Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archived and other unused sources

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

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

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

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

Leonardo Sacco cites the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patsy Rahn's paper[3] which we already cite compares Falun Gong to previous religious sectarian rebellions in China, the most recent being Yiguandao. We should tell the reader about the extensive experience of sectarian revolt in China, which was not always damaging to the government, but was viewed suspiciously because of the great damage possible. Successive governments quashed every sectarian rebellion except the one led by Zhu Yuanzhang who overthrew the government in 1368 and established the Ming dynasty with himself on the throne. The Yiguandao sect was suppressed by the Qing government, the Nationalist Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. All of these Chinese governments agreed that a religious sect with millions of followers was a dangerous entity to allow within China. Something about this, explicitly naming Yiguandao, should be in the article. At the very least we should cite Rahn in the first paragraph of the section "Causes" which is looking for a citation. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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

In 2012, the Atlantic ran a piece about the stability (or not) of the Chinese government.[4] They said that the Chinese Communist Party's crackdown of Falun Gong seems "less surprising" after considering that the Qing Dynasty succumbed to internal pressure from anti-Manchu secret societies (also to foreign pressure), and the Kuomintang succumbed to a movement from inside China (also war with Japan). Which explains the harsh defensive measures taken by the CCP in 1999, who were trying to prevent another internal movement taking over the government. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated restriction

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

Link to Dragon Springs

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Under the section about media outlets controlled by Fulan Gong, a new media outlet known as China Uncensored is gaining popularity and it is controlled by the religious movement. [5] [6] 173.79.246.41 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

falundafa.org

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

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

Falun Gong was banned in Russia Nov 10th 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

The source:

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

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

Here's a quote that sums it up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template-isation of references

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

Citations needed

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

Far-right political movement

Based on this,

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Chinese scholar, Junpeng Li, wrote a piece about how the Falun Gong is changing "from Healing Practice to Political Movement".[7] However, Li is a sociology professor in Wuhan at Central China Normal University, writing what must be understood as the official Chinese viewpoint rather than a more neutral global viewpoint. The idea that the Falun Gong is a political movement is an idea that serves the Chinese government very well. They take this stance for the purpose of classifying the Falun Gong members in detrimental ways to restrict their rights, and for the ultimate goal of defeating the Falun Gong politically.

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

Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

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

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

Information density is low

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

Conflates cults and sects

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

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

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

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

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

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

Bias towards Falun Gong

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

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

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

Article needs to be rewritten from scratch

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

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

Using biased offensive words

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Falun Gong Logo.svg

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

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

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

Source: [8] 24.44.73.34 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Minor Change in Categorization

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

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

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

Source: [9] 24.44.73.34 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References to article retracted by Los Angeles Magazine should be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom House called "obscure"

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

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

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

Delete false statement that Li Hongzhi instructed followers to lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kavan is a topic expert, as she has researched journalism, writing, speech and religion.[10]. Her religion research spans Buddhism to New Age spirituality, including new religious movements of which Falun Gong is one.[11] The Falun Gong doesn't like her because she calls it as she sees it rather than bending to their pressure. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

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

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

Source: [12] 24.44.73.34 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Falun Gong as a Cult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

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

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

Severe Misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organization section seems like complete bullshit

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

Change in description

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

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

Extremely unbalanced, needs massive rewrite.

Falun Gong is not an uncontroversial organisation and this article does not present a fair and unbiased assessment overall. Its tone is apologetic: lots of time is spent legitimising the group, emphasising it’s spiritual practices and apparent persecution, whereas mentions of the many controversies surrounding Falun Gong and its leadership are few and far between, tacked like footnotes onto the end of sections detailing its “decentralised organisational structure”. Considering this is a group some would describe as a far-right, anti-science cult, this article is in need of a serious rewrite to ensure balance and objectivism. Fleabag500 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Best of luck, there are a lot of FG adherents on wiki and they (and whatever IP/socks/meats the larger organization throws at you) don't go down without a fight. This is the single most difficult topic area on wikipedia to effect change in bar none. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is already biased against Falun Gong. It cites at least one source who is on the Chinese government payroll (James Lewis). It quotes from at least one article (LA Magazine) that was retracted. It falsely claims that Li Hongzhi founded the Epoch Times (relying on the retracted article). It falsely attributes a statement to Li Hongzhi (that he supposedly instructed followers to lie), even though it is clear that Li never said that. It is directly contrary to what Li actually teaches, as the vast majority of scholars recognize. Unfortunately some people seem more interested in using the article to smear Falun Gong than to accurately and neutrally describe the practice or summarize the literature concerning it.

As for whether Falun Gong is “far-right,” you seem to be conflating The Epoch Times with Falun Gong generally. They are not synonymous. A lot of Falun Gong practitioners disagree with The Epoch Times’s political positions. And the article already summarizes Falun Gong’s association with Epoch, and describes Epoch as far-right, including right up front in the introduction.

The description of Falun Gong as a “cult” is a hateful and inaccurate slur, as many scholars have explained (including Ian Johnson, Danny Schecter, David Matas & David Kilgour, whose books are all cited on the page). JackUpdike (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The argument for bias here seems very, very weak. "at least one source" which may possibly be sympathetic to China indicates absolutely nothing in terms of bias for China.

Even if the Epoch Times was not directly created by Li Hongzhi, Falun Gong's influence on it is pretty much undisputed. So it seems very strange indeed to cite this as an example of bias. Because it reads more like a misunderstanding than anything malicious, and even then it isn't too far from the truth.

"it is clear that Li never said that"

That's kinda vague? And isn't indicative of bias.

Fact is, the article is very much pro-Falun Gong. And the existence of one or two sentences that may possibly have a slightly critical view of it is not indicative of bias in the slightest.

Falun Gong practitioners may disagree with the views of the Epoch Times, but as far as I am aware, figures like Li have never rejected it or disputed it and far-right views seem to be mostly prevalent within it. For example, say tomorrow, the majority of Catholics decided to support Gay Marriage, that doesn't mean Catholicism is now accepting of gay marriage. Genabab (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment seemed vague, as I’ve covered these issues in detail on this talk page before and didn’t want to be redundant. To take the most important point, that it is clear Li Hongzhi never instructed followers to lie as the article claims, all one has to do is look at the source for that claim. It is (at footnote 31), an article by Heather Kavan. If you click through to her article, it links to the lecture in which she claims Li instructed followers to lie (Touring North America to Teach the Fa, 2002, https://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm). Any fair-minded reader can look at it and see that Li said no such thing, and that Kavan mischaracterized his words. Anyone can use their common sense and realize that if Li’s intention was to mislead outsiders, then Falun Gong would not leave the lecture publicly available online, as it is. Any knowledgeable editor should see that Kavan’s claim is contrary to the weight of scholarly authority, including the most prominent independent scholars of Falun Gong like David Ownby and Benjamin Penny, who have each emphasized the centrality of the truthfulness principle in Li’s teachings. (See, for example, quotes from Ownby at fn. 34 (Li enjoins cultivators to practice truth in their lives) and Penny at fn. 36 (“in Falun Gong cultivation adherence to the code of truth, compassion, and forbearance is not just regarded as the right and responsible course of action for practitioners; it is an essential part of the cultivation process. Lapsing from it will render any other efforts in cultivation worthless.")

When I raised this issue and requested that Kavan’s false claim be removed from the article, the response instead was to add another citation (from James Lewis) as ostensible support for the false claim. Lewis of course is the “scholar” who now makes money in China as he churns out anti-Falun Gong material. It is shameful that the false claim remains in the article. And I’m sorry to say it, but it does seem like anti-Falun Gong bias among some editors is the reason why it does.

Similarly, the objectively false claim that Li founded The Epoch Times remains on the page long after it was first raised for reconsideration, even though it is sourced to an article that was retracted. That is not “a misunderstanding.” It is a willful failure to correct a false claim. And it flouts the wiki policy on reliable sources. You’re right that there is an association between Falun Gong and Epoch, and it is fair to describe it, but why not do so accurately?

Lastly, I disagree with your suggestion that far-right views are prevalent among Falun Gong practitioners. It seems that you are attributing views that you associate with Epoch to practitioners generally. I encourage you to look at the Falun InfoCenter website for a different perspective (https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions). Thank you for your consideration. JackUpdike (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing it up, but I think the central point still stands. This isn't indicative of bias and more as an error that hasn't been fixed. I could make a similar point with the Wikipedia page on Nick Land, which in all honesty is by in large misinterpreted Nick Land's views. But it would be a stretch to conclude from that, that the page is necessarily biased against him. It's just an error that happens to not have been fixed.

As for why it hasn't fixed already? Well it's a big article that also has been protected from edits. Which kinda cuts down the number of potential people who'd have fixed it.

I haven't heard anything before this of James R. Lewis being heavily biased and "on the Chinese payroll" (an accusation which I think is thrown about a bit too liberally). Hell, even if he was that doesn't necessarily make his analysis wrong. More importantly, the work he made on Falun Gong is limited. He made one book in 2018, hardly "churning out" propaganda for the Chinese.

And again, all this would indicate (if it does even indicate bias at all, which I am still skeptical on), is an amount of bias which is dwarfed by the rest of the article, which via a quick read-through is very apparent that it has a very strong pro-FG bias.

In what way is it a "willful" failure. Editing this page is very difficult after all as I previousy described.

I didn't even suggest that? My point was that, what the average Joe thinks doesn't really matter when talking about an organised religion's views. Which are pretty far-right, considering that Li did propogate anti-miscigenation, which likely influenced the Epoch times to support Far-Right German Nativists too. There is even a potential argument to be made that the teachings of Li are even anti-semitic.

Quoting from here: https://en.falundafa.org/eng/lectures/19980904L.html

"The way alien beings get human beings to shake free of the gods is to mix the races, causing human beings to become rootless people, just like the plant hybrids people make nowadays. South Americans, Central Americans, Mexicans and some people in Southeast Asia—all of these races have been mixed. None of this can evade the gods’ eyes. Alien beings have made rather extensive preparations for overtaking human beings."

The idea of an "alien race" trying to take over the world by encouraging race mixing? Never heard that one before.

Now am I saying that Li definitely means Jews here? No. Not necesarily. But when people say things like this (more famously with "lizards") it usually ends up going there. Which is probably worthy of note. Genabab (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You can find the discussions JackUpdike is referring to in the archives (Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 42). Suffice to say his recollection of them bares only a slight resemblance to the actual discussion. MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do review the archive, and judge for yourselves whether I misrepresented anything. Mr. Ollie is the editor who added the cite to Wuhan University’s own James Lewis, supposedly as a second source for the claim that Li Hongzhi instructed followers to lie. The Lewis article that he cited doesn’t even make that claim, however. It is a bogus citation to support a false claim. Again, please take a look and judge for yourselves. JackUpdike (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You’re wrong about James Lewis – he wrote a lot more than one book attacking Falun Gong, and it’s a matter of public record he was on the CCP payroll as a professor at (state-run) Wuhan University. He collaborated with anti-Falun Gong propagandists associated with Wuhan University since at least 2016. He attended anti-Falun Gong propaganda conferences in Wuhan in 2016 and 2017. (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-12/03/c_136797683.htm). In July 2017, he promoted the anti-Falun Gong views of three Wuhan professors at an international conference. (https://www.cesnur.org/2017/jerusalem-program.htm ). By 2019, he had secured employment himself at Wuhan University. His online CV boasted that Wuhan University awarded him an “Initial Research Fund” grant to keep him gainfully employed through at least 2022. (https://whu-cn.academia.edu/JamesLewis/CurriculumVitae). Wuhan University hired Lewis at the same time the CCP was engaged in a “sweeping campaign” designed to “eliminate dissent and turn universities into party strongholds.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/world/asia/china-student-informers.html). Once he started collaborating with the Wuhan propagandists, Lewis did in fact “churn out” anti-Falun Gong material. In July 2017, he contributed a chapter called “Understanding Falun Gong’s Martyrdom Strategy as Spiritual Terrorism,” to the Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism, and he published an article in Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, both of which attacked Falun Gong. In the Fall of 2017, he devoted an entire edition of his journal, the Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review, to articles uniformly hostile to Falun Gong. In May 2018, he published his book Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom. In November 2018, he published an article “A Burning Faith in the Master,” in the Journal of Religion and Violence. In February 2019, Equinox published Enlightened Martyrdom: The Hidden Side of Falun Gong, which Lewis co-edited with Huang Chao, one of his Wuhan colleagues. That book also contains chapters from each of the other three Wuhan professors Lewis had collaborated with since at least 2017. In February 2020, Lewis and Huang co-wrote an article called “Falun Gong: Origins, Growth, Conflict” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Lewis’s writing also has appeared on the English-language version of Kaiwind, a CCP propaganda site. Kaiwind’s English-language home page [which Wikipedia blocks] is the epitome of an authoritarian regime’s propaganda, designed to incite hatred against Falun Gong and other disfavored spiritual groups. Lewis also repeatedly cited to that website in his writings. He is a corrupt source. Even putting all that aside, his article cited at footnote 32, ostensibly as support for the claim that Li Hongzhi instructed followers to lie, doesn’t say that.

I understand that it may be difficult for any particular editor to make substantive changes to the article, but when we cannot get consensus even to correct clear factual errors, there is a problem with some editors’ objectivity.

Your suggestion of anti-Semitism is such a stretch that it hardly merits a response. Your suggestion that Li Hongzhi “propagates” anti-miscegenation also is incorrect. In fact, mixed-race marriages are common among Falun Gong practitioners. As the Falun InfoCenter (https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions-intolerant/) explains, “many Falun Gong practitioners married people of different race, and have children of mixed race after they took up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. Falun Gong practitioners of all races and national origins are regarded equally in the community, associate together freely, frequently intermarry, and receive full support from their co-believers.” JackUpdike (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

He has talked about not involving in politics, though.

https://gb.falundafa.org/chigb/jjyz_49.htm

https://gb.falundafa.org/chigb/jjyz2_28.htm

English:

https://en.falundafa.org/eng/jjyz49.htm

https://en.falundafa.org/eng/jjyz2.htm#NoPolitics

harguahbguodfhfuhbdsufhbdsueubfurbueghuyhurehuwe9rifoeeereworewrewbfhua0g9rb9wewebiewbawe9raewbrhaiwebew9ufebifewbru9fwgbewifbeuwabhhhhibfebihfaw9abifuewawiufbhfu9ewfiuebwfiuefh9uewifefuibebwiufebwifbewifbu9iewufiebwwufebwhefuhbhebhfuewhfehwfewhiaif999fhn (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What the page needs is an accurate overview of their religious tenants in the opening description rather than poisoning the well by saying it's linked to the "far-right", "QAnon", and "Donald Trump". 2600:1700:4150:1A00:5107:A41C:B042:D557 (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Article lede

The changes between September and the most recent revision seem to have removed almost all information about the group in China or the Chinese government's views on the Falun Gong, leaving only information about the group in the United States. I would have just reverted back to the lede from the September revision if the article's rewrite wasn't already under discussion, but instead I'm going to post this here first and then do it BOLDly while inviting anyone who finds it problematic to comment here.

The main issue is that removing all the bytes except the ones about America removes all the bytes that relate to the article. Not one section of this article is about America. The change to the lede removed all mentions of the persecution of the Falun Gong by the CCP when the article actually does have a section about their persecution; there's even a whole Wikipedia article about it which is linked to in this article. I'm not saying this with a pro-Falun Gong POV, I'll admit to being biased against their views, but we have to consider what a lede is in the first place. If the lede gives the reader the false impression that the Falun Gong are exclusively an American thing, if there's no correlation between what the lede says and what the article says, then it's just a bad lede. The older revision did a better job at fulfilling this function, but if editors believe it had other issues (e.g. POV concerns) then we can use this talk section to collaborate on a new phrasing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems the deleted (now reinstated) content was removed by User:Heyallkatehere who described it as "fluff." It doesn't look like they've participated in the above talk sections so perhaps I was wrong to assume the article overhaul being discussed had anything to do with the lede. Maybe this won't be as controversial as I expected it to be.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Would've appreciated a ping, I didn't get notified of this, I'd have happily explained why I removed those sections. I admit, it may have been overkill to remove the full section about persecution in the lead, however it reads as very... overly lengthy. My main issue with the current lead, is it seemingly intentionally (by the original author, I mean, not you, vanilla.) buries the section discussing the less tasteful things to past what you can see without scrolling, which could give someone the false impression that they're uncontroversial, or not know about epoch times which is... yikesy. Heyallkatehere (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to give the restructuring of the lead another go, as I feel I can strike a decent balance, let me know if you have any notes or suggestions with what I do, and feel free to make changes yourself. Heyallkatehere (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity my intent here is striking a good balance between having the needed historical info, but presenting current data first and foremost. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Heyallkatehere: presenting current data first and foremost strikes me as WP:Recentism and not good balance. Jumping from objective facts about FG (1st paragraph) to suddenly "FG and the far-right in the media" (2nd paragraph of the edit I reverted), and then back to the history, development and persecution from decades ago messes with the flow. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How is the second paragraph non-objective fact? There are numerous sources that Falun Gong is associated with these organizations, and far right is not a subjective term. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What I mean by objective facts is the question of "what is it in the grand scheme of things", i.e. a new religious movement by Li Hongzhi, not a hot topic in the press. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

First, recentism is an essay, not a policy. Second, recentism is about current and breaking or still developing news, falun gong having those associations is long-running and not making headlines. It just is current, relevant information, and thus I feel belongs toward the top. The historical info is important, for certain, but the lead is first and foremost about what the topic is, not how it got there, even if such information may be relevant and put into the lead. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

to quote WP:LEAD:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Recentism is an essay on WP:NOTNEWS and notability, the former a policy and latter a guideline. As per WP:LEAD itself, the lead summary of § International reception and § The Epoch Times and Shen Yun should be given less emphasis because § History inside China and § Persecution are significantly larger in size. I let a random number generator pick the references in the article and sure enough, [13][14][15][16] they talk more about the persecution than The Epoch Times or any other far-right affiliates. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording, let me know if the current state is more to your liking. I still have some notes to add, such as rephrasing epoch times to note that it is a part of a falun gong run and supported conglom. Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

also, what do you think of a summary sentence in para 1 establishing its notability for both the extensions and persecution? It'd prolly be a bit hard to write, but it could make the restructuring of the next paragraphs far less impactful, which I think we'd both prefer. Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I still think it's better to introduce information about Falun Gong itself first before any affiliates and "subsidiaries" due to, again, the sheer size of § History. This is just going too deep into some extreme beliefs before before anything about the main principles of the movement and whatnot, the "statements of facts" as WP:PRIMARY puts it. The article body also puts The Epoch Times and reception all the way at the bottom.

I have no opinion on implementing the persecution in para 1. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel as though the body putting it at the bottom is rather unrelated, and quite frankly the body has plenty of it's own issues, but I need a break, so I'm gonna log off and chill for about an hour or two, and reassess. Cheers, trying not to make this a fight :) Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Heyallkatehere:, you'll find that this article is talked by adherents who want anything that doesn't fit the organization's talking points removed. They'll try any angle. What they want is discussion about the Chinese government and nothing else. Take a look through the article's talk page history—you'll find that new religious movement scholars have discussed this very article as an extension of Falun Gong propaganda. Don't let adherents bully you into removing well-sourced material about this group. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodofox oh don't you worry, I'm not concerned about getting duped. I know the history. I just need to dodge the dis.sanc. so I don't get in trouble. Plus, they had a valid point, the body of the article doesn't match the lead. mind you, I'm not exactly gonna fix that in the way they hope Heyallkatehere (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear it. Most of the body has needed a complete rewrite for a long time. At the moment, much of it just reads like another Falun Gong propaganda tract. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I never said anything about deleting nor including content, I just think the current paragraph order is simply jumping all over the place. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

400km!?!?

It says the Falun Gong is a 400km compound[sic]? The hyperlink itself says 427-acres. So... Can we please change that? A 400km compound would be mighty impressive. 199.126.146.44 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@199.126.146.44 I meant the Falun Gong has a compound, "Dragon Springs" that is apprently 400km (doesn't say square, just... 400km). 199.126.146.44 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for notifying. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

Please label this group as a dangerous cult, instead of justifying their existence 2601:42:C103:A7A0:0:0:0:B4D4 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Per MOS:LABEL. No sources were given. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Claim for aliens etc has reliable sources

[[17]] and [[18]] [[19]] and more. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Massive persecution section is WP:UNDUE

The truly huge persecution section on the article is WP:UNDUE. It's the largest section on the page. Granted, Falun Gong is known very well for its persecution, but it's still undue, especially since the beliefs and practices section is significantly shorter. Falun Gong is still a religion after all, so the beliefs and practices section should be the largest section. Compare this article to Baháʼí Faith or Ahmadiyya. Their persecution is widely known and have their own articles, but the persecution section doesn't take up half the page. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Historically, this article has bene subject to adherents emphasizing persecution above all else, and attempting to hide or downplay information about the group's leadership, beliefs, and organization. I agree that the persecution section is far too large in comparison to the rest of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

2006 Organ Harvesting Allegations

"In 2006, allegations emerged that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry." I'm not sure where this info is from, but I heard about the organ harvesting sometime between late 2003-2005. Of course it was word of mouth at the time, so perhaps the statement intended to include the word "published?" I know very specifically that it was before 2006 because I was in Seattle for college until 2006 and definitely heard about it on campus. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This article needs a tag indicating that it is unbalanced or not neutral

Others have also raised concerns about the neutrality of this article. Falun gong is very controversial but the article paints the subject positively and is very light on controversies and negative POVs. I am requesting that a tag indicating the potential lack of neutrality in the article is promptly adopted to inform readers. Ronak19 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, and quite urgently. One of the most egregious cases I've ever seen, this article is almost entirely useless and really needs a full rewrite and monitoring. 67.168.233.142 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Make the changes, with reliable sources, instead of just saying there are issues. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A tag is the first step to resolving major issues. This page is WP:OWN by the members of the sect, uninvolved editors generally take a few steps in and then jump back out because of the overwhelming COI editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems most of the sources are generally also biased. It's a biased article sourced by biased articles. Not sure it can really be saved... 68.43.149.98 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we do the same for the victims of Khmer Rouge & the Holocaust?--2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Falun Gong, go to those articles. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead paragraph is very uninformative. It's missing a ton of important information, but for some reason someone found it necessary to include the exact size of Falun Gong's headquarters in the lead. The second paragraph also focuses Falun Gong's outreach organizations overseas, which is also odd given that there are only two paragraphs in the article body specifically talking about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. The lead section should be rewritten to focus more on Falun Gong's history within China and its beliefs, and less on the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The literature in English is more about negative reactions to Falun Gong activism outside of China. We are accurately representing the literature. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Serious POV and should be protected

The article makes pains to laud the religion and provides zero criticism of it, not to mention using plenty of POV terminology over encyclopedially neutral terms. Beware, TIGERS may be present. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2023

I suggest that this article should be tagged as NPOV. The neutrality (or in this case, the lack of it) of this article is an issue that's been brought up before by other users, including here on the current talk page. Tridentarii3apologist (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I see only one discussion about NPOV, and that seems to be mostly confusion about source reliability. NPOV does not seem particularly debatable here. If you disagree, please provide concrete examples and your own argument. Thanks :) Actualcpscm (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

False claim from inaccurate source This sentence currently in the article is inaccurate. The source is not credible. Under subheading - Central Teachings. The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.

REASONING Inaccurate statement: "These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice."

The source quoted is Kavan. Her paper is inaccurate so not a reliable source. She states that: "However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21])."

However when reading the source she uses (Li, 2002, p.21), Kavan has left off the remainder of the sentence "and trying to be good people". This is the spiritual part of their practice - self improvement following moral teachings. Qigong exercises and self improvement. Kavan's paper is therefore misleading and not a credible source. (see the source text pasted below)

The second source by Lewis [39] is not relevant to the statement and should be deleted.

The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.

Here is the information pasted directly from the source that Kavan refers to in her paper. [Li, 2002, p. 21]) "When you clarify the truth don’t say high-level things; the main thing isn’t to have people understand what the high-level, profound Fa is. Well, people who are particularly good are an exception, and you can tell them about it. But when you clarify the truth to an average person, just tell him that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand. After they learn about the truth, people will see all the propaganda for what it is, lies, and they’ll naturally see how despicable and evil it is." Nita Bon Bon (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I can't make heads or tails of it. Please rewrite this so it's more clear. Like, what statement? what source? why is that source not reliable? Drmies (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Professor Kavan performed the analysis of Li's teachings, concluding that Li was asking his followers to be evasive about Falun Gong to non-believers—to lie. We are not going to try and analyze Li's teachings on our own, as that would be a violation of WP:No original research; an unbending policy. You are asking for that exact thing, to look at Li's statement and interpret it differently than Kavan did. That's not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The point I am making is that Kavan (in her paper that is referenced in the wiki article) has left out part of the quote from Li. The part of the quote that she left out changes the meaning completely so her paper is biased. It changes the meaning from 'Li instructed practitioners to lie' to Li instructed practitioners to simplify their explanations of the practice when talking to people so they can understand. Kavan's paper says that Li said to 'just tell people that it's exercises'(with the claim that he is instucting them to lie), however when you go to her source Li actually said 'Just tell them that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand'. There is no instruction to lie. Lavan is not a credible source and is biased towards the group. The words 'instructed' and 'as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry' are inflammatory and not backed up by the source she has used which says something altogether different.

There is no membership to Falun Gong so 'members' is also inaccurate.

1. CHANGE FROM

These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice.

TO

These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong practitioners to outsiders to explain in simple terms what the practice is. Li stated, "Just tell them that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand“ [Li, 2002, p. 21]

2.

Remove the Kavan source which is inaccurate and inflammatory and put the original source (Li, 2002, p.21)

3. Remove the second source by Lewis [39] as it is not relevant to the statement it is supposed to be a source for.

Thank you Nita Bon Bon (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's beyond belief that Kavan failed to read the whole passage. No, the whole passage was taken into consideration, and the part about talking to non-believers was highlighted because it reveals the rift in Li's system. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What rift are you referring to? It's acceptable to include information in the wiki article about Li giving advice about how to speak to non-believers, however any academic interpretation of the paragraph regarding what he said would result in the understanding that Li was telling them to keep things simple for people and talk about the basics, rather than to 'lie' - the source is biased. The wiki article policies state there must be a "neutral point of view". Saying Li told them to 'lie' when the source says otherwise is not neutral. The sentence should state exactly what happened.

Thus the need to change the source to the original source (Li) and change the text to "These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong practitioners to outsiders to explain in simple terms what the practice is. Li stated, "Just tell them that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand“ [Li, 2002, p. 21] Nita Bon Bon (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't have enough leverage in your argument to remove Kavan's scholarship as unreliable. To make Kavan unreliable, other respectable scholars in her field must question her work. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Kavan's quote is incorrect. It's simple to see if you take a look. It's not accurate to describe that quote from the source as 'instructing people to lie'. The Falun Gong practice instructs people to be truthful not to lie. Therefore this part of the wikipedia article is currently biased and incorrect as well. The rules state that the article must have a neutral point of view. Nita Bon Bon (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remember WP:OR. Wikipedia primarily relies on secondary sources, not primary sources or original research. See also WP:RS. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read this (WP:OR) and Kavan is not a reliable source. She has misquoted. If secondary sources are incorrect and therefore unreliable then the statement and the footnote should be removed or corrected - yes? For the integrity of the article, the statement and source should be removed or corrected as recommended. Nita Bon Bon (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to accept that Kavan is not a reliable source just because you disagree with her. She hasn't misquoted. MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nikita Bon Bon, lies of omission is lying. And you are acting like the Higher teachings are real and honest. But with all due respect, I think you are possibly aiding a potentially harmful cult and seem to believe its teachings are the higher truth. You are endorsing actions like "don't tell people what FG teach" for the stated reason that they can't understand the complicated 'Truth' like we do, so now we must hide it from them unless they understand the truth themselves". But apparently when this so called truth is dubiously preaching whacky beliefs like that evil space aliens wanting to take our bodies, and in developing your supernatural powers and even refusing modern medicine but use faith in Li's teaching instead to cure yourself from serious diseases. That seem to me like a classic dangerous cult where insiders are now taught that others outside, don't understand such things and so must not tell them about it. Despite if they did, I think many people will try to warn them they are in a cult.[20] 210.8.65.14 (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's Li approved POV

As others had mentioned. The article suffers from POV issues. And I am particularly aware there are no shortage of many controversial teachings in Falun Gong as published by their own website and multiple media outlets have also exposed it. Some of them include teaching members that evil aliens created all our technology and use them to destroy humanity, or that advanced nuclear power plants had already existed thousands of years ago [21], and also even on promising that learning Zhaun Falun can help one attain supernatural powers which the Falun Gong founder has also self claimed to have. However its leader Li now tells believer followers to hide away all their "high level" teachings away from the public to avoid being shut down.Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]) [22] And this article seems to exemplify just that. It is written in the way that its leader LI prefers. To hide all their "high level" beliefs and to instead convince the public that they're not really a religion but just a vanilla harmless "exercise" group. Most recently is this edit here [23] that just unreasonably removes well-sourced information that mentions what the leader does claim about himself and of the world.210.8.65.14 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit you reference removed text because it was missing a citation, in accordance with WP:BLP policy. We cannot have unsourced statements about a living person. If you want to propose specific changes, please do so in the form "change X to Y" or "remove X" or "add X after Y", citing reliable sources to support the change. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And lastly that's another issue here. Do check it again. It's wrongful editing to later put in a tag claiming that it is lacking a citation when that's untrue. I can see that the editor had cited BBC correctly and also BBC is a reputable strong source. [24] Do readers even have a chance to know that the one and only Falun gong leader Li self claimed to have achieved eternal youth or that he even promises his practitioners they can quickly learn supernatural powers by reading his book and listening to his words completely and unconditionally? [25] Those are just facts that you wouldn't be able to learn from today's Wikipedia article because it appears certain editors hijack this article to prevent the public from ever being aware of it.210.8.65.14 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The deleted text was in fact well sourced by BBC link. Words also even came from Li himself as he tries to convince the public in a Times interview that people should not trust the government or scientists but only on him alone to be their saviour as he claims to be uniquely the only person in the world chosen save humanity in the upcoming apolpcaptic alien plot. [26] And nonetheless such an interview and information is also referenced by a wide range of second hand outlets nowadays like ABC news and Business Insider to name a few. It's easy to find sources and here is three. [27] [28] [29] The man appears to me as a real world charlatan that makes up lots of tall tales like claiming he mastered eternal youth or other lies. We are told of Yinghai, or "subtle babies," that appear all over the bodies of high-level Falun Gong practitioners; of ancient cities on ocean floors; of a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor in Gabon, Africa; and of the fact that civilization has been left "in complete destruction" 81 times in its history -- a fact Li discovered only after "a meticulous check which I once did And he just expects followers to believe and learn this as truth unconditionally without question. [30] For example, the revisionist lessons on existance of ancient nuclear reactors are even still publicly taught in their own website, just because Li insists on it as proof that the world is going to end and why his followers need him to save them. [31] I know most average normal people are not so naive and can tell it's a cult if you mention such whacky teachings to them. And because I suspect since most people are not so easily fooled, its leader Li now tells believer followers to hide away all their "high level" teachings or his lame lies away from the public, to avoid being most likely and rightfully shut down as he is aware of the backlash that is likely to come when more people are aware of what he really teaches to his followers. 210.8.65.14 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to make a specific suggestion, or not? Propose the text you want to add, and the source you want to cite. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

See my new formal request in the thread just below and previously I didn’t even ask for a specific edit to be added in. So don’t know why you keep asking me that as if pushing the impression I am wasting time. Just initially pointing that some information has been wrongfully removed. And more importantly that I agree with the other editors here like Keith Tyler in above two threads, that the article needs to be tagged as having serious pov issues and I have also at great lengths, thoroughly explained why that’s necessary. Yet you not once have addressed any of that. It seems perhaps you are not as interested in my reasoning but keep sidestepping to asking me for specific edits to add in. So if you insist, I will tell you to go please revert this edit [32] because here are multiple strong sources supporting that info as true facts. [33][34] [35] and also tag the article as poor in the POV department. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023 - Missing space

In the second paragraph the first and second sentences do not have a space between them. A space needs to be added.

(Currently the article reads "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun.They are known..." but it should read "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun. They are known...") Pauldunahoo (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove contraversial left wing talking points regarding the Epoch news agency

the commentary regarding the Epoch News in the article is deliberately misleading and exhibits clear left wing bias. As a biased statement it should be removed from the article. 50.250.214.1 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that it's the same thing, per WP:EPOCHTIMES we should indeed remove that source EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with right- or left-wing. Epoch is a mouthpiece for Falun Gong and publishes conspiracy theories. It was deprecated as a source by Wikipedia in 2019. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see that Epoch Times is not used as a source, but there are sources about it. There's no need to remove things. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

Request that the article is tagged as being flawed in POV. I explained the reasoning in the thread I created above that is titled, "It's Li approved POV". Because I strongly agree with the two threads above made from user @KeithTyler and @Tridentarii3apologist, that the article needs to be tagged as suffering from POV issues. And directly above I have also already given my thorough explanation why that’s necessary and rightfully pointing that some information has been wrongfully removed.[36] And that such removed information was well sourced by the BBC.[37] So again like others also asked, do add in the tag that the article suffers from POV issues. Couldn’t be more clearer on that.

Secondly I suggest to add in these key facts into the article at minimum that Falun gong promises people they can achieve “redemption” in the form of attaining supernatural powers, to help them heal from diseases and even to attain eternal youth or immortality if they join Falun Gong and follow it. And the Falun Gong group endorses that its leader and also founder Li, has already mastered eternal youth and attained supernatural abilities. Currently that information is not present in the article despite being incredibly important and deserves inclusions Suporting sources are [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and I do believe such true information is necessary for this article. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It appears that your concern so far has only been with one controversial edit. I don't think the article presents a particularly favourable view of the movement, and one disputed edit does not change that. I don't quite understand the relevance of the teachings to the POV issue; that is extremely similar to what many mainstream religious movements teach. Please elaborate and feel free to ping me with your response. Also, be aware that your account appears a lot like a single-purpose account. That is not per se a bad thing, but be sure to adhere to the relevant policies and guidelines when editing and making suggestions. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't usually visit Wikipedia very often so my bad for replying 3 weeks late. But thank you for replying here and informing me of your decision. But I need to point out here that you didn't address almost half my request. Because in the second half of my request, I have asked to add the proposed information, that is in the bold text. But you did not say anything of it or address?TasmaniaBridge (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Not A Religion!

The webpage (Falun Gong - Wikipedia) says that Falun Gong is a religion.

Yet, practitioners often point out that Falun Gong is NOT a religion. For example, unlike a religion, Falun Gong does not have anything to do, with a: (i) god; (ii) paradise; (iii) hell; and, (iv) 'afterlife'.

China's totalitarian government, however, labelled Falun Gong a "religion", for negative propaganda purposes.

The reason why Beijing outlaws Falun Gong is because Falun Gong has never been "approved", by China's totalitarian government.

Chinese people were just doing it. So, that represented an instance of free will - which was not allowed. William F. Sheehan (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows WP:Reliable sources, giving the most weight to WP:SECONDARY sources from topic scholars, who definitely represent the group as a new religion, albeit with qualifications depending on the sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request to add in that Li has claimed to have supernatural abilities

Add in the following edit in bold text, inside the article's 'Beliefs and practices' chapter:

Falun Gong's leader Li Hongzhi has claimed to have mastered eternal youth and successfully cultivated numerous supernatural abilities. Li promises his followers that Falun Gong can potentially teach them to also become eternally youthful and to be able to cultivate numerous supernatural powers including the ability to heal from all diseases, if they join Falun Gong and follow its teachings.[43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

Note; I already asked for this edit to be added in 3 weeks ago. But it wasn't even addressed at all twice now by my count, after requesting. I previously had first informed the monitor of this talk page Anachronist to revert the recent deletion of the info and had gave him many strong sources, however he had stopped replying after that request.[48] Perhaps he didn't see. So why I later made a formal request but it got "closed" despite Actualcpscm did not even address at all whether or not such proposed information, in bolded text, is to be added into the article. I am starting to think it's impossible to ever add such information. But such information should be mentioned, and not removed, because the public deserves to know. I wish I was making this up but it's very true and confirmed by many top sources. I don't believe anyone including even veteran Falun Gong members deny this vital information. And I hope whoever answers this request, will do so in the interests of the public right to know, and not out of some loyalty to Falun Gong and the fear the public would see it less positively if they are aware of more real facts about it. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: No, I didn't see it. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, as do many other editors. If you want to get the attention of someone, use the {{reply}} or {{ping}} templates, as I just did with you, to cause a notification to appear.

In the first source you cite above, the abstract (the only thing I can see) does not support what you state in the text you are proposing, it gives what seems to be only a tentative suggestion.

The second source on slate.com is a personal essay or editorial written by a practitioner, who provides a secondhand quote from Li's book. It would be better to cite that book. Both the Slate piece and the book would be considered primary sources.

The third source deals primarily with the controversy around organ harvesting and devotes one sentence to the assertion of "supernatural powers" and another about curing deseases, but says nothing about those powers being "numerous".

The fourth source from ABC is another editorial that says nothing about immortality, diseases, and supernatural powers. I don't even know why you cited it.

The fifth source from ABC is a long rambling piece that is horrible to navigate, but it does say something about how Li claims that all diseases can be cured. I see nothing about supernatural or magical claims, but maybe I missed them in that mess of an article. It's hard to find anything of substance in it that supports the text you propose.

Based on that analysis, I find these sources weak, and the proposed text misrepresents what they say.

Therefore, this edit request is  Declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I believe you are mistaken here as my first given source is by David Ownby and he does support my proposed texts in full that Li claims he can teach people supernatural abilities and to heal from all illnesses. [49] I also don't agree that sources like David Ownby are deemed "weak" here. I mean there is even an entire dedicated Wikipedia article for his book titled, Falun Gong and the future of China. It shows editors consider him to be a major expert on Falun Gong otherwise why even have an entire article on his book and even mention him 36 times literally in the current Wikipedia article for Falun Gong already? You cannot cite someone so many times in the wikipedia article already yet now deem him to be weak. Furthermore how is it even possible to have top professional outlets like the New York Times[50], Radio Free International [51], BBC[52], ABC news, Business insider [53] all say the same thing that Li Hongzhi does claim to have supernatural powers? Are they all lying to defame Li? Seems unlikely. And your reasoning seems arbitrary when you say no sources precisely say "numerous" abilities. But it's a "numerous" amount considering Li claims he can fly, walk through walls and make himself invisible and so many other claims. I didn't want to include all of them as it would take endless paragraphs to list them all so I summarised as "numerous". I don't think you can just dismiss all those sources as all weak when they are professional journalists and of an expert scholar already frequently cited in the current article already, and I hope you don't mind if I will request this to be settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion if we really cannot agree as I honestly do believe you are wrong in your analysis here that my sources are "weak". TasmaniaBridge (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: If you have full access to that first source by Ownby, I'd like to see some quotations from it. The abstract does not support your proposed text. In that sense, it is a weak source. It may well be a strong source but it's behind a paywall for me.

Your text synthesizes a conclusion from the sources you cite. See WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot do that, even if the conclusion is correct. I am not arguing with your conclusion, in fact I agree with the statements you propose, but I am not seeing the sources you cite support them. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I hope you don't take this the wrong way as I want to be respectful but also honest here. I do admit that I am somewhat biased here against the FG views for claiming that its still living leader has supernatural abilities and that he had achieved eternal youth and promises that followers can learn to achieve the same if they follow Li's "honest" teachings loyally. And what I cannot stand is how the Wikipedia article neglects to even mention that context at all. Maybe because certain editors fear it comes across as a scam to most people. Probably because it is a typical scam as I know boastful Li is lying about having supernatural powers. And am not saying we should call him dishonest but we should at least show the public what he boastfully claims about himself and of this world, and not always hide it. Yet a past editor chess, have deleted it from the article and why I have requested to add in such info back in, that Li claims to have supernatural powers, as it is essential information people should minimally know of FG. And despite what you say, there are multiple strong sources supporting such info as true facts. [54][55] [56] And it is honestly hard to take you seriously when you do say stuff like my sources doesn't support my proposed texts. I don't want to get deep into some circular endless partisan debate. But I think you should know I have read previous editors here, and one editor looks to be uninterested in editing, gave his reasons for their lack of interest. The User Horse eye back writes, "This page is WP:OWN by the members of the sect, uninvolved editors generally take a few steps in and then jump back out because of the overwhelming COI editing". [57] and he bids others good luck in trying to make a difference. I hope he isn't right but he does seem experienced and I admit he really got into my head after I read that post. And really, I don't want to waste my time, as I do have a lot on my plate in the real world and also I can tell that we can't agree with one another at all, at this rate. I would say it supports and you would deny and back and forth. That's not going anywhere so we need to resort to some alternative dispute resolution instead of just us arguing to no end. I read there's a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where they can tell you what is a reliable acceptable source and what isn't and suggest to start there as it's perfect for us. And see if my sources really are unacceptable by others. So if the Third opinion or reliable sources noticeboard says it's unacceptable, I may not agree with that but I will respect the decision. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. No, I am not offended in the least. In fact, I don't really have any stake or opinion in what the article states. My only concern is that the article complies with Wikipedia content policies. The additional text must not misrepresent sources, and must not synthesize conclusions from sources. The text you proposed is a good start, and you and I already agree that your proposed text is factual, but that isn't enough. The sources are all that matter. I didn't find support for the text you proposed (the way your wrote it) in the sources you cited. Removing "numerous" would be an improvement unless you cited a source that says something similar. But collecting together a bunch of different sources to conclude that the word "numerous" is correct is WP:SYNTHESIS.

There is a distinction you have missed. Declining your proposal does not equate to rejecting your proposal. It just means that adjustments are needed to make it solidly grounded in reliable sources. This is required to prevent its future removal from the article again.

I am still interested to know what's in that first source that you feel supports what you wrote, because all I can see is the abstract, which doesn't really help. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I should probably tell you now that I would be super busy and going on a trip for next 2 days. So won't be able to reply for some time and not trying to ghost. But I should just say I believe the Washington Post had read Li's book and said that Li had wrote that at age 8, he had attained supernatural powers: which includes bending metal pipes, become invisible, rise into the heavens.[58] So unless Washington Post is an unreliable source. I believe that is good enough source to add in that he does claim to have attained supernatural powers. Also Falun Gong's official own website [59] talks heaps about people with supernatural powers. It even claims that American magician is a being with real supernatural powers and that people can actually cultivate supernatural abilities. This factor should be weighed in here to show that my other sources are accurate about Falun Gong is claiming that it can teach people to learn supernatural powers. My sources include Radio Free international who do not seem to have reason to both lie about Falun Gong promising followers they can cultivate supernatural powers through Falun Gong and are professionals that don't make amateurish mistakes.[60] If you still disagree that my sources are bad, then we simply cannot agree. I will ask if you could then just post my sources and what I had wrote here, on the Reliable sources noticeboard or on third opinion. If they agree with you, then I will not agree of course, but I will accept it. But I hope if they agree with me, you would respect their decision and add my proposed information and sources in.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: That Washington Post article alone is a good enough source to support your proposal, worded a bit differently to remove the redundant superlative "numerous", and the Radio Free International source, as I stated earlier, is good for the medical assertions. The rest of those sources you proposed earlier aren't as good. Primary sources (Falon Gong's website and first-hand accounts) should be avoided. Just a couple of good sources should be enough, and those two seem OK.

Don't worry about getting busy in real life. That's always more important, and remember, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply again. My point is guy self appointed himself as the leader and claims to have supernatural powers and wisdom. He teaches publicly that his book can help others to cultivate their supernatural abilities. All such info is true and seems you agree that my proposed text is factual. But say the sources and wording of proposed texts needs attention. But want to wrap it up and it seems we can at least agree the Washington Post source is good and that it is better to not mention "numerous". Instead just go follow how the Washington Post and Radio Free International words it. I could agree with that. I revised my proposed edit and you can add it in, more or less with whatever appropriate changes to it you deem is needed.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Put into beliefs and practices chapter; According to the founder Li in his book, "Zhuan Falun", he claims to have cultivated supernatural powers at the age of 8 and that he could perform feats such as invisibility and being able to bend metal pipes. And that at fourth grade, he had been able to pass through the walls and enter a locked classroom.[61] According to Radio Free International, the same book of "Zhuan Falun" promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body”.[62]TasmaniaBridge (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Noticed you haven't responded but then realised I had forgot to get your attention with a ping. I made a reply to your last response and hope you will notice. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: I'd omit some specific details that seem unnecessary. More like this: According to the founder Li in his book, "Zhuan Falun", he claims to have cultivated supernatural powers starting at age eight.[63] According to Radio Free International, the same book of "Zhuan Falun" promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body”.[64] ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Yes, that would be fine by me. I would agree with your revision and confirm I have no real issues with it.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: Would you suggest exactly where it should go? The "Beliefs and practices" section is pretty large. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist:Really wherever you think is good but I would suggest the same place where the similar info had used to be present just a month ago. ->Within the "Central teachings" subchapter, you can add the info following right after that final paragraph in the chapter saying "Li says that he is a being who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as the result of rampant evil. When asked if he was a human being, Li replied "You can think of me as a human being."[12][57][58]". And then add in your revised edit, that despite he tells others to think of him as human. He also claims to cultivate supernatural abilities by age 8 and his book, promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body".TasmaniaBridge (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Added. This is exactly how talk page collaboration is supposed to work. Thank you for your patient persistence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist It is easy to verify that the edit you made is false. The cited book Zhuan Falun is on the web, so I cross-checked. The source RFI and your edit state: "promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body"".

In Zhuan Falun, chapter 2, celestial eye: "A person with a low-level Celestial Eye may have the penetrative vision to see things through a wall and look through a human body. ... We are opening the Celestial Eye for everyone here, but we do not open it at or below Celestial Eyesight. Why? Though you sit here and have begun to practice cultivation, you are, after all, just beginning from the level of an everyday person with many everyday people’s attachments still not abandoned. If your Celestial Eye is opened below Celestial Eyesight, you will have what everyday people regard as supernormal abilities, as you can see things through a wall and see through a human body. If we provided this supernormal ability widely and if everyone’s Celestial Eye were opened to this level, it would severely disturb ordinary human society and disrupt the state of ordinary human society."

So just the contrary is true. 79.116.124.252 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We state what reliable secondary sources say, not what primary sources say about themselves. In any case,"may have the penetrative vision to see things through a wall and look through a human body" does not contradict the edit. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

As an interested reader I would like the introduction of this article to inform me about what Falun Gong is, how many people do practice it and where. I would like to know the essence of its teachings, what kind of religion is it (in this case seemingly close to buddhism), what are its excercises about, is it Yoga or Gig Gong?. What I primarily read is a negatively touched information about its media outlets. Are the media the main purpose of Falun Gong? The introduction isn't a good abstract of the article in my opinion. 79.116.124.252 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read as far as the third paragraph of the lead section? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A non-biased correction of ambiguity

The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:

"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their anti-evolutionary stance."

The repeated use of the they/their pronoun leads to ambiguity. The pronoun "their" in the clause "their anti-evolutionary stance" could be interpreted as indicating either the Falun Gong, or the CCP. To demonstrate the ambiguity, the following examples are provided, with editorial comments inside square brackets:

"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [the CCP's] anti-evolutionary stance."

or

"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [The Falun Gong's] anti-evolutionary stance."

As it is well known that the anti-evolutionary stance is held by the Falun Gong, not the CCP, I propose replacing the word "and" with the phrase "as well as", to clarify that Falung Gong, not the CCP, holds anti-evolutionary beliefs. As follows:

"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as their anti-evolutionary stance." Nitr0smash (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Good correction! Anne Linstatter (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed change: multiple reverts by Binksternet

Ladies and gentlemen, I seldom find pleasure editing this polarizing topic. I've tried to stay away from this article as much as I can, but feel compelled to intervene today, for reasons apparent below.

I am proposing to restore the following edit to the article, which essentially sought to introduce a source on the subject's own, alternative voice in response to a paragraph of adverse representations about them. (I take no stand on the truth of these adverse representations, but am prepared to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they are meritorious). Here's the link to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=1163082716&oldid=1163073121

I'm not the author of this edit (the "Edit") that I'm seeking to restore. But I believe that it has been improperly reverted by Binksternet, in disregard and violation of WP, as particularized below.

The chronology is as follows:

1. On July 2, 2023, an editor named Thomas Meng introduced the Edit with the edit summary: "Statement by the president of Falun Dafa Association on homosexuality".

2. On July 5, 2023, Binksternet reverted this Edit, with the edit summary: "rv PR messaging, false in practice".

3. On July 10, 2023, I restored Thomas Meng's Edit, with the edit summary: "Binkersnet's alleged ground for undoing another editor's edit is "PR messaging - false in practise." Since when has Binksternet become a reliable source on the conduct of Falun Gong adherents toward homosexuals? This paragraph cites primary sources and opinion sources liberally. Surely the FG Info Center is allowed to express a contrary view about FG? WP:NPOV WP:ABOUTSELF"

4. On July 10, 2023, mere hours later, Binksternet reverted the Edit again for the second time, without discussion, with the edit summary: "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"

In my respectful view, Binksternet's repeated reverts are problematic for the following reasons:

a. First, Binksternet's alleged justifications for these reverts, i.e. "false in practice"; "we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views", finds no basis in any editing policy, including the WP:COPO, whatsoever. There's not even a barest attempt to appeal to those editing policies, which we are bound to follow;

b. Instead of appealing to the WP, Binksternet simply asserts what he thinks to be true, and uses that opinion which he personally holds to justify his reverts. The problem, of course, is that Binksternet is not a reliable source on this issue. Editing not based on what the sources say, but based on what he personally thinks the article should say, is a quintessential breach of WP:NPOV - the adherence to which by him is non-negotiable.

c. Third, his allegation of the content of the Edit being "false in practise" is bald, unsubstantiated and devoid of support from any reliable source. To specify, the source being introduced by the Edit states that Falun Gong adherents respect the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community, and do not oppose their efforts to establish their rights. Binksternet baldly alleges that this is "untrue in practise". Yet, I can find no published sources supporting Binksternet's suggestions that Falun Gong adherents do not respect, and opposes the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community.

In this regard, all of other sources on this issue of homosexuality in that paragraph seeks to address the content of Li Hongzhi's teachings, but none speaks to the practical conduct and behaviour of Falun Gong adherents in regards to homosexuality, which is a different issue, and which is what the Edit squarely seeks to address, contrary to Binksternet's allegations.

d. The allegations accusing Li Hongzhi's teachings for promoting homophobia, contained in the material paragraph of this article, is overall supported by 11 sources. One of these sources is a cherrypicked quotation from a primary Falun Gong text (which is patently not a reliable secondary source), about 5-8 of them are stuck behind paywalls (and are potentially primary research), and about a handful of them simply could not be found on the internet (at least not for me in a brief ten minutes google search). There are also one or two opinion pieces, which are not reliable secondary sources either, incorporated into this article without any attribution to the authors, thereby being held out as facts.

Issues of the status of these sources as WP:RS aside, which is a topic for another day, the Edit sought to be made is the only source being adduced as an alternative viewpoint relevant to this issue, which in my view, is clearly warranted in the interests of WP:BALANCE. And as the Edit seeks to quote an authoritative representative of the very subject of this matter, the Edit also falls within the ambit of WP:ABOUTSELF.

e. Finally, Binksternet's reinstatement of his edit without discussion and consensus, is a plain disregard and breach of the additional editing rules established for this article, which I quote,

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."

Binksternet made no attempt to discuss his/her reinstatement on talk, and simply proceeded to reinstate his edit, within hours of my revert of his change.

In light of all of the above, I respectfully wish to revert Binksternet's deletion of the Edit, and restore that Edit to this article. I value and seek the input of fellow editors to all of the above, and will proceed with my intended action, if appropriate in light of others' views and input on this matter.

Thank you all for your time in reading my long rambling post, and have a great day. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about how the NPOV policy handles balance. It emphatically does not refer to WP:FALSEBALANCE - we don't give both sides of an issue space simply for the sake of giving both sides. It is not Binksternet who has the WP:ONUS to achive consensus for this content, it lies with those who are trying to get it into the article. You should not reinsert this content again. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, MrOllie. Can I take your position to mean that an editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion, as Binksternet did? Does other editors agree with this? Not trying to be rhetorical - it's good to clarify.

Secondly, I think we can all agree that balance means giving coverage to viewpoints proportionate to their establishment in reliable sources. It begs the question of what that balance is, which is a matter of judgment and consensus. I think we can agree that both of us know what the principle means, we disagree on their application. Your position is that that a fair balance means 11 adverse sources and 0 positive source. My view is that a fair balance warrants 1 positive source to 11 adverse sources.

Also you ignore my point about WP:ABOUTSELF. Any reason why this principle shouldn't apply in support of the Edit? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if your source counting were the way we do things (again, per WP:FALSEBALANCE it is not), we would consider independent sourcing. Falun Gong reps issuing press releases would not tilt our evaluation of the sourcing. Aboutself doesn't apply to 'unduly self-serving' claims and this certainly qualifies. See also WP:MANDY. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

How else may balance or weight given to a particular viewpoint be measured, if not by the number of sources cited and represented in support of that viewpoint? Can you suggest an alternative way to objective measure balance or weight? Thanks for point out WP:MANDY, which is an essay, that is outranked by policies and guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_guidelines_and_essays), especially the WP:COPO, under which WP:ABOUTSELF is a subset.

Also I disagree that WP:MANDY applies here. WP:MANDY refers to self-serving denials that are patently and proven to be untrue. I've made the point in my first post in our discussion that the content of the Edit has not been contradicted by any source, let alone reliable source. I'll be happy to stand corrected, if you can provide me with any published sources showing acts of homophobia or anti-LGTBQ advocacy engaged by the Falun Gong community, which would go towards showing that the Edit is untrue and constitutes a Mandy-style denial. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The founder's words on the subject are more than sufficient for the purposes of this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If this article is about Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gong, then maybe (the practise of cherrypicking is objectionable but is a topic for another day). But this article is patently not about that. This article is about Falun Gong as it is taught, practised, and the major history and events surrounding it. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it your position that Falun Gong adherents routinely ignore Li Hongzhi's teachings? If so, I'd like to see sources for that. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly not what the Edit and its source is saying. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gong are very relevant to Falun Gong as it is taught MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying that those teachings are irrelevant (putting aside the issue of cherrypicking for now). There are dozens of sources on those teachings in this article, and I'm not taking issue with that, in this discussion.

The issue is that those teachings are not all there is to this subject which is on Falun Gong as a whole, contrary to your allegation that "The founder's words on the subject are more than sufficient for the purposes of this article". HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also Ollie, can you please confirm that the following rule is true and applies to this article, which is what I glean from your comments at 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)?

"An editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion."

I've asked you to confirm and you did not do so. I think this is an important rule to clarify, and give us a lot of clarity and structure in approaching future edits on this article and related articles down the road. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't confirm, because such things are not the purpose of this talk page. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works you can ask them elsewhere, like at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I only asked because you raised this proposition, and relied on this proposition to support Binksternet's undiscussed reinstatements, implicitly holding out that proposition to be true. Your failure to confirm is respectfully noted. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I did raise the proposition you are making. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether you raised it aside, is it a yes or not to the following, in your view?

"An editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion."

Not trying to be overbearing or difficult here (I apologize if any offence is taken). The answer to this question is a key to our discussion because if the answer is yes, then Binksternet is justified in making his multiple reverts without discussion, because of the alleged lack of consensus to the Edit being reverted.

If the answer to the above question is no, then Binksternet is not justified in making his multiple reverts without discussion, and those reverts need to be discussed and very likely undone. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather not engage with WP:WIKILAWYERING, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm WP:WIKILAWYERING. We can agree to disagree. But I would certainly respect it if you do not want to continue this discussion. Cheers and thanks for your participation anyway. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WP:MANDY absolutely applies here. It may be an essay, but it represents broad consensus about these things. To be specific, Thomas Meng added the MANDY statement nine days ago, citing a church's Wordpress blog which he then swapped for the self-published website faluninfo.net. I removed all of that stuff eight days ago, saying it was "P.R. messaging, false in practice". HollerithPunchCard re-added the statement yesterday, and I removed it again less than an hour later. So I made two reverts separated by five days, both of them aligned with WP:MANDY consensus. These reverts should stand. The WP:ONUS for adding new information is on the folks who wish to add it. Consensus for adding has not been established. And in any case, the statement by Falun Gong saying they are not homophobic is contradicted by various third party sources reporting otherwise. There is no reason to give Falun Gong a chance to deny something that is confirmed by others. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet for finally attempting to justify your twice undiscussed deletion of the cited addition based on actual Wiki policies/guidelines/essays, which nonetheless lacks merit for the following reasons:

1. That there is broad consensus to the validity of WP:MANDY (assuming for the purpose of argument that this true), says nothing about whether WP:MANDY should apply here to justify reverting the the Edit in question. Much less does this mean that WP:MANDY, as an essay, outranks WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION, which supports the inclusion of this Edit - an issue that I have raised and you have not addressed.

2. Since you are the one invoking WP:MANDY to support your revert, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that WP:MANDY applies. You have not done so. Your uncited, unsubstantiated bald claim to the alleged existence of contradictory sources is simply insufficient to overcome the Edit which is well cited and sourced.

3. In this regard, yes the WP:ONUS for adding new information is on the editor seeking to introduce that information. However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article (See: WP:REMOVECITE). Deleting the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not seek your consensus first is an example of tendentious or disrupting editing.

4. So far, you have declared the following in support of your reverts:

- "PR messaging, false in practice" (declared twice in support of two reverts)

- "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"

In my respectful view, these actions amount to clear information suppression and WP:CENSORSHIP, partially defined as the following:

- Explaining why evidence supports one view, but under-representing (even deleting) opposing views in order to make an opinion appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.

- Minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question or that support alternative views.

- Generalizing an opinion held by "some" or "many" as if it is held by "all" (or "all credible") sources, while treating an opposing view as not being held by anyone credible.

- Ignoring an opposing view, question or discussion point on the basis that those upholding it are claimed to be misinformed.

- Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

You may not personally agree with the contrary opinion, but that is not a valid ground to erase that opinion from Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I noticed while going through your contributions history that you have been simultaneously pushing for similar edits on allegations of homophobia on Shen Yun, a related page, examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I take no stand on the merits of those edits for the purpose of this post, but they are consistent with the appearance that you are single POV pushing, in breach of WP:NPOV.

In light of all of the above, I ask for your agreement to retract your reverts, until such that you are able to actually demonstrate, with citations of reliable sources, that the Edit you reverted is plainly false and belongs to a Mandy-style denial, and all of the WP grounds that have been articulated here and above do not support its inclusion in this article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: Sorry for the fly-by comment, but I think you are confusing WP:ONUS with WP:BURDEN when you say:

However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article

WP:BURDEN says that the editor who adds content needs to demonstrate verifiability (i.e. source & cite). WP:ONUS says that satisfying that burden does not guarantee inclusion - consensus is required in addition to citing reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this discussion, @MarkH21. I think we can both agree that consensus is required to include a contested source.

This is why I haven't proceeded to restore the deleted Edit, despite my disagreement with its deletion.

This is also why I have initiated a dialogue by raising numerous substantive concerns with the deletion of the Edit, for my friends to address, who, instead of engaging the vast majority of concerns on their merits, mostly point to the lack of consensus in an attempt to end the discussion.

You can appreciate that there is a difference between (i) exclusion in light of reasonable disagreement following a constructive, rule based discussion on the merits of the Edit, and (ii) exclusion simply because of the lack of consensus, in and of itself.

In any words, yes, consensus is necessary, so is a willingness to engage in the consensus-building process, which I think falls short here. There's really a lot of guidance on this point, such as, WP:TALKDONTREVERT; WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS; WP:DISRUPTSIGNS; WP:GAMING; WP:REMOVECITE, which I do not want to belabour. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You are attempting to reverse the burden again, but that is simply not how Wikipedia works. Consensus is needed to add material. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Right now you (i.e MrOllie) and Binksternet are trying to exclude a properly cited information, and silencing an opinion on this article. You need to do more to justify this exclusion, than just baldly asserting that "consensus is needed". HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. One might be able to make a bold addition, but preserving that edit against consensus is obviously not what the policies you are citing are about. You will not find any 'rule' (again, see WP:WIKILAWYERING) that will allow you to add whatever you want to an article and then force it to remain over the objections of other editors. The reversion has been well justified. That you personally disagree with it does not mean further justification is needed. MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You are avoiding all of the issues I raised on their merits, and objecting for the sake of objecting, thereby creating a lack of consensus to the Edit, and erase it from the article. Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts. It's not just my "personal disagreement" - it's a breach of the policies and guidelines on multiple fronts, which I have shown. You need to actually address my concerns, than to baldly assert the mere presence of disagreement, to sustain the censorship. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel a lot of need to address your concerns when you mix in personal attacks. Also, see WP:SATISFY - no one needs to address everything you write here. I object to the addition beceause I disagree with it for the reasons articulated by Binksternet as well as myself. Stop putting words in my mouth and ascribing false motives to others. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The only objections you and Binksternet put forth so far is an unsubstantiated reference to WP:Mandy and WP:ONUS, to which I have raised numerous concerns in response. Instead of responding my concerns, you simply assert the bare existence of "objections" on you and Binksternet's part to end this discussion. And when I cite the WPs to support my concerns, you accuse me of WP:Wikilawyering twice. With respect, who's the one making personal attacks?

And no, I did not make any personal attacks against you. My articulation of concerns about your conduct in maintaining an objection without a serious or proper response to your fellow editor's legitimate concerns, is plainly not the same personal attacks.

And the end of the day, I've made my arguments. If you want to defend you or Binksternet's edits on Wikipedia, please respond to my concerns and have a constructive discussion with me - instead of simply saying "I disagree. Hence the cited addition should be removed, because of my disagreement." HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Arguing with a straw man isn't going to get you anywhere. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and my concerns above remain unaddressed. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

HollerithPunchCard, I don't have any personal interest in Falun Gong or Shen Yun. As far as I know, I have not met anyone who is a member. The only reason I'm here is to prevent Falun Gong topics from becoming a platform for the group's views. Of course we should tell the reader what are the views of Falun Gong, but these should come from investigative journalists and topic scholars, not from faluninfo.net. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, which establish what is important to a topic. This is not the place for Falun Gong adherents to insist that they get to skew the topic in favor of their views, using primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet, the sanctimonious lecturing about others trying to “skew the topic in favor of their views” is pretty rich coming from you. As far as I can tell, you’ve done more than anyone to introduce falsehoods into Falun Gong-related articles, and to promote shoddy and unreliable sources so long as they present an anti-Falun Gong view. You’ve pushed CCP-affiliated sources like James Lewis. You’ve insisted that a retracted article should remain on the page, even though it contains assertions that are easily proven false. You added the false claim that Li Hongzhi “instructed followers to lie” even though that one too is easily disproven, and even though it flies in the face of serious scholarship concerning Falun Gong teachings and beliefs.

Think about this, by the 2010’s, it was well-established historical fact that Falun Gong practitioners in China – who by all accounts were entirely non-violent – were being detained, tortured, and in many cases killed for their beliefs at the hands of the ruling Chinese Communist Party. What kind of “scholars” would travel to China in that environment to attend state-sponsored “anti-cult” conferences and denounce Falun Gong? What kind of a scholar would then travel abroad with professors from state-run Chinese universities to promote their anti-Falun Gong views internationally? What kind of scholar would then go on the CCP payroll himself, while continuing to publish anti-Falun Gong materials? What kind of Wikipedia editor would still defend such a “scholar” as a reliable source?

I don’t know where your animus against Falun Gong comes from, but given your track record you have no business posing as an objective editor on this topic.

This article should not be controlled by Falun Gong adherents, but it should not be controlled by anti-Falun Gong activists either. JackUpdike (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I would just add that including Falun Info Center's statement would not create any false balance. The Center's statement saying that they treat everyone with compassion and tolerance, including homosexuals, aligns with what most academic sources say about their central teachings. No sources contradict their statement, and it doesn't contradict the founder's statements either, so it appears well-balanced to me. Thomas Meng (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand scholar Heather Kavan has written a couple of papers describing how Falun Gong practitioners are not in fact tolerant or compassionate. Rather, they are hateful and hostile when their religion is challenged. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This Wikipedia post is written by Falun Gong. It is NOT "written from a neutral point of view." Would you let Hitler or Jim Jones each write his own Wikipedia entry? Anne Linstatter (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My experience on wikipedia says otherwise... How is that statement not unduly self serving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)