Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Are there any notable studies about Falun Gong's views about aliens and civilisations before human?

Though I remember there are several times where this ides was mentioned in books like Zhuan Falun and some of Li Hongzhi's teachings(such as Oklo), this area seemed to be largely neglected in this article--Inspector (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


Other editors have looked into this before, and I understand that extraterrestrial life is only mentioned once or twice in passing in Zhuan Falun, meaning it doesn't make up a significant part of the teachings. Another editor also once looked at how much weight to give these teachings based on their appearance in the most authoritative books on falungong beliefs:
Ownby's 300-page volume on Falun Gong devotes two sentences to Li's statements on aliens. Penny's book, which is a much more single-minded study of all aspects of Falun Gong practice and beliefs, devotes one page out of ~250 to the subject.
According to Penny, a much more important concept than the existence of aliens is falungong's ideas about other forms of life pervading the universe—namely gods, buddhas and deities.
I can't find any mention of Oklo in the text of Zhuan Falun, but I looked through Penny's writings, and see that there is an indirect reference to it. There's a short section of Li's book where he mentions several apparently ancient artifacts to make a point that civilisation extends further back than historians and archeologists generally allow. Penny writes that "determining whether Li's contentions about certain historical artifacts or natural phenomena are correct or not is to misinterpret the nature of [Li's] teachings...Li's writings should be viewed as religious texts." The tradition he's playing into here "echoes ideas present in Chinese religions for centuries," especially those of Buddhism and medieval Daoism, which hold that there are multiple ages of human civilisation that undergo cyclical periods of renewal and decline.—Zujine|talk 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Due to the internet blocking I cannot reach the Zhuan Falun text by now, but I guess Li Hongzhi had mentioned something like "a 2 billion-year nuclear reactor that cannot be built by today's technology".--Inspector (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is some pieces from the first chapter of Chinese Zhuan Falun:"非洲有个加蓬共和国有铀矿石，这个国家比较落后，自己不能够提炼铀，把它出口到先進国家。... 最後證實這個鈾礦是個大型核反應堆，而且布局非常合理，我們現在的人都不可能 ... 是二十億年前，它運轉了五十萬年。 "(Rough Translation: In Africa there is a country called Gabonese Republic; it is a developing country not able to refine uranium ore and exporting it to developed countries...It was at last confirmed that this uranium ore is a big nuclear reactor with perfect structure that cannot be build by us now ... It had run for 500 thousand years in 2 billion years ago).--Inspector (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that certain disputable texts should not be overly criticized. Though, what was currently written in this article about this view about "echoes ideas present in Chinese religions for centuries," presented in Penny's writings?--Inspector (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Penny's book, which is a much more single-minded study of all aspects of Falun Gong practice and beliefs, devotes one page out of ~250 to the subject. To be clear, that's a quote from User:Homunculus[1]. Actually, this understates the amount of coverage Penny devotes to Li's alien and related beliefs in the book: the index indicates that aliens are discussed on pages 91-92, 130-132, 147-49, see also UFOs discussed on 126, 130-133, 148. There's also quite a lot of quotation and analysis on his concepts of giant pythons (p.101), evil snake spirits (p.108) and other "unusual" beliefs relative to the "persecution" that our articles like to emphasize, on Penny's chapters dedicated to Li Hongzhi and Zhuan Falun. It would be less undue to place some mention of them on the articles there. @Inspector: It's well known that Falun Gong's English translations of its texts are crafted towards its political goals, so they exclude a lot of the stuff that would be treated skeptically by the press and non-Chinese-literate scholars. Shrigley (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the translation.--Inspector (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there's a lot of misinformation around falungong, be careful not to make erroneous statements that could further misunderstandings. The leading scholars on falungong haven't said anything about its english translations having any kind of "political goals." There are reputable scholars who read both English and Chinese and who have read both versions of Li's writings, and their findings don't at all support your statement. Penny spends more time discussing the slight translation differences between the three English editions of Zhuan Falun than he does elaborating Li's views on aliens, and yet he makes no mention of any form of manipulation in the translation—to the contrary, he notes that the texts are translated assiduously. The biggest inconsistency he mentions is the translation of "Shijian fa" into "in-triple-world," which is apparently because they were treating "shijian" like "sanjie".

I also checked H's observation for myself. Penny indeed devotes about one page (<1.5 pages) to explaining falungong's beliefs on aliens. He spends another half page to a page on other people's writings on extraterrestrials and speculating about what kind of discourses may have been influential in China in the 1980s and 1990s. All the other mentions from the index are tangential, one-word mentions outside the context of really explaining falungong's beliefs.

Certainly, Penny's book dedicates relatively little space to the persecution, because Penny's study is a textual analysis of falungong's books, not a general overview of all things falungong. The history of the practise and the origins of persecution are given an excellent introduction in the first chapter, but that's about it. Since this article is an overview with only one small section on falungong's central beliefs and teachings, it should remain focused on the most central beliefs, not the ones that certain editors find "unusual" or sensational.—Zujine|talk 15:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Lightning

Are there any known ties between Falungong and the doomsday cult Eastern Lightning??[2][3] This cult seems to be also engaging in anti-CCP rhetoric, and called the Chinese government the "red dragon" of the Book of Revelations, a term also used by Falungong's Nine Commentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.128.66 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so. They share some things in common in terms of the treatment their members have received at the hands of Chinese authorities, and it's not entirely surprising that they've adopted some similar anti-government rhetoric. But in terms of doctrinal similarities or lineage ties, there's no connection. Interesting though. TheBlueCanoe 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add news report

Here's the report: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php It's from a mainstream news outlet, appears to be notable, reliable, and relevant to the subject. According to talk archive there is a tremendious effort by Falun Gong disciple to circle the wagon here to push POV, so I am proceeding cautiousely and requesting adminstrative oversight. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an old debate, and one that's been hashed out at length before. Long story short: these three individuals represent an extreme fringe. One is an undergraduate student. Their arguments have been addressed and discredited by serious scholars, and so highlighting their criticisms in this manner is giving their opinions vastly undue weight. There is already a section in the article that addresses the 'cult' debate, and the role that a handful of western anti-cultists had in legitimizing the Chinese government's discourses, but the views of mainstream scholars should be given prominence.
If you want to dispute my reversion at ANI, please do. I will happily draw their attention to evidence of your conflict of interest. —Zujine|talk 21:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Putting personal issues aside ( and for the record I have no COI vis-à-vis China's Communist party or Falun Gong), I do agree that any reliably sourced content which discusses FG in terms like "cult" or "millennial movement" is branded as "communist propaganda" and rapidly removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
@AgadaUrbanit, I will support your opinion if this news report belongs or not, and edit suggestion you may have.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't include. Event was not notable. This is a summary article, not a list of every conference and event where someone has expressed views on Falun Gong.TheBlueCanoe 11:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote this on ANI, but since that's not the right venue for content disputes, I'll repost here:

  • The San Francisco Chronicle article is a reliable source for the claim that these three individuals presented their opinions at an American Family Foundation conference in Seattle in 2000. However...
  • When deciding whether this should be included in the article, reliability of the source is not the only concern. The notability of this event, especially when stacked up against the mountains of academic literature on falungong, is important to take into consideration, as is the broader context. If we include a news article saying three people giving a talk at an obscure conference 13 years ago, it opens the door to include all sorts of irrelevant things.
  • This article is not notable, and the views it presents are fringe views that have been discredited in more serious scholarship on falungong.
  • There are tens of thousands of news articles covering a range of views on falungong, and half a dozen excellent books, as well as journal articles. In order to summarise the views of reliable sources, some level of judgement and discretion is needed. Otherwise the article would become an endless battleground with people vying to have the news article they like included above the rest. To prevent that from occurring, when dealing with contentious debates, we endeavor to use the best sources available--namely high quality books dedicated to falungong, or academic journal articles, etc.
  • In the books and journal articles written on falungong, experts analysed why it was that a small number of Western anti-cultists were so eager to support the Chinese government's claims that falungong was a 'cult', and they explored the impact of that on helping to legitimise the government's human rights abuses and blunt the appeal of falungong to western audiences. That kind of secondary source analysis is worth including (and it had been included in various forms), but shouldn't be given undue weight. (An an example, Ian Johnson—who won a Pulitzer for his coverage of falungong—notes that falungong does not share the characteristics of a 'cult,' but that some members of the West's anti-cult movement had "a vested interest in attacking new groups" in order to keep their field of study relevant).
  • Back to the SF Chronicle article: the field of 'anti-cult' studies is a relatively obscure and marginalised one. The conference where these people presented was not an academic conference. None of the three 'experts' cited in the article held tenured professorships; one was an undergraduate student, another a grad student. None have published books on falungong. Their names don't appear in the bibliographies of the leading academic books on falungong (there are one or two exceptions, and in those cases, they are held up only as examples of how not to do scholarship).
  • Mainstream scholars and experts have thoroughly dismissed the idea that falungong is an 'authoritarian cult.' The views of Singer et al are fringe views on this subject. Mainstream views of real experts, published in academic and other high quality presses, should take precedence.

Also, to Agada Urbanit, I don't think that's true. The article does include discussions of the debate around millennial themes, and also has several places where it addresses—from a neutral POV and using high-quality sources—the 'cult' characterisation, how it's used, and why it may or may not be appropriate.—Zujine|talk 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Zujine seems to have nailed it here. There are many substantive issues when it comes to inclusion of different types of content. The key at Wikipedia is that the article should be written with reference to what the most reliable sources say on the subject. For that we have Ownby, Penny et al., and it will not be necessary for me to here repeat their remarks on the "cult" issue. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The article's current treatment of the cult issue is unsatisfactory. It quotes journalist Ian Johnson at length for his "common sense" argument that Falun Gong is not a cult ("its members marry outside the group, have outside friends, hold normal jobs..."). However, it fails to quote any professional cult scholars, like Singer, except to deride their work as "legitimizing" the crackdown. The respect towards the anticult movement within academia—an unclear issue, but continuously repeating that they are an "extreme fringe" does not automatically make it true—is not necessary to have their opinions in the article. The issue of whether Falun Gong is a cult is important to cover from the point of view of studying the media battle between Falun Gong and the outside world. The fact that apologist authors like Ownby are forced to grapple with the cult issue - even if his comments, like Johnson's, are based on personal impressions and not an objective psychological checklist like Singer's - means that the question is notable. BTW, the academic field of religious studies is well-known for its postmodernist defenses of what popular opinion nearly unanimously derides as dangerous cults, like Scientology. Wouldn't it be interesting if someone commented on this tendency as it relates to Falun Gong... Shrigley (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

About this: "it fails to quote any professional cult scholars, like Singer" ---- the article quotes several professional scholars from various disciplines, including sociologists, historians, anthropologists, and religious studies experts. Insofar as these scholars have grappled with the 'cult' characterization, the article does a fair job of representing how they discuss it. But generally, they don't give the question very much heed. As David Ownby notes, the issue of whether or not Falun Gong is a cult is simply the wrong question to ask - a 'red herring' he calls it (and frankly, it's asinine). Serious scholars deal with more questions of nuanced, context, and explanation, not labels.

The field of 'cult studies' is a marginalized one whose members have a vested interest in attacking groups as cults. Scholars from other disciplines do not have vested interests of that nature. What's more, Singer has never published anything in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, let alone a book, on Falun Gong, whereas the other experts cited in the article have done so. Singer's allegations against Falun Gong do not hold up against the more rigorous ethnographic or textual research that has been conducted by mainstream scholars. Hence, it is fringe, and hers does not represent a notable point of view. Another admin who was consulted on this pointed out that Singer had difficulty "convincing her professional colleagues that her judgment on cults was valid. She used to give expert testimony in court cases, but at a certain point the courts stopped being receptive to her theories about cult brainwashing." Her criteria for what constitutes a cult (which you call "an objective psychological checklist") is hardly objective, and as Johnson points out, it is so broad that it would encompass virtual every religious tradition on earth. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The initial proposal doesn't have merit. No other actionable suggestions are on the table, and frankly, the article already has several places where it discusses this characterization from a variety of angles. I'm not sure there's anything left to do here. TheBlueCanoe 10:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Margaret Singer, found it. She is being sited by secondary sources. Noah Porter mentions her criticism of FG in "Cult and Millennium" conference, see Noah Porter (2003). Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study. Universal-Publishers. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-58112-190-2. Retrieved 15 June 2013.. Porter is reciting and summarizing earlier and more in depth reflection on Singer by Schechter, see Danny Schechter (2001). Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice Or "evil Cult"? : a Report and Reader. Akashic Books. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-888451-27-6. Retrieved 15 June 2013.. Singer appears also notable by her own scholar scientific credentials. I would not object inclusion of her analysis of FG. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Her "analysis" basically amounts to an interview to the San Francisco Chronicle (13 years ago!). Since that time, scholars have written books and numerous peer reviewed academic journal articles on Falun Gong. They provide analysis that not only fails to support Singer's views, but instead contradicts her positions. It's not hard to figure out how these two sides should be balanced. When describing Falun Gong, it's best to use mainstream views, ideally drawn from books and scholarly journals, etc. Singer doesn't meet any of these criteria. Her statements on Falun Gong were sensational, but fringe. It's really pretty simple.TheBlueCanoe 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Singer and others in the anti-cult movement (ACM) are mentioned in some books and scholarly articles on falungong not as experts, but mainly as examples of agenda-driven, poor quality research. Their significance is related to the fact that the Chinese government borrowed from (cooperated with?) the American anticult movement to legitimise the government's use of involuntary detention, reprogramming, and other mistreatement against falungong practitioners. Ian Johnson had a few pages written on this in his book, but probably the most detailed article comes from Edelman and Richarson, who write:
The ACM's (anti-cult movement) theories and positions are highly suspect ... most of the claims put forth by the ACM lack emperical verification or general acceptance within the scientific community ... With such an unsavory history, which has included kidnapping, the ACM (anti-cult movement) hardly appears like an objective or reliable source for scientific knowledge. Yet many ideas from the ACM have been taken up by the PRC to create a sense of legitimacy around its campaign against the Falun Gong."
This is how mainstream experts on falungong explain the significance of the ACM as it relates to falungong: as an intellectual fringe whose ideas were used by the Chinese government. That's how it should be presented in this article, and how it is presented currently. If someone wants to expand on this, we could consider including something from the Edelman and Richardson article maybe, but it would very easily lead to undue weight. —Zujine|talk 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Singer is dead since 2003, so probably we will not get any new research from her. Also her attitude towards cults was in general extremely negative, which is not surprising considering here academical background. According to sources she had interviewed more than 4000 FG followers, per SF Weekly article Spiritual CULTivation, By Joel P. Engardio Wednesday, Mar 15 2000. This appears as a substantial research effort on her part. Other researchers in the field that don't necessary agree with her mention her contribution to FG studies. Therefore her work in FG field appears notable, per Wikipedia rules. I do not see any reason to exclude it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You misread. Singer did not interview 4000 falungong followers. She says she's interviewed 4000 of what she calls 'cult members' over the course of her career, but there's actually no indication that she interviewed a single falungong practitioner. Once again, she has no books on falungong, no peer-reviewed publications, and she and her ACM colleagues are mentioned in reputable academic literate on falungong in a very limited, specific, and not entirely flattering context (see above).—Zujine|talk 19:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Zujine, you're correct in the following interview she mentions talking to more than 5000 former cult members during her carrier. This is not FG specific number. Singer says she never talked to people who left FG, only to relatives. See [4] [5] Thank you for correction. She mentions she read anything she could find on FG and learned translations of Li Hongzhi's works. She mentions that 75 family members of FG followers called her and talked to her, this is how Porter & Schechter reflect on relatives seeking help, above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Signer seem pretty credible IMHO. I agree with AgadaUrbanit she is notable. Suggest we look at past edit and bring back references blanked/DE.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

'Notable members'?

Regarding this edit [6] ; I propose that the section either be deleted, or expanded and integrated elsewhere in the article. I don't particularly have the time or interest for that delicate work right now but there is my view for the consideration of other editors. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What would be truly interesting and worth mentioning is if there are members that are independently notable and just happen to practice Falungong. Like, Tom Cruise is famous for his acting and not just his religion. Anyway, the one person mentioned there is not even identifiable: it's just the last name of some anonymous interviewee who took credit for some minor sketchy Falungong media stunt. I've removed it. Shrigley (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

'Odd Reference'

I removed the reference to [1]. Because that reference doesn't indicate atrocities against Falun Gong at all. It mentions that FG themselves break the law, amongst others. Why would anyone add this article as 'proof' whilst it doesn't? 82.169.106.131 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird. That press release (1073) quotes a Chinese government official making accusations against Falun Gong. I wonder if the author intended to use another press release from the same year (1071), which quotes an NGO contributor on the human rights abuses. Either way, there are better references out there. TheBlueCanoe 22:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagging issues

Just reverted three edits for following reasons:

  • [7] WP:LEDE gives some guidance on this. A lot of introductory sections don't have citations because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, and is written with greater generality. I suggest that if there's a specific claim in the lead section that is likely to be challenged, then we can add a citation there.
  • [8] I don't see any particular reason why this section should be expanded. There are several other sections that would seem to merit greater expansion than this one, but need to make sure things don't become indiscrinimate. See also WP:Criticism: "the undue weight policy requires that negative criticism be presented in a way that does not draw excessive attention to the negative criticism." This type of content should probably be discussed to ensure proportionality.
  • [9] - Two of these terms were already linked in the article. I'll add back religion in China. Also be careful of WP:Label: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." You can't do that in 'see also' sections. TheBlueCanoe 02:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be very good at gaming the system in order to avoid NPOV for the ariticle. The Cult you removed from the "See also" is only a relevant link; if I wanted to call Falun Gong a cult, I would not do it in "See Also" section! There are much more controversies than what has been presented in the "Controversies" section. I would suggest to create a new article on "Controversies of Falun Gong". STSC (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Years ago there was an article "Controversies and criticisms of Falun Gong". There was broad consensus that it should be moved to "Academic views of Falun Gong" (probably to avoid a POV fork), and at the end of the experiment the community agreed to redirect back to the main page here. That's not to say there could never again be a dedicated article like that, but there should be a compelling reason to override the previous community consensus, and I'm not seeing it right now.—Zujine|talk 13:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Anti-Falun Gong poster.png

File:Anti-Falun Gong poster.png is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Anti-Falun Gong poster.png. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Approaches to controversy

This edit had me re-examining the section we have related to controversies around falungong. The statement about how falungong's beliefs relate to those of other religious traditions is not very nuanced, and neither are the other sources used to cite that section. I'll return to this in a moment.

There was solid rationale at one time to separate some article content into a dedicated controversies section (ie. ensure that it didn't interrupt the flow and readability of the main content) but there are a few problems with it. The essay WP:Criticism speaks to some of these: in addition to being what one might call a "troll magnet" (not referring to the latest editor), it can become a bit of an indiscriminate collection of material that gives undue weight to certain viewpoints.

For instance, we have these two sections on homosexuality and miscegenation. They are of substantial length (both are longer than the section on deaths caused by persecution), and yet these terms don't even appear in the indexes of the leading books on falungong, and by all expert accounts are not major aspects of the teachings. Because they're not important parts of the falungong moral universe, there is no in-depth scholarly discussion of what falungong teaches on these subject, how it compares to other belief systems, or how these beliefs manifest in practice. I guess this is why the sections we have on these topics rely on news articles, primary sources, and a congressional testimony (where the testimony was on an unrelated topic).

It would be valuable to try to integrate this section back into the article body, but ensure that these teachings are presented in a way that's truly proportional to their importance in the belief system, and that whatever is written is supported by first-rate sources. I'll go through my books and other academic sources today and try to make this happen. —Zujine|talk 12:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Why would the degree to which something is part of the falungong moral universe matter here and why would anyone want to ensure that these teachings are presented in a way that's truly proportional to their importance in the belief system ? Due weight isn't measured with respect to belief systems, nor is content restricted to "the leading books on falungong". If reliable sources focus on a particular aspect of a subject, it's entirely consistent with policy for Wikipedia to focus on that aspect of a subject. Whether it's controversial or not from a particular perspective isn't really relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this was pretty self-evident. WP:NPOV states that articles should "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." and also "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
Looking to authoritative books on Falungong is usually good way to evaluate the relative prominence that different views and issues should receive in the article, and to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to isolated events or criticisms. This is especially so when it comes to deciding which beliefs we should highlight and how to frame the discussion around them. I hope I'm making sense. —Zujine|talk 14:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You are making sense. I'm familiar with policy, which is why I asked those specific questions. The proposed approach struck me as being inconsistent with policy. Looking to authoritative books on Falungong is a good way, I agree, but it isn't the only way and may not be the best way, especially if it would lead to the exclusion a large subset of reliably sourced content about an issue. Look at the Suppression section for example. It includes a wide diversity of sources that provide a broad coverage of the issue. The Controversies section seems relatively short (given its potential as a battlefield for advocates) and it could be spun off to a separate article like the Persecution of Falun Gong article if its size becomes a concern at some point. So, I'm not sure I share your concerns right now. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


Right. To be clear, I'm not suggesting expunging a topic for which there is a "large body of reliably sourced literature." My point is that we're highlighting certain issues in a way that is seriously disproportionate to the amount of coverage in reliable sources--especially in books and academic journal articles, but in other sources as well. This isn't to say that the article should contain no information about falungong's conservative sexual morality. Merely that our current presentation of that information has problems, and that I'd like to try a different and hopefully better approach that's more aligned with WP:NPOV. I think it should be possible to present things in a neutral, proportional way, and we can also use better and more nuanced sources to do it. Anyway, it will take me some time to dig through the academic writings and figure out what they have to say on these issues. Maybe I'll revisit tomorrow. —Zujine|talk 16:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything about Falun Gong that's not controversial? What I mean is that pretty much every aspect of its teachings, its history in China, the persecution by the Chinese government and its response to that persecution, is controversial to someone. Even basic historical facts are sometimes deeply contested. There are pages and pages of text debating the intended location (not the actual location: the intended location) of the 1999 protest in Beijing. So how do we decide what should be classed as a controversy? Why are some of these contested subjects described in the main part of the article, and others relegated to a special sub-section? TheBlueCanoe 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts: As I understand, it's the Wikipedia best practices to integrate criticism/controversy in the places of an article where it is thematically appropriate, and to present the controversies/criticism proportionally and with context. This has the dual effect of preventing the ghettoisation of important but unwelcome information to advocates, while also acting as a prophylactic against coatracking and soap boxing, where minor issues are distorted or magnified. Specifically on the teachings, this stuff has been treated best and explained by the likes of Penny and Ownby - who actually explain them in the context of Falun Gong, and act as useful guides to gauge appropriate degree of coverage. That is different from media beat-up, which has more heat than light. If Zujine wants to try to upgrade the treatment of this content, relying on good sources, and make it more appropriately reflect the weight that these topics should receive, that seems like a good initiative. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no hard and fast rule against having controversies or criticisms broken out into separate sections, and sometimes it might be the most appropriate option, but it's best to try to avoid for the reasons you describe. TheBlueCanoe has a point that potentially all the content pertaining to falungong is controversial at some level and to some people. We've handled most controversies pretty well in the main body of the article by presenting the most significant views (plus some minority views) on major issues. I think what happened is just that there were some leftover issues that did not fit nicely into the main narrative, so they got shunted into the section at the end. In that respect, any categorisation as "controversy" is somewhat arbitrary, but at the same time, it could be reasonable way to organize some topics. For example, if we included this debate about financial gain into the main history section (at least in its current form), it could hinder the readers' comprehension of the material. We can try to find an elegant way to move the content from Controversies back into the main part of the article, but if it doesn't work, we can always revert to the current structure. As a first step, I'm moving the sections on teachings into the appropriate places in the article. These changes are based on my reading of all the journal and book titles I could find on falungong, and analysing how experts discuss falungong's views on these subjects, both in terms of weight and how they contextualise it. While I was at it, I also added some detail to the section on social practices. —Zujine|talk 21:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Balancing information on persecution

Has anyone looked at the way information is weighted in the persecution part of the article? Here's some quick math. The parts of the article that detail the implementation of the suppression in China (so excluding the analysis of why Falun Gong is persecuted and how it's responded) breaks down like this:

  • Conversion program: 23%
  • Deaths: 7%
  • Organ harvesting: 18%
  • Media campaign: 52%

More than half the section deals with the propaganda. One cause of death (organ harvesting) receives more than twice the amount of coverage as all other causes of death that resulted from persecution. There are no sub-sections examining the use of torture, forced labor, denial of due process and freedom of expression, discrimination, or other major categories of human rights violation that a reader could reasonably expect to find. This is probably the single biggest problem with this article, IMO. Does anyone else see a problem here, or is it just me?TheBlueCanoe 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it doesn't follow WP:SYNC. There's a dedicated article. Assuming, in an ideal case, that everything in the Suppression section of this article had already been incorporated into the dedicated article and that article perfectly complied with policies+guidelines including WP:LEAD, this article should contain the lead of the dedicated article and should be kept in sync with the dedicated article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The page really doesn't follow NPOV, could someone look into that? 70.70.228.207 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You will need to list specific points and provide an evidence/policy based reason that explains why you think each point doesn't follow NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The article states that "Li maintains that being of mixed race does not affect a person’s soul, nor hinder their ability to practice Falun Dafa." This gives the impression that he believes mixed races are accepted. According to a lecture by Li (found on the official website):

"It is because the white people's biosphere has its special physical matter formed in its own dimension while the oriental people's biosphere has the special matter made up with their life. Such things run through the makeup of one's life. Thus, the two sides are not the same. After races are mixed up, you will find one’s child born to be an infant of mixed blood. However, there is a partition in the middle of this child's life. If it is separated, he will be physically and intellectually incomplete or a person with an incomplete body. Modern science also knows that it is getting worse one generation after another. It would be like this. Of course, if such a person wants to practice cultivation, I can help, and I can take care of it. It cannot be done to a non-practitioner."

(Italics mine)

I suspect that the article has been watered down by someone supportive of the movement and not someone with a critical NPOV.

Mattximus (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The line in the article that you mention is based on a secondary source summary by Benjamin Penny. The primary source quote you gave does actually seem to confirm Penny's interpretation. He mentions more clearly as well the idea that a person's body may be of "mixed race," but their souls retain a fixed identity. Academics like Penny are probably the best sources to go by when it comes to interpreting religious beliefs.TheBlueCanoe 06:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmm, and yet given how it is written now, the reader is left with an very much incorrect impression that Li is neutral or even positive of mixed race children. The primary source above is one of at least 3 that I am aware of where he says essentially the same thing. How can this be incorporated into the article? It's also one of the most common criticism of this religion I hear in daily life. It would be nice to have a critical/non sensational and referenced mention of this view, don't you think? Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The general tone of the discussion on this page is encouraging, and am glad that everyone seems to be striving for non-sensational and fair depictions. As someone who practices Falun Dafa I might be able to provide some insight on this issue. Mattximus, I can understand how a person reading select parts of Li's writings might think that they are negative towards people of mixed race, but I think that the teachings shouldn't be understood in a vacuum. My own understanding of Falun Dafa's teachings is that all people have "fallen," so to speak, from an original state of purity. Everyone has selfishness, and has acquired karma and committed wrongdoings in a state of ignorance. This is the basic premise of nearly all global religions. And yet in spite of their faults, Falun Dafa also holds all people to be equally worthy of compassion, and all are capable of improving through spiritual practice. When I compare it to my experience of Catholicism, or frankly the severity of the Buddhist precepts, it's a remarkably forgiving and flexible outlook. In that vein, Falun Dafa is actually not "negative" toward people of mixed race. The idea of mixed races is viewed somewhat unfavorably for various reasons, but it's also just taken as an unavoidable phenomenon in a modern globalized society, and individual people are not viewed as being any better or worse on account of their race. They're not accorded any differential treatment, and there are tons of Falun Dafa practitioners who either have interracial children or are themselves mutli-racial. This wouldn't be the case if Falun Dafa viewed them negatively. Also, as a practice that believes in reincarnation, there's the idea that a person's soul has a fixed identity, but that you might be Chinese in one life, Indian in another, male in one life and female in another, etc. So a person's race, gender, etc. is actually of very little consequence. In truth, I think it is fair to say that Li is neutral toward people of any race. It certainly would not be accurate to say that Falun Dafa views any category of people negatively.

You also wrote that this issue "is one of the most common criticism of this religion I hear in daily life." I find this a bit surprising, because it's an extremely minor aspect of the teachings. There are a couple places where it's mentioned in the supplementary teachings of Falun Dafa, but it's nowhere in the main texts. It's certainly not something that ever crosses the minds of myself or any other Falun Dafa practitioner in daily life, and that includes practitioners who are multiracial. This leads me to wonder if, because this issue has been highlighted prominently on Wikipedia, people have been given to the belief that this is more significant than it actually is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.14.238 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published reliable sources, so our personal opinions and experience have no relevance here (see WP:V and WP:OR). It's critically important in a controversial topic area like this that editors whose personal experience might influence their content decisions ensure that at no point do their opinions or personal experience have any influence whatsoever on content discussions or decisions which must be based solely on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The more I'm researching the more it seems like this article is severely whitewashed. In addition to the primary document I quoted above (freely available on the official falun gong website), this article suggests that homosexuality is "incompatible" using rather gentle words and not something more appropriate like "considered an abomination". Here is another quote from Li himself:
  • "Repulsive homosexual behavior meanwhile bespeaks of a filthy, deviant state of mind that lacks rationality"
Even more strange is that aliens play a big role in Falun Gong, with Li mentioning aliens in 49 (!) primary documents, and there is no mention in this article! It seems like someone picked all the nice stuff and kinda hid all the crazy/cult stuff. If you don't agree with my rather harsh statement, consider the following quotation:
  • "This science is itself actually not scientific. It is merely something imposed on man by aliens, something that has penetrated the entire society and pervaded it in every respect."
or
  • "I've told you before that because of alien science and technology, one layer of the human body, one of the human body's layers of particles, has been placed fully under the control of aliens. It consists entirely of alien planets' elements, including numbers, mechanical structures, electronic components, and so on. It consists of that stuff."
This is really weird stuff, and the article again, makes no mention...

Mattximus (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should reflect reliable secondary source coverage rather than samples from primary sources as far as possible. That may explain some of what you observe, although it's a pretty safe bet that over the years there has been plenty of pro-Falun Gong whitewashing and anti-Falun Gong advocacy here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
In many previous discussions, editors have analysed of secondary sources (mainly academic books) to decide the right weight that should be assigned to these issues. On the matter of aliens, we found that the experts on falungong do not believe this is a major part of the teachings, and assign it typically no more than a few sentences of explanation in full-length books on the subject. That being the case, it makes sense that we don't cover this in an overview article on falungong.
It's not particularly helpful to introduce a bunch of primary source material here and then demand more representation on the pages simply because you find the teachings to be "really weird." Also, if your goal is to actually understand falungong, your research methodology should probably progress beyond doing google searches for "aliens" and "homosexuality" and seeing what comes up. The goal of an article on Falungong is, in part, to put its beliefs in context and help readers understand why they are appealing to certain people under certain conditions. It is not to proselytise, nor to sensationalise, but to explain in a fair and proportional way. —Zujine|talk 01:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not demanding anything, I haven't even made a single edit to the Falun gong page. In my real life I encountered several people telling me how Falun Gong is a cult, in much the same way as scientology. I wanted to learn more so I came here, and found no mention of the criticisms that I heard (anti-homosexual, anti-mixed race children, multiple references to aliens). So I went to the official website. Have you read some of Li Hongzhi's speeches located there? They are beyond weird, entering the realm of insanity. Reading just his works (and admittedly, no secondary sources), you get a sense that it's very much a cult. Aliens made electronic components that are found in everyone's body??? Only he can save mixed-race children from missing heaven? Seriously? It just struck me as strange that the founder of the religion's beliefs apparently hold little weight in this article. Mattximus (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You may want to read up on the concept of confirmation bias. Esoteric beliefs does not make something a cult. The founder's teachings are reflected in the article in overview form. We determined what the core teachings are by comparing what multiple scholars identify as the core teachings. —Zujine|talk 00:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Mattximus I share your opposition towards racism. But you don't seem to have truly understood what racism is and WHY racism is bad. If you say that different races came from different heavens and where created by different Gods... Then this not what is usually meant by racism. What is usually meant by racism in a truly negative sense is something like this: suppose for example you would be of the Jewish faith and we would be living in Germany and the National Socialists would be in the process of committing a genocide against your people - killing them in large numbers - simply because they are Jewish. They would justify that genocide by claiming that all Jews would be the same and that they would all be evil, having sinister motives and that Judaism would not be a "normal" religion. Instead Judaism would include some truly weird practices like self-mutilation and satanic sacrifices like sacrificing cows to their demon gods by letting them bleed to death and that Judaism as a whole would a kind of evil satanic cult, brainwashing people, exploiting people for money etc.. Those where the actual arguments the Nazis used to discriminate against the Jews. Of course none of that was true, but if you know nothing about the Jewish religion, and take some things out of context and try to portray them in a certain light etc. then you will see that you can influence people's opinion very easily - especially about something they don't truly know or understand. Of course that was just meant as an example... but I do think the Holocaust is what people usually think of when they think of racism, isn't it? It was also a good example for another reason... namely being Jewish isn't just a race, it is a religious believe as well, isn't it? What I am trying to get at is that racism isn't the ONLY way to discriminate against other people. People can also be discriminated against because of (for example) belonging to a certain religious group.
To be more specific, you said Falun Gong would be "a cult like Scientology". Could you please be more specific? How is it "like Scientology" ? Are you trying to say that Falun Gong would also for example have a private Army and forced labor camps and would extort people for money like it is said of Scientology? Do you have evidence for such a claim? Or is that not what you meant? Or you just meant because Scientology believes in Aliens and Falun Gong has also mentioned Aliens somewhere... Is that what you meant? And what exactly do you mean by cult? Do you mean they have satanic rituals, mutilate themselves and sacrifice cows? Or do you simply mean that they are a religious group? So what exactly do you mean by "cult"? Maybe you should be more specific in what EXACTLY you are accusing Falun Gong of and what you are not accusing it of.
But of course I know very well that you where being intentionally vague.
But isn't that also discriminating people? It's not racism, but if you try to paint these people in such a negative way by taking things out of context and use vague and derogatory labels, then isn't that also discriminating?
(Hoerth (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC))
@ Mattximus There's a reason I stopped proactively trying to edit this mess of a page a few years back. It's NPOV, it'll always be NPOV because of a small cluster of very dedicated adherents to the faith who will edit-war with anybody who tries to fix the broken POV. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's very strange. All the points I mention above are not one-off, isolated remarks by Li. They are repeated over and over again. Reference to aliens peppers his speeches and writings. I don't know why direct quotes from Li is not an acceptable reference. It's like if the page on Christianity said "let's leave out the stuff written in the bible." It is widely known that the movement is vehemently anti-homosexual, and thinks that inter-racial children are going to hell unless Li himself saves them. They are also against modern medicine, which resulted in who knows how many deaths. And of course, the aliens. None of these are mentioned. I'm pretty convinced this page is whitewashed to make Falun Gong seem less like a cult. Why are numerous direct citations from the founder in official speeches not good enough evidence...? Mattximus (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to remind the editors of this page to try to observe basic talk page etiquette in order that discussions stay cool and constructive. Talk pages aren't meant to be a place to air grievances, complain about other editors, make misrepresentations, or to disparage certain groups. Referring to a group as a "cult" is pretty inflammatory, and unlikely to help build consensus or create a collaborative atmosphere.

For the editor above, the issue of Wikipedia:primary sources and proportionality has already been explained, so you may want to read over those policies. It seems that some of your information is also coming from Chinese government sources as well (i.e. your speculations that practice of Falun Gong leads to deaths is presumably based on PRC allegations, used as part of the government's propaganda against the group). Wikipedia:Verifiability could also be useful to help you understand Wikipedia's standards for sourcing and accuracy. Keihatsu talk 02:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Very well, what about [10]
"He believes aliens walk the Earth and he has reportedly said he can walk through walls and make himself invisible. Mr Li says that he is a being from from a higher level who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as the result of rampant evil."
Would that be a reliable secondary source for some pretty esoteric beliefs? The founder of the religion regularly says these strange things and it's nowhere in the article. By the way, a cult is a religious group or other organization with deviant and novel beliefs and practices, according to Rodney and Brainbridge 1996's A Theory of Religion. Would this example above, (and the many others), not justify the use of the term based on this definition? Mattximus (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


  • Falungong has many beliefs, and Li has published thousands of pages of teachings on a wide variety of topics. Our job is to write a balanced description of its main beliefs and practices using the best sources available. There are several high quality academic books dedicated to examining Falungong's beliefs, and analysis of those text tells us that aliens is not a significant aspect of the teachings. Giving it space in a summary article such as this would most likely amount to undue weight.
  • When we do describe Falungong beliefs, we try to explain them in a nuanced and dispassionate way that helps the reader put them into context. If your goal is just to sensationalise in order to make Falungong appear esoteric or strange, that's not compatible with the aims of the encyclopedia.
  • There is no single definition of a cult. The page references several academic sources who have examined Falungong against different definitions, including a sociological definition and the more popular and pejorative concept. But it's not our place as editors to apply these labels based on our own subjective impressions. —Zujine|talk 05:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Falun Gong, Cult or peaceful movement?

According to a recent article by Time magazine, Falun Gong fulfills every criteria of a 'Cult'. We should write a new heading that describes the Falun Gong under this context, since most professional sources that describe Falun Gong do suggest that they could be a 'Cult', while being neutral. Criteria as listed:

1) The leader has a God-complex, and encourages members to worship him rather than worship of a deity. 2) The leader abuses the donations given to him by members, and uses for his own benefit. 3) Members are encouraged to isolate themselves and only associate themselves with members. 4) Members are encouraged to place themselves where they can be punished or injured by violence, so that they can become martyred. 5) Members are not told the truth and taught that they can achieve enlightenment, while they are unaware of the group's (e.g. Falun Gong's) true purpose and political associations. 6) Members are expected to dedicate a considerable amount of time to the practice of their beliefs. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no recent article by Time magazine that says these things. However, there is a large body of academic literature that says the opposite. —Zujine|talk 23:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There was also an parallel article to Time magazine in The Media Source, the most recent edition being Secret Societies. http://www.themediasource.com Every Western publication, think tank, and piece of academic literature has labeled the Falun Gong as a cult, which its only legitimacy in Western eyes comes from the extent of the decision to make the group illegal by the People's Republic of China, which subsequently overshadowed the group's activities. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be interested in reading that Time article. What issue was it in? Who wrote it? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh. That's from 2001. )-: Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah you'll note I didn't call them a recent series. The truth is that the FLG seems to have fallen off most people's radar of late. Most people have bigger concerns over China in the economic sphere if they're predisposed to be concerned about China and since it's been a few years since any FLG members set themselves on fire it's not really a big issue anymore. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually nobody ever set themselves on fire is what all respectable sources and evidence say http://tiananmenburns.com/ . This is the MAINSTREAM view - and clear for anyone who would take a look. I recommend an exploration starting with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nKjGYoXqc4 , http://www.falsefire.com Wiki Chymyst 12:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
David Ownby: "By no means." And he is the world's leading scholar on the topic. There has been countless presentations on this and I think the evidence is there in the teachings itself, some of which I have found linked here.. http://2theregime.com/#Diane [EXTREMELY INTERESTING READ]. The idea apparently is to focus on oneself, and the framework of understanding of reality itself seems to me to be such that there is no point in any form of worship. The path apparently is to work on oneself which is called Xiu Lian. Yep.. the idea of Xiu Lian being a little like in Kungfu Panda https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RMlUhG4m6Mo , or Journey to the West.
Wiki Chymyst 12:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Exercises

Just to bring to your attention that I have added a quick mention of this piece of research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15750361 into the body of the article. Lemme know if you have suggestions for improvement of the presentation. Or, know of more such research. Wiki Chymyst 12:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't put this journal article into the page for several reasons. First the Journal itself is not reputable. It is known to accept papers with serious research flaws. I believe this is one example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/4454856.stm shows some of the flaws that a paper in this journal can have. Also look carefully at the methods, using an N of only 6 is highly suspect. I would have to read the paper itself (it's behind a paywall) to see how they matched those 6 "controls". And how they measured their outcomes. For now I would not include it. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • An n of 6 isn't suspicious to you? Not even a little bit? Their controls weren't matched for anything, not even age. They even lumped males and females into the same analysis. This is insane. An undergrad would be highly suspect of this paper. Mattximus (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a research paper and a pilot study. I am dealing a suspicious user on Wikipedia, as far as I can see. You sound scared like YOUR MONTHLY SALARY depended on establishing the paper as one way[which of course SHOULD NOT be the case] - while you have NO EXPERTISE to demonstrate in the field. The GENES whose changes in expression were observed may have nothing to do with the reproductive system proteins. Why should a pilot study separate men and women? Wiki Chymyst 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow. You don't know what you are talking about. What exactly do you mean "reproductive system proteins"? I'm actually a published researcher whose field is sex hormones, and I've taught statistics for two years at a large university. I would like you to explain how a study with massive implications would not control for gender. That is complete nonsense. Mattximus (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Do we know whether the Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine is a reliable source? That would help us resolve one of the basic questions here. I don't know the answer, but it is peer-reviewed. I also remember seeing other studies (which certainly are reputable) that found a variety of quantifiable health benefits associated with meditation, yoga, and other practices that would be similar to Falun Gong, so it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. TheBlueCanoe 23:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Very true. But please consider this study itself. They used 6 subjects, and did not control for age or gender when doing statistical analysis, and drew radical conclusions from that. Even as a pilot that is simply not an acceptable piece of evidence. Mattximus (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Here: A respected, peer-reviewed journal http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Journal_of_Alternative_and_Complementary_Medicine . As for what do genes determine? They are encoded proteins. The expressed genes are the ones that determine protein synthesis in the body. Each DNA sequence maps mathematically to an amino acid, and an amino acid chain is a protein. What I implied is that the pilot study observed changes in gene expression [all cells carry the same DNA, but their expression changes dependent on the type of cell - so ultimately DNA does not determine who you are - but ht DNA expression, which genes are switched on and off, so to say]. The researchers had no reason to segregate the groups based on gender because they probably had no precedent to think observed gene expression changes would in any way be related to male or female specific proteins or hormone-proteins. Most hormones are proteins. Wiki Chymyst 12:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
According to Google scholar, this study is cited in 25 academic journals. I read a couple that are available for free. While other researchers are not overstating Feng et al's findings, they're not treating them skeptically either, because the conclusions are basically consistent with findings in other studies on the impact of mind/body exercises in genomic expressions. This article is an example.
Even so I'm not sold on the text we have now on the page, and it's written in jargon-filled language that won't be decipherable or meaningful to most readers. So at a minimum it would need an edit, and it could be further emphasized that it was a small-scale pilot study. If there are other studies on health benefits of the exercises, we could have a more well-rounded section on the topic.TheBlueCanoe 14:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Master theses as source?

From WP:RS:"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." The "Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study" book published by Dissertation.Com. (July 1, 2003), according to what dissertation.com put on its home page, should be Noah Porter's masters theses （http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/). Do we have any evidence about the paper's scholarly influence? I cannot find any citation to the paper.

Also since the article lacks academic viewpoints as is, should we use the source here with some declaration (like "in his master theses"), even when we cannot prove its reliability? --Skyfiler (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There have been a few times when I have seen master dissertations and doctoral theses listed in the bibliographies of reference works. That tends to happen almost exclusively with minor topics which haven't been written about substantially, however. And this is not one such topic, and on that basis I would oppose its inclusion.
Regarding the lack of acadmic viewpoints, I honestly am less sure what to do. I have been at OCLC/WorldCat only a few works even written by academics on the topic of Falun Gong, and I think that, to the degree that the material in them is directly relevant to a main article on a topic, they probably have been consulted. We can't use what doesn't exist. The best we could probably hope for is that our article at least meets the basic standards of other print or online reference sources, with such updates and new information as seem indicated.
Maybe that doesn't help too much, but it is the best answer I can quickly come up with. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The question has been raised several times before, with consensus that Porter's work meets the threshold of having considerable scholarly influence in this field. As an individual, the fact that he has several other peer-reviewed academic publications on Falungong also points a recognised academic expertise.—Zujine|talk 04:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
sorry, I searched the talk archive here for "porter master" and did not find anything. Is it discussed elsewhere like WP:RSN?--Skyfiler (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The last conversation I'm thinking of where this came up may have been on a different page. But I can summarise main points again here:
  • Porter's study has been cited in over a dozen other academic articles and books
  • He has published peer-reviewed articles about Falungong in academic journals (notably Nova Religio), which demonstrates he has a recognised expertise on the subject
  • His thesis is described positively in the literature review provided in David Ownby's book. Ownby notes that Porter's research and methods were similar to his own, and he compares his study favourably against books on Falungong that had been published by prestigious academic presses (basically saying Porter's thesis is better than those books)
  • His findings generally aligns with the conclusions of other scholars who have done similar studies.
Hope that answers your question.—Zujine|talk 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue

The introduction in this article sounds like promoting Falun Gong, and needs to be rewritten. STSC (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to be specific about which statements, in your view, need to be rewritten and why. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
One example: "In the years since the suppression campaign began, Falun Gong adherents have emerged as a prominent voice in the Chinese dissident community, advocating for greater human rights and an end to Communist Party rule." It's just pure propaganda material promoting Falun Gong. STSC (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Slapping "dubious" tags on verifiable facts is not constructive. Falun Gong's opposition to Communist Party rule and advocacy of human rights in China is well documented. That you're calling this "pure propaganda" just shows that there's no basis on which to come to any reasonable agreement with you. Same thing with stuff like this[11]. Both of those figures are elaborated on later in the article, with reliable sources as references. I'm reverting you.TheBlueCanoe 12:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Many editors prefer not to include references within the lead section of an article. This is done to ensure that lead sections are kept clean and readable, and to avoid redundancy. Because the lead is a summary, all the information contained within is usually elaborated later in the article with appropriate sourcing. That does appear to be the case here, so I don't see any problem. Determinations on whether to include citations should be made case-by-case, though, and if something is consistently challenged in the lead, then editors can consider adding citations.Keihatsu talk 14:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Verifiable facts can be pure propaganda to promote a particular narrative. There's no inherent contradiction there, so I don't agree with the notion that it "shows that there's no basis on which to come to any reasonable agreement". I think leads in contentious articles usually benefit from inline citations. Which specific part of the article body supports the statement "In the years since the suppression campaign began, Falun Gong adherents have emerged as a prominent voice in the Chinese dissident community, advocating for greater human rights and an end to Communist Party rule", especially the bold part ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Waiting to hear from other editors who have worked on the page, but I'd support a move to add a few inline citations to the lead, especially for details that may be challenged such as statistical figures. Regarding the line you mention above, my guess is that this was chosen as a concise summary to describe how Falun Gong followers have responded to suppression (they have, inter alia, established influential Chinese-language dissident media outlets with a strong focus on human rights; run global campaigns to bring attention to human rights issues in China; created software tools to let Chinese people bypass censorship online; and started a movement with potentially tens of millions of participants encouraging people to disavow the Communist Party). I'm comfortable that this makes them a "prominent voice," but if that language is too subjective or unclear, then a more straightforward statement that Falun Gong practitioners have "become active in calling for human rights and an end to Communist Party rule" might be a good alternative.Keihatsu talk 16:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking along similar lines of changing it to a more straightforward statement that doesn't contain what seems to be, to me at least, an unattributed and unsourced measurement of something relative to the rest of the individuals and organizations that make up the Chinese dissident community. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That's reasonable. I'll make the change, if no objections. Keihatsu talk 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Nomination

TheChampionMan1234 nominated this article for Good Article review. This is perhaps a bit premature. I'd like to work on a few sections that we've discussed here on the discussion page first, most notably the suppression section, which needs to be updated, filled out, and reformatted a bit. The article is close to being ready, but we should move forward with some of these edits before a formal review. —Zujine|talk 11:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there's been no movement on this, I wonder if we should ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination for now until changes to the suppression sub-section are addressed. If it was me assessing the page I would agree that the section requires quite a lot of work. Keihatsu talk 03:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Suppression

Can we have more detail about how these nutters are shot, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.122.230 (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Falun Gong can be safely labeled as a political movement

I've looked at the revision history, and one stood out in particular. There is no way to disprove that Falun Gong is anything but a political movement, with editors who participate in Falun Gong and write the articles for themselves.

What more political cause do you need than when you have editors who discuss what books and sources to use to further Falun Gong's cause on this own discussion page.

You have been warned to refrain from this self-effacing behavior yourself; articles should reflect the nature of the organization, and because it is no secret to those who participate and those who fund the cause, it would be wise to state your intentions, lest you lose credibility.

Dark Liberty (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

just lurking. who is this to/???Happy monsoon day 02:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Organ Harvestation

Hi, Just wanted to share with the editors on this page, http://issuu.com/rdilip/docs/organ_harvestation_in_china9.pptx - there might be information therein for expansion of information on the topic.

Thank you for sharing this. It is certainly an important topic, and I hope one that Wikipedia can expand coverage of. However, we have policies against using original research and self-published materials as sources. It appears that this powerpoint presentation falls under that category, and it can't be treated as a reliable source. If you have suggestions for independent reliable sources such as books and news article, then by all means share them. The Persecution of Falun Gong page may be the most appropriate place.Keihatsu talk 03:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, The presentation links to the sources it draws from. The source of the quotes, etc., could be found by a google search. There are the Kilgour Matas reports, and several other reports and articles on this. Thank you for taking the time to read through the presentation!
The relative importance does not go both ways. Mentions in other articles should follow summary style so content in other related articles does not automatically get a mention in here (or it becomes an infinite loop and derails the focus of the article). We have articles on the Kilgour–Matas report. Try add it to the lead section there first, if you can't the content into the lead section because other editors think it does not have enough weight, you probably would not have much luck getting it into another article with much broader scope (like this one).--Skyfiler (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

edits

@Mrhirl and Keihatsu: i don't really edit stuff with flaming controversies, though i'm interested in this topic. just want to say that this war is stupid [12]. the appropriate thing is summarize in a short way what the relevant authorities say on the group's views ------ not a large chunk of quote from the leader.Happy monsoon day 16:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Original synthesis claim and Harry Wu's priority

@Ohconfucius: Can the editor responsible for this edit please explain how this is original synthesis? The source, from the CECC, connects these two issues. Why shouldn't we do the same?

Similarly, could we get an explanation as to why Harry Wu should get top billing over investigators who, between them, have written three books on this topic? Harry Wu's sole contribution, it seems, was to issue a perfunctory dismissal of the claims made about a single hospital. By contrast Kilgour, Matas, Gutmann et al spent years pursuing multiple channels of investigation. This hardly seems proportional in light of the years of subsequent research and new revelations. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed—the Sujiatun allegations were just the catalyst for subsequent investigations and research. The organ harvesting story has progressed far beyond the initial controversy over that particular hospital, and the organ harvesting section should be rewritten to reflect where the issue stands today. Granted I haven’t read all the more recent books and articles, but it seems that the charges of harvesting from Falungong have gained much wider acceptance in light of the accumulated evidence and testimony. —Zujine|talk 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The existence of a sourced connection does not mean we have to connect the topics in the reverse way (See WP:ONEWAY), or even the same way (if only an extremely small minority of sources on the subject are making the connection like from internet to computers then to first computers in the 1950s). Including all development related to a topic violates WP:NOTDIR. The significance of Kilgour-Matas report is established by Chinese official's rebuttal. Significance of Harry Wu's work is not sourced, but so is Ethan Gutmann's work and the health minister's statement. We need secondary sources to prove their significance in this suppression context before including them.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried a rewrite of this section that brings us more into the present day. A book on organ harvesting from Falun Gong was published just last week, so the timing is right. It also speaks to the need for a proper, stand-alone article on this topic, rather than an article on just one investigative report. I'm happy to work with anyone who's interested, but first am going to get my hands on the new book.TheBlueCanoe 14:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As a suggestion: We could have a stub for this book http://nypost.com/2014/08/09/chinas-long-history-of-harvesting-organs-from-living-political-prisoners/ to start with. 115.242.146.120 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I just finished reading Ethan Gutmann's new book. It contains highly valuable new information and sparked my interest to once again edit these articles, despite an extended leave. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice from Falun Dafa Association en.minghui.org Retrieved 4 Feb 2015

Please help to inform practitioners around the world: Please remove Master Li’s teachings posted to non-Falun Dafa websites immediately; in other words, besides the Dafa websites Falundafa.org and Minghui.org, all other online media, websites and web pages owned by individuals, groups, or institutions are not permitted to publish or re-post Master Li Hongzhi’s teachings, including the printed and audio-visual materials.Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please present evidence that this article contains texts of Master Li’s teachings. Falun Dafa Association can not forbid describing his teaching. Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Materialscientist:
5 examples of text that has been copied from the books Zhuan Falun and Falun Gong, both written by Master Li Hongzhi.
from Central Teachings Para 1
1. the first ref [17] Li Hongzhi, Zhuan Falun, p 7. Quote: "The most fundamental characteristic of this universe, Zhen-Shan-Ren, is the highest manifestation of the Buddha Fa. It is the most fundamental Buddha Fa."
2. In Zhuan Falun (轉法輪), the foundational text published in 1995, Li Hongzhi writes "It doesn't matter how mankind's moral standard changes ... The nature of the cosmos doesn't change, and it is the only standard for determining who's good and who's bad. So to be a cultivator you have to take the nature of the cosmos as your guide for improving yourself."
Central Teachings Para 2
1. In Falun Gong's central text, Li states that xinxing "includes virtue (which is a type of matter), it includes forbearance, it includes awakening to things, it includes giving up things—giving up all the desires and all the attachments that are found in an ordinary person—and you also have to endure hardship, to name just a few things."
2. "negative thoughts and behaviors, such as greed" and
3. "lust, desire, killing, fighting, theft, robbery, deception, jealousy, etc" are from Chapter III of Falun Gong http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg_2001_3.htm
Ref 19 Li Hongzhi, Zhuan Falun, (New York, NY: The Universe Publishing Company, 1999) is used 11 times in the article.
My comment - People attempting to describe Master Li Honghi's teachings are changing them, so what they write cannot represent what Master Li taught. Many people may not realise that. An introduction to Falun Dafa aka Falun Gong is provided on falundafa.org if people want a short summary.Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Anyone who refuses to remove the content [of Li Hongzhi’s teachings] as required [by Falun Dafa Association] will face severe consequences, including falling ill – there will be karmic retribution very quickly." STSC (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Full statement from Falun Dafa Association is here

Notice from Falun Dafa Association en.minghui.org 03 February 2015 Aaabbb11 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaabbb11, I have no interest whatsoever in this topic, but I have some experience in copyright violations on wikipedia. I see none in your samples above. A side note, use bold font to mark text matching in the source and wikiarticle. Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
User Aaabbb11, you're just contradicting yourself by removing the non-free tag on the article. STSC (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Materialscientist is right: describing the essential teachings is a legitimate goal of an encyclopedia article. Also see WP:COPYQUOTE--there's no abuse of non-free material on the page.TheBlueCanoe 22:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Copyright infringement, i.e. illegally publishing copyrighted materials, is a completely different thing. From a legal perspective, anyone's writings can be referred to, paraphrased and summarized to a reasonable degree. Please stop removing these passages, Aaabbb11. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethan Gutmann

It seems that Ethan Gutmann may no longer be at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He's not listed as an expert on defenddemocracy.org and see 11 February 2015‎ edit of his article.Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of countries

As far back as 2010 the number of countries where FG is practiced was listed as 114. [13]

Now the number seems to be over 120. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaabbb11 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the sourced given for the current number is this website[15], which lists all the countries where Falun Gong contacts can be found. Although this is a primary source, it seems like a fairly direct and authoritative source for establishing the number of countries where there is an active and ongoing Falun Gong presence. In either case, "over 70 countries" is not incorrect. Perhaps you can add an additional reference for your source.Keihatsu talk 21:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
[16] from 2013, which has an NTDTV logo on the video, states over 120 countries at 1:47 and in the text below the video.Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Aaabbb11 has been making substantive edits to articles related to Falun Gong, including History of Falun gong, Organ Harvesting and Bo Xilai. I'd just like to respectfully caution this user, who appears to only ever make edits related to Falun Gong not to try and change the WP:NPOV balance of Wikipedia's articles on this issue through secondary pages. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I have made edits on other subjects using another user id. I have found articles on wikipedia with out of date, unsourced or incorrect information and broken links. If wikipedia articles are poor on a subject it reflects on wikipedia as a source of information. Articles should be updated as more up to date or better information becomes available. The Anti-communism article "needs additional citations for verification" so it would seem to need updating. Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering how many of the updates you are doing have been inserting Epoch Times articles I'd advise caution. They shouldn't be considered as WP:RS for things happening inside China - since the Epoch Times, owned by the FLG, is known to falsify and exaggerate such reports. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If Epoch Times was reporting incorrect information I don't think they would be winning awards.
It seems that the only online source in english for the Spanish judge accepting charges of genocide and torture against five high-ranking CCP officials for their role in the persecution of Falun Gong is Epoch Times [17]. Online articles about the 3 witnesses of organ harvesting who came forward in March 2006 are difficult to find, apart from the Epoch Times articles. Both these stories are not trivial. But I can use other sources more often in future when there is information available.Aaabbb11 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This article published by Epoch Times on 8 December 2014 "A History of Organ Pillaging in China" was written by David Kilgour, who linked to it from his website [18].Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Frankly the only thing I'd rely on David Kilgour for is to report David Kilgour's opinion. He's a single, rather credulous, former politician. However that's not a hill I'm interested in dying on. That being said, the Epoch Times has substantial economic ties to the FLG and it is NOT a credible source for China reporting. Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, inserting obviously outdated links into articles on organ harvesting and using "documentaries" that express controversial opinions as plain fact is not appropriate practice. I'm commenting on this here, because I'm seeing a pattern across multiple FLG articles and frankly I have neither the time nor the patience to keep putting out brush fires all over. Simply stated - before you start making major revisions trying to reinsert the same old pro-FLG narrative please go to talk and seek consensus - I really wish this conversation didn't have to happen on FLG articles once every year or so. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you look at organ harvesting information on the main Falun Gong page Falun_Gong#Organ_harvesting.
1. organharvestinvestigation.net is used as a major source of information.
2. Epoch Times and eastofethan.com are 2 of the sources used.
3. There isn't a debate about whether organ harvesting is happening.
On Falun Gong on 12 February both of your edits reverted my edits. Zujine who seems to be a respected editor reinstated them. I don't think my edits on other articles with organ harvesting information are out of line with the consensus established on Falun Gong.Aaabbb11 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because invalid sources have not been removed yet elsewhere doesn't mean they are valid. Nor does any single edit reversion discredit an editor. However being a single-purpose editor with a clear WP:NPOV conflict is another issue altogether. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on Organ Harvesting achieved in August 2014
from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_38#Original_synthesis_claim_and_Harry_Wu.27s_priority
"The significance of Kilgour-Matas report is established by Chinese official's rebuttal." Skyfiler
"Agreed—the Sujiatun allegations were just the catalyst for subsequent investigations and research. The organ harvesting story has progressed far beyond the initial controversy over that particular hospital, and the organ harvesting section should be rewritten to reflect where the issue stands today." —Zujine|talk
After consensus was reached Harry Wu's information and "US Department of State, said that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation" was deleted. You could put that info in History of Falun Gong. Aaabbb11 (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
What you posed has absolutely nothing to do with whether organharvesting.net is a WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In your edit on 15:09, 21 February 2015‎ Simonm223
1. The paragraphs you inserted are out of chronological order.
2. One of the two references you uploaded doesn't work.
3. You fail to abid by consensus that has been reached.
It looks like a clear case of disruptive editing to me. Aaabbb11 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ US press release (4 February 2004) Press Release HR/CN/1073. United Nations Retrieved 12 September 2006.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_38&oldid=1140129203"