Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 20 July 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 43) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance 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. Template:WP1.0

RfC on describing Falun Gong as a new religious movement

Should this article say in the lead that Falun Gong is a new religious movement? Doug Weller talk 08:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A - Yes.
B - No.

!Votes

Note that this is not a ballot and the closer will make a decision based upon the quality of the arguments.

• Weak yes but for wholly OR reasons. It seems to be it meets the overly wide definition of what religion is today.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, it clearly is one. If Buddhism is a religion, even though many of its practitioners are atheists, then Falun Gong is certainly one too. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, there are many RSes that describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica and countless academic sources. Just a few examples:
  • Chapter in an Oxford University Press book
  • peer-reviewed East Asian studies journal article
  • peer-reviewed sociology journal article
  • peer-reviewed sociology journal article
  • peer-reviewed communications journal article
  • peer-reviewed academic journal article
  . — MarkH₂₁ 10:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The article already mentions that academics of religion label it a new religious movement and doesn't provide any academic counterexamples. Followers of the religion really only reject the label because:
  - they want potential supporters and converts to think it's complementary to whatever belief system they already hold (c.f. similar attempts by Scientology and Trancendental Meditation).
  - they think the religion is the correct and eternal form of the Qigong practices that all historical Buddhist and Taoist sects imperfectly imitated and corrupted. (Vajrayana in turn has a comparable history of claiming to be much older than it really is, so I guess that part is traditional).
  Neither of those reasons is part of our mission. The only reason to not label it as such would be a level of WP:GEVAL on par with listing Mormonism as the religion of the Kingdom of Judah. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes I don’t know why we would treat them differently from any other new religious movement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• A (yes) Even if there were followers of FLG ideology in earlier times, its existence as a large, cohesive spiritual organization with leadership and codified tenets (Teachings of Falun Gong, 1992) is undoubtedly "new". Its leader claims practicing this "higher form of qigong" (that he discovered) allows one to attain Tao...alongside "supernormal abilities and gong potency" like levitation...which are not possible with the lower levels of qigong people were practicing earlier. This distinction especially--that only his qigong methods and teachings lead to higher states of being--disqualifies FLG from being truly "ancient". As for the religion aspect:
  • FLG has an origin story for mankind.
  • In Falun Dafa Li proposes general religious themes like central tenets and "evils" to avoid, and then formulates a detailed, systematic doctrine outlining a path to salvation.
  • As with other religions (and cults), "bad things" are ascribed to the machinations of unseen/unrecognized beings or wills--in FLG, these are aliens that have come to Earth to take over humans' perfect bodies (by fomenting the conflicts that stimulate technological progress, which eventually will lead to our ability to clone humans, to whom "the gods in heaven will not give ... a human soul", allowing the aliens to replace the soul.) These evil beings manifest more often and more clearly as you progress through the cultivation process, and you must guard your xinxing against mounting "demonic interference" (taking the form of sexy ladies and telephones ringing when you're trying to do exercises).
  • "Good things" like being healed are of course attributed to the cultivation system, and "if your illness has not been cured, that is ... an issue of your enlightenment quality". (And if your illness later returns, it's actually not the same illness but rather "tribulations" arranged by Master Li to improve your mind-nature; if you are a true cultivator you can no longer get "human" illnesses because " been busy coming in and out of " curing you. Even if you don't feel cured). JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes it is what it is and that is why many reliable independent sources describe it as such. We could even consider the current mention overcited. —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes until there are good alternatives. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - not as the single, master description, but Yes as one of several labels or categories that has been used to describe the practice.

That is the nature of the dispute here, which was not captured by the original question.

No one on the relevant talk page has argued that the NRM label should be excised, or that it is not used by reliable sources. Rather, the question is whether it is the term that should be given prominence in the first sentence of the article on Falun Gong, or whether there are better options. Academic sources describe Falun Gong using several different terms, often interchangeably (e.g. a religion, a religious movement, a qigong practice, a 'cultivation practice,' a spiritual discipline, and so forth). At least two scholars have argued that the "New Religious Movement" label does not make sense as a description for Falun Gong. Given that such a dispute exists, and that other descriptors may be more accurate, this should not be the single, authoritative definition used to describe Falun Gong. (Note that until last month, the lead sentence referred to Falun Gong simply as a "religious practice," and earlier versions used "spiritual practice.") TheBlueCanoe 04:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per MarkH21's sources, this appears to be the most common label and we should follow RS accoding to core content policy. buidhe 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• No(t as the main definition). But it's complicated.

  The question as posed is leading. The question could have also been "Should Falun Gong be called a religion/spiritual practice/discipline/etc. in the lead?" To which one would also have to say "yes, along with the other ways it has been classified."

  It is unclear why New Religious Movement should be the primary or controlling classification. It is not clear that it is the most common "label" - and in any case, good social science (and tertiary sources) proceed not by labeling things, but by describing them.

  I would modestly suggest that we editors not be too ready to "read into" a phenomenon like Falun Gong Western-oriented styles of thinking and classification, and instead examine the anthropological and area literature that has focused on such phenomenon, situating them in a specific Chinese cultural context.

This is what I came up with at my university library in 40 minutes of digging. I am sure there is a great deal more to it.

The question of classification is not simple in any social science, especially on matters of religion.

I do not think we have any warrant to simply override all this and declare a "master definition" to which all others are subservient due to our particular tastes.

What was the description before all this? Based on the above, I think if there has to be a single master definition, it be the most widely accepted — i.e. "religion" or "religious practice" — with the various alternatives then given in the appropriate place ("self cultivation practice," "new religious movement," "social movement," "spiritual discipline" etc. etc.)

"Religious practice" or "religion" is already covered by "new religious movement." The latter is primarily a sociological classification that is disputed in the literature and is only one among a number of classifications available for Falun Gong. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Reliable sources—including handbooks on new religious movements—flatly and overwhelmingly refer to Falun Gong as a new religious movement. This is only really controversial to adherents, particularly those who hope to veer the conversation away from discussion about Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong's compound headquarters in Deer Park, New York. It's fairly typical for groups like these to present themselves as 'ancient' and as a 'spiritual movement' to obfuscate their pyramid-shaped structure, but Misplaced Pages isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For readers unaware, here are just a few examples of how unequivical scholars are about this observation:

• Barker, Eileen. 2016. Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, cf. 142–43. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1317063612
• Clarke, Peter. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1134499694
• Hexham, Irving. 2009. Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, pp. 49, 71. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0830876525
• Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, pp. 23–24, 33, 119, 207. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1108655897 ("Even though Falun Gong began as a quigong group, it is now widely regarded as a new religious movement", p. 33)
• Oliver, Paul. 2012. New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 81–84. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781441125538
• Ownby, David. 2005. "The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China" in Lewis, James R. & Jesper Aagaard. Editors. Controversial New Religions, 195–96. Oxford University Press.
• Partridge, Christopher. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, 265–66. Lion. ISBN 978-0745950730.

And if that didn't make it clear, and although adherents will claim otherwise, there's nothing remotely controversial about this in academia—we have plenty of quotes like, "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions. Oxford University Press.) :bloodofox: (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. And yes, maybe there is some historical nugget, but, like Mao's co-option of "traditional" Chinese medicine, any resemblance to the historical is largely coincidence. Guy (help!) 22:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Very strong No, not as a bald statement. Nathan868 was not looking at the full breadth of scholarship on May 10 when he changed the wording from "Chinese religious practice" to "Chinese new religious movement". Bloodofox doubled down on the previous term by adding the adjective "overwhelmingly" while citing a bunch of sources, but even these did not tap the breadth of scholarship. Some of Bloodofox's sources describe the Falun Gong in complex or multiple terms, for instance Andrew Junker who calls it first a social activist group and then a religious movement. And his James Lewis source is from 2005, before Lewis learned more about the movement and radically changed his position. His 2018 book Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom is a much better assessment. We should call the Falun Gong a political activist movement that evolved into a religious movement in order to carry out its goals. The chronology is critically important here. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Junker himself repeatedly refers to the group as a new religious movement throughout his book, as cited in the article (p. 33: "Even though Falun Gong began as a quigong group, it is now widely regarded as a new religious movement"; p. 24: "a politicized new religious movement", p. 29: "not only is Falun Gong a new religious movement, it is also a case of a charismatic community led by the heroism of a faith healer turned messianic preacher", etc.). It is indisputable that academic sources in fact overwhelmingly refer to the group as a new religious movement, as has now been repeatedly demonstrated. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it ought to be stated as a new religious movement since there are several reliable sources pointing it out to be a religious movement. Idealigic (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but this need not be exclusive of other terms. Despite others editors' assertions to the contrary, I find the question in the RFC ambiguous. If the question is whether that should be the primary description to the exclusion of all others, I don't think so. I see no compelling reason to prevent the use of other descriptive terms also found in reliable sources. As others have mentioned, it can be problematic to honestly identify that "most" reliable sources use a particular phrasing, especially considering there may be many less-known but equally reliable (by[REDACTED] standards) sources that we're unaware of. However, just using the language "new religious movement" is clearly supported by reliable sources and I see no non-idealogical argument that would prevent the use of that term alongside others that come from reliable sources. Arathald (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly FG is regarded as a NRM by sources. To be honest, my natural impulse would be to call it just a new religion (I don't see the purpose/meaning of "movement" in the context of religion), but it seems sources like the term NRM very much. That certainly does not mean we couldn't use another description in addition to NRM to describe FG's other facets. Notrium (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, David Ownby nailed it. It's the most apt categorisation I have come across to date. -- Ohc  22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• @TheBlueCanoe: There were an awful lot of edits that removed the words newreligious movement from the lead sentence entirely though.It’s the most common descriptor by RSes compared to the example alternatives that you list, so it’s not unreasonable for it to be the sole descriptor in just the first sentence.Regardless, you have a proposal for an alternative lead sentence incorporating the other terms? — MarkH₂₁ 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not actually clear that it is "the most common." But even if it were numerically, the books by Benjamin Penny, Junqing Wu, David Ownby, and Ming Xiao all suggest that the matter is far more complex. They do not primarily adopt this classification, but others like folk religion, lay religion, religion, etc. All of those sources are embedded in the native linguistic and cultural context of Falun Gong; quite different from a Western discipline (new religious studies) whose primary function is in a sense precisely about sociological abstractions. This is the point Ownby is making above. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Cleopatran Apocalypse: A handful of sources that apply different labels or debate categorization doesn't change that; Misplaced Pages reflects what most RSes say. Regarding your specific quotes:
  • All of the quotes from Weihsuan Lin just say that they have spiritual practices, rather than call Falun Gong a spiritual practice.
  • You quote Benjamin Penny's uses of other labels; he himself has also written (bolding mine):

    Falun Gong is a new religious movement that grew out of the widespread enthusiasm for qigong during the 1980s and early 1990s in China.
    — Benjamin Penny, Chapter 28: Falun Gong from Handbook of East Asian New Religious Movements, Brill Publishers, 2018.

  • You also quote David Ownby who himself wrote a book chapter called The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China as well as (bolding mine):

    There is little doubt that the most objective Western scholars would categorise Falun Gong as a new religious movement.
    Falun Gong is now undoubtedly the best known of Chinese new religious movements
    — Ownby, David (2003). "The Falun Gong in the New World". European Journal of East Asian Studies. 2 (2): 303–320.

Nobody is saying that these labels are mutually exclusive, but it's pretty clear that a vast number of RSes describe it firstly and plainly as a new religious movement. There's no reading into this from editors; the examples I listed above are good social science (and tertiary sources) from reputable academic journals across a variety of disciplines and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and there are countless others. — MarkH₂₁ 06:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both (@MarkH21: and @Cleopatran Apocalypse:) for the measured analysis. We could use more of it.

I'm curious how you think we could establish what "most RS" say, or what the most common term is among academics studying FLG. It seems to me that, before we can assert with confidence that this is what most sources use, we would need to do a pretty extensive survey of the academic literature and actually try to do a quantitative (and qualitative) assessment. That would be a major undertaking, and I can't claim to have done this. But having read most of the major scholarly texts on this topic, it seems to me that is no consensus on how to describe the practice, as so much of it is contingent both on the cultural context and the scholarly discipline (e.g. sociologists may be more partial to NRM, while historians of China may use terms that are more adapted to that culture). While there are indeed large numbers of RS that use the NRM label, there are at least as many that use "religion," "religious movement," "faith system," "qigong," "cultivation practice," etc.

So, given that we don't know what term "most" academics use, and that scholars in fact use many different labels interchangeably and with great frequency, what criterion should we apply when deciding what description to give? Three things come to mind (you may have more ideas):

• It should be a term that has broad support among reliable sources, particularly academic sources
• It should be as accurate as possible (which may also mean it should be quite a broad category)
• It should be a term that is at least somewhat accessible and recognizable to an English-speaking audience
• Insofar as some categories are contested, it should be as neutral as possible,

Is that reasonable? If we can agree on this, then settling on a word would be easier. TheBlueCanoe 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the only term which fits the above criteria is New Religious Movement and thats exactly the term which is being objected to. We’d be right back at square one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. "Religion" or "religious practice" or similar also fits these criteria. So does "spiritual practice" or "spiritual discipline" or similar. We have options. But is there agreement that these criteria are appropriate? TheBlueCanoe 00:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but they don’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As I've had to explain to salespeople elsewhere on the site, synonyms aren't different things. "Contemporary" = new. "Spiritual" = religious ("Spiritual but not religious" just means "I'm enthusiastically indecisive about my religious beliefs, probably as a result of being more broadly than deeply educated about theology"). "Faith system" = religion. "Grouping" = movement. "Network" = movement. A contemporary faith system network is a new religious movement. A modern spiritual grouping is a new religious movement. The "other" terms that scholars are using are synonymous with New Religious Movement.
If FG wasn't centered around the teachings of Li Hongzhi, then FG sites wouldn't collect everything he's written and said to the exclusion of other Qigong teachers. Because Li was born just last century and (even if he is just rehashing older ideas) he disavows the authority of any surviving lineages that predate him, his teachings are new. These teachings might generally be about "self-cultivation" but explains it with and provides means that are well within the realm of religion (any attempt to label it "science" would require a "pseudo-" in front of it). And this is a distinct movement, or else all this would just be a couple of sentences in the Qigong article. It is not Chinese lay religion in toto as was inaccurately quoted earlier. It is a new religious movement, full stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone finally explain to me what the real issue is with a description along the lines of "Falun Gong has been described as x, y, , and z", as long as we identify the most common characterizations in reliable sources? Obviously NRM is one of them. To me it's clear that there are good arguments supporting various definitions, some of which overlap to a degree. I'm not in favor of any kind of ambiguous word salad, but the concept of a hermeneutic circle applies here as elsewhere: all parts are part of a whole, and nothing can be truly understood or defined without its cultural, historical and literary context. While I'm personally agnostic about all kinds of spiritual matters, I know enough about Chinese history, culture and the classics of comparative religion to oppose reductionism and oversimplification. This dispute is between those who seek to pinpoint a single, specific ontological slot and those who believe that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source that should simply describe what reliable secondary sources are saying. My understanding is that the latter is what WP:NPOV is all about, and that it is also a guardrail against ideological or tendentious editing, even when it is not immediately apparent to the vested parties.

