Misplaced Pages

Talk:Falun Gong: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:24, 19 April 2020 editLoned (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,609 edits Use of Epoch Times as a source?← Previous edit Revision as of 13:24, 19 April 2020 edit undoLoned (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,609 editsm Use of Epoch Times as a source?Next edit →
Line 85: Line 85:


Considering the Epoch Times is known to be strongly associated with the Falun Gong itself and considered to have significant bias regardless, is using it as a source of information in this article at all advisable? The body itself doesn't particularly clarify upon this point, and the phrasing somewhat implies that the information cited should be taken as given. --] (]) 01:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Considering the Epoch Times is known to be strongly associated with the Falun Gong itself and considered to have significant bias regardless, is using it as a source of information in this article at all advisable? The body itself doesn't particularly clarify upon this point, and the phrasing somewhat implies that the information cited should be taken as given. --] (]) 01:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

:This article also uses Minghui.org, Falun Gong's own public teaching website as source. The research papers/reports cited in the article are either sponsored by Falun Dafa, or involved by them. The source of information is exatrmely speculative and secretive. Unfortunately, removing or editing on this page may result in unwanted battle and fight from Falun Gong members who use wikipeida. --] (]) 13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC) ;This article also uses Minghui.org, Falun Gong's own public teaching website as source. The research papers/reports cited in the article are either sponsored by Falun Dafa, or involved by them. The source of information is exatrmely speculative and secretive. Unfortunately, removing or editing on this page may result in unwanted battle and fight from Falun Gong members who use wikipeida. --] (]) 13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:24, 19 April 2020

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.
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 

Template:Vital article

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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of 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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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.
Former good articleFalun 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
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 20, 2014Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconReligion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WP1.0

Template:Fss


This is essentially propaganda

It's really a disappointment to find how biased this article is. It fails to document the many negative experiences of families who have member lost to the group, which has aspects of a cult including paranoia toward critics and beliefs with no reasonable basis in reality. It also presents the group as benign when it is well-known to promote zealotry in it's members and is, itself, a group that denies human rights of other people who have different belief or life-styles. Lastly, it fails to discuss the group's ties to Right Wing political movements including the use of the Epoch Times to engage in political influence.

It is not my place to change the article since that would doubtless start an undesirable situation where proponents of the movement battle to control the content as often happens on Misplaced Pages. That would not be productive. Therefore, I only offer my basic criticisms here for reasonable people to consider and as a warning of the nature of the article as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Xiao-zi (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your comment. Some of it would fit in the "Speculation on rationale" section I think. RhinoMind (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing important information

Inconvenient information has been "accidentally" left out, making for a biased article:

  • Links with far-right propaganda networks:
 - https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121
 - https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/kiff-disproportionate-funding-goes-to-media-outlet-linked-to-falun-gong
  • Concerns over practitioners refusal to medical treatment:
 - https://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6789-more-falun-gong-followers-die-after-refusing-medical-treatment.html 
 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/26671407

Court case in Spain

The section on the Court case in Spain is outdated. The court case it mentions was dismissed by the Audiencia Nacional since it lacked jurisdiction. A second case was also dismissed and it is currently on a Supreme Court appeal stage. --MarioGom (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. "El Supremo estudia el martes una querella de Falun Gong contra China por genocidio que rechazó la Audiencia Nacional". La Vanguardia (in Spanish). 7 July 2019. Retrieved 8 October 2019.

Duplication in Critcism section

The first three paragraphs of the Criticism section are almost verbatim repeated under the subheading Cult of Personality. The section probably needs a once over and incorporation of some additional notable critiques to capture the full range of discussion, especially given the length of the article as a whole, but I understand this is controversial. Ffe9 (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, fixed Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of Epoch Times as a source?

Considering the Epoch Times is known to be strongly associated with the Falun Gong itself and considered to have significant bias regardless, is using it as a source of information in this article at all advisable? The body itself doesn't particularly clarify upon this point, and the phrasing somewhat implies that the information cited should be taken as given. --Kawdek (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This article also uses Minghui.org, Falun Gong's own public teaching website as source. The research papers/reports cited in the article are either sponsored by Falun Dafa, or involved by them. The source of information is exatrmely speculative and secretive. Unfortunately, removing or editing on this page may result in unwanted battle and fight from Falun Gong members who use wikipeida. --Loned (talk) 13
24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Categories: