Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 40

I would note the quality of this page as unstable and BIASED therefore i would give it a 2 from a total of 5. As I see it, this page is written by only two groups, Chinese Communist Party members who have a direct interest (power, money, greed) to hide/obfuscate the details and the motives behind the Persecution of Falun Gong and Falun Gong practitioners who, since are not paid, I guess, would know the actual facts about Falun Gong since they are actually doing it daily. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who are these CCP members who have a 'direct interest' in this matter, HiG? Does your bias know no bounds? Jsw663 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this question. Please hear my say, which I agree is a speculation, but a very logical one. CCP has the largest propaganda machine on this planet, this is a fact. When you search for Falun Gong on Google [1], this article of Wikipedia comes up, this is a fact. CCP has banned Falun Gong and has a heavy propaganda inside China and outside as well where it can. Now this make me think that it is sure to have CCP propaganda members on the Wikipages, although they will not tell me nor tell you. But then again if they would tell us at some point there might be fines, going to jail on selling state secrets, etc..., in short if they are among us they are not encouraged to tell us. Since I don't know who they are I'm not accusing any individual of this, but this does not impede me to think and be quite certain that there are many, perhaps all in the row of Falun Gong critics. Why would the CCP do this? Well read this [2] and allow to highlight the following:

1) doing so paints the oppressor in a rosy light, as if it were stomping out society’s bad elements; if people knew the truth about what Falun Gong is they would be outraged at the communist regime’s actions

2) by shifting attention to Falun Gong’s beliefs, the spotlight is removed from the practices of China’s regime, which include the brutal torture and even murder of Falun Gong’s followers;

3) by painting Falun Gong as weird, cultish, or different from you and me, it hopes to scare people away from the issue, make things seem terribly messy, and dull the listener’s humanity, as it were.

In short, the attempt is to undermine sympathy and support for Falun Gong, to alienate the group, and to justify what is in essence simply another attempt by the Chinese leadership to exercise totalitarian control.

Also please for further questions try to contact me directly and we can sort this out, otherwise this page might get big as this one got [3], in an attempt to try to confuse things? I'm not sure so I'm not going to hold that against you. --HappyInGeneral 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I don't believe that every Falun Gong critic is a CCP agent. That's not possible. I agree that there might be an unknown number of these people among the editors, and we don't know who they are or their connections, but the majority of critics probably belongs to either of these groups: 1) people who have read Dafa and think it's not good, no matter what their reasons are; 2) people who've formed their opinion after being deeply influenced by the propaganda in Mainland China. ---Olaf Stephanos 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: there are no statistics to support that the CCP has the largest propaganda machine on this planet. I would have thought the USA had the biggest + most effective one.

Fact: Chinese inside mainland China cannot access the Wiki page on Falun Gong.

Fact: The CCP or CPC or whatever you call it is having a very hard time censoring the internet.

Combining facts 2 and 3, we ask why the CCP would waste its resources to change opinions for a page they have already blocked. That is a waste of resources seen as scarce to them already.

Fact: It doesn't take a CCP member to be critical of Falun Gong.

Fact: It doesn't take a member with CCP sympathies or be 'brainwashed' to be critical of Falun Gong. HiG, you yourself said on Wiki that Li Hongzhi predicted the downfall of the CCP in 2005, yet this never happened - is this a critique of Li Hongzhi?

Fact: Not everyone who reads the Falun Dafa necessarily thinks that everything about it is bad.

Now for my opinion. A lot of 'independent' sources quoted by pro-FGers are notably pro-FG. If I were to use your earlier logic, should I speculate that they must have been brainwashed by Falun Gong propaganda, were paid agents of FG or come up with speculative-paranoid conspiracy theories? Most FG critics here have a very negative opinion of the CCP in case you haven't noticed, strongly objecting to their authoritarian style. Most FG critics also don't think that FG is 100% or 99% bad, even if FGers think the CCP is 99-100% bad. However, many of those viewing FG being put into practice will also notice it shares many characteristics with other cults in that it alters 'mainstream cults' (= religions) teachings for its own benefit - for the benefit of one person who has absolute, unquestioning authority. Since most FG critics are also CCP critics BECAUSE both share the characteristic of unquestioning authority, they are critical of BOTH. This is why your opinion that there 'must be' many CCP-brainwashed persons or CCP agents out there is simply unfounded. If Wikipedia were a representative sample, then you should stop alienating those who are critical of FG by labelling them as Communist agents or whatever, because you may actually find more support by 1. NOT imposing your opinion on others; 2. not accuse everyone of being 100% evil (because if the CCP is 100% evil, then their agents must be 100% evil...) and 3. spend your time sharing the political anti-CCP beliefs that the self-claimed apolitical Falun Gong does. Jsw663 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Jsw, this way things presented here are certainly not one sided. Now with the 2 theories (POV) present on the table the reader can decide for himself :) And I find that rather comforting :) --HappyInGeneral 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And quite clearly I am not representing the anti-FG (pro-CCP) view. Hope you noticed that. Jsw663 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on-going is an edit war between NPOV and FLG editors. Colipon+(T) 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV. My POV is that I welcome any truly NPOV well sourced edits which considers the whole context. --HappyInGeneral 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war is between three camps; anti-FG, pro-FG and third-party. It is hard to find anyone NPOV, because once they know enough about the subject, there is no such thing as a neutral stance in this controversial matter. Jsw663 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales' words

"Although Wikipedia is accessible in China, certain pages are filtered. Nobel peace prize recipient Liu Xiaobo and dissident artist Ai Weiwei's pages were blocked by Chinese authorities. Events like the Tiananmen Square riots or religious cults like Falun Gong cannot be openly discussed online in China." https://www.vice.com/read/wikipedia-founders-uncompromising-stance-on-censorship-and-users-privacy Here Jimmy was criticizing the Chinese communist government. The word cult has quite different meanings and has no negative implications in Jimmy's line. if someone wants to refer Jimmy"s words, it has to reflect the line, and should not be only one word. Marvin 2009 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the word "Religious cults" has no negative meaning? I described the fact, I did not say anything about whether "Religious cults" has any negative or positive meaning.--Raintwoto 12:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

Jimmy was criticizing the Chinese communist government, which was the context when he mentioned FG. But User:Raintwoto added the word "however" in his editing. It added a negative implication to the page. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will delete the word "however". I will let the reader decide what does it mean. --Raintwoto 17:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

On what basis have you decided that an incidental mention from a non-expert on this topic should be included in the lead section of the article?TheBlueCanoe 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is the co-founder of Wikipedia?--Raintwoto 21:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

