Talk:Falun Gong: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:09, 10 March 2008 editZixingche (talk \| contribs)130 edits →Why Falun Gong is an evil cult and facts ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:05, 18 December 2024 edit undo49.180.253.95 (talk) →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Article~~ ~~probation~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{\| name="notice" class="messagebox" id="bizan standard-talk" style="background: #bee; border: 1px solid #666666; text-align: center; font-size: 100%;"
			{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice\|topic=fg\|1RR=yes\|BRD=yes}}
	\| \| '''Notice: ] and his ] and ] are banned from editing this article {{ #switch:i \| i=indefinitely \| for a period ending i.}}'''
			{{Controversial}}
	\|-
			{{Calm}}
	\| style="text-align: left; border-top: 1px solid #666666; " \| The users specified have been banned by the ] from editing this article. These users are also prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.
			{{Not a forum}}
	<sub>Posted by {{{4\|] 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)}}} for the Arbitration committee. See ].</sub>
			{{Article history
	\|}
			\|action1=FAC
	{{calm talk}}
			\|action1date=00:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
	{{controversial3}}
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Falun Gong/archive1
	{{WP1.0\|v0.7=fail\|class=B\|category=Philrelig\|importance=Mid}}
			\|action1result=failed
	{{WikiProjectBanners
			\|action1oldid=515080906
	\|1={{WikiProject Law}}
	\|2={{WPReligion\|class=Start\|attention=yes}}
	\|3={{WPCHINA\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	}}
	{\|class="messagebox standard-talk"
	\|align="center" width=5%\|

			\|action2=GAN
			\|action2date=03:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
			\|action2link=Talk:Falun Gong/GA1
			\|action2result=passed
			\|action2oldid=617660534

			\|action3=GAR
	]
			\|action3date=21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Falun Gong/1
			\|action3result=delisted
			\|action3oldid=696886966

			\|topic=Philosophy and religion
			\|currentstatus=DGA
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=High \|NRM=yes \|NRMImp=Top \|FalunGong=yes \|attention=yes}}
			{{WikiProject China\|importance=High }}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 47
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|algo = old(14d)
			\|archive = Talk:Falun Gong/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Talk:Falun Gong/Archive_index
			\|mask=Talk:Falun Gong/Archive <#>
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Bias in the international reception section ==
	\|'''Archive note:''' Kindly consult the archived discussions should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the wikipedia community time spent on otherwise rehashing an issue already discussed.{{archive box collapsible\|box-width=238px\|

	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]}}


	\|-
	\|colspan="2" style="font-size: smaller" \|
	<noinclude>
	(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)</noinclude>{{check talk}}
	\|}


	==latest edit in introduction, explanation ==
	Hello. Firstly, I wanted to write something first rather than revert that. Secondly, that isn't a neutral description at all, and it isn't referenced either. So it's basically quite safe for me to remove it. I had not wanted to remove it without making a post explaining why. If you check the third party page there is some discussion of Falun Gong and the Anticult movement which you may find illuminating. If there are any more issues with the removed paragraph we can talk about them here. Better to discuss changes with the other editors, too, and build consensus. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	I forgot to mention. I clicked "restore this version" (twinkle button), and the box came up. I wanted to cancel it and then type something here, then revert. But when I clicked cancel, the revert went ahead with no explanation. Most of the time I write an explanation if reverting is necessary. This time it was a mistake. The explanation is here anyway, sorry, thanks.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	:I disagree. I think what I wrote was neutral and common knowledge, thus not needing references. Anyone else care to voice an opinion? I'll wait a few days before I reinstate the text. I think the article is much more useful if it mentions that the organisation is controversial. ] (]) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	::Falun Gong IS controvesial. I don't see how it can be controversial or NPOV to point that out. I mean, just look at this very topic, this very action - it was so controversial to even mention that Falun Gong itself, is controversial, that it had to be immediately deleted and criticized for not being NPOV. Now hand over those references to "discussions of Falun Gong and the Anticult movement", or stand guilty of the very error you imply in others. ] (])

	::: Falun Gong is indeed a cult, Falun Gong itself advertised forbearance, however Falun Gong does not allow any other people to criticize it. Any criticize towards Falun Gong will be considered evil and supporting CCP, what the heck. Not to mentioned that Falun Gong also believed in alien controlling human minds, just like scientology. Li himself has stated before that every computer user is controlled by alien, only prtaiciting Falun Gong will get rip of the alien. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::: ( http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990510/interview1.html ) Times interviewed Li in 1999, this is the article about the alien invitation and mind controlling things, well, seems we are all controlled by alien now, so sad... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	"Falun Gong is controversial" is a vague statement, nor is it neutral, and it itself is a controversial statement. It's not sourced either. Putting that in the introduction will throw things off balance, because there are other sources which say that Falun Gong is not controversial, and that people saying Falun Gong is controversial only happened because of the widespread vilification of the group by the Chinese Communist Party. There are high quality reliable sources which present this view, and then that should also go in the introduction. But the introduction should be concise, anyway, so that's why I removed the original paragraph.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	: Just my two cents: perhaps all editors are not completely familiar with the Misplaced Pages cornerstones of ], ], and most importantly of all (in this case), ]. Unless you state ''who'' says ''what'', ''and'' your sources are consistent with the Misplaced Pages standards, there's no problem, in my view. But it would require extensive and convincing arguments, as well as extremely high-quality sources, to expand the ''introduction'' beyond its current limits. Falun Gong is controversial for several reasons, and nobody's trying to hide that. Indeed, many of us have devoted a significant amount of time over the years to dig up, for instance, peer-reviewed journal articles to cast light on the stunning complexity of these controversies. And because we wish to maintain a high standard, anything will be removed as long as it's not properly referenced and attributed. That is a basic, guaranteed right of all Misplaced Pages editors. Please read through the ].<font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	::In practice, Misplaced Pages relies almost entirely on unreferenced common knowledge. Not mentioning that Falun Gong is controversial would be like discussing George W. Bush's foreign policy without mentioning the controversy over the second Iraq war. ] (]) 09:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree with you Mrund. Asdfg1235, please, stop deleting information that is anti-falungong, Misplaced Pages is not Epochtimes, readers have to know both sides of the stroy. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::Owing to a long history of mediation, arbitration and profound disagreements, we insist upon strict methodological stringency on these articles, not some obscurantist, unreferenced "common knowledge". Gentlemen, you are welcome to contribute, but I plead you to do so in a rigorous and transparent fashion. The same policies and guidelines are consistent throughout Misplaced Pages. Substandard content in another article is no excuse for lackadaisical editing elsewhere.

	::::Indeed, I've always wondered why so-called "skeptics" turn completely unscientific and emotional when they encounter perceived "heresy", "quackery", or "blind belief". Instead of relying on true academic research on the complex nature of such phenomena, they straightforwardly ignore its existence and start howling the battle cry of partisan secularism: '']!'' They even willingly use words like "cult" to describe Falun Gong, strengthening the discourse of marginalization and alienation that aims at defining a great number of people as irrational ]s, stripping them of their individuality and rationality, thereby indirectly giving kudos to the present means of extreme repression and subordination.

	::::But Falun Gong is not managed or organized like a 'cult'. That is not an opinion: it is a fact, and it's supported by plausible research. If religious or metaphysical dissidence is denoted as 'cultic', the label becomes nothing but a marker of a paradigmatic boundary between an in-group and an out-group. By postulating a similarity between Falun Gong and Scientology, Raëlianism, or other such organizations, we are operating within an agenda of ''guilt by perceived association''. In this agenda, the cultic elements of, for instance, Scientology, are magically transferred into a completely different phenomenon, which is Falun Gong, and they melt together as one grey, amorphous mass of suspicious, cultic, potentially dangerous, manipulative pyramid organizations - which, of course, has nothing to do with the serious research on Falun Gong by several anthropologists, sociologists and East Asian scholars. Regrettably, a myriad of people are not aware of what constitutes good research in cultural studies and related disciplines, and what is basically nothing but a rant in defense of the author's own biases and prejudices.

