're well aware that Falun Gong is a new religious movement built around Li Honghzi in the 90s, and you're well aware that deflecting Li's statements to what-aboutisms regarding ancient religions is not helpful. Leave that sort of puffery to Falun Gong's PR agency. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The truths or untruths of Li Hongzhi's claims are highly uninteresting to me. We can only refer to what reliable sources say. The only thing I've emphasized is giving due weight to all the significant narratives about Falun Gong that are found in such sources. More than one of them contextualizes FLG within both the modernized qigong discourse and the traditional xiulian beliefs it emerged from. That should be covered accordingly. Not much to debate here. Bstephens393 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

falundafa.org

Is [ https://en.falundafa.org/ [ the official website of Falun Gong? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the main one. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong was banned in Russia Nov 10th 2020

Moscow (AsiaNews) - Two days ago, the activities of the spiritual movement Falun Gong were banned in Khakazia (southern Siberia) on charges of "religious extremism". The ban extends to the entire Russian Federation.

The official decree states, "the regional association of Khakatia, aimed at the self-improvement of the person according to the Great Law of Falun, called 'Falun Dafa', has been declared an extremist organization, and its activity on the territory of Russian Federation is prohibited”.

The text was published by the Interfax agency, which reported the decree of the V Court of Appeal of common jurisdiction of the city of Novosibirsk, whose session was held on 10 November.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Moscow,-Falun-Gong-banned-for-'religious-extremism'-51568.html --178.142.100.45 (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

James R. Lewis on Falun Gong's Control of Relevant Wikipedia Entries and Media Strategies (2018)

Writing back in 2018, academic James R. Lewis discusses something numerous editors on this page have also noted over the past several months: Falun Gong's continued and aggressive influence on Falun Gong-related English Wikipedia entries, and how "relevant Wikipedia entries turn out to be little more than mouthpieces for the FLG point of view" (p. 81).

The source:

• Lewis, James R. 2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom. Cambridge University Press.

Lewis highlights Falun Gong's extensive internet presence, and how editors who have to date contributed to English Wikipedia entries associated with Falun Gong to the point where "Falun Gong followers and/or sympathizers de fact control the relevant pages on Wikipedia" (p. 80), and how this is particularly important for Falun Gong as an organization due to the SEO results of these entries and how the entries can influence other media entities. Leiws notes also how this fits in as part of Falun Gong's general media strategy, such as Falun Gong media like The Epoch Times, New Tang Dynasty, Sound of Hope Radio, and, as Lewis discusses, the Rachlin media group. Lewis reports that the Rachlin media group is the Falun Gong's de facto PR firm operated by Gail Rachlin, spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Information Centre. (p. 80). Lewis also discusses how Amnesty International apparently does not independently verify its reports from Falun Gong groups, accepting material directly from Falun Gong organizations as fact (p. 80).

Here's a quote that sums it up:

FLG has thus been able to influence other media via its presence on the web, through its direct press releases, and through its own media. (p. 80)

Currently any comment or discussion left on this talk page gets met with the same group of accounts, who produce talking points as if on cue and fight tooth and nail to maintain a status quo that reads like any Falun Gong-related press release. This is very much in line with what Lewis describes (my bolding):

The Falun Gong organization has been most successful at promoting itself to the world outside of mainland China as a peaceful exercise group being unfairly targeted by the Chinese government. As we have seen, this is partly the result of denying or downplaying the aspects of Li Hongzhi's teachings that are vengeful, belligerent, or violent. However, it also the result of a conscious media strategy that involves, on the one hand, creating its own media outlets, and, on the other hand, taking advantage of anti-PRC sentiments in Western media. (p. 76)

The presence and activities of Falun Gong editors has plagued these articles for a long time-including now—and not only do we need coverage of this in the article, but we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points. Enough is enough: It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts and build a reliable, neutral article on Falun Gong and related topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to find more sources about media manipulation by FG? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing discussing Wikipedia that I've seen yet, but sources discussion Falun Gong's media activities by way of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun, for example, are plentiful and frequent, like this NBC News article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please name all the editors you're specifically referring to. I'm also curious about the "Falun Gong talking points", since Falun Gong affiliated sources shouldn't be used except in rare cases described here. Also let me know why you consider a Wuhan University professor on the Chinese government payroll to be a particularly noteworthy source for building what you call a reliable, neutral article on Falun Gong and related topics. Bstephens393 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your account would be one, certainly: The sort of behavior Lewis describes is exactly what you exhibit here. And rather than using this space to promote Falun Gong talking points and conspiracy theories, I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories or go ahead and message Cambridge University Press and see if you can get ahold of the peer reviewers. This is a high quality source by any stretch, and we'll certainly be using it in the article in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure if your reply should be categorized as psychological projection or just flaccid rhetoric. I do know that lawyers and activists often have a hard time grasping that the truth of the matter isn't really constructed through their utterances. But I'm not here to exorcise ideological possession or shatter anyone's hall of mirrors, and since I believe such behavior is fairly obvious to uninvolved parties, I'll try to avoid further speculation on the same. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Lewis is a perfectly good source, a valid scholar no matter with which universities he is associated. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, on Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong, another editor also denied the use of James R. Lewis's views for sourcing. This editor stated that Lewis has shown support for the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, and therefore should not be used on WP at all. Below is their comment concerning the reliability of James R. Lewis Thomas Meng (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC):

Yes, he is apparently a scholar. However, his support of Aum Shinrikyo that organized the famous Tokyo subway sarin attack gives me a pause. According to this, for example, J. Gordon Melton, one of the NRM specialists involved, shortlyafterwards concluded that Aum had in fact been involved in the attack and other crimes. Lewis, however, ... went so far as to publish an article that suggested that the Aum affair was “Japan’s Waco,”... In suggesting that Aum had been framed, Lewis outlined his hypothesis that it “was being made to play the role of scapegoat for the incompetence of the authorities at the highest levels of the Japanese government.". Therefore, I would not recommend using his views for sourcing anywhere in WP.

