Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

The importance of summary style

Just getting caught up on the recent organ harvesting back-and-forth. The consensus for this section had been to describe events and conclusions using WP:Summary style, and not to focus undue attention on the event of the Spring of 2006. The rationale, as stated by another editor, was that "the Sujiatun allegations were just the catalyst for ... investigations and research. The organ harvesting story has progressed far beyond the initial controversy over that particular hospital, and the organ harvesting section should ... reflect where the issue stands today." Simonm223, it seems you added two additional paragraphs about the events of 2006. I hope you understand why other editors find your position untenable; we're not going to document the whole history of these allegations--all the books, each report, every congressional hearing, each motion passed in every legislature--in such intricate detail.

Suggest reverting to old consensus version, since more recent edits have evidently failed to reach a new consensus.TheBlueCanoe 14:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the inclusion of the report at all is effectively a violation of WP:FRINGE since all other available evidence (rather than opinion) suggests that Kilgour and Mattas were mistaken in their assumptions. As such it should be contextualized that there's no proof any of the events of 2006 are grounded in reality. However I'm giving up. The Falun Gong are much more invested in pushing their fantasy of persecution than I am in trying to preserve the crumbling neutrality of this increasingly dismal encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Persecution vs Suppression

Persecution of Falun Gong seems to be the more commonly used term.Aaabbb11 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

POV

Zujine, do you state it is not new religious movement? Are you affiliated with subject?Cathry (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not stating unequivocally that it is not a NRM, but was pointing out that there are differences of opinion in the literature on how best to classify the practice, so we need to take a more nuanced approach. Experts have described Falungong in a variety of ways, and some—including one of the most prominent scholars in the field—have explicitly said the NRM label makes no sense in the context of Falungong (and, presumably, similar Chinese qigong practices). —Zujine|talk 18:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think "spiritual practice" is not academic definition, so we should use definition by scholars. Cathry (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I would agree. Scholars do sometimes use "spiritual practice," as do journalists and other reliable sources. It's probably at least as common as any other generic term. The most accurate way to classify Falungong would be to use the Chinese concept of cultivation (xiulian). But since this concept doesn't exist in the English-speaking world, it's not ideal in the lead sentence where you're trying to give a simple description. It's used with elaboration in the article body.—Zujine|talk 11:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Scholars do sometimes use" who and where? "The most accurate way to classify Falungong would be" according to who? Cathry (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

did you read the article? this is not controversial. im kind of new but have availed myself of the talk page history. a lot of this stuff has been beaten to death. Benjamin Penny, a professor of Chinese history at the Australian National University, writes "the best way to describe Falun Gong is as a cultivation system. Cultivation systems have been a feature of Chinese life for at least 2,500 years."Happy monsoon day 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Government of China is not a reliable source of information

Describing FG as a cult is an example. On Governmental lists of cults and sects its only the govt. that lists FG as a cult. If the Government of China was providing correct info it wouldn't need to block many websites with truthful information.Aaabbb11 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The above statement seems to me to be completely contrary to our policies and guidelines, and I very strongly suggest that individuals remember that this topic is unfortunately still subject to discretionary sanctions. The government of China is a governmental entity, and, as such, its legal rulings are in effect the law for that country. When a government said a group is a "cult" or a person is a "convict," those statements can and should be taken as authoritative statements regarding the legal status of those entities in that country. It is to my eyes a gross violation of POV to say that we should, effectively, ignore the laws of a country in our content if we disagree with them. Now, I think that there are grounds for thinking that the specific term the Chinese government uses which is translated as "cult" might be worth at least a separate section in one article which can be directly linked to in those instances where it is referenced, but that is another matter. The government of China has specifically indicated that the FG is a cult as per their definition of that term, or at least the term that they translate to cult, and it is not our place to say that an official statement by the government of the country where the group has its largest numbers is one we can ignore simply because we as individuals may not agree with it. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11, I think you may be conflating two issues here. The Chinese government can’t be considered an objective or expert source for determining religious orthodoxy. But that doesn’t mean that the article can’t describe the Chinese government’s position. The fact is that the Chinese government has called Falungong a cult, and reliable sources note this as an important feature of its propaganda campaign against the group. Reliable sources have also provided critical analysis of the Chinese government’s use of the label, and the article describes those positions as well.

Where I do agree with you is on the appropriateness of this internal link [1] (the 'governmental list' one). In the body of the article, there is room to properly contextualise the “cult” label and present the views of reliable sources alongside Chinese government positions. We have no such options when it comes to adding stand-alone links, so more discretion is needed.—Zujine|talk 22:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Zujine As FG is in over 70 countries the CCP's view doesn't represent the global view of whether FG is cult. So this wikilink to cult [2] seems inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaabbb11 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess from one point of view we could consider China's view is a bit of a fringe view especially as 'cult' as a WP:W2W on WP. Is it really notable and important that they accuse FG of that? I am sure they say all sorts of nasty things about Falun Gong.. ? It doesn't mean its necessary or helpful to include it in the article. Is there no accusation similar to that elsewhere ? Prasangika37 (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's very notable that they have branded FG as such. That doesn't mean Falun Gong is veritably a cult, but the notability is comparable to the relationship between The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (and Stab-in-the-back myth) and the Holocaust. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree very much with user John Carter here - well said. STSC (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Things need to be put into perspective here. The fact that Falun Gong is legal in many countries is because it's a fringe group whose practitioners are predominantly overseas Chinese immigrants, who the mainstream society don't really care. Suppose the Falun Gong were initially founded in America, with over 70,000,000 adherents, a strong organization/leadership and a brainwashing philosophy, and increasingly became a concern for social stability, I don't think the US government would have not intervened. It's always easy to stand on a moral high ground and blame other countries for what they did, without thinking what our governments would have done should it happened on our soil. I'm no apologist for the Chinese government and I think its treatment of Falun Gong/ handling of the whole issue is far from ideal. But we need to understand that if any government must make a single choice, it would always be made based on the greater good for the society as whole, rather than each individuals. -WadeMacD (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC) hi. wp:notforumHappy monsoon day 02:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@WadeMacD The reason why Falun Gong is legal in the vast majority of countries is because they are free countries, unlike China. The population of the US is much smaller than China so your figure of 70 million for the US needs to be reduced proportionately.

The Communist Party's aim is to stay in power and its prepared to do anything to achieve that. So excuses like social stability and greater good for society are propaganda. The communist party is involved in brainwashing people and achieves it by denying its citizens access to true information, spreading incorrect info and making up shallow excuses for its actions. Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User Aaabbb11 must stop removing the Wikilink to "cult" because the link itself has got nothing to do with the Chinese Government. STSC (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside that this is a pretty inane thing to be edit warring over, I have to agree. There's no problem including the wikilink (through generally such a link should only appear once in the article). That doesn't mean the term must be linked, but there's no valid reason to exclude it either.TheBlueCanoe 02:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, John Carter misunderstood it. This is a common mistake. Please check The illegality of China's Falun Gong crackdown—and today's rule of law repercussions. It says: "National People’s Congress Decision from October 30, 1999: In addition to the above documents issued in the early days of the persecution, several months later, another set of decisions was published, which have often been seen to form a legal foundation for persecuting Falun Gong. However, when examined closely, it becomes evident that, they too, do not legally ban Falun Gong. On October 30, 1999, China’s National People's Congress Standing Committee ratified a “Decision to Ban, Safeguard Against, and Punish Cult Activities.” In analysis by human rights groups and legal scholars, this is often cited as the basis for the campaign. However, it contradicted Article 36 of the Constitution, rendering it invalid. In addition, the document did not specifically mention Falun Gong." In fact, any Chinese law or Chinese government's formal notice never put Falun Gong in an evil cult list. Since 1999, China State Council and China Public Security Department have published evil cult lists for a few times. All organizations are considered as evil cults by Chinese government are listed. But Falun Gong has never been put in those lists. Please check: 2014: 14 Evil Cults in China 2000/5/10 Chinese Public Security Dept: Notice on Identified and Banned cults and Related Issues] Only Jiang Zemin's gang has been using such an 'evil cult' label on Falun Gong through media. Media reports are neither Chinese law nor Chinese government regulations. Marvin 2009 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Genocide

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Genocide that people reading this page might be interested in. Aaabbb11 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

organharvesting.net is a reliable source

The Kilgour–Matas report at organharvesting.net is used as a reference by people who include Kirk C. Allison, PhD, MS, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Ethan Gutmann, Dr Torsten Trey http://www.dafoh.org/response-by-dr-torsten-trey-et-al-in-reply-to-drs-shi-bing-yi-and-chen-li-peng/ Tom Treasure http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1809171 and Torsten Trey, Arthur Caplan, and Jacob Lavee http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583396/

The ncbi article you linked is based off the Kilgour-Matas report. It should be noted that there were obvious and quite frequent inconsistencies in the Kilgour-Matas report, and the results were based off of circumstantial evidence that never outright proved the allegations. organharvesting.net is not a reliable source, and it disappoints me to see so many Falun Gong practitioners trying to make this article more biased than what the Spirit of Wikipedia entails. Cyanhat (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.

When medical establishments admit they are using Falun Gong organs it would seem to be rather strong direct evidence to me. Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Key pieces of organ harvesting evidence

I think the following pieces of evidence should be included prominently.

1. 15 hospitals admitted they use Falun Gong organs http://organharvestinvestigation.net/report0701/report20070131.htm#_Toc160145142 (10 from 1 caller, 5 from other caller).

2. The repeated blood and medical testing of Falun Gong practitioners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaabbb11 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong media had already interviewed the doctors from the alleged hospitals years ago and found that Falun Gong falsified the telephone conversations. -WadeMacD (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@WadeMacD I think you will have difficultly finding a source for that info. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing title of Persecution of Falun Gong article to Genocide of Falun Gong

I am proposing to change title of the Persecution of Falun Gong article to Genocide of Falun Gong at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Genocide. There has been a discussion about this but it has been limited. I think this is a very important issue because I think the title of an article should reflect the seriousness of what has and is happening. More comments are needed. Thank you Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: New Religious Movements where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This article can't cover the opinions of two ways.

I can see the article only includes opinion of a part of people.So what do the other people think of it? You say Falun Gong is good,but I exactly see the websites you got the information are Falun Gong's.And could you do some thing that are REALLY good for wikipedia not only for youself? (To the writter of the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New visitor (talk • contribs) 11:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

harry wu

i just removed this paragraph because it didn't really make sense. let's talk about it:

Harry Wu, an human rights activist, questioned the claims that Falun Gong members are specifically targeted for large scale organ harvesting.[1] But Harry Wu's July 2006 article showed his views in his March 21 letter were formed before completing his investigation, so Harry Wu's views were not based on his full investigation. Further, Harry Wu characterized the volume of organ harvesting Annie described as "technically impossible", but in fact it is technically possible, according to medical expert.[2]

the part that doesn't make sense is: 1) what does 'specifically targeted' mean? who is saying they are 'specifically' targeted? rather than just targeted? so does he believe they're 'targeted' but not 'specifically targeted'? basically it's just a bit confusing. 2) the second sentence is basically just an opinion meant to rebut him. and it has no source. 3) the third sentence is completely original research.

i don't know what the state of the art is on this, I just saw a fairly dumb few sentences and thought it would be best to move it here. I don't know who put it there. just discuss it and if we can improve it then fine. otherwise it doesn't seem to offer much informational content.

what would be most helpful, actually, is not just some kind of opinion but some actual evidence or argumentation about why the falun gong claims of organ harvesting may not be true. no one really cares what someone believes just because they're an activist (or especially because they're an activist...). but they're actually interested in what makes sense based on evidence. I read the falun gong organ harvesting page and couldn't find anything like that. either 1) the editors did not include this deliberately (where is it???), or 2) no one has come out to argue against these allegations. if it's the first then we should fix that immediately. if it's the second, then fine. but paragraphs like the above are a poor substitute for actual argumentation. not sure what others think. also, in general i like the idea of having the discussion and consensus building on this page and then updating the other pages. not sure if that would work for the more senior editors around. ok. bye.Happy monsoon day 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So called "Powers of Falun Gong practitioners"

user:Rajmaan added such a paragraph in this article and some related pages. The content added is said to be based on two Time reports. After reading the sourced Time report, to me, it seems the content and the sub-title user:Rajmaan added today are out of context. They were not stated by the articles. WP:OR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The whole Time reports are not concerned about "Powers of Falun Gong practitioners" at all. Plus the location of the paragraph on the page is not reasonable. So I think should not be in the article. If user:Rajmaan wants to quote Time report, please follow WP:NOR. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

On the Li Hongzhi article there is another paragraph which quotes from the same article"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Li_Hongzhi&diff=690398059&oldid=690348536 On 10 May 1999, Li gave an interview with Time, during which he stated that "human moral values are no longer good" and reiterated Falun Gong's differentiation from other qigong groups. He also expounded on the "Dharma-ending period" and claimed the existence of aliens were corrupting human beings. He avoided questions about his personal background, stating, "I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it." <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053761,00.html |title=TIME: Interview with Li Hongzhi |work=TIME |date=10 May 1999 |accessdate=5 January 2010}}</ref>]

I don't see why the talk about levitation and curing illnesses are excluded for absolutely no reason. It talks about aliens but not levitation and miraculous illness curing? And there is no synthesis in the content, Li Hongzhi said in the interview that people can levitate and they he can cure illnesses. If you have an issue with the title of the section, change the title.Rajmaan (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the sourced report, "TIME: You have said that this type of qigong should not be used to cure illness. Why is that? Li: Healing illnesses belongs to the lower level of qigong. A person with an illness cannot practice to a higher level. One has to purify one's body in order to have gong. Healing and fitness are for laying a foundation at a lower level of practice. TIME: Would you use qigong to cure an illness? Li: I can do all of this, but I won't do it." So it is not just what user:Rajmaan said "wouldn't demonstrate his powers". According to the report, Mr. Li simply won't cure illnesses. This correlates his answers to many other questions. Here are two examples. The first one is : "TIME: How does Falun Gong differ from other types of qigong? Li: There are different practices of qigong in China and in other countries, but they are primarily aimed at healing illnesses or keeping fit and maintaining good health. I am teaching a higher level of qigong. It encompasses a greater content. It is like the Tao, which is known in the Western world. " Another one is "TIME: What made you finally come out? Li: When these masters asked me to come out. At the time I said that there were too many people practicing qigong, and I said that I did not want to cure illnesses or to help people keep fit. They said, What you do will be different. These people who are teaching how to cure illnesses and teaching fitness, are paving the road for your coming out." Above is to address the inaccuracy in your first line. All other lines you put there have similar issues. Those lines do not capture what the report mainly talked about. In the reports, the purpose of the practice attaining Tao was mentioned many times. So the purpose was not to cure any illness or claim any supernatural capability. Your edits misinterpreted the original words and might mislead the readers of this article. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I would restore the sourced content under the sub-heading as Supernatural abilities. STSC (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the title and adjusting the location. But the lines somehow do not reflect the actual contents the report covered. Please check my above reply to user:Rajmaan. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adjusting some wording after my reply. Now the first line seems okay (still the context is missing). For 2nd line, the original words from the report is " Master Li teaches that devotees, with proper study and practice, can levitate and see the future", it turned to be inaccurate by removing the conditions "with proper study and practice". For the third line, if you can find the original words from that sourced Time report, you will know, one important word 'NOT' is missing, so the third line should be changed to something like "Li claimed that his Falun Gong teachings can NOT be used to halt fast cars ...." BTW, the current sub title is not reasonable. If changing it to Time's interviews and reports in 1999, that will be neutral. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the better alternative—if it's decided that this is an important topic for inclusion—is to draw on scholarly articles and books, since news reports are almost inevitably going to miss some nuance when talking about esoteric Chinese beliefs. Also, why were some images were removed from the page? The rationale for doing so seems spurious to me, so unless there's some compelling objection, I'm going to add them back.TheBlueCanoe 18:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed some pictures were removed from this article and other related articles. If these pictures' locations in the articles are not suitable, they could be moved to the right sections. I do not think they should be removed either. For the recently added 'Supernatural abilities' section, as I said above, those provided information were not consistent with the Time sources. The section need to be either modified or removed. I agree, academic study will be better if people really want to talk about miracles. Even these Time reports overall are neutral and objective. Some users may not have read the reports carefully and misinterpreted them. From one of the Time reports in 1999, it seems that Time's Hongkong journalist Lori Reese interviewed local people and got a story as: "Sophie Xiao, a 32-year-old investment analyst in Hong Kong, is one believer. Xiao's enfeebled mother in Beijing had gotten well through Falun Gong, and she sent her daughter Master Li's books. I was always so worried, Xiao says. I was constantly exhausted. When she too experienced rejuvenation, she passed along the books to several friends. I finished the books in four days, says a neighbor, a Mrs. Hui. My husband came home and said, 'Why do you look so good?' For me, it's the philosophy. It's like finding the answers to all the problems in my life. Mrs. Hui's once-gray hair has turned black, her husband has taken up Falun Gong and their six-year-old daughter has memorized the master's first book." I have no objection to introduce such a Time reported story to the article. Marvin 2009 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The article shouldn't contain a sub-section about a single magazine article or about a single anecdote. If we want a section on supernatural abilities, then it should be a well-rounded discussion of that theme. None of the attempts thus far seem to hit the mark. TheBlueCanoe 22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Such a few lines from a single source should not be in an independent sub-section. However, if there are users who think it has some value to the article, I encourage them to add it to a relevant place of the article (the subtitle could be removed). Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You can improve the content; don't just delete everything. That's how Wikipedia works. STSC (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

obviously the best source to use are actual chinese religious scholars who study this stuff, not newspaper articles from over a decade ago, picking and choosing parts to make this religion look weird. I added a sentence about this now and found something on google books by a guy called benjamin penny.Happy monsoon day 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Extraterrestrials are not part of "esoteric Chinese beliefs" and have nothing to do with Chinese religions. Other sources are not required for what Li Hongzhi said.Rajmaan (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

i think they (ie secondary sourceS) may actually be, rajmaan, given the policy on WP:PRIMARY. the idea is that we cannot use primary sources to make a point we want to make. for example that falun gong religious beliefs are funny or silly because there are aliens and stuff. i might agree, but actually we would need to find a chinese religious scholar who can explain what role these thoughts have in the flg doctrinal system. we can't just pick something and stick it in because it sounds ridiculous. that's my understanding of the policy anyway. others can correct me if i'm wrong. i just took a look at david ownby's book on google books and it only seems to mention aliens twice, in passing.Happy monsoon day 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheBlueCanoe, I wasn’t sure at first whether material on supernatural powers should be included in this page. After all, Li placed considerably less emphasis on supernatural abilities than other qigong masters. Looking again though, there does seem to be evidence that it’s a significant enough part of Falungong discourse to merit a few more lines (unlike the discussion of extraterrestrial life, which appears to be very far removed from the 'core teachings'). As always the key is proportionality and context, and to avoid veering into the realm of tabloid sensationalism.—Zujine|talk 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We only quoted what Master Li said about aliens destroying the human race; there's no need to hide some parts of his fine teachings. It's up to the readers to judge whether it's silly or funny. STSC (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AsUser talk:Rajmaanmentioned above, this aliens topic is already covered at the page Li Hong Zhi. Why do you keep repeating it? it is not a core teaching of Falun Dafa. Marvin 2009 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather silly argument, you don't need that information in this article just because it's been covered elsewhere? Are you ashamed of Master Li's teaching about alients and you want to hide it here? STSC (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your words like 'hide', 'ashamed',..., all are just your imagination and attacks. WP:UNDUE says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. " As i said earlier the topic you are interested in was already in Mr. Li's page before and it is not the central teaching. You still kept to add the topic in the same page's preface and this page. I suggest you not edit Wikipedia based on your personal hatred, which is shown by your two edits: [deleting a wiki link] and [adding a wiki link]. Plus, you canceled many other editors' work and launched edit wars in many articles. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY; omission of controversial teachings in main page

Why did the main page not include ALL of Falun Gong’s teachings by its founder, Li Hongzhi? Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt there are practitioners who don’t follow all aspects of Falun Gong. But how can this article be considered neutral if it cherry picks information (many are not even cited) and omit the controversies (which can be verified), such as the fact: “unlike other qigong groups, Falun Gong insists that its founder is the only authoritative source for determining the correct exercises” and “on a more esoteric level, Li also teaches that demonic space aliens seek to destroy humanity and, since their arrival in 1900, have manipulated scientists and world leaders.”

The above information are cited form an article by the Encyclopedia Britannica, and a subsequent in-depth interview where Li elaborates: “since the beginning of this century, aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture” and warns their “ultimate purpose is to replace humans” was conducted by TIME magazine, both of which notable and verifiable Western sources.

Interesting this page mentions details like the “absence of fees” but not more noteworthy teachings as cited above, especially considering Li said the “ultimate purpose” of his version of qigong exercises “is to enable people to attain the Tao and to complete their cultivation practice” so that “in the end they can free themselves from the worldly state” because “human lives are not created from the dimension that human beings think they know.”

Furthermore, currently, there are over 4500 words in the main article page alone, on the subject of the persecution of Falun Gong, which has little relevance on its actual ideology (i.e. the unlawful persecution of suspected Communists in the United States by its government during the mid 20th century has little relevance on the actual ideology of Communism, which is not mentioned at all on its respective wiki main page). That said, as I believe those type of information also should not be omitted, I hope the additional 400 words of evidence from both primary and secondary sources help bring more neutrality and balance on this topic from all points of view.

P.S. I’m a fan of Wikipedia and uses if often, especially considering it’s usually the top result in a search. But it’s articles like this that hurt Wikipedia’s goal to represent “all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Just have a read of the mentioned Encyclopedia Britannica article to see how a balanced article looks like. AnonymousComment (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

hi. i get where you are coming from to some degree. would you mind reading a little bit above, because we just had this long (long) discussion. there were various opinions raised. the dominant one that came out seemed to be that the page should treat FLG-related issues in roughly the same proportion in which they are treated in the best scholarship on the topic. after monitoring that discussion i became a bit more acquainted with that scholarship, both in book form and in journal articles published over the years.

the more 'ridiculous' elements of the beliefs that you mention dont appear to be 'core' parts of the practice, and in one case seem to be the media having fun, and in another is a tertiary source (wikipedia should rely on good secondary sources, ideally). anyway, it would help to survey the arguments above and add something new to them, because things seemed to have petered out with the status quo. wikipedia is not about highlighting what we think is 'noteworthy,' but about presenting subjects professionally and in the context in which they are explained in the best sources. FLG obviously comes from a Chinese self-cultivation religious tradition, which has its roots in Taoist and Buddhist meditation in caves and so on - they are not raëlians who believe Obama is possessed &c.Happy monsoon day 04:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Happy_monsoon_day: Thank you for taking the time to respond. First, would you please let me know what verifiable and reliable source you have to back up your statement that the information I cited “dont appear to be 'core' parts of the practice”?

As mentioned, Li said the “ultimate purpose” of his version of qigong exercises “is to enable people to attain the Tao and to complete their cultivation practice” so that “in the end they can free themselves from the worldly state” because “human lives are not created from the dimension that human beings think they know.”

How is the above cited information not relevant to “core” teachings? Furthermore, also as mentioned, the wiki main page already include trivial information like “absence of fees” and 4500 words about its prosecution by the Communist Chinese government. How are those information relevant to “core” teachings?

Second, would you please let me know what verifiable and reliable source you have to back up your statement that the information I cited “seem to be the media having fun”? Are you accusing esteemed sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica and TIME Magazine of researching and publishing information to have “fun”?

Third, according to Wikipedia’s own policy, reliable tertiary sources are acceptable. But semantics aside, it’s quite paradoxical for you to call into question the reliability of the Encyclopedia Britannica when Wikipedia itself is also an Encyclopedia. Furthermore, it is especially unfounded considering there is a WikiProject promoting the importing and adapting of material from public domain editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which reflects positively on how reliable a source it is for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, why did you roughly ignore my other citation, the TIME Magazine primary source, from your argument? It’s rather peculiar that you seem to suggest you know more about Li’s “core” teachings even though your opinion contradicts the founder’s own words. It’s further unfortunate you seem to advocate the censorship of information via your unverifiable rationales which results in the page’s undue weight and hence can manipulate the readers’ perception of the topic.

Finally, it’s rather ironic for you to state: “wikipedia is not about highlighting what we think is 'noteworthy,' but about presenting subjects professionally and in the context in which they are explained in the best sources” because the Encyclopedia Britannica certainly considers it noteworthy enough to publish while TIME Magazine certainly considers it noteworthy enough to examine. Furthermore, it is I who have cited verifiable and reliable sources whereas you seem to be just voicing your unverifiable opinions, which is not surprising since you seem to have no issues with the many currently UNCITED information on the wiki page that reflects positively on Falun Gong. AnonymousComment (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You asked why the article doesn't include all of Li's teachings. It's because that would be untenable, and it is beyond the scope of this article. This page is that it should summarize those teachings that are most essential to the practice. Editors determined what the 'core teachings' are by surveying the best available scholarly works on Falungong, and summarising what they say are the most important aspects of the doctrine.

Encyclopedia Britannica is a generally reliable tertiary source, but its entry on Falungong is very old; it appears to predates every single book that's been published by Western scholars on the movement (note the paltry bibliography). Put another way, there are better sources now, and they don't think that belief in malevolent aliens is an important part of the teachings. However, you may be right that the article could be more clear in stating what the "ultimate goal of the practice" is, as this is certainly highly relevant.—Zujine|talk 05:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just took another quick look at the page. It actually does say up front that the goal of the practice is enlightenment, and a little later it quotes Palmer as saying that the purpose of practice is "to purify one's heart and attain spiritual salvation." So we might be covered on this front.—Zujine|talk 05:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zujine: Thank you for taking the time to respond. First, please understand your unverified and broad statement of “that would be untenable, and it is beyond the scope of this article” contradicts Wikipedia’s policy of WP:BOLD and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view which states: “neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.”

Second, would you please let me know what verifiable and reliable source you have to back up your opinion that the information I cited are not “essential to the practice” or are not “core teachings”?

As mentioned, Li said the “ultimate purpose” of his version of qigong exercises “is to enable people to attain the Tao and to complete their cultivation practice” so that “in the end they can free themselves from the worldly state” because “human lives are not created from the dimension that human beings think they know.”

How is the above cited information not relevant to “core” teachings? Furthermore, also as mentioned, the wiki main page already include trivial information like “absence of fees” and 4500 words about its prosecution by the Communist Chinese government. How are those information relevant to “core” teachings? How come you don’t think those information are “untenable” and “beyond the scope of this article” but my 400 words from reliable primary and tertiary sources relating to the “ultimate purpose” of Li’s teachings are?

Third, would you please let me know under what authority do you exclude me as an “editor”? Under what authority do you or the other “editors” determine “the best available scholarly works” or conclude which “are better sources”? That sounds similar to CENSORING information to LIMIT the point of view of a topic, which as mentioned is against Wikipedia’s policy : “When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.”

Fourth, would you please let me know under which Wikipedia policy can you exclude reliable sources simply because it’s “old”? The Britannica article was actually last updated on Nov 06, 2015. Regardless, your statement is especially unfounded considering there is a WikiProject promoting the importing and adapting of material from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which reflects positively on how reliable a source it is for Wikipedia.

Furthermore, why did you roughly ignore my other citation, the TIME Magazine primary source, from your argument? It’s rather peculiar that you seem to suggest you know more about Li’s “core” teachings even though your opinion contradicts the founder’s own words. It’s further unfortunate you seem to advocate the censorship of information with your unverifiable rationales which results in the page’s undue weight and hence can manipulate the readers’ perception of the topic.

Finally, your last comment seems to best showcase how you seem to be just giving your unverified opinions; Linking words like “enlightenment” and “spiritual salvation” as adequate info for readers to understand Li’s teachings “that demonic space aliens seek to destroy humanity” and the “ultimate purpose” of his qigong exercises is so practitioners “can free themselves from the worldly state” because “human lives are not created from the dimension that human beings think they know” is quite a stretch.

P.S. I edited the indentation formatting in accordance with relative policy to make the multiple replies more readable. AnonymousComment (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

please check the section named "So called "Powers of Falun Gong practitioners" above. I think your issue was already addressed there. The topic was already mentioned on Mr. Li's page, so it is neither 'hide' nor 'omission'. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please Marvin, maybe you and the others just feel so embarrassed by the alien topic and want to hide it at all costs. STSC (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have replied to you above. please check my reply. Do not attack Wikipedia users based on your imagination. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Falun Gong, the readers have the right to know everything including Master Li's teaching on aliens. STSC (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, this is clearly undue weight. We can use primary sources under some circumstances, but must rely on secondary sources to interpret them. That includes interpreting how much weight to assign them in proportion to other issues. Scholarly books about Falun Gong are a good barometer of how to do that, and in this case, the experts seem to agree that Li's thoughts on aliens comprise a very minor part of the belief system, so it's not appropriate to give it such prominence in this article. Regarding the changes to the lede section, I suggest consulting WP:BRD. You made significant and rather hasty changes to a consensus version of a page, and you were reverted. The next step is not to edit war, but to attempt to persuade other editors of the merits of your proposed changes to this section.TheBlueCanoe 14:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly another attempt to game the system. The readers should be told about every aspect of Master Li's teachings, and not selectively. STSC (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@AnonymousComment - I cannot claim to be an authority on what or what are not the 'core' teachings of flg. but i did two things when i started editing the pages, at least: i read david ownby's book on the topic, david palmer's book, ben penny's research, and a few other odds and ends. judging by that, and taking a minor look through the contentious and weird parts of the teachings, it becomes obvious that the alien stuff is not a core part of the falun gong cosmology. they seem to be something of a bit player in the flg grand scheme. of course, it sounds very funny and salacious - alien plots etc. - but simply see how many times 'aliens' shows up in the 'collected works' ~13 times? (just doing a quick and dirty Gcount, removing duplicates etc.) there are who knows how many pages of flg teachings. we could tabulate it somehow but i suspect it's running at close to half a million words in english by now? not to mention that, according to those abovementioned scholars, what the falun gong community actually reads 'religiously' is the main text zhuan falun. that mentions aliens once, from what I can tell.

i'm a bit new to the page, but it seems obvious that the more significant notability around aliens and falun gong is how much outsiders who have not taken the time to gain a careful understanding of the practice have made of them - not how much they feature as a part of the flg worldview. in that case, the discussion of them almost becomes a meta-issue. the matter of how much time to devote to meta narratives is an interesting one. if there were a literature on the meta-narratives of flg and aliens that would be curious. there are many groups with aliens as a key part of their beliefs, and there may be some comparative angle there.

PS: it doesn't help our discussion to accuse me of censorship, when all we're trying to do is engage in a process of exploring the truth of our chosen subject (the role of aliens in falun gong doctrine).Happy monsoon day 03:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree first that abiding rules of Wikipedia is not sufficient to ensure the neutrality of any article. On this specific matter, I'd like to argue that the suppression of any pro-FLG opinions in China, plus difficulty of investigations on FLG for foreigners, in fact facilitates the bias in western academia and media. Censorship goes both ways.

Here is a quote from this article "As a matter of doctrinal significance, Falun Gong is intended to be "formless," having little to no material or formal organization. Practitioners of Falun Gong cannot collect money or charge fees, conduct healings, or teach or interpret doctrine for others." This quote is a lie to me.

My mother went to a Li Hongzhi's healing session (he did the "healing", not any of his disciples). Many of my neighbors too at that time, and they paid money for the session. One of my neighbors was in too deep in the organization and actually went to jail and got tortured. I am well aware that I am not qualified as a reliable source by any means. But I hope my entire opinion is not going to get dismissed simply because of this.

In addition, the article cited "An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing". Can someone who have access to the book shine some light on how FLG finance the organization without "charging fees" as it claimed? Do they take "donations" like the Scientology we all loved /sarcasm?

I don't think it is necessary to remind any of you here that how biased medias are. We all see that, regardless where we are and what medias we look at. Admitting it or not, Pro-FLG standpoint fits the interest of western government, and the interest of government does leak into media reporting, to a certain degree even for western medias. Dismissing all anti-FLG evidences is easier to do than actually examine them, because censorship and propaganda in China has made the latter task near impossible. Don't you think there is likely a systematic bias when we only look at the sources that we are sure not contaminated by Chinese government, while not carefully screen them for pro-FLG bias? FLG has its newspapers (you can find them in a lot of chinese restaurants in the US, go pick one up yourself), news websites, etc. I'd argue they, like scientology or any big corporations, possibily sponsored some pro-FLG reportings or even academic research.

Let's compare Falun Gong with Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Unlike the latter two, only glancing through the TOC of FLG page, you can't even tell that FLG has any controversies, but hey look at that, FLG was persecuted, fuck the CCP and its human right violation! What I am proposing, and hopefully some people on this page would agree, is simply allowing a standalone section for Controversies, similar to Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Thanks for reading my rant. Zebrasandrobots (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your anecdote about your mother is borne out by accounts in reliable sources, including the Tong article. These confirm that very early on, Li did charge fees for Falun Gong seminars. These were reported to be 30-60 Yuan for a 10-day seminar, about 40% of which apparently went to the government-affiliated Qigong Associations, and much of the rest was to cover logistical costs. Li stopped charging fees sometime 1994, and thereafter forbid the collection of money. This is covered in the article. As Tong notes, there is no system of tithing or fixed remittances in Falun Gong, and followers are under no pressure to donate their assets. Falun Gong sources say they are forbidden to profit from the sale of Falun Gong books or products, raise funds, or even accept gifts (see Tong (2002), p 657). To my knowledge no reliable sources have ever disputed these points. TheBlueCanoe 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Compare Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and Falun Gong. There is little criticism and analysis on the main article; however, if you look at Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of the Book of Mormon, and Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you will see a more in-depth analysis. I don't like titling pages "criticism" because it is easy for the page to be seen as an attack page, but in some cases this is Wikipedia convention. Following the same naming convention the details of Falun Gong teachings could be placed on Teachings of Falun Gong and criticism could be placed on Criticism of Falun Gong. Currently Criticism of Falun Gong is a redirect. Unlike the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), Falun Gong has a "Persecution" section in the main article while the Mormons have an article specifically devoted to Anti-Mormonism. In the interest of fairness the "Persecution" section should be split off of the main article and moved to Persecution of Falun Gong unless the main article is also balanced with a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. To be honest, it looks like Falun Gong activist are trying to Wikipedia:Coatrack excessive amounts of persecution information on Falun Gong pages while masking the notability of the criticism and controversy of Falun Gong. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your insight into this unbalance in the article; unfortunately the FG activists seem to be guarding all the FG-related articles religiously, it's an undesired situation on Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to approach these things case-by-case based on principles of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. There are other pages on religions that include sections on persecution (e.g. Judaism, Bahá'í Faith), so the Falun Gong page is not unique in that respect. And given that the experience of suppression is such a critical element in Falun Gong's history and development, it would hardly make sense not to include it here. With that said, there's scope to revise the section with an eye to concision and clarity, but I'm not convinced that the current coverage is as disproportionate as you say. As to controversies, there was such a section before, but its contents were later integrated throughout the article. The material there fell into two categories: issues over which there is some disagreement between scholars, or aspects of the doctrine that some people deemed peculiar. On the former, the solution is simply to describe the debate, where appropriate, which we have done (e.g. on the question of whether Li derived a profit). On the latter, it's not our place to decide what elements of a religious doctrine are strange or not based on our own sensibilities, nor is it appropriate to give such issues disproportionate attention when they in fact represent a very minor part of the teachings. Nonetheless, the article does deal with those issues—such as Falun Gong's views on homosexuality—but does so in an non-sensational way. Are there other notable controversies that are missing? TheBlueCanoe 00:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The persecution section in Judaism is only one paragraph and the persecution section in Bahá'í Faith is about a third of the length of the persecution section in Falun Gong. Both of these religions also have a criticism article, but Falun Gong does not have a criticism article. The ratio of persecution to criticism content is much higher for Falun Gong than any religion I've seen on Wikipedia, so this gives the appearance of activism. Waters.Justin (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

hi. FLG has been suppressed for most of its existence, and all English-language journalism and scholarship about it is post-1999. the fact of FLG is almost always mentioned in the same breath as the fact of its suppression in China - with the exclusion of specific texts focused on its beliefs and doctrines etc. So the 1:1 comparisons don't really take this into account. in 50 years time, if the discipline survives and stops being persecuted in china, then clearly the section devoted to it on a wikipedia article would naturally shrink. right now, it is clearly the most notable aspect of the topic, and takes up about 20% of the page.

the absence of a criticism section or article, based on a cursory review of the archives just now, has been discussed on and off. the arguments seem to basically be that the criticism comes from either the chinese government or the cultic studies communities, which is essentially a fringe group in the sociology of religion. Intellectually, "criticism" is also an odd way of categorizing information. is describing FLG's moralistic views on homosexuality "criticism"? for some it may be, but for most it would simply be information. there's no article on criticism of Tai Chi, or criticism of qigong in general, either. So it really depends on the specifics, and in some cases comparisons are helpful, and sometimes they obscure more than they illuminate. Regarding "activism": on Wikipedia we should focus arguments and evidence and refrain from labeling other editors (is someone who suggests that a criticism page is a good idea suddenly an "anti-FLG activist"?? of course not. etc.) Happy monsoon day 17:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

References

who's the falun gong lawyer?

[3] who is the lawyer? can you provide the exact original language in whichever source is being referred to? the state dept says "Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately." what lawyer? Happy monsoon day 18:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In this source: [4] STSC (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ok - so where does it say that he's a falun gong lawyer? in any case, this level of granularity isn't necessary for an introductory paragraph. Happy monsoon day 18:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

updated along these lines. it seems there are several independent sources giving this as the estimate so i just made it simpler for the introduction. however this might be worth exploring elsewhere in the article, since there may be sources that diverge from the consensus of 'tens of millions' (sounds quite high to me), and the actual article text would have scope to explore the complexities of coming up with an accurate estimate of a highly repressed and marginalized population.Happy monsoon day 22:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The source you added was already there. Anyway, you're right that nothing in the Telegraph article indicates that this is a "Falun Gong source" or a "Falun Gong lawyer," as STSC's edits would have us believe. A more detailed discussion of the numbers question can be found in this China Quarterly article[5]. It notes estimates from a few different sources over the last several years, including Falun Gong estimates, third parties, and internal government documents (e.g. one official in Shandong province saying that there are over 300000 known adherents just in that province) The triangulation method does support a large number, but tens of millions may still be difficult to conclude definitely. Would it be better if we just said "millions"? This is still reflective of the sources we have, and probably more easily defensible.TheBlueCanoe 13:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. State Dept attributes the claim of "tens of millions" to Falun Gong sources. And the lawyer representing the FG clients was the FG lawyer who also made the "tens of millions" claim. STSC (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of FG practitioners

Just because practitioners in China are being persecuted in China does not mean that the numbers have gone down. A friend of mine who was in China wanted to find out the truth about Falun Gong after the persecution began in 1999 and became a practitioner herself. Later her daughter also became a practitioner. When whole families are practicing FG so its likely that the children will also take up the practice.

To me the statement that tens of millions are practicing is conservative but acceptable. But millions implies above 1 million to 10 million which implies something like a 20 fold decrease in numbers if 100 million was the figure before the persecution started. There is no evidence of a large decrease in practitioners. So I think tens of millions should be reinstated. Aaabbb11 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)