This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 6 August 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 44) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:37, 6 August 2020 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 44) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falun Gong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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  |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
Axios
There's also coverage from Axios here: "In media agency shakeup, conservative groups push for Falun Gong-backed internet tools".
Sample quote:
- A far-right take-over of an independent U.S. government agency may allow once-fringe ideas promulgated by a controversial religious group to become official policy.
:bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Rv of July 26, 2020 "Truthfulness"
Just explaining this rv . There are two matters at play, and I'll state my views on both. First is the deletion of what the Falun Gong believe. This is the oft-heard "truthfulness" etc. Believe it or not, that is what is in the doctrines and scriptures and is repeated regularly in the literature — so obviously that stuff has to say. We can personally not believe it, but we cannot delete it for that reason. The second is the Kavan addition. Firstly, the source is a conference paper which as anyone who has experience in academia would know, are not nearly equivalent to a peer reviewed paper. Secondly, we could debate her credentials — she is an NRM scholar, does not speak Chinese from what I can tell of her bio (a fairly significant deficit for a scholar who wishes to opine on a Chinese religion) — but I guess it's not necessary given the first problem. And thirdly, she didn't quite say what Bink said she said. Her interpretation of the quoted line is in question anyway. It may be helpful to compare Kavan's work to something like Penny and Ownby. There is a reason they are the leading scholars on this. Scholarship is not about simply dishing out one's opinions; and not every opinion that appears by anyone with a job to ever be published is suitable for us to quote. If it were, this page would be 10x longer than its current length.
As a general rule, we should prefer facts (or the closest we can get to them) over opinions. And if we are getting into opinions, which we always will, then they should be discussed thematically. For instance, the generic problem she is discussing is how the Falun Gong represent their beliefs. I'm actually not sure how much this comes up in the scholarship — but at the very least, extrapolating from a throwaway line that a non-Chinese speaking expert of somewhat dubious credential (at least versus actual experts) says in a conference paper... certainly does not do all the work we might wish, such as allowing us to delete what the core beliefs are and instead assert that the core beliefs are lies. Which the source does not even say. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dr. Heather Kavan of Massey University is a fine source. Analyzing the Falun Gong's activities in the West does not require Chinese language skills. She writes, "However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls 'high level things' to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters... Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs, and resort to formulaic principles and repetitions of their slogan ‘truthfulness, compassion, forbearance’." This instruction to lie undermines very significantly the moral philosophy of truthfulness. Once we know that the truthfulness principle has this internal contradiction, we cannot tell the reader that truthfulness is in fact part of Falun Gong. Rather, we can describe how truthfulness is taught as a moral principle, and that the principle is parroted to outsiders, and then set aside when it's inconvenient.
- Kavan's "conference paper" is echoed in her published paper titled "Victims, Martyrs, Crusaders: Archetypal Figures in News Stories about Falun Gong", published in 2017 in the scholarly journal Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review. In that paper, Kavan writes, "They have the impossible task of trying to persuade people that “Falun Gong is good” when the dominant story is more painful than good, and they are expected to proclaim “truth, compassion and forbearance” while zealous members aggressively bait, disrupt and avenge." In the same journal, Kavan published "Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy" in which she says that "innocent members" of the Falun Gong "genuinely embrace" the three moral principles, but that these people are harmed by contradictions when they are instructed to conduct psychological warfare against hostile outsiders.
- Buddhist scholar Lao Cheng-Wu (Doctorate of Philosophy from Hong Kong Buddhist Institute) writes that the three moral principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" were invented by Li on January 1, 2001, as a way to gloss over his new and contradictory instructions to his disciples not to tolerate "evils" whereas previously they were taught tolerance with the three moral principles of "Truthfulness, Benevolence and Tolerance". Lao Cheng-Wu says that the three principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" were said by Li to represent "cosmic law" rather than the much more defensible idea that they are a good criteria of daily life. Lao Cheng-Wu says that the three moral principles espoused by Li are inauthentic in practice. See The Refutation and Analysis of Falun Gong in the chapter titled "What Is 'Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance'?"
- So we have scholars talking about how the principle of truth is contradicted by Falun Gong's own leader. This fact must be part of the narrative we relay to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is indeed relevant, and should be covered here. It also fits a larger pattern. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, a conference paper by a speechwriting professor is not sufficient to outweight the decades of scholarship, including intensive fieldwork, that contradicts her findings. The claim that "Truthfulness, Benevolence, and Tolerance" were invented as Falun Gong principles in 2001 is absolutely stunning: from the time of its introduction Falun Gong's core texts centred on these principles, and one need only consult contemporaneous reliable sources to see that.TheBlueCanoe 12:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Binksternet, a lot of what you've written there appears to be a defense of original research — i.e. the source still doesn't say what you put in the article, but now you've come back with your own interpretation of how the general idea is true. Doesn't work like that. The stuff about 2001 is fairly silly, isn't it? Wasn't Zhuan Falun, the FLG bible, published in the 1990s? I don't think we need to spend a lot of time with material that is demonstrably wrong. We're interested in the cumulative knowledge in the body of scholarship, and we distill and represent the most reliable facts from that. We do not cherrypick the specific opinions that accord with our own and write the article based on them. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I spent my limited daily reading time today reviewing Kavan’s papers. Kavan’s essay, ”Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy" was interesting and I ended up reading every word.
My conclusion: arguments about the reliability of this source aside, Binkersnet has not accurately represented the content of this essay.
This essay makes no claims about FG being “instructed to conduct psychological warfare”, contrary to Binksternet’s representation. The essay makes no claim about FG members acting under “instructions”. Much less does the essay support Binksternet’s overarching claim about such instructions originating from Li Hongzhi.
To be fair, the essay indicates (though not quite explicitly) that some members of FG use harmful psychological tactics on misidentified enemies. However, the essay, in the same breath, makes it clear that such tactics are not shared by all, and in fact, damage “the reputations of innocent members who genuinely embrace ‘truth, compassion and forbearance”. Kavan also speaks about her receiving messages from the Falun Dafa Association, where “the author apologised for members harassing me”. Finally Kavan does not rule out the possibility that many of these harmful tactics may originate from Falun Gong impersonators, though Kavan seems dubious about this.
If Binksternet’s claim is true, then the Falun Dafa Association must either be rebelling against Li Hongzhi, or Li has no control over the Association. Both contradicts Binksternet’s claims.
Crucially, Kavan’s essay ends with the following final thoughts: “the irony of the conflict is that scholars and practitioners have much in common. Both engage in mental challenges that require intense focus—practitioners in meditation and scholars in academic discovery. Both seek knowledge—for practitioners, spiritual revelations, and for academics, nuggets of information. Most important, both aim to be loyal to their values regardless of political influences, with practitioners upholding their right to religious freedom and scholars upholding their right to academic freedom.”
Here is my concern about editors presenting a lot of sources, and representing them without care. A lot of this misinformation finds its way into wikipedia, simply because other editors do not have the time to verify such claims. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Lede section (again)
Apologies if I'm repeating myself a bit here, because the last time I started this thread it was derailed. Over the last two months or so, changes have been made to the lede section that either were not discussed, or which failed to achieve consensus on this page. In my last edit, as before, 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. I'll explain the rationale here:
- Citations: This is partly a stylistic preference, but I'll propose that we should avoid overburdening the lede section with redundant inline citations. The policy here, per WP:LEDE, is that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation," but further notes that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." In my view, one high quality and uncontested citation is generally sufficient where such citations are necessary at all.
- Deer Park: I've moved the reference to Deer Park from the second sentence to the bottom of the lede, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. The location of Falun Gong's "informal headquarters" in the United States is not the defining feature of a decentralized practice that has millions of worldwide adherents. Similarly, the location of dance schools is not the defining feature of Falun Gong. I can see the rationale for keeping a reference to Deer Park the lede, but not in the opening paragraph, for the simple reason that this receives very little attention in the reliable sources. 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. Andrew Junker's 2019 book is the first scholarly source that mentions it, and even there, it is not discussed as a defining feature of Falun Gong.
- Administered extensions - the claim that Falun Gong "administers various extensions" is veering into original research. Sources do not say this, and given what reliable sources do say about the organizational structure (or lack thereof) of Falun Gong, the assertion does not really make sense. For example, Falun Gong, a registered 501(c)3 in the United States, does not "administer" the Epoch Times.
- Activism abroad - I've restored a more neutral and comprehensive description of Falun Gong's activities undertaken in response to persecution. This paragraph 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.
- Descriptions of Shen Yun and Epoch Times - Related to the previous point, the description of activities undertaken by Falun Gong adherents should be made in a neutral tone, and should be quite general. A previous version of this paragraph contained assertions like "Shen Yun has also received significant media coverage for its emphasis on, for example, anti-evolution..." Significant media coverage in this case is a single article, which includes two sentences that glancingly mention Shen Yun's apparent anti-evolution views. That is not significant, and certainly not significant enough to merit inclusion in the lede section of an article about Falun Gong.TheBlueCanoe 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to improve a bit of the language. I'm not sure what the source is backing up the idea that the Dragon Springs complex is an "informal headquarters." What is that based on? I was looking for the "dubious" tag in order to highlight it again; as far as I'm aware there is no claim that it's a headquarters of any time. What is it headquartering? The Falun Gong does not have a central structure, so in what sense could it be a headquarters, even if informal? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The "informal headquarters" language is used by the Radio France International source. We don't have to use the same language if there's some more accurate term, but it can be used.TheBlueCanoe 15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- All of this has already been discussed above, and this is all very well sourced. The media soures aren't coming out of the article. As an aside, describing Falun Gong activities like that of its Epoch Times extension as "undertaken in response to persecution" is at this point disruptive. Spare us the spin. The Dragon Springs headquarters is obviously very important, and should obviously be in a visible and primary spot in the article. Again, spare us the spin. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, these issues are not settled, because you have repeatedly refused to engage with the substance of the concerns being raised. Instead asserting—without evidence—that your interpretation is "obvious" and definitive. It is not. Do you intend to actually respond to the concerns raised above, or will you just keep edit warring to enforce your position?TheBlueCanoe 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here. We have plenty of sources, and we'll continue to use them: That includes media sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The one-liner approach will not work anymore. Let's just state that every editor who wants to be involved will agree to a civil point-by-point discussion of the merits and demerits of the challenged additions and removals, including structure and due weight. All of this has been avoided by certain editors, but it must change from now on. This has nothing to do with disputing WP:RS; it is the discussion and argumentation process that is being viewed with total contempt by the same editors. Bstephens393 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I get that there are a group of editors here who want the media sources removed, yourself included, but they simply aren't going anywhere, and we can expect plenty more where they came from. Consistently emphasizing a persecution narrative over the activities of the organization, including its activities in politics, is obviously inappropriate: English Misplaced Pages isn't here to parrot Falun Gong talking points. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, you are shadowboxing and replying to imaginary comments in your head. There have been dozens of legitimate points raised about issues that are central to building a Misplaced Pages article. I have never argued that we should not make use of reliable newspaper sources. Bstephens393 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- After conveniently coming out of a long dormancy to suddenly edit this page, your role here had been restricted to aiding a group of editors who aggressively edit to ensure that the article maintains Falun Gong talking points. That is, until you stepped in today to revert in their favor. It's hardly a mystery. Again, these sources are simply not going anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have defended the inclusion of the NRM label, as well as every other reasonable suggestion, based on my grasp of the topic as a scholar in a closely related field. Needless to say (since I've said it so many times and my actions prove it), I am not against including newspaper sources and have never argued against them. What I have consistently opposed is narrative-building for the sake of expediency instead of a scholarly approach. I started paying attention to this page because of the surprising coincidence between China's offensive in HK and a sudden explosion of activity. If this makes some editors hallucinate arguments and viewpoints that I don't hold, that is unfortunate but outside my control. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bstephens393, you are calling for every point of debate to be answered? I routinely ignore irrelevant debate points as I do not wish to get stuck in the tar baby. Discussion and process are important, but participation here is not a mutual death pact. I am not required to engage wasteful, trolling, nonsensical or irrelevant debate points.
- We are not here to write the pro-Falun Gong narrative of persecution and martyrdom. Rather, we are here to write about the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints about Falun Gong, including many negative assessments. Blue Canoe's very disruptive removal of NBC News should have resulted in a block. Cleopatran Apocalypse's disruptive bit about "Following the persecution in China" is another egregious example of pushing the pro-Falun Gong narrative. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I take this to mean that you and I fully agree on the intent of this article. I could have written the first two sentences of your second paragraph myself. I think we only disagree on the extent that discussion and process have been followed, and how much of those are needed to actually produce a good result that avoids all kinds of confirmation biases and takes the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints into account. The issue is one cherry-picked master narrative vs. documenting what the reliable sources say, warts and all. I have consistently advocated for the latter. Since I am not pro-FLG or anti-FLG, various people who've picked their side over the years have characterized me as either, since I've always refused to subscribe to any preferred storyline. The only things I am really opposed to are narrative expediency and totalizing discourses. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Over the years"? As in, sometime back in 2013? Because that was the last time you decided to edit Misplaced Pages before you suddenly popped up on May 20, 2020 to lend support to TheBlueCanoe on this very page (). Among other edits, that same day saw you jumping into pro-Falun Gong editor Celopatran's attempt to have me topic banned (Cleopatran had also appeared out of nowhere), where you decided to go after yours truly (). Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Misplaced Pages again on that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Did I claim that I'd been characterized as both pro-FLG and anti-FLG here, on this talk page? I have a life outside of Misplaced Pages and I'm involved with East Asian research on a professional level. Do you think I would have any interest in paying much attention to what's been going on with this article if this was not the case -- if I didn't know extensively about related topics?
- If you remember, I tried to work with you in a very civil manner and even refrained from editing for a long time because I hoped for a reasonable discussion. I endorsed your suggestion for including the NRM label, and a single cherry-picked master narrative was the only thing I was ever opposed to, since reliable sources do not support that. Didn't work. The center did not hold. You kept engaging in ad hominem attacks against other editors unlike anyone else. Of course such behavior will antagonize everyone who has reasonable disagreements with you, and curbing such goofballery is not unreasonable at all. To make it clear: I am not opposed to your viewpoint or the sources you propose. I'm not opposed to fundamental disagreements. All this time I have been talking about the form of the process, not the content. To be frank, I do believe that you actually understand what I'm saying, but admitting that would seem like a concession. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please take it to my talk page. There we can discuss the finer points of your edit history since your sudden return from 2013 to lend talk page support and reversions to TheBlueCanoe and crew. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. Let me get back to you within a few days to discuss and try to work it out. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please take it to my talk page. There we can discuss the finer points of your edit history since your sudden return from 2013 to lend talk page support and reversions to TheBlueCanoe and crew. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Over the years"? As in, sometime back in 2013? Because that was the last time you decided to edit Misplaced Pages before you suddenly popped up on May 20, 2020 to lend support to TheBlueCanoe on this very page (). Among other edits, that same day saw you jumping into pro-Falun Gong editor Celopatran's attempt to have me topic banned (Cleopatran had also appeared out of nowhere), where you decided to go after yours truly (). Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Misplaced Pages again on that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I take this to mean that you and I fully agree on the intent of this article. I could have written the first two sentences of your second paragraph myself. I think we only disagree on the extent that discussion and process have been followed, and how much of those are needed to actually produce a good result that avoids all kinds of confirmation biases and takes the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints into account. The issue is one cherry-picked master narrative vs. documenting what the reliable sources say, warts and all. I have consistently advocated for the latter. Since I am not pro-FLG or anti-FLG, various people who've picked their side over the years have characterized me as either, since I've always refused to subscribe to any preferred storyline. The only things I am really opposed to are narrative expediency and totalizing discourses. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Patsy Rahn, in a 2002 paper that we already cite, says "In 1998 New York City became the headquarters for the group and the Falun Gong website was established." This corresponds to Li Hongzhi moving to New York in 1998. So the headquarters of Falun Gong is clearly connected to Li. And Rahn establishes importance to the fact of the group having a "headquarters". Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Blockquotes
Is there are reason why we still have massive block quotes on the page? The LA Magazine article that is excerpted at great length does not even appear to exist. TheBlueCanoe 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- How could it not exist? The link is dead?? That seems weird. Might be a temporary error in the website. If it's not back up within a day or so, we could just link out to the archive.org version of it. Although I don't think it should be in blockquotes anyway. If the material in the piece was false then it's possible that they removed it, but in that case one imagines they would have written a statement explaining as much. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The language of "media extension" is still in the article. Bloodofox, where are you getting that specific language? I have not seen it in any of the sources cited. This seems to be persistent original research. I'm going to delete it if a source is not provided. My understanding of the technical nature of the relationship between FLG and these media properties comes from the Ownby text and some ethnographies; they are fairly clear that the media are all founded and largely run by FLG believers. But they do not say "extension," as far as I've seen. The idea seems to be to assert that there is a central organization, but again all of the ethnography again contradicts that claim. Why not simply accurately represent the sources, rather than forcing them to yield claims that they do not actually contain? This is a recurring pattern I've observed from the edits of both bloodofox and Binksternet. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Already explained aboved. The media sources aren't going anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the part where the extensive use of blockquoting was and unsupported original research was explained.TheBlueCanoe 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- As you're quite aware, "extension" is fully appropriate wording for the tentacled situation with Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, etc. We could, of course, have a discussion about whether we should be using the "propaganda" wording that some sources use for these groups or we could flatly refer to these groups as "Falun Gong" groups, as well. Maybe we should consider that approach. Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- What original research? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is original research to claim that these are "extensions" that are "administered" by Falun Gong. This claim is not supported. Note that I am not, and have not, claimed that there is no connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong (there clearly is). But that connection should be defined accurately.
- No one has explained why there are still massive block quotes on the page, one of which refers to an article that appears not to exist.TheBlueCanoe 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is amply covered in reliable media sources, as it is covered in the article. "Extension" is fully appropriate. This sort of lawyering is unhelpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you think "extension" is appropriate? Although, perhaps it doesn't matter. It is unsourced, vague, and original research. You've simply reasserted your personal opinion, and by doing so have made clear that you think your opinion is more important than our actual content policies. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alternately, we could just say "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]) or "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("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") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), but "extension" is also perfectly accurate and valid. Again, this sort of lawyering is going nowhere. If you're floating echoign the The Epoch Times and their claim that they're somehow totally separate from Li or The Epoch Times, you're barking up the wrong tree: The Epoch Times and related Falun Gong media extensions are not a reliable sources—and that's not likely to change anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK so you didn't answer my question. Each word we use should be accurate and sourced. Using our own terms, as you now admit you're doing, is inappropriate and original research. All I'm actually insisting on is that we take care to be accurate. Part of being accurate is not engaging in original research, or coming up with our own terms that aren't reflected in the literature. The relationship between the Falun Gong faith and the Epoch Media Groups seems fairly straightforward: it's founded by believers and staffed almost entirely by them. We should simply say that rather than come up with our own ways of framing it. When official Falun Gong spokespeople say that the Epoch Media don't represent the Falun Gong community, we report that; when Epoch Media people say they don't represent Falun Gong, we report that; when media and scholars say that as far as they're concerned, they do look at those media companies as a sign of what Falun Gong believers think, we report that too. In the article, we can just give a clear account of the relationship between the two (i.e. between the faith/practice/group and the media) and subsequently refer to the media by name. For me it is more about nuance and accuracy rather than bluster and anger; so, take it easy with the spiels. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Media sources since 2016 make it pretty clear that there's more going on here than a bunch of adherents independently striking up a bunch of coordinated Falun Gong propaganda arms—in other words, extensions. Now, calling these extensions "Falun Gong media" is also fine by me—or, better yet, we could just quote these sources directly by simply referring to them as "propaganda". In fact, there's a very good case for that, and perhaps I'll compile a collection of sources that does exactly that here soon—I can think of several, and I'm sure there will soon be plenty more. Then again, extensions is in fact perfectly valid and obviously not original research; Falun Gong media, Falun Gong extensions, religious-political propaganda, you get the picture. And, of course, we don't parrot sources that fail WP:RS, of which you're well aware: We're simply not here to conjure up artificial balance and we're not here to regurgitate whatever The Epoch Times is up to today. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propaganda arms, while correct, would be a bit blunt in an encyclopedia article except as part of a quote. I agree to any reasonable alternative like outlet, extension, associated group, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Media sources since 2016 make it pretty clear that there's more going on here than a bunch of adherents independently striking up a bunch of coordinated Falun Gong propaganda arms—in other words, extensions. Now, calling these extensions "Falun Gong media" is also fine by me—or, better yet, we could just quote these sources directly by simply referring to them as "propaganda". In fact, there's a very good case for that, and perhaps I'll compile a collection of sources that does exactly that here soon—I can think of several, and I'm sure there will soon be plenty more. Then again, extensions is in fact perfectly valid and obviously not original research; Falun Gong media, Falun Gong extensions, religious-political propaganda, you get the picture. And, of course, we don't parrot sources that fail WP:RS, of which you're well aware: We're simply not here to conjure up artificial balance and we're not here to regurgitate whatever The Epoch Times is up to today. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK so you didn't answer my question. Each word we use should be accurate and sourced. Using our own terms, as you now admit you're doing, is inappropriate and original research. All I'm actually insisting on is that we take care to be accurate. Part of being accurate is not engaging in original research, or coming up with our own terms that aren't reflected in the literature. The relationship between the Falun Gong faith and the Epoch Media Groups seems fairly straightforward: it's founded by believers and staffed almost entirely by them. We should simply say that rather than come up with our own ways of framing it. When official Falun Gong spokespeople say that the Epoch Media don't represent the Falun Gong community, we report that; when Epoch Media people say they don't represent Falun Gong, we report that; when media and scholars say that as far as they're concerned, they do look at those media companies as a sign of what Falun Gong believers think, we report that too. In the article, we can just give a clear account of the relationship between the two (i.e. between the faith/practice/group and the media) and subsequently refer to the media by name. For me it is more about nuance and accuracy rather than bluster and anger; so, take it easy with the spiels. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alternately, we could just say "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]) or "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("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") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), but "extension" is also perfectly accurate and valid. Again, this sort of lawyering is going nowhere. If you're floating echoign the The Epoch Times and their claim that they're somehow totally separate from Li or The Epoch Times, you're barking up the wrong tree: The Epoch Times and related Falun Gong media extensions are not a reliable sources—and that's not likely to change anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you think "extension" is appropriate? Although, perhaps it doesn't matter. It is unsourced, vague, and original research. You've simply reasserted your personal opinion, and by doing so have made clear that you think your opinion is more important than our actual content policies. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is amply covered in reliable media sources, as it is covered in the article. "Extension" is fully appropriate. This sort of lawyering is unhelpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
New ABC News Australia article: "The Power of Falun Gong"
ABC News (Australia) recently published an article on Falun Gong, Dragon Springs, and Falun Gong extensions like The Epoch Times:
- Campbell, Eric & Hagar Cohen. 2020. "The Power of Falun Gong". ABC News, July 202, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 27, 2020.
A few quotes:
- As a young child, Anna came to believe Falun Gong’s teachings too, but there were some that raised deeply personal questions for her. Among them was being taught that she was different to other children because her mother was Chinese and her father was European.
- "The leader of Falun Gong claims that race mixing in humans is part of an alien plot to drive humanity further from the gods,” says Anna. “He says that when a child is born from an interracial marriage, that child does not have a heavenly kingdom to go to.”
- Some practitioners have explained Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth. At 11 years old, her mother read her the teachings about mixed-race children.
- The family started spending weekends and holidays at The Mountain, flying across the breadth of the US to be closer to the movement’s global base .
- “It was my mother’s dream for our entire family to eventually live at Dragon Springs.”
- ... But for Anna, The Mountain was no haven. The presence of Falun Gong’s leader, Master Li Hongzhi, seemed to pervade the complex.
I've seen the comments from Li regarding aliens and 'race-mixing' come up quite a few times now, but it is nowhere in the article. The same goes for Shen Yun's attitude toward medicine. Given the state of the article until it received scrutiny a few months ago, this is hardly a surprise, but Li espousing alien plots and racism is deeply fringe stuff, and notable.
Further, on the closeness between Falun Gong media entities and Trump campaign figures:
- Dragon Springs is just a small slice of an expanding empire connected with Falun Gong. Practitioners set up The Epoch Times, once a free newspaper which is now published online and printed across the USA, Australia and other countries. Last year, in an advertising blitz, The Epoch Times spent nearly $US2 million on Facebook ads which pushed a pro-Trump message. Its YouTube news channel also appeals to a conservative audience.
- Another media outlet linked to Falun Gong is the broadcaster NTD (New Tang Dynasty Television), which has collaborated with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon to produce Claws of the Red Dragon, a drama critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
- Jonathon Lee insists Falun Gong is not politically aligned but many of the practitioners see Donald Trump as an ally in the fight against the CCP.
- The Epoch Times maintains it is not owned or operated by Falun Gong, but Ben Hurley, who worked on the Australian English-language edition, says it is in every sense a Falun Gong outlet. “Everyone who works there is a Falun Gong practitioner. They have a few people, a few token non-Falun Gong practitioners that they point to every time, but those people are outside the fortress. They’re not a part of the organisation.”
A group of editors entrenched on this page regularly attempts to downplay anything and remove anything found on this article that does not adhere to Falun Gong's narrative about itself, including discussion of Dragon Springs. Sections regarding Falun Gong's approach to medicine, race, homosexuality, and aliens are also relevant and should be in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Those issues are, in fact, addressed in the article. To determine what kind of weight these things should be accorded, we should refer not to a single source, but should look at how these aspects are treated across the body of literature on Falun Gong teachings, representing different sides fairly and proportionally, so that we don't end up giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic, or to one perspective on it. There is no section dealing with the approach to medicine, which is worth adding.TheBlueCanoe 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The topic of aliens is solely covered in a quote that you're hoping to cut out of the article, for example.
- A reminder that we're here to report on what reliable sources say. We're not here to be "fair" to any entity in particular; we're not looking to undercut reliable sources for "balance" in favor of any entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I second what Bloodofox said. In addition "To determine what kind of weight these things should be accorded, we should refer not to a single source, but should look at how these aspects are treated across the body of literature on Falun Gong teachings, representing different sides fairly and proportionally, so that we don't end up giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic, or to one perspective on it.” appears to be proposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE which we are supposed to avoid. You appear to misunderstand the WP:DUEWEIGHT component of the NPOV policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed all of our disputes here come down to questions of due weight. But how due weight is arrived at is via discussion among us. When some editors are constantly attacking other editors in personal terms and questioning their motives, this does make discussion difficult. Bloodofox, in all the time you have been editing the page, have you sat down and read the seminal literature on the topic? May I ask, which scholarly books about Falun Gong have you read? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please stick to the topic: We're here to report on what reliable sources say, and we have plenty of quality media sources discussing these topics from which to draw. In a few years, we'll no doubt also have plenty of academic sources discussing Falun Gong's post-2016 far-right pivot, including the organization's Epoch Times conspiracy theory-mongering and Trump campaign promotion. We can then cite those in addition. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you know of such non-affiliated/independent scholarly sources, please share them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed all of our disputes here come down to questions of due weight. But how due weight is arrived at is via discussion among us. When some editors are constantly attacking other editors in personal terms and questioning their motives, this does make discussion difficult. Bloodofox, in all the time you have been editing the page, have you sat down and read the seminal literature on the topic? May I ask, which scholarly books about Falun Gong have you read? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
New Editing Restrictions
@Horse Eye Jack, Bstephens393, Bloodofox, Cleopatran Apocalypse, TheBlueCanoe, and Binksternet: Due to the continual edit warring, I have full protected the article until you all can assure myself or another administrator that all of you will play nicely with one another. Until that time, all edits to the article need a clear consensus here on this talk page. Once that happens, please use {{Edit fully protected}} to ask an administrator to implement the change. Further, everyone pinged here is placed under a 0RR for this article and will be notified of this sanction on their talk pages. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I just discovered that Binksternet was not formally aware of the discretionary sanctions within this topic area and can not be the subject of sanctions. I withdraw my comment vis-à-vis him. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guerillero, thanks for the note of explanation. I've suggested before that such a remedy be put in place, and think that mediation of this sort would be very helpful (the only alternative at this point may be to request a new arbitration case, which is time consuming for all involved).
- The problem here is that the version of the article that is now locked is a new version that never came close to achieving consensus, and contains some frankly embarrassing material that is contradicted by the vast majority of reliable sources. The editors who edit warred to keep this version of the page have demonstrated, in their responses above, that they do not intend to address the concerns raised with respect to those edits. So what is to be done? Shall I provide (again) a detailed, point-by-point explanation of what is wrong with this version, give them an opportunity (again) to reply, and if they refuse (again) to engage constructively on the merits of those edits, then an admin changes them back? TheBlueCanoe 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (For reference: this is the thread in which I raise several concerns with the lede section, in which Bloodofox and Binksternet declare their unwillingness to address those concerns).TheBlueCanoe 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Numerous users have in fact repeatedly responded to the questions you repeatedly raise, often between your attempts to scrape media sources from the article. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bloodofox and TheBlueCanoe: I do not know what version is the correct version of the article. You all need to come to a consensus about how the article should proceed. If you all find that it is impossible with the current cadre of people who comment here, you should consider launching an RfC to bring in additional editors. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently No Page Has Ever Been Protected As The 'Right' Version. <humor/> I am certainly willing to engage constructively, but I was never going to agree to debate every single point regardless of the value of the debate point. Binksternet (talk)
- Numerous users have in fact repeatedly responded to the questions you repeatedly raise, often between your attempts to scrape media sources from the article. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Guerillero: I’ve made one edit on the main page since the 10th, in that time I’ve made 12 edits on the talk page. No comment on the others but I don’t think I'm edit warring or not trying to work things out on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye Jack: This edit was part of the chain of multi-party slow-moving edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yep thats the one edit. Ok, I can see that. I thought I was returning it to status quo until the talk page conversation was completed. Apparently I misunderstood what was going on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye Jack: This edit was part of the chain of multi-party slow-moving edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero:Might I suggest restoring the 02:34, 29 June 2020 version per WP:STATUSQUO?
Here is that version:
Here is the diff from the current version:
Anyone who was involved in the edit war and thinks that we just protected the wrong version might want to consider whether the 02:34, 29 June 2020 version is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: If there is a consensus to revert --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- While the differences are not extensive, my impression is that the current version is an improvement, other than for sources that have been removed leaving various extant statements without citations. Possibly that in the interim those could have been tagged as primary or unreliable instead, until those paragraphs can be reworked and sources potentially replaced. Primary sources may also still be usable to support noncontroversial/nonselfserving facts... —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- (Comment, as someone who was involved in aforementioned edit war): Paleo, the differences in the lede section are quite substantial. I detail a number of the problems with the current version in this thread, noting that many of the problems relate to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I would add one more point to illustrate: the current version of the lede does even not describe the core beliefs of Falun Gong ("Truth, Compassion, Forbearance," which it takes to be the essence of the Dao or the moral law of the universe. These teachings are highlighted very prominently the academic literature on this topic). But it does highlight how a dance company related to Falun Gong has anti-evolution views (there are less than two full sentences in reliable sources talk about this). If that's not a problem of undue weight, I don't know what it. TheBlueCanoe 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- We have several reliable sources discussion controversial aspects of both Shen Yun and Falun Gong more broadly, including anti-evolution propaganda, Falun Gong's notorious opposition to medicine, and the well-covered alien stuff from Li, aspects of the new religious movement which need more extensive coverage in the article. I oppose this reversion in part because it leaves out large sections that we've added since, such as Falun_Gong#Fei_Tian_College_and_Fei_Tian_Academy_of_the_Arts.
- (Comment, as someone who was involved in aforementioned edit war): Paleo, the differences in the lede section are quite substantial. I detail a number of the problems with the current version in this thread, noting that many of the problems relate to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. I would add one more point to illustrate: the current version of the lede does even not describe the core beliefs of Falun Gong ("Truth, Compassion, Forbearance," which it takes to be the essence of the Dao or the moral law of the universe. These teachings are highlighted very prominently the academic literature on this topic). But it does highlight how a dance company related to Falun Gong has anti-evolution views (there are less than two full sentences in reliable sources talk about this). If that's not a problem of undue weight, I don't know what it. TheBlueCanoe 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- BlueCanoe's complaints about the lead are invalid: It's all extremely well sourced. BlueCanoe's historic attempts at stripping media sources (literally going through and scrubbing them from the page, again and again and again, ad nauseaum, ad infinitum—yes, those are all different diffs!) and regularly bombarding the page with complaints (that read as if they were written by the organization itself) are more than old at this point. Additionally, for all these complaints, readers will notice that BlueCanoe very rarely actually brings sources to the table—especially not media sources or, really, any sources from the past several years—instead repeatedly referencing vague material from before Falun Gong's quite visible hard-right turn around 2016, emphasizing a persecution narrative, and downplaying or ignoring anything that has occurred since then, particularly if it reflects in a 'negative' manner on the organization. That's not how to build a Misplaced Pages article, and we need a stronger response to this sort of behavior. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- The good media coverage of that material is what convinces me that it's due criticism rather than minor personal opinions. Moreover, that paragraph appears to summarize the "political involvement" section. —PaleoNeonate – 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Adding: that paragraph was already discussed before and the ANI thread points at instances of its restoration including mine, —PaleoNeonate – 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- BlueCanoe's complaints about the lead are invalid: It's all extremely well sourced. BlueCanoe's historic attempts at stripping media sources (literally going through and scrubbing them from the page, again and again and again, ad nauseaum, ad infinitum—yes, those are all different diffs!) and regularly bombarding the page with complaints (that read as if they were written by the organization itself) are more than old at this point. Additionally, for all these complaints, readers will notice that BlueCanoe very rarely actually brings sources to the table—especially not media sources or, really, any sources from the past several years—instead repeatedly referencing vague material from before Falun Gong's quite visible hard-right turn around 2016, emphasizing a persecution narrative, and downplaying or ignoring anything that has occurred since then, particularly if it reflects in a 'negative' manner on the organization. That's not how to build a Misplaced Pages article, and we need a stronger response to this sort of behavior. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Archived and other unused sources
I was looking through old versions of the article, and other reports about Falun Gong, and found some sources that we could use. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hudson Reporter, "Shen Yun returns." December 2011. Talks about the "political underpinnings" of the Shen Yun performance, portraying Falun Gong persecution along with a skewed and biased version of Chinese history.
- Heather Kavan, "Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy". November 2017. Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review. Kavan talks about how Falun Gong members wooed her as a scholar and then harrassed her after she began publishing her critical analysis.
- UK Guardian, "Shen Yun". February 2008. Mentioning how the Shen Yun show is modern propaganda, not a portrayal of Chinese history as advertised.
- The Ledger. Opinion piece: "Propaganda posing as entertainment". January 2016. Talking about how Shen Yun is Falun Gong political propaganda, including anti-gay, anti-atheist and anti-miscegenation.
- PRI. "Why China Fears the Falun Gong". July 2014. An explanation of Falun Gong in the format of question and answer.
- Washington Post. "In the face of criticism, China has been cleaning up its organ transplant industry". July 2017. Update on organ harvesting in China.
- UK Guardian
We should also mention Samuel Luo, an ex-Falun Gong member who exposed a lot of the group's inner workings on a website some time around 2003 or 2004 (I'm guessing.) The Press Telegram says Luo was hounded by Falun Gong who tried to suppress his website. SFGate reported the same thing, as did the San Diego Union Tribune. He's also in the New Yorker piece that we already cite. Roman scholar Leonardo Sacco cites Samuel Luo in his scholarly article "Is Falun Gong a Sect or a Religious Movement? A Comparative Approach?" published in 2011. Samuel Luo is part of the Falun Gong story. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- As for Samuel Luo, I don't think he's an ex-member? His name seemed vaguely familiar, and then I remembered encountering it in the archives. Voilà. Apparently he is/was an anti-Falun Gong activist who in 2007 received an indefinite topic ban by ArbCom with the following rationale: "Aggressive SPA edit warring on Falun Gong articles; stated intent to disrupt and go out with a bang." Thereafter, he seems to have set up a number of sockpuppets that eventually got banned as well, and based on this his disruptive editing was so exceptional that he was specifically mentioned in a notice on top of this article's talk page for a very long time. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Leonardo Sacco cites the following:
- Samuel Luo, What Falun Gong Really Teaches, « Cultic Studies Review », ii, 2003, at International Cultic Studies Association, http ://www.icsahome.com (accessed November 23, 2009)
- This page by Michael D. Langone, "The PRC and Falun Gong", hosted at ICSA, says Samuel Luo was a family member of Falun Gong practitioners, so I'm wrong about him being ex-Falun Gong.
- Luo's paper may be found within a PDF of Cultic Studies Review, volume 2, number 2, 2003. The PDF is a Google drive link on the ICSA website. In the paper, Luo says he first became alarmed at Falun Gong when his practitioner mother started talking about aliens living in the world among us, that the world is ending and only Li Hongzhi can save people. Luo discusses the aspects of Falun Gong that are religious, and the aspects that are cult-like:
One of the most important and common methods that cults use to control their followers can be called "exclusion of the outside world." Cult members are taught not to trust people outside of the group, including family members. This component of mind control is definitely found in the Falun Gong teachings. Falun Gong practitioners are made to distrust the moral thinking of non-practitioners who are called "ordinary people". This is done intentionally by master Li, who repeatedly teaches: "As a practitioner you cannot act according to the ordinary people‘s standards."(15) This manipulation technique not only isolates practitioners from non-practitioners, including family members and friends, but also creates a system where practitioners only share information with other practitioners. As a result, practitioners mutually reinforce each other‘s belief in the teachings, thereby eliminating any conflicting or alternative views.
- Since Sacco cites Luo, and since Luo was published by ICSA, I think we can include some of Luo's conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is what User:Bloodofox told me a few weeks ago about a peer-reviewed article published in 2003: "An article from 2003 is of historic interest, and that's the extent of it. That was 17 years ago. Passing off an article about the NRM from 2003 as if it is still relevant in 2020 is, to put it politely, laughable." Assuming that he's consistent, I don't think he would agree with the inclusion? What do you think? Bstephens393 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am more inclusive than that one statement by Bloodofox, probably a hot-headed reaction. I accept sources for their relevant place in time. We Misplaced Pages editors are expected to balance the sources in the process of summarizing them. In some cases, an older paper will still be relevant, while in others it will not. Or the older paper might be presented as a moment in time, representative of the thinking at that time. Or parts of the older paper might still be good even though other parts will have been superseded. In all cases, we must judge the literature ourselves and balance it to compose an accurate summary. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is what User:Bloodofox told me a few weeks ago about a peer-reviewed article published in 2003: "An article from 2003 is of historic interest, and that's the extent of it. That was 17 years ago. Passing off an article about the NRM from 2003 as if it is still relevant in 2020 is, to put it politely, laughable." Assuming that he's consistent, I don't think he would agree with the inclusion? What do you think? Bstephens393 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Leonardo Sacco cites the following:
Patsy Rahn's paper which we already cite compares Falun Gong to previous religious sectarian rebellions in China, the most recent being Yiguandao. We should tell the reader about the extensive experience of sectarian revolt in China, which was not always damaging to the government, but was viewed suspiciously because of the great damage possible. Successive governments quashed every sectarian rebellion except the one led by Zhu Yuanzhang who overthrew the government in 1368 and established the Ming dynasty with himself on the throne. The Yiguandao sect was suppressed by the Qing government, the Nationalist Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. All of these Chinese governments agreed that a religious sect with millions of followers was a dangerous entity to allow within China. Something about this, explicitly naming Yiguandao, should be in the article. At the very least we should cite Rahn in the first paragraph of the section "Causes" which is looking for a citation. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a dominant theme and certainly deserves to be covered properly. What is also sorely lacking is the overall context of state-sanctioned qigong in the 1980s and 90s and the sociopolitical environment in which Falun Gong grew and was popularized, since the sectarian revolt narrative leaves out a number of important considerations about the internal power politics inside the CCP and China's scientific community. I recently saw this Capstone Essay which contains a number of high-quality academic sources that we should take a close look at, even though we shouldn't directly link to it. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
In 2012, the Atlantic ran a piece about the stability (or not) of the Chinese government. They said that the Chinese Communist Party's crackdown of Falun Gong seems "less surprising" after considering that the Qing Dynasty succumbed to internal pressure from anti-Manchu secret societies (also to foreign pressure), and the Kuomintang succumbed to a movement from inside China (also war with Japan). Which explains the harsh defensive measures taken by the CCP in 1999, who were trying to prevent another internal movement taking over the government. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Categories:- 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