Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Considerations for lede section

I've just reverted some edits to the lede section for which there did not appear to be a consensus. This is a challenging article, particularly for editors who have not read extensively on the subject or are unfamiliar with inter alia differences between English and Chinese rendering of terms, or with Chinese religious traditions. For example, there's an extended debate among scholars about whether "new religious movement" is an appropriate label to apply to FLG. David Ownby, for instance, has written that it is an incoherent descriptor for FLG once you understand its origins in Chinese cultivation traditions. So you can certainly say that some people have described it this way—we have a whole section dedicated to the conflicting descriptors used for FLG—but it's far from the definitive descriptor. It also conflicts with the group's self-understanding as a practice that has been passed on privately for many generations. The debate around the "cult" appellation is even murkier, even when we set aside the ethics of allowing a group's persecutor to be the one that defines them (and that's not an insignificant consideration). The chief thing here is that the Chinese term "xie jiao" has a radically different meaning than "cult." The Chinese government has adopted the latter term for propaganda and PR purposes, but it's simply not accurate, and doesn't even reflect the Chinese government's internal logic. TheBlueCanoe 02:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

First if you read Susan Kavan's research. The chinese government had multiple different reasons why they disliked FALUN GONG. One of them was the fact they believed the leader was a phoney and was brainwashing people to believe in aliens and against modern medicines, etc That is basically them saying it is a cult. They had defined it as a cult by even explaining the specific criteria sufficient enough, using their language.

You appear to assume the only people who HAS EVER explicitly categorised falun gong as a brainwashing Cult is the Chinese government. Honestly the vast majority of Western people will agree that Falun gong is a cult when they learn the NON DECEPTIVE facts that its leader 'self' claims to be a CHOSEN ONE, who was handpicked by an immortal being in the mountains at age 12, etc and can teach people his supernatural secrets if they listen to him.

You don't have to be a chinese commie to think that. And even tho I know FG is a cult and personally I indeed label every person who claims to be the only one who can solely save others in the apocalypse and also delay the apocalypse, as a dishonest cultist. But that's just me.

My own opinion here and I don't appreciate you subtly and passive aggressively implying that I don't even honestly believe my opinion and simply a chinese communist official. That's blatant unwarranted paranoia designed to shut other people up.

I was an ex FG member, thinking initially it was just a fitness social club, and from my own personal experience. I met a woman who i had a polite argument with. She tried to convince me that i was living in a bubble and that our human mind was capable of more than we realise. She quoted the overused adage that humans only used like 1 percent of their brain and then she told me about telekinesis, telepathy, expert practitioners' claimed feats, etc and she was literally serious. I was SHOCKED but there's a confused 17 year old boy who was vulnerable and in a helpless period in his life, who naturally became attracted to the idea that he can become omnipotent powerful and solve all his life's problems like poor self esteem with learning supernatural abilities. He believed because he wanted to believe. And willfully ignoring any common sense that it's not real as that the practitioners themselves had no idea how to do telekinesis.His sense of reality was impaired because he was actually suffering a psychological break from reality and FG exploited all of that. I was disgusted to put it frankly. it was painfully hard to watch and i believe fg is an evil in itself because of that experience that broke my heart. I felt deep pity for that boy and the irony was i too had no clue after reading Wikipedia 2 years ago l, that FG lured people in with false promises of mastering telepathy and telekinesis that leader LI himself has self claimed to have mastered.

That was when I quit. Because I am a realist and nobody including Li himself has ever proven that telekinesis is a real thing. He made all these miraculous self claimed stories about himself and the ONLY people completely fooled into listening to his supernatural bibliography are vulnerable naive members who never bothered to practise critical thinking and ask the neccessary questions on why they should believe his sacred bibliography. On Wikipedia, those egotistic stories that Li made. are not anywhere close to explicitly written here because fg public relations know that majority of Westerners feel exactly the same way as me, after i FINALLY learn the whole thing.

FG is NOT an exercise group as most people seem to think. It's covertly posing as an actual religion with the leader painted as some kind of supernatural genius with self claims that no adult westerner with critical thinking, would ever easily fall for. The chinese government rejected his teachings as dishonest and even tho i don't agree with harvesting organs from people you dislike. I however don't believe that Li should be immune to all professional criticisms and that nobody can shed awareness on his cultist background.

@Thebluecanoe.. You are precisely doing that here by censoring any mention of the word "cult", even when it is officially the statement of China's government itself.. You could easily have contextually written that Chinese government dislikes fg and calls it an evil cult, to predominantly attack it. You don't have to literally remove the whole thing from awareness.

And please do not wrongly state the only people who ever calls FG as a cult is TYPICALLY the Chinese government.. Susan Kavan is an educated kiwi who does not work for the Chinese government and her sources indeed were directly LI'S own published papers that ONLY he wrote and there is no excuse to say that he didn't mean what he wrote and was only kidding. That zip don't fly.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am not EVEN suggesting that we call FG as a cult in Wikipedia. NO so please don't twist my words.

All i am suggesting here is CONSIDERATIONS of Inputting key significant facts in the lead section, that FG is different from major religions in that it was created very recently by a man who is still alive today. You say the religion is passed down many generations. That is misleading because it naturally gives the impression that it is an ancient religion. That's not the real story.

Also consider putting in the Lead Section that it is created by LI, who self claims, quoted in western interviews, to be chosen by a real life immortal from the mountain at the age of 12.

Most people will make up their own minds whether it is a cult or not. But at least you didn't withhold fair awareness away from them.

Cus a cult that censors Wikipedia so that people of the general public is not aware that its creator and self appointed leader is alive, claims to be chosen by an actual immortal being at age 12 and wrote that he can delay the apocalypse, etc, etc, is honestly how they can actually survive under the radar.

His self claimed written stories are clearly dishonest but censoring his stories on Wikipedia is equally dishonest. 120.18.154.73 (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the inappropriate censoring here and ganging up + editing out anyone who disagrees with them. With reasons that aren't justifiable. The chinese gov calls it a cult and removing it because you "personally" don't believe they genuinely meant it, is not your call to make. That's their official chosen public stance. They are largely significant to FG and you don't choose for them on what they publicly call FG.

And fyi, the Chinese gov literally critised Li publicly for brainwashing about aliens and preaching that modern medicines was counterproductive. Li later repeated the EXACT same stuff in western media and his publications in the west.

So can you tell me what the real true Chinese word is for cult? Regardless It seems like China already perfectly explained it as a group brainwashing people to believe in space aliens that arrived on earth a century ago and to not trust their modern medicine. Just because they didn't have the vocabulary for cult doesn't mean they genuinely don't see it as a cult.

If they used the English word of cult and completely understand the definition of that word. Then publicly that's their stance. Your argument to censor them is based purely on semantics. China had many con artists claiming to be gods.. xie jiao described the con artists which could also be termed a cult except the government used am umbrella term for the many conmen as illegal religious activities.

So don't use mental gymnastics to pursuade they don't genuinely believe it's a cult when clearly, based on the evidence and how they very specifically described it, they obviously did.

@thejluecanoe Also calling it a new religious movement is unethical as the religion is perpetrating the teachings that LI is the Chosen leader plus wise saviour with no equal, and we should regard all his egomaniac ramblings as spiritual law. Those spiritual laws are just stroking Li's ego as if he is actually superior to his fellow man

- "Li claims supernatural powers, developed through training with spiritual masters in the mountains from his youth; his book, Zhuan Falun ("Turning the Law Wheel"), posits that he can treat disease moreeffectively than medicine, and can telekinetically implant the falun, or law wheel, into the abdomens of his followers, where it absorbs and releases power as it spins (other beliefs attributed to Li are that he can fly, that Africa has a two billion-year-old nuclear reactor, and that aliens invaded Earth about a century ago, introducing modern technology; one type, he told Time magazine, "looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone")."

Can anyone honestly read the above information and not think that Li is clearly dishonest? Of course personal opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia article but I am not suggesting to say that he is dishonest.

Merely to simply add sufficiently li's many supernatural and egotistic claims into the Wikipedia lead section so people can know essentially who the sole author/leader of the religion Li really is and make up their own minds. As currently the lead section needs that.

Source http://i.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/295092/The-gospel-truth-Falun-Gong

120.18.154.73 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't much of that material — which is indeed relevant — already in the article, where it is properly contextualized and cited to appropriate sources? I think the objection so far is to the peremptory addition of contested content in the lead. The personal background is not particularly relevant or helpful, though I am sorry to hear the story. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apolocolypse That background story is the WAY to make a point that this article desperately needs to improve it into a neutral full article MAYBE at last. I read this Wikipedia article 2 years ago and realised it needs so much work.

Deleting it will only hinder awareness. I can prove it strongly to everyone and maybe to you only if you are truly objective here. And not trying to make an excuse to edit me out.

Let me tell you something.🙁😢

If I were to emphasise on the article rn that Li had claimed he mastered supernatural powers and stated he was selected by an immortal at age of 12.

And he published papers in the west where he claims that modern medicine was ineffective compared to his methods. And most importantly, talked about the aliens who landed on our planet whilst claiming to be an expert of their existence.

All these facts are true and deserve a place on the article. Will it seriously last for very long?

I'll most likely be edited out within a week completely via lame excuses that it is ie, a fringe belief or other beuacratic biased mental gymnastics rationales that are hard to beat without my story here.

Nobody denies that Li made a lot of self claims of spiritual wisdoms and that he is the master of supernatural abilities. He goes to teach other people his wisdom and his "self" claimed mastery of the supernatural arts. True followers only listen to him because they believe what he is telling them.

Is it harmful?

He pushes claims that heaven is where mixed race people are destined to be eternally away from their "pure race" parent.

He makes practitioners to tell people FACTS that Li mastered telepathy, telekinesis, and ETC where apparently he learned them from an immortal in the mountains. And so they too can master telekinesis omg....because Li is the honest proof of that.

Li made his own larger than life claims of supernatural mastery in his own publication books where he is at war with aliens and demons that indeed sounds like a chapter from the x files.

The falun gong group is making promises to recruits that they can seriously teach you the skills of telepathy, telekinesis, etc whilst claiming that Li has mastered those arts.

Which is why that it is CRITICIAL that we emphasise in Wikipedia that it was LI who authored those teachings and claimed his own credibility that he was the highest master of these spiritual arts. And he dictated that his followers should believe he is honest and that his teachings are of his high quality wisdom.

- so instead of "FG teaches that, etc, etc ~it has to be changed into Li teaches that, etc, etc and his practitioners relay his teachings into others. And his supernatural life story of aliens, telepathy, training with immortals must be CLEARLY inputted in the Lead Section.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.228.42 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 

But in Wikipedia rn, it talks about the religion as an independent separate thing as if it is no different from any other conventional religion. It distances li from the explanations of the individual teachings, giving it an impression that each teaching is an ancient established commandment.

- By not clearly linking Li as being the key person who created those teachings out of thin air and claim them as spiritual laws, is sneaky. Every teaching in the article must explicitly identify its author aka LI and in the lead section must have Li's full background and every one of his self claimed stories. Otherwise you are censoring the real person behind the teachings deliberately. 

And That has this deceptive effect to help distance Li away from it almost as if the religion is not being pushed by him. As if it wasn't created by him. Like he never boasted of telekinesis and telepathy or wisdom of apocalypse, that was used to convince followers of his credibility and that's the impression people get when reading the article. And like sheep, they fully accept other people to trust his honesty that his wisdom is divine. 

Except i question it because i see them push an obvious lie too shamelessly. And hide the extent by white washing the wiki article equally dishonestly and just using the Chinese government organ harvesting tragedy, to shield them from people bringing awareness to their own dishonesty.

I'm Sorry but just because one dishonest person had a difficult time, does not give him the right to con other people without criticism.

Wikipedia for this article is very sneaky in that it generally protects Li from having any kind of obvious causality with falungong, and it is as if followers are merely choosing him as their leader without his actions, and they are just learning healthy habits from him. Whereas in reality it's a cult when some poor followers are being convinced that Li's teachings can teach them telepathy and telekinesis because Li himself self claims to have learned it from an immortal and practitioners all treat him aa a honest man that is enough to convince naive individuals.

That is the reality and none of what i written is false or out of context. Sorry if i refuse to believe it is okay to censor FACTS that Li talked about aliens and he said that an immortal in the mountains literally chose him at age 12. Because his religion is now hurting innocent delusional boys, who is going to spend the next decade trying genuinely hard out of desperation, to master telepathy, and end up depressed that he cannot master it like dishonest Li had self claimed to do.

In Wikipedia rn, you can't see anything resembling my story in an obvious way. That's the problem and why my story is so Important.

- It is all instead written neatly and people tend to read it and leave. If they read my story, they'll actually be like h*ly c*rap.. I definitely didn't see that on the Wikipedia page.. I didn't realise that this group has people telling other people that li mastered telekinesis and was trained by an actual immortal being.. And that they claim he mastered those arts and they can teach me to become like him and master telekinesis because we only use 1 percent of our brains"

No, 😭 no one will read the Wikipedia article rn and is able to say that despite none of what I said is false.. Why? Because of criminal censoring and why my story needs to stay here until this article becomes improved and emphasise That those teachings are solely created from LI who claims they are wisdom but they are his words alone and every teaching im the article must be emphasised that it was created by Li FIRST and to also include his background and all his outrageous self claims OPENLY in the LEAD Section without illegal censoring so people can finally actually understand the author of those teachings.

And yes, i do have a real problem watching those fg practitioners brainwashing that poor inexperienced boy into believing he can master telepathy because of a leader who is obviously lying about his supernatural life story. 😥

Deep down I fear many editors here are likely falun gong public relations team playing defence and making sure these true facts are never written here. I suspect they know the same as me and likely they don't even think that Li is a honest person at all.

Because if they were true believers, they will logically allow statements like "li claims that he was chosen by an immortal at age 12, etc" and "scaremongering warnings of outer space aliens in his TIME interviews" to be written on the article because they see it as the obvious truth.

But they deliberately censor all that. Only because they know and fear that the rest of the world finally sees that as obvious dishonesty. Because it is. 120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@bluecanoe you do need to reverse your last censoring as the Chinese gov didn't lie about officially calling it a cult. That is a solid fact backed by reliable evidence. You are welcome to add contextual information but you should never delete it completely as it is important part of falun gong's history.

When I read western news even today. They white wash it by saying china banned them because of political reasons. That they were "larger" and preached true democracy. And I actually agreed with them once without knowing anything at all prior. Except the facts were that China wasn't even aware of what they were doing only until they surrounded government buildings in protest because some of them were previously arrested by local police for harassing a university professor who criticised their leader as a fraud, to retract his opinion.

That does not sound very democratic and once china began to see what the fuss was all about, all they had to do was read Li's books and teachings to know enough that he is a con man using religion to profit from people who believed him completely.

Fg original enemies were journalists and university scholars who published their opinion that Li was a fraud and those critics were publicly protested against, LONG before fg was ever termed illegal. Fg went to the government later on, hoping that the gov would be pressured to help them except the gov took the critic's side as they deemed fg as fraudulent too.

Who in the right mind would ever be okay with a man who decieve others that he is some kind of supernatural superhero plus scaremongers complete false fictional claims about aliens, 2 billion old nuclear reactors in Africa, training with an immortal in the mountains during his youth and teaching people how to be more like him, to remember to stay with your own race, see homosexuality as an immoral act against the universe which karma itself will assure to punish, and that medical medicine is doing more harm than good if you were a true believer.

Before people go call me a bigot. I actually respect the concept of reincarnation but that's very different from listening to another living person who shamefully lies about having supernatural powers and can teach it to others without showing proof of his boasts.

"illegal religious activity" or "xie jiao" is merely the umbrella official legal terms that china had for fg to classify its legal status. The word cult is simply more understandable to the western context who doesn't have laws specifically targeting cults. We only have laws against fraud which is how a western government would criminalise a cult. They don't ever say you're arrested for cult charges but for mass "fraud".

In china, outside of their 5 sanctioned established religions. They have a history of wacky religions that deem a living person, who is often the leader, author and benefactor, to have supernatural powers and promises he can teach it to others at a price. They Are all cults but China only calls them "xie jiao". The interpretation is more accurately a simpler way to state that the religion is illegal because it qualifies as a criminal level cult.

Read below article https://www.patheos.com/blogs/wakeupcall/2013/10/falungong/

If there was a mass cult in china, they will still call it "xie jiao" in their language. They deemed fg was not a normal conventional qiging health group but one that had a leader who was making others believe he's the real life Buddha who can do telepathy and telekinesis, etc and created spiritual laws that conflicted with modern common sense such as trusting your doctor.

The last part about preaching medicine was harmful, was one of the major public reasons why LI got kicked out of China. And Even After they publicly accused him of precisely that. Li still published papers in the west for his followers to read explaining specifically why modern medicine is harmful because it angers karma. What was his excuse for writing that? I'm not even surprised given the ego of this man to think he is immune to the consequences and stubbornly likes to think he knows more than medical professionals who trained their entire lives to help people.

Also stop saying the religion was passed down by many generations. That is deceptive. I am older than the entire falun gong religion itself and i am a millenial. Don't mislead others as if falun gong didn't all start in the early 90s less than 3 decades ago. And you have no qualified reasons to edit that information out of lede section, as political reasons are not allowed.

This Wikipedia article is constant white washing facts by using only biased china hawk editors who politicised fg for their own agenda and know Simply by putting Li's publications and his self claims in the lead section. Other people will finally see it like me.. However because of the Internet, li's published work publicly archived, Susan kavan, etc. It's only a matter of time when people begin to be more aware so censoring real facts is a losing battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.17.66 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what is "Wikipedia rn"? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@apocolapyse I thought that was pretty obvious. It was in reference to the Wikipedia article "right now" on Falun Gong as of Anzac day 2019. What else could I be referring to?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

Its current state is the sum of a long history of deleting and censoring info COMPLETELY without valid enough reasons. And even if a logical reason is actually given, it is used in conjunction with excessively deleting the entire thing instead of editing it proportionately.. A good relevant example is just last month. When USER Marvin 2009 removed completely this paragraph that was added in.

- However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well.

For the record, that was inputted by someone else. Not me. Not like it matters but it was directly bought to my awareness by Marvin 2009, who said it was Original research despite Li did claim mastery of telepathy, delaying the apocalypse, etc in his early books. And he did publish official fg papers to his followers in the west, arguing for the refusal of normal medical treatments.

There is no excuses nor qualifying reasons behind censoring that info at all. That's what's going on that is disturbing. And should be bought into light to be discussed publicly. 120.17.101.20 (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What you said is misleading.

1. Before the editing I noted on this talk page: "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable". In other words, the 1 st source does not support the statement (Original Research) and the 2nd CCP source is not Reliable Source on this topic. As there was no response in 5 days, I did the edit.
2. The persecution and hate propaganda CCP conducted was well documented in reports from international human rights organizations and numerous neutral scholars' studies. It is obvious that CCP apologist is passionate to negate and distort the basic persecution facts and promote CCP propaganda, including cult label, but this isn't a platform for anyone's lengthy Original Research expression. CCP media had tons of former Falun Gong practitioners who followed the party line in demonizing FG. Anonymous IP user's claiming to be an ex Falun Gong practitioner is telling.
3. As per one report from New York Times, CCP looks like a cult based on CCP's own cult definition. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate censoring culture and bullying by FG defensive

Marvin 2009 removed an entire paragraph using what i honestly recognise as merely beuacratical and invalid reasoning . I believe that biased censoring is a serious issue here and degrading the quality of this article due to its political nature.

I believe that a new dedicated section needs to be created to discus openly whether an information truly has a right to be deleted or not from the article.

One editor has last month inputted the following information.

- "However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well."

Marvin 2009 wrote the following after deleting the paragraph in question.

- "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable."

That reasoning is not valid simply for one because it deleted the entire second sentence using an excuse that the source given, didn't state it had multi qualities of a cult.. And deleted the entire third sentence because the second source was a ccp source. However that could have easily be appropriately re-edited to state that ccp were the ones making that report.

Regardless Li claiming to have supernatural powers and teach it to other people.. Is a pretty standard recognised hallmark of a typical cult. If you need a source to also tell you that a living person today claiming to be a God with superpowers and that person is convincing people to believe him, is a cult. That's unnecessary and simply creating artificial barriers

Cult are easily understood as a social group that's brainwashing its followers, in a way that are generally dishonest or harmful or them claiming their living leader as their saviour who has supernatural powers. The following are facts that are solid.. Can you prove they are fake?

- Li is a man who publicly claims to have supernatural powers that he learned in his youth from an Immortal, such as telepathy and can teach it to others.

- Li also published papers "in the west", telling people about why they should reject modern medicine when they are ill.

- A group that brainwashes people into believing a man has supernatural powers and tries to make others believe that Li knows more than medical professionals.

Those are the "numerous" qualities of a cult which btw is a word that most average person would not find hard to understand.

You don't need to have a source to back everything if it doesn't need it. And even then, you didn't have to delete it all..Could have edited it appropriately but that was not enough to appease certain editors agendas that their undesired yet correct and significant information, is to be censored and not to be discussed fairly.

~ I have been smeared a ccp apologist here. I'm not the one trying to hide information about fg. If they are incorrect or lies that i am trying to protect. I will accept my freedom of speech here to be ceased.. But I am advocating protecting information that are significant and true, from being deleted here. That is how I believe I am the among very few editors improving this article by bringing awareness to inappropriate censoring that has been ongoing for many years on this article.

I don't care about the politics. In fact, I find fg to be politicised more by china hawks with an agenda. Who uses politics to create a false image of falun gong. Via censoring real information which isn't artificial. If lt was, then clearly chinese government is behind that.

- The communists didn't make Li lie about his background, or push him to talk about aliens in times interviews, nor make him write papers telling followers why modern medicine is doing more harm than good.

The only editors with political agendas, are the ones who hide facts like Li claiming stories of aliens and why I originally became aware of such censoring.

Regardless if the fg leader indeed published those papers against modern medicine in the west. They should be recorded on Wikipedia..

If Li claims he mastered supernatural powers like telekinesis, telepathy, etc and those significant facts are correct. Then you have no right to remove facts from Wikipedia. I am not going to argue politics with editors but instead whether or not certain information are facts or not.

This section needs to be created and not blocked. And to be properly vetted. I will accept a ban if i am Protecting information that is untrue. But i suggest a ban for those who are vicious on doing whatever it takes to censor information that shouldn't be censured on the basis of freedom of information. -

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Unicornblood2018:. I note a biographer attributed statements to Li Hongzhi, but some questions. Is the classification as a cult verifiable? Does any other source dispute that view? cygnis insignis 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i already written her down many times. Her name is Heather Kavan. But the other editors shoot her down as ccp propagandist and attack her. I originally covered her work thoroughly in my original section. Read url link below or alternatively just download her pdf direct from Massey University server.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41

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

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Unicornblood2018:. There is a lot of unnecessary discussion, extensive concerns about other users contributions are not appropriate here. I'm reading that study now. I will look at what is proposed for inclusion in the article, then give my view. cygnis insignis 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm something of a newcomer to this complex topic... but I encourage others to look a little through the archive of the discussion. The Kavan material has been addressed at length. I think the short version is that the conference presentation of a professor of media is not (nearly) as reliable a source as the enthographic field work of scholars of Chinese religion. There is a lot of emotion and foruming, which we should avoid. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion, perhaps I will. The Kavan study is not cited in the article, the currently blocked user provided that above, and it was as good a place to start 'measuring a circle' as any other point. @Cleopatran Apocalypse: did you notice where it was decided to be unsuitable for inclusion? Without mentioning the topics which I see as subject to similar problems in content building, some of the competing narratives are shaped by propaganda agencies; fairly obvious that verifiable facts are going to be difficult to find. I'll keep reading the sources and see what emerges as obvious improvements here, those ethnographic studies would be handy if someone has a link. cygnis insignis 08:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some sources

I'll add some links here as I'm revising what I've read. cygnis insignis 09:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Cited by Kavan as another view, some Christopher Hitchens (being Christopher Hitchens ;-)

• Hitchens, Christopher (2 November 2000). "For Whom the Gong Tolls".

When there are questions whether an article is reliable to not, it sounds quite a good practice to trace the views cited in the article. Thanks.

After a quick look at the Christopher Hitchens source, it seems that Hitchens heavily relied on Sima Nan.

Unfortunately, as the Wikipedia Sima Nan page stated Sima “is well known for his staunch support of Chinese Communist Party values and nationalistic, anti-American and anti-universal value sentiments, based on source 1 The page also said The Wall Street Journal describes Sima as "one of China's most divisive advocates of neo-Maoist ideology", whereas Reuters characterized him as "Communist Party defender".Online, Chinese netizens consider him an "anti-America warrior", as a typical entry on Sima's microblog reads: “America is the enemy of all the people in the world... ”

I notice that James Miller’s book Chinese Religions in Contemporary Societies mentioned throughout 1995, former qigong master Sima Nan waged anti qigong activity. (page 164).

According to this book and multiple Chinese sources one example, my understanding is: in 1980s when CCP did not disapprove of qigong, China experienced Qigong boom. There were so many Qigong masters at that time, and Sima was one Qigong “master” as well. By mid 1990s, CCP started to criticize Qigong. It is not unusual that CCP party member Sima closely followed the CCP party line and quickly became the anti-qigong activist. This indicates Sima Nan’s words are not credible on this topic.

BTW, [ https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ Falun Gong in the United States: An ethnographic study] looks like a comprehensive source. Sorry, in recent years it cannot be accessed for free any more. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, some more sources and authors to check out. Sima Nan seems to be a notable figure in this topic. There is another name associated with official media releases, I should have written in down, she was going into politics in the US. I would expect that both names and their waged activities might be relevant to this article. cygnis insignis 17:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

number of practitioners

there are no credible sources for numbering in the millions. persecuted minorities often claim far larger numbers in order to assert the validity of their claims. the only vaguely credible report is from a Chinese defected spy who worked in China's Australian diplomatic mission. The Senate inquiry reported that Chen Yonglin stated there were 60 000 practitioners in China which is less than 0.1% of the currently stated figure that is promoted by The Epoch Times, a falun gong run publication.

The authoritative source that journalists seem to be using is the 2007 US religious freedom report.

• The Falun Gong is a self-described spiritual movement that blends aspects of Taoism, Buddhism, and the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi. There are estimated to have been at least 2.1 million adherents of Falun Gong before the Government's harsh crackdown on the group beginning in 1999. There are reliable estimates that hundreds of thousands of citizens still practice Falun Gong privately."

• "Falun Gong is a self-described spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature. Falun Gong combines the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of its founder Li Hongzhi. Prior to the Government's 1999 ban on Falun Gong, it estimated that there were 70 million adherents; the Government subsequently adjusted the number of adherents to approximately 2 million. Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately."

• "Falun Gong sources estimated that since 1999 at least 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been sentenced to prison, more than 100,000 practitioners had been sentenced to RTL, and almost 3,000 had died from torture while in custody. Some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL camps, while Falun Gong sources overseas placed the number even higher."

• "...NGO Dui Hua Foundation, there were 2,201 Falun Gong prisoners as of June 30."

So there are estimates of between 60 thousand and 70 million with the higher estimates giving no source but it's likely to be activists. the 60 thousand estimate gives the name of a defected Chinese government operative who has been confirmed to have been a consulate official. he stated in his testimony that he was a member of 601 and working as an analyst he would have access to restricted documents. He affirms that he believes falun gong to be a peaceful organisation and argues that he did all that he could to protect practitioners. 60 000 members in china is the number that should be used. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Now here's the kicker. if there are 90 000 clandestine organ transplants taking place every year in China all using only falun gong practitioners what kind of technology are we talking here? Are they dragging people from parallel dimensions? or perhaps David Kilgour is a terrible and unreliable source of information and the references on this page should be checked to ensure figures actually come from somewhere and not pulled out a hat.

Are the demographic figures accurate on this page? 175.36.91.0 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi claimed 70 million adherents, the 1999 investigation into Falungong by the CCP identified 2.3 million practising FalunGong according to Zong Hairen in 2002.

various other sources state 70 million as the CCP official figure as of 1999 but the source of this figure is unclear.

In an interview with Time Magazine Hongzhi claimed 100 million but rounded it down to a conservative 60 million as an 'official' 'CCP figure.' His ability to conduct this census may be because he possesses the psychic ability to perform remote viewing.

I admit however that i am not spiritually enlightened which is possibly why i am so attached to the meaning of numbers which take different forms in different dimensions so The Truth will not be revealed to me due to my being possessed by demons which seek to confuse me. Perhaps i need to chant The Masters name some more. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

RFC- How many Falun Gong practitioners in china?

Is it bad practice to only use Li Hongzhi's estimate? 175.36.91.0 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (Table copied from Talk:Santa_Claus#About_Santa_Claus which has had no objections. please provide an explaination if this is an inappropriate format in your comment when reverting or to Wikipedia:Teahouse#RFC_help)

Is the stated number of falun Gong Practitioners inaccurate?

Yes, there are multiple figures, mostly from unspecified sources between Li Hongzhi's estimate of 100 million and Chen Yonglin's 60 000.	No, there are 70 million Falun Gong Practitioners.
The estimates range across 4 orders of magnitude with no information regarding how the data was gathered.	The Leader knows all.

175.36.91.0 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) used a table but that is very unusual for an RfC, and indeed, is specifically warned against (see WP:RFCBRIEF) unless special precautions are taken. This RfC is, once again, badly formed; and I have explained this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#RFC help. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears extremely likely to me that the user above — 175.36.91.0 — is the banned user Unicornblood2018. See [1], [2], [3]. I will leave an ANI entry alerting admins to this. It's because it seemed so obvious that it's the same guy that I didn't engage in any of the above discussion. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but surely not the only person who thinks this article needs work and less apparent bias. cygnis insignis 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The instructions for using this format are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. It may be the format that is easiest for the person starting the RFC to accidentally screw up, so it's worth reading the directions. IMO the main advantage is that it provides two places, so that two different people can write an argument for or against it. For example, in this case, it might be best if someone else – someone who thought that the 70 million number was appropriate – would replace the line about "The Leader knows all" line with an actual argument in favor of that number (perhaps it's the most widely cited number?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well said. Currently in this page, the 70 million number was given based on five or six reliable sources. None of the sources said this number was from the FG master. The IP user's words are misleading.

For example, one New York times source referred in the page - Joseph Kahn, "Notoriety Now for Movement's Leader" Archived 4 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine, New York Times, 27 April 1999. Quote: "Beijing puts the tally of followers in his mystical movement at 70 million." So it is clearly this 70 million number was from Chinese government prior to July 22 1999 (when CCP announced the formal crackdown started).

Mr. Chen Yonglin's testimony showed it was two central 610 office delegates who told him this 60,000 number, which is less than 0.1% of 70 million. 610 office's most claims on FG topic are not true. Below is a bit background info.

According to the reference of the 610 office page, 610 office is the Gestapo-like terror organization Jiang Zemin set up to eradicate Falun Gong. 610 used all kinds of brutal inhuman tortures and brainwash lies, as the recent Fox TV program showed. According to the Freedom House, there are tens of millions Chinese still practicing Falun Gong in today China. One reason that 610 often dramatically downsized the FG population size was meant to cover 610's large scale anti-humanity crime. On July 22, 1999, CCP stated through CCTV that there were only 2 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. Before July 1999, numerous Chinese governmental sources indicated the 70 million number, as referred in the page. In July 1999, Jiang Zemin ordered 610 to eradicate Falun Gong in 3 months. All CCP media were demonizing Falun Gong 24/7. Chinese felt it was cultural revolution again and not many supported Jiang's crackdown. Jiang started to use the cult label on October 25, 1999 and staged the self-immolation incident in Jan 23 2001 for inciting the whole society be against Falun Gong. At the same time period, forced organ harvest was started to be used in mass scale. It has been many times, 610 delegates on CCP media announced the war against FG have achieved the overwhelming success and almost everyone gave up Falun Gong. The 2nd reason to use this 60,000 number (less than 0.1% of 70 million) for other CCP official, like Mr. Chen, 610 was also showing their performance in the crackdown movement against FG. Both the 2 million number practicing and over 99.9% stopped practicing were part of CCP crackdown propaganda campaign at different times. Both were not true. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand why Marvin 2009 may feel uncomfortable to trust the number by 610 office, but the office itself actually has the incentive to enlarge rather than downplay the number to gain access to increased funding. While it is ok to hold that believe, it doesn't mean the opposite is true. According to general religious census, at least 70% person of the population is non-religious, with Buddhism being 15.87%, Islam 0.45%, either has entered China for over a thousand years, then there is Christianity for 2.53%, which has entered China for hundreds of years. There are 1,386 million people in China, 100 million would be at least 7%, and Falun Gong only started from 1992, tell me, how does it amass so many "believers" just in a few decades and with competition from Christianity and Islam? Also, there are 89.45 million members of Chinese Communist Party as recorded, so in what way Falun Gong would have surpass the population of the ruling party, and have 100 million or 70 million members? If that is the case, Falun Gong as organized religion can and should probably start s coup instead of being "persecuted". As there is little research done outside of the official capacity, if you don't trust the official number, there aren't really a census for it, but from all the above numbers, it can be easily speculated it is impossible for Falun Gong to have 70 million members today, it is just ridiculous.Viztor (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Put "who says how many" in as content with attribution (invited by the bot) It looks like there are large variations between the figures in the best available sources. IMHO that makes it unthinkable to put in a number in the voice of Wikipedia. Instead, pick a few of the most plausible / reliable sounding estimates, and put them in with a statement (not just a cite) of who made the estimates. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019

Change picketing to picketing. For non-native readers the meaning may not be obvious. 81.204.67.92 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:OVERLINK. Specifically it advises against linking everyday words understood by most readers in context, and I believe this qualifies. Non-native English speakers are probably going to run across unfamiliar words in every article, but since this is the English-language Wikipedia, we generally assume native-level reading ability. Unfamiliar words can always be looked up in a dictionary, and in this case, once the basic idea is known, a reader is unlikely to need any further information than a basic definition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing important information

Inconvenient information has been "accidentally" left out, making for a biased article:

• Links with far-right propaganda networks:

 - https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121
 - https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/kiff-disproportionate-funding-goes-to-media-outlet-linked-to-falun-gong

• Concerns over practitioners refusal to medical treatment:

 - https://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6789-more-falun-gong-followers-die-after-refusing-medical-treatment.html 
 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/26671407

• The cult claims that modern technology was given to humanity by aliens: https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980530L.html
• The cult claims that homosexuality is Satan's plan to undermine capitalism: https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-the-specter-of-communism-is-ruling-our-world-introduction_2547882.html
• The cult claims that race-mixing generates children without soul: https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19961012L.html
• Listing in The Cult Education Institute: https://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelof01 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Court case in Spain

The section on the Court case in Spain is outdated. The court case it mentions was dismissed by the Audiencia Nacional since it lacked jurisdiction. A second case was also dismissed and it is currently on a Supreme Court appeal stage. --MarioGom (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Duplication in Critcism section

The first three paragraphs of the Criticism section are almost verbatim repeated under the subheading Cult of Personality. The section probably needs a once over and incorporation of some additional notable critiques to capture the full range of discussion, especially given the length of the article as a whole, but I understand this is controversial. Ffe9 (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, fixed Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of Epoch Times as a source?

Considering the Epoch Times is known to be strongly associated with the Falun Gong itself and considered to have significant bias regardless, is using it as a source of information in this article at all advisable? The body itself doesn't particularly clarify upon this point, and the phrasing somewhat implies that the information cited should be taken as given. --Kawdek (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This article also uses Minghui.org, Falun Gong's own public teaching website as source. The research papers/reports cited in the article are either sponsored by Falun Dafa, or involved by them. The source of information is exatrmely speculative and secretive. Unfortunately, removing or editing on this page may result in unwanted battle and fight from Falun Gong members who use wikipeida. --Loned (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is essentially propaganda

It's really a disappointment to find how biased this article is. It fails to document the many negative experiences of families who have member lost to the group, which has aspects of a cult including paranoia toward critics and beliefs with no reasonable basis in reality. It also presents the group as benign when it is well-known to promote zealotry in it's members and is, itself, a group that denies human rights of other people who have different belief or life-styles. Lastly, it fails to discuss the group's ties to Right Wing political movements including the use of the Epoch Times to engage in political influence.

It is not my place to change the article since that would doubtless start an undesirable situation where proponents of the movement battle to control the content as often happens on Wikipedia. That would not be productive. Therefore, I only offer my basic criticisms here for reasonable people to consider and as a warning of the nature of the article as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Xiao-zi (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment. Some of it would fit in the "Speculation on rationale" section I think. RhinoMind (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xiao-zi: I find that this article is mostly substantiated by third-party sources that comply with WP:REPUTABLE. Thus, it would not fit the definition of a propaganda. Moreover, in the media campaign section, it states that the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the disinformation campaign against Falun Gong. The supposed "negative experiences" and other negative issues that you mentioned above align precisely with the claims made by the disinformation campaign of the Chinese Communist Party.

Also, I took a deeper look into the alleged "Falun Gong self-immolation" by the Chinese government. It seems that this was proven entirely as a hoax aimed toward demonizing Falun Gong, according to an abundance of third-party findings. This would indicate that it's the Chinese communist government that is disseminating propaganda, but not this article. Inferring from facts mentioned above, the Chinese state-run media would be considered as unreliable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE, and one should not rely upon them.

It seems true that a lot of Falun Gong practitioners work in the Epoch Times. Nevertheless, associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate. Because, say, if most employees in the ABC News are Christians, we wouldn't write on the Wiki page for Christianity that "Christians are related to the ABC News". It's the same case here, we shouldn't relate any media company to a spiritual practice that only upholds Truth-Compassion-Forbearance.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: The premise behind the last paragraph is empty, considering our own article on The Epoch Times opens with is a multi-language newspaper and media extension of the Falun Gong new religious movement, cited not by a PRC state controlled or pro-PRC outlets, but none other than Politico and the Wall Street Journal, and, to that end, the Epoch Times page itself under discretionary sanctions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:: It seems quite evident that some Falun Gong practitioners started the Epoch Times. However, the chief editor of the Epoch Times, Stephen Gregory said that "Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China." This is the reason why it is inaccurate to associate the Epoch Times with Falun Gong. Doing so would be as illogical as stating that ABC News is associated with Christianity when its founders are Christians.--Thomas Meng (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is this blatant propaganda on Wikipedia?

No, seriously. These people, whether you defend China or not, are batshit insane, and should not be given a free pass to remove objective views or criticism of the Falun Gong on here. They legitimately believe some random Chinese dude is their god, that Trump is the second coming of Jesus, and that the CCP are satanic otherworldly beings. They believe that evolution & science are made up, much like evangelicals. Their membership count is massively inflated (even the Chinese Catholic Church has more people) and they're a menace to anyone that has to deal with these people, much like Scientology in the 80s and 90s. This page needs a massive overhaul ASAP. 24.255.224.93 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The source of your claims is highly questionable. Since, if you read the reference section, you will find that this article is completely based upon third-party reliable sources WP:RELIABLE. While on the other hand, the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the propaganda campaign to demonize Falun Gong, and your claims line up exactly with their propaganda. The link here reveals some facts behind the most well-known example of its disinformation campaign--the so-called "Tiananmen self-immolation". https://www.falsefire.com/en/--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism or Controversy section?

In this talk page some user mentions a Criticism section, but it seems that it has been deleted. I find this strange, as such a section (or separate page) is rather common in Wikipedia new religious movement's pages, specially from those that remain active. This omission only fuels the idea that this is a propaganda piece and not objective information about the Falun Gong. --Bolocholo (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bolocholo: This is absolutely propaganda. This line is particularly amusing: 'Although it is often referred to as such in journalistic literature, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult."'. The citation is to a book written by a journalist... 47.151.145.217 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate cult claims, potentially unreliable sources, Epoch Times

To avoid edit warring I won't continue reverting reverts to my edits. While listing the organization as a cult would obviously be biased as there is no consensus either way, to ignore all legitimate claims by Western cult experts that describe it as such is biased. Secondly, many claims in the article are unsourced, and a few link directly to CIA-funded organizations, which cannot not be considered an unbiased source without sufficient evidence when reporting on states hostile to the US such as China. Finally, the Epoch Times is only mentioned in a single paragraph near the bottom of the page, despite it being a "media extension of the Falun Gong", from the Epoch Times' own wikipedia page. The sources listed for the claims in my edit were all legitimate, so I'm not sure why they were simply reverted without any discussion on the topic. Nathan868 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article already contains a fiarly robust discussion of the "cult" appellation, drawing on high quality RS (which Ross and Singer are not), and explaining the CCP's appropriation of the term as part of its efforts to stigmatize FLG. But this is a complicated topic: "cult" is clearly a pejorative and loaded term, but it lacks fixed meaning in the academic literature. Your summary in the lede section is not an accurate or unbiased representation of what scholars say about this topic.
• It is acceptable for claims in the lede to be unsourced, because they are expanded on in the article's body. Which "CIA-funded organizations" are you referring to?
• That characterization is not accurate, as I understand it, in that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organizational structure that could sustain a media organization. There is clearly some affiliation here, but you're overstating it. This article is about the faith system. Finally, there already is an allusion in the lede section to the Epoch Times and other activities undertaken by FLG followers to disseminate their anti-CCP messages. That is enough for an already long lede.TheBlueCanoe 18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the Epoch Times is a wing of Falun Gong is also irrelevant for our purposes, they’re a generally unreliable source and shouldn’t be used on *any* wikipedia page including this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As numerous reliable sources state quite flatly, The Epoch Times is most definitely the media wing of the Falun Gong, and that needs mention in the lead, as this extension, as well as Shen Yun, are by far the most visible aspect of the organization. Additionally, Falun Gong is definitely a new religious movement. Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which of the claims "link directly to CIA-funded organizations,” please be extremely specific. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reiterating what I've said above, my understanding is that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organization structure that would allow it to have a "media arm." That the Epoch Times was founded by people who adhere to Falun Gong, and that it reports sympathetically on the topic of Falun Gong, is beyond dispute. But the precise nature of that connection actually quite foggy, given the paper's own insistence that it is not formally or organizationally tied to Falun Gong (a plausible position, given what I've read about the practice).

We could also debate the neutrality of the statements you've chosen to include about the paper. But again, that's actually beside the point. This is an article on Falun Gong as a faith system. So whatever the connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong, and whatever the editorial merits or defects of the Epoch Times are, the second paragraph of this article is not the place for it.

• There is a dispute among scholars as to whether Falun Gong should be referred to as a "new religious movement," and scholars with backgrounds in Asiatic religious traditions, in particular, find the label to be inappropriate and confusing. The group's self-understanding also would not support such a description (i.e. Falun Gong's own teachings state that it was previously transmitted orally, through a lineage system, that dates back many generations). We cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim, and so it is best not to take a definitive position in the lede section. The debate on this can, however, be elaborated in the article's body.TheBlueCanoe 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Source after source flatly acknowledges and describes The Epoch Times as the media extension of the Falun Gong, and the paper relentlessly promotes both the new religious movement and its extensions, such as Shen Yun. The Epoch Times is absolutely not WP:RS, as is abundantly clear, and the Falun Gong is not a reliable source for itself, given its media wing's promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda-like promotion of extreme right-wing politics, and a host of other reasons, as has been discussed on Wikipedia numerous times. Scholar after scholar after scholar flatly refer to the group as a new religious group, despite the organization's claims of being "ancient religion"—which is itself typical of new religious movements. Wikipedia isn't censored, and we don't take a new religious movement's position as the default–we stick to reliable secondary sources, and there's no shortage of them these days. This sounds a lot like you're parroting the organization's talking points. Again, Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether the Epoch Times is a reliable source is not relevant to this discussion about what should go in the lede of this article. I honestly don't know what you're going on about. "Wikipedia isn't censored" is not a convincing retort to the argument that articles should be weighted fairly and proportionally. This is especially true in a lede section. Readers of this article are presumably here to learn about Falun Gong as a faith system. They are not to learn about what you think about the editorial merits of a newspaper founded by some of its followers. On the matter of the new religious movement label, I did not dispute that some people use the term. I pointed out that there exists a dispute among scholars about the merits of this label. That dispute extends to Falun Gong's own account of its provenience. And yes, a group's self-definition is one of the factors that should be assessed when deciding how it is described. Not the only factor, but certainly a factor.TheBlueCanoe 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A simple search of academic sources pulls up dozens and dozens of reliable sources flatly discussing that the orgazation as new religious movement, that The Epoch Times is its media extension, and we don't turn to organizations themselves for self-descriptors, particularly those promoting fringe theories (WP:RS, WP:FRINGE). In 2020, there's zero question in academia about the organization being a new religious group and zero question that The Epoch Times is the media extension of the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You simply have not engaged seriously with the literature then. Just as you can produced examples of scholars calling Falun Gong a "new religious movement," one could also produce examples of scholars calling it a religion, a form of qigong, or a form of "cultivation" in the tradition of Chinese antiquity. One could likewise produce examples of scholars debating whether NRM is a useful or accurate term. The point is that there is considerable disagreement about the most appropriate way to describe the practice, and that is why there is a whole section in the article dedicated to this question. In the lede section, we should adopt the description that is most neutral, and I'm afraid NRM is not it.TheBlueCanoe 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I write extensively about new religious movements, and there's obviously no question that this group falls within the paremeters. There's a small mountain of academic secondary sources that flatly state as much. The new religious movement itself may object to being described as a new religious movement, but they often do—nothing new there. We stick to what reliable secondary sources say. Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet. Prior to my additions, the article made no mention of the phrase new religious movement—clearly scrubbing all mention of it—despite the tremendous amount of academic literature flatly describing the organization as such. That's very telling. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodofox, we should treat Falun Gong like any other New Religious Movement. I’ve always been impressed with how tolerant wikipedia is of Mormons and I don’t think theres any reason we should treat other New Religious Movements differently. We can say the religion believes itself to be ancient, but I don’t believe there is any question of Falun Gong’s age in the literature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to make a case for why this article should, in the first sentence of the lede section, describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement. I have pointed out that while some scholars do indeed use this label, others prefer to use other terms (e.g. religion, qigong, cultivation practice, etc.), and dispute the NRM appellation. For example, David Ownby, who at one time was among the most active scholars writing on Falun Gong, says that it "makes no sense" to call Falun Gong a new religious movement.[4]

Given that there is such a dispute, and given NRM carries some potentially loaded connotations, there is no reason why we should use this word a the definitive description of Falun Gong. It can certainly be included among the list of categories that have been used, and I'm happy to do just that.

By the same logic, the previous version of the article referred to Falun Gong simply as a "religious practice." This is also a contested term, particularly if we consider the connotations of the Chinese word "zongjiao," the meaning of which is far more circumscribed than "religion" in English. (i.e. the Chinese term for religion is used to describe groups that a) enjoy official sanction from the state; and b) have formal institutional structures). Just as Falun Gong's self-understanding does not support being referred to as a NRM, it has also historically resisted the "religion" label, though I note that the dispute arises mostly from differences in language. At risk of sounding a bit new-agey, the most neutral description for the opening sentence is probably something like "spiritual practice".

To Horse Eye Jack, if you read the article, you will see that there are potentially differing accounts of Falun Gong's "age." That's not to say there is a dispute about when it was first popularized—there isn't—but about its lineage and possible historical antecedents, absolutely. TheBlueCanoe 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what reliable, secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, without dispute, just call Falun Gong a new religious movement. There's no controversy. There are far too many academic sources–including NRM handboks—that, without question, just refer to the group as what it is, a new religious group, to even bother discussing this further. Enough with the promotional approach to this article—we're not here to promote anyone or anything, we're here to produce neutral coverage using high quality sources, and we have those in abundance for this topic, particularly now that The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and more of the organization's extensions are receiving sigifnicant media and academic coverage. Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the scholarly consensus here by pretending that one exists. There are absolutely debates among scholars about how Falun Gong should be classified, and there is by no means an agreement that NRM is the most accurate term. Ben Penny, for example, has written a book called "The Religion of Falun Gong." Not "Falun Gong, the new religious movement." It is just as frequently referred to as a system of qigong, and, as scholars of Chinese religion write, it is most accurately described as a form of cultivation practice (xiulian). As I've cited above, some of the leading scholars in this field have expressly argued that it should not be referred to as a NRM. Anyway, I've amended the article to note that some people call it a NRM, among other labels that have been employed. TheBlueCanoe 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol, we literally have seven of the highest possible quality sources—ranging from 2005 to 2019!—now attached to the phrase "new religious movement". None mention any controversy around the phrase whatsoever, with the exception of one of the earlier sources stating that adherents don't use the phrase. Look, I get that you disagree with this phrase, but I highly suggest you just email some of these scholars rather than spend your day attempting to scrub the phrase "new religious movement" from the article. There's pretty clear scholarly consesus here, and one could easily add hundreds more sources to the phrase if needed. If you find some scholar saying otherwise, go ahead and attach it on their, but attempting to censor the plethora of high-quality sources that make the consensus explicit, as you do here, isn't helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been away for some time and happened upon this page that I used to frequent (mostly with great passivity and abandon.) Can't say I was too surprised to find a bunch of guys debating the same-old, same-old.

Just my two cents. I'm not at all opposed to mentioning the term "new religious movement." I think we have ample reasons to include it in the article. What, in my opinion, is important here, is not trying to impose an authoritative, overarching definition in the lede. There's enough disagreement about this, especially since the only indisputable context where Falun Gong can be placed from a historical perspective is China's qigong movement of the 1980s and 90s. That was a far-reaching cultural phenomenon and wasn't considered a "new religious movement" even by the Chinese state, more like a revival of Chinese traditions in a modernized form. Now, Falun Gong is obviously the most well-known (and probably most "controversial") example, but separating it from this context and how it was understood in China at the time is not only highly anachronistic but also ethnocentric. In other words, there are competing academic narratives with significant support. Since this explanation requires more space than we have in the lede, in this particular issue I'd say that I agree with BlueCanoe, even though I'm sure we could have long and winding arguments about some other stuff on these pages. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say. We have an immense amount of them—really, a plethora—that flatly state that the group is a new religious movement, without any further discussion. We can expand the section as needed with other voices that fall within WP:RS, but scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points is obviously not the solution—and that is essentially what the artilce is at the moment.

Now, as usual, the solution here is to keep digging up reliable sources, just like we do everywhere else on the site, including for other new religous movements (include all those who claim they are definitely, certainly not a new religious movement, and would rather we look away from their political and commercial activities). I'll be happy to provide them, but I propose we get many more eyes who do the same—as I highlight above, plenty of academics and journalists are writing about these topics, particularly in the wake of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see this question related to the "group's talking points". Obviously we can't use Falun Gong's own words as the guiding principle for how this article should be put together. In anthropology, social sciences and religious studies, there's a separation between emic and etic. What I'm saying is that there is no definitive consensus on the etic definition of Falun Gong in the reliable secondary sources. In this respect, we should definitely give most weight to those who've studied the group and how it's related to the broader Chinese context. But even many of them don't seem to really agree. There is no anachronism or ethnocentrism in "spiritual practice", and it is, by all accounts, the most neutral description that nobody in the academic community disagrees with. An emic description would be something like "high-level cultivation practice", and of course we can't use that as the master definition, either. Now, that would be the group's talking point. But that's not the bone of contention here. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm keenly familiar with the concept of emic and etic, as are the numerous individuals writing about this organization, as it is in fact a key component to fields, like anthropology, wherein one would write about new religious movements. The group's talking point is that they're a "spritiual practice", as you and adherents here are pushing on the article. Our sources, which are legion, flatly refer to the group as a new religious group. There's nothing to debate here—please spare me the tedious lawyering and discuss reliable secondary sources, please. Want to show an example of good faith? Revert the adherent who has removed dozens of high-quality sources from the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still not addressing my concern. We're talking about two different things here. I am not opposed to using the term "new religious movement" as one of the characterizations backed up by secondary sources. I have absolutely no idea why this was missing from the article, if that's the case.

But you're suggesting that we lay down a master definition, even though some of the most authoritative Falun Gong researchers (not its adherents), including professor David Ownby, have disputed the accuracy of that particular label. In other words, to me it appears as if you sought to give an impression of a wide-ranging and far-reaching consensus, whereas I know that the matter is not as simple as that. We're not trying to be populists or ideologues here. Mainstream academic publications must inevitably be ranked higher than, for instance, newspaper articles, and since no real consensus exists, the editors' job is to describe the disputed etic definitions based on the reliable secondary sources. I'm simply opposed to unwarranted reductionism, that's all. There are no "our sources" and "their sources" – there are only highly reputable, less reputable and disreputable sources.

And thanks for asking, but I'm not too keen to take part in whatever edit wars you guys have going on. As I said, this is my two cents. I highly prefer reason over power plays. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "new religious movement" is being repeatedly stripped from the article, despite being thoroughly referenced to the highest quality sources. I think you can deduce why that is. We have dozens upon dozens of articles from specialists and experts describing the group as a new religious movement, but this is clearly a big no-no for adherents. Again, please refrain with the lawyering and stick to the sources. I've provided you with many, but you're standing by as they're repeatedly removed from the article by adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that adherents stripping the term repeatedly is a problem, and frankly I don't understand why that should be. Whoever is doing this, how about suggesting a proper rewrite that doesn't omit the term?

Well, probably I shouldn't put too much hope on random Wikipedia editors. I'll propose something tomorrow or the day after, and then we can discuss. It's getting very late. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you misunderstand how sourcing works. If we have lots of reliable sources that say Falun Gong is a "new religious movement", no amount of sources that do not say that can cancel them. The fallacious reasoning that they can is called argument from silence: if someone does not say "X", that does not mean he implicitly says "not X". What you need to cancel those sources is reliable sources that say Falun Gong is not a new religious movement. All I have seen here in that direction is bluff and bluster. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making the same point as Bloodofox, and it contains the same misunderstanding. I did not say that the NRM label should be removed from this page. Please let me know if I should reiterate the above argument in different words to make it even clearer. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. As you can see from the indentation, I did not reply to you, I replied to TheBlueCanoe. Therefore it does not matter whether you said the term should be removed. TBC wants it removed, and removed it, and argued it should be removed because his sources said they do not mention it. So, I refuted his point. That is not your problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not say that this term should be removed from the article. The only question in my mind is where it belongs, and which term should be use in the opening sentence.TheBlueCanoe 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

But I am at fault here for not making the addressee more clear - unfortunately, correct indentation is not as common as it should be. In future, I will try to remember to add @User in such cases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources: Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and other extensions

So, it's no secret that the Falun Gong's extensions, or, as MSNBC puts it (below) "propaganda outlets", especially The Epoch Times and Shen Yun are quite active and very visible. Since this article currently somehow avoids this topic, let's take a look at what WP:RS-compliant sources report the connections about this topic, and then introduce discussion based on reliable sources into the article. So let's take a look at some recent media coverage (in-article links excluded):

• Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Among other pronouncements, [Falung Gong founder and leader Hongzhi] Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Relatively unknown before 2016, Epoch Times enjoyed a surge in traffic after the presidential election thanks to stridently pro-Trump content. NBC News reported in 2017 that the site was drawing millions of visitors a year, more than The New York Times and CNN combined. But Falun Gong didn’t restrict its pro-Trump stance to the paper.

This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:

• Roose, Kevin. 2020. Epoch Times, Punished by Facebook, Gets a New Megaphone on YouTube. The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Little is known about The Epoch Times’s finances and organizational structure. The nonprofit Epoch Times Association, which operates it, reported $8.1 million in revenue and $7.2 million in expenses on its 2017 public tax filings. An investigation by NBC News last summer found ties between the outlet and other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations, such as the Shen Yun dance performance series and the video broadcaster [New Tang Dynasty, New Tang Dynasty Television ], and said the organizations 'appear to share missions, money and executives.' ... Three former Epoch Times employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the organization .. described its staff as primarily Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom had little previous experience in journalism. Editorial employees, they said, were encouraged to attend weekly “Fa study” sessions outside work hours, during which they would gather to study the teachings of Falun Gong’s spiritual leader, Li Hongzhi. ... The Epoch Times has long denied having direct ties to Falun Gong. Mr. Gregory said that the organization was primarily funded through subscriptions and ads, and that "donations are a small part of our income."

Hmm, alright. Let's take a look at the NBC article that this entry mentions:

• Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online.

Quote:

Despite its growing reach and power, little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times.

The outlet’s opacity makes it difficult to determine an overall structure, but it is loosely organized into several regional tax-free nonprofits. The Epoch Times operates alongside the video production company, NTD, under the umbrella of The Epoch Media Group, a private news and entertainment company whose owner executives have declined to name, citing concerns of "pressure" that could follow.

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, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

... In 2009, the founder and leader of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, came to speak at The Epoch Times' offices in Manhattan. Li came with a clear directive for the Falun Gong volunteers who comprised the company’s staff: “Become regular media.”

And more straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC article discussed below:

• Ruhle, Stephanie. 2019. "Pro-Trump news outlet The Epoch Times funded by Chinese spiritual group". August 20, 2019. MSNBC. Online.

Caption quote:

NBC News has exclusively learned that the popular conservative news site The Epoch Times is funded by a Chinese spiritual community called Falun Gong, which hopes to take down the Chinese government.

The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:

• Tolentino, Jia. 2019. "Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling, World of Shen Yun". The New Yorker. Online.

Quote:

Falun Gong also has its own media outlet, a newspaper called the Epoch Times, which was founded in 2000. (The chairman of the newspaper’s board has said that it is “not a Falun Gong newspaper,” because “Falun Gong is a question of an individual’s belief.”) The paper skews conservative: among its recent pieces are stories headlined “Why We Should Embrace President Trump’s Nationalism,” “Government Welfare: A Cancer Known as Communism,” and “President Trump, Build the Wall.” It also is the world’s foremost purveyor of Shen Yun content, publishing such stories as “Excited Fans Welcome Shen Yun at Taiwanese Airport,” “The Vivid Storytelling of Shen Yun Symphony Orchestra,” and “Shen Yun Audiences Already Waiting for Next Year."

And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):

• Busvine, Douglas. 2018. "German far right far ahead in use of social media". Reuters. September 13, 2018. Online.

Quote:

Instead, the researchers found that AfD supporters amplified the reach of media coverage of stories that the AfD posted or commented on. Social media users sympathetic to the party often tweeted links to stories in Die Welt, a conservative daily, but also to right-wing media outlets.

These included news sites such as Junge Freiheit and the German edition of the Epoch Times, which is part of a media group set up by Chinese-American members of the Falun Gong sect and focuses on the same immigration issues at the heart of the AfD platform.

There are many, many, many more sources out there discussing these topics—thousands—and in fact we can and should dig further into these topics. Additionally, this does not take into account the various other extensions of the organization, such as the Society of Classical Poets, which fly a little further under the radar but with aligned goals.

So, yeah, why again isn't this discussed extensively—or at all—in this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this up. I will digest come back with some questions and some other scholarly and newsy sources that could be useful in informing this discussion. Then hopefully we can come to some agreement on how best to present this topic in the article (beyond what is already there). TheBlueCanoe 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Beyond what is already there"? There's nothing in the article about any of this. And you know it: You have in fact been removing references to this topics when they're introduced. Readers can compare just a few recent edits: [5], [6], [7], [8]. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have restored a paragraph of the lead that seems important and appropriately sourced. —PaleoNeonate – 04:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To me it's fairly obvious that there are several unaddressed concerns in the section directly above this. Was there a particular reason to start a new section, as if editing could proceed as usual, nothing really needs to be hashed out, and the controversial article discussion guidelines can be thrown to the wind? Note that personally I have abstained from all edits and reverts to the article. We need logic, reason, patience, and good manners, so that everybody can present their viewpoint here on the talk page and expect respectful answers from their fellow editors. I don't see that happening in this instance. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I had suggested to split the discussion up into a new-religious-movement part and an Epoch-Times-Shen-Yun part. TheBlueCanoe acknowledged having overlooked and ignored this suggestion at first (User_talk:Hob_Gadling#an_oversight) and agreed that is was a "reasonable idea". Effectively, it is what eventually happened: the previsous section turned into the new-religious-movement discussion, and this one into the Epoch-Times-Shen-Yun discussion. This is fine in my eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll suggest that we use this thread to figure out what the article ought to say about the Epoch Times, in addition to what is already in the article. (There's an entire paragraph about it under "Falun Gong's response to persecution," which has never been removed or contested, as far as I know).

In deciding what the article should say on this topic, obviously we can't be guided by a cherry-picked selection of critical sources. The content should be a neutral and representative reflection of what the literature says about this topic as it relates to Falun Gong. I'm still pulling together some examples that will, I think, provide a good cross-section of the discourse, and will post it here shortly. But as to the recent revert: I raised numerous issues with that particular addition, which have been buried by snipping and accusation, rather than being answered. I wonder if we need a separate thread specifically to discuss that edit, in which I can repost my objections, and then we can specifically debate the merits of that edit. TheBlueCanoe 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked" sources? Please, these are high-quality media sources, and there are absolutely no shortage of them: Must have been quite some cherry bumper crop ever since 2016 for that analogy to work! There are literally thousands and thousands of articles—and more published by the day—about these topics that discuss exactly what we're discussing here, yet somehow this article has historically made no mention of it at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, and Shen Yun: Topics absent from this article

In 2020, Falun Gong is best known by way of its extensions, Falun Gong media extension The Epoch Times and performance arts group Shen Yun. Both extensions promote one another, Shen Yun, and Shen Yun ideology, as well as extreme right-wing politics in nations like Germany and the US. Then there's the anti-evolution and anti-LGBTQ sentiment, which has received media attention, alongside the group's high-profile promotion of conspiracy theories and campaigning for US president Donald Trump via its various outlets and extensions.

These aspects of the Falun Gong—for which the organization is today primarily known—are totally absent from the article as it stands. There's a lot of talk in this article about the Chinese government, as well as an essentialy Falun Gong-approved version of the group's history, but there's no discussion about the extensive political, ideological, and commercial involvement of the Falun Gong in international politics, including high-profile events such as The Epoch Times removal from Facebook, and the article doesn't mention topics like the Falun Gong's Society of Classical Poets, one of many extensions of the group aiming to influence the general public. This stuff all needs to be sorted out with reliable sources in an objective, source-reliant manner.

Readers who encounter this article would never know about any of these topics, instead finding a sanitized, essentially promotional overview of the article that could well have been written by the organization itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All of that is covered extensively by WP:RS, we need at least a paragraph each on Epoch and Shen Yun. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times, Shen Yun have Falun Gong Practitioners involved but they are not Falun Gong. Major Changes require consensus Clara Branch (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources say otherwise, and that's what what we report. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clara Branch:—you've just reverted many academic, secondary sources, and scrubbed the article of the term "new religious movement" ([9]). Please self-revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clara Branch: Changes are implicitly assumed to have consensus unless challenged (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS), and editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. Do you have objections to particular changes, and for what reasons?

The NYT, Oxford University Press, and Taylor & Francis sources, for instance, seem reliable. The topics are also relevant. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave her a DS alert last October. I'm trying to give them to all involved Doug Weller talk 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why another thread was created; the discussion on the merits of User:Bloodofox's edits is immediately above. Bloodofox has not offered a compelling answer to the objections raised there.
• Yes, changes are implicitly assumed to have consensus unless challenged. Bloodofox's edits were challenged, and he edit warred to enforce his changes despite failing to make a good case for them.
• I can't speak for anyone else, but my own position has certainly been misrepresented here. I have no objection to including references to Falun Gong as a New Religious Movement, and I have stated as much several times already. In fact, I edited the article to include reference to NRM. The problem, as described above, is that this user is insisting that NRM should be the single, authoritative definition given for Falun Gong, and has edited the page in such a way as to suggest that there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that this is the definition that should be used. This is simply not the case. For the nth time, scholars use many terms to describe Falun Gong: as a religion, as a qigong practice, as a cultivation practice in the tradition of Chinese antiquity, as a faith system, a spiritual discipline, etc. etc. And some scholars also dispute the accuracy and usefulness of the NRM label. So include it, by all means, as one of the terms that has been used to categorize Falun Gong. But given the existence of competing definitions, the lede should remain as neutral as possible.TheBlueCanoe 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time (?) caller. I have reverted the edits because they were effectively a result of edit warring and because I have submitted a complaint about that here [10]. No particularly strong opinions on the weight issues themselves for now. The behavior however strikes me as entirely inappropriate. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clara Branch: This: "Shen Yun have Falun Gong Practitioners involved but they are not Falun Gong.” does not appear to be true, Shen Yun is based at the Fulon Gong Dragon Springs compound in New York state (thats their main one BTW if you didn't already know) [11]. This would be the equivalent of saying a church choir isn't part of the church its based at but that its members just happen to be affiliated, the argument is on its face ridiculous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to further my note above: I have no objection whatsoever to including reference to the Epoch Times and Shen Yun on this page, just as I have no objection to including NRM among the descriptions that have been given for the practice. But major changes—i.e. a new second paragraph in the lede, a new "master definition" in the first sentence—should be reached through discussion, conducted in good faith. Moreover, the additions that are made should be made in keeping with core pillars of neutrality and verifiability. The paragraph added by Bloodofox to the lede section clearly misses the mark.

There is no evidence, for example, that Falun Gong directly operates or owns the Epoch Times. Nor is there is any evidence that Shen Yun promotes anti-LGBTQ messaging. These two claims fail WP:V. And then there is the additional question of neutrality and proportional weight. It's possible to have a lengthy, well-sourced discussion about the editorial stance of the Epoch Times, for instance, in which the views of both its supporters and detractors are presented. But the lede section of this article is not the place to hash out our feelings about the artistic or editorial merits of these organizations.

A neutral treatment of would be to note, in the final paragraph of the lede, that these are among the organizations that have been established by Falun Gong adherents since the crackdown began in 1999. Simple.TheBlueCanoe 19:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don’t think that Shen Yun has anti-gay messaging than frankly you havent read the linked sources, its literally in the article I liked above "Aside from the organ harvesting, the homophobia, the anti-evolution ballad, and the Karl Marx apparition, the thing I found most odd about my Shen Yun experience in Houston was the hosts’ explanation of Chinese classical dance.”

The same can be said about control of the Epoch Times, you clearly haven't read the sources linked if you think thats a neutral description. Stop wasting my time and read the sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox (talk · contribs), MarkH21 (talk · contribs): I do agree we need to use reliable sources. However, the content User Bloodofox added cannot be supported by the source provided. For example, User Bloodofox added the first line of a paragraph “Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad, which have received notable media attention for their political involvement and ideological messaging…” This can nowhere be found in the first NYT source. User Bloodofox's editing is not in line with WP:V. Is it WP:OS or WP:SYN?

Bloodofox (talk · contribs), MarkH21 (talk · contribs): Regarding the NRM claim, I have no objection, and just thought it seems not fit for the first line of the lead section. So many contents in the article are supported by RS, User Bloodofox has not explained this is so vital that has to be at the first line of the lead section.

TheBlueCanoe (talk · contribs): your view on a neutral mention of these Falun Gong practitioners established organizations makes sense to me.

BTW, thanks MarkH21 (talk · contribs) for the support to the new editors like me. Clara Branch (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For a guide to what a neutral presentation looks like, I suggest referring to Andrew Junker, who summarizes the range of Falun Gong's social and political mobilizations as follows. Of course this is too much for a lede section, but I'll take this as a guide for updating the article, and also look at Noakes' latest book for more on the transnational advocacy dimension.

"Protest has encompassed an impressive variety of claim-making tactics and organizational forms. Marches and vigils are only the tip of the iceberg. Activism has also included creating a media conglomerate of newspapers, radio networks, and satellite television broadcasting; suing Chinese state leaders under international law in courts around the world; inventing and distributing web browsing software that people in China can use to evade Internet firewalls and censorship; hacking into mainland Chinese television networks to broadcast Falun Gong media; creating brochures and weekly updates on Falun Gong news that are tailored to locally specific regions in China by overseas practitioners and then distributed in those local mainland places by clandestine networks of practitioners; coordinating hundreds of thousands of telephone calls into China, some of which target ordinary members of the public and others targeting local bureaucrats engaged in policing Falun Gong; lobbying governments and international agencies around the world to decry the repression of Falun Gong as a human rights violation; systematically and daily seeking out PRC tourists to Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, New York, and elsewhere to hand them leaflets and newspapers militantly critical of the CCP; and networking with adherents in China to monitor human rights abuses in China and broadly publicize information."TheBlueCanoe 00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still trying to scrub the article. Among many other aspects of the new religious movement, Junker discusses the Falun Gong's propaganda efforts (cf. p. 99) and his hostile treatment by The Epoch Times ("we know who you are ... he is the enemy", p. 101), and so it's unclear to me what you're trying to do with this quote, exactly, which is obviously out of context and which you've inserted to replace discussion about the well-covered activites and increasingly public activities of the The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Of course, as is well documented by many a reliable source, both are very aggressive and quite political propaganda arms of the new religious movement. But there's no discussion about that at all here. You have, for some reason, swapped that discussion out with the muddy paragraph above, removing along with it the several sources, now absent from the article. Now, why is that?

You're still scrubbing the article by way of edit-warring and inserting pro-Falun Gong puffery in place of material you've removed—and, by the way, are you in violation of WP:3RR? ([12], [13], [14], [15]). If not, you're terribly close, and the system wasn't designed to be gamed. Please self-revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest de-escalating the situation by discussing the proposed changes here on the talk page, and then commenting on what exactly is the problem with each proposal. I shouldn't even have to remind you guys that this is the approach mandated by the talk page header for controversial articles. I don't understand why you don't have the patience to hash this out systematically and with good faith. It's looking more and more like a definitional power struggle instead of encyclopedia building. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Bloodofox is also making what seems to me to be unsourced or unclear claims about Zambian emerald mines on the Talk:Elon Musk page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The relevance of that to this article is...? — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is irrelevant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? We are discussing RS-compliant media reports—which I myself provided—on that talk page, which are fully cited to reliable sources, as anyone can see—and which are also completely irrelevant to this discussion. Kindly strike out your remarks here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a sound proposal. I hope we can get past the imputations of bad faith and actually parse these issues systematically. I will note that Bloodofox added the contested content without first achieving consensus. Several editors, here and elsewhere, raised objections to the way he chose to frame these issues. Editors are encouraged to be bold, but when you meet with reasonable objections, the onus shifts to you to justify your changes. That's an exercise that takes patience and some mental discipline, but it's fruitful if everyone is acting with a sincere desire to present these issues as fairly as possible. Agreed? TheBlueCanoe 04:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

100% agreed. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia isn't censored. Please go ahead and self-revert the scrubbing, @TheBlueCanoe:. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Which are those "reasonable objections" again? I only saw reverts, fallacies, and misrepresentations. One such fallacy is argumentum ad antiquitatem ("that's how we have always done it" or "this is a stable version"). Another is argument from silence: we do not cancel sources which say "FLG is a NRM" by sources which do not say it.

But yes, it should be done systematically. I will try to summarize the questions where there is a difference of opinions, and when everybody agrees that those are the points of contention, we can make a section for each.

• Should The Epoch Times and Society of Classical Poets be mentioned in the lede? If yes, in what form?
• Should we write that there is a consensus that calls FLG a "new religious movement"?

Are those the questions? Anything else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hob. That seems like a good place to start, so let's begin there.

Should the Epoch Times be mentioned in the lede, and if so, how? Yes, a neutral and representative lede section could absolutely include reference to the media organizations established by Falun Gong adherents. It makes sense to situate this as part of a broader claim-making strategy that the Falun Gong community adopted as a response to the suppression in China. That appears to be the context in which you find these discussions in Ownby, Penny, Junker, Noakes, et al.

The problem with Bloodofox's approach is threefold:

1) The decision to put this in the second paragraph of the article is narratively incongruous, and assigns it undue weight and prominence in the article. The creation of the Epoch Times and Shen Yun, along with other Falun Gong activism, can only be understood in light of Falun Gong's broader history and its suppression in China: these are essentially activities undertaken by members of an exiled diaspora community, as a response to a persecution. Narrative cohesion thus demands that we first introduce the facts of Falun Gong's suppression, and then explain Falun Gong's response, of which these properties are undoubtedly a part.

2) The statement that Falun Gong "administers" the Epoch Times is not well supported. As I have stated above, it is beyond dispute that the Epoch Times was founded by persons who practice Falun Gong. But this is not the same as being owned, operated, or administered by Falun Gong. There are groups that serve as quasi-official mouthpieces or press offices for Falun Dafa, but the Epoch Times is not one of them. It should suffice to say that the Epoch Times is an initiative undertaken by adherents of Falun Gong, or that it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, or similar. Because that much is absolutely clear.

3) There's the question of neutrality, including WP:WEIGHT. Bloodofox has been quite candid about his disdain for things Falun Gong-related, and while I appreciate the candour, we need to try to present issues from a neutral point of view. What does that look like? Well, just as we would not heap praise on the Epoch Times in the lead section by, say, noting the journalistic awards it has won, neither should we try to define it by cherry-picking the critical sources that we like. Both approaches serve propagandistic purposes, and run a risk of WP:recentism. The lede section of an article on Falun Gong is simply not the place to hash out arguments about the editorial merits or defects of a newspaper, or to debate its place within a Chinese-language media ecosystem, or whatever else. Remember: our goal is not to induce readers to think well, or poorly, of the Epoch Times.

Should we write that there is a consensus that calls FLG a "new religious movement"? - No, because no such consensus exists. To reiterate the points made above: I have no objection to including "new religious movement" as one of the labels that has been applied to Falun Gong. I find it strange that this was not in the article, which is why I added it in one of my recent edits. This is undoubtedly one of the terms that reliable sources have used to describe the practice.

But it is not the sole, authoritative definition, and there is some dispute (including among scholars) about its usefulness and accuracy. So while it should be included among a list of terms used to describe Falun Gong, I see no reason why it should be given preeminence in the first sentence when more neutral descriptors may be available to us.

Again, reliable sources use many different terms to define Falun Gong, and scholars will often employ several different terms interchangeably. The most common terms in the academic literature include religion/religious movement, a form of qigong, a cultivation discipline, a new religious movement, and so on. (Several experts have written specifically about the difficulty of pinning down a definition for Falun Gong: it simply does not neatly fit into any of the existing categories). Dozens of academic references could be produced to support any one of these labels.

In addition to the wide variance in terms, the NRM definition has also been disputed; David Ownby, for instance, has stated that it "doesn't make sense" to describe Falun Gong this way. Another editor put it well: the goal is not at all to "scrub" this term from the encyclopedia—that doesn't make sense. The goal, rather, is to avoid unnecessary reductionism. There is a space in this article to describe the problem of Falun Gong's categorization, where some of the nuance here can be drawn out. But the first sentence should offer a simple, neutral descriptor. The previous version called Falun Gong a religious practice. There may be reasons to dispute that label too—I briefly outlined some above—but it is a commonly used term that generally carries neutral denotations (I think). Another proposal is "spiritual practice," which is even more broad, and perhaps less likely to provoke a dispute. But happy to hear counter-arguments.TheBlueCanoe 08:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still lawyering to get the phrase new religious movement out of the article, and you're talking a whole lot about nameless individuals rather than citing reliable secondary sources. Your desire to maintain a version of the article that just so happens to align with exactly how the organization would prefer to present itself is noted, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, flatly, and without mincing words, simply refer to the organization as a new religious movement. It's that simple. Again, NRMs often don't like to be called NRMs, but academics don't tailor their analyses to the desires of their subjects.

Secondly, your repeated removal of any mention of the various propaganda arms of the NRM and downplaying of connection ('well, gee, these members just so happened to form an organization....') and bizarre flattery about "journalistic awards" (what?) is in no sense aligned with the reality of what is exclusively a propaganda arm of Falun Gong, is not going to be taken seriously by anyone who has reviewed the propaganda eco system surrounding this group. The Epoch Times in particular, and other media arms of the Falun Gong are widely known for their political involvement with extreme-right circles, investing large sums in campaigning for Donald Trump, and spreading conspiracy theories, including about Covid-19, just to name a few topics. You seem fixated on keeping these topics out of the article by any means necessary—and there are several other accounts hovering around this and related articles with the same revert-happy aim.

I'm not interested in engaging in intentionally obfuscating conversation about these topics with you. I'm currently putting together a section that addresses these topics with reliable sources.

Finally, I suggest you drop the 'you just don't like them' angle—we get it a lot in pseudscience and fringe circles, and it's a clear red flag that they can't argue from reliable sources anymore. Please don't waste my time with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am not "lawyering to get the phrase new religious movement out of the article." I have said repeatedly that the phrase should be in the article. I included it in one of my recent edits. I'd ask that you stop misrepresenting my position and accusing me of bad faith.
• I have not "repeatedly removed" mention media organizations created by Falun Gong practitioners. These organizations are described in the article, and I agree that a reference in the lede is also appropriate. I've raised reasonable disagreements with your edits in this respect, and would ask that you address them calmly.
• Which of my statements would you like me to support with reference to RS? Because I am happy to oblige.
• Other editors here have agreed that changes should be worked out through discussion and consensus-building, and that we should approach proposed changes systematically, issue-by-issue. You are now saying that that you are unwilling to do this, and that you intend to force through the changes you want without discussion. Is that right? If so, I'm afraid we'll have to appeal for some kind of mediation here. TheBlueCanoe 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not play games here, these are your edits: [16], [17], [18], [19]. All those reliable sources? Poof, gone. You removed them. Again and again. That's scrubbing. No, they're not flattering for the organization for many readers, but Wikipedia isn't here to promote any organization.

No need to continue to refer back to this mysterious "other editors" chorus (evidently the many single-issue accounts that happen to float around this and related articles, often new, often with few edits), we have substantive issues to add to this article, and nobody needs permission.

We report on reliable sources on English Wikipedia, which for this topic would be academic works or WP:RS-compliant media reports (so, no, not—as you call them—the "award winning" Epoch Times), the type you're removing over and over in the diffs above. We provide reliable sources, and sometimes we have to discuss them, ideally in a succinct, accurate, and straightforward manner. That's all there is to it on Wikipedia.

And when that's not the case, there's good reason to ask why that's not happening. In short: Back your claims with WP:RS-compliant sources or move along. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

With respect, there are significant problems with the edits you made, particularly in regards to their compliance with WP:NPOV (that something is supported by a RS does not preclude the possibility that it doesn't conform to requirements for balance, due weight, etc.). I was reverting to a stable, consensus version of the page while those disagreements were being hashed out. But you simply have not address the substance of the concerns that have been raised. Instead you have repeatedly accused other editors of engaging in conspiracy to censor you, edit warred to enforce your changes, ignored the actual content of the objections raised, misrepresented the positions of other editors, and declared your intention to force through changes without discussion. This is not behaviour that conduces to a healthy editing environment.TheBlueCanoe 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Tip: It's not a good look to go back and insert new questions into a series of comments and questions someone has already responded to. As for the rest, again, stick to WP:RS-compliant sources, and Wikipedia is not censored. When reliable sources say things about a new religious movement that the new religious movement does not approve of, we don't defer to the new religious movement's opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yes, obviously. That we should rely on reliable sources has never been in question. What a strange strawman.

I am not objecting to your edits because you've failed to produce RS to support your position (though sometimes your statements require a very strained reading of those sources...). Nor am I objecting out of deference to how Falun Gong might want to be portrayed. I'm objecting your edits because, as I elaborated at great length above, I believe they are not consistent with WP:NPOV.

I'll just put it straight: are you willing to address the actual content of the objections that have been raised, and to work constructively, in good faith, to reach an agreement on proposed changes? TheBlueCanoe 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you did not respond to the "go back and insert new questions into a series of comments and questions someone has already responded to" part: do you acknowledge that one should not do that? I am getting more and more WP:IDHT vibes from you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is that "dispute ([..] among scholars) about its usefulness and accuracy"? I still have not seen any scholarly sources that say FLG is not a NRM, only ones that do not use the term. (Another IDHT.) This is a crucial point. If you cannot give any such sources, your claim that there is no consensus among scholars that FLG is a NRM goes poof, together with your claim that bloodofox's edits are POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you review my earlier comments on the matter closely, you would see that I had provided a source. But here it is again:

While many Westerners may see parallels between Falun Gong — with its charismatic leader, foundational texts and focus on bodily health — and “new religious movements” which sprang up in the US in the 1960s, Ownby argues that the label “makes no sense” in the Chinese context.[20]

Further elaboration comes from Ownby's 2003 journal article "The Falun Gong in the New World," (European Journal of East Asian Studies, 2 203, p 605):

To most Chinese, the very word ‘religion’ has a vaguely foreign or bureaucratic sound, and the idea of a ‘new religious movement’ makes little sense. Thus qigong practitioners do not ‘believe in a religion’ (xinjiao) as would members of a church. Instead, they ‘cultivate’ (xiuyang), a word that, even in translation, faithfully renders the connotation of prolonged physical, meditative, and moral practice.

In his book "Falun Gong and the Future of China," Ownby further states that the NRM designation is "rather imprecise" and "doesn't tell us much about Falun Gong itself."

Note that this is not an absolute rejection of the term "new religion" or "new religious movement" (Ownby himself uses these words interchangeably with other descriptors at times) but it speaks to the term's deficiencies — the questions of accuracy and usefulness, in other words.

The question you raised is whether there exists a consensus among scholars that Falun Gong should be described as a religious movement. My point is that there is no such consensus — no more than there is a consensus that it should be called a religion, a self-cultivation discipline, a faith system, or a qigong practice, for example. And all of these terms have broad support in the academic literature, and all can be problematized on one way or another. So, among the many labels that are commonly used scholarly works, why would we treat NRM as the authoritative label in the opening sentence? No one has answered this question.TheBlueCanoe 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Right: Sorry, I overlooked those. Now we have those extensive quotes, the discussion should become simpler though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)