Talk:Eastern Lightning

Cousin's eyes not gouged out

It is said on the Internet that the Church of Almighty God is an underworld organization, and the Chinese government told us that if people do not accept the “Eastern Lightening”, their ears would be cut off and their eyes would be gouged out. Many people, including me, are very astounded when hearing about this propaganda. But when I think about it carefully, I found that it is not true. Now the Church of Almighty God can be seen in everywhere, and many people have heard their gospel. Some accept it, and some refused. If what the Chinese government said is true, then many people would have had their ears cut off and their eyes gouged out. If there were one case like this, wouldn’t the news be spread throughout the world by the media a long time ago? My cousin has personally listened to the gospel preached by the Church of Almighty God, but he doesn’t accept it. In fact, his ears were not cut off and his eyes were not gouged out. So I think when people say something on the Internet, they should have evidences to support their words, and we should not believe the rumors blindly, much less parrot the words of others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.3.61.73 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Website 2007

There is another website apparently maintained by Eastern Lightning up and running: http://english.thelordsadvent.org/word/index.php 70.52.221.49 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's down now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.205.168 (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger

This article and Dongfang Shandian are essentially the same in concept and content, so they should be merged. TML (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Any idea which name is more common, and so should be the target of the merge? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dongfang Shangdian is now a redirect to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.205.168 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Widespread torture and kidnappings?

A lot of overseas Chinese Christian groups with ties in the mainland are reporting that this cult has made a habit out of kidnapping, torturing, and brainwashing legitimate Christians in an attempt to gather more followers. Does anyone know more about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimo1989 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

cult

It's mentioned in the first source.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information by user who writes primarily on these sects

Users "Changeful" and "Theophilus", highly possibly sockpuppets of one same man, have been trying to delete sourced information on Eastern Lightning and other sects, especially sources linking their origin to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee's Shouters or Local Church movements. Given that they primarily work on these topics, clearly with favour towards these sects, their tricky edits should be carefully watched. --82.60.22.235 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The user "Theophilus" and I are not related in any way.

The edits being made by the anonymous user appear to be a systematic attempt to suppress information on the growth and extent of Christianity in China. He has gone to several different articles removing language that illustrates the growth and extent Chinese Christianity and Christianity among the Chinese in diaspora. He has also tried--repeatedly--to make edits conflating the breadth of Chinese Protestant Christianity (and of "house churches" in particular) with obscure religious groups currently categorized by the Chinese government as "evil cults." He has stated of these groups that "their crazy dogmas come from the Bible" as justification for his conflation. Changeful (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what reliable sources say, that much of "Chinese Christians" are such fringe sects. Western, and specifically Christian, sources about Christianity in China are not reliable at all, since they misrepresent the actual situation. So, don't delete information. --79.10.148.72 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

'Cult' is subjective, and non-neutral

You can use the more neutral term New religious movement and/or attribute the word to someone who has called it a cult, but there is no reason to use a non-neutral and POV-pushing term in the article based on a single reference. The group would not be universally considered a cult, and so a neutral term must be used. Zambelo; talk 02:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cult (disambiguation) says that new religious movement is cult in a common modern sense. And in doomsday cult it says that this term is "used to describe groups who believe in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism".--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So why not use the term that doesn't carry the negative connotations? And for "doomsday cult" 'millennial group' or similar can be used. Zambelo; talk 03:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of Protestant Christianity has believed in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism at some point, so that's hardly a distinguishing factor of New religious movement. Specific date setting Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ however generally is distinguishing. And also List of messiah claimants would be, even more so.

Anyway, Zambelo is correct, this is an encyclopedia, we don't use the word "cult" even if we might personally think that groups like Eastern Lightning are dangerous. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Update

1) It appears the first external link to the church's website has changed. Propose to link old site thru web archive, and update church site link to http://www.holyspiritspeaks.org/

2) The Church seems to have responded to the BBC coverage of the McDonald murder. The Church believes BBC is CCP (Chinese government's) spokesman. Propose to add this if it's not too First Person http://www.holyspiritspeaks.org/special-topics/ Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist organization or cult? Lead descriptive sentence

@Heuh0 and FreeatlastChitchat:, The lead description I am seeing for this group is "cult" vs. "terrorist". I'm not sure how else to get results comparison, there are more results for "eastern lightning" as a cult than a terrorist organization Here's what we see: cult http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b23f7d90-4a95-11e2-968a-00144feab49a.html#axzz3XrWlVO5H http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/china-eastern-lightning-killing/ http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-chinese-cult-who-kidnap-christians-and-paint-snakes

Terrorist http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335977/once-chinese-arrests-have-nothing-do-religious-freedom-jillian-kay-melchior http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/army-god-6-modern-day-christian-terrorist-groups-you-never-hear-about http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/chinas-other-religious-problem-christianity/

If you look at the searches, many of the sources that say "terrorist" also use "cult" http://www.chinaforjesus.com/EL_development.htm http://www.baptistpress.com/13669/34-chinese-ministers-released-from-cult-kidnapping-email-announces http://www.economist.com/news/china/21614243-murder-mcdonalds-has-given-party-pretext-attacking-old-foe-no-cult-zone

We should include "new religious movement" in the lead descriptive sentence of this article. Yes, they are violent, but the main sources for the terrorist claim are based on the Salon/Alternet article that tried to show a double standard. This is not a case of that double standard. The LRA, and most anti-abortion violence is all about that violence, EL is different. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We can put in both references, but it is often described as an NRM. This has nothing to do with trying to whitewash Christianity. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear." It is certainly a terrorist organisation, simply stating a "new religious movement" is highly misleading. I would suggest a compromise; "...Chinese Christian terrorist organisation and cult." DocHeuh (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I did say we could put in both. How about

Eastern Lightning (Chinese: 东方闪电; pinyin: Dōngfāng Shǎndiàn) is a millennial Chinese Christian terrorist organization and new religious movement .

I know you want to include "terrorist organization" first, and I understand why, but it appears that "cult" predominates in sources. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Facts speak louder than words.

After the May 28 Zhaoyuan incident was publicized, it has been very disputable. According to some news reports, this incident was a murder case deliberately created and exaggerated by the Chinese government for the purpose of attacking the underground churches in China. Some evidences also show that, within the several months after the occurrence of “Zhaoyuan Murder Case”, the Chinese government strengthened their efforts to cracking down on house churches. They destroyed buildings and removed crosses of the churches in Wenzhou and other places.

References

Clarification needed

So, they say God is Yang Xiangbin, or Zhao Weishan? The text is ambiguos on this point. --181.170.254.175 (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Lightning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304232904/http://www.21ccom.net/articles/rwcq/article_20140605107131.html to http://www.21ccom.net/articles/rwcq/article_20140605107131.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

People coming to knock out People's daily sources

Please consider

• Adding attribution rather than simply removing the source
• Finding alternative sources yourselves rather than driveby tagging
• Explaining on the talk page what might be wrong with the source, aside from simply saying - it's the nasty Chinese government.

Edaham (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Both edits were me. (My ISP keeps changing my IP. I should get an account.) I only came to read the article, but was struck by how much it relied on government sources. The Chinese government has been known to run propaganda campaigns against religious groups as we have noted. Therefore, any use of its sources should either be prefixed by "Chinese state media says", or backed up by a secondary source like the BBC or CNN. I myself am not very good at finding such sources, so I tagged in the hope that somebody else will. In particular, the person who reverted "According to Chinese state media" said on their edit summary that there were other sources: perhaps they can put these in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.205.168 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Connection with "Christian Holy City Church"

Two websites (currently) - Geri Ungurean (copied in several mirror sites) and Eddy and Emma's blog - allege that Christian Holy City Church is an alias for Eastern Lightning (and hence, to be avoided). Geri Ungurean also lists other alleged aliases.