	::::Here we mostly focus on a careful scrutiny of the editors' contributions and evaluate them against the official policies. I wrote the above to introduce some of my own views on these matters, and I am ready to continue discussion, but we shouldn't stray too far from the actual purpose of this talk page. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::::Are you now in agreement, Olaf Stephanos, that Falun Gong is indeed controversial, which is what was originally stated. If you are, then what is it you are really accusing "so-called 'skeptics'" of, as being controversial was the statment in question, not whether or not it is a "cult", which was not brought up until 203.173.174.156 and is not the statement in question in this discussion. ] (]) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::::: Please have a look at my first post under this header: "''Falun Gong is controversial for several reasons, and nobody's trying to hide that. Indeed, many of us have devoted a significant amount of time over the years to dig up, for instance, peer-reviewed journal articles to cast light on the stunning complexity of these controversies.''" The disputed edit by Mrund reads as follows, and I intended to comment on that: "''Falun Gong is a controversial movement. Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as an innocent religious movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others compare Falun Gong to ] and ] and describe it as a manipulative obscurantist cult. The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government.''" Unless attributed to a valid source, this is just another editor's opinion, and Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a scrapbook of such opinions; it is a ] referring to transparent third-party research and other significant publications. See ] for more information. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Here's an example, after nytimes published this article , which contains negative comments towards Falun Gong and its so called Chinese New Year gala, minghui.org responded "'''How The New York Times' Article Was Used By the Chinese Communist Regime'''" , in the minghui articles, nytimes is as evil as CCP, and later on minghui published a few other articles, attacking nytimes . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::::: I am not Ouyang Fei, who wrote the Minghui article in question, and I don't think the CCP was behind the New York Times review. In my opinion, it was bad journalism, that's all. Besides, Minghui is a forum of individual practitioners' discussion, not some official mouthpiece of "the Falun Gong" - such things don't exist, because nobody can really speak on the behalf of everyone else. But this has nothing to do with the standards and policies we're discussing here. Let's stick to the topic. By the way, you're supposed to sign your comments. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: Well then I think the guardian and the telegraph are all bad journalism too. And anything that is against Falun Gong is bad journalism . BTW, since when minghui is a forum?
	:::::::::: I have read all of those articles, and I do think they seriously misrepresent the Shen Yun Chinese Spectacular and Falun Gong as a result of the journalists' personal disdain. The show is extremely high-quality and has been praised by both ethnic Chinese and other audiences worldwide. According to several surveys with a large sample of audience members, more than 96 % have rated the show as either 'excellent' or 'good' (about 75-80 % as 'excellent'). Hundreds of thousands of people have already seen it. And Minghui has been a pre-moderated forum since the beginning. Again, you did not sign your comment, and this is completely off-topic, so I won't continue the discussion here. You can reply on my talk page if you have something to add. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Just like what you say above, unless attributed to a valid source, several surveys results are invalid. Can you show me where to find these surveys results. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	OK, it seems we are all in agreement that Falun Gong is a controversial movement, that this is an interesting fact that should be reflected in the Misplaced Pages article, and that even a controversial movement can produce a fine stage show. (This latter fact is not of great importance IMHO). I have suggested that we include the following paragraph efter "more than 80 countries".

	"Falun Gong is a controversial movement. Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as an innocent religious movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others compare Falun Gong to ] and ] and describe it as a manipulative obscurantist cult. The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government."

	Any suggestions as to how this contribution could be made more useful to Misplaced Pages users?
	] (]) 09:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	: The controversy is presented already from so many angles, what are sources owned or affiliated to Falun Gong say, what are sources owned or affiliated to CCP say, what are third party sources say, however there is no notable mention in comparing Falun Gong to ] and/or to ] as far as I know. So I don't really see any grounds on which this should be inserted to the article. --] (]) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

	~~::I~~ ~~would~~ ~~prefer~~ ~~it if~~ the ~~anonymous~~ ~~"others~~" ~~are~~ ~~replaced~~ ~~by at least one source,~~ which ~~doesn't~~ ~~even~~ ~~have~~ to be ~~reputable. Someone needs to say it or it~~'s a ~~typical~~ ~~weasel case. However, as soon as that is done,~~ the ~~similarities~~ ~~to Raelians and Scientologists~~ is ~~obvious - they all appear~~ to be ~~cults~~ to ~~someone~~ ~~and~~ ~~they~~ ~~all~~ ~~claim~~ ~~otherwise~~. ] (]) 13:35, 10 ~~March~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		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. ] (]) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

			:@] Denied. These are attributed opinions from academic sources. They do, however, need full citations, which I will add shortly. ] (]) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
	If you can find reliable sources, these ideas might be developed in the Third Party section, with the anticult movement material. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
			::@]@] 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. ] (]) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] 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 ]. (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. ] (]) 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.”''
			::::I am not suggesting we remove sources that state Falun Gong is not a cult. However, like articles on ] 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 , 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			== https://en.wikipedia.org/Falun_Gong#Texts "" ==
	Just a little note a bit off the topic, for Martin. I don't know how you got this idea of Falun Gong. I've read nearly everything available, from sensationalist newspaper articles to considered academic journals. I've never found anything comparing Falun Gong to Scientology or Raelianism. There are also no high level academics supporting the theory that Falun Gong is a cult, or a "manipulative obscuratanist" one, at that. This comes from either the CCP or from people like Patsy Rahn, a failed soap actress who went back to school and wrote a few papers as an undergrad, or others, like Rick Ross, with no academic currency. There is also no evidence for comparing Falun Gong to these groups, and no evidence that it is a "manipulative obscuritanist cult." Even those that say these things never produce or cite evidence. Real scholars and high-quality sources don't do these sensationalist, maligning characterisations, they do not appeal to stereotypes, they do not make vague claims, they do not try to elevate differences. Correctly exploring this kind of topic involves building bridges, explaining things, and overall taking a considered, intelligent approach. It is about actually getting to the issues and making them clear, not obscuring them. I don't think a paragraph like that would help readers too much, especially in the intro. Throwing in sensationalist terms and characterisations will create confusion when they cannot substantiated or explored. Not to mention that so far there are no sources. I think to understand the topic with some depth, readers need more considered, clearer, and substantiated material. Just my 2 bob.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

			In section 1.4 "Texts" a paragraph that ends "available on Falun Gong websites." is terminated with '''
	:I agree. The correct procedures are rather inambiguous: you find a reliable and valid source, evaluate its relative significance (majority/minority viewpoint), quote it without any semantic alteration (], i.e. the source can't be used for the editor's own analysis), and add a footnote. I thought that I expressed this very clearly in my earlier messages, and I wonder how many more times we have to reiterate it. There are way too many Misplaced Pages editors who never care to ]. ] and ] were terminated for eternity because of that cardinal sin. (Of course, they used to come around every fortnight, wearing creepy ] all over their hairy hands, but that's another story...) <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
			'''

			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
	:You can say that there is not references to support this sentence, "Others compare Falun Gong to Scientology and Raelianism and describe it as a manipulative obscurantist cult.", if you try google "Falun Scientology" you will find lots of articles about the similarities of Falun Gong and Scientology, but I understand that we can not just references that. But this statement "The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government." is completely correct, with references I provided above (Minghui vs Nytimes) and other examples, in fact, the discussions happening here in this page, is another perfect evidence to support the statement.

			I understand the resistance to funnel curious minds towards such an organisation, especially when Falun Gong is conspicuously absent from https://sacred-texts.com ] (]) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
	::Maybe you still don't understand the essentials of what Misplaced Pages is all about. First of all: ], ], ]. Then, in no particular order: ], ], ], ], ], ]. There are more, for sure, but I kindly ask you to read through at least these policies and guidelines, apprehend their meaning, and then come back to discuss. And please learn to sign your posts. You do that by adding four tilde marks (~) in the end of your comment. In addition, consider creating an user account if you seriously plan to contribute. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

			:falundafa.org is a ] source and therefore does not comply with ]. It's not reliable. ] (]) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
	::: Thanks for the reading you provided, I already read them. I am a wikipedia newbie, and I never edited any page related to Falun Gong, not to mention that nearly all of these pages are protected, even if they are not, i still will not edit them, because i know that i am a wikipedia newbie, and my english is not good enough to contribute in a professional level. My reason here provide other editors with information from the other side, because I am a native Chinese speaker, I know a lot more about Falun Gong, and I know how much we ordinary Chinese hated Falun Gong. I believed information I provided are good enough to be referenced in wikipedia, like news from nytimes. And thanks for your suggestion, I registered an account, my account name is zixingche, which means bicycle in chinese pinyin. ] (]) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (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. ] (]) 01:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Fringe sources are notoriously unreliable, particularly about themselves, and in this case often deceptive. ] (]) 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Misses the source's entire key point ==
	Asdfg and Olaf, please just be honest: you aren't at all concerned about Misplaced Pages's general standards here, just about protecting Falun Gong's reputation. There is no research proving that Britney Spears is a pop singer, yet you wouldn't hesitate to allow the Misplaced Pages article about her to make that statement. Now, a lot of people think Falun Gong is a cult and see great similarities to Scientology, and others don't. That's what the controversy is about, and that's what needs to be in the introduction to this encyclopedia article, which is currently heavily biased in FG's favour and thus pretty useless. ] (]) 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

			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''." 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 ] (]) 01:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree with you Martin. And by the way, can we have a section in the Falun Gong Page, listing all diseases that Falun Gong claimed it can cure, and all other magics that Falun Gong claimed? So far there is articles about Falun Gong '''can cure cancer''', '''can fix a fax machine''' and '''can act as an antivirus software''' for computer. All these articles are in Minghui.org, verifiable. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:It's not generally our prerogative to directly analyze primary sources—we're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 01:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	I am most concerned about Misplaced Pages's general standards, because they protect these (and other articles) against people who do not want to play fair. There's already quite a lot of material from writers who have labeled Falun Gong as a 'cult' (see the section on third-party views), and their arguments are referenced, attributed, and, in most cases, countered with other sources that comply with the Misplaced Pages standards. ] says in a nutshell, and I'm quoting directly: "''Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.''" And not only a source, but a '''reliable, published source'''. There are definitions for what that means. And there are policies and guidelines for structuring and organizing a Misplaced Pages article, for writing a lead section, for evaluating and ranking various sources, and so on. You may think something "needs to be in the introduction to this encyclopedia article", but others don't, and they question the transparency and attribution of your claims. Besides, you did not even bother to comment on my elaborate analysis on the 'cultic' discourse. Now, that's not important in itself, and we can certainly stick to discussion on the minimum standards of editing, but somehow I feel you don't really (want to) get my point. You can dig through the ] that was a moment of truth for all of us who've been around for several years. (Keep in mind that Samuel Luo's sockpuppets hadn't been recognized at the time.) This topic is not only controversial, it is also a powerful troll magnet. Trial and error have proven that our only option is strict legalism and methodological stringency. We either play by these rules or don't edit Falun Gong related articles at all. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 22:24, 8 March 2008 (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. There's no chapter stating that the leader seld claims to have supernatural abilities despite it should as reliable sources confirms it. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You won't find me disagreeing. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 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. ] (]) 01:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@] 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. ] (]) 11:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024 ==
	'''Someone suggested''' that we needn't compare FG specifically to any particular cults. How about this then: "Falun Gong is a controversial movement. Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as an benevolent spiritual movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others describe Falun Gong as a manipulative obscurantist ] of a kind common in the West. The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is immediately accused of supporting the Chinese government." ] (]) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Falun Gong\|answered=yes}}
	:I just can't believe what I'm seeing, Martin. You keep offering practically the same text over and over again, without any kind of attribution to any valid source - or ''any'' source, for that matter. Who are these ''others describing''? Who is ''immediately accusing''? What research do you base these allegations on? Again, Misplaced Pages is not a scrapbook of editors' opinions. It is a tertiary source. You're operating on a highly abstract level, never telling us '''who''' says '''what''' and '''where'''. It seems as if you deliberately disregarded everything I wrote, since I don't want to think that you lack the mental capacity to understand it. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 11:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
			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;
	::'''I understand your point''' quite well, Olaf. I am simply challenging it. Falun Gong's controversial status is common knowledge of a kind not subject to research, comparable to the fact that Britney Spears is a pop singer. Instead of hiding your pro-FG opinions behind a formalistic smoke-screen, please tell us if anything in my suggested addition is factually incorrect. ] (]) 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
			Replace fourth sentence -

			'' Li purported that in general extraterrestrials disguise themselves as human in order to corrupt and manipulate humanity, but some practitioners claimed that to be only metaphorical]''.
	::Olaf, why is it that you are so concerned with Martins text about what "Others describe" Falung Gong as, when you not only once have complained that ''"it is seen by many as an benevolent spiritual movement"'', which is similarily unattributed and occurs only a few words earlier in the very same suggested text. If you request support for such common knowledge as comparisons between Falun Gong and other religius sects, then you should in honesty's name reqest support also for such common knowledge as FG being described as a benevolent spiritualist movement persecuted by an authoritarian regime. And no, since you already critizised such arguments yourself, you cannot simply claim that THAT is common knowledge. ] (]) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

			With this;
	:::Anything that's challenged in Misplaced Pages requires a valid source. I'm not hiding the fact that I'm pro-FLG -- why, I've been practicing it for over six years, I think it's a very effective cultivation practice, and I am quite familiar with most of the academic research on the subject. Nevertheless, I strive to be fair towards all editors. I have repeatedly removed or edited pro-FLG material that contains weasel words or unreferenced claims. What I'm saying is this: if somebody would actually challenge the statement "Britney Spears is a pop singer", it would certainly require an outside source. We all know that the statement is true. But questions relating to Falun Gong's controversiality are a lot more complicated, and a great deal of academic research has argued that the 'cultic' and 'manipulative' labels imposed by some people are nothing but unscientific, biased, vilifying opinions, not facts, and therefore they have nothing to do with "common knowledge". Now, we can mention the names of people who hold such opinions, and we can state what they have said. That's because "''he threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.''" You still don't seem to have grasped what that means. If I challenge your edit and you don't provide a valid source, the edit can be reverted without further ado. For further reading, check out ], and then have another look at the addition you've proposed. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

			''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.''
	'''OK, I've put something in''' (with references) that I hope everyone will agree is fair. I'm watching the article. Let's not make an edit war of this. ] (]) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Your contribution does not qualify. Let's have a look: "''Falun Gong is a controversial organisation''". I wasn't able to find the words "controversial organisation" anywhere in the article. You made an obscure statement, even claiming as a fact that Falun Gong is an "organisation", even though there are valid sources that state the opposite. "''Persecuted by the Chinese government, it is seen by many as a benevolent spiritual movement suffering repression at the hands of an authoritarian regime. Others describe Falun Gong as a manipulative obscurantist ] of a kind common in the West.''" Who are the ''many'' that see it as a "''benevolent spiritual movement''"? What about the "''others''"? James Randi's personal website is not a valid source for Misplaced Pages: "''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.''" (See also: ]) And lastly, "''The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is usually soon accused of supporting the Chinese government.''" '''Who''' is criticising and '''where'''? Saying that "Falun Gong is criticising" is like saying "science has proven". Nothing but abstractions. Which scientist has "proven" and where? Which practitioner of Falun Gong has "criticised" and where? Besides, the words "''clouded by the fact''" are only meant to suggest and insinuate. Read again: ]. We insist upon precision, attribution, and transparency. No ] or ]. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

			:Which practitioners? Without a direct quote or citation of them, the sentence reads like ] imo ] 10:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::'''sigh''' Please just act like a grownup, Olaf, OK? I suggest you go and insert some useful material into some other article instead of sabotaging my attempts to improve this one. ] (]) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (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. ] (]) 03:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sorry if I came across as rude. I'm working on the article now. ] 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Here is the ABC source: .
			::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 Misplaced Pages 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:
	== Why Falun Gong is an evil cult and facts ==

			''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 ''
	Falun Gong, is banned by Chinese government, many may think that Falun Gong is such a innocent spiritual group which is just another victim of communist, however, '''in fact, Falun Gong is a cult, totally a cult, and nothing but a cult'''.

			(https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-21/inside-falun-gong-master-li-hongzhi-the-mountain-dragon-springs/12442518)] (]) 03:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Falun Gong claims that joining and '''practicing Falun Gong will cure cancer''', and other deadly disease
	:: Falun Gong's official website, minghui.org, posted about 2000 cases in Chinese, and around 10 cases in English, claims that practicing Falun Gong will cure cancer instantly.

			:{{Done}}. I moved it to a new paragraph as I felt like it didn't fit in the middle of the current one. ] 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Falun Gong, again, stated that '''quitting CCP will cure cancer'''
			::Thank you and also no offense taken. I am just glad someone finally replied and answered the request. Thanks again. ] (]) 04:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: This page, written in English, published in Clearwisdom.net (minghui.org english version), told a beautiful story about a women cured her cancer, just by simply quitting CCP.

			== Add in quotes from Times interview and ABC report ==
	: Falun Gong, '''attacks anyone criticize it'''
	:: For example, nytimes, has been attacked by Falun Gong, after they published this article , Falun Gong replied nytimes with these ridiculous articles

			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. ''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.'' ] (]) 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Li Hong Zhi, aka Master Li, the founder and cult leader of Falun Gong, said that '''we are controlled by alien'''
			: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.''
	:: In this interview with Time , Li said that we, computer users, are all controlled by alien, and the only way to get rip of the alien, is to join Falun Gong.
			: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.] (]) 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.
	: Li, said that '''he can cloak, fly, and teleport'''
			“I remember looking into his eyes and thinking, ‘you are just another regular, pathetic man’,” she says.''
	:: In the first edition of <Zhuan Fa Lun>, which is the bible to Falun Gong, there is a biography about Li, saying that Li can cloak since the age of 8, and other abilities, such as fly, telekinesis and teleport, the first edition of <Zhuan Fa Lun> is published in 1994, at that time Falun Gong is still fully legal in China.

			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.] (]) 04:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	: So far, according to minghui, Falun Gong is the ultimate universal solution to universe, life, and everything
	:: Falun Gong can be an antivirus software, and can fix a photocopier. Falun Gong can jump start a car's engine, can put off a fire, can save you from a car crash, and can protect eggs from broken. ] (]) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:05, 18 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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 Misplaced Pages? 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, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Falun Gong, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Falun Gong. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Falun Gong at the Reference desk.

Falun Gong was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 29, 2012	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 20, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
December 27, 2015	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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 supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. 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.”

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 , 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://en.wikipedia.org/Falun_Gong#Texts ""

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

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

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." 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. 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. 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

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

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, 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.

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: .

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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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.

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)

Categories: