Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleFalun Gong was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 20, 2014Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024

[edit]

Please update the chapter on Beliefs and Practices under the subchapter Extraterrestrials to include details about the claim that race mixing is part of an alien plot to drive humanity away from the gods. Additionally, want to clarify that the source from ABC News never stated that some practitioners believed this claim to be metaphorical. The ABC report only explained that some practitioners described it as metaphorical. It is both unsourced and original research to say these practitioners were honest in their verbal claims and actually believed them, especially considering the same ABC report quickly included a contradictory statement from a former member who said she was taught this as the literal truth and not metaphorical

Proposed revision; Replace fourth sentence -

Li purported that in general extraterrestrials disguise themselves as human in order to corrupt and manipulate humanity,[113] but some practitioners claimed that to be only metaphorical].

With this;

Li Hongzhi alleged that extraterrestrials disguise themselves as humans to corrupt and manipulate humanity, a claim some practitioners have downplayed as metaphorical. Li also claims that racial mixing among humans is part of the "alien plot" to hurt and distance humanity further away from the gods.

[1] 49.181.65.24 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which practitioners? Without a direct quote or citation of them, the sentence reads like MOS:WEASEL imo Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the mentioned ABC source. What other source could I possibly even mean? ABC never wrote that they believed that. This is original research that's unsourced and should be removed. What ABC wrote was that they "claimed" it was hypothetical, without making any judgement that they were telling the truth or not. Though the ABC source hints they are flat out lying because they quickly follow up by saying a confirmed ex member contradicted them and said that she learnt it as the literal truth. Hence I request that the sentence should be more closer to what ABC actually said and remove the unsourced Weasel wording. 49.180.253.95 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came across as rude. I'm working on the article now. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the ABC source: [2].
The article states: "Some practitioners have explained Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth."
The current Wikipedia edit wrongfully writes practitioners "believe" this as "metaphorical", but the ABC article provides no such consensus and instead highlights Anna's contradictory account to suggest the honesty of their claims are questionable.

I request that the completely UNSOURCED claim of (some practioners believed) be removed or replaced with this more accurate reflection of the ABC source without distortion:

Li Hongzhi alleged that extraterrestrials disguise themselves as humans to corrupt and manipulate humanity. According to an ABC investigation, while some practioners downplayed this as metaphorical, a former member, Anna, said she was taught it as literal truth

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-21/inside-falun-gong-master-li-hongzhi-the-mountain-dragon-springs/12442518)49.180.253.95 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I moved it to a new paragraph as I felt like it didn't fit in the middle of the current one. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and also no offense taken. I am just glad someone finally replied and answered the request. Thanks again. 49.180.253.95 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news Regarding Falun Gong

[edit]

Money laundering charges shake up The Epoch Times management : NPR

How Shen Yun Tapped Religious Fervor to Make $266 Million - The New York Times Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2025

[edit]

The correct mention of U.S. President Trump is not the former. "and producing advertisements for former U.S. President Donald Trump. to "and producing advertisements for U.S. President Donald Trump." HiddenLocksmith (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ownby

[edit]

@Thomas Meng Ownby is just one source, and one who has got criticized for sloppy research methods and an overly credulous response to informants in the past. While his opinions are due mention what is not due is to rewrite the article assuming his POV is correct. Please keep that in mind. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Simonm, in this case (my edit that you reverted) Ownby's view that the cult label was a red herring exploited by the CCP comes from his book that is the most widely cited academic book on Falun Gong. That goes to say the amount of weight his views carry on this topic. Other reliable sources also agree with this:
For example, consider Ian Johnson who won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Falun Gong. He said:

Falun Gong didn't meet many common definitions of a cult: its members marry outside the group, have outside friends, hold normal jobs, do not live isolated from society, do not believe that the world's end is imminent and do not give significant amounts of money to the organisation. Most importantly, suicide is not accepted, nor is physical violence. [3]

Ownby's view is also corroborated by a CCP internal sourced cited in this 1999 Washington Post article

It was Jiang [Zemin] who ordered that Falun Gong be labeled a "cult," and then demanded that a law be passed banning cults.

So I really don't think we should be putting this article under the "Chinese cults" category. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the term cult is not useful here (whereas new religious movement very much is), the above reads a lot like simple Falun Gong astroturfing and it is obvious that the Falun Gong fits the classic definition of what most people consider a "cult": a new religious movement founded and focused on the whims of a single individual. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving too much weight to Ownby and note the ages on those sources... They can only be used to support a statement about the time before and contemporary to their publication, they can't be used to support a statement about the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because religious practices have consistency over time, older sources about the beliefs of falungong remain valid, so even if some of Ownby's observations on group dynamics may be outdated, his characterization of falungong as a religion is still relevant, especially since the main teachings of falungong were published before Ownby's book. It's also worth noting that the falungong article in the Encyclopedia Britannica was written by David Ownby, and he is widely cited in academic circles.
As for calling it a "cult," according to MOS:LABEL, labels such as "cult" should be "avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", which is not the case for falungong. I agree with Bloodofox that “new religious movement” is a more appropriate category here. Benjamin Penny titled his 2012 book “The Religion of Falun Gong” (University of Chicago Press). In this review of the book, scholar Paul Hedges states: “Penny shows that religion is a necessary category if we are to make sense of Falun Gong, which is not simply a therapeutic Qigong tradition, nor some specifically Chinese heterodox sect/evil cult.” —Zujine|talk 16:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot assume that New Religious Movements with charismatic leadership will retain consistent teachings over time. For example: does the Falun Gong currently teach that miscegenation is a sin? Because that very much was a FLG teaching when Ownby's work was current. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this. Your opening comment in this thread was to limit Ownby as a source on this page, which is a valid point, but he shouldn't be erased, and just because other scholars disagree with him doesn't mean he isn't a legitimate scholar on the subject. This topic then devolved into a conversation about whether this group should be defined as a cult. Is your argument that falungong became a cult after Ownby's book? That label was applied to the group by the Chinese government (decidedly not a reliable source on the subject), and scholars of the time rejected it. The primary teachings of falungong are contained in the book Zhuan Falun, which was published in the early 1990s and hasn't changed. Again, I don't quite understand what the goal of this conversation is. —Zujine|talk 17:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying he should be erased. I'm reinforcing what @Horse Eye's Back regarding how Ownby's statements regarding the FLG have to be historicized to the time of writing. Your argued that his caracterization of falungong as a religion is still relevant and my argument is that the character of a new religious movement with a charismatic leader changes as rapidly as the leader changes his mind. As such we cannot assume that the statements Ownby made regarding the character of the religion are current. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation has become very generalized and not focused on specific edits, but since you used the example of miscegenation, I'll respond on that item. From what I know, references to falungong's view on miscegenation originated from Li Hongzhi's lectures published in 1990s. But according to Penny (p.217 of his 2012 book), Falun Gong's teachings include belief in reincarnation and that one's soul (original spirit) always maintains single racial identity despite having a body of mixed race. What goes to heaven is one's soul, not flesh body. Investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann also noted that interracial marriage has always been common in the Falun Gong community. (p.67 of his 2014 book "The Slaughter"). I don't think that the group's views on this topic have changed over time. —Zujine|talk 18:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The activist Ethan Gutmann is an employee of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and I would question his reliability as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethan Gutmann has been a lot of things, but not an investigative journalist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Religious practices do not have consistency over time, thats a myth believed by the religious but rejected by scholars of religion who instead hold that practice is constantly in flux and even institutions which claim to change very little like the Roman Catholic Church actually change in significant ways all the time. Personally I don't have a dog in the fight between new religious movement and cult and I don't think that the answer is one or the other, they're clearly both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true we've got a bit far afield. I am fine with excluding the cult label for now as it is contentious. But I do think it's important we properly historicize older sources. FLG has changed a lot since it was founded. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cult category should probably be readded. It was poorly named but I nominated it for renaming and the consensus was to rename (just, no one has done it yet), that category is specifically for organizations designated "xiejiao" which the Falun Gong indisputably was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I don't think Wikipedia is in the business of declaring what is and isn't a cult (which is why I nominated the original cult category for deletion) but China has a whole list of groups that they have declared cults, which for the same reason as our categories on organizations designated terror groups is fine provided we say who declared them. Now that it is renamed (or going to be) I do not see the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 18#Category:Chinese cults PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added it. It will be renamed soon anyways whenever an admin processes that discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying and renaming the category seems an elegant solution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

[edit]

Change the line “former president Donald Trump” to “president Donald Trump” 2601:41:C202:B730:4190:6871:F52F:2B3F (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur...it's a shame that even minor edits like this require a time-consuming process of formal application.... Kenfree (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's what happens when the Epoch Times pays staff to work on Falun Gong WP articles full time leading to one of the foundational arbitration cases in WP history. Simonm223 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yeshivish613 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

New Section clipped from existing section "Approaches to media: The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and Wikipedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowsetfree (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly unacceptable to title a section header that, and I don't know what else there is to say. One thing, I guess—I am not aware of any link between Lewis and the Soviet Union, where'd you get that from? Remsense ‥ 论 01:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable contribution. CCCP is Soviet Union, clearly the context here is the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. I will fix that type immediately. However, please address the purpose of the talk: I believe the section should be deleted in it's entirety. It's currently based on one persons opinion. Knowsetfree (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we are on the same page here? That is to say, there should not be an article section based upon one persons opinion. But if you read all of the cites which purport to be the basis for that section, which I propose for deletion, you'll come to that conclusion. I don't think you're saying "it's OK to have such a section". Please elaborate. Also, I'm sad to see that the two paragraphs of detailed text I already wrote for the talk section has "automagically" disappeared. Maybe it's a computer virus. TL;DR any editor who wants to evaluate the source of the section really needs to read the wiki article on the source: James R. Lewis (scholar). He was a professor at a Wuhan University which is in China, thus by necessity Mr. Lewis had to be CCP approved. And thus, all comment by Mr. Lewis is suspect at the CCP is admittedly in opposition to the Falun Gong. If the claims by Mr. Lewis are in fact widely held, it should be easy for an editor to find and properly cite them. --Knowsetfree (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not on the same page. There's no reason to remove a reliable source's opinion because you don't agree with it or based on whether other entities may approve of it or not. Really, that's me giving your logic undue credence—though again the conclusion is so spurious that I'm not really left with a choice. Remsense ‥ 论 04:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That he worked for a Chinese university does not mean his opinions are shaped by that. Lewis was one of the most prominent authors in the whole field of NRM research. Also, criticizing Lewis for being too NRM negative is odd. The man gave Aum Shinrikyo the benefit of the doubt. If anything, most of his scholarship is pretty nice by default all things considered, whether in China or out; he goes into a lengthy explanation of why his thoughts on the Falun Gong changed from initially sympathetic to far more critical in one of his books. Also the section isn't entirely based on Lewis, just the one paragraph. I do think that section is poorly named - maybe "Media influence operations" would be better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, his critical stance on Falun Gong predates his position at Wuhan University. From his 2018 Cambridge Elements book:

Although my own initial encounters with Falun Gong were different from Liu’s, I was similarly charmed by practitioners at first, and similarly motivated to want to “save” the “oppressed.” [...] I incorporate Liu’s story here, in the Introduction, and note that, similar to Liu, I have in recent years backed away from “defending” Falun Gong. I state my changing position on this movement so that readers will be forewarned. [...]

As I noted in the Introduction, I started out as an ally of this movement. [...] After uncovering this systematic dishonesty, I gradually became more and more involved in researching Falun Gong. [...] As part of this process, I eventually established contact with sources critical of the movement – particularly, but not exclusively, in the People’s Republic of China. In the initial stages, this was both intellectually and emotionally difficult, particularly after having believed practitioner stories of unprovoked repression and heartless torture by Chinese authorities for so many years. [...] Knowing from my past involvement in “cult” controversies that I would be subjected to intense criticism no matter what I did, I initially hesitated to do anything. However, I eventually decided to go ahead and seek information and feedback from critics of Falun Gong in China [...]

PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that "Media influence operations" is an appropriate section header. Epoch Times is a media outlet in its own right, not an operation to influence other media. Shen Yun also doesn't target media. Both of those operations directly target audiences rather than other media. If the section needs to be renamed "Media Operations" would be better in my opinion. I'm open to other suggestions as well. —Zujine|talk 13:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&oldid=1279601337"