Talk:Falun Gong

Bias in the international reception section

There is section in the "International Reception" about Adam Frank which straight up says that the isn't a cult and the "cult" definition is due to stigma. Can somebody remove it, because it's quite biased. Yippt (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yippt Denied. These are attributed opinions from academic sources. They do, however, need full citations, which I will add shortly. Nicknimh (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nicknimh@Yippt It's also heavily outdated. Last source is 2007. After they started supporting Trump, media outlets have less motivation to keep a blind eye and have finally been acknowledging how dangerous their teachings are like with a more updated article from ABC. There should be a section that Australian national broadcaster, ABC, criticised them for teaching people that race mixing is an evil alien plot to corrupt man and reports of Australian practioners have died from taking the advice that modern medicine is not in their interests. It's obviously a cult when you brainwashed people to believe the leader can read your mind and has supernatural powers and that has been heavily criticised by Australian national media.[1] 49.186.112.179 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@49.186.112.179 Again, those are accurately reproduced, attributed quotes from valid sources. Academics tend to talk about these groups differently than you or I do, and usually avoid the word "cult" entirely. See also MOS:CULT. (That's partly based on the realization that a lot of cult doctrines aren't objectively any "weirder" than those of mainstream religions—Tibetan Buddhists and Catholics both believe that some of their holy men command supernatural powers, for example. But I digress, and this isn't the place for that discussion.) If you come across sources of similar quality that give an opposing view, you can incorporate them. Nicknimh (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not appropriate to compare Falun Gong to Catholic Christianity or other long-established religions. Falun Gong is a modern movement entirely invented by its founder, who self-claims to possess divine authority and is still alive today, continuing to reap its benefits. (That should be in the lead)

Additionally, it is misleading to treat one lone source as definitive and accurate without considering context. The whole point of talk here is to gain consensus over whether a source is reliable and enough especially since more recent investigations highlight concerns that contradict the notion of Falun Gong not being a cult.

Here are excerpts from the ABC report, and I encourage you to read these critically and tell me, without bias, whether these findings don't align with what we’d typically classify as cult-like behavior?

In those early years, Anna watched as her mother gradually became absorbed in Falun Gong. She pulled Anna and her sibling out of a Catholic school and quit her job in the family business to take up selling books for Falun Gong. Her time was increasingly spent doing exercises, meditating, and reading the movement’s teachings.

“The leader of Falun Gong claims that race mixing in humans is part of an alien plot to drive humanity further from the gods,” says Anna. “He says that when a child is born from an interracial marriage, that child does not have a heavenly kingdom to go to.”

As she struggled with her illness, Anna says her mother rejected doctors’ attempts to put her on medication, quoting Falun Gong teachings. “It means you are a bad practitioner. It means you do not fully trust Master Li. If you take any kind of medication or go to a hospital, even.”[2]

I am not suggesting we remove sources that state Falun Gong is not a cult. However, like articles on Scientology or the Unification Church, where the leadership’s actions and teachings are critically examined, the same standard should apply here. The ABC joint investigation highlights significant harm caused by Falun Gong’s teachings on medicine, along with troubling ideological beliefs espoused by its leader.

We should include this investigation in the article and others [3], clearly attributing these findings to the ABC as a reliable source but we don't have to call it a cult. If we cannot reach an agreement, I propose settling the matter through the arbitration process.49.186.112.179 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Cults can even influence the most trusted individuals, so a single academic research is not enough.

Also, comparing regular religions to cults is ridiculous, since regular religions allow you to leave and do not force you to pay the head of the Church, whilst cults do the opposite.

Moreover, the "weirdness" is not a factor to determine a cult from a regular religion. Yippt (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the German wiki does include a lot of bias to Falun Gong, so we need to be careful to make sure this page doesn't have the problems Yippt (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Falun_Gong#Texts "[citation needed]"

In section 1.4 "Texts" a paragraph that ends "available on Falun Gong websites." is terminated with [citation needed]

https://en.falundafa.org/falun-dafa-books.html << this is the citation. It is only a short google away, but we can save people the search and delete one of our useful [citation needed]

I understand the resistance to funnel curious minds towards such an organisation, especially when Falun Gong is conspicuously absent from https://sacred-texts.com alexx (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

falundafa.org is a WP:PROFRINGE source and therefore does not comply with WP:RS. It's not reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's arbitrary. Nobody should consider them as reliable facts but it should be fine to quote them and attributes appropriately, because they are the official teachings of Falun Gong. One can definitely say that they teach this and that, and cite their articles literally doing just that. 49.195.11.45 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Fringe sources are notoriously unreliable, particularly about themselves, and in this case often deceptive. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if you step back and think about it for a moment—should we be trusting what groups we consider fringe purport about themselves, even in terms of how they present media for consumption? I would say better safe than sorry there, silly as that may sound. Remsense ‥ 论 01:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Misses the source's entire key point

In extraterrestrial chapter, it uses a source that itself says "Some practitioners have "explained" Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth."[4] The source was to emphasize that people do learn it as literal truth yet that's completely cut out. And if you read Li's teachings and interview, it's obviously not metaphorical as he goes into too much specific detail about how the advanced aliens look like. The source should be properly covered and not misrepresented. For one - you don't know if those practitioners are just lying to avoid public scrutiny so you can't say they "believe" it's merely metaphorical especially when contradicted. Instead it should say they "claimed" this, as well as adding that others like Ben and Anna deem it as"dangerous" brainwashing where they and others, are made to believe the leader has literal supernatural abilities and can save them from 49.195.11.45 (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not generally our prerogative to directly analyze primary sources—we're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. Remsense ‥ 论 01:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. What gives us the right to claim that some practitioners believe it's only metaphorical? The source NEVER said that and instead immediately contradicts that claim with verified witnesses. The same source also added another article reporting others like Ben and Anna encountered dangerous "brainwashing" that the leader also has literal supernatural abilities and can save them from these aliens. [5] There's no chapter stating that the leader seld claims to have supernatural abilities despite it should as reliable sources confirms it. 49.195.11.45 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not our prerogative to directly analyze primary sources. Hence we shouldn't add in our own completely unsourced claims and assumptions into the article. The source never said some practioners believe it's only metaphorical. ABC source sa "some practioners explained or claimed it's metaphorical". That should be corrected aswhere the rticle should change to (claimed) and not (believed) ait's not our job to believe they believe. Only that they made those claims and not up to us to claim they are honest with those claims. 49.195.11.45 (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You won't find me disagreeing. Remsense ‥ 论 01:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

ok, then please correct as I cannot do that. In the chapter for Beliefs and practices / and subchapter - extraterrestrials - Change sentence to say (some practioners claimed) instead of saying (some practioners believed). As it's faithful to what the source actually said. Also add in what ABC news reported; key context that a girl who is verified to had been part of the group, learned it as the literal truth and contradicting those claims. [6] 49.195.11.45 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense hello. I am earlier user 49.195.11.45 and just wanted to say that initially, your replies were so quick I couldn’t even fix my typos before you responded. The website weirdly messes up my replies and I needed to fix it, and I tried to quickly but you keep responding quickly before I could finish fixing. Nothing wrong with replying fast but when I asked you to make the agreed changes, 8 hours passed with no response. Perhaps you went to sleep. But if you’ve decided not to make the changes, it would be helpful to let me know so I’m not left waiting. I’ve made a formal request below in the meantime, but you’re welcome to respond if you’d like. 49.181.65.24 (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024

Please update the chapter on Beliefs and Practices under the subchapter Extraterrestrials to include details about the claim that race mixing is part of an alien plot to drive humanity away from the gods. Additionally, want to clarify that the source from ABC News never stated that some practitioners believed this claim to be metaphorical. The ABC report only explained that some practitioners described it as metaphorical. It is both unsourced and original research to say these practitioners were honest in their verbal claims and actually believed them, especially considering the same ABC report quickly included a contradictory statement from a former member who said she was taught this as the literal truth and not metaphorical

Proposed revision; Replace fourth sentence -

Li purported that in general extraterrestrials disguise themselves as human in order to corrupt and manipulate humanity,[113] but some practitioners claimed that to be only metaphorical].

With this;

Li Hongzhi alleged that extraterrestrials disguise themselves as humans to corrupt and manipulate humanity, a claim some practitioners have downplayed as metaphorical. Li also claims that racial mixing among humans is part of the "alien plot" to hurt and distance humanity further away from the gods.

[7] 49.181.65.24 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Which practitioners? Without a direct quote or citation of them, the sentence reads like MOS:WEASEL imo Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 10:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's in the mentioned ABC source. What other source could I possibly even mean? ABC never wrote that they believed that. This is original research that's unsourced and should be removed. What ABC wrote was that they "claimed" it was hypothetical, without making any judgement that they were telling the truth or not. Though the ABC source hints they are flat out lying because they quickly follow up by saying a confirmed ex member contradicted them and said that she learnt it as the literal truth. Hence I request that the sentence should be more closer to what ABC actually said and remove the unsourced Weasel wording. 49.180.253.95 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude. I'm working on the article now. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is the ABC source: [8].

The article states: "Some practitioners have explained Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth."

The current Wikipedia edit wrongfully writes practitioners "believe" this as "metaphorical", but the ABC article provides no such consensus and instead highlights Anna's contradictory account to suggest the honesty of their claims are questionable.

I request that the completely UNSOURCED claim of (some practioners believed) be removed or replaced with this more accurate reflection of the ABC source without distortion:

Li Hongzhi alleged that extraterrestrials disguise themselves as humans to corrupt and manipulate humanity. According to an ABC investigation, while some practioners downplayed this as metaphorical, a former member, Anna, said she was taught it as literal truth

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-21/inside-falun-gong-master-li-hongzhi-the-mountain-dragon-springs/12442518)49.180.253.95 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I moved it to a new paragraph as I felt like it didn't fit in the middle of the current one. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and also no offense taken. I am just glad someone finally replied and answered the request. Thanks again. 49.180.253.95 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Add in quotes from Times interview and ABC report

Li's interview is very revealing. He claims not just aliens but that there are things that modern science cannot understand. And that the only person in the entire world who understands how to save humanity is himself. He self claims himself as a saviour who learned supernatural powers and known many people who can literally levitate. None of this information is in the article despite this is major stuff. It should be included as it's well sourced by Times Magazine.[9] At the beginning you asked why I did such things. I only tell practitioners, but not the public because they cannot comprehend it. I am trying to save those people who can return to a high level and to a high moral level. Modern science does not understand this, so governments can do nothing. The only person in the entire world who knows this is myself alone. 49.180.244.73 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, article should mention in a chapter about FG teachings; the main facts from that interview, that he is preaching that not only does he have supernatural abilities but is telling people that modern medicine / science and governments cannot help them in the future challenges. And rather in his own words, that the only person in the entire world they should trust is him. I also read this article(https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058) and it reveals that practioners have died because they believed in his advice that modern medicine was pointless for them. And that his followers find it hard to not see the leader Li as just a man but instead as some omniscient deity that is always watching them as; they believed that Li could read their minds, and that his fashen or “law bodies” — basically, copies of himself that exist in a spiritual dimension — were always next to them and watching their every move and thought.

So there should be a minimum mention in the lead that the leader Li Hongzhi claims to be a saviour of man and has attained supernatural abilities since his youth. And also in the article somewhere, that there's been credible reports of practioners who have died, believing too much in his controversial claims about modern medicine.49.180.244.73 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there nobody replying on this page? It's been a week and nobody has replied to the thread. It's a stark difference to getting a response within only minutes initially. However I like to stress and emphasize that what should be included is that the religion teaches people that their leader can read their minds and have supernatural abilities. There's no reason to not mention this when it's true and supported by a national broadcaster who has the integrity and courage to address. Below is an excerpt that supports those facts -

Anna waited. A few minutes later, Master entered the room. He spoke first to the woman and then to Anna’s mother. Then he looked at Anna, looked right into her eyes. He raised his arms, waving them in the air, then he was chanting something she couldn’t understand. Anna as a young girl. “By then it was pretty clear what this was supposed to be,” says Anna, now 25. “This was supposed to be an exorcism.” She was face to face with the man reckoned a God-like figure among his followers at The Mountain, who Anna had grown up believing could read her mind and listen to her dangerous thoughts. But now the spell was broken. “I remember looking into his eyes and thinking, ‘you are just another regular, pathetic man’,” she says.[10]

The point is people who follow Li, believe he can read their minds and always observe them. That he is extremely powerful in a supernatural way. That kind of information definitely deserves to be in the article too. And hope I don't need to wait for long for someone with editing rights, to add it in.49.186.112.179 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)