An often shared Facebook post about Christian Holy City Church's efforts to recruit translators contains links to reports on Eastern Lightning, implying links. There are many pages about this translation drive throughout the internet, many also shown on the Facebook post.

One page on the Christian Holy City Church website does indeed mention Eastern Lightning.

There do seem to be similarities and links - but none of the sources above seem authoritative or reputable enough to include in the main Eastern Lightning article here. The people responsible for Christian Holy City Church headquarters (in New York) are variously listed on public databases as Mudan Weng and Rui Hua Zheng, but a simple search does not show either of these names as clearly linked with Eastern Lightning.

Perhaps someone able to search in Chinese might be able to find clearer evidence of this link, if there is one? Ozaru (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to find a link by ourselves would be WP:OR. Wikipedia is not for investigative journalism. We should wait for reliable sources and due weight. --Jancarcu (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Shenzhen Family Suicide

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bitter Winter has exposed another attack against the CAG by the CCP, who are blaming the Church for a family suicide in a defamation campaign. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding edits to the page by User:Feoffer

Recently, User:Feoffer has made edits that have significantly shifted the way in which a reader would perceive the Eastern Lightning new religious movement. Comparing diffs before and after User:Feoffer's edits, one would notice that claims about government repression of the sect, as well as reports that some accusations against the sect do not hold water, have been removed. The information removed by User:Feoffer mostly defends the sect or casts it in a more positive light and generally come from the Bitter Winter publication and CESNUR, both of which are led by Italian researcher Massimo Introvigne. User:Feoffer indicates that these sources are WP:COI.

Both the version before User:Feoffer's edits and the version after pose NPOV concerns, mainly because sources other than Introvigne are scant. For this article to become truly neutral, we would first need independent academics to do a bunch of research into this sect. Because we aren't allowed to do WP:OR or to rely to much on the sect's own materials, all we can do is wait for more reliable information to appear. Unfortunately, the political situation in China might not allow for reliable information to consistently come out of the country. Thus, I am assuming good faith on all sides in this editorial dispute.

The most pressing problem to solve right now, in my opinion, is to solve the WP:BLP issue relating to the Murder of Wu Shuoyan. In User:Feoffer's version, there is no mention at all of evidence that the sect may not have been responsible. Without this information, there could be a bias relating to numerous people who are potentially subject to WP:BLP, including the perpetrators and the sect's leaders.

Many sources suggest that the link between Eastern Lightning and the murders is far from watertight. For instance, this part of an interview with the perpetrators suggest that they believe in a different "Almighty God":

Chinese Original: 国家把赵维山这个假的“全能神教会”定位邪教组织，我们也定他们为“邪灵”，只有我和张帆，也就是“众长子”才代表真正的“全能神教会”。 Translation: The country has classified Zhao Weishan's false "Church of Almighty God" as a cult; similarly, we classify them as "evil spirits". Only Zhang Fan and I, who are the "Elders", represent the true "Church of Almighty God".

The sources cited in the original version by scholars Emily Dunn and Massimo Introvigne also come to this conclusion.

Thus, I suggest that we should reinstate Introvigne's objections to the Chinese Government's claims, while leaving the other issues for continued discussion. --Jancarcu (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedent (far predating my involvement) has held that Introvigne/CESNUR is not classified as a Wikipedia:Reliable Source. Potentially in response to this policy, Introvigne appears to have hired assistants to directly add his work into Wikipedia. The earlier version of the article appears to have been composed by such an individual, and it relied heavily on Introvigne's work in contravention of Wikipedia policy.

If one wanted to try to change this longstanding and widespread policy, it would require starting a discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard and convincing the experts there that existing policy towards Introvigne/CESNUR is in error.

Finally, if you know of mainstream journalistic sources that report mistaken identity as a fact, (not a pro-forma quoted defense), we would of course be interesting in covering them with the weight they are due. Feoffer (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am trying not to enter into a personal war with Feoffer but I don’t know of any consent here that all articles by Massimo Introvigne or other scholars associated with CESNUR should be eliminated as sources, including those not even published by CESNUR but by other academic journals or publishers. This would mean eliminating virtually all the most productive scholars in the field of new religious movements, including J. Gordon Melton, Eileen Barker etc. IMHO it is going a little bit too far. Feoffer has cancelled references to an article co-authored by David Bromley, not a CESNUR scholar, because the other co-author is Introvigne. I do not know of any ban in Wikipedia against quoting any article wherever published authored by Introvigne and other CESNUR scholars. Most of them (other than Introvigne) are tenured professors in mainline universities or associate professors. Some of Introvigne’s own stuff is published in non-CESNUR sources. Aidayoung (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: and @Thomas.W: have previously explained to you the issues with Introvigne & Bromley's work at WRSP. Feoffer (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really. They have criticized an article on Oleg Maltsev’s organization by Introvigne. They have not argued that WRSP in general is not a source. It includes hundreds of articles from respected scholars Aidayoung (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is most definitely not true. What I have said is that pages/articles hosted at WRSP cannot be automatically assumed to be reliable sources since they're not peer-reviewed, in spite of you having claimed they are, and are of very varying quality and reliability, and thus have to be examined and evaluated individually. I have also said that we can't automatically assume that everything Introvigne says and writes is true, and can be used as a reliable source; for multiple reasons, one of them being that he is too close to some of the cults he claims to be merely observing, and quite frankly seems to be lacking in judgement at times (such as when writing the promo piece on Maltsev he uploaded to WRSP...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They make sense but are somewhat different from Feoffer’s claim that “everything” written by Introvigne or by CESNUR-associated scholars is by definition a non-reliable source. There are two extremes here: assuming that everything these scholars write is reliable, and assuming that everything, past, present, and future is unreliable. I would not return on the Maltsev issue but here we are dealing with something different. The criticism of Introvigne uploaded in the Wikipedia entry about him mostly date back to the “cult wars” of the 1990s, where a lot of name-calling went on between the “cult apologists” and the “anti-cultists.” This criticism predated by 20 years the main scholarly works by Introvigne in English, published by Brill (“Satanism: A Social History,” 2016) and Oxford University Press (“The Plymouth Brethren,” 2017). These books received some very positive reviews in the specialized media by credentialed academics and certainly Oxford UP and Brill peer-review their books. Feoffer seems to imply that, because of criticism of Introvigne’s and CESNUR’s positions in controversies of 20 years ago and what you and some others regard as a bad piece on Maltsev, there should be a generalized ban against quoting Introvigne and other CESNUR scholars, even when their pieces are published in peer-reviewed journals or do not open themselves to the criticism you formulated about the Maltsev piece. The Journal of CESNUR was founded in 2017. It cannot be covered by criticism of 20 years ago. It is not indexed in SCOPUS and other academic indexes but these start examining journals after two years of continuous publication, and the examination last for several years. So it is too early to pass judgement on the journal. It has no guarantee of being so good to be indexed but that does not mean that all articles are bad. Again, many of the are written by tenured professors and even chairs of academic departments such as Bernadette Rigal-Cellard in Bordeaux. One example of the paradoxical consequences of censorship in this article is that Feoffer eliminated one article by Professor Holly Folk, who is surely an academic and whose first full-length book has been published by an academic press [1] for the only sin of having been published by the Journal of CESNUR. Professor Folk’s article [2] is not an apology for The Church of Almighty God. Actually she makes clear that her main thesis, that the theology of that Church is Calvinist in origins, is not shared at all by members of The Church of Almighty God. Feoffer also eliminated articles by Introvigne in journals that are undoubtedly peer-reviewed and indexed. One example is [3]. There is no doubt that the Journal of Religion and Violence is peer-reviewed and indexed, yet the article was eliminated from the references just because it is by Introvigne. WRSP may not be always of the same quality but the objections you raised against the Maltsev article hardly apply to the article on the McDonald’s murder by Introvigne and David Bromley, which seems to me based on Chinese independent sources, not on material of The Church of Almighty God. These are just some examples. Even by agreeing that “some” articles by Introvigne and the (dozens of) CESNUR-related scholars are questionable, there is no reasonable argument for extending this judgement to “all” their work, particularly when it is published in peer-reviewed fora. Aidayoung (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I partially concur with Aidayoung: some of the materials written by Introvigne and Folk are peer reviewed in reputable journals and prima facie reliable sources. At the very least, information from those sources should be reinstated. Jancarcu (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, you should know upfront that Aidayoung stands accused of having a Conflict of Interest with regard to Introvigne, so their words may not carry much weight among established members of the community. Aida may get paid to post long comments, but no one gets paid to read them.

If you want generate a consensus for using Introvigne as a reliable source, that's a discussion for the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Even if you convinced me and Tom here on this talk page, we're only two voices and we don't have the power to go against the long-established consensus of many editors (which far predates my ever having heard the word Wikipedia). Feoffer (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus that everything written by Introvigne or published by CESNUR then or now or in the future is automatically not reliable. Where is this consensus spelled out? There is of course criticism of Introvigne, mostly of twenty years ago, mentioned in Wikipedia, as there is criticism of many authors who writes in controversial fields, but there is no “consensus” that everything he wrote, even if peer-reviewed, and everything some dozens of CESNUR-affiliated university professors wrote cannot be quoted in Wikipedia. Aidayoung (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion on CESNUR and Introvigne as sources at [4]and one on the objectionable activities by Feoffer at [5]. Those participating in this discussion may want to continue it there. Aidayoung (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not edited further here precisely because I do not want to engage in a personal war with user Feoffer. However, I would just alert Feoffer that he needs to read Emily Dunn's book if he wants to quote it and on this I may intervene.

Emily Dunn explicitly stated that the CAG did not predict the end of the world in 2012: "some members" did, but these rogue members "appear to have done so without sanctions from the group self-proclained authorities," who declared theories about end of the world "mistaken" and expelled those promoting them (Dunn 2015 book, page 95; Feoffer's revisions have left a reference to an article by Dunn about reincarnation published in 2016 that is not about the 2012 incident).

In the same book (by no means favorable to The Church of Almighty God), Dunn noted about the McDonald's murder that "international media outlets repeated Chinese assessment" about the murder in the McDonald's but "what they overlooked were Lu Yingchun and Zhang Fan [the two leaders of the group who committed the murder]'s statements to the court that although they started out as members of Eastern Lightning... they had outgrown it" and regarded The Church of Almighty God led by Zhao Weishan as "the false 'Almighty God'," while they called their (small) group "the true 'Almighty God.'" ([Dunn 2015, page 151). Thus, long before Introvigne wrote on the matter, Emily Dunn had written that it was a different group. In footnote 34, also page 151, she explains that she did not create this theory as it was presented in Chinese journalistic sources, included in a detailed article written by a journalist called Yang Feng, as early as 2014.

The only "novel theory" by Introvigne and David Bromley is that, contrary to Dunn's statement, they claimed Lu Yingchhun and Zhang Fan had not even "started out" as members of Eastern Lightning. This was based on statements by Lu Yingchun that already as a very young woman she claimed to be God (something incompatible with being a member of Eastern Lightning, which regards a different lady as God and considers highly blasphemous for other human beings to claim they are God: see [6]: "I grew up knowing that I was ‘God Himself'") and on a televised interview the Chinese authorities allowed Zhang Fan to grant from jail where she stated that she has never be able to contact The Church of Almighty God. You can hear it from the voice of Zhang Fan at [7]: "I never had contact with The Church of Almighty God because they were very secretive, and I could not find them." Aidayoung (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit war

We do not want to insult this church, but The Church was founded upon the return of Christ is totally not WP:NPOV and it is totally inappropriate for a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)