Talk:Falun Gong

Template:WP1.0

Notice: Samuel Luo and his Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Tomananda are banned from editing this article indefinitely

The users specified have been banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. These users are also prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong.

In relation to qigong and its roots in Chinese culture

In 1992, Li Hongzhi introduced Falun Gong and along with teachings that touched upon a wide range of topics, from detailed exposition on qigong related phenomenon and cultivation practice to science and morality. In the next few years, Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity across China to become the most popular qigong practice in Chinese History. Falun Gong was welcomed into the state-controlled Scientific Qigong Research Association, which sponsored and helped to organize many of his activities between 1992 and 1994, including 54 large-scale lectures. In 1992 and 1993 he won government awards at the Beijing Oriental Health Expos, including the "Qigong Master most acclaimed by the Masses" and "The Award for Advancing Boundary Science."

According to academics, Falun Gong originally surfaced in the institutional field of alternative Chinese science, not religion. The debate between what can be called "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" schools of qigong theory has produced a considerable amount of literature. Xu Jian stated in The Journal of Asian Studies 58 (4 November 1999): "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 controversy centers on the question of whether and how qigong can induce “supranormal abilities” (teyi gongneng). The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its super-normal mechanisms or which causative factors which go beyond wht canbe explained by presentday scietific models, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge present day modern science." The Chinese government has generally tried to encourage qigong 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.

David Aikman has written in American Spectator (March 2000): "Americans may believe that qigong belongs in a general category of socially neutral, New Age-style concepts that are merely subjective, not necessarily harmful, and incapable of scientific proof. But China's scientific community doesn't share this view. Experiments under controlled conditions established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s and early 1980s concluded that qi, when emitted by a qigong expert, actually constitutes measurable infrared electromagnetic waves and causes chemical changes in static water through mental concentration. Qi, according to much of China's scientific establishment, for all intents existed."

Li Hongzhi states in Falun Buddha Fa Lectures in Europe:

"Since the time Dafa was made public, I have unveiled some inexplicable phenomena in qigong as well as things that hadn’t been explained in the qigong community. But this isn’t the reason why so many people are studying Dafa. It’s because our Fa can truly enable people to Consummate, truly save people, and allow you to truly ascend to high levels in the process of cultivation. Whether it’s your realm of mind or the physical quality of your body, the Fa truly enables you to reach the standards of different levels. It absolutely can assume this role."

Andrew P. Kipnis is quoted as stating: "...to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; bur Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific [in China], but was mostly insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries"

The term 'qigong' was coined in the early 1950s as an alternative label to past spiritual disciplines rooted Buddhism or Taoism, that promoted the belief in the supernatural, immortality and pursuit of spiritual transcendence. The new term was constructed to avoid danger of association with ancient spiritual practices which were labeled "superstitious" and persecuted during the Maoist era. In Communist China, where spirituality and religion are looked-down upon, the concept was "tolerated" because it carried with it no overt religious or spiritual elements; and millions flocked to it during China's spiritual vacuum of the 1980s and 1990s. Scholars argue that the immense popularity of qigong in China could, in part, lie in the fact that the public saw in it a way to improve and maintain health. According to Ownby, this rapidly became a social phenomenon of considerable importance.

Membership and finances

Sociologist Susan Palmer writes that, "...Falun Gong does not behave like other new religions. For one thing, its organization - if one can even call it that - is quite nebulous. There are no church buildings, rented spaces, no priests or administrators. At first I assumed this was defensive [...] now, I'm beginning to think that what you see is exactly what you get - Master Li's teachings on the Net on the one hand and a global network of practitioners on the other. Traveling through North America, all I dug up was a handful of volunteer contact persons. The local membership (they vehemently reject that word) is whoever happens to show up at the park on a particular Saturday morning to do qigong."

Finances

In his thesis, Noah Porter takes up the issue of Falun Gong and finance in Mainland China. He quotes and responds to some of the allegations of the Chinese Communist Party that Li benefited financially from teaching the practice. Porter writes that when teaching seminars, there was an admission of 40 yuan per new practitioner and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners--with the repeat practitioners making up for 50-75% of the admissions. He goes on to say with respect to the CCP's claims: "...but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong's first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses..."

Ian Johnson points out that during the greatest period of Falun Gong book sales in China, Li Hongzhi never received any royalties because all publications were bootleg.

James Tong writes about the competing claims by Falun Gong and the Chinese government in 'The China Quarterly' journal, 2003. He writes that the government has attempted to portray Falun Gong as being financially savvy with a centralized administration system and a variety of mechanisms for deriving profit from the practice. He also looks over Falun Gong's claims of having no hierarchy, administration, membership or financial accounts, and that seminar admission was charged at a minimal rate. Tong writes that it was in the government's interest, in the post-crackdown context, to portray Falun Gong as being highly organised: "The more organized the Falun Gong could be shown to be, then the more justified the regime's repression in the name of social order was." He writes that the government's charges that Falun Gong made excessive profits, charged exorbitant fees, and that Li Hongzhi led a lavish lifestyle "...lack both internal and external substantiating evidence" and points out that that despite the arrests and scrutiny, the authorities "had disclosed no financial accounts that established the official charge and credibly countered Falun Gong rebuttals."

Li Hongzhi stipulates in his books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun that practitioners should only voluntarily help others learn the exercises and that this could never be done for fame and money, and also stipulates that practitioners must not accept any fee, donation or gift in return for their voluntarily teaching the practice. According to Falun Gong, Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society, the state administrative body under which Falun Dafa was initially introduced. Li subsequently withdrew from the organization.

Falun Gong website often state on their pages that "All Falun Gong Activities Are Free of Charge and Run by Volunteers"

In an interview in Sydney on May 2, 1999, mentioning his financial status, Li said : "In mainland China I published so many books, but added together, they haven't exceeded twenty thousand Renminbi (equivalent to US $ 2,469). This is what the publishing company gave me. When publishing books in other countries of the world, you know there is a rule, which pays 5 or 6% royalties to the author, so each time I can only get a little bit, a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars."

Suspected WP:NPOV violations?

The last edit of section "5.2 Controversies" (diff here) by Mangosour(Talk) appears--at least to me--to completely change the meaning of a couple of paragraphs. The change is significant enough that it seems likely the cited refs are no longer applicable. This seems to be a hot/controversial topic and, while I sure as heck don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR in my travels, neither am I willing to let POV-pushing or spin doctoring go unchallenged. I'm pretty sure, though, there is another editor or admin that will help me look at it. Thank you! UncleBubba (Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously a troll. —Zujine|talk 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added about five references to substantiate the point that the cult label is not part of mainstream scholarship. There are many more, I am sure. This is not a controversial point. —Zujine|talk 10:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This article still does not express total neutrality. There is pro-Falun Gong bias and not enough attention to the opposite point of view. 97.65.1.140 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Points of view should be presented in proportion to their representation in the most reliable sources. In light of this, are you able to substantiate your argument? What should there be more of? Homunculus (duihua) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Response to these appeals has been mixed."

I have previously edited the above statement in "response outside China" to include what was stated in the citations. To me this statement alone is ambiguous and lacks the detail that this article should contain. It was reverted once by User:UncleBubba that :"The uncited additions really seem to violate WP:NPOV. Disagree? Let's discuss on Talk page.)" My response was: "It's not uncited and not againt NPO, it's precisely what is stated in the references following this statement." It has now been reverted by another user (User:Mrund) without any explanations. Can someone please explain why was this edit was continuously reverted? Sjschen (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "response has been mixed" is better, because it summarises both types of reception to Falungong activities. I think elaboration on how the Falungong and its practitioners' activities are received and interpreted would be good, but not in a crude way - either totally praising or condemning them. A group like this is bound to attract a range of responses. I think that should be represented with some awareness of the complexity of all the views, what is behind them, who holds them, etc. Adam Frank and Richard Madsen have written about that.

The bit you inserted was the opinion of a theatre critic in the Daily Telegraph, about one of the performances hosted by Falungong (right?). That doesn't mean that Falungong's activities are generally seen as propagandistic, or that that point of view should not be broadly summarised. Mainly it sounds like more of a label to me, which begs an explanation. I think we would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader, rather than giving them a convenient 'box' in which to place the subject. That would be my approach, to this and other subjects. Homunculus (duihua) 06:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. —Zujine|talk 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While what I have summarized from the cited articles is decidedly short, I would not say that it's "crude", or much less an attempt at labeling. To be fair, most of this article effectively "boxes" Falungong as being a solely religious organization under the persecution of the PROC, when it is much more than just that. Though I definitely agree that my addition "...would be better with a more sophisticated appraisal that explains the whys and wherefores, and delivers value to the reader...", the same statement could be easily applied to the original pithy summary of the criticisms ("Response to these appeals has been mixed."). A fuller extent of the organization's activities outside of China and the response to it (be it positive or negative) needs to be plainly stated from the sources without the editors' zealous filtering. Sjschen (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is already a good discussion of Falungong practitioners' activities outside China, including how those activities and strategies have been interpreted. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the FLG activities outside China have been discussed, however I am not convinced that these discussion are done in a "good" way. Criticisms directed at FLG in this article seems to be nacred to the point of being imperceptible. Meanwhile the article has been edited to largely show FLG off as an organization of immaculate conduct and intentions which has been endlessly and brutally persecuted for its beliefs. Fact is the FLG is a complex and multifaceted religious and political organization that engages in a whole slew of activities, some prettier and some less so. As wikipedia, an articles on FLG should discuss all aspects of the organization without attempts to cover up the criticisms (or move them to sub-articles) while emphasizing only it sympathy inducing parts, or vice-versa.

Even if there is already a good discussion on a topic does not mean that a statement should be so diluted of content. To that, I can also argue that since good discussion on the history, system of belief, and the oppression experienced by the members of FLG already exists much of this article can be removed and condensed without much loss. At the end the fact is, I wrote one cited sentence. Unless you are championing a particular "side", I don't see why you would object to the inclusion of founded statements criticizing the organization... Sjschen (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I am the original writer of statement "Response to these appeals has been mixed." Although I do agree that this area of contention should be further expanded, I do not agree with your edit to "Falun Gong events have have been noted by some as been laden with propaganda or politically motivated." I am not going to agree or disagree with the general premise, but I intentionally made the statement to be as moderate as possible. Your statement without further expansion is incendiary and would have been the target of vehement pro-FLG edits. Hmm... (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see how my edit could have incited the wrath of certain editors and I assure you this was and still is not my intention. Nevertheless, as much as I do believe in being moderate, I believe that a statement can be made too moderate to the point that it loses its content (anything will have mixed "appeals"). From the articles cited, the journalists reported the opinions and reactions of individuals who have seen and know of the show. They also state more or less that the show pushes the agenda of the FLG through advertising itself as an event about Chinese culture, hence the p-words in my edit "propaganda" and "political(-ly motivated)". Yes, perhaps there are less incendiary way of stating this, but if one has credible citations to back their statement one has the responsibility to state them as such without dilution for the sake of being "moderate". Sjschen (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any responses? If not I'll proceed to edit this portion of the article in the next few days. -- Sjschen (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

laughably skewed article

Totally fails to mention that Western academics have repeatedly referred to Falun Gong as a cult; simply reading the titles of works on the subject of Falun Gong in the citations section reveals this fact. Why do they call it a cult? Because Falun Gong is a dictionary definition cult, whether you like it or not. You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.129.24 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it: why does the article make you sympathise with the government of communist china? --Asdfg12345 13:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list which Western academics you refer to? I understood that this was a 'fringe theory' (as previously argued by Asdfg12345). There was a list somewhere, but I don't have the time to pursue that now. Homunculus (duihua) 06:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"You know an article is skewed when it actually makes you sympathize with the government of communist china.", marvelous, I might save that quote. Yes, better to give specific sources as examples. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This from the BBC in 1998 doesn't look very fringe "World: Asia-Pacific Falun Gong: A new cult emerges" Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "dictionary definition of cult" and that's the whole point. See any good dictionary gives you at least 3 totally different definitions of a cult ranging from ritual practices to a group with theist beliefs that aren't mainstream to an authoritarian and exploitative organization resorting to violence and forced labor. If you just say "cult" and then back it up with references of scholars that also used the term cult, then that's no good cause those scholars might have simply meant "a group with theist beliefs that aren't mainstream". So instead you should always use clear terms. Of course the Communist Party uses the term and means it in an extremely derogatory way. But it's made clear in the article that they mean it in such a derogatory way. Whereas in your BBC article for example it's not clear at all which of the definitions is meant and it's not even necessarily meant in a derogatory way at all. Actually the only time the BBC article says something negative about Falung Gong is when it quotes the Communist Party. --Hoerth (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoerth identifies the issue properly here. It should be obvious that a BBC article soon after the Zhongnanhai demonstration, mostly quoting official sources, is not nearly as authoritative as a decade of scholarship. Homunculus (duihua) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Article not neutral or academic

In my opinion, the current article does not provide a neutral enough perspective in Falun Gong. I agree with the above poster and Ohconfucius's enforcement motion, that the article is pro-FLG.

I would also contend that this article seems similar in nature to what I have read from FLG promotional materials and heard from my personal encounters with FLG practitioners in that there is a heavy focus on their prosecution by the CCP rather than the overall nature of FLG. There should be a greater exposition of the beliefs and practices unique to FLG, and of the FLG organizational structure. This opinion, of course, by no means is meant to lessen the seriousness of the the atrocities committed by the CCP against FLG followers.

I would also contend that after the year-long domination of this article by pro-FLG editors (asdfg12345, Olaf Stephanos and HappyInGeneral) with the edits by FLG practitioners (Dilip rajeev, FalunGongDisciple, etc), the results of their dominance still linger. With the degree of controversy surrounding this group as evidenced just by this talk page, I find it surprising that there is no mention of the controversial nature of the group in the intro. Even under the controversies section, the section seems to white-wash the arguments used by opponents of the FLG by not including the details of the conservative nature of the group (eg. regarding mixed-raced couples, rock music, etc), omitting the more fanciful claims by the leader (eg flight, walking through walls, etc) and dismissing the controversy as a cultural misunderstanding while emphasizing the gentle nature of the group. I also find the omission the the controversies surrounding the health claims, particularly those surrounding FLG cancer patients being urged not to receive chemotherapy particularly egregious. Hmm... (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read David Ownby's book on Falun Gong? I think it's a good place to start. The arguments you make here are interesting, but the question is how much weight real scholars give the issues you raise. Does Ownby (or any other scholar, for that matter) find Falun Gong's teachings on medicine to be extremely important? Could you please provide references to substantiate that? Also, in Falun Gong there is no such thing as urging someone not to receive chemotherapy if they have cancer. I practice Falun Gong and if someone who practiced it got cancer I would suggest they get treatment, if they really had cancer. There are no rules about what people have to do, it is without form. Also, I think the arguments are documented clearly in the article already. Falun Gong is not against mixed-race marriages, as evidenced here. Finally, cherrypicking statements the "leader" of Falun Gong has made and highlighting them may be undue weight, if it couldn't be shown how third parties consider such things so important. I also do not see how the fact that people have a lot of ideas about this practice automatically makes those ideas important. Sure, they ought not be ignored, but that's not what the article is primarily about: it should be more factual rather than a stream of opinions. And I think the current set-up, where there is an opinion then another opinion, is quite fair. Or, should we delete all the opinions that try to make Falun Gong understandable? Do we seek to, rather than illuminate and help people understand the topic of the article, have them form negative ideas about the subject? My view is that the purpose of the article is to provide information about the topic, not to try to persuade readers that it is good or bad. Explaining what people find problematic about Falun Gong, then explaining how Falun Gong responded to that, and what other people think--this is fair, isn't it? Marriage is controversial, too. The article on marriage doesn't leap into the controversies associated with it in the introduction. --Asdfg12345 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Western Academics and Press is overwhelmingly sypathetic to thier religion persecuation, thus we have a slight bias as most western sources are in either english so that is possible Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb7's assessment strikes me as about right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, though this is to be expected in an English article especially with so many practitioners contributing to this article. Overall it's improved though I feel ~ at least all opinions are backed with sources, even if they may be biased. My main issue and I think many have brought this up in the past is that the entire article still seems to focus on FLG and it's relationship with China. The whole theme is surrounding the persecution and acceptance of the practice; it's image rather than it's substance. For spiritual/physical practice I think its is lacking in addressing the following as it's central topics 1) What is the theory behind this 'gong' 2) How is it actually practiced, what forms or methods are performed 3) How is it applied to relevant aspects of life (i.e. health, strength building, socializing). With so many practitioners contributing, I'd hoped these would be easily covered. BTW, Marriage is not controversial, a more suitable comparison would be gay marriage.