That is irrelevant for our purposes.TheBlueCanoe 01:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it very clear that my thoughts, words, and opinions on this matter are of no relevance for this article. I am not an expert on Falun Gong nor cults, nor are my opinions of such things (expert or not) generally encyclopedic, i.e. I am not an anti-cult activist or anything of the sort which would give my words particular interest to Wikipedia editors in this context.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Thanks for clarifying.TheBlueCanoe 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not well said. Wikipedia has no policy to allow for the speakers of outside quotations to come here and tell Wikipedians whether their comment is suitable or not as a reliable source for what they were quoted as saying! If we had that policy, then Green Party candidate, Alan Saldanha, who resigned after making a rape comment on Facebook, could just tell us that his Facebook comments are not relevant in Controversies in the Canadian federal election, 2011. Or Matt Selman could contact us and say that his comments about East St. Louis are not relevant in They Saved Lisa's Brain. Stop paying so much deference to Jimmy Wales, that his word is Gospel, just because he helped Larry Sanger set up Wikipedia! - 208.54.90.142 (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to include Wales' description was premised on the (mistaken) notion that his comments have encyclopedic merit for no other reason than that he co-founded Wikipedia. You're arguing that co-founding Wikipedia does not make a person's opinions relevant. I think we've arrived at the same place. TheBlueCanoe 14:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, do we agree that the conclusion is add Wale's word in "International reception" instead of in the first paragraph?Raintwoto 21:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

Claims with no evidence

Falun Gong practitioners in China are reportedly subject to a wide range of human rights abuses: hundreds of thousands are estimated to have been imprisoned extrajudicially, and practitioners in detention are subject to forced labor, psychiatric abuse, torture, and other coercive methods of thought reform at the hands of Chinese authorities. As of 2009, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had died as a result of abuse in custody.[4] Some observers put the number much higher, and report that tens of thousands may have been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry.[5][6] In the years since the persecution began, Falun Gong practitioners have become active in advocating for greater human rights in China.

However, these claims have no evidence at all and I think we should delete it. You can read the US congress report:

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/crs/RL33437.pdf

In March 2006, U.S. Falun Gong representatives claimed that thousands of practitioners had been sent to 36 concentration camps throughout the PRC. According to their allegations, at one such site in Sujiatun, near the city of Shenyang, a hospital has been used as a detention center for 6,000 Falun Gong prisoners, three-fourths of whom are said to have been killed and had their organs harvested for profit. American officials from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. consulate in Shenyang visited the area as well as inspected the hospital on two occasions and “found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.”
Falun Gong adherents detained there, three-fourths allegedly had their organs removed and then were cremated or never seen again.24 American officials from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. consulate in Shenyang visited the area as well as the hospital site on two occasions — the first time unannounced and the second with the cooperation of PRC officials — and after investigating the facility “found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.”25 Amnesty International spokespersons have stated that the claims of systematic organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners cannot be confirmed or denied.
Since 2001, Falun Gong plaintiffs have filed several lawsuits in federal courts claiming that the PRC officials in the United States have been responsible for dozens of isolated incidents of physical and verbal harassment, eavesdropping, and destruction of property of Falun Gong adherents and supporters in the United States. However, plaintiffs often have possessed little evidence of direct involvement by the Chinese government in the alleged incidents. PRC consular officials deny participation in such criminal activity in the United States and claim that they are entitled to diplomatic immunity. In November 2002, the Circuit Court of Cook County charged a PRC immigrant with battery for having physically assaulted a Falun Gong hunger striker in front of the Chinese Consulate in Chicago in September 2001.39 In February 2005, Falun Gong members in the United States reported that a coordinated, world-wide campaign (in over 20 countries) of telephone harassment against them had taken place.40 This telephone harassment allegedly consisted of pre-recorded anti-Falun Gong messages in both English and Chinese, some purportedly originating in China.

Raintwoto 20:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

There's plenty of evidence for this claim, nearly all of it published after the U.S. embassy report you cited.TheBlueCanoe 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite the evidence? I did not find any hard evidence except the statements. I would like to know what are the evidence...Raintwoto 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

Refer to the footnotes in Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China.TheBlueCanoe 22:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the pair were denied visas to travel to China, they nonetheless compiled over 30 distinct strands of evidence which were consistent with allegations of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners." This is absurd.....How is this possible????? Raintwoto (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still... no evidence.... Only indirect evidence suggested that there is illegal organ transplants in China... No hard evidence at all about these organs are from Falun Gong practitioner (except the statements from Falun Gong).Raintwoto (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueCanoe:,

Raintwoto discussed with me in ZH-Wikipedia. He cited the US Congress 2006 report after Sujiatun. While after 2006's Independent Investigation by David Matas, the US Congress, UN, and some countries also gave new Reports about it. I've told to Raintwoto and gave him the link of 2012 US-Congrass Update Report.
David Matas's NEW VERSION REPORT(2016.6) also afforded to Raintwoto, So many evidences inside the 800 pages. But Raintwoto denied read the Evidence inside, still said "where is evidence".Wetrace (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are very different reports... it is not the new report.... One is from US congress (who actually went to Sujiatun) and one is by two politicians (who actually did not go to China at all).... I don't understand how could you write this kind of report without actually going to the place?Raintwoto (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for any hard evidence (not statements)... but you can not give me even one......Raintwoto (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statements by US-Congress, EU-Parliament, U.N. Committee Against Torture, are made after they read the Kilgour-Matas report and other works. U.N. Committee Against Torture asked CN-GOV to reply the Report for several yeas, while CN-GOV failed.Wetrace (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that actually the only people who went to Sujiatun said there's no evidence for Falun gong (2006 US congress report) and everyone else who did not go to Sujiatun at all (The statements by US-Congress, EU-Parliament, U.N. Committee Against Torture) says that there's evidence? Raintwoto (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of Falun Gong believe that aliens invaded earth

I think we should add this interesting evidence from the interview of the Founder Li Hongzhi in Time.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053761,00.html

TIME: Why does chaos reign now?

TIME: Why does chaos reign now? Li: Of course there is not just one reason. The biggest cause of society's change today is that people no longer believe in orthodox religion. They go to church, but they no longer believe in God. They feel free to do anything. The second reason is that since the beginning of this century, aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture.

TIME: Where do they come from? Li: The aliens come from other planets. The names that I use for these planets are different . Some are from dimensions that human beings have not yet discovered. The key is how they have corrupted mankind. Everyone knows that from the beginning until now, there has never been a development of culture like today. Although it has been several thousand years, it has never been like now.

The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science.

The ultimate purpose is to replace humans. If cloning human beings succeeds, the aliens can officially replace humans. Why does a corpse lie dead, even though it is the same as a living body? The difference is the soul, which is the life of the body. If people reproduce a human person, the gods in heaven will not give its body a human soul. The aliens will take that opportunity to replace the human soul and by doing so they will enter earth and become earthlings.

When such people grow up, they will help replace humans with aliens. They will produce more and more clones. There will no longer be humans reproduced by humans. They will act like humans, but they will introduce legislation to stop human reproduction.

TIME: Are you a human being? Li: You can think of me as a human being.

TIME: Are you from earth? Li: I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it.

TIME: What are the aliens after? Li: The aliens use many methods to keep people from freeing themselves from manipulation. They make earthlings have wars and conflicts, and develop weapons using science, which makes mankind more dependent on advanced science and technology. In this way, the aliens will be able to introduce their stuff and make the preparations for replacing human beings. The military industry leads other industries such as computers and electronics.

TIME: But what is the alien purpose? Li: The human body is the most perfect in the universe. It is the most perfect form. The aliens want the human body.

TIME: What do aliens look like? Li: Some look similar to human beings. U.S. technology has already detected some aliens. The difference between aliens can be quite enormous.

TIME: Can you describe it? Li: You don't want to have that kind of thought in your mind.

TIME: Describe them anyway. Li: One type looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone. Others look like ghosts. At first they thought that I was trying to help them. Now they now that I am sweeping them away.,

TIME: How do you see the future? Li: Future human society is quite terrifying. If aliens are not to replace human beings, society will destroy itself on its own. Industry is creating invisible air pollution. The microparticles in the air harm human beings. The abnormality in the climate today is caused by that [pollution], and it cannot be remedied by humans alone. The drinking water is polluted. No matter how we try to purify it, it cannot return to its original purity. Modern science cannot determine the extent of the damage. The food we eat is the product of fertilized soil. The meat we eat is affected. I can foresee a future when human limbs become deformed, the body's joints won't move and internal organs will become dysfunctional. Modern science hasn't realized this yet.

At the beginning you asked why I did such things. I only tell practitioners, but not the public because they cannot comprehend it. I am trying to save those people who can return to a high level and to a high moral level. Modern science does not understand this, so governments can do nothing. The only person in the entire world who knows this is myself alone.

I am not against the public knowing, but I am teaching practitioners. Even though the public knows, it cannot do anything about it. People can't free themselves from science and from their concepts. I am not against science. I am only telling mankind the truth. I drive a car. I also live in the environment. Don't believe that I am against science. But I know that modern science is destroying mankind. Aliens have already constructed a layer of cells in human beings. The development of computers dictates this layer of body cells to control human culture and spirituality and in the end to replace human beings.

Raintwoto 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Here's another one. This has been discussed and rejected dozens of times before, but no new arguments have been put forward for why this material needs to be mentioned prominently in this article. Li has said lots of things on lots of topics, yet you're not advocating to include all of his other statements on the page. Can you tell us how this is appropriate under the principle of WP:DUE)?TheBlueCanoe 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? How many interviews Li has done? I did not find many.... This is so absurd... That's the reason... I don't understand how could Wikipedia ignore such absurd statement....Raintwoto 21:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I believe that time magazine is reliable source and this is a significant viewpoint since half of the interview is about aliens. Raintwoto 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Li has published literally thousands of pages of writings. Books upon books. And in those books, writings about aliens are accorded relatively little importance. Enough to be included in the Teachings of Falun Gong page, perhaps, but not on this page, which is only a summary of the main aspects of the practice and doctrine. A reading of secondary sources (e.g. books on Falun Gong by academics) confirms that aliens are not a focus of the teachings, and in determining how much weight to assign to various issues, we take our lead from those secondary sources. This is how we honor the principle of proportionality. Anyway, you are making my point: the editors who advocate for the inclusion of this material do so because they think it's funny/silly/absurd—not because it is necessary to uphold a neutral point of view.TheBlueCanoe 21:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Li indeed published a lot, but he has not been interviewed a lot. In one of these few interviews, he talked about the aliens in half of the interview. For example, in Isaac Newton, it states that "Beyond his work on the mathematical sciences, Newton dedicated much of his time to the study of biblical chronology andalchemy, but most of his work in those areas remained unpublished until long after his death." in the beginning. Few people actually know that and they are not the main work of Isaac Newton, why should they be there? Because it tells you some information that are true and salient. The aliens stories are the same here. Few people know that Falun gong actually thinks aliens invaded earth and this point is so salient, that's the reason it should be presented here. Raintwoto 21:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs)

in other words you're saying that the opinion of a wikipedia editor - in this case your good self - should decide questions of wp:due? and that this should not be decided by the experts on the topic? it sounds like you basically think that it's batshit crazy ("so salient") and should be on the page for that reason. I don't think that's how wikipedia works.Happy monsoon day 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the bible says the world is created by aliens, do you think we should add that in the description of the bible? Why about Newton, we talk about his crazy work about the study of biblical chronology andalchemy? How wikipedia works?Raintwoto (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently claims Falun Gong's anti science views stem are either CCP propaganda or stem traditional Chinese medicine and thinking. Seeing as how reliable secondary and primary sources both describe Falun Gong's belief that modern science is an alien tool against humanity there is no reason not to include this in the article as long as science is mentioned there- unless one wants to deliberately mislead and slant the article in an unbalanced, NPOV manner.Rajmaan (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we include in the article about the U.S. government that a relatively large number of its former military and security officials have talked about "aliens"? [4] [5] No, because that would be giving undue weight to the subject. It doesn't have a lot to do with the operations of the U.S. government overall. Ditto. The relative weight should be based on reliable academic sources. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier because you either didn't read it or are deliberately ignoring it and trying to drown it out with the straw man argument about US government officials which has nothing to do with NPOV or balance about Falun Gong's views on science.

It wouldn't have been a question of due weight if the article at present wasn't trying to falsely present Falun Gong's very well soured anti-science views as CCP propaganda. The propaganda campaign focused on allegations that Falun Gong jeopardized social stability, was deceiving and dangerous, was "anti-science" and threatened progress. The article as of now is claiming that Falun Gong's views on science are either CCP propaganda or as stemming from "traditional Chinese cultural thought" and "traditional Chinese medicine". This is NPOV and unbalanced. It says nothing about the fact that Falun Gong is anti science because it believes Aliens created modern science and use it to subvert humans and therefore by deliberate omission presents it as either traditional Chinese views or CCP propaganda. Either delete the cited passages or mention the aliens to restore balance and due weight.Rajmaan (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the so called "anti-science" label only your own conclusion? The Time report has not such an assertion or a conclusion. Your words "To falsely present Falun Gong's very well soured anti-science views as CCP propaganda." has no base either. It sounds only your imagination. Regarding this topic, Mr. Noah Porter made a comment in his book FALUN GONG IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY: "After doing some more reading and thinking, I came to a few conclusions: I realized that Falun Gong might teach these things are not good, but they would not try to impose their beliefs on others in a way that I would find objectionable. For example, they would not prevent a biology or astronomy professor from teaching evolution or a more mundane origin and composition for the moon, nor would they take any action against rock musicians. " Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this quote by searching for "science" in Li Hongzhi's lectures. "Its things have penetrated every field in human society, mankind can’t break away from science, and everything is now created by science. Since this is the case, as Dafa disciples, no matter what your professions are, you should just go ahead and do your work, and do your work well—that will be good enough. As for everything that is happening, don’t concern yourself with it. I’m not telling you to oppose this science, nor am I teaching you to break free from it. That’s not what I mean." (Teaching the Fa at the Western U.S. Fa Conference 1999) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced from Falun Gong's own website and secondary sources by scholars: Li claimed that extraterrestrial aliens are actively intervening in human affairs.^[1]^[2] Li claimed that aliens developed and introduced the technology used by humans today.^[3]^[4] Li has denounced modern technology as part of a alien plot against humanity.^[5] Li believs humans are being impersonated by alien agents.^[6]Rajmaan (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, "anti science" is your own conclusion. All the sources you provided did not say that. Base on the Time report you sourced Mr. Li said he is not against science. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He does, neverthless, believe in alien life on earth, a menace for humans it seeks to replace. Presumable these aliens corrupted the minds of scientists and medical people, turning them against the goals of Falun Gong." World Religions, Warren Matthews

"They started teaching mankind about modern science, so people bleieve more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulate by aliens." The Religion of Falun Gong, Benjamin Penny

"Science is actually a religion with its own clergy of bachelors, masters, doctors, research fellows and professors. But contrary to the divinely-trasmitted religions, science is spread by aliens in order to control humans." ,,Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China, David A. Palmer. Rajmaan (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nice quotes. it seems here there are two issues at play. 1) what does falun gong teach about science? 2) what's with the alien thing?

number one is presumably a broad topic, since someone above said there are 2,000+ pages of teachings, so we can stick to aliens for now.

right now my main question is: it's unclear how much more relevant this is in the falun gong corpus of beliefs than if Li had said something against eating meat, or pick any other topic out of a hat. there is a non sequitur aspect to it all without a clear statement by a chinese religious/flg expert explaining how it's central to the falun gong belief system or lifestyle (or whatever). where is that statement? Happy monsoon day 19:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said aliens are relevant because Falun Gong's anti-science views stem from their claims that science is an alien plot against humans. The current article here on Wikipedia is falsely insinuating that Falun Gong's anti-science views are CCP propaganda or that their views stem from traditional Chinese culture and medicine. This is POV distortion and needs to be corrected with the reliable RS secondary sources I cited which say Falun Gong's views on science are due to belief that aliens created modern science.Rajmaan (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to know more about this issue than me, so i won't venture any content specific ideas. but it seems this is getting into original synthesis territory. where do we have a couple of reliable sources saying that aliens are a core part of falun gong teachings? (you do not seem to be arguing that they are, but that anti-science is, and that aliens are behind the anti-science thing. this is where the original synthesis issue arises. if we're going to address "Falun Gong's View on Science" that would probably be a good idea - but take quite a few words, and best be done on the page actually about the beliefs...)Happy monsoon day 19:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synthesis. Anti-science views and aliens are already linked together by the sources and not by me. The entire concept of modern science being created by aliens is part of their teachings. Synthesis would be me linking a separate source talking about aliens only and adding them to another source talking about science. It says under Falun_Gong#Central_teachings that The practice draws on East Asian mysticism and traditional Chinese medicine, criticizes the purportedly self-imposed limits of modern science, especially evolution, and views traditional Chinese science as an entirely different, yet equally valid ontological system. Leaving out aliens creating modern science is being POV and can be seen as an attempt to whitewash the article when reliable secondary sources say that believe in that. A sentence on aliens being behind modern science can be placed right after that.Rajmaan (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that seems to be a very general remark about chinese philosophy, qigong, and falun gong beliefs. the same could be said of many practices. but at any rate, it's still quite unclear whether falun gong's views on science are an important part of its entire corpus. this discussion made me curious and i spent some time today in the secondary literature — it seems that falun gong's main beef with science is that its empirical methods create self-imposed limits. li also complains about environmental degradation caused by science, and the fact that science is silent on what he thinks of as moral truths.

even more interesting is the fact that so-called somatic sciences in china were all the rage (i.e. had explicit state affiliations) when falun gong was at its peak, so the party's claim that falun gong is anti-science is a little confounding, and they may mean anti-marxism (since marxism is the truest since, I believe.) qigong even seems to claim that it is another form of science.

anyway, there is a lot of material and ideas here to untangle, all bound up in the question of chinese thought, qigong, falun gong (didn't come out in a vacuum), and science. on aliens, I looked in David Ownby's book and there are literally 2 references to it. unless it's clear that rs widely see this as a core part of the falun gong belief system, then as far as I can tell we encounter clear synthesis and due weight issues. (I'm not sure what it has to do with whitewashing or POV.) i would be fascinated to read a proper discussion of qigong, falun gong, science, dimensions, aliens, etc. with good context on the teachings page, if you want to take the lead on drafting it? I have read some of this material now too, so could try to help, although I don't feel too confident to start. Happy monsoon day 01:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If its not a big deal then why is science being mentioned in the article and why does the article present Falun Gong's views on science as CCP propaganda? Writing on aliens would literally take up one sentence yet it seems that for some reason people are desperate to keep the word alien off the page.Rajmaan (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not sure I follow - where does it say that flg's views on science are CCP propaganda?Happy monsoon day 15:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It portrays it that way in the media campaign section.

State propaganda initially used the appeal of scientific rationalism to argue that Falun Gong's worldview was in "complete opposition to science" and communism.[199] For example, the People's Daily asserted on 27 July 1999, that the fight against Falun Gong "was a struggle between theism and atheism, superstition and science, idealism and materialism." Other editorials declared that Falun Gong's "idealism and theism" are "absolutely contradictory to the fundamental theories and principles of Marxism," and that the "'truth, kindness and forbearance' principle preached by [Falun Gong] has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve." Suppressing Falun Gong was presented as a necessary step to maintaining the "vanguard role" of the Communist Party in Chinese society.[200]Rajmaan (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FLG is still not a cult? How do you define a cult?Raintwoto (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response within 24 hours will be taken as deliberate stalling and then I will add the content about aliens and science back to the article. I've waited long enough for a response.Rajmaan (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

apologies - i kinda thought this was done. your last comment confused me, so i didn't realise it was a substantive point to advance your general argument.

the logic here is that because the communist party's use of scientistic propaganda against falun gong is cited in the article, the article must therefore include information about how falun gong believes in aliens manipulating science, because this is proof that the ccp's attacks on falun gong as being anti-science are not merely propaganda - that falun gong is indeed anti-science, as demonstrated by its crazy alien beliefs. right?

firstly, this sounds like a textbook original synthesis. secondly, i'm not even sure it makes sense. thirdly, content decisions should be made on the basis of encyclopedic judgement, due weight, and what the preponderance of reliable sources say about an issue. if there was a source which said 1) flg views on aliens are a central component of its teachings and 2) this is important because it shows the ccp's attacks against them was not just cynical propaganda but instead should be evaluated more seriously, etc. etc. ..... well then I could see how we have a case.

right now I find the logic somewhat tortured, and my main objection remains: there's nothing indicating this is a core teaching, and multiple indications that it's a side teaching. as I say, i'd have no objection helping craft something on it in the page that's actually about flg beliefs. this is just my view on the matter. Happy monsoon day 18:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who automatically assumes that aliens make Falun Gong look bad. Nobody said anything negative associated with aliens except the people arguing against including them. The Falun Gong partisans on here claim that Falun Gong's views on science are not a fundamental part of its teachings. Then why are not only the CCP's statements on Falun Gong's scientific views included, but also in Central Teachings of the Falun Gong on this article it states Traditional Chinese cultural thought and modernity are two focuses of Li Hongzhi's teachings. Falun Gong echoes traditional Chinese beliefs that humans are connected to the universe through mind and body, and Li seeks to challenge "conventional mentalities", concerning the nature and genesis of the universe, time-space, and the human body.[42][43] The practice draws on East Asian mysticism and traditional Chinese medicine, criticizes the purportedly self-imposed limits of modern science, especially evolution, and views traditional Chinese science as an entirely different, yet equally valid ontological system.[44]. When people want to include aliens and science on here, you claim science is not a central part of their teachings. When we point out that their views against science is being mentioned on the article except for the part of the aliens being behind it, you claim it makes Falun Gong look bad so it shouldn't be included.Rajmaan (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has claimed that Falun Gong's views on science are not a fundamental part of the teachings. I said that belief in aliens is not a fundamental part of the teachings. Falun Gong does have a fair bit to say in relation to science that is completely unrelated to its supposed extraterrestrial provenance. Ownby's book includes a whole 7-page section describing Falun Gong's views on and relationship to science, and it contains not one mention of aliens. Instead, Li's main critique of science is that it is but one knowledge system, that is is 'epistemologically incapable of validating their own claims to authority', and is limited in its ability to explain life and the universe. Other critiques focus on the environmental degradation that modern science has wrought, or the fact that it's incapable of proving moral truths. But Li never rejects science; he sort of co-opts it while simultaneously suggesting that it is very limited. He's Ownby:

"Li's argument thus is not that science is completely wrong, but that it is only valid within certain parameters; science as a mode of understanding is useful when properly applied, but limiting when it fails to acknowledge its own limitations or, more to the point from Li's personal point of view, dam¬aging when it is used as a standard of absolute value which serves to reject alternative—indeed, superior—approaches to knowledge and understanding."

This article actually seems to capture this point pretty well.

For future reference, if people don't reply to you, it's not necessarily evidence that you have won an argument. It might just be that you have failed to convince people, and they have resolved to move on.TheBlueCanoe 13:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i was away for the weekend and so wasn't able to respond. for the record, i didn't say anything about whether aliens look bad (or good). i don't know why you would say i said something that i plainly didn't say (and don't think). i don't even edit this article much. Happy monsoon day 15:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Biema, David Van (Monday, May 10, 1999). "The Man with the Qi". TIME. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Warren Matthews (6 June 2012). World Religions. Cengage Learning. pp. 383–. ISBN 1-111-83472-5.
^ Li Hongzhi, Teaching the Fa at the Western U.S. Fa Conference, February 21 and 22, 1999, Los Angeles
^ Benjamin Penny (1 March 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-0-226-65502-4.
^ David A. Palmer (13 August 2013). Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China. Columbia University Press. pp. 227–. ISBN 978-0-231-51170-4.
^ James R. Lewis; Olav Hammer (19 November 2010). Handbook of Religion and the Authority of Science. BRILL. pp. 157–. ISBN 90-04-18791-X.

Does Falun Gong classify as a New Religion?

From the readings and what I have been able to find online(news and articles) Fulon Gong doesn't seem to have any core tenets needed from a religion, it is mostly a combination of exercises, philosophies on life/living and motions and is in that aspect more akin to Yoga and Martial arts than a religion, it is at best a sect of Taoism or Buddhism, not a separate religion on its own. Practitioners of Fulon Gong are not required to revoke their previous faiths, and it doesn't have any religious laws or restrictions, nor is it controlled by any central authority in any form at any level, other than planning practice meetings and rallies.

I would club it in the same Pseudo-Religion/"self help group organised as religion" family as Scientology. Exercise regiments and pop-psychological self diagnosis doesn't make you a religion.

It has more in common with a Martial Art like Tai Chi or Yoga(not considered a Martial Art). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.41.49 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mixture of Buddhism and qigong. It uses Buddhism's theory and qigong's practice. With a few of Li Hongzhi's new concepts put in, we have a religion hot pot. Tuanminh01 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62n1StDL3?url=http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Analysis_of_China_Docs_1_to_7.pdf to http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Analysis_of_China_Docs_1_to_7.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

TheBlueCanoe Last time I was asked for secondary sources instead of primary. I provided them. Is another problem being manufactured?Rajmaan (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that. See my comments here. The issue was not limited to an over-reliance on primary sources (you cited TIME Magazine on both occasions, unless I'm mistaken). Instead it was one of figuring out how to accord the right amount of weight to these issues in relation to other aspects of the doctrine, and how to contextualize them, etc. We actually did use your edits as impetus to come up with a solution, and the page includes a discussion of supernatural abilities. It seems you were MIA for that part of the discussion.TheBlueCanoe 04:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i think they (ie secondary sourceS) may actually be, rajmaan, given the policy on WP:PRIMARY. the idea is that we cannot use primary sources to make a point we want to make. for example that falun gong religious beliefs are funny or silly because there are aliens and stuff. i might agree, but actually we would need to find a chinese religious scholar who can explain what role these thoughts have in the flg doctrinal system. we can't just pick something and stick it in because it sounds ridiculous. that's my understanding of the policy anyway. others can correct me if i'm wrong. i just took a look at david ownby's book on google books and it only seems to mention aliens twice, in passing.Happy monsoon day 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no discussion of aliens and views towards technology and science on the page. And what constitutes tendentious edits are using Falun Gong run media and representing them as third party RS by failing to mention their provenance in the article.Rajmaan (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a sudden lack of disinterest in discussion when reliable secondary sources are provided on Falun Gong's hostile positoin towards modern western science and their belief that it comes from aliens- the article as it stands now currently presents Falun Gong's anti-science views as CCP propaganda, when I provided reliable secondary sources from scholars and primary sources from Falun Gong themselves on their belief that science was created by aliens to subvert humanity. It seems as if the page is being whitewashed and sanitized by these people User:Colipon has discussed User:Colipon/Falun Gong.Rajmaan (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: there have been many discussions before about whether belief in aliens should be on this page, and each time, it comes down to a question of due weight. The extraterrestrial issue is apparently a very insignificant aspect of the belief system. It’s curious that the editors who insist on aliens being mentioned don’t make the same demands for other aspects of the doctrine that feature far more prominently in both the primary and secondary literature, such as its discussions of spiritual anatomy, the structure of the universe, the concepts and implications of inborn quality, the evolution of Buddhism, forms of enlightenment, art and aesthetics, and so on.

Moreover, everyone who proposes the inclusion of the alien material does so because they think it reflects poorly on Falun Gong. That is, they don't make arguments about its encyclopedic value—they argue that it's important because it makes Falun Gong look bad. You seem to be no exception. Given some of your previous edits to this page[6], it's not clear that you're actually here to build an encyclopedia.

Anyway, I'm not opposed in principle to elaborating a bit more about Falun Gong's views of and relationship to modern science in a way that observes principles of neutrality and balance.TheBlueCanoe 00:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been a question of due weight if the article at present wasn't trying to falsely present Falun Gong's very well soured anti-science views as CCP propaganda. The propaganda campaign focused on allegations that Falun Gong jeopardized social stability, was deceiving and dangerous, was "anti-science" and threatened progress. The article as of now is claiming that Falun Gong's views on science are either CCP propaganda or as stemming from "traditional Chinese cultural thought" and "traditional Chinese medicine". This is NPOV and unbalanced. It says nothing about the fact that Falun Gong is anti science because it believes Aliens created modern science and use it to subvert humans and therefore by deliberate omission presents it as either traditional Chinese views or CCP propaganda. Either delete the cited passages or mention the aliens to restore balance and due weight.

You support the inclusion of Falun Gong's own newspaper Epoch Times as an RS without indicating it is pro Falun Gong in Falun Gong related articles. In other words, things that you think makes Falun Gong looks bad gets deleted by you regardless of encyclopedic value while Falun Gong sources can be used if they make Falun Gong's opponents look bad.

User:Marvin 2009 very closely resembles those SPA accounts described by Colipon and its fascinating how STSC gets reported for arbitration and topic banning while Marvin 2009 is somehow still free to edit Falun Gong articles and no one has spoke out against his edits. His entire account is literally dedicated to defending Falun Gong. It appears that these SPAs are gaming the system and playing good cop and bad cop with some appearing to be more overtly neutral than others and editing unrelated topics occasionally to pretend not to be an SPA, while hovering around the Falun Gong article. In the talk page archives there were editors like Ohconfucius and Colipon who are critical of the CCP and didn't let that get in the way of confronting Falun Gong SPAs trying to whitewash the article until the deluge of SPAs got them banned by arbitration and apparently pro Falun Gong SPAs are given free reign over the article.Rajmaan (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did edit other pages, like 2008 Sichuan earthquake etc. However i came across some users who seem to be dedicated to provide false info to Wikipedia articals, especially FG related articles, I had to explain again and again what they put in the related pages are just opposite to the sources they provided. Otherwise I could have had more time for editing other pages. User:Rajmaan seems to be such a user. This time User:Rajmaan added the line "Li claimed that his teachings can be used to halt fast cars in addition to curing illness" in the at least two articles again. But in my response to Rajmaan last November , I made it very clear that according to the Time report Mr. Li simply WON'T cure illnesses and Mr. Li claimed that his teachings can NOT be used to halt fast cars. I do not understand how could User:Rajmaan keep adding entirely false and opposite meaning into the pages. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on other articles like 2008 Sichuan earthquake are all dedicated to pushing an anti-CCP viewpoint, the same viewpoint aggressively propagated by the Falun Gong. I edit other articles which have nothing to do with Falun Gong and the CCP. Your edits are openly pro Falun Gong and anti CCP. You even cited a Falun Gong source (NTDTV) on the 2008 Sichuan earthquake article.Rajmaan (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Time report, so now you agreed that you should not put the false info in the articles? Finally, that is a progress. Hope you won't add those inaccurate stuff again after a while. As to the earthquake article, I am not like you and have no bias to NTDTV. I added other sources and as well as one NTDTV source. I do not think it is a Falun Gong source. Minghui website could be considered as a Falun Gong source. NTDTV is quite different. Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No material proof was provided of changed wording from the TIME article. A claim was made and wasn't backed up. You should understand people have a very hard time believing pro Falun Gong SPA accounts and taking their words when they provide no sources or evidence. NTDTV was founded and is run by Falun Gong members and is pro Falun Gong and anti CCP. The vast majority of your edits are dedicated to sanitizing Falun Gong's image and attacking the CCP.Rajmaan (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you the evidence at least twice. What you wrote in the article is just the opposite to the source. According to the Time report Mr. Li simply WON'T cure illnesses and Mr. Li claimed that his teachings can NOT be used to halt fast cars. Have you ever read the Time report you sourced??? The simple fact whether the Time report said this or just the opposite is not dependent on whether i am a SPA account or not. Why do you continue to post your false and fake info and put a label on me? As to what you said about NTDTV is anti CCP and a Falun Gong media. I do not think i agree with you on this. I noticed NTDTV has programs that disclosed CCP nature, but this does not necessarily mean NTDTV is anti ccp. For example, i disclosed the quote you referred from the Time is not accurate and has just the opposite meaning to the info in the sourced report. This does not mean i am anti Rajmaan:) I just want to clarify the basic facts from the report you sourced! NTDTV is not deserved to be called anti CCP by disclosing CCP nature. Yes, NTDTV may have FG practitioners as their staff members. This is not equivalent to your statement NTDTV is Falun Gong media either. For example, it is said that NewYork Times has many Christians as their staff members, but NewYork times does not represent Christians' view and is not a Christian newspaper. Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just repeated a common Falun Gong talking point used to deflect criticism of their media operations.

"For example, neither practitioners in general nor those who work for the Epoch Times like to call it a Falun Gong newspaper, even though it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, most if not all of its publishers are Falun Gong practitioners, many of its journalists are Falun Gong practitioners, and at least part of its staff is made up volunteer workers, many of whom are Falun Gong practitioners. They don't like to be called a Falun Gong newspaper in part because they fear they will not be taken seriously and thus will have difficulty reaching the readers they hope to reach. Would you call the New York Times a Jewish newspaper? " Falun Gong and the Future of China, David Ownby Rajmaan (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My view includes that NTDTV is quite different to Minghui, the Falun Gong website, so my view is not the same as what you referred. If you do not think my view is correct, you should have explained why it is not reasonable. You did not give your rationales, but preferred to talk about how similar my view with FG practitioners'. As Wikipedia editors we need to be cautious of WP:PA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You edit on Falun Gong related articles and use sources affiliated with Falun Gong on other articles related to China and the CCP. Don't hijack and derail the discussion. This is about Falun Gong SPAs and Falun Gong's views on science.Rajmaan (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the evidences i showed you earlier, the stories you described, such as curing disease, halting fast cars and your another edit, have no ground at all. For the first two, the Time source provided the opposite meaning to your edits (but you kept adding into the pages). Third one is the most absurd edit among your three edits. Why did you add such an absurd story without any base? To disrupt a page is not necessarily require SPA account. You might not be SPA account but your edits disrupted the related pages many times, because many of your edits turned to be entirely false, misleading and disruptive. NTDTV was referred by many neutral scholars and won awards many times. You comments show bias on NTDTV, while I have no discrimination to NTDTV. The content i referred from that NTDTV report was: "Xin Ziling, former publishing director at China's Defense University spoke to Voice of America. He said that Hu Jintao wanted to help, but Jiang Zemin was above him. Hu Jintao only had the power to give orders to a major general. Above that level, Jiang Zemin must give orders. Xin Ziling says that Hu Jintao "can not speak" to the military." This is absolutely not a made-up store similar to your three posts. You may further investigate on this. In fact, many other Chinese medias had similar coverages. Here is one example from NANZAO.COM: "然而，在郭、徐主持军委日常工作期间出了问题，例如，汶川大地震发生后，中央决定成立以总理温家宝为首的救灾指挥部，统一指挥军队和地方的救灾力量。但温家宝竟然指挥不动参加救灾的部队。他下令尽快打通通往汶川的道路，有关将领却迟迟不行动。陈炳德的文章称，胡锦涛曾数次来电话，称现场人手不够，他每次接电后都请示军委首长后增兵。...有人说前总书记江泽民是郭和徐的后台，此话属实与否，不得而知，但二人确实由江一手提拔为中央军委委员。中共十六大后，江泽民留任军委主席，郭伯雄和徐才厚就成了他治军的左右手。总书记胡锦涛只兼任军委副主席。当时军中的口号是「坚决听从党中央、中央军委和江主席的指挥。」于是为郭徐架空胡锦涛设下伏笔。" I notice any info related to Jiang Zemin's crimes seem not to be welcomed on Wikipedia. Some IDs tend to whitewash or simply delete them in use of excuse. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You consistently edit Falun Gong articles to sanitize them of all things you perceive to look negative towards the Falun Gong and edit other articles related to CCP officials and controversies to insert negative POV with Falun Gong linked sources. Many newspapers repost entire articles from other agencies like AFP and AP except they don't editorialize and add their own obfuscation, distortions, lies and fabrication into the report. If you wanted to cite from VOA or SCMP (nanzao) you would have cited from their website and not NTDTV and its distorted coverage in order to push them as a source on Wikipedia.Rajmaan (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above words were simply attacking me with no any base. NTDTV info and other source were both there. You can tell the NTDTV message and SCMP message are quite close. There is no distorting in this regard. The fact is that Rajmaan added false info to the related pages many times. Marvin 2009 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using Falun Gong affiliated sources with their own POV bias and obfuscation when the original source is available on topics related to CCP or China can be considered part of an agenda to sneak in the use of biased and POV sources on Wikipedia. The fact that epoch times articles are being cite din articles on organ harvesting attests to this. Falun Gong believes science was created by aliens to work against humanity as attested in RS secondary sources and you are trying to sidetrack this discussion.Rajmaan (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many policies. Verifiability is just one of them. No original research is another. Just because something is said by Li Hongzhi, printed by FLG or CCP papers does not mean it automatically has a place in this topic. Whatever mentioned in such primary sources are considered opinions, except for widely known undisputed facts like Li Hongzhi is Chinese. We don't cover opinions just because it exist. If Li's opinion on whatever subject (e.g. hypothetically, his birth date) is supported by an extremely small minority then even mentioning such opinion here violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Also you need the secondary sources to prove contextual significance. E.g. why should a hypothetical dispute about Li's birth date mentioned outside of Li's own article? You can't just say the birth date debate matters to FLG. That is your original research unless validated by secondary sources. "If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack" --WP:ONEWAY--Skyfiler (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whaterss: can you elaborate which parts of this article read like an advert and why? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Maintenance template removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius Monument (Helsinki)

There is a more-or-less permanent exhibition at the Sibelius Monument (Helsinki): [7]. Not sure of this is notable. It really does seem quite incongruous when one visits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius Monument (Helsinki)

There is a more-or-less permanent exhibition at the Sibelius Monument (Helsinki): [8]. Not sure of this is notable. It really does seem quite incongruous when one visits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be mention of Falun Gong's (supposed) WP:Fringe beliefs?

Unicornblood2018 recently inserted content that dramatically shifted the POV of the article by emphasizing some WP:FRINGE beliefs that Falun Gong supposedly holds, such as Li's divine status and the existence of aliens. I removed the edits because they were mostly identical to this source and re-merged some details from the source to the appropriate section in the lede.

My question is: should there be mention of WP:FRINGE beliefs that Falun Gong supposedly holds? Given that this article has weathered a lot of controversy, the current version of the article is a product of compromise and consensus and dramatically shifting its POV would demand a very legitimate reason. Inserting information about Falun Gong's WP:FRINGE beliefs would create a more negative tone, a tone that isn't present in the current article. How we would insert such information without violating WP:NPOV when the topic is so controversial and most information comes either from the Chinese government or from Falun Gong-linked sources is another major question.

Some reliable sources discuss Falun Gong's WP:FRINGE beliefs, including a TIME article that describes its belief that aliens are introducing modern technology in order to start cloning humans, and that a cloned human wouldn't have a soul, with the end game being a total replacement of humanity with human bodies possessed by aliens.^[1] To what extent these beliefs are notable is up for debate. Leugen9001 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is antithetical to our mission to redact material to reflect a desired 'tone'. Accuracy to references and topicality are primary concerns. Simply, if Falun Gong beliefs speak positively or negatively, that is for readers to determine for themselves. Mavigogun (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dowell, William. "Interview with Li Hongzhi". TIME. Retrieved 31 August 2018.

Promotion of "evil cult" characterization to the lead

There's nothing good to say about these edits- the "something of a cause célèbre among human-rights groups and the anti-China crowd" comment is editorializing and synthesis, at best. The lack of judgment demonstrated in promoting the "evil cult" characterization to the lead is incredible- there's no "good faith" interpretation of that act - it's just vandalism.

Our job is to summarize relevant material, considering the credibility of sources, for readers to consider. Conclusions are the reader's purview. Mavigogun (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much dispute and object to your characterization of my editing as mere vandalism contrary to all available evidence, while ignoring my explanation of the purpose of said edits, as well as plea for discussion. Had I been merely vandalizing the page as you have alleged, there would be no discussion, to say the least. I have made my objection clear following my edits, and there has been no discussion previous to your undoing of it. If anything, your counter-edits should be categorized as dis-service to Wikipedia. There is no promotion of "evil cult" to the lead, there is a mention of the existence of such an characterization. Which is not the same as promoting a viewpoint.

The group/movement is locked in a propaganda war with the Chinese government^[1]. Given the situation, and seeing how most if not nearly all sources referenced in the article is affirmative of the group/movement's history/actions/experiences/views, the article is hardly (W:NPOV). My edits added a single mention of the mere existence of such characterization, which is not accusation nor slander. Aside from lack of objectionable content, your speedy undoing of the additions, makes me question your biases and ability to be objective on this topic.

That being said, I agree completely to your pointing out of -our job-, for example, I will concede that "something of a cause célèbre among human-rights groups and the anti-China crowd" needs better wording, it can be edited, but I stand by the conclusion that it is not factually wrong nor unimportant to point out that Streisand effect has taken place in the case of this group's popularity. ^[2]

Again to summarize somewhat, 1. you didn't follow the convention to discuss before reverting edits and alleged me of vandalism, you are wrong about my intention and I find your reasons biased. 2. There's no "good faith" nor "bad faith" nor interpretation about the characterization of "evil cult" by the Chinese government. The characterization exist, it is a not a sentiment, but the official stance of the Chinese government, and it is important information that I find is willfully kept absent from the article to push a POV, of which I find objectionable.Gw2005 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no promotion of 'evil cult' to the lead, there is a mention of the existence of such an characterization. Which is not the same as promoting a viewpoint."

"Promotion" here means "elevation"; by elevating this characterization to the lead, you lend it definitive prominence- and amounts to undue weight, coming from the Chines government, which, as you point out, are engaged in a propaganda war. While the position of the Chinese government IS noteworthy, it is not a credible, neutral source for so prominent a characterization; more appropriate would be a mention of the government's perspective in the section addressing it's conflict with the group.

"My edits added a single mention of the mere existence of such characterization, which is not accusation nor slander. "

Let's test that-

"Gw5002 is alternatively known as a pedophile."

Hummm- sure sounds like slander, doesn't it? So, to recap, you elevated the pejorative characterization made by the groups primary enemy to the lead- no discussion was warranted before redaction of that POV edit. You have 297 edits since 2006- YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER BY NOW; considering your history, "vandalism" strikes me as accurate, doing damage and creating a mess other people have to clean up. You wanna talk about it here? Sure, fine- but no, the Wikipedia process was not violated by my unilateral redaction: your edit was a clear violation of principle. As to the overall neutrality of the article, it does read, at points, like a publicity article produced by FG; by all means, where appropriate, edit for neutrality. That doesn't mean equal space for any contrasting view. Take Hitler: there is plenty of published material claiming he was a great guy, just misunderstood due to British propaganda- but we recognize this as the work of Holocaust deniers and antiSemites, and don't accord it credibility by mentioning it in the lead on his page.

"That being said, I agree completely to your pointing out of -our job-, for example, I will concede that 'something of a cause célèbre among human-rights groups and the anti-China crowd' needs better wording, it can be edited, but I stand by the conclusion that it is not factually wrong nor unimportant to point out that Streisand effect has taken place in the case of this group's popularity."

"Streisand effect"- says who? What is the credible source you cite? None. It doesn't matter that you think this observation pared with that observation make this other conclusion obvious- editorializing and contriving conclusions is synthesis. We don't do that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Mavigogun (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf
^ https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2450&context=etd p.91 quote:“The hostile Western powers headed by the USA have hastened to carry on their strategies of “westernizing” (xi hua), “segregating” (fen hua), and “impairing” (ruo hua) our country. They have gathered anti-China and ant-Communist forces and have striven to build up a power domain all around our country in an attempt to form an “Asian and Pacific group security system” (ya tai ji ti an quan ti xi) led by the USA so as to tie us up. The hostile organizations both in our country and abroad have shifted their focus to the inside of our country and have hastened their infiltration through various methods, such as via foundations or academic delegations, and all kinds of media.” Such western support is tied to democracy movements (“Democratic Party of China”) and also to religious ones, especially Falun Gong: “With the intervention and support from the USA and Taiwan, the cult organization ‘Falungong’ has speeded up its collusion with the antagonistic powers and openly defies our government. It has become a political tool used by the antagonistic powers.” [Center for Religious Freedom 2002: 5-6]

[1] Biema, David Van (Monday, May 10, 1999). "The Man with the Qi". TIME. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Matthews2012-2] Warren Matthews (6 June 2012). World Religions. Cengage Learning. pp. 383–. ISBN 1-111-83472-5.

[3] Li Hongzhi, Teaching the Fa at the Western U.S. Fa Conference, February 21 and 22, 1999, Los Angeles

[Penny2012-4] Benjamin Penny (1 March 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-0-226-65502-4.

[Palmer2013-5] David A. Palmer (13 August 2013). Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China. Columbia University Press. pp. 227–. ISBN 978-0-231-51170-4.

[LewisHammer2010-6] James R. Lewis; Olav Hammer (19 November 2010). Handbook of Religion and the Authority of Science. BRILL. pp. 157–. ISBN 90-04-18791-X.

[7] Dowell, William. "Interview with Li Hongzhi". TIME. Retrieved 31 August 2018.

[8] ttps://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf

[9] ttps://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2450&context=etd p.91 quote:“The hostile Western powers headed by the USA have hastened to carry on their strategies of “westernizing” (xi hua), “segregating” (fen hua), and “impairing” (ruo hua) our country. They have gathered anti-China and ant-Communist forces and have striven to build up a power domain all around our country in an attempt to form an “Asian and Pacific group security system” (ya tai ji ti an quan ti xi) led by the USA so as to tie us up. The hostile organizations both in our country and abroad have shifted their focus to the inside of our country and have hastened their infiltration through various methods, such as via foundations or academic delegations, and all kinds of media.” Such western support is tied to democracy movements (“Democratic Party of China”) and also to religious ones, especially Falun Gong: “With the intervention and support from the USA and Taiwan, the cult organization ‘Falungong’ has speeded up its collusion with the antagonistic powers and openly defies our government. It has become a political tool used by the antagonistic powers.” [Center for Religious Freedom 2002: 5-6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[2]

Jimmy Wales' words

Claims with no evidence

The founder of Falun Gong believe that aliens invaded earth

Does Falun Gong classify as a New Religion?

External links modified

External links modified

Sources

Advert

External links modified

Sibelius Monument (Helsinki)

External links modified

Sibelius Monument (Helsinki)

External links modified

Should there be mention of Falun Gong's (supposed) WP:Fringe beliefs?

Promotion of "evil cult" characterization to the lead