To draw attention to just some of the complexities, I'm quoting Noah Porter's thesis , with a reference to Xu Jian's article in The Journal of Asian Studies:

"Falun Gong was first introduced to the Chinese public as a qigong practice, not as a religion or superstition (although even in China, these boundaries been contested). Qigong is primarily seen as a way to keep healthy rather than a religion; the Chinese government has generally tried to encourage it as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine (Kipnis 2001: 36). “Chinese traditions assume a profound interpenetration of matter and spirit, body and soul Like most qigong practitioners, Falun Gong do not make a clear distinction between physical and spiritual healing” (Madsen 2000: 244). Even within qigong, there have been struggles between science and supernaturalism: Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists—so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted. In it, two conflicting discourses became identifiable. Taking “discourse” in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own “truth” about the “reality” of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena. The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its occult workings, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge of modern science. " Bstephens393 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Scholarship on the topic of the Falun Gong overwhelmingly and flatly refers to the Falun Gong as a typical new religious movement. Examples include the following:

• Barker, Eileen. 2016. Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, cf. 142–43. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1317063612
• Clarke, Peter. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1134499694
• Hexham, Irving. 2009. Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, pp. 49, 71. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0830876525
• Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, pp. 23–24, 33, 119, 207. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1108655897
• Oliver, Paul. 2012. New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 81–84. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781441125538
• Ownby, David. 2005. "The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China" in Lewis, James R. & Jesper Aagaard. Editors. Controversial New Religions, 195–96. Oxford University Press.
• Partridge, Christopher. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, 265–66. Lion. ISBN 978-0745950730.

And these are just a few extremely obvious examples from a span of over 15 years. We report on what reliable sources say, and reliable sources are not ambiguous on this matter. Media sources, on the other hand, note that the new religious movement is frequently referred to as a "cult" (a recent example), which is also quite typical for new religious movements. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats a very good point... I hadn’t noticed that the whole “use all valid descriptions” crowd has not once mentioned cult although that would unquestionable be on the short list if we’re making a list of valid ways to describe FG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The question that Bloodofox answered (repeatedly) is whether there are reliable sources that describe Falun Gong as NRM. That is not the question I posed. For instance, under this talk page section, the collapsed list of sources posted by User:Cleopatran Apocalypse contains various mainstream descriptions and their sources. None of the editors has provided the rationale for an exclusive master definition instead of an inclusive list of reliably sourced definitions, one of which is New Religious Movement. I keep wondering how many more times, and with how many alternative phrasings, this same-old question must be brought to our attention. (As for Business Insider, there is currently no consensus on its reliability.) Bstephens393 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of an inclusive and complex description rather than a cherry-picked exclusive master definition (as if such a thing would ever be representative of all the literature.) To me it looks like those in favor of the NRM label are looking for the presence of that phrase rather than looking at the complex breadth of descriptions in those same sources. And as I said in the above section, the Lewis source from 2005 is said by Lewis himself to be incompletely researched with faulty conclusions. Lewis wrote a much better book in 2018, Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, which followed his 2017 paper Understanding Falun Gong’s Martyrdom Strategy as Spiritual Terrorism. Lewis says he had "failed to keep up with the developing scholarship on Falun Gong" and, after a firm reassessment in 2015, he says the larger picture of Falun Gong showed itself to be complicated and contradictory. Lewis makes a strong case for the Falun Gong to be a cult following a charismatic leader, Li Hongzhi (LHZ), who clearly thinks of himself as "Buddha returned – or as a spiritual master superior to the historical Buddha." LHZ repeatedly calls for his followers to martyr themselves in defense of Falun Gong. Lewis also talks about how Falun Gong is very much a political organization, despite disavowals of that aim by LHZ. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Scholars use the phrase new religious movement for what is coloquially referred to as a cult. That's why media sources repeatedly refer to Falun Gong as a cult whereas scholars flatly and overwhelmingly refer to the group as a new religious movement.

The new religious movement itself, of course, would prefer the general public to think of it as an ancient tradition rather than a new religious movement financially and ideologically centered on Li Hongzhi—but that's not the reality of the situation, of course. This very typical of new religious movements.

But don't take it from me: "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions. Oxford University Press.:bloodofox: (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that the key problematics identified by The Blue Canoe have been addressed, and instead people are simply asserting their preferred term. The sources we have at present give a variety of terms for defining, classifying, and describing FLG - with NRM being among them. (Note also that most of the sources which use NRM are in the field of NRM studies or sociology; just as many of the sources that come at it from an area studies or cultural field use terms like 'spiritual practice' or 'religion' etc. Each group of scholars wants in a sense "ownership" of the phenomenon, to be the ones who speak about it authoritatively. It seems that FLG is all of these things, depending on who is doing the classifying. We are in the invidious position of having to implicitly adjudicate between how much prominence is given these discourses, while keeping in mind all of Misplaced Pages's content and neutrality policies.)

This is not a question of what goes in the article at all, but about which is the very first definition provided. The Blue Canoe suggested that it be "a term that has broad support among reliable sources, particularly academic sources; be as accurate as possible (which may also mean it should be quite a broad category); be a term that is at least somewhat accessible and recognizable to an English-speaking audience; Insofar as some categories are contested, it should be as neutral as possible." These are sensible guidelines, and the responses so far have not disputed their appropriateness, or suggested other guidelines for adjudicating, nor responded to how X term is best justified with reference to those guidelines. They have simply asserted their preferred term. But given that we have a dispute, we need to have a common language for resolving it.

With this in mind... I think that terms like "traditional practice" or "faith community" lean a bit too much to one side, whereas terms like "social movement" and "New Religious Movement" lean too much to the other. All are valid descriptors in my mind, and there is space for all such classifications in the article... but as a single, simple, uncontested term (in the scholarship), I think that "religion" is fairly hard to go past. Something that is an NRM is perforce already a religion; i.e. NRM is simply a more specific description sociologists use for certain kinds of religions.

FLG does not like the "religion" description, because they are unincorporated (though its practitioners establish corporations themselves) - but it is manifestly a religion. Nor is the term "religion" a primarily sociological classification, or term of art, of only a few decades vintage, the application of which specifically to FLG has been contested (including by Ownby himself, saying the term “makes no sense” in the Chinese context; I guess his view changed over time? I read his whole book recently - recommended - and he also notes there that the NRM term is scholars' "way of disputing Chinese authorities’ claims about the dangers inherent in the movement without necessarily telling us much about Falun Gong itself"; elsewhere he writes that NRM studies is a "a highly divided and polemicized field" which "spends too little time on the context and history of individual groups" and too much time classifying "good" groups and "bad" ones. He also notes that for all of the FLG social movement activism, it is deeply religious in character. Junqing Wu also raises doubts about the utility and neutrality of the NRM appellation, saying that it has actually just become a byword for cult. That seems another reason for not using this term as the master definition for Falun Gong, since the first term used should be the most scrupulously neutral.)

It almost seems as though the stakes of this discussion are about whether the term is used on the page at all. That is not the case. It is about the very first declarative sentence which establishes what Falun Gong "is". This term should be the absolutely lowest common denominator in the sources - not something that is in dispute, and around which controversy swirls. Falun Gong is a religion. Is there anyone here who disputes that?

Therefore I suggest that we cut our losses, call it a religion in the first sentence (Benjamin Penny's book does so in the title), and then get into the complexities and disputes around classification and the competing scholarly disciplines that vie for authority to define Falun Gong and on what basis, in the body of the article.

If the NRM term has become more accepted recently (presuming we can show that) then that would also be worth noting.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You write: "This term should be the absolutely lowest common denominator in the sources - not something that is in dispute, and around which controversy swirls."

Agree - that captures the criterion I outlined on using a label that is as neutral as possible. And yes, if Falun Gong is a NRM, it is most certainly also a "religion." Religion is also a term has extensive support in the academic literature ("The Religion of Falun Gong" is literally the title of one of the leading scholarly works on the topic).

One quibble is that "religion" is not perfectly without dispute either, because it doesn't reflect the self-understanding of the practice itself (surely, this is one point of view that ought to be considered. We shouldn't be excessively deferential to a faith system's view of itself, but when describing a faith system, we have to at least provide the means of understanding it from within its own ontological frame). In the Chinese context, some of the objections that scholars have raised on the NRM label are also applicable to the "religion" label.TheBlueCanoe 18:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These attempts at wiggling away form the widely applied term "new religious movement" and complaining about scholarship while also lambasting US media as 'left wing' aren't going anywhere. Scholars overwhelmingly refer to the group as a NRM. Media sources, on the other hand, repeatedly note that it has been widely referred to as a cult.

Those are easily the two most widely applied terms when referring to the Falun Gong, both among academics and in colloquial discourse. We even have direct quotes from scholars saying exactly that, as I've repeatedly quoted. I think we've had more than enough obfuscating, blurring, and wriggling to avoid these realities on this page, particular from one-issue accounts that mysteriously arise from dormancy when these topics come up on Misplaced Pages.

This is particularly an issue given that the above two accounts have complained about media more broadly elsewhere on this page, here and here. Lobbying to attempt to remove the phrase NRM is, of course, in line with the desires of this particular group, but not what the vast majority of reliable sources on this topic reflects. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatran Apocalypse's suggestion of using the label "religion" instead of "new religious movement" is a good one. Elsewhere on this page Helen Farley is cited as saying "new religious movement" but in her 2013 paper in Journal of Religion and Violence titled "Self-Harm and Falun Gong: Karmic Release, Martyrdom or Suicide" she calls the group a "religion" and points out that is not simply a harmless system of meditations for maintaining good health as its adherents would prefer you to believe, but "first and foremost a rigorous system of morality" (Farley, 2013). In that assessment she cites Penny 2003, 644; Chan 2004, 676; Ackerman 2005, 501; and Burgdoff 2003, 336. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore comments that aim to impugn the motives of other editors, or that repeat earlier assertions that have already been refuted (e.g. "scholars overwhelming use x term" is an assertion that cannot be made without doing a comprehensive survey of the academic literature. If it were undertaken, one would find considerable disagreement among scholars. "Many scholars use x term" is a valid statement, bu just as one can make that claim about the NRM designation, one can also apply the same method to find ample support in academic literture for "cultivation practice," "Qigong," "Religion," and so forth). I proposed above that the way forward here is to establish agreement on the criteria that should be used to decide on the summary description offered in the opening paragraph. Here again were the criteria I proposed (with amendment as explained):

• It should be a term that has broad support among reliable sources, particularly academic sources
• It should be as accurate as possible (which may also mean it should be quite a broad category)
• It should be a term that is at least somewhat accessible and recognizable to an English-speaking audience (while avoiding excessively Euro-centric definitions or concepts)
• It should be as neutral as possible (e.g. avoiding labels that are highly contested).

I added one qualifier to third point above. While it seems obvious that the term we use should have a plain, English-language meaning, we should be careful to avoid a very Euro-centric definition. We have to remember that this is an indigenous Chinese faith system/practice that, as many scholars have noted, defies easy categorization based on "western" concepts. An article about a Chinese faith system should not attempt to force it into different, culturally specific categories at the expense of accuracy. Similarly, we should bear in mind that, when dealing with certain sociological terms, a word's use within an academic discipline is not always the same as the popular meaning of a term. If there's agreement on the criteria, then we can have a meaningful discussion about which terms best match them. TheBlueCanoe 18:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude you’re beating a dead horse... Just stop. Its interesting that you brought up Qigong, would you be surprised to know that your first edit to[REDACTED] was on that page? In fact your first edits appear to be related to the exact same discussion topic we have here... Falun (symbol) and New Tang Dynasty Television followed Qigong. You certainly have been active in this space a long time, now why would someone who has been active in the space for so long post such blatant bullshit as "We have to remember that this is an indigenous Chinese faith system/practice” why? The idea that FG is one of China's indigenous religions is laughable, its younger than most of the other NRMs with wiki pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The matter of how Falun Gong should be described on this encyclopedia is not a "dead horse." This thread is literally discussion about how to describe the group, and multiple editors are attempting to engage in this conversation in an intellectually seriously way. If you find this topic uninteresting, and if you're incapable of participating constructively, I'm sure you can find other things to do with your time.

And thank you for illustrating what an ad hominem argument looks like. I do indeed have an interest in Chinese religion and philosophy! But there's a benefit in that, which is that I know something about the corpus of scholarly literature on this topic. Enough to know, for example, that several academic sources have described Falun Gong as an indigenous Chinese practice, and this is not at all "laughable" as you claim (seriously, if it's not indigenous to China, where you do you suppose it's from??). Here are some examples:

• "Falun Gong emerged from a milieu that was culturally shaped both by strands of traditional religious culture, which has a long history in China, and by the institutions and discourses that characterized China’s socialist era. With only quite minor exceptions – such as Li Hongzhi borrowing in a bricolage way from Western New Age discourse and popular culture – Falun Gong was a thoroughly indigenous Chinese movement".

• "The allegation that organs have been harvested from prisoners of conscience first emerged in 2006 from diaspora practitioners of Falun Gong, an indigenous Chinese spiritual practice suppressed by the PRC authorities since 1999".

• "Anyone who has studied the group must admit that there is something deeply indigenous about Falun Gong. As Arthur Waldron puts it: “…anyone who knows Asian religion will instantly see that Falun Gong fits into a tradition that extends back before the beginning of recorded history.”

• "although it is not a recognized religion, Falun Gong is steeped in indigenous practices of qigong, in addition to incorporating moral ideas and meditative practices from Buddhism and Taoism. It represents an indigenous spiritual, moral, and health movement that appears to be an opposite to Marxism with Chinese characteristics, opposite in the sense that it is spiritual rather than materialist, concerned with personal self-cultivation rather than social reconstruction, and lacks a dialectical view of history and class struggle. At the same time the movement's emergence directly challenges whether socialism has really benefited the citizenry, since here is an indigenous religious movement flying in the face of the Marxist prediction that with social modernization religion will simply wither away. The church-state perspective highlights the fact that Falun Gong's open practice in public spaces represents a religious challenge not only to the government's near absolute authority but also to its attempt to cordon off religion from public life and public view. The ethnographical perspective foregrounds how, as an indigenous religious development, Falun Gong directly contravenes Han Chinese Nationalist self-understanding, because most of Falun Gong's practitioners within China are Han Chinese. The fact that Han Chinese would turn to ancient spiritual sources contradicts the Han Chinese narrative about its lack of religiosity, thus representing a deeply internal threat in the government's nationalist identity."

• " not so much a new religion as a recognizable variant of widespread qigong practices. Its leader is seen as a charismatic figure with extraordinary levels of insight, but most founders of Buddhist and Daoist sects in Asia – even of groups considered quite mainstream – are considered by their followers to have extraordinary spiritual capacity most Falun Gong members are well integrated with the rest of society. For many, Falun Gong practices are attractive precisely because they do not take an undue amount of time and do not interfere with work or ordinary social life. Some of Falun Gong’s claims will seem incredible, even bizarre, to secular people, especially Westerners…But Falun Gong is by no means the only group to make such claims. Though perhaps near the outer edge of the normal spectrum of Chinese indigenous spiritual practices, Falun Gong does not seem to go far enough over that boundary to be considered a cult”.

Back to my question, because I don't want this discussion derailed again: is there agreement on the basic criteria that we should be applying, as outlined in my previous comment? Or would anyone like to proposed changes to those criteria? TheBlueCanoe 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And in today's news, man on Misplaced Pages claims new religious movement founded by Li Hongzhi in the early 1990s and based out of a compound in Deer Park, New York is in fact an ancient tradition. By this guy's proposed criteria, Scientology—which is considerably older than Falun Gong—might as well also be an "indigenous practice". Bizarre stuff and so far out of line with scholarship that this conversation is veering into deep fringe territory. Stick to the sources and skip the lawyering, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The above statements are all attributed to scholarly sources (and one book from a scholar, but in a popular imprint). They were provided as examples of instances where Falun Gong has been described in the academic literature as an indigenous Chinese spiritual practice. Note that I am not necessarily arguing that this is the description we should use on the encyclopedia. At this stage I'm just trying to work toward a consensus on the criteria that should be used in deciding on a description, and I am not advocating for a particular outcome.

Again, are the proposed criteria agreeable (to everyone who actually wants to work through this in a measured and thoughtful way?) Have I missed something? TheBlueCanoe 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Now let's take a look at these squirrely citations, shall we? In the order in which they're cited above:

• Andrew Junker, who repeatedly and flatly refers to Falun Gong as a "new religious movement"–like just about every other scholar
• Matthew P. Robertson of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, chaired by Lee Edwards of the The Heritage Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom (surprise?)
• A book by non-scholar Ethan Gutmann published by Prometheus (note their half-functioning website)
• Unclear what is going on here exactly
• And, finally, no citation provided

Finally, I wouldn't bet that editors won't check up on what you're citing moving forward, and I recommend actually checking to see if an individual you're claiming to be a scholar is, well, a scholar. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Indigenous" is laughably wrong and ridiculous. We cannot tell the reader flatly and baldly that Falun Gong is indigenous to China. Whoever is trying to fit that word in must stop. I can see that it has already been stuffed into the article, but as soon as protection is lifted it will be removed. The problem with the word is that it is used in the source in a contradictory manner, first to describe qigong, saying "Falun Gong is steeped in ancient indigenous practices of qigong". After that, the author conflates the term "indigenous", using it describe qigong mixed into Falun Gong, thereby giving a false halo of elderly standing to the obviously modern group. It is not accurate, and requires removal. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. The Blue Canoe has presented a variety of sources showing that Falun Gong is referred to as "indigenous" — certainly, I presume no one disputes that it appeared in China, whether or not under the circumstances claimed by the founder or not... but the response here is not actually quite responsive to the issue. Indigenous means "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native." Is Falun Gong native to China, or not? It's hard to know what to make of comments like "laughably wrong and ridiculous", or that whoever is putting the word in — which we see appears in multiple reliable sources — "must stop." What accounts for this? It seems it is fine to cite non-scholars in other contexts; why not this one? The purpose it would seem is not to give a "false halo of elderly standing," but to properly characterize the cultural and religious milieu in which Falun Gong exists... is it not? I do not understand the commitment to shout this down on the basis of its supposedly positive valence.

More specifically, I observe a double-standard in how sources are being handled. The arguments against these sources above are not exactly clear — Robertson is out because the organization is conservative? Gutmann is out because he's not a scholar (what about other non-scholars? What about scholars in unrelated disciplines?) It's simply confusing. I also think the tone should be more collegial. What is "accurate" is, apparently, determined by reliable sources, and The Blue Canoe provided several. It's thus far from clear that it "requires removal," and much further justification for the problems with the sources needs to be provided. I'm not aware of any rule stipulating that all sources with conservative leanings are banned from the encyclopedia. Having just checked, it appears that Robertson is a PhD student as well, for whatever that is worth. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that this conversation seems to have become derailed again. It seems that most people don't disagree with the "religion" formulation. I propose then that we proceed on that basis, as the so-called "master definition" in the first sentence, then get into the more detailed questions of classification in the appropriate section. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no such consensus — in fact, the poll above demonstrates an overwhelming support for following reliable sources, which is Misplaced Pages policy, and sticking to what scholars overwhelmingly use: New religious movement. We have a mountainrange of quite straightforward sources flatly and quite straightforwardly referring to the organization as a new religious group, and even outright stating that is what scholars use to refer to the group.

Now, it's pretty clear where you fall on this, consensus and the overwhelming body of scholarly sources obviously don't back it. There's certainly no consensus to flatly refer to the group as a 'religion' to somehow tiptoe around the most commonly used phrase: New religious movement—and certainly no consensus to refer to it as 'indigenous', lol, and the Blue Canoe's coverage of including "positive" coverage of The Epoch Times now that it is clear that it won't be removed from the article is also ludicrous.

Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and we don't tiptoe around scholarship's use of the phrase "new religious movement" here or anywhere else to appease any outside body. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would characterize the results of this RfC differently. The question was whether Falun Gong should be described as a NRM in the lead, and the consensus appears to be Yes to that question, but with several editors noting the qualification that NRM should not be the singular definition given in the lead sentence, or as the "master definition" of Falun Gong, because there is some disagreement in the academic literature about the term's accuracy and usefulness, and because it is a sociological term of art, and there's no reason for that discipline to take precedence.

Also, as noted by myself and several others, Bloodofox's assertion that this is "the most commonly used phrase" has not been demonstrated. The editor has produced several examples of scholars using the term, which is all well and good, but just as a dozen references to NRM can easily be produced, the same method could turn up dozens of references in the scholarship to other terms, such as "qigong," "religion," "spiritual practice," and so on. This has been noted multiple times, and Bloodofox seems to be refusing to get the point.

I see a few editors have proposed "religion" in the leading sentence (of maybe "religious practice" would flow best)? This does seem to be a fair compromise: it has extensive support in the scholarly literature, it's a term with a plain English meaning, it's accurate, and it's a value-neutral terms. The only slight hesitation I'll raise, for the purpose of this discussion, is that the Chinese translation (zongjiao 宗教) has a much more confined meaning. "Religion" in Chinese refers exclusively to institutionalized religions, and specifically those approved by the state. Although Western scholars have argued that the Chinese definition of the term is far too limited and that Falun Gong does satisfy the definition of a "religion" as understood in the West, Falun Gong itself resisted the classification as a zongjiao 宗教. TheBlueCanoe 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can bury this talk page in academic pieces flatly referring to Falun Gong as a new religious movement, complete with quotes that state that scholars refer to Falung Gong as a new religious movement. That has flatly been demonstrated. I've provided dozens. Meanwhile, your lawyering (the question posed above was literally "Should this article say in the lead that Falun Gong is a new religious movement? Yes or No"—no room for misunderstanding there—the consensus is clearly yes) and repeatedly mentioning "several" editors without naming exactly who is getting quite old, but scrubbing attempts like these are flatly unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And anyone can flood the talk page in academic sources that refer to Falun Gong as a "religion," or a "spiritual practice," or a cultivation system, or a qigong practice. We've been over this.

Lest the discussion be derailed again: beyond the objection that I raised to the "religion" descriptor in the first sentence, are there other objections or discussion?TheBlueCanoe 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion above this discussion (although you clearly don't care for the results so far). Calling Falun Gong an "indigenous religion" obviously isn't going to fly. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The quote that says "The allegation that organs have been harvested from prisoners of conscience first emerged in 2006 from diaspora practitioners of Falun Gong, an indigenous Chinese spiritual practice suppressed by the PRC authorities since 1999" is from Matthew Robertson, a FLG practitioner with whom I have sparred for years. He cleverly stealthed that classification in. But it isn't a classification that necessarily excludes the NRM label. I believe "indigenous" simply means home-grown – Merriam Webster defines it as "produced, growing, living, or occurring natively or naturally in a particular region or environment", which it pretty much is, without implying any sort of historical longevity. Acting very much like the CPC with its propagandists, and seeking to banish whatever stigma is attached to any new label it feels uncomfortable with, the FLG is deliberately conflating the practices of qigong with Falun Gong, which arguably is a new-age fusion of evangelism and breathing exercises. David Ownby, one of the most prominent experts on the movement, amongst many other scholars, refers to it as a "new religious movement", and that probably fits better than any other label that I have seen to date. -- Ohc  22:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem comes with mixing “indigenous religion” as used by religious scholars with “indigenous religion” as some sort of colloquial where it can mean whatever we want. In religious studies religions are generally broken down into three main categories: indigenous religions, world religions, and new religious movement. This is why any label of indigenous is contentious as it can be used to backdoor in arguments about FG not being a NRM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The indigenous religions article definition would exclude the characteristics of FLG, I have no doubt. Anyway, as you pointed out (and also from my own experience), TBC has been loyally prosetylising for the FLG flag since their first days on WP, so I'd say they are not a disinterested nor dispassionate editor as far as this topic is concerned. -- Ohc  22:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

These arguments against the term "indigenous" are important in pointing out that while terms have certain precise meanings — to which Falun Gong may indeed conform in this instance — words also have vaguer sensibilities, and we may not wish to convey them in certain cases. Whether or not I agree in this case, the general structure of the argument is true. I'd note it applies just as well to NRM, however, around which there is dispute in the literature. This is why I suggest the dullest and least connotative word available, "religion" or "religious practice" in the first sentence, and all the other classifications in a section dedicated to the classification of Falun Gong. At this point, Falun Gong may even be an "essentially contested" concept.

BTW, Ohconfucius, regarding your comment below: I thought we were supposed to assume good faith about everyone. The one thing I do when I go to this page is, first, take a deep breath, then carefully read what people write and form a judgement. The Blue Canoe knows the literature on this topic inside out, and I respect that. His arguments are presented clearly. People respond with personal attacks and he simply moves on. Others should respond to the actual points he makes.

Finally, @Ohconfucius: you may also want to see whether you are allowed to doxx Misplaced Pages editors like that, if it is even that person. In fact, I just read that policy and you should probably delete the name and request oversight. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"NRM, however, around which there is dispute in the literature.” can you show us where in the literature this is disputed? I literally have not seen it be directly disputed once. All I’m asking for is a quote from a WP:RS, doesn't even have to be more than a sentence long. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I pasted that for you above, in the sources that were collapsed. Including by Ownby himself. See also in Junqing Wu's book, p. 16 "The term “new religious movement” has recently been coined to replace the value-laden “sect” and “cult”.28 Falun Gong has sometimes been categorised as such. However, this term is also unsuited to Chinese lay religion as defined above, as it is commonly used to refer to groups of post-Second World War origin. Besides, “new religious movement” has already started to carry negative implications as well." It's not that I agree or disagree necessarily, but simply that the argument has been made, language has highly complex emotional effects on readers, and we should try for scrupulously neutral (and accurate) wording. By definition issues of classification are not quite questions of empirical or scientific accuracy as such. Social science classifications are as much products of specific fields as anything else. So there are always going to be disputes about the use of specific labels. The categorization should be addressed at greater length in the body. The plain factual statement of "Falun Gong is X" should be the absolute common denominator. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Junqing Wu is speaking about what they define as "lay religions,” (a term of their own creation as they contend that there is no adequate term in western academia to describe the totality of the concept) not FG in particular. There is no other mention of FG in the section The Target Object of the Heresy Construct: ”Lay religion" where you pulled that quote from. In fact the condition "However, this term is also unsuited to Chinese lay religion as defined above, as it is commonly used to refer to groups of post-Second World War origin.” wouldn’t apply to FG as they were founded post WWII. Only the second contention could be made to apply in an extremely roundabout and indirect way to FG, they don’t contend that NRM is an inappropriate term for FG just "lay religions” in general. You’re gonna need to do better than that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Junqing Wu categorises FLG as a "lay religion" and in that passage he says that the term NRM is not suitable for lay religions. So, it seems clear to me that he is casting doubt on the utility and appropriateness of this term in the context of classifying FLG. Ownby is above quoted saying the term NRM "makes no sense" in a Chinese context. Note that I'm aware of the paper where he uses this in the title; but you asked for signs of dispute, an indication that the term is in some sense in question. In his book Ownby says that the NRM classification can also be a way of "disputing Chinese authorities’ claims about the dangers inherent in the movement without necessarily telling us much about Falun Gong itself."

My view on the term is that of course Falun Gong is an NRM. But I also am rather more aware that the term itself is a sociological abstraction. There's no reason it should be the single master definition that comes first in the article, and that terms with absolutely no baggage are to be preferred. Moreover, area experts in Chinese religion are to be favored over sociologists, because FLG arose from an entirely different cultural and social context. I've made these point several times. No one has explained why a more neutral term like simply "religion" or "religious practice" does not do all of the work that NRM does in the lead sentence, without doing any other work. There's no consensus for the change, and no reason has been given against "religion" or "religious practice." Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Summing it up - religion?

As this dispute above petered out, the last words were Horse Eye Jack demanding some scholarly source which cast doubt on the utility of the NRM appellation, which I provided.

Has anyone explained why "religion" or "religious practice" is not suitable for the first sentence? To note once more, the issue is not whether or not FLG "is" an NRM or not, but whether that's the best master definition. I advocated a broader term and not a sociological abstraction, and I don't actually see any reasoned pushback against it above. FLG doesn't describe itself as a religion, but it obviously is. This simply seems the least controversial, widest-use term. And all the other ways it's been categorized get hashed out in that section. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As in secondary scholarship, which overwhelmingly and flatly refers to the group as a new religious movement—and for which it is a cookie-cutter example, there's overwhelming consensus to use the phrase above. Religion obviously doesn't take into account the meaning behind new religious movement, namely that it was founded by its leader, Li Hongzhi, in the 90s. You're beating a dead horse. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are very fond of these words — but how do you define or quantify "overwhelmingly and flatly"? Please try. All you can really say is that these terms are used to describe the group in many sources. Just like all the other terms that were brought forth. Your continually insisting on this doesn't change the fact that other terms are also "overwhelmingly and flatly" used to refer to the group (see, since we don't quantify or define our terms, I can use the adjectives freely see). The problem is how to adjudicate between which "overwhelmingly and flatly" used term is the one to use as the master definition. All you can say for your side is "overwhelmingly and flatly" and that everyone except you and a few other editors hate everything that is negative.

There is not a question that FLG is an NRM. There is also not a question that it is a religion. You want to emphasize the "new" aspect of it; I am saying that there are more substantive reasons to emphasize the "religious" aspect of it, and sources calling into question the utility of the NRM term specifically. So, you should respond to that and not keep repeating yourself. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Summing it up we appear to have an overwhelming consensus to use NRM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we need another RfC that asks a question about whether the lead sentence should refer to it as x or y. That was not the question this RfC asked. TheBlueCanoe 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV and due weight in section organization

Currently, the first section of this article following the lede is titled "Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and political involvement.” It includes long excerpts of exclusively critical/one-sided news reporting on these two entities, with a fair bit of loaded language thrown in for good measure.

Editors defending this section have argue that the material is “well sourced,” and therefore should not be removed. Alas, WP:RS is not the only content policy on this encyclopedia. If it were, the encyclopedia would become a massive garbage heap of disjointed facts and statements. We are editors: our job is to curate, to select, to summarize, and to present information in a manner that is narratively coherent, digestible, and that represents a neutral point of view.

To that end, even if this entire section passes WP:RS (and it might not; I’ll leave that open for now), it most definitely fails to adhere to other content policies, notably WP:NPOV, WP:DUE. Here’s a non-exhaustive explanation of why:

• The placement of this section at the top of the article’s body is narratively incoherent, and assigns it undue weight and prominence. The article should absolutely include summary descriptions of the media/arts organizations established by Falun Gong adherents, which include Shen Yun and the Epoch Times. But these organizations didn’t arise in a vacuum. They grew out of a very specific context: scholars tend 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’’ (refer to Ownby, Penny, Junker, Noakes, et al). The creation and orientation of these organizations can only be understood in light of Falun Gong's broader history, beliefs, and its suppression in China. These are essentially activities undertaken by members of an exiled faith community, as a response to a persecution.

Narrative cohesion demands that, in an article about Falun Gong, we first introduce what Falun Gong is, the historical context in which it arose, the history of antagonism and repression by the Communist Party, the scattering of a diaspora, and the response from Falun Gong to that repression, and the assessments thereof. That is why information about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun (etc.) had been placed under the subheading “Falun Gong’s response to persecution.” It either belongs there, or perhaps “Falun Gong outside China” or “international reception.”

• The placement of this section at the top of the article’s body is an example of WP:UNDUE. This is not an article about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. This an article about the faith system of Falun Gong. There are multiple books written about the persecution of Falun Gong, the history of Falun Gong, the beliefs system of Falun Gong. There are ethnographic studies of the diaspora communities, and books about Falun Gong’s international advocacy. There are at least three whole books focusing on allegations of state-sanctioned organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. An article about Falun Gong should cover these topics in a way that is coherent and proportional to their prominence in reliable sources. That some Falun Gong-adjacent organizations have been criticized by left-leaning media organizations for their support of Trump or for disagreeing with the theory of evolution (or whatever) is not the most important thing about Falun Gong, and we misrepresent the body of literature on this topic when we pretend that it is.

• The placement of this section at the top of the article’s body is an example of WP:RECENTISM. This one is obvious. In an article about a globally dispersed faith community with an interesting and complex history, we should take a long-term, historical view, and not allow the article to be overtaken by whatever the recent controversies are.

• The content of the section is exclusively negative, and is not a representative sample of the full range of academic discourse on these topics. This section is sourced entirely to fairly recent (last few years) news article, from organizations that are all identified as leaning quite far to the left of the political spectrum, and all making essentially the same criticisms. Irrespective of where this section is in the article, the content of the section itself fails WP:NPOV; it is cherry-picked and fails to represent a full or representative spectrum of views in a neutral and proportional manner. Positive, or even neutral, assessment of the Epoch Times or Shen Yun are missing entirely, as are responses from these organizations to the criticisms that have been made. The use of lengthy excerpts lifted straight out of these articles is especially bizarre.

I'll note that the addition of this material never gained consensus on the talk page. Editors have simply edit warred to keep it in, in various incarnations. The WP:BURDEN now rests with them to explain why it should be kept in this form. TheBlueCanoe 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Man, these attempts at scrubbing the article to parrot the Falun Gong's narrative sure are relentless, but they're rarely this transparent. The "globally dispersed faith community" this guy is talking about is new religious movement based out of Deer Park, New York that rotates around the teachings of one man, Li Hongzhi.

For years, this article has been haunted by editors such as this guy, who have aggressively pushed, lawyered, and edit-warred to ensure that the article reads as a puff piece for Hongzi's new religious movement. These swarms of editors are now on the defensive because within the last year media has caught wind of the Falun Gong's politicial activities and support of far-right groups and conspiracy theories, alongside relentless promotion of Donald Trump through the group's media extension, The Epoch Times.

Now they're pushing to have the material wholesale removed—the sources are legion, and it's not happening. In fact, what the article needs is a total rewrite reflecting what reliable sources actually say about the pyramid-like structure of this particular new religious group and its activities, something this article currently goes to great lengths to avoid. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the above has anything to do with aggressive pushing or lawyering. I agree that the criticisms can and should be summarized and placed in the article appropriately per WP:NPOV. The article should read like a well-structured scholarly overview.

I also want to add the only way forward is for each of us to go through the discussion points one by one and calmly defend our views with reasonable arguments. Misplaced Pages is based on these kinds of discussions. Some editors still seem unwilling to engage in that process. Bstephens393 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that the above account, Bstephens393, had last edited in 2013 before snapping back into editing on May 20, 2020 to edit Falun Gong articles and to weigh in on RfCs against editors aiming to keep the article from parroting Falun Gong talking points.

This return from a long retirement occurred exactly as the Falun Gong article saw a push to insert material not in line with how the new religious movement presents itself, including the introduction of discussion regarding The Epoch Times' and Shen Yun ().

The account generally supports TheBlueCanoe's requests and pushes the same similar 'hey, mainstream media is left-wing!' narrative (example), while tauting that it has not edited the article. This sort of thing is all too typical for this and other Falun Gong-related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Blood of ox, you need to actually respond to The Blue Canoe and stop the ad hominem. He provided a quite extensive argument and your response is... "attempts at scrubbing the article to parrot the Falun Gong's narrative"? Please. Respond to the arguments and refer to Misplaced Pages policy when doing so.

Specifically on the procedural rather than content issues at play, the observation about the manner in which the editing has been conducted seems quite accurate. In fact, that is why I find myself here right now. Rather than attempting to persuade anyone or engaging in serious argument, you're simply accusing people of being FLG puppets. I urge you to actually respond to the substantive arguments that have been put forward. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The high relevance and importance of Falun Gong's media wings and their political activity is obvious, and backed by a plethora of sources. The Blue Canoe's above call for "positive" coverage of The Epoch Times is also ludicrous. And while wont to complain about tone and "white fury" toward Falun Gong (and also the Chinese government), the above account also started editing in this space around May 20, and immediately attempted to have yours truly topic banned at arbitration. This attempt was rejected and editors noted that there appears to be some level of off-wiki collusion going on at this articles and others. Whatever the case, like the Blue Canoe, Cleopatran Apocalypse has also repeatedly tried to scrub the article, removing any and all mention of Shen Yun and The Epoch Times and the phrase new religious movement, of which the FG does not approve. Not a surprise that the account consistently echoes the above two accounts. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apocalypse: I believe that you are innocently assuming too much good faith here. FLG, like its nemesis the CPC, is highly sensitive to any form of criticism. At the moment, in the absence of the Wumao here on WP, WP:SPA editors like TBC have been running around for years, working to polish up the image of FLG whilst removing anything remotely critical of the movement. These editors are extremely disruptive and do not deserve any sympathy. I am glad they are facing strong push-back. -- Ohc  22:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm noting that Bloodofox has not responded to the objections raised above, but has instead a) doubled down on casting aspersions against other editors; and b) continued to perpetuate the same problems noted above by adding another lengthy, out-of-order section at the top of the article body that gives undue prominence to the location of FLG's U.S. based of operations. Again, no problem including something about this in the article, but this presentation fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT again. I am going to condense both these sections and move to the relevant parts of the article. If Bloodofox wants to revert, I hope to see convincing responses to the above. TheBlueCanoe 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have in fact responded to your attempts at replacing the phrase "new religious movement" with "indigenous religion" and all sorts of other absurdities, and will continue to improve the article despite these attempts. The fact that this article made absolutely no mention of Dragon Springs is just as ridiculous as the fact that it made no mention of the fact that Shen Yun and The Epoch Times are media extensions of the new religious movement until recently. Not to mention the organization's political involvement. All of this is quite telling.

Of course, the three above editors (and various other single-issue editors that have a tendency to crawl out of the woodwork on this topic) have fought these additions tooth and nail by way of a variety of tactics since their introduction—as illustrated above—but the article continues to march closer toward reflecting reliable source coverage by the day. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)§

Transparent scrubbing attempts like these are classic examples of obstruction and are unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Very briefly, I agree that the section could be moved further down in the article. The block quotes are also too long. Much of the content can still be preserved outside of block quote form though, moreso than the latest edit. There’s a middle ground here. — MarkH₂₁ 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Agreed. TheBlueCanoe 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I support condensing any excess quotes to prose, as is typical on Misplaced Pages. However, I fully expect the material to be repeatedly removed or obfuscated, and so I recommend including the quotes in the citation for readers to follow. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I made a comment earlier today and realized that it might fit better in this discussion. I also realized that I'm not alone in my concern about prioritizing a number of block quotes portraying the fringe aspects of the movement (obsession of aliens, arranged relationships, zoning disputes) over the main introduction of the movement, such its central beliefs, teachings, practice, exercises, and its experience of human rights persecution. Assuming that these fringe aspects are true, they should be relegated to one of the back section, in a manner commensurate to their degree of importance in relation to the overall movement.

Honestly, I am quite surprised that there is this much controversy over a straightforward religious group that is persecuted in China. It is almost like human rights and lives do not matter (at least not as much as whether these people have arranged relationships, whether they were informed that their visas expired, whether they have zoning disputes, and whether they believe in the existence of aliens). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)— HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I came for the RFC, and thought I'd leave my thoughts here as well, as an outside perspective. A good[REDACTED] article will cover controversies on a given topic with no regard for politics or ideology. However, an article about a religion *beginning* with discussion of controversies, particularly discussion of a single controversy, does strike me as WP:UNDUE. In looking at several articles of other religions or religious groups, including ones with significant controversy around them, every single one of them begins with an overview of its history and belief system, and this article is a clear outlier in how it's presented.

I don't know or care the history of the editors involved in this discussion, my interest is in addressing the issues being discussed in line with Misplaced Pages's policies. While certain aspects of individual editors' edit histories could be concerning, that is not an argument to ignore valid points they're making. In particular, I don't see anyone in this current discussion advocating for "scrubbing" this article to push a viewpoint that doesn't belong, because at face value, the point is valid. As far as there are "sides" to the controversies in this article, this discussion makes it clear to me that if ideological editing is happening, it's likely not happening just from one side. This is why[REDACTED] has policies, let's please stick to those. Arathald (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If one were to divide the page's recent history into 'camps', then there are two here:

A.) A camp that had ensured that up until last month the article made no mention of the organization's media extensions and ensured that the article contained no mention of the group's controversial headquarters compound in Deerpark. Accounts in this camp edit-war to return to that. They consist primarily of a swarm of single-purpose accounts. This camp will frequently also complain about "left-leaning media organizations", as you see Blue Canoe doing above, and will also repeat some variation of the line 'everything must be understood in the FG's history of oppression'. This includes Falun Gong's support of the extreme right in locations like over here in Germany (cf. New Republic's report).

B.) Second, thee's a camp that treats this like any other Misplaced Pages entry by reporting on what an increasing and already overwhelming numbers of reliable sources say by adding that content to the article. In response, the camp A repeatedly removes these sources or, when that fails, attempts to downplay them, frequently emphasizing persecution instead, and gooes on lengthy and vague diatribes on this talk page that usually distill down to 'you don't understand'.

Here's an explicit example of camp A scrubbing from just yesterday and then there's attempts at removing any reference to The Epoch Times and Shen Yun (, , etc.), and/or the phrase new religious movement—despite extensive sourcing, at times replacing this text with more flattering couching not backed by reliable sources (eg. ). A constant thread is the removal of numerous reliable sources of which the group clearly doesn't approve. This data was first introduced to this article last month. Since then attempts at scrubbing it off have occurred dozens of times. Again, what we're talking about here is basic information: Well-sourced discussion of FG's media extensions and its headquarters compound.

Currently the article largely reads as a misleading puff piece: It still downplays, for example, the place of founder and leader Li Hongzhi as central to the organization's operations, decisions, and ideology throughout, instead emphasizing that the new religious movement is some sort of 'indigenous religious practice', and simply repeating what FG says about itself.

Falun Gong's political activity and media extensions make for a unique case. If you can find another similar situation out there, I'm sure many of us would like to hear about it. The closest comparison I can make is to Scientology, which has its own sordid history with Misplaced Pages (Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages), but Scientology, to my knowledge, never backed political groups and promoted political conspiracy theories quite like FG does through its various media extensions.

There's a reason this has gotten—and is getting—so much media attention: An explicit political shift around 2015-2016 by FG, and the aforementioned hardline promotion of the extreme right in places like over here in Europe. It'd be nice to know how to fend off the repeated attempts at scrubbing to get this article up to at least WP:GA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did say I didn't care about the history. I'm here to provide my perspective on how to keep this page and discussion in line with wikipedia's principle's and policies. Not once in this discussion have you actually addressed the issue at hand, resorting to ad hominem attacks on other editors and while I'll still assume good faith, it's hard not to read this as an attempt at poisoning the well as other editors are coming in to respond to an RFC. Falun Gong's political activity has zero bearing on the subject at hand and my opinion about it, unless you're proposing that reordering the article is some kind of retribution for alleged bad faith editing. I'm well aware of the issues with other religions/religious groups including Scientology, and indeed, that's one of the pages I looked at to determine treatment of other religious groups on wikipedia. Frankly, your focus on behavior and issues unrelated to the question of article ordering is somewhere between a straw man and whataboutism. If you believe there are other issues in the article (which I don't entirely disagree with), you are free to have a discussion about that elsewhere on the talk page instead of trying to derail this discussion on article order. If you wish to do something about other editors' behaviors you view as inappropriate, you need to follow the proper channels to do so. Attempting to do so by repeatedly making ad hominem attacks to the exclusion of any rational discussion of the matter actually being brought up is inappropriate, counterproductive, and if you haven't already run afoul of the project's policies and standards, in my opinion you are very close to doing so. If you wish to continue this discussion, please focus on discussing the matter at hand, the order of the article, which as I pointed out is inconsistent with every other article concerning a religious group that I looked at, including ones with similar political controversies. I'll reiterate that I support reordering the article so that it doesn't begin with a discussion of controversies. I do not support removing the information from the article, therefore your concerns about "scrubbing" the article are unfounded insofar as the opinion I've expressed is concerned. Arathald (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The concerns about scrubbing are very real, the last move wasn’t as much a move as borderline vandalism by one of the regulars here . Thats the context I think Bloodofox should be taken in, yes they are mad and maybe getting a bit ad hominem but there is also a large contingent of editors (some SPA) who are trying to remove all negative information about FG from the page. I agree with you that the section should be moved, however I also agree with Bloodofox that this page has some of the most serious POV issues I’ve ever seen in wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply in any way that the scrubbing wasn't real, I just intended to convey that we should look at whether the section should be moved as an independent question. If there are also concerns about specific editors, that can and should be dealt with as a separate matter. As it stands, I do think that the way the article is arranged is a violation of WP:NPOV considering how all other articles on religions are arranged. I appreciate that you did take the time to respond to that point, especially as the rest of this discussion got entirely sidetracked from that question. Arathald (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

TheBlueCanoe's terrible edit was not technically vandalism but it was extremely disruptive and worth a block. I think TheBlueCanoe should be topic-banned from Falun Gong for that. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. It's the sort of blatant censorship that we banned employees of the Church of Scientology for trying. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it called "scrubbing" when this person has written a detailed argument as to why they believe the various points at dispute should be given this-or-that emphasis, all with clear reasons... and the response is not to argue against them but accuse them of being a Falun Gong hack and call for them to be banned? No. Everyone saying that should stop and actually respond to the arguments being made. Everything else is simply a waste of time and a distraction. This editor is clearly extremely familiar with the literature (a deficit I am trying to remedy myself).

We're at the point where these are all questions of recentness, dueness, and disputes over the reliability of sources. People can disagree about that stuff. It's standard fare, in other words. Respond to the arguments themselves rather than call names. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

CA, TheBlueCanoe isn't familiar with the literature and your frequent boosting of them looks weird based on that. Compliments are nice, but when they aren’t true its makes people wonder. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apocalypse: If you can't see the pretty obvious censorship and obvious off-site canvassing by FG members going on (or just want to pretend that's not the case for some reason), TBC's arguments ultimately boiled down to "since this article is about Falun Gong, we should ignore sources that don't fit their perspective unless we can balance them with sources that do," but I'll address them more specifically. The placement at "the top" (i.e. the intro) is necessary because the intro summarizes the rest of the article. The argument that the intro material is undue is a frankly asinine as it condenses a half dozen paragraphs to three sentences. The argument about recentism forgets that FG is, in the grand scheme of things, recent too -- activities since 2016 make up about 15% of Falun Gong's time on earth. The argument that the contents of that section are "negative" clearly betray bias on TBC's part. It's rooted in the assumption held by most POV-pushers that there's an infinite number of positive and negative sources, that any article material that doesn't kowtow to the subject is merely cherry-picking the negative sources, and that we have some sort of duty to only report the positive stuff or give the positive and negative equal validity without regard to truth or falsehood. To support that edit gives you no real room to complain about content over process, and your request toward bloodofox to stop pointing out obvious off-site canvassing by members is a call for us to stick stringently to process. You can't expect us to keep going high if you're going to look the other way at your side going low. Now, if you don't think that process only applies to the side you disagree with, what have you to say about the obvious off-site coordination to engage in censorship? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree on the topic ban, I would also put Cleopatran Apocalypse up for a topic ban as they have a very similar editing history as TheBlueCanoe and are being similarly disruptive (albeit very politely, but polite disruptive editing is still disruptive). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I simply disagree that the diff you pointed out is a case of censorship. The user provides a bunch of reasons for why the same information should be integrated/summarized in the article, not at the very top of the article... no one responds to those reasons but instead calls them a hack and so on. It is actually a question about whether some compound the group has in New York is more relevant than, I don't know, organ harvesting. Isn't it? Most of these seem to be post-Trump media things, which does strike me as classic recentism. Just respond to the arguments themselves.

I haven't complained about issues of apparent coordination and whatever else because... how to prove anything, and where does it stop? By the same logic one could point to the appearance of a bunch of previously uninvolved editors and say it's a conspiracy. Including on the other side. There's just no point in any of these meta-arguments. I keep saying: let's respond to the actual disputes about how the numerous RS should be represented on the page. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I missed the personal attack above by Bloodofox. The revert in question was after you had put all the information on the page while thumbing your nose at discussion and calling everyone FLG hack cultists. I was more concerned with what I felt was the bullying and aggression than the content itself. And the reporting to arb com was for the same reason. Don't try to twist it around and claim that I was trying to delete any and all reference to NRM, Shen Yun, Epoch Times, etc., which is ridiculous. The problem was the biased approach. If FLG activists come and shove in stuff about torture and so on into the first paragraphs, and edit war to put it back in, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a shill for the Chinese government, I will revert that too and report them. (And then be accused by them of being a Chinese government agent, perhaps? Amazing.) Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If (overt) FLG activists (who openly admitted as such) come to the article, would you stick words in their mouths too? So far, the only persons using the words "hack" or "cultist" in this discussion is you. If multiple uninvolved admins were openly discussing the prospect of Wumao editors involved in the article, would you accuse non-admins making the same observation of "calling everyone Communist spies"...? Would you defend someone with a history of pro-PRC edits turning the entire Persecution section into one bland paragraph in the History in China section after they argued that "The content of the section is exclusively negative, and is not a representative sample of the full range of academic discourse on these topics"? Would you misquote sources that use synonyms for persecution to argue that "persecution" isn't the correct term? Because that's the level of defense you've been giving. Oh, and what would you assume of an editor in behaving such a way who said "'the CPC' is a shorthand we use. In most cases we specify if it's 'the teachings of the CPC,' or 'people who work with the CPC,' or 'an organization founded and primarily staffed by people who work with the CPC,' or whatever it may be"...? Would you not have a hard time not reading their use of "we" as identification with said group? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am following the discussions on this page with interest. I am new contributor, but a long time user. Never have I seen a wiki page fraught with such heated controversy, with such inflammatory and toxic attacks hurled against one another, and such serious allegations being freely mounted. It is not lost on me that there is a war over public opinion going on surrounding the issue of FG, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that that war is being fought in this space.

Without dwelling deeper at this time, it seems disingenuous to me that one camp (yes this are clearly camps here) would purport to champion free speech, and condemn censorship, and yet in the same vein call for wholesale topic banning against the alternative voice. One would think that censoring an expression, is lesser evil yet than taking the voice away from a person altogether. It seems that the interest here is less the merits of the subject matter, than victory by any means necessary, at all costs--please correct me if I'm wrong. Feel free to disagree, but I personally find this attitude morally reprehensible.

We are dealing with a unique subject matter here (although such uniqueness certainly does not exempt this topic from the standards of objectivity and truth, in fact, the converse is true). Discussions of a group's practice and belief is not the same as the description of, say, a lawn mower. Elementary principles of mutual respect, religious freedom and respect for diversity, means that insider perspectives should, at least, be accorded a minimum standard of respect, and allowed a reasonable degree of representation. In fact, contemporary social research has held that differences should not only be recognized--"insider expertise" should be privileged. As such, LGTBQ people are understood as having certain special knowledge or authority on queer issues, women on gender issues, racial and ethnic minorities on race issues, etc.

What I have observed so far on this page is quite the opposite. Internal perspectives on FG are being driven out, precisely on the basis that they are held by the FG community itself. Editors are being witch hunted, and scrutinized, not for the merits of their contributions, but for any possible or suspected association with FG. It is almost as if this community does not get to speak about their own beliefs and community. I find this contrived effort to marginalize the FG community on this page downright reprehensible. If you are to replace all mentions of "Falun Gong" on this page with say, "Jew" or "Islam", the average bystander would find the discussions on this page a shining example of antisemitism and islamophobia.

In a way, I'm not surprised. Since long, I have been trying to figure out why is no one speaking out on the gross human rights violations taking place against FG in China, including forced organ harvesting, despite the sheer gravity of the matter. I think I found my answer on this page. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Re Never have I seen a wiki page fraught with such heated controversy You've almost no experience with the site, then.

Re such inflammatory and toxic attacks hurled against one another Please point to an example of a personal attack instead of making unevidenced accusations (which is a type of personal attack).

Re it seems disingenuous to me that one camp (yes this are clearly camps here) would purport to champion free speech, and condemn censorship, and yet in the same vein call for wholesale topic banning against the alternative voice It seems even more disingenous to lie about what one group of editors is saying. Some users have only called for topic bans of notably disruptive users who are removing any voice other that FG's -- it is hypocrisy for you to to not condemn pro-FG censorship in the same breath you accuse us of censorship with.

Re "insider expertise" should be privileged -- which is why we favor academic and journalistic sources that worked with the LGTBQ community over those that have not, and why we cite academic and journalistic sources that have actually studied FG over those going off of hearsay. The problem here is that some FG members don't like the conclusions drawn by those academic or journalistic sources because it doesn't fit with the narrative put out by Li Hongzhi.

Re Internal perspectives on FG are being driven out, precisely on the basis that they are held by the FG community itself. This false accusation is the sort of personal attack you accuse others of making.

Re Since long, I have been trying to figure out why is no one speaking out on the gross human rights violations taking place against FG in China, including forced organ harvesting, despite the sheer gravity of the matter. And now we know you haven't even read the article at all. No one is contesting the material in there, which rather disproves your accusation that the NPOV editors here are 'anti-FG'.

Come back when you actually understand the situation instead of cluttering the page with emotional propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am amazed at the kind of cognitive dissonance that someone has to contend with to churn out the kind of response given above. Throughout my contributions on this page, I have made every effort not to name names, and indeed, I have not named anyone in my comments. Most if not all of my comments are framed as general, impersonal observations. Yet, there are person(s) who immediately and spontaneously identify themselves with my observations. It is *almost* as if such persons are aware that they fit the descriptions I made.

Those who have seen my earlier comments would know that my concern surrounding the important human rights issues experienced by this group is not that they were not incorporated in the article, which is clearly a straw man. Rather, the concern was that they were not given due weight, as at one point, the article began with discussions of some New York compound, some zoning disputes, arranged relationships, issues about not being informed of Visa status, and discussions of belief in aliens--matters that appears absolutely peripheral to the central beliefs and experience of this movement.

Within a single response, I have been accused by this kind user of (i) cluttering the page with emotional propaganda, (ii) making false personal attacks, (iii) being disingenuous, (iv) lying and (v) being hypocritical. It is *almost* as if my observations about toxicity and bad faith on this page are true. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You initially wrote "no one is speaking out", but after you were schooled on that, you try to redefine your comment as one of due weight. Nobody is fooled by such arguments. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's almost as if your previous post was made with the assumption of bad faith toward users trying to balance FLG's claims with outside sources, attacked such users with false accusations (such as lying about what anyone can see people have written on this page), and making accusations of censorship that you should be pointing squarely at FLG activists but didn't.

And you're still mischaracterizing the comments that people can read on this very page. That's just straight up gaslighting. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be an agreement that the excessive use of block quotes is inappropriate in this article. I attempted to summarize this content, but that was reverted and replaced again with lengthy block quotes. Unless someone can provide a good reason why these should be retained, and why the article should have multiple, redundant sections and internal POV forks as it relates to Shen Yun and the Epoch Times, this content should just be summarized concisely in the appropriate parts of the article.TheBlueCanoe 22:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What WP:POV forks? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As this is what TBC has so far called "summarizing" and "condensing", I think anyone following this knows what to expect: Scrubbing. These sort of systemic attempts at removing information about the group's headquarters and media extensions should be taken seriously: When this article isn't watched, you can expect that TBC and other single-purpose will zero in on these sections and remove them, returning them it to its previous state. For this reason, I'll add my voice to the chorus above in support of a Falun Gong topic ban for TBC account.

What isn't being discussed here is the bizarre misinformation in the article, and the fact that many of these sources stem from the early 2000s. Falun Gong is squarely focused on Li Hongzhi, but you'd never know this by reading this: The vast majority of the article's space is spent discussing claims of organ harvesting. It often simply repeats Falun Gong narratives about itself, rather than discussing topics that readers will find far less palatable. This article needs a section-by-section review and rewrite, rather than constant attempts to scrub away any mention of the FG's headquarters compound and media extensions. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Some users appear to be unaware that Persecution of Falun Gong exists and is a fabulous resource so they keep expanding the relevant sections here. I think we should directly link it in the intro instead of the pipe we have now, that would clear up most of the confusion and make it easier for us to separate the malicious accounts from the unaware. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• "The vast majority of the article's space is spent discussing claims of organ harvesting." - Really? You might want to look again.
• This article has hundreds of citations, most of them to high quality academic sources.
• "Falun Gong is squarely focused on Li Hongzhi" - I don't know exactly what that means. Clearly Li is the teacher of the practice and has an active role in it, but if you read the work of scholars who have done a lot of field work within the Falun Gong community, you would find that the structure and teachings of the practice actively militate against worship of the person of Li Hongzhi, who has no personal contact with the vast majority of Falun Gong adherents.
• There have been no attempts to "scrub" or remove information about Falun Gong's media extension. The article has contained information on Shen Yun and the Epoch Times for years, without controversy. No one has argued that these references should not be included. But they should be included in a way that is neutral, proportional to their prominence in the relevant literature, and narratively coherent. Anything less disrespects our readers and runs afoul of a core pillar of the encyclopedia. The edits you have made clearly failed those standards, and the continued inclusion of lengthy block quotes highlighting your preferred point of view, to the exclusion of others, also seems WP:UNDUE.

Not everyone who disagrees with your style of editing is "scrubbing" or "obstructing" you, and repeated accusations to that effect are disappointing. I would suggest again that you address the substance of the concerns raised, rather than continuing to attack other editors.TheBlueCanoe 23:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The "information" you mention is trite. For example, from 2019 ():

• "In 2006, Falun Gong practitioners in the United States formed Shen Yun Performing Arts, a dance and music company that tours internationally"

No mention of the fact that the group operates out of Falun Gong's Dragon Springs headquarters, by where Li lives. Ain't that funny? The same goes for the puffery surrounding The Epoch Times, with no mention of Li's personal involvement of the paper, which is only coming to light over the past few years due to media reports. The way they're both written, readers would think that these individuals had somehow independently come up with these ideas. Of course, in 2020, it's clear that isn't the case.

Speaking of the Dragon Springs compound headquarters, the article quite conveniently made no mention of it at all until last month. Considering the compound has been owned by Falun Gong since around 2000 and has thereafter been its headquarters, one might wonder exactly why it has been left out of the article space.

The scrubbing attempts are transparent but they're also old news: They're expected from TBC and other single-purpose accounts and will likely continue until an admin steps in, but we should now really be looking at the many problems with the rest of the article, because there are many. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Considering the compound has been owned by Falun Gong since around 2000 and has thereafter been its headquarters, one might wonder exactly why it has been left out of the article space."

Probably because the first mention of it in scholarly literature was in a book published in 2019. It's not a conspiracy dude.TheBlueCanoe 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Media reports about the compound and records of its ownership have been around for quite some time, at least several years before Junker's mention, obviously. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Organization Section: "Decentralized"

Currently the article goes to some length to claim that the Falun Gong is "decentralized", often backed by non-WP:RS sources like falundafa.org, and says that the Chinese government claims otherwise. This is obviously dubious, particularly given the structure of the organization in 2020, and its coordinated political involvement with outreach efforts like The Epoch Times, propaganda arms like Shen Yun, and schools at the Dragon Springs compound. This section needs to be totally rewritten from more recent reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the section of Falun Gong's organization contains 26 citations. One of these is to the Falundafa.org. Twenty-five are scholarly sources, most of which represent the work of scholars who have done extensive field work with this community. Incorporating more recent scholarship (e.g. Junker, Penny, Gutmann) would make sense, though I don't think their findings are at odds with earlier scholarships, but is complimentary.TheBlueCanoe 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The number of citations is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what they actually say, and if what they say is still valid. It's pretty clear in 2020 that FG is not "decentralized", despite what the article claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not about what Falun Gong claims. These are the findings of scholars who have studied the topic extensively. And a quick survey of the latest academic work on Falun Gong's diaspora organization does not refute the claim that Falun Gong is "decentralized." The whole book is about how Falun Gong's diffuse, decentralized structure made it more effective than the hierarchical, centralized Minyun movement in organization as a social movement. Here are a few examples (From Andrew Junker's "Becoming Activists in Global China", published in 2019):

• "This turn to social movement activism was carried out in a diffuse, decentralized, and bottom-up way motivated by Falun Gong’s religious ethic of activism. The charismatic leader did not direct the mobilization. Instead, the followers “led” by transforming themselves into a modern, nonviolent protest movement." (p. 11)

• "How many Falun Gong practitioners are carrying out all this activism? Even after years of research, I cannot answer that question with certainty. The Falun Gong does not have official membership lists, congregations, dues, or other means of directly accounting for its size. Local activism is carried out in decentralized ways by intensely committed devotees, either in small cells or even as solitary individuals. "(p. 22)

• "I have signaled this theme a few times in the book when I spoke of the “progressive potential” of Falun Gong mobilization, especially in reference to how practitioners acted on their own initiative in a decentralized way and to how they emphasized persuasive outreach to publics." (p 184)

• " organizational template of a quasi-political party, however, was poorly suited to mobilization in diaspora. Simply maintaining and running a formal institution, according to highly bureaucratic rules, which were themselves frequently debated, absorbed too much time and too many resources. Furthermore, the bureaucratic model emphasized hierarchy and impeded decentralized, grassroots, voluntarist, creative initiative by participants. In this respect, Minyun’s organizational template was the exact opposite of Falun Gong’s ethic of activism, which imbued each individual with a sense of personal duty to “step forward,” but did not dictate the means or attempt to coordinate in any high degree the specifics of protest. The Falun Gong organizational form avoided paralyzing battles over leadership while maximizing the resources and creative capacities. The new religious movement had higher levels of grassroots participation and found more rewarding and meaningful ways to engage members. Ironically, the democracy movement emphasized hierarchy and centralized control, whereas the indigenous Chinese new religious movement encouraged self-authorized, direct participation and autonomy. The latter model was not only more participatory, it was also better suited to diaspora, where the activist community was thinly spread across many cities and contexts. Any bureaucracy would struggle under such conditions to coordinate effective action; one that aspires to be a stateless political party or exile government faces even higher challenges.

When I have a moment I can do the same survey of Noakes, Penny, etc. TheBlueCanoe 23:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

James R. Lewis describes an organization that is ruled from the top by Li Hongzhi. Joachim Gentz describes how the Falun Gong membership follows whatever is said by the "charismatic leader" Li Hongzhi. It is true there is no rigid hierarchy in the Falun Gong membership, but everything points to the man at the top, which forms a central locus of thought. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Binksternet is getting somewhere. However, assuming that the Falun Gong membership follows absolutely Li Hongzhi's words, this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to make the claim of centralization. Centralization presupposes structure. It requires not just a locus of thought, but also a concentration of initiative, power and function. It is a basic presupposition of most, if not all religion, that the authority and validity of the founder's teachings/instructions are unconditional and self-evident within the sphere of that religion. Unconditional adherence is not, in and of itself, equivalent to centralization. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If the leader is still alive then yes unconditional adherence is in fact equivalent to centralization. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting question that I encountered while doing research on a distantly related topic. While I agree that Li seems to wield full definitional power and interpretive authority in regard to FLG's teachings, research does not seem to indicate that the organizational structure and/or everyday life of practitioners would place emphasis on unconditional adherence. Craig A. Burdoff wrote an article for Nova Religio after conducting a field study with Falun Gong practitioners: "there are several structural components of the movement that work against Li’s ideological power. While Li’s rhetoric does emphasize millennial and totalistic themes, the organizational structure of Falun Gong works against totalistic control. Practitioners have little if any contact with Li except for his writings and very few and brief public appearances. Falun Gong has at best a virtual central organization, comprised of independent cell-like local groups. There is no hierarchy in place to enforce orthodoxy and little or no emphasis upon dogmatic discipline. There is no “official” membership, and practitioners are free to participate as much or as little as they like without censure. There is no attempt to isolate practitioners from society, and no manipulation of sexuality or finances other than emphasizing the need for strict moral behavior." Furthermore, Burdoff also observed that there are no suggestions or requests about contributing to group expenses, nothing but voluntary activities, no discrimination against people who participate only infrequently or partially in the practice or decide to stop practicing altogether, and no group isolation or withdrawal. Since Nova Religio is a peer-reviewed academic journal specializing in NRMs, and this is based on actual field research and therefore has great weight as a tried and tested description of the movement's grassroot reality, I suggest that we include this in the lead section. Any thoughts? Bstephens393 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is from 2003. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, nothing in peer-reviewed literature suggests that the above description would not be valid, and in fact the findings seem to have been corroborated by further field research, including by Noah Porter. Please let me know if you have high-quality references to research conducted among the movement's adherents that would directly counter these claims. I will obviously give more weight to academic journals. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

An article from 2003 is of historic interest, and that's the extent of it. That was 17 years ago. Here in 2020, the FG is a highly political organization with numerous media extensions, schools, and a large compound in New York. Passing off an article about the NRM from 2003 as if it is still relevant in 2020 is, to put it politely, laughable. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your attempt to divert the discussion from the field research focused on the movement's grassroot reality is rhetorically weak. I've never opposed covering FLG's connections with these media extensions, schools etc. Whether the movement is exercising totalistic and centralized control over its adherents' lives is the topic at hand in this thread. I am asking you to show me the relevant studies that counter these peer-reviewed findings and are based on actual observations in the field. Thanks. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What you're trying to do is put information form a 2003 article into the lead, as if it were current. That's obviously not happening. Please stop wasting your time and mine. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait, why does the date of publication matter for the content of the article? And how is it that you get to decide how the nature of the practice has changed from 2003 to 2020, based on recent media reports and so forth? Why are reports by NBC and The New Republic, covering a newspaper staffed by Falun Gong people and tracking their reporting on Trump, more significant and reliable about the nature of Falun Gong than an academic paper? I have to read that paper in question but the responses so far are non-sequitors. They set arbitrary standards by which different sources should be evaluated. For example, to be concrete — you'll need to show with some other reliable source that the specific assertions there are not true, or have been superseded. Everything else you're saying is simply about media. User:Bstephens393 I think you should go ahead and add it unless there's some serious reason not to? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This response is so aggressively absurd that it's hard to say where to begin. First, as much as you attempt to downplay them (and anything else you perceive to be 'negative coverage' about the Falun Gong), the organization's activities through its many media extensions (whether it's The Epoch Times or New Tang Dynasty or any of the other propaganda arms the group operates) are extremely relevant and quite active. Second, since then, the group has built an expensive and lavish compound in New York, where it operates schools and another propaganda arm, Shen Yun. Yeah, there have been some changes. Finally, we simply don't report on reports from 2003 as if they were current, and that should be obvious to even the most aggressively FG editors out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Article makes no mention of Falun Gong schools: Fei Tian College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts

In or around the Dragon Springs compound exists at least two schools: Fei Tian College in Middletown and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts. Remarkably, the article makes no mention of either of these private schools. With very few exceptions, private schools that hold religious affiliation in the United States are either Christian or Jewish, and very rarely maintain association with new religious groups, which makes the existence of these schools notable and remarkable.

As sources that mention it note, the Dragon Springs compound is notoriously secretive, but it is obviously the new religious movement's headquarters in the US, as well as some of its extensions, like Shen Yun. Fei Tian Academy of the Arts has received less media coverage, but there are mentions of it more broadly.

Here's a report on the school from 2017 to start with, but there are various other mentions of it, and Fei Tian College seems to hold CHEA accreditation via the New York State Board of Regents (see also NYcollegesorg), but I can't find any information from the U.S. Department of Education on its status otherwise. The college also has a Twitter account. One of its two posts is an Epoch Times promotional piece, of course. I'll build a section on the topic and add it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea that the movement has an actual headquarters — of the kind that performs administrative and organizational functions for the global body of adherents — quite undercuts their own claims, as well as those in much of the ethnography I've been reading recently. Can you provide exact excerpts from the reliable sources which you believe show that it is "obviously the new religious movement's headquarters in the US"? Of course this would discuss what that actually means. And the specific evidence on which the judgement is based. I.e., do we mean a "headquarters" in a kind of symbolic sense? ("This is where the master lives, this place is very special") or in a very practical sense ("This is where we have the 9-5ers processing membership donations from the flock and organizing parades in St Louis.") Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The headquarters according to reliable sources is in New York at the Dragon Springs compound/palace. I guess that since Li is what would be called in the context of Indian spirituality a guru or godman (India) and all power is derived from him and all power flows to him an argument could be made that the headquarters is wherever the godman is. Do we know where this godman lives? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, according to NBC News, Li lives near Dragon Springs:

Li lives among hundreds of his followers near Dragon Springs, a 400-acre compound in upstate New York that houses temples, private schools and quarters where performers for the organization’s dance troupe, Shen Yun, live and rehearse, according to four former compound residents and former Falun Gong practitioners who spoke to NBC News.

They said that life in Dragon Springs is tightly controlled by Li, that internet access is restricted, the use of medicines is discouraged, and arranged relationships are common. Two former residents on visas said they were offered to be set up with U.S. residents at the compound.()

It still amazes me that somehow editors managed to keep mention of Dragon Springs off of this article for so long. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that answers our question beyond a shadow of a doubt then. It is weird to have so many people call day night, but not unprecedented when dealing with the more dangerous NRMs like FG or Scientology. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you both need to be reminded again of NOTFORUM and the one about "righting great wrongs"? Wasn't the article only published recently? So what is the talk of the conspiracy aiming to keep it off the page? For goodness sake, gentlemen. The fact that this compound/palace/temple complex/campus exists and that Li lives... near there?? Or there??... is that considered a taboo in Falun Gong world? I think the issue here is really the stupidly long block quote. How much other stuff gets big block quotes? And why on earth is the anecdote about Tiger Huang so significant as to be blockquoted..? These are the questions, really. Amusingly, it says she's actually married to the fellow they set her up with. Some cult. At least they're good at matchmaking.

While I'm at it: you won't find language of "Falun Gong extension" in the sources you're citing, so that should be made accurate. Finally, it appears that Junker's book is out of date, because it seems they closed their office: I just googled and found this https://www.facebook.com/epochorange/ which links to this: http://epochorange.com/. So, while we are not meant to include primary research, it's a bit awkward to have apparently incorrect facts on the page.

Oh yeah and what is this based on? "Falun Gong operates out of Dragon Springs..."? I mean, what does it mean, and where is it in which source, which defines what it actually means? Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Although Falun Gong propaganda arms such as New Tang Dynasty, The Epoch Times, and Friends of Falun Gong, and editors such as yourself are keen to reject the NBC News article, it is a high-quality source per WP:RS standards, and it's not going anywhere.

Your bizarre response to the NBC News report's section on FG's purported marriage-for-visa-status arranagement of "at least they're good at matchmaking" is also highly inappropriate and unwelcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right. It was inappropriate to call them a cult. I retract that. I was being facetious. In fact that is a dehumanizing way to refer to people.

This is an article about a Chinese religion on which hundreds of thousands of pages of scholarship have been written. You think the case of one person having confusion about their visa warrants a block quote?

Or that people went on consensual dates in a faith community? That is also worth a block quote? Really?

Can anyone explain how this conforms to WP:DUE? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summary by Binksternet, explanation requested

In this edit you removed several references to Falun Gong primary sources. Whether the Falun Gong texts themselves cannot be cited because they are primary sources as to the Falun Gong teachings is debatable — it appears in the way they were being cited, they were not being interpreted, but only cited for the plain text. It's immaterial anyway since they were accompanied by a secondary source.

But you also removed references to the Ethan Gutmann article, which is not a primary source. Can you explain why you called this piece of journalism a primary source, and removed it along with the others?

More generally, editors may wish to disaggregate their edits and leave more precise summaries.

I don't think it matters that the FLG teachings are cited for those sections, but it's not clear why the Gutmann reporting should be removed. I suggest it be restored, and more care taken to ensure precise and accurate edit summaries in future. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I was cleaning up after an edit from bloodofox which removed a bunch of references. The edit summary from bloodofox named "falundafa.org, omnilogos.com, david-kilgour.com" as reliability problems.

I noticed that the removal left orphan named references scattered throughout the article. The automatic bot AnomieBOT also noticed the orphans, and fixed them by bringing back the problematic references.

The reference named "gutmannfuyou" was one of those, part of bloodofox's naming of david-kilgour.com as unreliable. I removed it for that reason. Binksternet (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't properly explain why you removed the Gutmann reference. Obviously the actual source of the article is not the personal website david-kilgour.com, as it says in the reference itself, and which you must have seen when you removed it. It's not clear at all why it was actually even sourced to that website. I googled the article and found it in five seconds: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2009/07/20/occurrence-fuyou-street/. You could easily have done that yourself, thus preserving the material in the article while correcting the reference. Instead, you removed it with the explanation that you were removing primary sources (but this was not a primary source).

Would you like to restore the reference with the actual source? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatran Apocalypse, National Review is a source to avoid. See WP:RSP. Gutmann and Kilgour's work is widely reported in reliable sources, so if this is not in those sources, then it's probably outside the realm of what's considered significant. It works both ways: primary sources for or against FG are equally unacceptable. Stick with secondary sources, preferably in peer-reviewed academic journals. Redux: Binksternet is right. Guy (help!) 09:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that Gutmann isn’t a regular National Review writer or on their staff I’m not sure we should be using this for anything other than Gutmann’s personal view which is not how it was being used. Now we can certainly use Gutmann’s personal view (he is a subject matter expert after all) but I wouldn’t put it in wikipedia’s voice and I would make sure to attribute it to Gutmann. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with Horse Eye Jack. Right now we have another user deleting content, this time a published resource. This user explains that it was a mistake. A fellow editor did not accuse this user of disruption or censorship, and instead, invites this kind user to undo the mistake. This user does not respond. If it is a mistake, then that mistake should be corrected.

With respect, I disagree with JzG that this Gutmann source should be removed. The WP requirements on sourcing has mandatory standards and recommendations. The Gutmann source is published WP:PUBLISHED, and verifiable WP:VERIFY. My friend himself acknowledged that Gutmann's work is widely reported in reliable sources, which gives the author additional credence. It is arguable if the Gutmann source is primary or secondary, but it is accompanied by a secondary source in any event. Even on the assumption that it is a primary source, WP:PRIMARY sources are not categorically banned, only that they should be used judiciously, based on context WP:RSCONTEXT, and common sense. Gutmann's work adds an important perspective to the section, there is no suggestion this source is inaccurate or duplicative. In the absence of concerns about WP:WEIGHT, I see no reason why it should be purged from the page.

I would also invite JzG to explain why National Review is a source to avoid. I'm open minded -- let issues be openly discussed and prevail on their merits. These endless WP:PERSONAL, attacks, accusations, and calls for topic banning has got to stop HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear I support its removal in context, it probably could have been better explained in the edit summary but I don’t think it was a mistake. I missed entirely the "This user explains that it was a mistake” part, can you provide a diff? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I also support the removal of National Review sources along with any and all personal websites, which shouldn't even be in question. The equation of removing unreliable sources to the constant scrubbing and censoring that the article has so regularly seen is nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

National Review can be used as long as its statements are attributed. The same goes for The New Republic, which you have endorsed before, even though "most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated opinions in the magazine should be attributed." Bstephens393 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The above editor is referring to an article by The New Republic about The Epoch Times supporting extreme right groups in Germany, which he takes issue with. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that articles from partisan publications should be attributed, whether from the left or right, and that their ideological leanings should be borne in mind when deciding to use them. The National Review is fine under those circumstances. Another solution would be to reference Gutmann's book directly, as much of the same material is cited there. TheBlueCanoe 23:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG Your initial response actually didn't address my major concern, but addressed another concern that is reasonable. My complaint was that User:Binksternet deleted all the sources with the "primary source" explanation, but that the reason for removing Gutmann could not have been due to its being a primary source, since it wasn't a primary source. It was a misleading edit summary that combined two different types of issues; it also was unfair in not even bothering to find a link to the National Review piece (which I found in five seconds), opting instead to simply purge the material. I thought that was simply not right. It strikes me as tendentious conduct.

The other matter is whether Gutmann is reliable or not. If that's an issue, the argument for why he's not should be made (book published with a reasonable press, cited in media, testified at US Congress, cited by academics), but since there's no such argument forthcoming it seems the source is fine. The reliability question doesn't go to National Review here, but the author - Ethan Gutmann, who we can all look up. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

HollerithPunchCard, See WP:RSP: There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. My view on opinion pieces is this: opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one. If it's not reported on ion a secondary source, it probably fails WP:UNDUE - especially if it's in a biased source. Guy (help!) 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not NR as a source — it was a freelance piece of writing so the reliability issues go to the author, Gutmann. I said that just above. No reason has been given for why the source should be removed, and nor has Bink given any account of why he purged it under the edit summary of "primary sources." I'll restore it later. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of primary sources

I've restored some of the primary sources that were removed, along with the secondary sources that were (perhaps inadvertently, in some cases) removed along with them. WP:NOR allows for the use of primary sources under some circumstances:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The primary sources that I've restored fit these criteria. In other cases, I've added secondary sources en lieu of the original, primary sources that were listed.TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

These sites (such as falundafa.org, faluninfo.net, and minghui.org) are obvious WP:RS fails, much like Falun Gong's The Epoch Times. Once again, we're not here to echo the organization's talking points, but report on what reliable secondary (and tertiary) sources say. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support removal of these primary sources. They most definitely do not meet our criteria for careful use of primary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better to have Ownby, Penny, etc., comment on the primary source material, to analyze and evaluate it. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is about Falun Gong. You have removed the very source text of Falun Gong's teachings/scripture (or whatever you call it) from this page, on the allegation of WP:RS. I find this position wholly incredible. The source text forms a core element of the very subject matter of the article. There is no interpretation more objective than the very thing that is being interpreted.

I repeat the policy on WP:NOR: A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The information affected is nothing more than straightforward description of a text written in plain language that can be easily verified, unless you are suggesting that the task of verifying the text at hand is beyond your state of education.

A comparative perspective: there are a total of 24 distinct citations of the Quran in the page on Islam, and numerous citations of the book of Genesis, book of Exodus, and book of Leviticus, among other primary sources, in the page on Judaism. I dare any of you to go to one of those pages and remove those materials and allege that they are not WP:RS. The allegation that the source text of Falun Gong itself is "unreliable" lays bare your ideological prejudice against Falun Gong.

I strongly believe that the deletions of the source materials should be undone. I'm not defending FG (I don't care for this religion/NRM/indigenous group/whatever you call it, though I'm concerned about what is happening to this group as any decent human being should). But I'm alarmed by what is happening on this page, and what's happening must stop. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As you're well aware, Falun Gong was founded by and remains centered on Li Hongzhi, who is very much alive, and is quite actively directing the new religious movement. These sites are not by any definition reliable. Stick to reliable secondary sources.

Editors will note that the above account's first edit was July 26, on this very talk page, which just so happens to sound quite a lot like Falun Gong extension New Tang Dynasty's complaints about the NBC News piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Are you trying to defame me in this community of being a Falun Gong shill? I will have to remind you of the rules on WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:PERSONALATTACKS, and WP:GOODFAITH. You seem to have made such allegations to almost everyone who disagrees with you. This is a warning for you to stop such behaviour. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone can see your edit history. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I invite editors to see my edit history and I formally invite you to withdraw this allegation. Your statement that a religious text is unreliable if the leader is alive, but reliable if the leader is dead, is an insult on common sense. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When you showed up nine days ago I looked at your first handful of edits and thought, here's another Falun Gong adherent pushing the official line of the religion. Nothing you've done since then has altered my initial assessment.

Bloodofox is saying that you have used the same exact arguments as may be found at Falun Gong websites. Anybody who is trying to put together a highly reliable and well-sourced Misplaced Pages article about the Falun Gong will not be parroting Falun Gong sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I think you have no business peering into my privacy, or second guessing my identity, much less imposing an identity on me, and then use that identity to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and to poison the well, instead of engaging the merits of my arguments. Just like you, Blinkster, I came to[REDACTED] to share some of my professional knowledge that I have gathered and continue to gather throughout my career, and which, in some areas, bears certain nexus to the topic of this article.

In my first few posts I commented about the issue of undue representation and prioritisation of some fringe controversies over the central aspects and experience of this movement--an issue that was later graciously rectified by a kind user. I was urged to make that post because I have frequented and relied on this article for more than 10 years, and I noticed some drastic changes to the article recently, and a sharp change in the narrative, that felt to me to be undue, unjustifiable and suspect.

I just read the article posted by Bloodofox and I agree with the content of that article, which is essentially condemning NBC for downplaying the human rights atrocity against FG taking place in China. But me agreeing with that position does not automatically make me an adherent (if my personal religious affiliation, if any, should even matter on the first place)--unless you are saying that no one believes in human rights anymore, except for the FG adherents, such that the two should be equated.

Blinksternet, for your personal accusation against me, I could have said the same about you. You have a prodigious history of wiki contribution to articles about music recordings, and yet you maintain an anomalous, sustaining interest in almost every articles in the FG namespace, which stands out sorely from your editing history and profile. What does this say about your personal motivation or affiliation? One can easily see where such line of thinking rampant on this page can reasonably lead.

I can but will not go down that path. Misplaced Pages is a place for knowledge building and not a WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND or a place for scandal mongering. I have decided to contribute my time and knowledge to[REDACTED] because I believe in these principles. And I'd like to see that they are respected.

Btw, my earlier comments against removing the source text for FG remains unanswered. I have not seen any attempt to respond to those comments, except bare assertions that they are unreliable. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding primary versus secondary sources, WP:RSPRIMARY says that it is greatly preferred to use secondary sources over primary ones, as primary sources can be interpreted wrongly.

My own personal take on it is that the primary sources have been pushed into this article as a promotion of Falun Gong, and should be removed to stop such promotion. There is an endless parade of new users at the various Falun Gong articles, with each new user pushing a positive message, trying to make the Falun Gong look as good as possible. One example (of many) is at the Shen Yun article which is semi-protected against new users and requires a minimum of ten edits and four days on Misplaced Pages before allowing someone to edit it. A new editor, Lijifly, performed ten edits over four days and then, as soon as it was possible, edited Shen Yun on the eleventh edit, giving a positive spin on Falun Gong. I see any new user in this light if they show up at a Falun Gong topic to make non-neutral changes. Misplaced Pages has a name for this: single-purpose account (SPA). Somebody can be single purpose even if they edit in other topics; the other topics may give them autoconfirmed status to edit past semi-protection, or allow them to deny being single purpose, but they are really here for one reason. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're of course right about secondary sources being better. For controversial topics like this one, other than the problem of editor interpretation, the claims of the sources may also be questionable (WP:ABOUTSELF, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems like another storm in a teacup, doesn't it? The issue with these sources — I refer to Falun Dafa Information Center, Falundafa.org, and Minghui.org — is not precisely one of reliability as such... there is no question that they are reliable for the views of those organizations. The point is that they are primary sources. We have a policy for that: they should be handled with care. They shouldn't be used to advance fringe claims. But it is OK to use them for uncontroversial things and basic information. Citing a Falun Gong source on how Falun Gong defines Falun Gong... is normal? What am I missing here? All of the rest of this seems like the typical hot air that goes on. I'm going to check the page now and restore those deletions if it's warranted. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they're not reliable for any purposes. These are propaganda sites from a group that is notoriously shadowy, unreliable, and known to operate a network of propaganda arms. How the group portrays itself is obviously controversial. These sites do nothing more than relentlessly promote the group's narratives about itself.

We're not here to look the other way and parrot the group's talking points, nor are we here to simply take what the group behind entities like The Epoch Times says face value. Stick to reliable secondary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I removed a bunch of faluninfo.net sources and dependent text because they were being used as a reliable secondary source, which they are not. You can see that I left in place the multiple Falun Gong sources supporting the sentence, "Falun Gong sources disputed the accuracy of the government's narrative, noting that their teachings explicitly forbid violence or suicide." So we allow the sources to state a position that the group takes, in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, while watching carefully to prevent undue weight given to such sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The account Bink gives seems right — they are reliable for their own views. That is the only issue in question; so it's simply untrue that "they're not reliable for any purposes." They're reliable for their own views, however we may wish to characterize them (and you needn't keep FORUMing your views on the matter — I think by this point, we all get it). Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Falun_Gong&oldid=965594585

Seems like this user has been trying to purge a bunch of material under the guise of removing primary sources. It's very obvious that any religious teaching can and should be self-referencing its original teaching captured in its religious texts, so removing reference to the core teaching itself, Zhuan Falun hosted on falundafa.org seems very odd. Additionally removing references and mentions of david-kilgour and ethan guttman who are experts on the subject looks like a targeted purge. So not only these edits aren't adding anything helpful or improving, they are actually downgrading the quality of the article. Seems this whole edit is violating WP:COI and is a part of ongoing WP:DIS by this user across multiple related pages. Berehinia (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You think Binksternet has a COI? Really? I don't think WP:COI says what you think it says. Perhaps you'd like to read WP:ASPERSIONS. Mojoworker (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's agree that any attempt to cast aspersions should be avoided here. Attempts to impute nefarious motives to other editors, or to speculate on their religious views as grounds for disregarding policy-based arguments they make, contravene Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:NPA. Back to the point: obviously secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, particularly when making fact-based or novel claims. However, there is no rule against the use of primary sources. To the contrary, we recognize that the appropriate use of such sources enriches the encyclopedia and makes it easier for readers to directly consult the source material if they so choose. When some of the editors here stripped out every primary source in the article, they did in blanket fashion, without considering them on a case-by-case basis. In the course of their removing primary sources, these editors also removed several high quality secondary sources, which confirmed the relevance and accuracy of the primary sources being referenced. I restored most of the primary and secondary sources where they were compliant with WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY, and they were summarily removed again. These should be restored, and if there are any specific instances where they are used inappropriately, then we can discuss those individually. But blanket removal at this point seems to be an exercise in WP:POINT making.TheBlueCanoe

Radio France Internationale on Falun Gong's structure and organization

Lately there's been a lot of discussion on this talk page about Falun Gong's organization and structure. Adding to the NBC News report and others, there's also this article from Radio France Internationale on the topic, which discusses the some organization-related matters.

• van der Made, Jaan. 2019. "Shen Yun: Fighting Communism - and making a stack on the side". Radio France Internationale, May 13, 2019. Online. Last accessed July 6, 2020.

A quote:

In 2001, two years after the start of Beijing's crackdown, the movement acquired a 1.59 km² piece of land at 140-150 Galley Hill Road in Cuddebackville, part of Deerpark Township in Orange County, upstate New York, where it is registered as "Dragon Springs Buddhists, Inc.", a “501 (c)(3)” non-profit organization under US tax law.

Within a decade, an imposing temple complex with pagodas rose up in Deerpark, surrounded by a fence and guarded by security personnel. Local inhabitants initially welcomed the Falun Gong, hoping the organisation would boost the township's taxes which could be used for the improvement of local facilities.

...

At the same time, copying the loose structure it had in China, the Falun Dafa fanned out into a worldwide network of local “Dafa” associations.

Dragon Springs Buddhists, Inc. in the town of Cuddebackville functions as its informal headquarters. Falun Gong adherents stress that they are not paid employees but work as volunteers.

Falun Gong spokesperson Zhang Erping (who points out that he’s a volunteer as well) denies that there’s any formal organization. “We don’t have an office,” he says, “we don’t have a hierarchy thing. We don’t even have a church to go to,” stressing that “there is no organisation to join. I’ve never paid membership for anything.”

But facts speak differently.

The Internal Revenue Service lists 46 local "Dafa" chapters in the US alone, and many of their documents are available to the public via the website Foundation Center. They are all headed, with one or two exceptions, by Chinese-American Falun Gong adherents.

Most associations have the name of a city, followed by “Falun Dafa Association, Inc.” Abroad, the name doesn't always have an obvious reference to the Falun Gong, for instance in the case of the Paris-based “Association Lotus Sacré” or the "Asociación Puro Arte Humano" in Madrid. There are Falun Dafa associations in most big cities around the world – except in China.

They are in charge of organising local activities, including language courses and meditation groups.

And they sell tickets for the worldwide Shen Yun shows.

Another quote:

A money trail pointing to Cuddebackville

Shows take place in some of the world's top venues, including the Lincoln Center in New York, the Kennedy Center Opera House in Washington DC, the Deutsche Oper in Berlin, the Palais des Congrès in Paris and in Taiwan the troupe used the National Sun Yat Sen Memorial Hall.

Supporting positive press coverage and promotion is arranged by New Tang Dynasty TV and the Epoch Times newspaper, both part of the Epoch Media Group, set up by Falun Gong sympathisers.

Tax documents of the “mother company” Shen Yun Performing Arts that date back to 2008 and which are accessible to the public shed some light on the show's finances. The organisation had total net assets of over $3 million in 2008. Ten years later, in 2017, this amount had grown to $95,7 million. Shen Yun seems to make between $10 and $20 million per year.

The 2017 “Return of Organisation Exempt from Income Tax” found at the website of Foundation Center for Shen Yun Performing Arts states $20,495,860 as “Program Revenue,” over $10 million as “Functional expenses” of which about half is listed under “other salaries and wages” – possibly money for the artists of the six orchestras-cum-dance troupes. It lists only 7 full-time staff members with a combined salary of $127,687 and almost $9 million in “contributions and grants.” In total, $19,864,001 is registered as “revenue less expenses” for 2017.

Separately registered, local Falun Dafa associations in the US (all with "non-profit" status) receive the money generated by Shen Yun ticket sales, pay for the “advertisement and promotion,” “occupancy” and “travel expenses” and in some cases “donate” a substantial part to Shen Yun Performing Arts in Cuddebackville.

For instance, the Southern USA Falun Dafa Association, based in Richmond, Texas, in 2016 states that “Shen Yun show tickets” generated $3,074,255. $1,553,180 was spent on “Advertising and Promotion,” and $853,049 was “donated” to Shen Yun Performing Arts in Cuddebackville. Other associations have published comparable figures.

There's a lot more in the report that is notable for this article. For example, the section on the long-simmering tension between locals and the ever-expanding Dragon Springs/Falun Gong will sound very familiar to readers aware of Scientology's methodical approach to Clearsprings, Florida as its headquarters. (Recent coverage, for readers unfamiliar) The discussion about Li Hongzhi as Shen Yun's "artistic director" is also quite relevant, but also no surprise.

Of course, for editors who have been paying attention, none of this comes as a surprise. The article also discusses the history of the group in the US, which this article currently does not touch on. It also contains some recent quotes form Ownby on Falun Gong and Shen Yun. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

We should probably make a standalone page for the Dragon Springs compound, given all the coverage specifically of it theres no question it meets WP:GNG and significant religious sites deserve their own pages. From what I’ve seen and read its also architecturally significant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, Jack. I'll help. I think the proposed article should be called Dragon Springs but should contain details of everything Falun Gong-related in the Deerpark area. Once that article is up, we can summarize it here and make this article somewhat more concise. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I copied the two relevant sections and will begin cleaning it up and expanding it there if you can start winnowing down what is here. It seems we also have some about self for Dragon Springs . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be some disagreement between how these relationships are characterized by LA Magazine, for instance, and how they're characterized in two decades of academic research. Obviously news coverage shouldn't be used to overrule the latter. Recall as well that, per WP:NPOV, information should be presented fairly, using high quality reliable sources, in a way that is proportional to its importance to a given topic. The current weight and emphasis that is being assigned to these topics is clearly disproportional to their coverage in reliable sources, particularly in authoritative academic sources. TheBlueCanoe 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense. We have several high-quality media sources discussing this topic, as well as FG's political involvement from around and after 2016, something scholars were at that point evidently unaware of. We don't require any other sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deerpark in the lead sentence

I took a passing interest in this page, but the hostility with which my interventions have met has made me now a quite interested participant. I guess we all have our idiosyncratic motivations for getting involved in such a controversial issue as this - so lest there be any question, you all now have mine.

Given my wish to avoid being dismissed, discredited, attacked, and written off (like every other editor who disagrees with Blood of Ox, Bink, and Jack) as an "adherent", I will not remove anything from the lead sentence. But I will expand it to include the content that actually conforms to the source in question.

Blood of Ox cites pages 33 and 101 of Andrew Junker's 2019 book on Falun Gong. Here is what page 33 says on the matter:

Even though Falun Gong began as a qigong group, it is widely regarded as a new religious movement. In fact, one of the reasons the Falun Gong clashed with authorities as early as 1996 was because the movement had already begun evolving in a religious direction (Palmer 2007: 224). It should be noted, however, that whether or not Falun Gong is a religion has been a matter disputed by movement participants. In some public contexts and in many of my interviews, Falun Gong practitioners have denied that the community is a religion, citing that the Falun Gong does not have churches, membership roles, formal clergy, and other institutional features of a religion. These denials, however, should be put into their discursive context. The Chinese government only permits five religions to operate in China; so, in the Chinese context, if the Falun Gong self-identified as a religion, it would be representing itself as a regulatory outlaw and help legitimate the government’s anti-Falun Gong policy. Nevertheless, in the American context, Falun Gong fits both legally and culturally into the social landscape as a religion. For example, practitioners have built a large temple complex with Buddhist-style statues and hundreds of dormitory beds in the town of Deerpark in rural New York. The community’s property is registered as a church to Dragon Springs Buddhist Inc.4 Not only does this legal status confer tax benefits, but practitioners frequently use Falun Gong’s religious identity to negotiate the institution’s place in the wider community.

Here we have to points that are of interest to us all. Firstly, Dragon Springs is described by Junker as a "large temple complex" "built" by "practitioners." It doesn't say it's the Falun Gong base. It doesn't describe it as a compound. So, I will now go into the article to fix that, there in the lead sentence, to ensure that we report accurately what the source says.

Secondly, note that Junker on this very page refers to Falun Gong as a "religion." So let's put that in the lead as well, with several other sources. Given that we can't agree on whether NRM or R should be the master definition, and both are accurate and widely used, we can just use both until such a time that we all agree.

Now to page 101. Junker reports being thrown out of an office of The Epoch Times in Orange County (apparently no longer operating), called "the enemy" by a staffer, and remarks that "The paranoid and secretive dynamics of Dragon Springs were, for me, a somewhat surprising contrast to the more open and forthright treatment (if skeptical at times) that I had generally encountered among Falun Gong practitioners I met in other places."

Notwithstanding the inherent interest that this anecdote and his description of the dynamics as "paranoid and secretive"... it turns out that this citation also does nothing to substantiate the content of the lead sentence.

Note that Blood of Ox has edited the page to say that Falun Gong "is today based out of a compound in Deerpark, New York." But that claim is nowhere in the source he cites. Given that you saw the source just as I did, Blood of Ox, how do you explain your misrepresentation of its content? While you think about that, I'll fix it. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This topic is being discussed above. Please keep commentary to related threads. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Dubious tag

The lead has the phrase "Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions." But I have not found this language in the sources cited, and I have asked about this multiple times.

For instance: what is the Falun Gong that does the "administering"?

Does this mean that Falun Gong practitioners actually founded and run companies? If so, that is what it should say. That was my understanding of the state of affairs, based on my reading of Junker, Ownby, and others. If there is a better source than that stating that "Falun Gong" (by which I presume is intended to mean the centralized organization under the control of Li Hongzhi at the Dragon Springs compound?) "administers" these "extensions" then please provide it.

If there's no such source, and this is simply inaccurate language or plain old Original Research, it should be fixed up. I fear I'll already be bringing the Wrath of Khan upon myself for what I've done so far, so might leave that to others, or do it later. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For readers unfamiliar with this topic, here's a quote from a 2020 report by Los Angeles Magazine:

Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China's government in 1999 ... Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group's wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

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

Source: Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online Archived 26 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine.

The exact financial and structural connections between Falun Gong, Shen Yun, and The Epoch Times remains unclear. According to NBC News:

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong's founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group's practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

The Epoch Times, digital production company NTD and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.

Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online Archived 23 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine

So, in short, Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions that diretly involve Li, although the exact financial mechanisms behind the extensions remain a mystery at this time. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONS Sources removed w/o discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=966077951

@Binksternet: References removed without a discussion. Please explain and reinstate. Berehinia (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

See #Removal of primary sources several sections above. Mojoworker (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is repeated above, but this particular diff is illustrative of a point I was making. Every primary source removed here was directly supported by high quality secondary sources. The primary sources are not being relied on as RS, but are provided so that readers can directly access the primary source being quoted if they so choose. That's an appropriate use of a primary source.TheBlueCanoe 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't exist to direct people to the writings of Falun Gong. It exists to explain what Falun Gong is all about. Secondary sources do a much better job of that. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"The primary sources are not being relied on as RS, but are provided so that readers can directly access the primary source being quoted if they so choose.” Thats not an appropriate use for a primary source, especially not placed where it was. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede section

There have been some significant changes to the lede section that either were not discussed, or which failed to achieve consensus on this page. I've tried to retain some of the new information that was aded where it had merit, but keeping in mind the principles of WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV.

The key thing here relates to the weight and prominence accorded to the Deer Park temple complex. Some editors seem to think this is very nearly the most important thing about Falun Gong. And yet, for the dozens of books and academic journal articles that have been written on Falun Gong, there are perhaps three pages total written about Deer Park, plus one or two news articles. This is something that can be mentioned in the lede section, but it does not make sense to dedicate a whole paragraph to it so prominently on the page.

Likewise, the suggestion that Falun Gong itself administers various extensions is veering into original research. This is not a characterization that can be credibly made based on reliable sources, and any such description should be appropriately nuanced to ensure accuracy. The description of Falun Gong's activities in response to persecution should be made using a neutral voice, presenting different views fairly, and not giving undue weight to any particular perspective. That should be easy in the lede section, because all we're doing here is offering a factual descriptions of things. In a previous thread I provided an example of what such a neutral, fact-based description could look like, by referencing a similar (but long) paragraph in Junker's book.

Finally, let's avoid WP:tag-bombing in the lede. It's very pointy, and doesn't improve the reader's experience. TheBlueCanoe 15:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the Dragon Springs complex is some kind of centralized administrative center for Falun Gong -- something like the Jehovah's Witnesses WHQ in Warwick, NY -- or whether it is mainly a headquarters for Shen Yun Performing Arts, a refuge for some practitioners who were persecuted in China, and allegedly where Li Hongzhi lives (e.g. according to "rumors" in Junker's book.) The latter characterizations can be backed up with reliable sources. The sources I've seen have also not documented any Falun Gong administrative/executive structure located at this site. This is not too surprising, since peer-reviewed research has determined that the grassroots operations of FLG are decentralized.

The question that really interests me is whether the Dragon Springs complex is a private community and/or workplace for a relatively small number of Falun Gong practitioners involved in some specific projects, with very little or no significance as an "executive compound", or whether it is something more than that. I believe that its prominence in the article would depend on this. Everything I have seen so far indicates that it is closed from the community of FLG practitioners at large (apparently for security reasons, which I think is plausible, considering that the Chinese Communist Party really sees them as enemies of the state.) We can't really infer from the available sources. Therefore, with some reservations -- unless someone can provide me with more conclusive information -- I would relegate this into a section of the article that specifically discusses FLG's extensions and diasporic responses to the persecution in China. Bstephens393 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is all extremely well sourced. Your regular attempts at scrubbing the article will not be tolerated. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not scrubbing. It's about adhering to core pillars of the encyclopedia. If you can demonstrate that the complex at Deer Park is one of the most significant things about Falun Gong, 'as reflected in the corpus of reliable source literature about this topic, then please present it. But information needs to be included in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. TheBlueCanoe 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep writing Deer Park, New York when you mean Deerpark, New York. If you cant remember which we’re talking about just say Dragon Springs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that BlueCanoe also frequently attempts to strip the article of media sources: It's worth highlighting that quality media sources are just as useful as academic sources, and we have plenty of them to draw from. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

They are undoubtedly useful, but peer-reviewed research still has more weight than media sources. "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That's a given, since the editorial process in high-quality journals is much, much stricter. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable and quality news sources are fully acceptable and entirely appropriate for this article. Attempting to remove them from the article is a clear example of disruption. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a good reason the lead no longer mentions "new religious movement"

And is there really little criticism of it outside China? I don't see any mention in the lead, and it's hard to find in the article although there is a little. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like TheBlueCanoe came through like a bull in a China shop . At this point I can’t assume good faith with them anymore, they seem to be being actively disruptive and working against consensus with no regard for their fellow editors. AGF is not a suicide pact, we’ve been more than tolerant enough. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Blue Canoe had no good reason for removal, especially since many sources describe the connection between Falun Gong and its various arms such as New Tang, Epoch Times, Shen Yun, Sound of Hope, Vision China and Kanzhongguo. This is critically important information, but Blue Canoe was following the official Falun Gong style of trying to get everyone to ignore it. Since Blue Canoe is removing vital information, they have become a serious disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is typical scrubbing behavior from that account. The account should be topic-banned. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have supported that a month ago, at this point I think an indeff is warranted. They’ve had plenty of warnings and chances to change their disruptive editing style. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:TheBlueCanoe, can you give an explanation/rationale for why this has been removed? Bstephens393 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake - I meant to add that back to the list of descriptors that have been given. Note that it is described in the article boddy as a NRM, and that did not change (though the emphasis on NRM category in the "categorization" seems out of line with the sources). It should be in the lead section, as per the consensus at the RfC, but there was no consensus on the lead sentence, and several editors (myself included) raised valid concern about the use of NRM as the single, bald definition to describe Falun Gong. I would recommend consulting that discussion for the full account, but very briefly:

• Editors arguing for Falun Gong to be described authoritatively as a New Religious Movement rely on the fact that numerous scholars have used this term. This is true, but crucially, those same scholars use other terms as well, including religion, spiritual discipline, qigong, cultivation practice, indigenous religious practice, and variations of the above. Dozens of examples could be produced to support the use of each of these terms. Other leading scholars of Falun Gong never use the term NRM.
• Some scholars have disputed the accuracy and the usefulness of the NRM label as it relates to Falun Gong and other Chinese self-cultivation disciplines, arguing that the label "doesn't make sense" in the context of these types of Chinese spiritual practice
• NRM is basically a sociological term of art, and there's no reason why one particular academic discipline should take precedence over any other.
• The authoritative description used in the lede sentence should be as accurate and as neutral as possible, and given the dispute of the NRM label in the academic literature, there are clearly better options available.

I'll restore my edit but will add NRM to the lede section.TheBlueCanoe 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Further to the above, I did not remove descriptions of the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Those remained in the lede in my revision, and in the article body. But the previous description in the lede section was not neutral—it was a selective description that aimed to highlight apparent controversies to the exclusion of other perspectives, and it made claims that appear to have very questionable support and/or comprise original research. Finally, there's a sentence that was removed at one point from the lead, with no apparent explanation, and that should be restored. TheBlueCanoe 18:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Funny, you've now repeated this "mistake" several times during your regular rounds. We report on what reliable sources say, and reliable sources directly state that scholars refer to Falun Gong as a new religious movement. Hiding mention of Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and other media extensions with pipes like "newspapers" is also ridiculous: Enough. I get that FG doesn't like it, but Misplaced Pages isn't censored. Your attempts at scrubbing, obfuscation, and parroting FG talking points are disruptive and are not helping this article. We report on what reliable sources say, and that includes reliable media sources—that isn't going to change, and attempts at scrubbing will be promptly reverted. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a simple way around this problem: discuss the edits on the talk page from the perspective of a) reliable sources, b) due weight, c) other relevant policies and guidelines to consider, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc. It is useless to keep referring to a single policy based on whatever seems to suit your objectives at the moment. Stopping all edit warring and moving to proactive consensus-building also makes it much easier for other editors to voice their opinions. I thought that leading by example (as I've still refrained from editing the article) would encourage others to do the same, but apparently that's not the case. If User:TheBlueCanoe agreed to add NRM to the lede, shouldn't User:bloodofox be happy about reaching an agreement there? If you want to keep up the battleground mentality that has gotten you sanctioned before, perhaps you have to be reminded of the fact that Misplaced Pages is not about winning. There are valid arguments to be addressed and you would be much better off making (and responding to) them with civility. Bstephens393 (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Also, no clue what you mean by "sanctioned before": I suggest you check your facts. Disruptive editing will continue to be called out where it occurs. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have something actionable, please post something on AE. Besides that, please talk about content rather than contributors --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that you are an admin and an admin opened this section to discuss a disruptive edit by TheBlueCanoe on the talk page of a page under discretionary sanctions what is the point of going to AE? And if AE is the appropriate venue then what is the point of discretionary sanctions? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Getting a working consensus of uninvolved administrators. For various reasons, I feel uncomfortable using my ability to impose unilateral sanctions here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I checked my facts. User:bloodofox has been sanctioned for a battleground mentality before, including a one-year ArbCom ban from editing all Clinton-related articles in 2016 due to such behavior. I totally agree that the talk should focus on content. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

In other words, entirely unrelated to this discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And to be precise, not an ArbCom ban, but an Admin Discretionary Sanction. Big difference. Mojoworker (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Compound

Should more information be included in the article to mention their compound? It isn't mentioned that much in the article, and it's a pretty large part of the "religion". As of now, there's a sentence in the lead that just mentions it exists and doesn't really elaborate much. I know there is a corresponding article for the Dragon Springs compound, but it seems to me that some of the information there could also be used here in a summary or something. Heyoostorm (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we should probably have a summary section with a Main link to the Dragon Springs page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

New political involvement coverage from the New York Times and The Verge

Falun Gong receives coverage in a recent New York Times piece:

• Verma, Prashu and Edward Wong. 2020. "New Trump Appointee Puts Global Internet Freedom at Risk, Critics Say". The New York Times, July 4, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 19, 2020.

Quote:

Now, allies of Falun Gong are making a big push for the Open Technology Fund and the State Department to give money to some of the group’s software, notably Ultrasurf, developed about a decade ago by a Falun Gong member.

And a little more detailed coverage and analysis from The Verge:

• Brandom, Russell. 2020. "A new Trump appointee has put internet freedom projects in crisis mode". June 23, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 19, 2020.

Quote:

If successful, that shift would also funnel money to groups that are politically sympathetic to the president. One of the letters was co-sponsored by the DC branch of Falun Gong, a religious sect and Chinese dissident group that has become vocally pro-Trump in recent years. Two of the projects mentioned in the letter — Ultrasurf and Freegate — were created by practitioners of Falun Gong and maintain ties to the group. (The other two projects are already recipients of OTF funding.) If the letter’s recommendations are carried through, it would mean millions of dollars in funding for the group. Through its Epoch Times outlet, Falun Gong has become vocally pro-Trump in recent years, building an immense following on Facebook and YouTube while promoting anti-vax and QAnon conspiracy theories.

My bolding. Looks like we'll need to add this to the article, as the FG's efforts to influence the US government is obviously notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, relevant and significant. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• Religion articles needing attention
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles