Talk:Falun Gong: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:16, 21 May 2020 editBloodofox (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,888 edits →Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, and Shen Yun: Topics absent from this article: +← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:23, 17 January 2025 edit undoMrOllie (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers238,525 edits Restored revision 1266216404 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): Rv profringe rantTags: Twinkle Undo
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Skip to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice\|topic=fg\|1RR=yes\|BRD=yes}}
	{{Vital article\|level=4\|topic=Philosophy\|class=B}}
			{{Controversial}}
	{{Ds/talk notice\|topic=fg}}
	{{~~controversial~~}}		{{Calm}}
	{{~~Calm~~ ~~talk~~}}		{{Not a forum}}
	{{Off topic warning}}
	{{Article history		{{Article history
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
Line 28:		Line 27:
	\|currentstatus=DGA		\|currentstatus=DGA
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Law~~\|class=B~~\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Law\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Religion~~\|class=B~~ \|importance=~~Top~~ \|NRM=yes \|NRMImp=Top \|FalunGong=yes ~~\|FalunGongImp=Top~~ \|attention=yes}}		{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=High \|NRM=yes \|NRMImp=Top \|FalunGong=yes \|attention=yes}}
	{{WikiProject China~~\|class=B~~ \|importance=High }}		{{WikiProject China\|importance=High }}
	{{~~WP1.0\|v0.7=fail\|class=B\|category=Philrelig~~\|importance=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
	{{fss}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~100K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 42		\|counter = 47
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(14d)		\|algo = old(14d)
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Bias in the international reception section ==
	== This is essentially propaganda ==

			There is section in the "International Reception" about Adam Frank which straight up says that the isn't a cult and the "cult" definition is due to stigma. Can somebody remove it, because it's quite biased. ] (]) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
	It's really a disappointment to find how biased this article is. It fails to document the many negative experiences of families who have member lost to the group, which has aspects of a cult including paranoia toward critics and beliefs with no reasonable basis in reality. It also presents the group as benign when it is well-known to promote zealotry in it's members and is, itself, a group that denies human rights of other people who have different belief or life-styles. Lastly, it fails to discuss the group's ties to Right Wing political movements including the use of the Epoch Times to engage in political influence.

			:@] Denied. These are attributed opinions from academic sources. They do, however, need full citations, which I will add shortly. ] (]) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	It is not my place to change the article since that would doubtless start an undesirable situation where proponents of the movement battle to control the content as often happens on Misplaced Pages. That would not be productive. Therefore, I only offer my basic criticisms here for reasonable people to consider and as a warning of the nature of the article as propaganda. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			::@]@] It's also heavily outdated. Last source is 2007. After they started supporting Trump, media outlets have less motivation to keep a blind eye and have finally been acknowledging how dangerous their teachings are like with a more updated article from ABC. There should be a section that Australian national broadcaster, ABC, criticised them for teaching people that race mixing is an evil alien plot to corrupt man and reports of Australian practioners have died from taking the advice that modern medicine is not in their interests. It's obviously a cult when you brainwashed people to believe the leader can read your mind and has supernatural powers and that has been heavily criticised by Australian national media. ] (]) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Again, those are accurately reproduced, attributed quotes from valid sources. Academics tend to talk about these groups differently than you or I do, and usually avoid the word "cult" entirely. See also ]. (That's partly based on the realization that a lot of cult doctrines aren't objectively any "weirder" than those of mainstream religions—Tibetan Buddhists and Catholics both believe that some of their holy men command supernatural powers, for example. But I digress, and this isn't the place for that discussion.) If you come across sources of similar quality that give an opposing view, you can incorporate them. ] (]) 07:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Firstly, it's not appropriate to compare Falun Gong to Catholic Christianity or other long-established religions. Falun Gong is a modern movement entirely invented by its founder, who self-claims to possess divine authority and is still alive today, continuing to reap its benefits. (That should be in the lead)
			::::Additionally, it is misleading to treat one lone source as definitive and accurate without considering context. The whole point of talk here is to gain consensus over whether a source is reliable and enough especially since more recent investigations highlight concerns that contradict the notion of Falun Gong not being a cult.
			::::Here are excerpts from the ABC report, and I encourage you to read these critically and tell me, without bias, whether these findings don't align with what we’d typically classify as cult-like behavior?
			::::''In those early years, Anna watched as her mother gradually became absorbed in Falun Gong. She pulled Anna and her sibling out of a Catholic school and quit her job in the family business to take up selling books for Falun Gong. Her time was increasingly spent doing exercises, meditating, and reading the movement’s teachings.''
			::::''“The leader of Falun Gong claims that race mixing in humans is part of an alien plot to drive humanity further from the gods,” says Anna. “He says that when a child is born from an interracial marriage, that child does not have a heavenly kingdom to go to.”''
			::::''As she struggled with her illness, Anna says her mother rejected doctors’ attempts to put her on medication, quoting Falun Gong teachings. “It means you are a bad practitioner. It means you do not fully trust Master Li. If you take any kind of medication or go to a hospital, even.”''
			::::I am not suggesting we remove sources that state Falun Gong is not a cult. However, like articles on ] or the Unification Church, where the leadership’s actions and teachings are critically examined, the same standard should apply here. The ABC joint investigation highlights significant harm caused by Falun Gong’s teachings on medicine, along with troubling ideological beliefs espoused by its leader.
			::::We should include this investigation in the article and others , clearly attributing these findings to the ABC as a reliable source but we don't have to call it a cult. If we cannot reach an agreement, I propose settling the matter through the arbitration process.] (]) 09:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Cults can even influence the most trusted individuals, so a single academic research is not enough.
			::::Also, comparing regular religions to cults is ridiculous, since regular religions allow you to leave and do not force you to pay the head of the Church, whilst cults do the opposite.
			::::Moreover, the "weirdness" is not a factor to determine a cult from a regular religion. ] (]) 11:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Also, the German wiki does include a lot of bias to Falun Gong, so we need to be careful to make sure this page doesn't have the problems ] (]) 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024 ==
	:Thanks for your comment. Some of it would fit in the "Speculation on rationale" section I think. ] (]) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Falun Gong\|answered=yes}}
	:{{Reply to\|Xiao-zi}} I find that this article is mostly substantiated by third-party sources that comply with ]. Thus, it would not fit the definition of a propaganda. Moreover, in the ] section, it states that the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the disinformation campaign against Falun Gong. The supposed "negative experiences" and other negative issues that you mentioned above align precisely with the claims made by the disinformation campaign of the Chinese Communist Party.
			Please update the chapter on '''Beliefs and Practices''' under the subchapter '''Extraterrestrials''' to include details about the claim that race mixing is part of an alien plot to drive humanity away from the gods. Additionally, want to clarify that the source from ABC News never stated that some practitioners '''believed''' this claim to be metaphorical. The ABC report only explained that some practitioners '''described''' it as metaphorical. It is both unsourced and original research to say these practitioners were honest in their verbal claims and actually believed them, especially considering the same ABC report quickly included a contradictory statement from a former member who said she was taught this as the literal truth and not metaphorical
	:Also, I took a deeper look into the alleged "Falun Gong self-immolation" by the Chinese government. It seems that this was proven entirely as a hoax aimed toward demonizing Falun Gong, according to an abundance of . This would indicate that it's the Chinese communist government that is disseminating propaganda, but not this article. Inferring from facts mentioned above, the Chinese state-run media would be considered as unreliable sources ], and one should not rely upon them.

			Proposed revision;
	:It seems true that a lot of Falun Gong practitioners work in the Epoch Times. Nevertheless, associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate. Because, say, if most employees in the ABC News are Christians, we wouldn't write on the Wiki page for Christianity that "Christians are related to the ABC News". It's the same case here, we shouldn't relate any media company to a spiritual practice that only upholds .--] (]) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
			Replace fourth sentence -
	::{{Ping\|Thomas Meng}} The premise behind the last paragraph is empty, considering our own article on '']'' opens with {{tq\|is a multi-language newspaper and media extension of the Falun Gong new religious movement}}, cited not by a PRC state controlled or pro-PRC outlets, but none other than ''Politico'' and the ''Wall Street Journal'', and, to that end, the Epoch Times page itself under ]. <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>]</small>) 01:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

			'' Li purported that in general extraterrestrials disguise themselves as human in order to corrupt and manipulate humanity, but some practitioners claimed that to be only metaphorical]''.
	:::{{Reply to\|CaradhrasAiguo}}: It seems quite evident that some Falun Gong practitioners started the Epoch Times. However, the chief editor of the Epoch Times, Stephen Gregory said that "Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China." This is the reason why it is inaccurate to associate the Epoch Times with Falun Gong. Doing so would be as illogical as stating that ABC News is associated with Christianity when its founders are Christians.--] (]) 22:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

			With this;
	== Where is the Criticism or Controversy section? ==

			''Li Hongzhi alleged that extraterrestrials disguise themselves as humans to corrupt and manipulate humanity, a claim some practitioners have downplayed as metaphorical. Li also claims that racial mixing among humans is part of the "alien plot" to hurt and distance humanity further away from the gods.''
	In this talk page some user mentions a Criticism section, but it seems that it has been deleted. I find this strange, as such a section (or separate page) is rather common in Misplaced Pages new religious movement's pages, specially from those that remain active. This omission only fuels the idea that this is a propaganda piece and not objective information about the Falun Gong. --] (]) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:{{Reply to\|Bolocholo}} This is absolutely propaganda. This line is particularly amusing: 'Although it is often referred to as such in journalistic literature, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult."'. The citation is to a book written by a journalist... ] (]) 01:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

			I request that the completely UNSOURCED claim of (some practioners believed) be removed or replaced with this more accurate reflection of the ABC source without distortion:
	No, seriously. These people, whether you defend China or not, are batshit insane, and should not be given a free pass to remove objective views or criticism of the Falun Gong on here. They legitimately believe some random Chinese dude is their god, that Trump is the second coming of Jesus, and that the CCP are satanic otherworldly beings. They believe that evolution & science are made up, much like evangelicals. Their membership count is massively inflated (even the Chinese Catholic Church has more people) and they're a menace to anyone that has to deal with these people, much like Scientology in the 80s and 90s. This page needs a massive overhaul ASAP. ] (]) 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

			''Li Hongzhi alleged that extraterrestrials disguise themselves as humans to corrupt and manipulate humanity. According to an ABC investigation, while some practioners downplayed this as metaphorical, a former member, Anna, said she was taught it as literal truth ''
	:The source of your claims is highly questionable. Since, if you read the reference section, you will find that this article is completely based upon third-party reliable sources ]. While on the other hand, the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the propaganda campaign to demonize Falun Gong, and your claims line up exactly with their propaganda. The link here reveals some facts behind the most well-known example of its disinformation campaign--the so-called "Tiananmen self-immolation". https://www.falsefire.com/en/--] (]) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

			(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-21/inside-falun-gong-master-li-hongzhi-the-mountain-dragon-springs/12442518)] (]) 03:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Legitimate cult claims, potentially unreliable sources, Epoch Times ==
	To avoid edit warring I won't continue reverting reverts to my edits.
	While listing the organization as a cult would obviously be biased as there is no consensus either way, to ignore all legitimate claims by Western cult experts that describe it as such is biased.
	Secondly, many claims in the article are unsourced, and a few link directly to CIA-funded organizations, which cannot not be considered an unbiased source without sufficient evidence when reporting on states hostile to the US such as China.
	Finally, the Epoch Times is only mentioned in a single paragraph near the bottom of the page, despite it being a "media extension of the Falun Gong", from the Epoch Times' own[REDACTED] page. The sources listed for the claims in my edit were all legitimate, so I'm not sure why they were simply reverted without any discussion on the topic. ] (]) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

			:{{Done}}. I moved it to a new paragraph as I felt like it didn't fit in the middle of the current one. ] 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*The article already contains a fiarly robust discussion of the "cult" appellation, drawing on high quality RS (which Ross and Singer are not), and explaining the CCP's appropriation of the term as part of its efforts to stigmatize FLG. But this is a complicated topic: "cult" is clearly a pejorative and loaded term, but it lacks fixed meaning in the academic literature. Your summary in the lede section is not an accurate or unbiased representation of what scholars say about this topic.
			::Thank you and also no offense taken. I am just glad someone finally replied and answered the request. Thanks again. ] (]) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*It is acceptable for claims in the lede to be unsourced, because they are expanded on in the article's body. Which "CIA-funded organizations" are you referring to?
	:*That characterization is not accurate, as I understand it, in that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organizational structure that could sustain a media organization. There is clearly some affiliation here, but you're overstating it. This article is about the faith system. Finally, there already is an allusion in the lede section to the Epoch Times and other activities undertaken by FLG followers to disseminate their anti-CCP messages. That is enough for an already long lede.] 18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::Whether or not the Epoch Times is a wing of Falun Gong is also irrelevant for our purposes, they’re a generally unreliable source and shouldn’t be used on any[REDACTED] page including this one. ] (]) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::As numerous reliable sources state quite flatly, ''The Epoch Times'' is most definitely the media wing of the Falun Gong, and that needs mention in the lead, as this extension, as well as Shen Yun, are by far the most visible aspect of the organization. Additionally, Falun Gong is definitely a ]. ]. ] (]) 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

			== Add in quotes from Times interview and ABC report ==
	:*Which of the claims "link directly to CIA-funded organizations,” please be extremely specific. ] (]) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

			Li's interview is very revealing. He claims not just aliens but that there are things that modern science cannot understand. And that the only person in the entire world who understands how to save humanity is himself. He self claims himself as a saviour who learned supernatural powers and known many people who can literally levitate. None of this information is in the article despite this is major stuff. It should be included as it's well sourced by Times Magazine. ''At the beginning you asked why I did such things. I only tell practitioners, but not the public because they cannot comprehend it. I am trying to save those people who can return to a high level and to a high moral level. Modern science does not understand this, so governments can do nothing. The only person in the entire world who knows this is myself alone.'' ] (]) 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::*Reiterating what I've said above, my understanding is that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organization structure that would allow it to have a "media arm." That the Epoch Times was founded by people who adhere to Falun Gong, and that it reports sympathetically on the topic of Falun Gong, is beyond dispute. But the precise nature of that connection actually quite foggy, given the paper's own insistence that it is not formally or organizationally tied to Falun Gong (a plausible position, given what I've read about the practice).
			:To be clear, article should mention in a chapter about FG teachings; the main facts from that interview, that he is preaching that not only does he have supernatural abilities but is telling people that modern medicine / science and governments cannot help them in the future challenges. And rather in his own words, that the only person in the entire world they should trust is him. I also read this article(https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058) and it reveals that practioners have died because they believed in his advice that modern medicine was pointless for them. And that his followers find it hard to not see the leader Li as just a man but instead as some omniscient deity that is always watching them as; ''they believed that Li could read their minds, and that his fashen or “law bodies” — basically, copies of himself that exist in a spiritual dimension — were always next to them and watching their every move and thought.''
	::::::We could also debate the neutrality of the statements you've chosen to include about the paper. But again, that's actually beside the point. This is an article on Falun Gong as a faith system. So whatever the connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong, and whatever the editorial merits or defects of the Epoch Times are, the second paragraph of this article is not the place for it.
			:So there should be a minimum mention in the lead that the leader Li Hongzhi claims to be a saviour of man and has attained supernatural abilities since his youth. And also in the article somewhere, that there's been credible reports of practioners who have died, believing too much in his controversial claims about modern medicine.] (]) 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::*There is a dispute among scholars as to whether Falun Gong should be referred to as a "new religious movement," and scholars with backgrounds in Asiatic religious traditions, in particular, find the label to be inappropriate and confusing. The group's self-understanding also would not support such a description (i.e. Falun Gong's own teachings state that it was previously transmitted orally, through a lineage system, that dates back many generations). We cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim, and so it is best not to take a definitive position in the lede section. The debate on this can, however, be elaborated in the article's body.] 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
			:Is there nobody replying on this page? It's been a week and nobody has replied to the thread. It's a stark difference to getting a response within only minutes initially. However I like to stress and emphasize that what should be included is that the religion teaches people that their leader can read their minds and have supernatural abilities. There's no reason to not mention this when it's true and supported by a national broadcaster who has the integrity and courage to address. Below is an excerpt that supports those facts -
	:::::::Source after source flatly acknowledges and describes ''The Epoch Times'' as the media extension of the Falun Gong, and the paper relentlessly promotes both the new religious movement and its extensions, such as Shen Yun. ''The Epoch Times'' is absolutely not ], as is abundantly clear, and the Falun Gong is not a reliable source for itself, given its media wing's promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda-like promotion of extreme right-wing politics, and a host of other reasons, as has been discussed on Misplaced Pages numerous times. after after flatly refer to the group as a new religious group, despite the organization's claims of being "ancient religion"—which is itself typical of new religious movements. Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and we don't take a new religious movement's position as the default–we stick to reliable secondary sources, and there's no shortage of them these days. This sounds a lot like you're parroting the organization's talking points. Again, ]. ] (]) 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

			''Anna waited. A few minutes later, Master entered the room. He spoke first to the woman and then to Anna’s mother. Then he looked at Anna, looked right into her eyes. He raised his arms, waving them in the air, then he was chanting something she couldn’t understand. Anna as a young girl. “By then it was pretty clear what this was supposed to be,” says Anna, now 25. “This was supposed to be an exorcism.” She was face to face with the man reckoned a God-like figure among his followers at The Mountain, who Anna had grown up believing could read her mind and listen to her dangerous thoughts. But now the spell was broken.
	Whether the Epoch Times is a reliable source is not relevant to this discussion about what should go in the lede of this article. I honestly don't know what you're going on about. "Misplaced Pages isn't censored" is not a convincing retort to the argument that articles should be weighted fairly and proportionally. This is especially true in a lede section. Readers of this article are presumably here to learn about Falun Gong as a faith system. They are not to learn about what you think about the editorial merits of a newspaper founded by some of its followers.
			“I remember looking into his eyes and thinking, ‘you are just another regular, pathetic man’,” she says.''
	On the matter of the new religious movement label, I did not dispute that some people use the term. I pointed out that there exists a dispute among scholars about the merits of this label. That dispute extends to Falun Gong's own account of its provenience. And yes, a group's self-definition is one of the factors that should be assessed when deciding how it is described. Not the only factor, but certainly a factor.] 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:A simple search of academic sources pulls up dozens and dozens of reliable sources flatly discussing that the orgazation as new religious movement, that ''The Epoch Times'' is its media extension, and we don't turn to organizations themselves for self-descriptors, particularly those promoting fringe theories (], ]). In 2020, there's zero question in academia about the organization being a new religious group and zero question that ''The Epoch Times'' is the media extension of the group. ] (]) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

			The point is people who follow Li, believe he can read their minds and always observe them. That he is extremely powerful in a supernatural way. That kind of information definitely deserves to be in the article too. And hope I don't need to wait for long for someone with editing rights, to add it in.] (]) 04:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	::You simply have not engaged seriously with the literature then. Just as you can produced examples of scholars calling Falun Gong a "new religious movement," one could also produce examples of scholars calling it a religion, a form of qigong, or a form of "cultivation" in the tradition of Chinese antiquity. One could likewise produce examples of scholars debating whether NRM is a useful or accurate term. The point is that there is considerable disagreement about the most appropriate way to describe the practice, and that is why there is a whole section in the article dedicated to this question. In the lede section, we should adopt the description that is most neutral, and I'm afraid NRM is not it.] 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::I write extensively about new religious movements, and there's obviously no question that this group falls within the paremeters. There's a small mountain of academic secondary sources that flatly state as much. The new religious movement itself may object to being described as a ''new religious movement'', but they often do—nothing new there. We stick to what reliable secondary sources say. Misplaced Pages isn't a promotional outlet. Prior to my additions, the article made no mention of the phrase ''new religious movement''—clearly scrubbing all mention of it—despite the tremendous amount of academic literature flatly describing the organization as such. That's very telling. ] (]) 21:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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


	::::You are trying to make a case for why this article should, in the first sentence of the lede section, describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement. I have pointed out that while some scholars do indeed use this label, others prefer to use other terms (e.g. religion, qigong, cultivation practice, etc.), and dispute the NRM appellation. For example, David Ownby, who at one time was among the most active scholars writing on Falun Gong, says that it "makes no sense" to call Falun Gong a new religious movement.
	::::Given that there is such a dispute, and given NRM carries some potentially loaded connotations, there is no reason why we should use this word a the definitive description of Falun Gong. It can certainly be included among the list of categories that have been used, and I'm happy to do just that.
	::::By the same logic, the previous version of the article referred to Falun Gong simply as a "religious practice." This is also a contested term, particularly if we consider the connotations of the Chinese word "zongjiao," the meaning of which is far more circumscribed than "religion" in English. (i.e. the Chinese term for religion is used to describe groups that a) enjoy official sanction from the state; and b) have formal institutional structures). Just as Falun Gong's self-understanding does not support being referred to as a NRM, it has also historically resisted the "religion" label, though I note that the dispute arises mostly from differences in language. At risk of sounding a bit new-agey, the most neutral description for the opening sentence is probably something like "spiritual practice".
	::::To Horse Eye Jack, if you read the article, you will see that there are potentially differing accounts of Falun Gong's "age." That's not to say there is a dispute about when it was first popularized—there isn't—but about its lineage and possible historical antecedents, absolutely. ] 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::We go with what reliable, secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, without dispute, just call Falun Gong a ]. There's no controversy. There are far too many academic sources–including NRM handboks—that, without question, just refer to the group as what it is, a new religious group, to even bother discussing this further. Enough with the promotional approach to this article—we're not here to promote anyone or anything, we're here to produce neutral coverage using high quality sources, and we have those in abundance for this topic, particularly now that ''The Epoch Times'', Shen Yun, and more of the organization's extensions are receiving sigifnicant media and academic coverage. Misplaced Pages isn't a promotional outlet. ] (]) 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::You are mischaracterizing the scholarly consensus here by pretending that one exists. There are absolutely debates among scholars about how Falun Gong should be classified, and there is by no means an agreement that NRM is the most accurate term. Ben Penny, for example, has written a book called "The Religion of Falun Gong." Not "Falun Gong, the new religious movement." It is just as frequently referred to as a system of qigong, and, as scholars of Chinese religion write, it is most accurately described as a form of cultivation practice (xiulian). As I've cited above, some of the leading scholars in this field have expressly argued that it should not be referred to as a NRM. Anyway, I've amended the article to note that some people call it a NRM, among other labels that have been employed. ] 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::Lol, we literally have seven of the highest possible quality sources—ranging from 2005 to 2019!—now attached to the phrase "new religious movement". None mention any controversy around the phrase whatsoever, with the exception of one of the earlier sources stating that adherents don't use the phrase. Look, I get that you disagree with this phrase, but I highly suggest you just email some of these scholars rather than spend your day attempting to scrub the phrase "new religious movement" from the article. There's pretty clear scholarly consesus here, and one could easily add hundreds more sources to the phrase if needed. If you find some scholar saying otherwise, go ahead and attach it on their, but isn't helpful. ] (]) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::I've been away for some time and happened upon this page that I used to frequent (mostly with great passivity and abandon.) Can't say I was too surprised to find a bunch of guys debating the ''same-old'', ''same-old''.
	::::::::Just my two cents. I'm not at all opposed to mentioning the term "new religious movement." I think we have ample reasons to include it in the article. What, in my opinion, is important here, is not trying to impose an authoritative, overarching definition in the lede. There's enough disagreement about this, especially since the only indisputable context where Falun Gong can be placed from a historical perspective is China's qigong movement of the 1980s and 90s. That was a far-reaching cultural phenomenon and wasn't considered a "new religious movement" even by the Chinese state, more like a revival of Chinese traditions in a modernized form. Now, Falun Gong is obviously the most well-known (and probably most "controversial") example, but separating it from this context and how it was understood in China at the time is not only highly anachronistic but also ethnocentric. In other words, there are competing academic narratives with significant support. Since this explanation requires more space than we have in the lede, in this particular issue I'd say that I agree with BlueCanoe, even though I'm sure we could have long and winding arguments about some other stuff on these pages. ] (]) 03:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::No offense, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say. We have an immense amount of them—really, a plethora—that flatly state that the group is a ''new religious movement'', without any further discussion. We can expand the section as needed with other voices that fall within ], but scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points is obviously not the solution—and that is essentially what the artilce is at the moment.
	:::::::::Now, as usual, the solution here is to keep digging up reliable sources, just like we do everywhere else on the site, including for other new religous movements (include all those who claim they are ''definitely'', ''certainly'' not a new religious movement, and would rather we look away from their political and commercial activities). I'll be happy to provide them, but I propose we get many more eyes who do the same—as I highlight above, plenty of academics and journalists are writing about these topics, particularly in the wake of ''The Epoch Times'' and Shen Yun. ] (]) 03:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::With all due respect, I don't see this question related to the "group's talking points". ''Obviously'' we can't use Falun Gong's own words as the guiding principle for how this article should be put together. In anthropology, social sciences and religious studies, there's a separation between ]. What I'm saying is that there is no definitive consensus on the ''etic'' definition of Falun Gong in the reliable secondary sources. In this respect, we should definitely give most weight to those who've studied the group and how it's related to the broader Chinese context. But even many of them don't seem to really agree. There is no anachronism or ethnocentrism in "spiritual practice", and it is, by all accounts, the most neutral description that nobody in the academic community ''disagrees'' with. An ''emic'' description would be something like "high-level cultivation practice", and of course we can't use that as the master definition, either. Now, ''that'' would be the group's talking point. But that's not the bone of contention here. ] (]) 03:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I'm keenly familiar with the concept of emic and etic, as are the numerous individuals writing about this organization, as it is in fact a key component to fields, like anthropology, wherein one would write about new religious movements. The group's talking point is that they're a "spritiual practice", as you and adherents here are pushing on the article. Our sources, which are legion, flatly refer to the group as a new religious group. There's nothing to debate here—please spare me the tedious lawyering and discuss reliable secondary sources, please. Want to show an example of good faith? Revert the adherent who has removed dozens of high-quality sources from the article. ] (]) 03:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::You are still not addressing my concern. We're talking about two different things here. I am not opposed to using the term "new religious movement" as one of the characterizations backed up by secondary sources. I have absolutely no idea why this was missing from the article, if that's the case.
	::::::::::::But you're suggesting that we lay down a ''master definition'', even though some of the most authoritative Falun Gong researchers (''not'' its adherents), including professor David Ownby, have disputed the accuracy of that particular label. In other words, to me it appears as if you sought to give an impression of a wide-ranging and far-reaching consensus, whereas I know that the matter is not as simple as that. We're not trying to be populists or ideologues here. Mainstream academic publications must inevitably be ranked higher than, for instance, newspaper articles, and since no real consensus exists, the editors' job is to ''describe the disputed etic definitions'' based on the reliable secondary sources. I'm simply opposed to unwarranted reductionism, that's all. There are no "our sources" and "their sources" – there are only highly reputable, less reputable and disreputable sources.
	::::::::::::And thanks for asking, but I'm not too keen to take part in whatever edit wars you guys have going on. As I said, this is my two cents. I highly prefer reason over power plays. ] (]) 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The term "new religious movement" is being repeatedly stripped from the article, despite being thoroughly referenced to the highest quality sources. I think you can deduce why that is. We have dozens upon dozens of articles from specialists and experts describing the group as a new religious movement, but this is clearly a big no-no for adherents. Again, please refrain with the lawyering and stick to the sources. I've provided you with many, but you're standing by as they're repeatedly removed from the article by adherents. ] (]) 04:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I think we can both agree that adherents stripping the term repeatedly is a problem, and frankly I don't understand why that should be. Whoever is doing this, how about suggesting a proper rewrite that doesn't omit the term?
	::::::::::::::Well, probably I shouldn't put too much hope on random Misplaced Pages editors. I'll propose something tomorrow or the day after, and then we can discuss. It's getting very late. ] (]) 05:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

			] (]) 04:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::It seems to me that you misunderstand how sourcing works. If we have lots of reliable sources that say Falun Gong is a "new religious movement", no amount of sources that do not say that can cancel them. The fallacious reasoning that they can is called ]: if someone does not say "X", that does not mean he implicitly says "not X". What you need to cancel those sources is reliable sources that say Falun Gong is not a new religious movement. All I have seen here in that direction is bluff and bluster. --] (]) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::You are making the same point as Bloodofox, and it contains the same misunderstanding. I did not say that the NRM label should be removed from this page. Please let me know if I should reiterate the above argument in different words to make it even clearer. ] (]) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::Wrong. As you can see from the indentation, I did not reply to you, I replied to TheBlueCanoe. Therefore it does not matter whether you said the term should be removed. TBC wants it removed, and removed it, and argued it should be removed because his sources said they do not mention it. So, I refuted his point. That is not your problem. --] (]) 06:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::But I am at fault here for not making the addressee more clear - unfortunately, correct indentation is not as common as it should be. In future, I will try to remember to add @User in such cases. --] (]) 06:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

	Readers who encounter this article would never know about any of these topics, instead finding a sanitized, essentially promotional overview of the article that could well have been written by the organization itself. ] (]) 23:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
	: All of that is covered extensively by WP:RS, we need at least a paragraph each on Epoch and Shen Yun. ] (]) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

	:::Reliable secondary sources say otherwise, and that's what what we report. ] (]) 03:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::{{Ping\|Clara Branch}}—you've just reverted many academic, secondary sources, and scrubbed the article of the term "new religious movement" (). Please self-revert. ] (]) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Clara Branch}} Changes are implicitly assumed to have consensus unless challenged (]), and editors are encouraged to be ]. Do you have objections to particular changes, and for what reasons?{{pb}}The NYT, Oxford University Press, and Taylor & Francis sources, for instance, seem reliable. The topics are also relevant. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 04:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::I gave her a DS alert last October. I'm trying to give them to all involved ] ] 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

	*I'm not sure why another thread was created; the discussion on the merits of ]'s edits is immediately above. Bloodofox has not offered a compelling answer to the objections raised there.
	*Yes, changes are implicitly assumed to have consensus unless challenged. Bloodofox's edits were challenged, and he edit warred to enforce his changes despite failing to make a good case for them.
	*I can't speak for anyone else, but my own position has certainly been misrepresented here. I have no objection to including references to Falun Gong as a ], and I have stated as much several times already. In fact, I edited the article to include reference to NRM. The problem, as described above, is that this user is insisting that NRM should be the single, authoritative definition given for Falun Gong, and has edited the page in such a way as to suggest that there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that this is ''the definition'' that should be used. This is simply not the case. For the nth time, scholars use many terms to describe Falun Gong: as a religion, as a qigong practice, as a cultivation practice in the tradition of Chinese antiquity, as a faith system, a spiritual discipline, etc. etc. And some scholars also dispute the accuracy and usefulness of the NRM label. So include it, by all means, as one of the terms that has been used to categorize Falun Gong. But given the existence of competing definitions, the lede should remain as neutral as possible.] 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Long time listener, first time (?) caller. I have reverted the edits because they were effectively a result of edit warring and because I have submitted a complaint about that here . No particularly strong opinions on the weight issues themselves for now. The behavior however strikes me as entirely inappropriate. ] (]) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

	:Just to further my note above: I have no objection whatsoever to including reference to the Epoch Times and Shen Yun on this page, just as I have no objection to including NRM among the descriptions that have been given for the practice. But major changes—i.e. a new second paragraph in the lede, a new "master definition" in the first sentence—should be reached through discussion, conducted in good faith. Moreover, the additions that are made should be made in keeping with core pillars of neutrality and verifiability. The paragraph added by Bloodofox to the lede section clearly misses the mark.
	:There is no evidence, for example, that Falun Gong directly operates or owns the Epoch Times. Nor is there is any evidence that Shen Yun promotes anti-LGBTQ messaging. These two claims fail WP:V. And then there is the additional question of neutrality and proportional weight. It's possible to have a lengthy, well-sourced discussion about the editorial stance of the Epoch Times, for instance, in which the views of both its supporters and detractors are presented. But the lede section of this article is not the place to hash out our feelings about the artistic or editorial merits of these organizations.
	:A neutral treatment of would be to note, in the final paragraph of the lede, that these are among the organizations that have been established by Falun Gong adherents since the crackdown began in 1999. Simple.] 19:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
	:: If you don’t think that Shen Yun has anti-gay messaging than frankly you havent read the linked sources, its literally in the article I liked above "Aside from the organ harvesting, '''the homophobia''', the anti-evolution ballad, and the Karl Marx apparition, the thing I found most odd about '''my Shen Yun experience''' in Houston was the hosts’ explanation of Chinese classical dance.”

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

	::{{user\|Bloodofox}}, {{user\|MarkH21}}: I do agree we need to use reliable sources. However, the content User Bloodofox added cannot be supported by the source provided. For example, User Bloodofox added the first line of a paragraph “Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad, which have received notable media attention for their political involvement and ideological messaging…” This can nowhere be found in . User Bloodofox's editing is not in line with WP:V. Is it WP:OS or WP:SYN?
	::{{user\|Bloodofox}}, {{user\|MarkH21}}: Regarding the NRM claim, I have no objection, and just thought it seems not fit for the first line of the lead section. So many contents in the article are supported by RS, User Bloodofox has not explained this is so vital that has to be at the first line of the lead section.
	::{{user\|TheBlueCanoe}}: your view on a neutral mention of these Falun Gong practitioners established organizations makes sense to me.
	::BTW, thanks {{user\|MarkH21}} for the support to the new editors like me. ] (]) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

	::::''"Protest has encompassed an impressive variety of claim-making tactics and organizational forms. Marches and vigils are only the tip of the iceberg. Activism has also included creating a media conglomerate of newspapers, radio networks, and satellite television broadcasting; suing Chinese state leaders under international law in courts around the world; inventing and distributing web browsing software that people in China can use to evade Internet firewalls and censorship; hacking into mainland Chinese television networks to broadcast Falun Gong media; creating brochures and weekly updates on Falun Gong news that are tailored to locally specific regions in China by overseas practitioners and then distributed in those local mainland places by clandestine networks of practitioners; coordinating hundreds of thousands of telephone calls into China, some of which target ordinary members of the public and others targeting local bureaucrats engaged in policing Falun Gong; lobbying governments and international agencies around the world to decry the repression of Falun Gong as a human rights violation; systematically and daily seeking out PRC tourists to Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, New York, and elsewhere to hand them leaflets and newspapers militantly critical of the CCP; and networking with adherents in China to monitor human rights abuses in China and broadly publicize information."''] 00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::You're still trying to scrub the article. Among many other aspects of the new religious movement, Junker discusses the Falun Gong's propaganda efforts (cf. p. 99) and his hostile treatment by ''The Epoch Times'' ("we know who you are ... he is the enemy", p. 101), and so it's unclear to me what you're trying to do with this quote, exactly, which is obviously out of context and which you've inserted to replace discussion about the well-covered activites and increasingly public activities of the ''The Epoch Times'' and Shen Yun. Of course, as is well documented by many a reliable source, both are very aggressive and quite political propaganda arms of the new religious movement. But there's no discussion about that at all here. You have, for some reason, swapped that discussion out with the muddy paragraph above, removing along with it the several sources, now absent from the article. Now, why is that?

	:::::—and, by the way, are you in violation of ]? (, , , ). If not, you're terribly close, and the system wasn't designed to be gamed. Please self-revert. ] (]) 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

	::::::: {{ping\|Bloodofox}} Bloodofox is also making what seems to me to be unsourced or unclear claims about Zambian emerald mines on the ] page. ] (]) 03:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{ping\|Geographyinitiative}} The relevance of that to this article is...? — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::: Perhaps it is irrelevant. ] (]) 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::Excuse me? ], which are fully cited to reliable sources, as anyone can see—''and which are also completely irrelevant to this discussion''. Kindly strike out your remarks here. ] (]) 04:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

	Yes, that is a sound proposal. I hope we can get past the imputations of bad faith and actually parse these issues systematically. I will note that Bloodofox added the contested content without first achieving consensus. Several editors, here and elsewhere, raised objections to the way he chose to frame these issues. Editors are encouraged to be bold, but when you meet with reasonable objections, the onus shifts to you to justify your changes. That's an exercise that takes patience and some mental discipline, but it's fruitful if everyone is acting with a sincere desire to present these issues as fairly as possible. Agreed? ] 04:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:100% agreed. ] (]) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:Reminder: ]. Please go ahead and self-revert , {{ping\|TheBlueCanoe}}. ] (]) 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

	:Which are those "reasonable objections" again? I only saw reverts, fallacies, and misrepresentations. One such fallacy is ] ("that's how we have always done it" or "this is a stable version"). Another is ]: we do not cancel sources which say "FLG is a NRM" by sources which do not say it.
	:But yes, it should be done systematically. I will try to summarize the questions where there is a difference of opinions, and when everybody agrees that those are the points of contention, we can make a section for each.
	:*Should The Epoch Times and Society of Classical Poets be mentioned in the lede? If yes, in what form?
	:*Should we write that there is a consensus that calls FLG a "new religious movement"?
	:Are those the questions? Anything else? --] (]) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

	::Thanks Hob. That seems like a good place to start, so let's begin there.
	::'''Should the Epoch Times be mentioned in the lede, and if so, how?''' Yes, a neutral and representative lede section could absolutely include reference to the media organizations established by Falun Gong adherents. It makes sense to situate this as part of a broader claim-making strategy that the Falun Gong community adopted as a response to the suppression in China. That appears to be the context in which you find these discussions in Ownby, Penny, Junker, Noakes, et al.
	::The problem with Bloodofox's approach is threefold:
	:::1) The decision to put this in the second paragraph of the article is narratively incongruous, and assigns it undue weight and prominence in the article. The creation of the Epoch Times and Shen Yun, along with other Falun Gong activism, can only be understood in light of Falun Gong's broader history and its suppression in China: these are essentially activities undertaken by members of an exiled diaspora community, as a response to a persecution. Narrative cohesion thus demands that we first introduce the facts of Falun Gong's suppression, and then explain Falun Gong's response, of which these properties are undoubtedly a part.
	:::2) The statement that Falun Gong "administers" the Epoch Times is not well supported. As I have stated above, it is beyond dispute that the Epoch Times was founded by persons who practice Falun Gong. But this is not the same as being owned, operated, or administered by Falun Gong. There are groups that serve as quasi-official mouthpieces or press offices for Falun Dafa, but the Epoch Times is not one of them. It should suffice to say that the Epoch Times is an initiative undertaken by adherents of Falun Gong, or that it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, or similar. Because that much is absolutely clear.
	:::3) There's the question of neutrality, including ]. Bloodofox has been quite candid about his disdain for things Falun Gong-related, and while I appreciate the candour, we need to try to present issues from a neutral point of view. What does that look like? Well, just as we would not heap praise on the Epoch Times in the lead section by, say, noting the journalistic awards it has won, neither should we try to define it by cherry-picking the critical sources that we like. Both approaches serve propagandistic purposes, and run a risk of ]. The lede section of an article on Falun Gong is simply not the place to hash out arguments about the editorial merits or defects of a newspaper, or to debate its place within a Chinese-language media ecosystem, or whatever else. Remember: our goal is not to induce readers to think well, or poorly, of the Epoch Times.

	::'''Should we write that there is a consensus that calls FLG a "new religious movement"?''' - No, because no such consensus exists. To reiterate the points made above: I have no objection to including "new religious movement" as one of the labels that has been applied to Falun Gong. I find it strange that this was not in the article, which is why I added it in one of my recent edits. This is undoubtedly one of the terms that reliable sources have used to describe the practice.
	::But it is not the sole, authoritative definition, and there is some dispute (including among scholars) about its usefulness and accuracy. So while it should be included among a list of terms used to describe Falun Gong, I see no reason why it should be given preeminence in the first sentence when more neutral descriptors may be available to us.
	::Again, reliable sources use many different terms to define Falun Gong, and scholars will often employ several different terms interchangeably. The most common terms in the academic literature include religion/religious movement, a form of qigong, a cultivation discipline, a new religious movement, and so on. (Several experts have written specifically about the difficulty of pinning down a definition for Falun Gong: it simply does not neatly fit into any of the existing categories). Dozens of academic references could be produced to support any one of these labels.
	::In addition to the wide variance in terms, the NRM definition has also been disputed; David Ownby, for instance, has stated that it "doesn't make sense" to describe Falun Gong this way. Another editor put it well: the goal is not at all to "scrub" this term from the encyclopedia—that doesn't make sense. The goal, rather, is to avoid unnecessary reductionism. There is a space in this article to describe the problem of Falun Gong's categorization, where some of the nuance here can be drawn out. But the first sentence should offer a simple, neutral descriptor. The previous version called Falun Gong a religious practice. There may be reasons to dispute that label too—I briefly outlined some above—but it is a commonly used term that generally carries neutral denotations (I think). Another proposal is "spiritual practice," which is even more broad, and perhaps less likely to provoke a dispute. But happy to hear counter-arguments.] 08:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	:::You are still lawyering to get the phrase ] out of the article, and you're talking a whole lot about nameless individuals rather than citing reliable secondary sources. Your desire to maintain a version of the article that just so happens to align with exactly how the organization would prefer to present itself is noted, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, flatly, and without mincing words, simply refer to the organization as a ''new religious movement''. It's that simple. Again, NRMs often don't like to be called NRMs, but academics don't tailor their analyses to the desires of their subjects.
	:::Secondly, your repeated removal of any mention of the various propaganda arms of the NRM and downplaying of connection ('well, gee, these members just so happened to form an organization....') and bizarre flattery about "journalistic awards" (what?) is in no sense aligned with the reality of what is exclusively a propaganda arm of Falun Gong, is not going to be taken seriously by anyone who has reviewed the propaganda eco system surrounding this group. ''The Epoch Times'' in particular, and other media arms of the Falun Gong are widely known for their political involvement with extreme-right circles, investing large sums in campaigning for Donald Trump, and spreading conspiracy theories, including about Covid-19, just to name a few topics. You seem fixated on keeping these topics out of the article by any means necessary—and there are several other accounts hovering around this and related articles with the same revert-happy aim.
	:::I'm not interested in engaging in intentionally obfuscating conversation about these topics with you. I'm currently putting together a section that addresses these topics with reliable sources.
	:::Finally, I suggest you drop the 'you just don't like them' angle—we get it a lot in pseudscience and fringe circles, and it's a clear red flag that they can't argue from reliable sources anymore. Please don't waste my time with it. ] (]) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

	::::*I am not "lawyering to get the phrase ] out of the article." I have said repeatedly that the phrase should be in the article. I included it in one of my recent edits. I'd ask that you stop misrepresenting my position and accusing me of bad faith.
	::::*I have not "repeatedly removed" mention media organizations created by Falun Gong practitioners. These organizations are described in the article, and I agree that a reference in the lede is also appropriate. I've raised reasonable disagreements with your edits in this respect, and would ask that you address them calmly.
	::::*Other editors here have agreed that changes should be worked out through discussion and consensus-building, and that we should approach proposed changes systematically, issue-by-issue. You are now saying that that you are unwilling to do this, and that you intend to force through the changes you want without discussion. Is that right? If so, I'm afraid we'll have to appeal for some kind of mediation here. ] 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::::Let's not play games here, these are your edits: , , , . All those reliable sources? Poof, gone. Again and again. That's scrubbing.
	::::::No need to continue to refer back to this mysterious "other editors" chorus (evidently the many single-issue accounts that happen to float around this and related articles, often new, often with few edits), we have substantive issues to add to this article, and nobody needs permission.
	::::::We report on reliable sources on English Misplaced Pages, which for this topic would be academic works or ]-compliant media reports (so, no, not—as you call them—the "award winning" ''Epoch Times''), the type you're removing over and over in the diffs above. We provide reliable sources, and sometimes we have to discuss them, ideally in a succinct, accurate, and straightforward manner. That's all there is to it on Misplaced Pages.
	::::::And when that's not the case, there's good reason to ask why that's not happening. In short: Back your claims with ]-compliant sources or move along. ] (]) 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:23, 17 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falun Gong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Falun Gong, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Falun Gong. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Falun Gong at the Reference desk.

Falun Gong was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 29, 2012	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 20, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
December 27, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias in the international reception section

There is section in the "International Reception" about Adam Frank which straight up says that the isn't a cult and the "cult" definition is due to stigma. Can somebody remove it, because it's quite biased. Yippt (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yippt Denied. These are attributed opinions from academic sources. They do, however, need full citations, which I will add shortly. Nicknimh (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nicknimh@Yippt It's also heavily outdated. Last source is 2007. After they started supporting Trump, media outlets have less motivation to keep a blind eye and have finally been acknowledging how dangerous their teachings are like with a more updated article from ABC. There should be a section that Australian national broadcaster, ABC, criticised them for teaching people that race mixing is an evil alien plot to corrupt man and reports of Australian practioners have died from taking the advice that modern medicine is not in their interests. It's obviously a cult when you brainwashed people to believe the leader can read your mind and has supernatural powers and that has been heavily criticised by Australian national media. 49.186.112.179 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@49.186.112.179 Again, those are accurately reproduced, attributed quotes from valid sources. Academics tend to talk about these groups differently than you or I do, and usually avoid the word "cult" entirely. See also MOS:CULT. (That's partly based on the realization that a lot of cult doctrines aren't objectively any "weirder" than those of mainstream religions—Tibetan Buddhists and Catholics both believe that some of their holy men command supernatural powers, for example. But I digress, and this isn't the place for that discussion.) If you come across sources of similar quality that give an opposing view, you can incorporate them. Nicknimh (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not appropriate to compare Falun Gong to Catholic Christianity or other long-established religions. Falun Gong is a modern movement entirely invented by its founder, who self-claims to possess divine authority and is still alive today, continuing to reap its benefits. (That should be in the lead)

Additionally, it is misleading to treat one lone source as definitive and accurate without considering context. The whole point of talk here is to gain consensus over whether a source is reliable and enough especially since more recent investigations highlight concerns that contradict the notion of Falun Gong not being a cult.

Here are excerpts from the ABC report, and I encourage you to read these critically and tell me, without bias, whether these findings don't align with what we’d typically classify as cult-like behavior?

In those early years, Anna watched as her mother gradually became absorbed in Falun Gong. She pulled Anna and her sibling out of a Catholic school and quit her job in the family business to take up selling books for Falun Gong. Her time was increasingly spent doing exercises, meditating, and reading the movement’s teachings.

“The leader of Falun Gong claims that race mixing in humans is part of an alien plot to drive humanity further from the gods,” says Anna. “He says that when a child is born from an interracial marriage, that child does not have a heavenly kingdom to go to.”

As she struggled with her illness, Anna says her mother rejected doctors’ attempts to put her on medication, quoting Falun Gong teachings. “It means you are a bad practitioner. It means you do not fully trust Master Li. If you take any kind of medication or go to a hospital, even.”

I am not suggesting we remove sources that state Falun Gong is not a cult. However, like articles on Scientology or the Unification Church, where the leadership’s actions and teachings are critically examined, the same standard should apply here. The ABC joint investigation highlights significant harm caused by Falun Gong’s teachings on medicine, along with troubling ideological beliefs espoused by its leader.

We should include this investigation in the article and others , clearly attributing these findings to the ABC as a reliable source but we don't have to call it a cult. If we cannot reach an agreement, I propose settling the matter through the arbitration process.49.186.112.179 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Cults can even influence the most trusted individuals, so a single academic research is not enough.

Also, comparing regular religions to cults is ridiculous, since regular religions allow you to leave and do not force you to pay the head of the Church, whilst cults do the opposite.

Moreover, the "weirdness" is not a factor to determine a cult from a regular religion. Yippt (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the German wiki does include a lot of bias to Falun Gong, so we need to be careful to make sure this page doesn't have the problems Yippt (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

Proposed revision; Replace fourth sentence -

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

With this;

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

49.181.65.24 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Which practitioners? Without a direct quote or citation of them, the sentence reads like MOS:WEASEL imo Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's in the mentioned ABC source. What other source could I possibly even mean? ABC never wrote that they believed that. This is original research that's unsourced and should be removed. What ABC wrote was that they "claimed" it was hypothetical, without making any judgement that they were telling the truth or not. Though the ABC source hints they are flat out lying because they quickly follow up by saying a confirmed ex member contradicted them and said that she learnt it as the literal truth. Hence I request that the sentence should be more closer to what ABC actually said and remove the unsourced Weasel wording. 49.180.253.95 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude. I'm working on the article now. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is the ABC source: .

The article states: "Some practitioners have explained Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth."

The current Misplaced Pages edit wrongfully writes practitioners "believe" this as "metaphorical", but the ABC article provides no such consensus and instead highlights Anna's contradictory account to suggest the honesty of their claims are questionable.

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

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

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

Done. I moved it to a new paragraph as I felt like it didn't fit in the middle of the current one. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and also no offense taken. I am just glad someone finally replied and answered the request. Thanks again. 49.180.253.95 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Add in quotes from Times interview and ABC report

Li's interview is very revealing. He claims not just aliens but that there are things that modern science cannot understand. And that the only person in the entire world who understands how to save humanity is himself. He self claims himself as a saviour who learned supernatural powers and known many people who can literally levitate. None of this information is in the article despite this is major stuff. It should be included as it's well sourced by Times Magazine. At the beginning you asked why I did such things. I only tell practitioners, but not the public because they cannot comprehend it. I am trying to save those people who can return to a high level and to a high moral level. Modern science does not understand this, so governments can do nothing. The only person in the entire world who knows this is myself alone. 49.180.244.73 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, article should mention in a chapter about FG teachings; the main facts from that interview, that he is preaching that not only does he have supernatural abilities but is telling people that modern medicine / science and governments cannot help them in the future challenges. And rather in his own words, that the only person in the entire world they should trust is him. I also read this article(https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058) and it reveals that practioners have died because they believed in his advice that modern medicine was pointless for them. And that his followers find it hard to not see the leader Li as just a man but instead as some omniscient deity that is always watching them as; they believed that Li could read their minds, and that his fashen or “law bodies” — basically, copies of himself that exist in a spiritual dimension — were always next to them and watching their every move and thought.

So there should be a minimum mention in the lead that the leader Li Hongzhi claims to be a saviour of man and has attained supernatural abilities since his youth. And also in the article somewhere, that there's been credible reports of practioners who have died, believing too much in his controversial claims about modern medicine.49.180.244.73 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there nobody replying on this page? It's been a week and nobody has replied to the thread. It's a stark difference to getting a response within only minutes initially. However I like to stress and emphasize that what should be included is that the religion teaches people that their leader can read their minds and have supernatural abilities. There's no reason to not mention this when it's true and supported by a national broadcaster who has the integrity and courage to address. Below is an excerpt that supports those facts -

Anna waited. A few minutes later, Master entered the room. He spoke first to the woman and then to Anna’s mother. Then he looked at Anna, looked right into her eyes. He raised his arms, waving them in the air, then he was chanting something she couldn’t understand. Anna as a young girl. “By then it was pretty clear what this was supposed to be,” says Anna, now 25. “This was supposed to be an exorcism.” She was face to face with the man reckoned a God-like figure among his followers at The Mountain, who Anna had grown up believing could read her mind and listen to her dangerous thoughts. But now the spell was broken. “I remember looking into his eyes and thinking, ‘you are just another regular, pathetic man’,” she says.

The point is people who follow Li, believe he can read their minds and always observe them. That he is extremely powerful in a supernatural way. That kind of information definitely deserves to be in the article too. And hope I don't need to wait for long for someone with editing rights, to add it in.49.186.112.179 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent news Regarding Falun Gong

Money laundering charges shake up The Epoch Times management : NPR

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

Categories: