Talk:Falun Gong: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:14, 14 July 2008 editOlaf Stephanos (talk \| contribs)3,152 editsNo edit summary← 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}}
	\|}

	== Olaf's comments to ] ==

	In my view, the way some of you are applying the 'cult' label is yet another obfuscation of the word's meaning. Talking about aliens, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality has no relation to whether Falun Gong is a 'cult' or not. You could shout "Heresy! Heterodoxy! Feudal superstition!" all over the place, just because you disagree with Li Hongzhi's teachings. But that does not make Falun Gong a 'cult' or Li Hongzhi a 'cult leader'. However, I'm aware of how such words are powerful tools in positioning Falun Gong practitioners--or anyone, for that matter--outside the borders of rationality and normalcy. Thus "cult members" is just another way of saying "inferior subjects", whose autonomous will is not on the level of an ordinary citizen. More severe control measures then seem acceptable and justified, and the outsider's "rational" view becomes the standard by which to judge what "they" really are all about. "Now, stay put while the doctor administers his cure!"

	But whether something deserves to be called a 'cult' is a matter of its ''operational'' structure. Falun Gong is not operating like a cult, which has been verified by all those who have done serious research on the movement. Practitioners know that perfectly well: they know such labels have absolutely nothing to do with their experiences. Those who choose to use this word in labeling Falun Gong are merely drawing a line of demarcation between 'us' and 'them', 'purity' and 'danger', 'center' and 'margin', while paying no attention to the accuracy of such concepts. Because they think Falun Gong is stupid and its practitioners are alienated from what is ''real'', they couldn't care less if people assume, for example, that Falun Gong is an "organization", with a tight grip on the sheepish "cult members", whose money is going up a pyramid structure to the hands of a callous, calculating and charismatic "cult leader".

	Falun Gong is completely open for people to come in or leave. You don't have to pay for anything. You either take responsibility for your own cultivation or you don't, or you start working against the persecution or not, but nobody's ever going to ''order'' you to do something. You never join any organization; the practice itself is about as informal as when you go play ] with your friends in a park. True, Falun Gong can be called ''dissidence'', at least in relation to the dominant scientific paradigm. But we must keep in mind that China's so-called qigong boom was widely perceived as a paradigm shift--a new form of science--and therefore it's totally understandable why so many qigong enthusiasts, including many Falun Gong practitioners, are highly educated, as proven by fieldwork. True qigong's effects are perfectly tangible and real; the discrepancy that exists between the views of materialist science and the phenomenology of qigong is a blatant farce. And judging by its pre-1999 popularity and the number of awards it received in China, Falun Gong is the most renowned qigong practice in history. ''That'' is why it was banned; it was ''too'' genuine, intertextual and deeply-rooted for the Communist leaders, as it created a meaningful existence outside of the Party framework. Taking into account what took place in China in the 1980s and 90s, the pop culture definition of qigong as just another "breathing exercise" is a form of revisionist history, an ideologically loaded concept that aims at neutralizing and diluting its essence. China's qigong boom came to an abrupt end because of political repression; qigong was never conclusively proven false or irreal, but the leading ideologies of the scientific establishment have swept it under the carpet, along with a myriad of other anomalous phenomena that call into question the legacy of the Western Enlightenment. This is nothing new, but its implications are sometimes forgotten.

	In this way, deliberate obfuscation of the 'cult' label is, in itself, a tool of ideological struggle, not infrequently linked to militant secularism, scientism, or, ironically, even religious fundamentalism. It postulates a "closed" reality, a fixed set of metaphysical axioms, and seeks to crush its perceived adversaries by the way of social exclusion, even if it has to prostitute language itself: it doesn't matter if apples become oranges or war becomes peace. Of course, many people slap labels without any profound idea of what they're doing, but in this matter, they are, unwittingly or not, serving as lackeys of those who would rather see "heresy" weeded out to pave the way for a Brave New World. Talk about yet another Hegelian nightmare! It is heartbreaking to see how the 20th Century couldn't teach us very much. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 07:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

	:: bunch of wikilaywering that has nothing to do with the case. The edit actually was reviewed by multiple administrators, please read their decision that the edit should stay. ] (]) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

	::: The edit? Wikilawyering? Why, I just said what is inherently true. <font color="green">'''✔</font> ]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">]</font> 05:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

	~~::::~~ ~~Please~~ ~~cite~~ ~~some~~ ~~wiki rule on~~ "~~inherently~~ ~~true~~". ~~It's~~ ~~neither~~ a ~~reliable~~ or ~~notable~~ ~~source~~ is it? ] (]) 17:58, 11 July ~~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)
	== practice/movement ==
			::@]@] 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 "" ==
	On the second paragraph of the lead, all the sources on that paragraph call it a movement, and some (if not all) specify that it teaches practices or mention "practices and teachings (of Falun Gong)" (searching for both "practice" and "movement" and see how each one is used).

			In section 1.4 "Texts" a paragraph that ends "available on Falun Gong websites." is terminated with '''
	Notice the ambiguity with Falun Gong followers being called "practitioners", probably because they all practice its teachings and practices. Altough Ownby uses the term "Falun Gong practitioners", that doesn't mean that he is saying that Falun Gong is a practice, since a few lines above he says "practitioner to the Falun Gong organization", so he is calling it an organization, and also says somewhere else "practitioners of qigong and Falun Gong", when he has specifically called qigong a movement. The only source that I couldn't verify was the book, but there was an online source from the same author on the first paragraph that I reused.
			'''

			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
	Ownby doesn't call it directly a movement, but it says that it's a school of qigong and that it emerged from it, with qigong being a movement, and that it teaches a certain practice. Also, the article speaks about the movement and not bout the practice that it teachs. I re-used the online source on the second paragraph. I assume that both the online source and the book say that same, since they are written by the same person.

			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)
	Barend ter Haar ''also'' calls it a movement. It only mentions "practice" to refer to what Falun Gong teaches.

			:falundafa.org is a ] source and therefore does not comply with ]. It's not reliable. ] (]) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
	Benjamin Penny concurs, just like the lead says, because it calls it a movement on its source.
			::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 ==
	The ABC source also calls it a movement, and refers to practice on sentences like "practice and teachings of Falun Gong" and "(some people) practice Falun Gong".

			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)
	Britannica also says that it's a movement.

			: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)
	So, seeing the above, I changed the lead to be in accord with the ], see . (are you hearing, Asdfg? we are supossed to all what it is called on the sources, not what we personally think that it is!)
			::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 ==
	P.D.: This article itself is about the movement. The practice itself is covered on ] and ]. By the way, the Qigong article deals exclusively with practice and says nothing about the movement (and should probably be expanded to explain better the movement and the spinoff schools Falun Gong and ]). --] (]) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Falun Gong\|answered=yes}}
	:Look, the primary issue here is that Falun Gong defines itself as a practice, and that should be the first definition given; Falun Gong is a set of exercises and books, and people practice them by reading them or doing those exercises. The analysis, critique, and interpretation comes firmly after that. You can find a dozen sources that call Falun Gong a movement? For everyone one of those, I'll bet there's another that calls it a practice. Ownby also uses practice, so does Penny. They also use movement sometimes. Do I need to dig around for examples of where they refer to Falun Gong as a practice? for example, from Ownby's latest book, "Falun Gong and the future of China", on the second page where he first refers to Falun Gong directly: ''"First, this book is not a defense of Falun Gong doctrine and practice."'' -- I could find many others where this term is used. I would suggest that "practice" is just as common as "movement" in the literature, and coupled with the even more important point that this is the way Falun Gong defines itself, the immediate definition should be the '''lowest common denominator''', and elaborations remain elaborations. Check out ]. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 01:16, 9 July 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 read my comment again, and I want to clarify something. Firstly, I acknowledge that reliable, independent sources often characterise Falun Gong as a "movement". Secondly, I assert that they just as often characterise it as a "practice"--I am able to find more examples, if you please. (For example, Danny Schechter's book is entitled ''"Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or 'Evil Cult'?"'', also consider that overwhelmingly those who practice Falun Gong are referred to as Falun Gong ''practitioners''--doesn't this already indicate that Falun Gong is something that you ''do'', i.e., ''practice''?) My point in illustrating these other, reliable independent instances of the use of practice to describe Falun Gong was to make clear that I am not just going on my personal view, but that this is even more supported by reliable sources than "movement"; I give examples to illustrate. Thirdly, Falun Gong defines itself as a "practice", and I regard this as perhaps the most important point. Misplaced Pages appears to defer to self-definition, and coupled with the strong support this finds in reliable sources, I believe it should be totally acceptable. No one is disputing that Falun Gong is actually a practice, including the sources which describe it as a "movement"; "practice" is the lowest common denominator, and a quite basic commonality between what Falun Gong says of itself, and what reliable sources say.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 01:28, 9 July 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]''.
	:some more sources, from Adam Frank's book chapter called "Falun Gong and the Threat of History" in the book Gods, Guns, and globalization: ''"The emerging scholarly discourse on Falun Gong generally seeks a place for the practice in the wider discourse of Chinese history but without resorting to sensationalism..."''

			With this;
	:''"In a lecture at Rice University, Ownby made a point of mentioning that he had learned the rudiments of the practice in the course of his fieldwork but neither shared the Falun Gong belief system nor considered himself an adherent"''

			''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.''
	:Yuezhi Zhao's book chapter in "Contesting media power" :
	:''"Li Hongzhi, a middle-aged clerk with a high school education, began to introduce Falun Gong in 1992 through public lectures. The practice spread quickly through word of mouth and the demonstrative effect of the spectacle of group exercises in public parks."''

			] (]) 11:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:''"Falun Gong literally means “Dharma Wheel Practice,” which refers to a series of five stretching and meditation exercises aimed at channeling and harmonizing the qi, or vital energy, that supposedly circulates through the body."''

			:Which practitioners? Without a direct quote or citation of them, the sentence reads like ] imo ] 10:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:''"The involvement of official publishing houses, like the participation of elites in the practice, ensured the initial legitimacy of Falun Gong."''
			::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:
	:And just another point, related to the above, a note on translation. In Chinese, what we are calling Falun Gong is either written like: 法輪功 or 法輪大法. The first is "Falun Gong", the latter is "Falun Dafa". Even the name indicates something. 功 is the same 功 of 氣功 qigong。 In this context it means "practice", "method", or something along those lines. the second, 大法, means "great law", or "great way". My point in illustrating this is that the name itself underscores this issue. The "gong" of "Falun Gong" itself means practice; the Falun Gong means "Falun practice", or "law wheel practice" or "dharma wheel practice". Fa = law, dharma; lun = wheel. In this sense it's not just a discrete, simple ''name'', but it already defines what it actually is. I'm bringing these further notes up as a way of supplementing the demonstration that "practice" is just as, if not more used, in independent sources as "movement", and that apart from that source parity there are all these other considerations.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 01:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

			''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 ''
	:Last thing to add to my already long comments, just considered while in the shower: there would be no sense insisting on practice if it was not supported so much by reliable sources, and I wouldn't do so, I'd have already conceded to this. Apart from the support it finds, and the other things I've said, the other reason for favouring it is because it is less loaded. "Movement" is a term with many connotations, and while it also expresses the views of some reliable sources, it also carries with it many other meanings--some of which may not have been intended by the source, some of which may have been, though that is not particularly important--whereas "practice" simply does not. It is a more basic term which does not attempt to define without contextualising; the view that Falun Gong is a "movement" is disputed and not universal, whereas no one disputes that it is a "practice."--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

			(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)
	::Well, I saw the edit and I was going to complain on the grounds of verifiability, but I see that you did your research and found reliable sources for your change. I agree with your change, since I see a lot of ambiguity with the same name being given to the movement and to the practice, and checking again the Ownby source, I see that it also says "qigong practice", which I didn't notice the first time. Seeing that "gong" means "practice" in chinese, I'm happy with defining it as a practice on the first sentence on the lead, specially since the second paragraph already explains how several researchers view its other facets of movement, qigong practice, religion, phenomena, etc. --] (]) 01:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

			:{{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)
	lol, I have to figure out how to get my points across with less space and greater humour...--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 03:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
			::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)

			== Add in quotes from Times interview and ABC report ==
	==Teachings section==
	Mainly to Mr Naval. Let me know that you have read through both of the parts on offer and that you firmly think the original is better. Clearly the most important part of Falun Gong is its beliefs and teachings, so I think it's appropriate that this section be longer than other sections on the page. As for the duplication, I personally don't think that's an issue. You will notice that every section on this front page duplicates content from its daughter article, and the same for their daughters (for example the tiananmen square self immolation introduction on the persecution page is the lede of that main article--know what I mean?) I'm unaware of a wikipedia policy advising against this. It seems like a rational way to do it. The content and the subject is going to be the same. I don't mind how it goes in the end, but I'd submit two key points for consideration:

			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)
	*The old teachings stuff on this page was a little unsophisticated and did not draw on any relevant literature on Falun Gong; it was simplistic and not well written. It failed to introduce the subject in an intelligent and intellectually coherent way. It didn't really give people a full idea of what Falun Gong teaches, or use quality sources to do so.
			: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.''
	*The other section did; I don't think there's a problem to c&p a lede and other stuff as appropriate. Basically I think the altered and expanded version was much better--I think the scrutiny should be on why we ''shouldn't'' go with it? Just a few thoughts. Let's deliberate. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 09:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
			: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.
	:You can look at ]. The section should make a summary of the relevant points on main article. I guess that copy/pasting the whole lead is one way to doing it. I would rather improve the actual text, because using the lead fattens the section from 614 words to 1562 words, but I don't know enough about the topic to know which version treats Falun gong beliefs better. If you say that the longer version is really much better, then it must be so, so feel free to just undo my edit back to your version.
			“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.] (]) 04:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Also, please, try not to archive the ''whole'' talk page. Leave at least a pair of threads that have been edit recently, man. --] (]) 22:26, 13 July 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: