Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong

No Chinese Rationale

I've noticed that the "Rationale" subsection of "Statewide Persecution" does not list any sources from China itself or its foreign offices which have covered this subject intensively. The Chinese government and the CCP has stated their rationale for banning Falun Gong multiple times to many different countries, however, the "Rationale" section does not include ANY of these translated Chinese sources. For starters a something should be added that states:

"The Chinese government and the CCP have stated that the persecution against Falun Gong is justified because the group denounces the use of science, denounces the ability of any government to rule, promotes the leader Li Hongzi to a messianic and infallible figure, and organizes its followers against the Chinese state apparatus."

This might be a bit condensed, but it reflects the accurate sentiment of the Chinese Communist Party on why Falun Gong is undergoing persecution. At the moment, the rationale listed in the subsection is something guessed at by "foreign observers". The "Rationale" subsection should contain the rationale of the Chinese Communist Party as they themselves state it and not the guesses of "foreign observers". There are multiple sources to back up the aforementioned statement as well, all sites are the official Chinese embassy websites for a variety of countries:

Though some of these pages are older, Falun Gong was outlawed in 1999 and the rationale presented in these articles is likely the same rationale used to ban the group and is likely the continuing framework that the Chinese Communist Party uses to justify its persecution.

Cincinnatin (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Cincinnatin: The reason for not including the Chinese Communist Party’s rationale is that its sources are generally unreliable as they are state-sanctioned and WP:QUESTIONED sources. In the case of persecution, they are designed specifically to demonize and eradicate Falun Gong. For example, China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith wrote that for several months after Falun Gong was outlawed, China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric; the government operation was "a study in all-out demonization",

Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156

This is why the Falun Gong related Wikipedia articles do not use CCP biased sources,but use reliable third-party findings for references.--Thomas Meng (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of wiki is to give information, it's ok to quote Hitler in an article about Nazi policies and viewpoints, how is this any different? Quoting CCP sources isn't suggesting they are right, it is just showing what they say and leaves space for what response has been made on those statements.Czarnibog (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Czarnibog: Yes, but wiki is not a place to disseminate demonizing propaganda WP: SOAP. The persecution of Falun Gong is different from the Holocaust in the way that the Holocaust is already over and universally condemned, and that its lies have been thoroughly exposed, while the persecution of Falun Gong is still ongoing and the CCP's propaganda still deceives people. So, putting this CCP propaganda here will only give credit to its false narratives and in turn lend support to the ongoing human rights atrocities that it commits.

Also, WP: IS recommends independent findings. So we should keep them.--Thomas M. (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to use the words The Chinese Communist Party Claims and summarize or paraphrase, surely there are third party statements out there. Refusing to even infer what CCP claims is a form of propaganda that puts Falun Gong in a strange position among fringe religious movements of being validated on exempt from any form of criticism. We don't have to justify any of the persecution to be free of bias, but outright refusing to cover part of the issue is extreme lack of impartial reporting.

Czarnibog (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Czarnibog: I understand your concern. Actually, the statewide persecution section covers this. It quotes Jiang's own words and clearly states the real reason why Jiang launched the persecution based on Jiang's own letter. It says: "On the night of 25 April 1999, then-Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin issued a letter indicating his desire to see Falun Gong defeated. The letter expressed alarm at Falun Gong's popularity, particularly among Communist Party members.[33]".

So this covers the CCP rationale, stated by Jiang himself.

But for the rationale that user Cincinnatin proposed, I think it fits in the category of "demonizing propaganda" that multiple scholars have already identified, which only serves as a coverup for the real rationale behind the persecution.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How about no? Wikipedia is not a validating source for pro-genocide propaganda. We don't validate claims that the Armenian genocide never happened, We don't validate claims that the Holocaust never happened and I fail to see why we should validate China's claims either. The sources you mention are state media, are WP:QUESTIONED and are arguably primary sources. RedAlert 007 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

They called it an "evil cult" and honestly, I am starting to see that too. It's funny how the allegations against the gov, are all deemed to be true despite the real world difficulty to prove such numbers especially when much of the evidence is hearsay. Yet according to many scholars [1] including even Ownby, Li indeed promises his practitioners that they can have supernatural powers and external youth by following him. And that he has supernatural powers. That sounds obviously like a brainwashing cult yet people can't even mention in Wikipedia that it's a cult due to political biases nowadays against China. Despite Wikipedia shouldn't take political sides and mention at minimum what the Chinese gov reasoning was for ridding Falun gong. ArrowSake (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Questioning the reliability of James R. Lewis

I would like to connect some dots and investigate the legitimacy of Lewis's claims when it comes matters related to FLG and the Chinese Communist regime.

In this link, it shows that James Lewis is a professor at Wuhan University in China [2], and Wuhan University is under the leadership of (Communist) Party Committee secretaries [3].

What does this entail? It makes clear the agenda of Lewis’ narrative: his perspective must align with that of the Chinese Communist regime's, otherwise he would not have been able hold any position at Wuhan Univeristy, due to the Communist Party’s persecution and mass propaganda campaign[4], as well as the party's leadership of that University. These facts make Lewis's claims unreliable and our reference to him a violation of WP:SOAP.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we are talking about James R. Lewis (scholar), unquestionably a scholar. His paper that we cite was published in 2017 by the scholarly Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, regarding "Li Hongzhi's Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater".[5]

I can see why you would want to undercut Lewis, his conclusions are very much in contradiction to the way Falun Gong prefers to be portrayed.

Heather Kavan describes how Falun Gong adherents try to separate an individual scholar from the larger field of scholarship, as a way to dismiss their work. In "Friendly Fire"[6] she describes how practitioners write "disparaging articles" "denigrating scholars" who reveal negative aspects of the Falun Gong. She says that the Falun Gong tries to "isolate opponents" (scholars) from their "pillars of support" in order to weaken their arguments. You are engaging in this tactic right now. You are being disruptive; you are violating the guideline Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources.

But let's talk about Lewis anyway.

• Lewis co-edited the book, Controversial New Religions, published by Oxford University Press in 2005. His co-editor was Jesper Aagaard Petersen, associate professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The book contains an introduction written by Lewis and Petersen, and it has writings from prominent scholars on the topic of new religions. This proves emphatically that Lewis is accepted as a scholar on the topic, and that he is connected to the field of scholarship on the topic.
• Lewis wrote the book, Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom ISBN 9781108564557, published by Cambridge University in 2018. The book is cited in Michael Jerryson's Religious Violence Today ISBN 9781440859915, published by ABC-CLIO in 2020.
• Lewis co-wrote with Margo Kitts the paper "Suicide, Martyrdom and Violence", published in 2018 in the scholarly Journal of Religion and Violence.[7]

... and there's more work by Lewis showing that he is a peer-reviewed scholar, a respected scholar who is accepted in the community of new religion scholars. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the fact that Lewis is a scholar, and there probably are many other scholars who are also utilized by the Chinese Communist regime in its demonization compaign against FLG, just as how a lot of well-trained journalists are used in the regime's media propaganda campaign (i.e. state-run media, as presented in the freedom house report above). I'm only pointing to the fact that Lewis does not belong to a neutral party, but to the persecuting party that disseminates demonizing propaganda, which is not proper to include in wikipedia.

Lewis should be treated no differently than any other CCP scholar (interestingly, he co-authored an anti-FLG book with another scholar at Wuhan U, with a narrative completely standing with the regime's persecution). So, my scrutiny of his predetermined narrative is justified. Also, please stop putting labels on others and start focusing on the logicallity of my argument.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Baloney. Your argument is based on you making up your own criteria for scholarship. If you show me that other scholars challenge the work Lewis then we have something. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Most valid criticism of Lewis that I've seen seemed to be about his positive portrayal of controversial movements... —PaleoNeonate – 03:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I agree. As User:My very best wishes pointed out below, Lewis has shown support for the Japanese cult (while criticizing Falun Gong), which adds on to the claim that he may not be a proper source to use on WP. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My comment was to suggest that by that assessment, his criticism of any group is likely to be watered down rather than undue, I was not saying that his material should be considered unreliable for that... —PaleoNeonate – 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Quickly looking, it seems that James Lewis is extremely supportive (if not apologetic) of all religious groups, just as in the case of Aum Shinrikyo, with only one notable exception, and that is Falun Gong. Which possibly makes him right about Falun Gong, but I have no idea as not an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, he is apparently a scholar. However, his support of Aum Shinrikyo that organized the famous Tokyo subway sarin attack gives me a pause. According to this, for example, J. Gordon Melton, one of the NRM specialists involved, shortlyafterwards concluded that Aum had in fact been involved in the attack and other crimes. Lewis, however, ... went so far as to publish an article that suggested that the Aum affair was “Japan’s Waco,”... In suggesting that Aum had been framed, Lewis outlined his hypothesis that it “was being made to play the role of scapegoat for the incompetence of the authorities at the highest levels of the Japanese government.". Therefore, I would not recommend using his views for sourcing anywhere in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's old news: two decades old. The 1995 paper, "Japan's Waco", was rightly criticized. Lewis hurt himself with regard to respect of his peers, and he learned from it. His subsequent scholarship has beem much more circumspect and meticulous. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Nice to see you again. Recently I've compiled some academic sources explaining Falun Gong's teachings. They all seem to contradict the Lewis-cited sentence in the background section. But let's first put that aside. The Lewis-cited sentence currently says that FLG practitioners are "instructed to lie" about their practice. Is there a specific sentence in the source saying this? Thomas Meng (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Our article's wording "instructed to deflect from fact" is a summary of Lewis, not a direct quote.

Lewis writes in his book, Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, that FG adherents have been "whitewashing Li Hongzhi's teachings by cherry-picking his moderate remarks rather than discussing his more radical views." He writes that Li "discourages his followers from discussing Falun Gong's inner teachings. Instead, practitioners are instructed to tell 'ordinary people' a simple, moralistic story about how an 'innocent' spiritual group that is 'just doing exercises' is being persecuted by the 'evil' Chinese government." Lewis describes how this is an intentionally false representation.

Lewis says in the ColomboArts piece (" “I am the only one propagating true Dharma”: Li Hongzhi’s Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater", 2017) that Li Hongzhi directed certain facts to be hidden:

Additionally, the rapid proliferation of Falun Gong websites and other online information supporting Falun Gong helped shape international opinion about the conflict. However, it should be realized that, with Li Hongzhi’s encouragement, practitioners intentionally left out certain essential information about the movement that paint a very different picture of Falun Gong and its conflict with the People’s Republic of China.

Later in the paper, Lewis says "Falun Gong supporters tone down the more radical aspects of Li Hongzhi’s teachings by selectively quoting from his public statements."

Lewis writes in his book, The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism, that FG adherents are forbidden to discuss Li's claims to be divine, and his strange teachings about aliens plotting to take over the earth, the moon being hollow, that demons in human form "should be killed", etc. Lewis quotes Heather Kavan who writes that, because of Li's censorship of his own earlier teachings, "...practitioners are left unable to explain why Falun Gong is illegal in China. Unable to say that Falun Gong was banned because Li's divine claims and other unusual teachings were considered to be a threat to public safety, and his ability to mobilise large numbers of protesters was a political threat, they tell reporters that they are 'mystified' by the ban."

Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Binksternet:, I just want to discuss a few things with you in response. One is that we can look at some facts when presented with such contrasting views from Wuhan U’s Lewis vs the Western scholars mentioned.

It is a fact that Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured, electrocuted, killed for their organs, etc. under the hands of the Chinese Communist regime; it is a fact that the regime has committed genocide against Uyghur Muslims and other Chinese dissidents; it is also a fact that the regime has always used demonizing propaganda in its persecution campaigns. Meanwhile, there has never been a single case where Falun Gong practitioners ever resorted to violent means in their civil disobedience or protest. This comparison tells us a lot about the role Wuhan U’s Lewis plays and how we should weigh his views vs the Western scholars’.

Another things I believe is that, just like Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, etc (all persecuted in China today) no matter how peaceful the spirtual practice is or how it teaches people to be kind, there’s always going to be certain parts that are incomprehensible by non-believers, and such parts can always be ridiculed from the secular point of view. But according to Lewis’s logic, it seems rather that Falun Gong practitioners should be telling non-practitioners these incomprehensible parts when explaining why they’re persecuted by the Chinese regime. That logic sounds strange to me. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are going with all that. I thought we established very strongly that Lewis is a valid scholarly source. You appear to be challenging Lewis's scholarship through an argument that you formulated yourself, a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The second part is my own reasoning. The first part is essentially trying to say since we have many Western academic sources saying the opposite of what Lewis said we should lean toward the Western scholar's research instead. This conforms with WP:WEIGHT and human decency. Thomas Meng (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

James R. Lewis (scholar) is a living person so you can't say what I've deleted without a source. See WP:BLP. Also Lewis would also be a "western scholar" although that distinction is worthless for us. For what its worth I think his opinion should be attributed, but I'm just not seeing the argument for writing him off entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China into Persecution of Falun Gong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Not to Megrge - GA Melbourne (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

---

While definitely a note-worthy subject, it may be better suited to being a section, if not more than one on the already existing persecution page Heyallkatehere (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Not a bad idea to merge, but WP:TOOBIG comes to mind mostly for me. I would not be opposed to a merger if it is shown that this article can be smaller without excluding crucial details, but it doesn't seem possible at this point. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Persecution of Falun Gong is WP:TOOBIG, and plenty of sources establish the notability of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China beyond the generic topic of Persecution of Falun Gong. Boud (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As per the above, and aside from being WP:TOOBIG, the topic of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China has its own individual noteworthy content that I don't feel will be given its deserved attention if merged.- GA Melbourne (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The subject of the Organ harvesting article is so shocking that it’s removal to part of another article cannot IMO be justified. If this was done, it would get lost in the other article. Not justifiable! Boscaswell talk 23:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose It's not just Falun Gong. China harvests organs from prisoners generally.[8] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victims of Communism

Victims of communism is a state sanctioned and biased source and is not reputable for this article. It’s an organization who’s explicit goal is biased reporting. 128.119.202.242 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

The introduction needs to state the Chinese gov allegations. Other qigong and taichi groups, or Buddhism etc weren't banned in China despite they are spiritual practices and mass popular religions too. The Chinese government narrowly called Falun Gong as a cult. It was their official reasoning why they banned it and their reasoning why they put Falun Gong people but not normal Buddhists in re-education camps.

Add this sentence in after the second paragraph in introduction chapter:

The Chinese government alleged that Falun Gong was an 'evil cult'" or "'heretical sect'" and used that official rationale to justify to "educate and transform" Falun Gong practitioners in re-education camps to remove their beliefs in Falun Gong in order to eliminate the movement.

Cite Sources for the above statement.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/563c6fb94.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/11/09/china-uses-rule-law-justify-falun-gong-crackdown

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/08/the-gong-show.html ArrowSake (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil: The information is well sourced and true. I don't think anyone could seriously say the above is false. Nor can anyone seriously argue that it irrelevant or insignificant. Consensus should be for things like when you are unsure of the facts or unsure if it's noteworthy. Considering the topic is persecution of Falun gong, this meets noteworthiness criteria easily and is undeniably true and well sourced. The only possible reason I can think of on why anyone wouldn't want that shown, is because they're uncomfortable with the fact that the Chinese allegations are not unwarranted at all. I find difficult to believe there's a valid reason why people need to continue to be put in the dark, as it's not untrue nor is it insignificant, but is very relevant to the topic. ArrowSake (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@ArrowSake: I am reopening the reply so another editor may want complete it. I am not doing so as Falun Gong is under WP:GS so I am just being cautious. Lightoil (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And I am putting it on myself and you can feel free to give an actual reason why people should be in the dark. Which I very much find difficult to believe there's ever a valid reason. Who can argue that such information is irrelevant or untrue? ArrowSake (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil:As I said before, I already added the edit in after you closed this request. Though I now shortened it to; (The Chinese government alleged that Falun Gong was an 'evil cult'" or "'heretical sect'" and used that official rationale to justify to ban and eliminate the movement." If people have issues with that, they are free to revert and discuss on talk. But it seems REDUNDANT to open this request when I am an auto-comfirmed user who already added that in. If you, yourself have issues with that. I would appreciate if you could respond and give your real reasoning why it must be censored. As I am genuinely confused on what part of that edit, is false, unsourced or insignificant.ArrowSake (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Noakes and Ford

I saw that their book is cited as a source but the part that talks about requiring a "certificate" stating that you are not part of Falun Gong to be enrolled in a post-secondary education is straight up false. 2804:7F7:A08A:7035:51D4:7672:9659:6CDB (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)