Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persecution of Falun Gong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Religion: Falun Gong / Interfaith / New religious movements High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 20, 2014, July 20, 2019, and July 20, 2020.

This article was nominated for merging with Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China on 6 December 2022. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Not to Merge.

No Chinese Rationale

I've noticed that the "Rationale" subsection of "Statewide Persecution" does not list any sources from China itself or its foreign offices which have covered this subject intensively. The Chinese government and the CCP has stated their rationale for banning Falun Gong multiple times to many different countries, however, the "Rationale" section does not include ANY of these translated Chinese sources. For starters a something should be added that states:

"The Chinese government and the CCP have stated that the persecution against Falun Gong is justified because the group denounces the use of science, denounces the ability of any government to rule, promotes the leader Li Hongzi to a messianic and infallible figure, and organizes its followers against the Chinese state apparatus."

This might be a bit condensed, but it reflects the accurate sentiment of the Chinese Communist Party on why Falun Gong is undergoing persecution. At the moment, the rationale listed in the subsection is something guessed at by "foreign observers". The "Rationale" subsection should contain the rationale of the Chinese Communist Party as they themselves state it and not the guesses of "foreign observers". There are multiple sources to back up the aforementioned statement as well, all sites are the official Chinese embassy websites for a variety of countries:

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

Though some of these pages are older, Falun Gong was outlawed in 1999 and the rationale presented in these articles is likely the same rationale used to ban the group and is likely the continuing framework that the Chinese Communist Party uses to justify its persecution.

Cincinnatin (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Cincinnatin: The reason for not including the Chinese Communist Party’s rationale is that its sources are generally unreliable as they are state-sanctioned and WP:QUESTIONED sources. In the case of persecution, they are designed specifically to demonize and eradicate Falun Gong. For example, China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith wrote that for several months after Falun Gong was outlawed, China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric; the government operation was "a study in all-out demonization",

Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156

This is why the Falun Gong related Wikipedia articles do not use CCP biased sources,but use reliable third-party findings for references.--Thomas Meng (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of wiki is to give information, it's ok to quote Hitler in an article about Nazi policies and viewpoints, how is this any different? Quoting CCP sources isn't suggesting they are right, it is just showing what they say and leaves space for what response has been made on those statements.Czarnibog (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarnibog: Yes, but wiki is not a place to disseminate demonizing propaganda WP: SOAP. The persecution of Falun Gong is different from the Holocaust in the way that the Holocaust is already over and universally condemned, and that its lies have been thoroughly exposed, while the persecution of Falun Gong is still ongoing and the CCP's propaganda still deceives people. So, putting this CCP propaganda here will only give credit to its false narratives and in turn lend support to the ongoing human rights atrocities that it commits.

Also, WP: IS recommends independent findings. So we should keep them.--Thomas M. (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible to use the words The Chinese Communist Party Claims and summarize or paraphrase, surely there are third party statements out there. Refusing to even infer what CCP claims is a form of propaganda that puts Falun Gong in a strange position among fringe religious movements of being validated on exempt from any form of criticism. We don't have to justify any of the persecution to be free of bias, but outright refusing to cover part of the issue is extreme lack of impartial reporting.

Czarnibog (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarnibog: I understand your concern. Actually, the statewide persecution section covers this. It quotes Jiang's own words and clearly states the real reason why Jiang launched the persecution based on Jiang's own letter. It says: "On the night of 25 April 1999, then-Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin issued a letter indicating his desire to see Falun Gong defeated. The letter expressed alarm at Falun Gong's popularity, particularly among Communist Party members.[33]".

So this covers the CCP rationale, stated by Jiang himself.

But for the rationale that user Cincinnatin proposed, I think it fits in the category of "demonizing propaganda" that multiple scholars have already identified, which only serves as a coverup for the real rationale behind the persecution.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about no? Wikipedia is not a validating source for pro-genocide propaganda. We don't validate claims that the Armenian genocide never happened, We don't validate claims that the Holocaust never happened and I fail to see why we should validate China's claims either. The sources you mention are state media, are WP:QUESTIONED and are arguably primary sources. RedAlert 007 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They called it an "evil cult" and honestly, I am starting to see that too. It's funny how the allegations against the gov, are all deemed to be true despite the real world difficulty to prove such numbers especially when much of the evidence is hearsay. Yet according to many scholars [1] including even Ownby, Li indeed promises his practitioners that they can have supernatural powers and external youth by following him. And that he has supernatural powers. That sounds obviously like a brainwashing cult yet people can't even mention in Wikipedia that it's a cult due to political biases nowadays against China. Despite Wikipedia shouldn't take political sides and mention at minimum what the Chinese gov reasoning was for ridding Falun gong. ArrowSake (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China into Persecution of Falun Gong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Not to Megrge - GA Melbourne (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While definitely a note-worthy subject, it may be better suited to being a section, if not more than one on the already existing persecution page Heyallkatehere (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Not a bad idea to merge, but WP:TOOBIG comes to mind mostly for me. I would not be opposed to a merger if it is shown that this article can be smaller without excluding crucial details, but it doesn't seem possible at this point. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Persecution of Falun Gong is WP:TOOBIG, and plenty of sources establish the notability of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China beyond the generic topic of Persecution of Falun Gong. Boud (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per the above, and aside from being WP:TOOBIG, the topic of Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China has its own individual noteworthy content that I don't feel will be given its deserved attention if merged.- GA Melbourne (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The subject of the Organ harvesting article is so shocking that it’s removal to part of another article cannot IMO be justified. If this was done, it would get lost in the other article. Not justifiable! Boscaswell talk 23:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not just Falun Gong. China harvests organs from prisoners generally.[2] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victims of Communism

Victims of communism is a state sanctioned and biased source and is not reputable for this article. It’s an organization who’s explicit goal is biased reporting. 128.119.202.242 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The introduction needs to state the Chinese gov allegations. Other qigong and taichi groups, or Buddhism etc weren't banned in China despite they are spiritual practices and mass popular religions too. The Chinese government narrowly called Falun Gong as a cult. It was their official reasoning why they banned it and their reasoning why they put Falun Gong people but not normal Buddhists in re-education camps.

Add this sentence in after the second paragraph in introduction chapter:

The Chinese government alleged that Falun Gong was an 'evil cult'" or "'heretical sect'" and used that official rationale to justify to "educate and transform" Falun Gong practitioners in re-education camps to remove their beliefs in Falun Gong in order to eliminate the movement.

Cite Sources for the above statement.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/563c6fb94.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/11/09/china-uses-rule-law-justify-falun-gong-crackdown

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/08/the-gong-show.html ArrowSake (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightoil: The information is well sourced and true. I don't think anyone could seriously say the above is false. Nor can anyone seriously argue that it irrelevant or insignificant. Consensus should be for things like when you are unsure of the facts or unsure if it's noteworthy. Considering the topic is persecution of Falun gong, this meets noteworthiness criteria easily and is undeniably true and well sourced. The only possible reason I can think of on why anyone wouldn't want that shown, is because they're uncomfortable with the fact that the Chinese allegations are not unwarranted at all. I find difficult to believe there's a valid reason why people need to continue to be put in the dark, as it's not untrue nor is it insignificant, but is very relevant to the topic. ArrowSake (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArrowSake: I am reopening the reply so another editor may want complete it. I am not doing so as Falun Gong is under WP:GS so I am just being cautious. Lightoil (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I am putting it on myself and you can feel free to give an actual reason why people should be in the dark. Which I very much find difficult to believe there's ever a valid reason. Who can argue that such information is irrelevant or untrue? ArrowSake (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightoil:As I said before, I already added the edit in after you closed this request. Though I now shortened it to; (The Chinese government alleged that Falun Gong was an 'evil cult'" or "'heretical sect'" and used that official rationale to justify to ban and eliminate the movement." If people have issues with that, they are free to revert and discuss on talk. But it seems REDUNDANT to open this request when I am an auto-comfirmed user who already added that in. If you, yourself have issues with that. I would appreciate if you could respond and give your real reasoning why it must be censored. As I am genuinely confused on what part of that edit, is false, unsourced or insignificant.ArrowSake (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noakes and Ford

I saw that their book is cited as a source but the part that talks about requiring a "certificate" stating that you are not part of Falun Gong to be enrolled in a post-secondary education is straight up false. 2804:7F7:A08A:7035:51D4:7672:9659:6CDB (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t263446.htm

[2] ttp://lt.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/jpflg/t125332.htm

[3] ttp://lv.chineseembassy.org/eng/zt/jpxjflg/

[4] ttp://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/zt/jpxjflg/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]