Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Sources from 2000 and 2003 presented as current need to go

Right now a significant amount of this article's discussion about the contemporary Falun Gong is cited to material from 2000 and 2003. A lot of this seems to be intended to claim that Falun Gong is some kind of decentralized spiritual movement rather than a full-blown new religious movement centered around whatever Li Hongzhi says. it also makes no mention of the entire org's hierarchy based out of Dragon Springs, which did not exist at the time. These sources need to be removed and replaced with contemporary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The sections can be updated, but massive removal may be inappropriate, as the academically-cited parts removed shall remain true unless proven false, such as not charging fees, no system of membership, no rituals, no hierarchy to enforce orthodoxy, and the fact the Li doesn't intervene in practitioners' lives, among other things deleted. Li Hongzhi has been living in the New York area (not far from the current Dragon Springs) since 1999 or prior according to this WaPo article and U.S News & World Report article in 1999. Authors of sources published in the early 2000s (removed in recent edits) were unlikely to be unaware of this fact, as it was widely reported in 1999 that Li lived in NY at that time. Thus it would be inaccurate to say that these sources are outdated in terms of how Li influences the Falun Gong movement.

Dragon Spring is the campus of Fei Tian College, Fei Tian Academy of the Arts, and Shen Yun Performing Arts [1]. Having a physical campus for its performing arts troupe and affiliated schools doesn't necessarily change Falun Gong's organizational structure and the fact that Li communicates with his followers mainly through his teachings published on online. The decentralized structure of regional Falun Dafa Associations in the US and worldwide, as well as the voluntary nature of these organizations and their lack of hierarchy should remain true today, unless proved otherwise by reliable sources. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I just got around to reading Andrew Junker's book, Becoming Activists in Global China, which was published in 2019. It reignited an interest in the topic for me, and I think it is a good reference on this issue. bloodofox has a point about the old sources, but the content that was removed wasn't incorrect in my opinion and the new sources don't refute them. In cases like this, I think it's best to improve, not just remove (maybe a new slogan for me, haha). As a note, Junker doesn't focus on Dragon Springs in discussing the groups operations. The book takes a global look at how a diaspora community coordinates with each other, which I think provides good context. Li Hongzhi and the Falun Gong leadership (if that's the right term for anyone except Li Hongzhi in their group) have always been in New York, even before Dragon Springs, and I haven't seen any references to a significant shift in the group's dynamics after they moved there. Summary: this section needs some updates, but I don't think the new sources put forward anything contradictory to what was there before. —Zujine|talk 14:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative. He knows that coverage of Falun Gong has shifted to being extremely critical of the new religious movement over the past several years, and his edits are just more of a long line of adherents attempting to sculpt and obfuscate this page to echo the group's preferred narrative (scholars of this topic have even written about Falun Gong's repeated attempts at changing this page to exactly that). In reality, it's indisputable that Falun Gong is centralized around Li Hongzhi at their compouned at Dragon Springs. Pre-Dragon Springs sources are not acceptable on this topic. All these older sources in this article need to be purged as out of date. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Junker's book Becoming Activists in Global China (Cambridge University Press, 2019), which is probably the latest academic book on Falun Gong, mentioned Dragon Springs 15 times, and Junker even went to Dragon Springs himself for field research. But nowhere in his book did he say Dragon Springs changed Falun Gong's decentralized organizational structure. To the contrary, he said (p.186):

"Practitioners learned how to execute a petition, march through a major city, conduct lawsuits to protect rights, produce a newspaper, lobby elected officials, get motions through the US Congress, hand out leaflets on street corners, use local and national laws to protect rights, register a 501c3 nonprofit organization in the USA, issue press releases, coordinate transnational information and telephone campaigning, and so forth. All of this mobilization, especially because it was so decentralized and emphasized individual initiative, facilitated skill development and politically consequential forms of agency." (emphasis added)

In a 2019 book review, social science scholar Chengpang Lee summarized Junker's book in this way:

"First and the foremost, it is the decentralised organisational structure of Falun Gong’s mobilisation that is key to its success [compared to the democratic movement in overseas Chinese diaspora]." (emphasis added)

According to Junker (p. 99), Dragon Springs was established in 2002. Though the media only started reporting on it in the recent few years, it has been there for over 20 years. Media spotlight doesn't necessarily change its role in Falun Gong's organizational structure. Please be aware of WP:RECENTISM.

@Bloodofox: If you can specify which quote from which academic source published between 2000 and 2003 is refuted by which recent reporting, that would be more helpful (than WP:PAs). Then we can discuss either removing or updating it. Thomas Meng (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The organization can be decentralized and still have a headquarters and a supreme leader. Those aren't contradictory as much as you'd like them to be, one certainly does not refute the other. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The recent improvements should stay in the article. Too much WP:WEIGHT is assigned to outdated reports. The outdated stuff is shown to be wrong by Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis, especially the sentence "Students are free to participate in the practice and follow its teachings as much or as little as they like, and practitioners do not instruct others on what to believe or how to behave." More recent accounts show that practitioners are subject to intense peer pressure; not "free" to leave. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've only seen an opinion article (not reliable for fact) that mentioned a few anecdotal accounts of family members trying to persuade their youngsters who had stopped practicing Falun Gong. But I haven't seen any WP:RS regarding "peer pressure" beyond familial contexts.

As for the work of Heather Kaven and James Lewis, can you specify which publication of theirs contradicts which removed sentence?

Additionally, please note that the late James Lewis was a faculty member at the Chinese government-funded Wuhan University. Such affiliations raise questions about conflicts of interest.Thomas Meng (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no non-family pressure? Can you explain this then [2]? Specifically the lines which follow "But as soon as he loses the Fa, do you know what he faces?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That COI argument has been rejected again and again. You just cited Andrew Junker and Chengpang Lee yourself, and they're currently at institutions funded by the Chinese government - unlike Lewis, who was working somewhere else when the source in question was written. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Just came across this blatant instance of personal attack by Bloodofox against Thomas Meng. Bloodofox, lately I have seen editors [banned indefinitely] for lesser instance of WP:PA than the one you are committing and I warn you not to engage in such WP:PA again.

The two disputed paragraphs in this talk discussion has been stable for at least the past several months before it was deleted by Bloodofox on Sep 27 in two edits 1 and 2. When other editor restored to the previous stable version, Bloodofox reverted this restoration and restored his deletion of substantial stable content.

The alleged reason for this large scale deletion is that the content being deleted is outdated because as "being from 2000 to 2003". Without contesting this argument, in reality, some of the sources being deleted are as recent as 2019. One example is Andrew Junker's Become Activist in Global China 2019, which is a full blown scholarship published by the Cambridge University Press.

Ironically, I note the same 2019 Junker source was cited extensively in other parts of this article, bearing on a certain "secretive", New York compound. These editors have no issue with this source in those parts. The same editors, however, began to have issues with this source, when it speaks to decentralization of this religious movement.

In my respective view, we are witnessing a vandalization and clear POV-pushing on this page, committed by Bloodofox and Binksternet, and a few others. The previously stable content should be restored without delay. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Complaining about personal attacks while making personal attacks yourself in the same message is a strange tactic. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears to be a willfully ignorant argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

On hindsight, vandalism is probably a strong allegation to make in the circumstances. But there's definitely a serious personal attack and POV-pushing by the editors that you support, and it's telling that you did not deny in your comment above.

And no - calling someone out for POV-pushing or vandalism is nowhere the same as accusing another editor for being a Falun Gong "adherent", who "haunts this article" and "pushes the group's preferred narrative", which is a clear instance of WP:PA, against an editor's perceived religious affiliation or belief.

You should not be defending such behaviour, regardless of whether you agree with the infringing editor's POV. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't Thomas Meng disclosed a COI? I believe they are a self described adherent, I agree that "haunts this article" isn't ideal but I will note that it was written during spooky season. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

He has indeed and everything I said was absolutely true. This article has and continues to have a serious problem with adherents attempting to sanitize the article and present the organization's preferred version. This is not and has never been a secret here. As for "vandalism", lol. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a question @HollerithPunchCard:, why is it POV pushing and vandalism when Bloodofox calls someone out for POV-pushing or vandalism but its not when you do it? How does that math work exactly? Thomas Meng engaged in POV-pushing/vandalism... Bloodofox called them out... You then called Bloodofox out for calling them out. Why aren't you calling out Thomas Meng's behavior? To quote a wise wikipedian "You should not be defending such behaviour, regardless of whether you agree with the infringing editor's POV." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm bad at detecting sarcasm so thanks for calling me wise.

Why did I call Bloodofox out but not Thomas Meng? Because Bloodofox was the one who committed blatant WP:PA, twice: 1 2, against Thomas Meng, not the other way round.

As for POV-pushing and vandalization, the issue here between Thomas Meng and Bloodofox is that Bloodofox deleted swaths of content, which has been stable on this article for the past several months, as far as I can see. What Thomas Meng did was to restore that content, and restore the article to its last stable version. That's not vandalism.

Concerns of impropriety aside, it is not even obvious to me that Bloodofox and his supporters have the better argument, in terms of content.

As I mentioned, Bloodofox's alleged argument for "purging" the article is that the sources were from 2000 to 2002 which were "outdated". In reality, the sources he deleted were not all old sources. The Andrew Junker source that he deleted was published as recently as 2019, and was a serious academic scholarship no less.

What was more incredulous to me, was that while this source was deleted for its discussion that Falun Gong was "decentralized", Bloodofox and his/her supports took no issue with this source in other parts of this same article, that addresses that aspects of this religious movement.

Then it occurred to me that the sources deleted by Bloodofox were not so much common in being "outdated", as they were common in portraying Falun Gong as a decentralized, non-totalitarian religious movement.

This is why I believe that Bloodofox and his supporters are POV-pushing behind their edits in issue. Has Thomas Meng engaged in POV-pushing before? Maybe. I don't know. But in the case at hand, what he did was to restore stable content of the article, and reverting an edit that I agree was unmeritorious, for the reasons stated above.

Is Falun Gong decentralized or totalitarian? It doesn't matter what Bloodofox or Thomas Meng thinks. What matters is what the RS says. Respectfully, you can't delete a RS simply because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Write all the essays you like, accuse me of "vandalism", claim the Falun Gong members here are being mistreated, whatever, but you're going to have hard time convincing anyone here that isn't a Falun Gong member that articles from the early 2000s should be presented as if they were contemporary reports or that Falun Gong isn't centered around Li Hongzhi's every whim. :bloodofox: (talk)

Seems to me that you have no argument to defend your deletion of numerous sources in your impugned edit that are not from the early 2000s, which is what I mainly take issue with. Sometimes a person's argument is revealing, not so much for what they say, but for what they omit to address.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A convincing argument was made with the opening of this thread. Sometimes a person's argument is revealing - indeed. For example one might pile up personal attacks, incivility, and straw man arguments (POV-pushing and vandalization, alleged argument, This is why I believe that Bloodofox and his supporters are POV-pushing behind their edits in issue., you can't delete a RS simply because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint) - but that isn't going to convince anyone to come around to your point of view. MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A convincing argument was made with the opening of this thread - you mean this argument by Bloodofox above?

Right now a significant amount of this article's discussion about the contemporary Falun Gong is cited to material from 2000 and 2003. A lot of this seems to be intended to claim that Falun Gong is some kind of decentralized spiritual movement rather than a full-blown new religious movement centered around whatever Li Hongzhi says. it also makes no mention of the entire org's hierarchy based out of Dragon Springs, which did not exist at the time. These sources need to be removed and replaced with contemporary sources.

That totally explains Bloodofox's removal of sources from 2007, 2008 and 2019 (which is a scholarship published by the Cambridge University Press). HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As with most things the ideal version of the page probably exists somewhere between the two extremes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree and I think all relevant RS should be incorporated, not because it supports one view point or the other, but because it's a RS that's relevant to the topic at hand. HollerithPunchCard (talk) HollerithPunchCard (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Below is a proposed edit of the first paragraph in the Organization section. Some relevant information about FG that academics have been consistent about for the past twenty+ years was lost in the removal of old content. In my opinion, it needed to be more clearly written with updated sources, and the one sentence that seemed to inflame people the most didn't actually offer enough details. It did feel editorial to some degree. I think the revised paragraph below gets close to what @Horse Eye's Back was talking about. It gives a more concise and clear description of the facts that @Thomas Meng was worried about losing, and it adds new sources (specifically Junker) to address the original concerns of @bloodofox. I'll leave it here for a little bit to see if anyone has additional improvements, but I think it is better than the original and better than what is there now.

Spiritual authority is vested exclusively in the teachings of founder Li Hongzhi [Palmer], but organizationally Falun Gong is decentralized [Junker]. Local branches and assistants are afforded no special privileges or authority. Volunteer "assistants" or "contact persons" do not hold authority over other practitioners, regardless of how long they have practiced Falun Gong.[Chou][Zaho][Junker] Practitioners of Falun Gong cannot collect money or charge fees, conduct healings, or teach or interpret doctrine for others.[Palmer] There are no administrators or officials within the practice, no hierarchy to enforce orthodoxy, no rituals of worship, and no system of membership. [Ownby][Palmer/Ownby][Chang][Tong][Porter][Noakes/Ford] —Zujine|talk 11:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Lol. This reminds me a lot of back in 2015, when you suddenly appeared to attempt to scrub this article's extremely well-sourced designation of new religious movement for ([3]) to instead reflect the group's preference of "spiritual movement" (this makes it much easier for the group to downplay the centrality of Li Hongzhi and claim it is instead somehow traditional to hang on to whatever Li Hongzhi has come up with lately).

For those of you who haven't followed Falun Gong's long-term strategy of attempting to manipulate this page, Falun Gong's attempts at manipulating this page has received scholastic attention, as discussed on this talk page several times. The fact is that on this article we constantly have to defelect attempts by a group of encamped Falun Gong adherents who appear in waves and attempt to manipulate the article. Their goal is often to downplay Li Hongzhi as the group's center, to try to claim Falun Gong as somehow 'traditional', and to try to avoid discussion of Dragon Springs and/or outright get coverage of it entirely removed from the article. This has so far failed, but they'll obviously keep at it until we see more serious attention to this issue.

But in short: no, obviously not (as you are well aware), this wording is outrageously misleading and not reflective of what these sources are actually saying. It also very conveniently attempts to ignore Dragon Springs, which just so happens to be exactly what the group desires.

In reality, any source that discusses the group also discusses how the entire org is based out of the group's Dragon Springs compound, where Li Hongzhi lives and where arms of the org like Shen Yun are based. Li Hongzhi commands the new religious movement, his word is law, and there's nothing 'decentralized' about that. Any source manipulation to portray 'decentralization' while ignoring or sidestepping the mountains of coverage of Dragon Springs as the group's compound headquarters simply isn't happening here. Literally just type in 'dragon springs falun gong' into any search engine and you'll find a tremendous amount of discussion about this as the group's headquarters and Li Hongzhi.

For those of you actually interested in an RS-compliant, accurate article that actually reflects what reliable sources say: Expect more Falun Gong-aligned accounts to suddenly pop out of the woodwork to attempt to ensure that the article reflects the group's preferences over RS, whether be manipulating sources or attempting to invalidate them by way of this or that. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Despite all of your comments in this discussion @bloodofox, you still haven't cited one source yourself or responded to questions of content, which is what this conversation is about. I tried to steer it back to edits. I suggest that edits are what we discuss. I can put together a list of direct quotes in the coming days. There is an entire section on the Dragon Springs complex, and the paragraph in question isn't in that section. I'm curious to hear what others think as the opinions of @bloodofox have been made abundantly clear and do not speak to the content itself. —Zujine|talk 01:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As you know, I provided most of the contemporary sources on this article. I first brought up the matter of a certain group of encamped editor's attempts at erasing Dragon Springs from this article (which it had so convenientionaly neglected to mention before). I was also here defending against editors like you who attempted to remove the new religious movement designation, and I, with the help of other editors we're fortunate to have here, authored most of the Dragon Springs section.

Any attempts at turning this article into yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm certainly weren't happening then and they're not about to happen now. If you want yet another influx of source after source discussing Dragon Springs as the group's headquarters and hanging on Li Hongzhi's every word, be my guest.

So far all attempts at turning this article into Falun Gong's preferred version have backfired. Every time there's a concerted effort to turn it into more propaganda, it seems to improve—but not the way adherents intend. For example, the article now covers Falun Gong's various propaganda arms (Shen Yun, Epoch Times, etc) and Dragon Springs, and there's certainly plenty more we can and should add.

It's definitely time to start bringing in contempary sources like this 2021 report from The Gaurdian: "Falun Gong-aligned media push fake news about Democrats and Chinese communists." Right now we also lack any discussion of Falun Gong's Ultrasurf and its connection to the Trump administration (for example, this 2021 report form NPR: "Falun Gong, Steve Bannon And The Trump-Era Battle Over Internet Freedom"). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The late James R. Lewis wrote in 2016 that he had been innocently ignorant of Falun Gong's dark side for 15 years, spending those years assuming that Falun Gong's own literature described the truth. He found it did not. In his 2018 book Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, Lewis says that Hongzhi stands as the central autocratic authority of Falun Gong, despite its flexible organizational structure.(p. 92) In The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism, page 239, Lewis writes that "The assertion of having no leaders seems to be based on the fact that the group has a non-traditional organizational structure." He notes that Hongzhi is in fact the spiritual leader, and that Falun Gong has working leaders at every level. Lewis says that Hongzhi is able to mobilize his followers into single-purpose action at any time, as he did in China prior to the group getting banned.

Lewis describes Falun Gong as espousing contradictory beliefs and practices. Hongzhi is described by Lewis as telling his practitioners to advance a simplistic story to hide the complexity from outsiders. Practitioners are observed "blatantly ignoring, downplaying, or whitewashing the most controversial of LHZ's teachings."[4] Part of this contradiction is the story told by practitioners that the group is structureless and leaderless, which is demonstrably false. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that instead of engaging on these edits, you guys decided to just bomb the page with even more. The contributions to the Beliefs and Practices section are blatantly malicious. The encyclopedia has an obligation to represent the beliefs of religious minorities without such aggression. There are ample religious and sociological papers on Falun Gong's beliefs that should be used to accurately portray them. The points from Lewis are worth including, but the whole introduction to the beliefs cannot be framed by this argument. Moreover, the phrasing of "According to the Falun Gong, the Falun Gong aspires ..." shows the editors' unfamiliarity with both the subject and good editing standards. —Zujine|talk 19:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The framing of the Beliefs and Practices section is necessary for a complete understanding. This context is essential. As Lewis writes repeatedly in his various works, Falun Gong's professed beliefs are contradictory and contain falsehoods. The reader needs to know this at the beginning. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"shows the editors' unfamiliarity with both the subject and good editing standards." does it? Don't we generally attribute controversial stuff like that to the religious group rather than stating it as a fact? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree that this article looks malicious, at least in the introduction.

Compare it with for example the page over "Christianity". There it's not written that it has an autocratic leader, that they claim to be decentralized and they all lie about Jesus, etc. which may be technically or partially true according to how you interpret facts but kind of outrageous.

So the introduction should rather focus to describe it as how this movement define itself: something that looks like being written below "the Falun Gong aspires to enable the practitioner to ascend spiritually through moral rectitude and the practice of a set of exercises and meditation..." And after, no objection to mention criticism of it, which is also a fact.

Note: I am not an adept. I have not much info about the movement itself and I'm polytheist. ;)

Michael 22 November 2023 (UTC) 2A02:2788:1028:8D5:65AB:EF73:16AC:F7AB (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No, definitely not. We are not going to let Falun Gong "define itself" on these pages. Rather, WP:SECONDARY sources will define Falun Gong. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

On November 8 22:44 Bloodofox deleted 5066 characters, essentially 3 entire paragraphs out of 5 paragraphs of the lede of this article. Most of the content deleted by Bloodofox has been stable on this page for months if not years, representing the consensus of many editors from both sides, over the course of a decade, debating almost every line and sometimes word.

The content deleted by Bloodofox includes the following:

1. How Falun Gong emerged - Source: Freedom House 2017 report.

2. What Falun Gong is - a meditation, slow moving exercises. Self-identifies as a practise of the Buddhist school. With moral psychologies/philosophies. Source: Freedom House 2017 report.

3. What happened to Falun Gong - Initially supported by the Chinese government. Later alleged to be a heretical organization by the Chinese government. Finally subject to "a nationwide crackdown", "a wide range of human rights abuse", with estimated "hundreds of thousands" to be "imprisoned extrajudicially", "torture". "As of 2009, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had died within China as a result of abuse in custody." Sources include: Amnesty International 2000, Freedom House 2014, New York Times 2009, China Quarterly 2015.

4. Subsequent developments in Falun Gong movement - "Millions continued to practise Falun Gong there [in china] in spite of the persecution", and "practised in over 70 countries" with "40,000 to several hundreds of thousands" of adherents. Source: Telegraph 2009, China Quarterly 2015,

Bloodofox replaced all of the above content with essentially one statement:

Falun Gong practitioners operated a variety of organizations in the US and elsewhere, known for opposing the CCP and for ant-evolutionary views.

With the latter assertion sourced from a single opinion piece by Tolentino Jio, a staff writer at New Yorker.

No one can reasonably argue that the sources deleted by Bloodofox are unreliable per WP:RS, no such arguments have been made. No one to date (except presumably the Chinese government) has suggested that all the content deleted by Bloodofox is not true, especially the part concerning the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

A WP:Lede is intended to introduce the article, and summarize its most important content, including any prominent controversies.

Is there controversies to Falun Gong? Yes. But Falun Gong is not just a controversy. It's also a religious and human rights phenomenon.

To delete all of the above context, background and history, distilled from two decades of journalism, human rights reports and scholarship on this serious topic, in preference of a single opinion piece of a New Yorker staff writer, which does not even contradict the content deleted, strikes me as severely lacking in neutrality (WP:NPOV), and a clear case of POV-pushing, censorship and disruption.

This is not the first instance by Bloodofox (see similar edits here and here), who, when challenged on the merits of his edits, repeatedly and straightly called whoever who challenged his edits "Falun Gong adherents", justifying his edits on the ground of not allowing these alleged adherents a platform for their views. See recent Bloodofox's comments here and here.

For the above reasons, I'm reverting Bloodofox's edits. If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages really aren't the place to discuss behavioral issues, please focus on content and avoid making things overly personal... If thats what you wanna do WP:ANI is thataways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

What amounts to a lengthy personal attack on Bloodofox is not a reason to revert well-reasoned changes to the article. I agree, this is becoming a matter for WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I note the rather ominious threat of "If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable" (my bold). External? Are you threatening to physically harm me if I don't stop adding RS about Falun Gong that you don't like? It sure reads that way. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If all that you gather from my post above is that I'm committing a "lengthy personal attack", or even threats of "physical harm", you have either not read my post, or are confounding its content. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

So was that or was not that a threat? Because it wouldn't the first threat I've received for editing this page and scholars routinely receive threats for covering the Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: Well documented and argued, especially the summary of deleted content. Academic research on Falun Gong is centered around its main body of adherents—those in China (7-20 million according to this DoS report [5]) and the persecution. The WP:LEAD should summarize the most important points covered in an article and emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. Clearly, our lead in its current state does not summarize the points covered in the body sections (but rather, just one section), and it does not reflect the academic research dedicate to Falun Gong (but rather, it reflects a few recent news reports and opinions).

Our lead now fails WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEAD and WP:RECENT. Reading how this Freedom House article [6] introduces Falun Gong and contrasting it with this Wiki article's current lead—one shall easily see the unprofessional state of our version. Thomas Meng (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's no surprise that you left out above that these reports are from the Falun Gong ("According to Minghui, a Falun Gong-affiliated publication...", "Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately...", "The Falun Dafa InfoCenter said...", etc.). You know, the same new religious movement that runs the Epoch Times.

The article also cites the 2017 Freedom House article. The 2017 Freedom House article reads like a puff piece, taking pains to avoid terms Li Honghzi/Falun Gong hates (and which are overwhelimgly used by non-Falun Gong-affiliated scholars). A good example is new religious movement, which you've also attempted to scrub from the article. It appears this NGO's source is probably just, you guessed it, the ever-reliable Falun Gong. An independent and neutral source it is not.

So nope, you know that's incorrect. Since 2016, coverage of Falun Gong has focused on the tremendous amount of money flowing through its various propaganda arms and its efforts to influence the United States government and the GOP, the various issues surrounding Dragon Springs and the community that existed before the development of the compound/Falun Gong headquarters, and/or the abuse its former adherents claim to have received or continue to receive. We have a mountain of reliable sources on this from the last half decade.

We're not here to produce Falun Gong-approved versions of this article. And that's why we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.

Newsflash: The Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all kinds, including Christians. Where it differs from others is that the Falun Gong is centered around the whims and words of one man—Li Hongzhi—and he now operates a bonafide propaganda media empire in the United States that openly attempts to influence US elections and spreads vast amounts of misinformation there and here in Germany.

Again, unlike Falun Gong, we're not here to carry out Li Hongzhi's orders. Stick to contemporary, reliable sources. And that doesn't mean directly or indirectly citing Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong is a persecuted religious minority in China, and the adherents or "practitioners" are generally both an ethnic and religious minority in other countries. The efforts by @bloodofox and @binksternet to revise this article to match their individual understandings of Falun Gong based on selective sources is unreasonable and goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. This isn't the way to edit an article. —Zujine|talk 01:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Complain all you want but Wikipedia works like this: find reliable sources and report on what reliable sources say. Wikipedia does not count the propaganda arms of either the Chinese government or Falun Gong as reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You are selectively choosing sources that agree with your opinion and giving them undue weight. You are deleting well sourced material. And you are making massive, frequent changes without discussion on a topic that deserves much better attention to detail. —Zujine|talk 18:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats an interesting opinion, I take it you are a Falun Gong adherent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a PhD that gives me a certain respect for academic resources above news outlets writing reports on competing news outlets. As for me being an adherent, I think that anyone who really knew me would see just how far away I am from being a practitioner or adherent of Falun Gong. It isn't just Falun Gong adherents who think you're wrong and who disagree with the sources you think should dominate the worldview on this group. This group of editors don't get to own this subject and force every reader in the world to see Falun Gong through your lens. —Zujine|talk 19:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So now I'm included in a "group of editors"? Wonderful. Prior to your (singular) participation it was actually just Falun Gong adherents arguing for the position that Falun Gong is just a misunderstood and persecuted minority with none of the negative aspects attributed to them by the RS here. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're arguing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I had assumed you were new to this talk page because you haven't participated here significantly since I began editing but looking at the talk page history I see that you are one of the all time top commenters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I echo Zujine's point about this current version being based on selective sources. There is decades of academic research done by University professors in the social sciences on Falun Gong, and yet the current lead relies almost exclusively on news articles and opinions, ignoring such quality research. Consider how the following peer-reviewed articles and books introduce Falun Gong and see how they contrast with our current lead—per WP:SOURCETYPES, they should carry much more weight than the currently cited news articles.

• Cheung, M., Trey, T., Matas, D., & An, R. (2018). Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 12(1), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.12.1.1513, p.39

Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa) is a body-mind-spiritual practice which started in China in 1992 and was widely practiced in the 1990s. It is a self-cultivation practice, which upholds the principles of “truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance.” The practice comprises five sets of meditative exercises. The teachings of Falun Gong emphasize cultivation of the mind, without adherence to religious formalities. The tenets of Falun Gong trace back to those traditional Chinese cultural beliefs grounded in Buddhist and Taoist philosophies. From the beginning of its introduction to the Chinese populace, Falun Gong was popularized in China as a form of qigong—the cultivation and exercise of the body’s vital energy.

• TREPANIER, LEE. Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought, Lexington Books, June 2020, [7] p.59

At the heart of Falun Gong’s moral philosophy are the tenets Zhen, Shan, Ren (truth, compassion, and forbearance), which represent the fundamental nature of the universe—the ultimate manifestation of the Buddha Law, or the Dao. This force represents the divine ground of being: it is the source of order in the universe, animating and giving rise to all things. The cosmos itself, and all that is contained in it, are thought to embody this quality of Zhen Shan Ren. Whereas Voegelin’s gnostic believes that the order of being is corrupt and must be overthrown, Falun Gong holds that it is inherently just and benevolent. Not only that, but the purpose of human life, and the means of salvation, lies in assimilating oneself to this divine nature and relinquishing the self. In Falun Gong’s core text Zhuan Falun, Li writes “This characteristic, Zhen Shan Ren, is the criterion for measuring good and bad in the universe… No matter how the human moral standard changes, this characteristic of the universe remains unchanged, and it is the sole criterion that distinguishes good people from bad people.” In other words, Falun Gong maintains there is an immutable and unchanging truth that exists independent of human experience, society, and culture. The CCP rejects the notion of a moral law standing above mankind. Instead, truth can only be grasped through social practice. As Mao Zedong wrote in 1963, “Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice and from it alone. They come from three kinds of social practice: the struggle for production, the class struggle, and scientific experiment.” In this respect, Falun Gong’s teachings are at best irrelevant, if not downright subversive, insofar as they suggest that the party is subject to judgement by a higher authority.

• Penny, Benjamin. The Religion of Falun Gong. The University of Chicago Press. p.124 [8]

In addition, in Falun Gong cultivation adherence to the code of truth, compassion, and forbearance is not just regarded as the right and responsible course of action for practitioners; it is an essential part of the cultivation process. Lapsing from it will render any other efforts in cultivation worthless.

• Ownby, David. Falun Gong and the Future of China. Oxford University Press. p. 93. [9]

Falun Gong is profoundly moral. The very structure of the universe, according to Li Hongzhi, is made up of the moral qualities that cultivators are enjoined to practice in their own lives: truth, compassion, and forbearance. The goal of cultivation, and hence of life itself, is spiritual elevation, achieved through eliminating negative karma—the built-up sins of past and present lives—and accumulating virtue.

• Peter Hays Gries, and Stanley Rosen. State and Society in 21st Century China. Routledge, 2 Aug. 2004, [10]. p.40

"The challenge posed by popular religious beliefs and practices like those of Falun Gong cuts right to the heart of the Chinese state’s own logic of legitimation….[Falun Gong’s teachings] stand in the profoundest possible opposition to the present political order. They assail the ethical truths on which the entire political construct is meant to rest. However peacefully they practice their meditation exercises and however much they may regard “politics” as being beneath them, those swept up in the Falun Gong phenomenon never had a chance of remaining “apolitical” in China. With its slogan, “Zhen, Shan, Ren” (真, 善, 忍) – “Truth, Goodness, and Forbearance” – Falun Gong makes almost a perfect counter-hegemony. Truth! – but not the state’s narrow empiricist truths. Goodness! –but not the state’s dubious versions of benevolence. Forbearance! – but not the state’s vulgarly assertive “wealth and power” concept of what it means to attain transcendent glory. Precisely because Falun Gong does represent such an absolute challenge – a challenge to the very foundations of the state’s authority and legitimacy – government officials insist on complete extermination of the threat."

Thomas Meng (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed. On Wikipedia, quality media coverage is very much WP:RS, and we have absolutely no lack of such sources. There's no lawyering out of that. As is crystal clear today to anyone who isn't an adherent, Falun Gong is simply whatever Li Hongzhi says it is. It's entirely centered around his words and whims at Dragon Springs. That's ultimately all there really is to it. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually have anything to say about these sources? Sennalen (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, all but two of them aren't even from the last decade, and the other two echo Falun Gong's self-descriptions. I doubt you'll find any editors here surprised by these cherry-picked items. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those is a reason to exclude a source. There have not been any major developments that would automatically invalidate older sources. You want to radically re-evaluate everything about Falun Gong because it politically aligned with Donald Trump for awhile. That is undue. It is right to be cautious of sources that are essentially self-published by Falun Gong, but you want to go beyond that and discount any publisher that agrees with what Falun Gong might have said. There is no justification for that. The material should be restored. Sennalen (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"it politically aligned with Donald Trump for awhile"? This is ongoing. You're either attempting to downplay the group's extreme right turn or you haven't spent much time reading about it. As anyone who has been following this is well aware, the Falun Gong continues to pump out as much misinformation as possible via its many extensions, including the Epoch Times. As has been noted in many sources, since around 2016, the Falun Gong's public approach changed radically. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In many of these cases dating the statement might be more appropriate than removing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds mostly harmless Sennalen (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

RFCBEFORE

Another impasse, another conflict that can be handled by established processes. I suggest that a couple variations of the lead be workshopped, or use the existing lead and the lead prior to the recent editing and possibly a compromise lead (as alluded to by Horse Eye's Back) and start an RFC. Make neutral postings at WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN, as well as any related WikiProjects and let the wider community weigh in. This will attenuate the effect of any POVs present in the small group of editors currently taking part in the discussion and form a stronger consensus based on the community's interpretation of applicable WP:PAGs. I suggest that no one jumps the gun and starts an RFC before some discussion on lead proposals can take place and there is reasonable satisfaction that it's ready to roll.

Once the RFC begins, please be brief and avoid back and forth arguing with those you disagree with. Make your point and then disengage. The point is to keep the RFC accessible enough to get wide engagement, not to rehash the same arguments between the same parties.

Oh, and stop commenting on contributors and focus on content. This includes calling normal editing disruptive or accusing other editors of whitewashing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw that Bloodofox added a short paragraph about China’s ban of FG in the lead. It is a welcoming step. But the paragraph has no mention of the well-documented mass arrests, imprisonments, torture, and killing. Instead, the persecution was reduced to mere discrimination in "employment, housing, and business opportunities".

According to a 2009 NY Times article Bloodofox removed, human rights groups estimated that at least 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners had died due to the persecution. Another 2013 NY Times article writes: All [formerly imprisoned] agreed that the worst abuse was directed at Falun Gong members who refused to renounce their faith.

Sociologist Andrew Junker wrote in his 2019 book Becoming Activists in Global China (Cambridge Univ. Press) (p.6):

Without a doubt, Falun Gong ranks as one of, and by some measures perhaps the most, severely persecuted groups in the reform era. Moreover, multiple third-party sources have alleged that the CCP consistently singled out Falun Gong for extraordinary degrees of state violence and coercion.

The 2009 U.S. State Dept Human Rights Report writes:

Some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL (Reeducation-Through-Labour) camps.

A 2013 Amnesty International report writes:

Evidence suggests that Falun Gong constituted on average from one third to in some cases 100 per cent of the total population of certain RTL camps.

A 2015 Freedom House report writes:

Hundreds of thousands of [Falun Gong] adherents were sentenced to labor camps and prison terms, making them the largest contingent of prisoners of conscience in the country [at the time].

Most of the above references can be found in the lead paragraphs that Bloodofox removed or in the persecution section of the FG page. The U.S. State Dept 2022 Int’l Religious Freedom report that Bloodofox cited also included a current estimate of Falun Gong adherents sentenced to prison terms: “The NGO Human Rights without Frontiers estimated that as of year’s end, the government imprisoned 2,649 individuals for exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief, including 2,102 Falun Gong practitioners, [...]”

Why ignore all of the above and trivialize the persecution to mere “discrimination in employment, housing, and business opportunities"?

Also, the history of the movement, its basic theology, and what led to the persecution, as in the first two paragraphs Bloodofox removed from the lead should be added back as well. The encyclopedia should be written with “an aim toward a long-term, historical view”, per WP:RECENT. Thomas Meng (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The quote you're complaining about is a direct quote from the US State Department. This is a clear WP:RS. If you think it's "trivializing", write to the State Department. Obviously, they're navigating unreliable sources: namely both the Falun Gong and the Chinese government. It's well known that the Falun Gong both emphasizes its persecution in China and is in no way reliable. Like the US State Department, we're not here to echo the Falun Gong's talking points: the report is quite careful to note when data comes from Falun Gong because it's most likely not reliable. Sources over the past five to six years have become far more cautious and critical about anything coming from Falun Gong-land. A reminder that we're here to report on what contemporary WP:RS say. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Small edit: link to Search Engine Optimization

I don't have perms to edit the article, but there is mention of "SEO" without spelling out the acronym nor linking to the WP page. Could someone add that? Just would be nice for readers—nothing about content! Determinerteeth (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Exercises: define "qigong", maybe ?

In the last paragraphe of the section Exercises, the introduction of the term qigong would perhaps benefit from an internal link, seeing that it is used 41 more times thereafter. Noliscient (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Change "free software" to "freeware" in Ultrasurf, Freegate, the Open Technology Fund, and whistleblower allegations section Risk of rain commando (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

Change this sentence. The Washington Post reported that sources indicated not all of the Politburo Standing Committee shared Jiang's view that Falun Gong should be eradicated,

To The Washington Post reported that sources indicated not all of the Politburo Standing Committee shared Jiang's view that Falun Gong should be eradicated.

Switch out comma for period to end this sentence. Spellingmistakes (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 04:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS)

China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS) is cited in the section History inside China: 1992–1996, but I have not been able to verify that this organization exists, although it is cited by Human Rights Watch here:

• DANGEROUS MEDITATION: China's Campaign Against Falungong: II. WHAT IS FALUNGONG? (2002-01)

Also, I found a citation in Made in China Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2020, p126 here:

"In an at-this-point-unrelated development, in 1981 the All-China Qigong Science Research Association (中华气功科学研究会, QSRA) was established under the All-China Association of Chinese Medicine (中华全国中医学会)"

When I searched 中华气功科学研究会 on Baidu (China's version of Google (blocked in China)), I found this:

"2018年2月6日，中国气功科学研究会被民政部社会组织管理局列入非法社会组织。" ¹

Which translates as:

"On February 6, 2018, the Chinese Qigong Scientific Research Association was listed as an illegal social organization by the Social Organization Administration Bureau of the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA)."¹

However, I did find a citation to National Qigong Science and Research Organization (NQSRO) in Qigong, specifically History and origins: From 1949 to 1999: the qigong boom - maybe this is a different translation of the same association/organization? Through a web-search I found Beijng based:

• International Health Qigong Federation (IHQF)

Maybe the International Health Qigong Federation (IHQF) and/or National Qigong Science and Research Organization (NQSRO) were created after the CCP declared the China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS) to be illegal. Perhaps someone here can fill in the gaps?
Enquire (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Should it be categorized as a "cult"?

Some governments have categorized it as a cult, particularly China's government. Should we mention this in the categories? And also the introduction? WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You can try this edit, but you expect to have to deal with edit warring even harassment with thier editors, as editors of Falun Gong has been using various means to deny being designated a cult by the Chinese government. 重庆轨交18 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly have motivated editors. But so does the Chinese government.

Articles on topics like this should just state that there are two views, and what those views are. Like, "This is a religious movement, adherents say this, and opponents say this". The reader can read between the lines and understand for themselves that it's a cooky belief system.

The current tone just seems off for an encyclopedia. Eg, stating the "members are instructed to lie" based on citations of second-hand reports that don't even have direct quotes stating that members are instructed to lie...

You can still include this stuff, just say "Ex-member Susan had stated that members are instructed to lie...". That's just as effective, and comes off as more credible. 2605:B100:72E:4A89:E01C:426D:EB37:E6D5 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China

I've just been skimming through this article and noticed this sentence in the last paragraph of the section on allegations of organ harvesting: "In June 2019, the China Tribunal — an independent tribunal set up by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China — concluded that [...]". I attempted to do further research into this group but came up rather short in terms of reliable secondary sources assessing their credibility and neutrality. What I did notice, however, is that the article for China Tribunal notes that several Falun Gong practitioners are members of this group, citing the group's own judgements. Here's the text from the judgement, located as a footnote on page 10[11]:

"The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) began in 2014 as a web platform providing a comprehensive information source on the issue of forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China. The website features independent reports, lectures, testimonies, government action, latest news, press coverage and videos. Its website says ‘ETAC is an independent, non-partisan organisation. We are not aligned with any political party, religious or spiritual group, government or any other national or international institution. Our members are from a range of backgrounds, belief systems, religions and ethnicities. We share a common commitment to supporting human rights and ending the horror of forced organ harvesting.’ It is not an organisation of Falun Gong practitioners. None of its Advisory Board members is a Falun Gong practitioner. A minority of its committee members are practitioners."

While the group states that it is independent, the presence of Falun Gong members on its committee is of interest. Should this be noted in the article, and if so, how? I do believe that further elaboration is warranted here, but this topic is well outside my wheelhouse so I will defer the issue to editors more knowledgeable on Falun Gong.

Cheers, Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 10:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ethmostigmus: You're right in noting Falun Gong practitioners' presence on ETAC's committee. But this statement on China Tribunal's webpage clarifies their separation:

Whilst ETAC initiated the Tribunal, there is a necessary and scrupulous separation between ETAC and the Tribunal. ETAC manages some of the logistics for the Tribunal (such as arranging the public hearings in London) however ETAC is not, and will not be, privy to the Tribunal’s internal deliberations and consideration of the evidence save to the extent those deliberations are revealed in the Tribunal’s final public decision.

The China Tribunal itself, as you might've noted too, is free of any conflict of interest. Its final judgement says

All members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, volunteer lawyers and the editor of this Judgment have worked entirely pro bono publico (for the public good) which for those unfamiliar with the term or practice means completely without financial return of any kind. None of the members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, the editor or the volunteer lawyers working with Counsel to the Tribunal is a Falun Gong practitioner or has any special interest in Falun Gong.

And just as an aside to help diversify your wheelhouse, peer-reviewed medical journal articles do regard China Tribunal's final judgement highly. For example, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery published this article, which described the China Tribunal as such:

The most devastating blow to China’s pretentions of adherence to international ethical standards in transplantation was delivered in 2020 by The China Tribunal, an independent and diverse group of investigators who studied organ transplantation in the PRC. The Tribunal is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, a British barrister known for his work as a prosecutor of international criminal activity. Other members include British cardiothoracic surgeon Martin Elliott and noted American historian of China Arthur Waldron.

In general, searching the topic of China's forced organ harvesting in peer-reviewed medical journals shows an academic concensus that the issue exists, leading to some journals' publication ban on transplantation research from China altogether e.g. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation (official statement), Journal of Clinical Investigation (official statement). Hope that you find this post worth your time reading. Best, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We need to include that the Falun Gong is involved and that this is not a neutral source. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Incident needs to be properly referenced

Under the media campaign section, in the final paragraph, there's a line which reads "much the same rhetoric employed by the party during Tiananmen in 1989". Since this is referencing the Tiananmen Square protests, please refer to it as such so as not to confuse the incident with the name of the square itself. Please change this line to "much the same rhetoric employed by the party during Tiananmen Protests of 1989". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh25 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent Changes Discussion

Hi, recently User:Augend made some big changes to the lead section. I made a revert based on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV but was reverted back. I will share my reasonings below:

Augend added "The Falun Gong has also received substantial criticism and heavy scrutiny by observers for its

1. "[...] extreme founder veneration" and cited Adam Frank's book chapter to justify. The cited work does not appear to support the claim. It says (p.256):

   Even before the crackdown, differing degrees of commitment to Li Hongzhi and the manner in which followers publicly demonstrated that commitment sometimes prompted disagreement. Judy, for example, criticized those who worshiped Li Hongzhi too zealously, noting “Master Li said ‘treat me as a human.’” Freddy agreed, pointing out that far from seeking worshipers, Li admonished followers to not “get caught up in the images. Don’t fall into attachments"

   This shows that even among Falun Gong practitioners, opinions differ on founder veneration, and Li himself discourages that.
2. "[...] influence operations to secure United States government contracts, thereby increasing its revenue using US federal funds." Augend cited a 2010 WaPo that says the U.S. government gave funding to firewall circumvention tools developed by Falun Gong practitioners. The article mentioned Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz advocating for Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIFC) to receive funding, but it did not say that Horowitz was a Falun Gong practitioner. The article does not support the broad claim that "Falun Gong used influence operations to secure government contracts". Also, the funding was provided to GIFC, not to Falun Gong per se.
3. Augend changed "Falun Gong experiences repression in China" to "Falun Gong has been notable in receiving substantial government scrutiny in China", but sources overwhelmingly describe the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China as persecution or repression. We can't call well-documented torture and school expulsion due to one's peaceful belief in Falun Gong "government scrutiny". (Source: last article, Death Trap, in this series https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/ian-johnson)
4. Augend changed "[Falun Gong] criticizes the purportedly self-imposed limits of modern science" to "denying the truthfulness of science". But criticizing science's limitations is not the same as denying its truthfulness.
5. Augend added "involvement with political information operations and disinformation campaigns in the United States and Europe." and cited two media articles about The Epoch Times. But ET says that it does not represent Falun Gong, and these two articles did not generalize ET's coverage to the entire Falun Gong community, whose vast majority of practitioners are in China and have no connections with ET.

For full explanation, please go to my talk page discussion with Augend where my reasonings are more detailed but too long to post here. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng Thank you for your commentary. I am traveling in the near term so I will make my comments brief. I agree with you on points 1 & 3; perhaps the language can be revised to be more neutral, but I do not believe omission altogether of these important facets is the best treatment. 2 & 5 are both involving organizations that sources describe as substantially connected to the movement's organization & leadership and I believe they should be treated as such. 4 is a matter of semantics. However it is my opinion that reliable sources are more consistent with the notion that the movement denies the faculty of science rather than merely questioning it. Augend (drop a line) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Augend, there are a number of issues with your edits to the lede, and @Thomas Meng has a well reasoned summary of why he reverted it, which I largely agree with.

@Augend, some of the sources that you were trying to add, such as the Washington Post article, New York Times one, New Yorker one, and Adam Frank's 2004 book chapter, are already on the page. So this isn't a question of omitting material, but putting it in the proper place on the page. This is an article about a minority religious group indigenous to China that is facing severe, well documented persecution. It should be treated as such. This does not mean that it should avoid criticism, but the criticisms of a group are not what define it.

Your version diminishes the religious aspects of falungong and frames the practice from a very American point of view. The businesses, organizations, and affiliations in the United States are part of the group's public profile (and are certainly important because Li Hongzhi lives in America), but this current introduction is very unbalanced in my opinion. Even the version @Thomas Meng is trying to revert to needs work in my opinion. Furthermore, per WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The lede is supposed to summarize the most important points of the article, thus we need to be selective what to include in the lead.

Moving on from the tone, I think you misrepresented a number of the sources you cited. @Thomas Meng detailed these in your discussion, and I concur with his points on there. If you'd like me to detail my own assessment, I can do that as well. There are multiple points where you went beyond paraphrasing what the original sources say to attribute your own opinions to those authors. This is a significant issue that you need to avoid when editing articles.

I suggest we go back to the previous stable version for now, and move forward with edits in a more consensus-seeking way. —Zujine|talk 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead suggestions

There has been some discussion regarding this page's lead recently. The current lead seems to be a moderate size and covers a wealth of info. However, after taking a closer look, I realized that it might be missing some key info fully elaborated in later sectio​ns. Currently, the lead mainly talks about Falun Gong's headquarters and organizations in the U.S., their beliefs that have been criticized by some media, and how they face discrimination in China. However, based on the rest of the article, I believe the lead is missing key info like: what the practice actually looks like and is about; its history and developments inside China; how they're being persecuted and what led to it, etc. I think these would provide a more complete picture of this topic, especially considering that not every religion is persecuted in China. Happy to discuss and reach consensus. 23impartial (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@23impartial This information had been in the lede for years and only recently was taken out. I agree that it should be added back in. It's important that this section be an introduction to the full article and give a complete picture of what falungong is. —Zujine|talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. If no other objections, I will add some of this info to the lead. I will be mindful of the length and try to be concise. 23impartial (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not burying that the org is centered on Li Hongzhi and is very active via its various orgs. And we're certainly not going to try to obscure this with the usual persecution narrative the org would prefer we highlight instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Bloodofox. What I added was simply a short summary of topics that were discussed extensively in the article itself. Nothing was buried or highlighted, especially considering that the first paragraph says Falun Gong was founded by Li. The new additions were at most proportionate to the topics elaborated in the article itself. Much more could be added based on the article but I only selected what was clearly missing. 23impartial (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The group's history is nowhere near as notable as its current activities and the group has always been centered around Li Hongzhi. I suggest you review the history of this article before inserting a paragraph on top of this core information about the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bloodofox if you think someone's edit was missing something, you can try adding the information and not reverting the editor summarily. @23impartial's edit didn't bury any information. The edits were an overall improvement in multiple ways. You seem to be committed to a specific narrative about this group based a few recent articles in the highly politicised American media landscape. Your views and the views of these articles are not representative of academic and religious studies of falungong over the past 25 years. The articles you rely on (though rarely cite accurately) are important and should be included on this page, so please don't suggest that I'm trying to bury information. However, you are under the false impression that the priority of information on this page should be determined by you and you alone. —Zujine|talk 13:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You're well aware of the history of this article, where we even have scholars writing about the Falun Gong's attempts at influencing it. As a result, you're also well aware that the tolerance for anything that can be read as in-step with the group's preferred presentation is unacceptable here and will be swiftly escalated and exposed yet again. Stick to WP:RS and save your complaints about this (extremely politically active) new religious movement's media reception for some other forum. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Bloodofox for the suggestion. Following your advice, I took a look at the page’s history over the past 10 years. Back in 2014, 2019, 2021, and 2023, the lead all had info about the Falun Gong’s history in China, the appeal to the gov by 10,000 people, what led to the persecution, as well as the scope of the persecution. I saw that you removed 3 paragraphs of such info from the lead on Nov. 8 of last year, without offering a clear justification other than stating that the lead was too long.

I’ve read the latest archive of talk page discussions during that time. There were lots of heated debates. But among them, there was a reasonable and objective suggestion by Horse Eye's Back: “In many of these cases dating the statement might be more appropriate than removing it.” And it seemed that ScottishFinnishRadish also considered it a viable compromise. The history part that I added to the lead was no more than half of the size of what used to be there, and all events were dated.

If the lead is only focused on recent events, wouldn’t that be a violation of WP:RECENT, when it has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events and its writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view? Moreover, most of the media articles and scholarly works about Falun Gong itself that I have seen so far all include a large amount of info about its history and the persecution. How can a religious movement’s history be not notable enough to be in the lead of the movement, especially if it’s closely related to the practice’s developments over time? 23impartial (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed a lot from this article and added a lot. A lot more needs to go and much more needs to be added.

There's no acceptable reason to attempt to bump down Li Hongzhi's total centrality to this topic and, given the Falun Gong's role in attempting to influence this and related articles, any attempts at doing so will naturally be highly suspicious. As Wikipedia WP:RS-acceptable sources make absolutely clear, the group's entire is centered on Li Hongzhi. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not reasonable or appropriate to say that edits unaligned with with your POV are "highly suspicious." Nor did 23impartial's edits bump down Li Hongzhi's role in falungong. I want to stress this warning that :bloodofox: (User talk:Bloodofox was given to during the last conflict: "All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views." Also, when it comes to stressing the importance of Li Hongzhi, I'd like to draw a comparison to the page on The Catholic Church, and look at how much attention is given to the pope in the lede section. Obviously the papacy is the undisputed high leader of the church, but this article gives a detailed description of the church overall rather than focusing on the pope. Again, I'm not suggesting that mentions of Li Hongzhi as the leader of falungong and his influence be removed or diminished from this article, I'm just suggesting that it be given appropriate weight, and I think that 23impartial's edits were accurate and well sourced. They do not warrant this type of accusation and refusal to collaborate. —Zujine|talk 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That comparison seems misleading... The pope is not the founder of catholiscism, Li Hongzhi created Falun Gong. He is both pope and Jesus in that comparison if we're talking due weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. We're obviously not going to go back to your preferred earlier version, where the article went to pains to downplay the centrality of Li Hongzhi. Our WP:RS make it crystal clear that the Falun Gong is whatever Li Hongzhi says it is and that this has always been the case. Your pope comparison is funny but an appropriate comparison would instead be your pick of new religious movements from the last half century founded on the words and whims of a single charismastic figure. If we're comparing the Falun Gong to the Catholic church, Li Hongzhi would be Jesus, deity, pope, and Bible all in one.

Meanwhile, the Falun Gong consistently seeks to downplay or obscure his role, just like this article used to, because they understand that the reality of Falun Gong = really just an org based around whatever Li Hongzhi wants or says makes the organization immediately unpalatable to many. In turn, it is obviously a major red flag whenever someone suggests that we follow the Falun Gong's lead instead of WP:RS, especially on an article that has a documented, even scholar-discussed history of attempted Falun Gong influence.

Finally, you might also want to stress the "warning" that you highlight above led to a few editors here attempting to remove WP:RS coverage on this topic parmanently blocked from editing in this topic area. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone’s participation. @Bloodofox, it seems like your primary concern is the lead looking like Li Hongzhi isn’t the central figure of Falun Gong. I didn’t realize my edit would be perceived this way, as I thought that was already clear in the article since the first paragraph already stated so, and also that based on other NRM pages I've done, it’s common for NRMs to be centered around the founder (on top of existing religious ideas or new religious dogma by the founder).  I assume you were referring to my edit moving up a paragraph about the persecution, which I did because that would make the lead chronological. However, based on your concern, I would be willing to agree to not moving that paragraph up and also moving my other edits about the history inside China down. 23impartial (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the article's contents and that include's the group's history, so concise coverage of the NRM's history is a given. However, this is a highly sensitive article under constant assault by its subject and it is a good idea to be particularly cautious and sensitive given that reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely important to be cautious and make sure things are done right. If you don’t have any other objections, I’ll add back my other edits about the history and keep them and the paragraph about the persecution at the end of the lead. 23impartial (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)