And I said over there that this criticism of Lewis is old news, that all of the respect he is now getting from his peers comes from his recent work. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Lewis would appear to be relevant here as well as reliable in context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-isation of references

Hey! Looking through the article, I've noticed that the article uses static form references rather than the more broadly used citation templates ({{Cite web}} etc). Since the citations are there, this isn't exactly super critical, but it's a reasonable thing to look at working on to make sure this article is maintainable and the references keep consistent with the broader citation system on English Wikipedia. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed

The title text of the image of “Tang Yongjie” cites no sources. In addition, the remainder of the “Conversion program” section relies heavily on one source, and the copy should make this more clear (Perhaps by adding “James Tong details...” to the second through fourth paragraphs.) Mouthpity (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Far-right political movement

Based on this,

References

it seems rather clear that Falun Gong is also a far-right political movement, as opposed to merely a new religious movement. I think the article should specify this, stating that Falun Gong is a new religious movement whose political wing advocates far-right politics and conspiracy theories. So far the article is heavily biased against the Communist Party of China, while giving insufficient weight to the government's side and that of other Falun Gong critics. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed—I think there are plenty of sources to draw from about this now. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the following lede suffice? "Falun Gong is a far-right political and new religious movement that advocates the overthrow of the Communist Party of China." Falun Gong garners extensive media coverage largely due to its opposition to the CCP, so I think that aspect potentially belongs to the lede. Another thing: the introduction treats Falun Gong's claims of abuse and organ harvesting at the hands of the CCP as fact, relying largely on Falun Gong's own statements to the media and NGOs, without providing sufficient weight to the CCP's and Falun Gong's critics' counter-claims. Given that Falun Gong is otherwise known for spreading conspiracy theories and fake news on topics of interest other than the CCP, it is quite unbalanced when its main article treats every Falun Gong claim about the CCP as fact, without providing equal weight to its opposition. Moreover, Western sources relying exclusively on Falun Gong and/or its various fronts/organs should not be regarded as the only reliable media available, in supposed contrast to Chinese state "propaganda." CapeVerdeWave (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be "Falun Gong is a new religious and far-right political movement". The politics get a lot of attention, but they seem to be a religion first and a political movement second. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would the following constitute an acceptable modification of the lede: "Falun Gong is a new religious and far-right political movement that advocates/is known for advocating the overthrow of the Communist Party of China"? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on those sources? No. If none of them describe it as a far right political movement, then this new proposal is WP:SYNTH. And we can exclude the china-embassy.org sources as unreliable for factual reporting about an organization opposing the Chinese government. What we can do is describe the far-right associations. The Epoch Times, for example, is a Falun Gong publication aligned with far-right views. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Anachronist. We can say that the ET, a far-right newspaper, is affiliated with FG. Maybe some of the other FG-affiliated media are far-right too. But we cannot say that FG itself is far-right unless independent secondary WP:RS say so clearly. Llll5032 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

These are distinctions without differences, given that the central FG organisation has not distanced or disassociated itself from its affiliates' claims, at least not publicly. Plus, applying this standard is inconsistent and disingenuous. If the official publication of the CCP were to make a certain claim, we wouldn't draw a distinction between the views expressed in the organ and those of the CCP itself. As far as the Chinese embassy is concerned, that is a valid point, but it should be applied consistently. For example, pro-American and anticommunist views shouldn't be given extra weight because they are aligned with the American government, just as anti-Chinese and anticommunist views should not be given less weight because they oppose the CCP. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

These are significant distinctions. If reliable sources are not calling the Falun Gong a political movement, it means that they do not find the political aspect of the Falun Gong significant enough or inherent enough to its nature to justify calling it a political movement. DaysonZhang (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The list of sources does not establish anything in the neighborhood of Falun Gong being a political organization, much less being a far-right political organization. The Falun Gong media are doing the dirty political work while the Falun Gong core is not as easily defined. Some of the listed sources don't even mention Falun Gong, for instance the Verge piece about Plandemic. If Falun Gong isn't mentioned in a source, then the suggestion of using it here on this article is an indication of WP:SYNTH violations.

Plenty of Falun Gong members do political things, conducting public protests, asking for signatures on petitions, interfering with community activities to highlight the Falun Gong human rights complaints, etc. As a resident of California, I have had on several occasions a middle-aged Chinese woman approach me to sign a petition to eradicate the CCP, as if that will ever happen (and I tell the women it will never happen.) But if these political activities are not so much as to cause the media to describe Falun Gong as a political movement, then Wikipedia is not the place to plant that flag.

One Chinese scholar, Junpeng Li, wrote a piece about how the Falun Gong is changing "from Healing Practice to Political Movement".[17] However, Li is a sociology professor in Wuhan at Central China Normal University, writing what must be understood as the official Chinese viewpoint rather than a more neutral global viewpoint. The idea that the Falun Gong is a political movement is an idea that serves the Chinese government very well. They take this stance for the purpose of classifying the Falun Gong members in detrimental ways to restrict their rights, and for the ultimate goal of defeating the Falun Gong politically.

I'm very interested in accurately documenting the political actions of Falun Gong, but the path suggested by CapeVerdeWave is not how to proceed. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bias

This article comes across as somewhat biased in favor of Falun Gong. There should be a section describing the controversies and/or criticism of the organization if Wikipedia is to stay neutral. 1.53.33.50 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally avoids WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs. DaysonZhang (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Given that we’ve had a chorus of voices which say that the page is biased against Falun Gong I think your opinion demonstrates that we are currently somewhere around neutral... When it comes to highly controversial topics a balanced neutral article should have both extremes yelling bias. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Who has been saying this? From my experience many people think this page is the target of astroturfing given how hard it hides the Falun Gong’s reactionary streak. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with OP. Recently looked into Chinese traditional medicines including Tai Chi, Qigong and later Falun Gong in particular for quite some time now. Realised Falun Gong isn't just harmless fitness activities. Its leader is quite literally being regarded by the group as the "only one" that can save mankind according to even the leader's own words on his Time interview. It operates like a cult. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053761,00.html

So the intro of the Wikipedia article is questionable as it claims that Falun Gong is being opposed merely on political grounds and gives the impression that it is harmless. However from what I read, that's not even close to the case at all. The leader had encouraged others to not take modern medicine and to take his words that literally evil space aliens gave mankind all our modern technology in order to corrupt our souls. And that race mixing is also evil as well as taking modern medicine or trusting technology. And to also never trust the advice of any scientists or the government or basically anyone but only the leader and the leader alone. (Last 5 paragraphs in http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053761,00.html )You cannot make this up. People have died from following such advice. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058

It's some petty messed up teachings regardless if you agree it is a cult or not. To claim in intro that Falun Gong is banned in China only because of its popularity, seems like a really oversimplified western centric reasoning that leaves out the fact that Falun Gong teachings are indeed dangerous. And given how dangerous and extremist some of Li's teachings are, it's responsible for Wikipedia to add in a "Detailed and proper" section for the controversies and/or criticism of the organization. Ironically there seems to be alot of (criticism section) on Chinese traditional medicines articles yet there is none for this article. Casualfoodie (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose that at the fair minimum, to add in an actual detailed section for criticisms. Like the info that ABC news recently made an article on Falun Gong's dangerous teachings where Ben Hurley mentions how he knew people dying from refusing modern medicine for treatable diseases. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058

Casualfoodie (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

I do not know the terminology or Grammer I plan to use,but I wanted to in the section on the Communist crackdown on Fulan Gong amongst the things CP of PRC has called it "counter-revolutionary" and "reactionary". Just to give more depth to the political rhetoric. SouthernGentleman00 (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Information density is low

I find this article to be too lengthy for the little amount of concrete information it gives. Especially when explaining its religious views and practices, going very abstract without compromising with a definition. I don't see a need to erase these, but at the very least there could be a decent overview of its practices and what constitutes moral behavior and action. I understand it might be hard if no sources address it in clear-cut terms, having to rely on the sect's self-introduction which, according to the body of text itself, is purposefully fuzzy and has members skirt around definitions to protect the movement. 2804:7F0:3989:4E4F:81FD:697C:3B08:68F (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflates cults and sects

The last paragraph of the categorization explains why the group doesn't qualify as a sect under one definition but fails to do so for the accusation of it being a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D104:5A00:6829:F14E:9BDC:FD2B (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

Delete the sentence that says “These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice” and delete the accompanying footnote 36.

That sentence is false. Footnote 36 cites an article by Heather Kavan, which accuses Li Hongzhi of instructing followers to lie, but the lecture that her article cites and links to (Touring North America to Teach the Fa, 2002, https://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm) contradicts her. The full paragraph in which Kavan claims Li instructed followers to lie reads as follows:

“What Dafa disciples are to do today is be responsible to Dafa. Don’t touch the things in everyday people’s society. When you clarify the truth don’t say high-level things; the main thing isn’t to have people understand what the high-level, profound Fa is. Well, people who are particularly good are an exception, and you can tell them about it. But when you clarify the truth to an average person, just tell him that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand. After they learn about the truth, people will see all the propaganda for what it is, lies, and they’ll naturally see how despicable and evil it is. After people become aware they will be indignant: “How can a government act like a bunch of hoodlums? You’ve been persecuted so badly, and you’re persecuted just for trying to be good people.” Just use the simplest ideas when you talk to people. Not only will they be able to accept it and understand it, but they’ll also be less apt to misunderstand. You’ve cultivated for such a long time now, and your understanding of the Fa is quite deep. If you talk about your high-level understanding of the Fa, it will be hard for everyday people to understand, and it’s likely they will misunderstand; you have come to the high-level understanding you have today only after a long process of cultivation. You want people to immediately understand things at a level that high, but they won’t be able to, so don’t talk to them at too high a level. Even when you clarify the truth to religious people you shouldn’t talk at a high level. Just talk about the persecution we’ve suffered. If they don’t want to hear about other spiritual beliefs, we don’t talk to them about spiritual beliefs; tell them that we’re just doing exercises. It’s hard to save people nowadays. You have to explain things to them by following the logic of their attachments. For the sake of saving them, don’t create any obstacles for them.”

Nowhere in that passage did Li instruct followers to lie. Nor did he say anything close to that. Kavan quotes the "tell them we're just doing exercises" phrase out of context, by omitting the beginning of the sentence ("If they don't want to hear about other spiritual beliefs...") The gist of Li's comment would be more accurately characterized as “keep it simple,” which is not a dishonest sentiment. Kavan’s article misrepresented the source that she cited. Her misrepresentation should have no place in this Wikipedia article. JackUpdike (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC) JackUpdike (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias towards Falun Gong

in reality falun gong is cult. accept it or don't. In the "International Reception" section it doesn't mention the numerous sources proving that its a far right "hitlery" type movement making the creator of it look like a god. FizzoXD (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree. This article (not sure if that's the correct term) has a clear bias towards Falun Gong, in my opinion. I feel like the "International Reception" section should have mentioned that many sources accept it is a cult, if not having separate cult accusations/controversy section. OffendedPerson (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say this, in the hopes that someone with more time and academic ability than me could fix it. Here's a decent source, for whoever feels up to it: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058. There are of course many more out there, it doesn't take long to find them. At the very least there needs to be a "Controversies" section, and a more even-handed explanation as to why they might be opposed by the government. 2601:18E:C300:1190:A0F8:E706:91E4:3D49 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten from scratch

Currently this article suffers from out of date sourcing, dubious sources, and the impact of Falun Gong adherents editing and censoring the article for several years. The primary goal during this period appears to have been to present Falun Gong as a victim in need of support, while hiding the actual structure and reality—such as Falun Gong's compound and centralization around its founder—wherever possible. The article, as it exists, is an absolutely mess, and reads like a propaganda leaflet more than a true account of the Falun Gong's history and reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree, I don't know if nuking it as is would be the exact solution, but it's almost comical how insanely out of touch with reality this article is (and a majority of the other articles around the subject of the Falun Gong in general). I think the average editor underestimates how much astroturfing is going on. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Using biased offensive words

There is a place showing biased view when using the word "lie". Its highly subjective for a neutral report. Taken humanely, the word is even offensive. 14.232.89.200 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

In the introductory five paragraphs, I recommend moving the 5th paragraph up to follow the first paragraph. In other words, instead of following the initial facts with three paragraphs of history and one paragraph of its current extensions, political involvement, and ideological messaging, move that last paragraph to become the second paragraph.

I am a journalist and hold a Ph.D. in English from UC Berkeley. Most Wikpedia users will seek information after contact with Falun Gong through one of its extensions or through The Epoch Times. They may never read on to the fifth paragraph but leave while wading through current paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. The information in the fifth paragraph is more pertinent to the average person's curiosity. If still interested, they can read the history and then read the entire Wikipedia entry.

I attended a demonstration on Feb. 27 to support Ukraine and oppose Putin's aggression. Falun Gong members were there promoting endccp.com with elegant, color brochures. I see The Epoch Times every time I enter a grocery store. People who want information about Falun Gong and rely on Wikipedia deserve more than this intro that, as you note, presents FG "in a positive rather than neutral manner." Anne Linstatter (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that moving paragraph #5 up to be #2 would be beneficial to improve it. Doing so as it is would disrupt the flow--however turbulent it currently is. SWinxy (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Falun Gong Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

After this sentence: "Falun Gong's cosmology includes the belief that different ethnicities each have a correspondence to their own heavens, and that individuals of mixed race lose some aspect of this connection.[43]"

Please include the following: They believe that mixed-race children cannot go to heaven without Li's personal intervention due to this.

Source: [18] 24.44.73.34 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: duplicate of another open request, and this somehow got archived. SpinningCeres 00:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor Change in Categorization

In the final paragraph of the "Categorization" section, it is stated that 'according to Schechter, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult."', but the following sentences only provide arguments on how it is not a sect. I propose either removing the 'or "cult"' part, adding arguments against that label, or just rewording the first sentence so the paragraph is focused on the "sect" aspect and let someone else write the "cult" part later (we should probably also define who Schechter is too), "Although it is commonly referred to a "sect" in journalistic literature, according to journalist/filmmaker/professor (whichever one works the best here) Danny Schechter, the Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of that label.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aye-I-Eye (talk • contribs) 20:01, March 23, 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - proposal did not include a "verbatim copy of the text that should replace it". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

After this sentence: "Falun Gong's cosmology includes the belief that different ethnicities each have a correspondence to their own heavens, and that individuals of mixed race lose some aspect of this connection.[43]"

Please include the following: They believe that mixed-race children cannot go to heaven without Li's personal intervention due to this.

Source: [19] 24.44.73.34 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References to article retracted by Los Angeles Magazine should be deleted

Los Angeles Magazine retracted the article cited at fn. 34, “Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties,” after it was sued for defamation because the article was false, and a federal judge entered an injunction prohibiting it from further publishing the article: https://mynewsla.com/crime/2020/07/20/judge-orders-los-angeles-magazine-to-remove-article-from-website/. See U.S. District Court for Central District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-04680-GW-JEM, at Docket No 19 (LA Magazine stipulating that it would publish a retraction notice concerning the article) and Docket No. 20 (court order enjoining further publication of the article).

The article cannot be considered a reliable source. It is not even a published source anymore. All references to it, including the long block quote included with the second paragraph of the “Political Involvement” section, should be deleted ASAP. JackUpdike (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned about lawsuits by Falun Gong adherents against an established magazine. The article was published in a reliable source, and thus is considered reliable. It is inconsequential that the magazine owners decided to print a retraction rather than spend a shitload of money fighting wealthy extremists in court. The judge in that case simply rubber-stamped the agreement between the two parties, so don't make it sound like the judge determined that the article in question contained falsehoods, which is not true. The article is still available in archival forms, and even if these are absent, Wikipedia doesn't delete cited sources when they disappear from the internet. See WP:DEADREF which says "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." Your suggestion contradicts longstanding practice. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, a non-working URL or an unexplained disappearance from the internet is not comparable to a magazine’s public retraction of an article. As Wikipedia’s Reliable sources/Perennial sources page notes, “even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety,” the clear implication being that retracted articles should not be used even if they came from an otherwise reliable source.

I have nothing against LA Magazine, but this particular article did contain falsehoods, some of which are currently repeated on the Wikipedia page. For example, the statement that Li Hongzhi founded the Epoch Times is just objectively untrue. The Epoch Times was founded by “John Tang and other Chinese Americans affiliated with the Falun Gong,” as the Wikipedia page for The Epoch Times puts it. Also, the statement that “the central tenet of the group's wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism” is untrue and contradicts the page’s earlier explanation (based on neutral, reliable sources) that the three central tenets of Falun Gong belief are truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance. To its credit, LA Magazine retracted the article. Leaving it up here appears to deviate from Wikipedia policy. I respectfully request that you set aside your apparent animus towards Falun Gong and reconsider whether this article is an appropriate source. JackUpdike (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear that the retraction was a decision based on financial considerations rather than reportorial missteps. The magazine caved to the lawsuit because the opposite path looked very expensive. I have no qualms drawing upon the published article as part of the collective literature about Falun Gong.

The central tenets of Falun Gong have changed over time; the current tenet "truthfulness" is an empty promise when the group leader says to lie by omission or misdirection. And if the Falun Gong was practicing forbearance, they would not have taken the LA magazine to court, and they would not constantly threaten the scholars and journalists who write negative things about them. Falun Gong's tenets appear to be thin decoration. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Binkster, a few things: First, what basis is there to say the retraction was based on financial considerations? Is it really so hard to believe that the magazine made errors with respect to this particular article, and that’s why they chose to retract it? And they did make errors, a couple of which I pointed out above. Second, there are dozens of lectures in which Li Hongzhi has discussed how important truthfulness is, both before and after the one lecture that Kavan cited (and in my opinion mischaracterized). That’s why independent experts like Ownby and Penny emphasized how essential the truthfulness principle is in Falun Gong teachings. Third, Falun Gong did not take LA magazine to court, The Epoch Times did. While Epoch is affiliated with Falun Gong, they are not synonymous. I can assure you that there are Falun Gong practitioners who disagree with some of Epoch’s positions and practices. If they have deviated from the truthfulness principle, then it is fair to point that out and criticize it (as many other sources on the page have done!), but it does not mean that the truthfulness principle is an “empty promise” for Falun Gong practitioners generally. It seems like you and others are applying guilt-by-association reasoning based on what some Falun Gong practitioners have done, and it is interfering with a neutral assessment of what belongs on this page about Falun Gong generally. The proper response to misinformation is not more misinformation from an opposing viewpoint. Thank you, and all the other editors, for your consideration. JackUpdike (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Freedom House called "obscure"

The categorization section has a sentence calling Freedom House an obscure think tank. As think tanks go it is one of the bigger ones and the sentence reads as just attacking the source for supporting Falun Gong.

Would recommend a change to something more NPOV 2A02:C7C:4E2C:1900:1891:B07F:A6CE:CEDA (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Done per WP:V, because the description was not in the cited source or its own Wikipedia article. Thanks. Llll5032 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

“The practice initially enjoyed support from Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials, but by the mid-to-late 1990s the government increasingly viewed Falun Gong as a potential threat due to its size, independence and spiritual teachings.” A comma should be added before “and”. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete false statement that Li Hongzhi instructed followers to lie

Delete the sentence that says “These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice,” and delete the accompanying footnote 36.

That sentence is false. Footnote 36 cites an article by Heather Kavan, which accuses Li Hongzhi of instructing followers to lie, but the lecture that her article cites and links to (Touring North America to Teach the Fa, 2002, https://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm) contradicts Kavan. The full paragraph that Kavan quotes from reads as follows:

“What Dafa disciples are to do today is be responsible to Dafa. Don’t touch the things in everyday people’s society. When you clarify the truth don’t say high-level things; the main thing isn’t to have people understand what the high-level, profound Fa is. Well, people who are particularly good are an exception, and you can tell them about it. But when you clarify the truth to an average person, just tell him that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand. After they learn about the truth, people will see all the propaganda for what it is, lies, and they’ll naturally see how despicable and evil it is. After people become aware they will be indignant: 'How can a government act like a bunch of hoodlums? You’ve been persecuted so badly, and you’re persecuted just for trying to be good people.' Just use the simplest ideas when you talk to people. Not only will they be able to accept it and understand it, but they’ll also be less apt to misunderstand. You’ve cultivated for such a long time now, and your understanding of the Fa is quite deep. If you talk about your high-level understanding of the Fa, it will be hard for everyday people to understand, and it’s likely they will misunderstand; you have come to the high-level understanding you have today only after a long process of cultivation. You want people to immediately understand things at a level that high, but they won’t be able to, so don’t talk to them at too high a level. Even when you clarify the truth to religious people you shouldn’t talk at a high level. Just talk about the persecution we’ve suffered. If they don’t want to hear about other spiritual beliefs, we don’t talk to them about spiritual beliefs; tell them that we’re just doing exercises. It’s hard to save people nowadays. You have to explain things to them by following the logic of their attachments. For the sake of saving them, don’t create any obstacles for them.”

Nowhere in that passage did Li instruct followers to lie. Nor did he say anything close to that. The gist of his comment would be more accurately characterized as “keep it simple,” which is hardly a dishonest sentiment. Kavan’s article grossly misrepresented Falun Gong teachings, and the source that she cited does not support her assertion at all. It is very unfair and misleading to include that false statement at the beginning of a section purporting to describe Falun Gong’s “central teachings.” JackUpdike (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not up to us to interpret Li ourselves to override a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It does not require any interpretation to see that the source was inaccurate in this instance. JackUpdike (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It clearly does, how else would you find the source to be inaccurate except through interpretation of Li? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You simply read the lecture which the source linked to in the footnotes of her article, and which I quoted above. She said Li instructed followers to lie in that lecture. He clearly did not. Taking notice of that fact does not require interpretation. JackUpdike (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I did read it, and Kavan seems like a reasonable interpretation of what Li said, which was clearly to Lie by omission. - MrOllie (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

An instruction to “lie by omission” is not what Kavan claimed Li did, nor is it a fair characterization of Li’s comments JackUpdike (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You are drawing a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think most people would say there is a significant difference between accusing someone of instructing followers to lie, and accusing him of saying things that could be interpreted as an instruction to omit information. In any event, Li did neither in that lecture. Think about it: if the point was to “lie by omission” or conceal Falun Gong teachings, then why does Falun Gong publish the lecture online, along with all of Li’s other teachings, so that anyone can read them for free? JackUpdike (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

How does one make a characterization without interpretation? You don't appear to be being honest with us Jack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I explained my position the best I could. The attack on my honesty is uncalled for. JackUpdike (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not deleting a reference from a scholar who is a topic expert. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

She’s not a topic expert; she’s a professor of “speech writing” who has written a few articles. There are many actual topic experts cited on the page (Ownby, Penny, Palmer, Schechter, Johnson, Chang, Gutmann, Matas and Kilgour), all of whom have written books about Falun Gong. None of them have said anything remotely like what Kavan did, which is directly contrary to actual Falun Gong teachings. For example, compare Kavan’s claim that Li instructed followers to lie to the quotes from Ownby at fn. 51 (Li enjoins cultivators to practice truth in their lives) or Penny at fn. 53 (“in Falun Gong cultivation adherence to the code of truth, compassion, and forbearance is not just regarded as the right and responsible course of action for practitioners; it is an essential part of the cultivation process. Lapsing from it will render any other efforts in cultivation worthless.") JackUpdike (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent cherry picking - but the fact that a source is silent on a point does not mean that it disagrees with that point. In any event, I just added a second source to the claim. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not “cherry-picking” to cite what knowledgeable experts who have written books about Falun Gong have said about the essence of Falun Gong teachings.

The source you added, James R. Lewis, is a professor at Wuhan University.  He has cranked out anti-Falun Gong material since he began attending CCP-sponsored “anti-cult” propaganda conferences in Wuhan (in 2016 and 2017 at least), and then started making money in China through his Wuhan University associations.  In July 2017, he promoted the anti-Falun Gong views of three Wuhan University professors at an international conference.  https://www.cesnur.org/2017/jerusalem-program.htm.  He co-edited a book, Enlightened Martyrdom, which includes contributions attacking Falun Gong from five Wuhan University professors (including Lewis and his co-editor).  His writing regularly appears on the English-language version of Kaiwind, a CCP propaganda site dedicated to attacking Falun Gong.  He also repeatedly cites to that website in his own writings, without disclosing that the Chinese government runs the site. Wuhan University hired Lewis while the CCP was in the midst of a “shopping campaign” for Western experts willing to attack Falun Gong. https://bitterwinter.org/australian-academic-investigated/. As the New York Times reported, “all universities in [China] are controlled by the party,” and university professors are subject to the Ministry of Education’s ethics rules which prohibit them from doing “anything to contradict the authority of the party.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/world/asia/china-student-informers.html. It’s irresponsible to use Lewis or any of his Wuhan University colleagues as a source on topics concerning Falun Gong. JackUpdike (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere by heaping attacks on Lewis, who wasn't even employed by Wuhan at the time he wrote what I cited. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not, but before he published the article you cited he had already started cooperating with Wuhan University professors to bolster their anti-Falun Gong efforts, and he had already attended CCP propaganda conferences in Wuhan. JackUpdike (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Kavan is a topic expert, as she has researched journalism, writing, speech and religion.[20]. Her religion research spans Buddhism to New Age spirituality, including new religious movements of which Falun Gong is one.[21] The Falun Gong doesn't like her because she calls it as she sees it rather than bending to their pressure. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Kavan has a PhD in Religious Studies from Victoria University of Wellington. Given this, she may in fact be a subject matter expert. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

She is clearly a topic expect, stop lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

My point (perhaps expressed too glibly before) is that Kavan is not qualified on the topic the same way as the topic experts I mentioned, each of whom have deeply engaged with the subject matter and written books about Falun Gong. Again Horse Eye, the personal attack is uncalled for. I’m trying in good faith to explain my positions on this important and sensitive topic. JackUpdike (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not well equipped to judge whether Kavan correctly interpreted Li. Per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE we cannot interpret primary sources, such as Li's speech. However, the claim made by Kavan may be a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim since it is a [Report] of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended—Falun Gong explicitly lists "truthfulness" as a principle. Since it concerns Li, who is a living person, it may be wise to err on the side of caution unless the claim is corroborated by other sources.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It is so corroborated , as I mentioned a few comments up I just added a second source. MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As I noted above, the “second source” Mr. Ollie added is a professor at a Chinese University who has collaborated for years with the CCP propaganda apparatus. The purpose of this talk page should be to maintain an accurate page, not to find whatever antagonistic sources are out there to smear Falun Gong. JackUpdike (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In any case, the statement is out of place and undue as part of the beliefs section—the article makes a sudden digression from introducing the main beliefs of Falun Gong to the allegations levelled by one specific scholar, before veering back into discussion of Falun Gong's main beliefs. I do not believe there is enough coverage in RS to justify this level of prominence for this allegation, and it should be demoted to a non-wikivoice claim in the reception section at the very least. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If the statement is kept, should it be demoted to a less prominent position for style and due weight?

This contested statement is currently in a very prominent position—right in the middle of a paragraph introducing Falun Gong's core beliefs. This seems to be problematic because (1) it breaks the flow of the paragraph and is followed by more description of the group's core beliefs that proceeds as though the intervening sentence didn't exist and (2) it is undue to give the statement such a prominent position when it is a claim or accusation made by two scholars rather than a broad consensus among reliable sources.

I believe this should be moved to the reception section. Per WP:CRIT, it is appropriate to use a reception/criticism section instead of interleaving criticisms in the rest of the article for articles about religions or viewpoints. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. Scholars define the topic, and Kavan is backed by Lewis in calling out the hypocrisy of having "truth" as a central tenet when the members are instructed to lie about certain aspects. You are calling for a demotion of scholars which is not how it works. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The number and prominence of scholarly sources is a key part of how scholars are supposed to define the topic, per due weight and other guidelines. Two scholars is not a lot, so the statement does not deserve to be placed right in the middle of the paragraph describing the Falun Gong's core teachings in a way that completely disrupts the flow of the paragraph. If the vast majority of scholars concluded the Falun Gong's practitioners were by and large mendacious, and were doing so at the behest of its founder, then it would be justified to put such a statement in a prominent position, but such a consensus among sources simply doesn't exist. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It is placed where it is relevant, which is exactly where it should appear. I do not find that is 'disrupts the flow of the paragraph' whatsoever. If you want to show that this is a fringe belief, you would need to cite a source that indicates that the 'vast majority of scholars' disagree with this position. Silence does not imply disagreement. MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sentence 2 in the paragraph introduces the three core principles of Falun Gong—zhen, shan, ren—and sentence 4 talks about the centrality of these principles. Sentence 2 clearly leads to sentence 4 more directly and logically than it does to sentence 3. I think most readers would find that the paragraph takes a big detour. Even if this sentence does not have to be downgraded in terms of due weight, it should still be moved elsewhere in the paragraph.

And no, a claim doesn't have to be a fringe belief for its prominent inclusion to be undue. For example, an individual study in a specific subfield of economics, biology, or physics could very well be well-respected by mainstream scholars, but it still would be undue to put that individual study in a prominent position in the main article for economics, biology, or physics if reliable sources don't accord it that much importance.

If reliable sources aren't prominently talking about the claim in the statement, we shouldn't discuss it prominently either. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You're arguing against a wall here, either you can demonstrate that the scholarly opinion which Binksternet has demonstrated is not fringe is in fact fringe or you can't and need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK cannot be used to create articles that go against policy, especially when there hasn't been enough participation by a wide range of editors to produce WP:local consensus. It also cannot be used to shout down positions that are in greater conformity with policy in a way that contradicts the longstanding convention that consensus is about the strength of arguments and not counting hands,

This is fundamentally not a debate about whether the claims are WP:FRINGE, but rather about whether they are included proportionately to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In fact, I agreed with you that Kavan is a topic expert, and from the beginning of this conversation, my position has been based on the assumption that this is not fringe. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue was raised by Kavan in 2008 and confirmed by Lewis in 2017. No other scholars have commented on the issue since 2008. Ownby talked positively about the tenets in 2008 but published too soon to respond to Kavan. Penny's 2012 book The Religion of Falun Gong doesn't explicitly address Kavan's view but instead says that the tenet of truth "has changed from being an injunction to act in a certain way in the normal course of life, to initiating specific tasks and and becoming an active agent in the political struggle, in defense of Falun Gong against the Chinese government... The truth in Falun Gong has thus changed from being an individualized aspiration for all practitioners, to being a field for disputation with the Chinese authorities." Penny is saying that the tenet has adapted over time, and is no longer the thing discussed at Falun Gong#Central teachings. Penny's assessment is not represented here, nor is the Kavan/Lewis assessment. Both show that the central teachings are not what they seem. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Penny, Kavan, and Lewis could be placed in a single paragraph in Central teachings; Penny provides additional due weight to this related grouping of ideas. Now that you've provided another source, and shown the proportionate prominence of the views (Kavan, Lewis, Penny vs Ownby), I no longer think including this is undue, although it could still be stylistically problematic. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

After this sentence: "Falun Gong's cosmology includes the belief that different ethnicities each have a correspondence to their own heavens, and that individuals of mixed race lose some aspect of this connection.[43]"

Please include the following: They believe that mixed-race children cannot go to heaven without Li's personal intervention due to this.

Source: [22] 24.44.73.34 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. You have requested this a number of times, and none of the nearly 1000 page watchers have implemented it. I suggest you try to convince people to include this, rather than opening a request every month or two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Falun Gong as a Cult

Multiple testimonies by former FLG practitioners have either directly called the Falun Gong a cult or gave accounts that described Falun Gong to have cultic characteristics. A New York Times piece has described Shen Yun performances to also contain cultic characteristics. There are a wealth of opinion pieces on YouTube that describe the FLG as opinions, including ones from reputable sources critical of China. Therefore, acknowledging that parts of this article do deal with the characterization of FLG as a cult, I propose that the first sentence of the article be nevertheless changed to "Falun Gong has been variously described as a cult or a new religious movement" instead of "Falun Gong is a new religious movement" for NPOV and accuracy. Thank you. Cycw (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

More testimonies here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlMQyM8p74 Cycw (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Further information on this: the Cult Education Institute's statement. The official statement of the US Chinese embassy (very very biased) says it is a cult; though I absolutely do not support using it as a neutral source, it can be citied for China's position. An American leftist paper, People's World, declared it a cult, citing mainly this paper as a source.

I don't think existing information in-article adequately addresses claims that Falun Gong is a cult. The only references to its potential culthood in-article are Schechter arguing that FLG doesn't fit a the definition of a sect, and Ian Johnson stating that the only reason it was classified a cult by the CCP was to smear it. Including Johnson and Schechter, revised, is fine- I'm not arguing against it. But I do think that other sources need to be included.

I think that all information regarding anything about Falun Gong being or not being a cult needs to be heavily screened for bias and reputability.

TypistMonkey (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged and agreed. Cycw (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Further sources. ABC opinion article on ex-Falun Gong practitioners (doesn't call FLG a cult), and that article writer's personal experience with Falun Gong, which does not call Falun Gong a cult but does state 'secretive' and 'controlling' aspects. An additional ABC article, detailing negative experiences in Falun Gong.

TypistMonkey (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional source. I would suggest that these sources be added to the article as appropriate. Cycw (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Please add Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press links to the notes/bibliography. Thanks Doodyalley (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Locations in citations are usually not wikilinked. I've linked the publisher, though. SWinxy (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Severe Misinformation

"..the cycle of reincarnation, know in Buddhist tradition as samsara"

This is false. The Buddha did not teach reincarnation. Do not confuse this word with rebirth, which refers to something else. Different branches may have had disagreements on what part is being reborn, but, even then, why present something on Wikipedia as true when it is argued over. Even the article on Rebirth on this very website disagrees.

"Falun Gong differentiates itself from Buddhist monastic traditions in that it places great importance on participation in the secular world..."

There isn't a part of what the Buddha taught that is not secular.

The quote continues: "...Falun Gong practitioners are required to maintain regular jobs and family lives, to observe the laws of their respective governments, and are instructed not to distance themselves from society. An exception is made for Buddhist monks and nuns, who are permitted to continue a monastic lifestyle while practicing Falun Gong."

This does not "differentiate" itself from Buddhism. The Buddha taught for everyone, especially including the ordinary; or, people who maintain regular jobs and family lives. As much talk there is about the metaphysical side, many of his teachings were about family and society. It isn't hard to find this out. He did not say to "distance yourself" from society, he said very much the opposite. His teachings were meant to build societies.

There are many other references to how Falun Gong is similar to Buddhism, comparing its systems of meditation and practice, but then describing a different practice. This is fine because it's talking about Falun Gong, but it's very easy to assume that it's the case for Buddhist/Daoist as well because of its wording when it is not necessarily so, which falls under this theme of misinformation. If one of the goals is to deliver truth, fuzziness about what is what should be avoided.

Important example: "Central teachings" part talks about Karma, but it is a very different form from Falun Gong, then at the end technically claims it about Buddhism, but it is subtle wording: "...let go of 'attachments and desires' and suffer to repay karma. The ultimate goal of the practice is enlightenment or spiritual perfection (yuanman), and release from the cycle of reincarnation, known in Buddhist tradition as samsara"

Logically: "letting go of..." is "the practice". The goal of "the practice" is "known in Buddhism is called samsara", therefore Buddhist samsara derives from the practice of something from Falun Gong's karma. It doesn't directly say that the karma is the same, but it's very easy to confuse this when reading this. Buddhist Karma is not just only positive or negative, it literally translates to "action"; it's the nature of cause and effect by humans.

These aren't just my random opinions about it, either, you can easily find many things that claim opposite of these quotes. But, you don't have to, because no sources for any of these were provided in the first place. It may have had a source at the end of the sentence, but it would link to some unrelated website about Falun Gong: [67] Penny "The Religion of Falun Gong", [76] Porter "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study", .

These quotes should all be removed except the first part of the last. There isn't a good replacement for them.

It may not seem like these falsities about Buddhism aren't that important, that it doesn't matter, or it doesn't have an important effect, which would probably come from not seeing the big picture and purpose of each of these aspects of Buddhism, but they are spreading lies that disagree with the fundamental teachings of Buddhism. From the ones above (rebirth, secular, society), if you're curious, for being secular (or, being neutral, at least) the Buddha did not teach deities/images/idols/God because it disagrees with impermanence; they are permanent and powerful, except the world is changing: Buddha taught no such thing of permanence exists; they are idols to latch on to for comfort, all like self.

I've looked at other pages about Buddhism on Wikipedia, and there are a lot of problems, but I can't go through each on my own. This will probably be my only suggested edit, but just know there's a big problem with this here, and this is with basic facts about Buddhism, not even something that requires any devoted research to learn. Branboyer (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I doubt any extended confirmed users would pay such attention to detail. Cycw (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If only because users who do almost never make it to extended confirmed... WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Organization section seems like complete bullshit

I don’t understand how an organization can be categorized as completely decentralized, while describing just how much absolute power and say the leader has on the organization. Even if their stated form of organization is one of decentralization, this shouldn’t just be taken at face value. 47.229.173.53 (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Change in description

Falun gong is described as a "new religion". I believe it should be described as " cultivation practice". 2603:7081:3703:369C:2D91:E26F:BF0C:378B (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes the published literature. The description of Falun Gong as a new religion is found in many sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)