Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:05, 5 June 2020

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

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 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. Law Mid‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance 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. Template:WP1.0

Template:Fss

Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, and Shen Yun: Topics absent from this article

In 2020, Falun Gong is best known by way of its extensions, Falun Gong media extension The Epoch Times and performance arts group Shen Yun. Both extensions promote one another, Shen Yun, and Shen Yun ideology, as well as extreme right-wing politics in nations like Germany and the US. Then there's the anti-evolution and anti-LGBTQ sentiment, which has received media attention, alongside the group's high-profile promotion of conspiracy theories and campaigning for US president Donald Trump via its various outlets and extensions.

These aspects of the Falun Gong—for which the organization is today primarily known—are totally absent from the article as it stands. There's a lot of talk in this article about the Chinese government, as well as an essentialy Falun Gong-approved version of the group's history, but there's no discussion about the extensive political, ideological, and commercial involvement of the Falun Gong in international politics, including high-profile events such as The Epoch Times removal from Facebook, and the article doesn't mention topics like the Falun Gong's Society of Classical Poets, one of many extensions of the group aiming to influence the general public. This stuff all needs to be sorted out with reliable sources in an objective, source-reliant manner.

Readers who encounter this article would never know about any of these topics, instead finding a sanitized, essentially promotional overview of the article that could well have been written by the organization itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All of that is covered extensively by WP:RS, we need at least a paragraph each on Epoch and Shen Yun. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times, Shen Yun have Falun Gong Practitioners involved but they are not Falun Gong. Major Changes require consensus Clara Branch (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources say otherwise, and that's what what we report. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clara Branch:—you've just reverted many academic, secondary sources, and scrubbed the article of the term "new religious movement" (). Please self-revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clara Branch: Changes are implicitly assumed to have consensus unless challenged (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS), and editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. Do you have objections to particular changes, and for what reasons?The NYT, Oxford University Press, and Taylor & Francis sources, for instance, seem reliable. The topics are also relevant. — MarkH₂₁ 04:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave her a DS alert last October. I'm trying to give them to all involved Doug Weller talk 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why another thread was created; the discussion on the merits of User:Bloodofox's edits is immediately above. Bloodofox has not offered a compelling answer to the objections raised there.
• Yes, changes are implicitly assumed to have consensus unless challenged. Bloodofox's edits were challenged, and he edit warred to enforce his changes despite failing to make a good case for them.
• I can't speak for anyone else, but my own position has certainly been misrepresented here. I have no objection to including references to Falun Gong as a New Religious Movement, and I have stated as much several times already. In fact, I edited the article to include reference to NRM. The problem, as described above, is that this user is insisting that NRM should be the single, authoritative definition given for Falun Gong, and has edited the page in such a way as to suggest that there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that this is the definition that should be used. This is simply not the case. For the nth time, scholars use many terms to describe Falun Gong: as a religion, as a qigong practice, as a cultivation practice in the tradition of Chinese antiquity, as a faith system, a spiritual discipline, etc. etc. And some scholars also dispute the accuracy and usefulness of the NRM label. So include it, by all means, as one of the terms that has been used to categorize Falun Gong. But given the existence of competing definitions, the lede should remain as neutral as possible.TheBlueCanoe 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time (?) caller. I have reverted the edits because they were effectively a result of edit warring and because I have submitted a complaint about that here . No particularly strong opinions on the weight issues themselves for now. The behavior however strikes me as entirely inappropriate. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Clara Branch: This: "Shen Yun have Falun Gong Practitioners involved but they are not Falun Gong.” does not appear to be true, Shen Yun is based at the Fulon Gong Dragon Springs compound in New York state (thats their main one BTW if you didn't already know) . This would be the equivalent of saying a church choir isn't part of the church its based at but that its members just happen to be affiliated, the argument is on its face ridiculous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to further my note above: I have no objection whatsoever to including reference to the Epoch Times and Shen Yun on this page, just as I have no objection to including NRM among the descriptions that have been given for the practice. But major changes—i.e. a new second paragraph in the lede, a new "master definition" in the first sentence—should be reached through discussion, conducted in good faith. Moreover, the additions that are made should be made in keeping with core pillars of neutrality and verifiability. The paragraph added by Bloodofox to the lede section clearly misses the mark.

There is no evidence, for example, that Falun Gong directly operates or owns the Epoch Times. Nor is there is any evidence that Shen Yun promotes anti-LGBTQ messaging. These two claims fail WP:V. And then there is the additional question of neutrality and proportional weight. It's possible to have a lengthy, well-sourced discussion about the editorial stance of the Epoch Times, for instance, in which the views of both its supporters and detractors are presented. But the lede section of this article is not the place to hash out our feelings about the artistic or editorial merits of these organizations.

A neutral treatment of would be to note, in the final paragraph of the lede, that these are among the organizations that have been established by Falun Gong adherents since the crackdown began in 1999. Simple.TheBlueCanoe 19:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don’t think that Shen Yun has anti-gay messaging than frankly you havent read the linked sources, its literally in the article I liked above "Aside from the organ harvesting, the homophobia, the anti-evolution ballad, and the Karl Marx apparition, the thing I found most odd about my Shen Yun experience in Houston was the hosts’ explanation of Chinese classical dance.”

The same can be said about control of the Epoch Times, you clearly haven't read the sources linked if you think thats a neutral description. Stop wasting my time and read the sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bloodofox (talk · contribs), MarkH21 (talk · contribs): I do agree we need to use reliable sources. However, the content User Bloodofox added cannot be supported by the source provided. For example, User Bloodofox added the first line of a paragraph “Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad, which have received notable media attention for their political involvement and ideological messaging…” This can nowhere be found in the first NYT source. User Bloodofox's editing is not in line with WP:V. Is it WP:OS or WP:SYN?

Bloodofox (talk · contribs), MarkH21 (talk · contribs): Regarding the NRM claim, I have no objection, and just thought it seems not fit for the first line of the lead section. So many contents in the article are supported by RS, User Bloodofox has not explained this is so vital that has to be at the first line of the lead section.

TheBlueCanoe (talk · contribs): your view on a neutral mention of these Falun Gong practitioners established organizations makes sense to me.

BTW, thanks MarkH21 (talk · contribs) for the support to the new editors like me. Clara Branch (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For a guide to what a neutral presentation looks like, I suggest referring to Andrew Junker, who summarizes the range of Falun Gong's social and political mobilizations as follows. Of course this is too much for a lede section, but I'll take this as a guide for updating the article, and also look at Noakes' latest book for more on the transnational advocacy dimension.

"Protest has encompassed an impressive variety of claim-making tactics and organizational forms. Marches and vigils are only the tip of the iceberg. Activism has also included creating a media conglomerate of newspapers, radio networks, and satellite television broadcasting; suing Chinese state leaders under international law in courts around the world; inventing and distributing web browsing software that people in China can use to evade Internet firewalls and censorship; hacking into mainland Chinese television networks to broadcast Falun Gong media; creating brochures and weekly updates on Falun Gong news that are tailored to locally specific regions in China by overseas practitioners and then distributed in those local mainland places by clandestine networks of practitioners; coordinating hundreds of thousands of telephone calls into China, some of which target ordinary members of the public and others targeting local bureaucrats engaged in policing Falun Gong; lobbying governments and international agencies around the world to decry the repression of Falun Gong as a human rights violation; systematically and daily seeking out PRC tourists to Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, New York, and elsewhere to hand them leaflets and newspapers militantly critical of the CCP; and networking with adherents in China to monitor human rights abuses in China and broadly publicize information."TheBlueCanoe 00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still trying to scrub the article. Among many other aspects of the new religious movement, Junker discusses the Falun Gong's propaganda efforts (cf. p. 99) and his hostile treatment by The Epoch Times ("we know who you are ... he is the enemy", p. 101), and so it's unclear to me what you're trying to do with this quote, exactly, which is obviously out of context and which you've inserted to replace discussion about the well-covered activites and increasingly public activities of the The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Of course, as is well documented by many a reliable source, both are very aggressive and quite political propaganda arms of the new religious movement. But there's no discussion about that at all here. You have, for some reason, swapped that discussion out with the muddy paragraph above, removing along with it the several sources, now absent from the article. Now, why is that?

You're still scrubbing the article by way of edit-warring and inserting pro-Falun Gong puffery in place of material you've removed—and, by the way, are you in violation of WP:3RR? (, , , ). If not, you're terribly close, and the system wasn't designed to be gamed. Please self-revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest de-escalating the situation by discussing the proposed changes here on the talk page, and then commenting on what exactly is the problem with each proposal. I shouldn't even have to remind you guys that this is the approach mandated by the talk page header for controversial articles. I don't understand why you don't have the patience to hash this out systematically and with good faith. It's looking more and more like a definitional power struggle instead of encyclopedia building. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Bloodofox is also making what seems to me to be unsourced or unclear claims about Zambian emerald mines on the Talk:Elon Musk page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The relevance of that to this article is...? — MarkH₂₁ 03:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is irrelevant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? We are discussing RS-compliant media reports—which I myself provided—on that talk page, which are fully cited to reliable sources, as anyone can see—and which are also completely irrelevant to this discussion. Kindly strike out your remarks here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a sound proposal. I hope we can get past the imputations of bad faith and actually parse these issues systematically. I will note that Bloodofox added the contested content without first achieving consensus. Several editors, here and elsewhere, raised objections to the way he chose to frame these issues. Editors are encouraged to be bold, but when you meet with reasonable objections, the onus shifts to you to justify your changes. That's an exercise that takes patience and some mental discipline, but it's fruitful if everyone is acting with a sincere desire to present these issues as fairly as possible. Agreed? TheBlueCanoe 04:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

100% agreed. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: Misplaced Pages isn't censored. Please go ahead and self-revert the scrubbing, @TheBlueCanoe:. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Which are those "reasonable objections" again? I only saw reverts, fallacies, and misrepresentations. One such fallacy is argumentum ad antiquitatem ("that's how we have always done it" or "this is a stable version"). Another is argument from silence: we do not cancel sources which say "FLG is a NRM" by sources which do not say it.

But yes, it should be done systematically. I will try to summarize the questions where there is a difference of opinions, and when everybody agrees that those are the points of contention, we can make a section for each.

• Should The Epoch Times and Society of Classical Poets be mentioned in the lede? If yes, in what form?
• Should we write that there is a consensus that calls FLG a "new religious movement"?

Are those the questions? Anything else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hob. That seems like a good place to start, so let's begin there.

Should the Epoch Times be mentioned in the lede, and if so, how? Yes, a neutral and representative lede section could absolutely include reference to the media organizations established by Falun Gong adherents. It makes sense to situate this as part of a broader claim-making strategy that the Falun Gong community adopted as a response to the suppression in China. That appears to be the context in which you find these discussions in Ownby, Penny, Junker, Noakes, et al.

The problem with Bloodofox's approach is threefold:

1) The decision to put this in the second paragraph of the article is narratively incongruous, and assigns it undue weight and prominence in the article. The creation of the Epoch Times and Shen Yun, along with other Falun Gong activism, can only be understood in light of Falun Gong's broader history and its suppression in China: these are essentially activities undertaken by members of an exiled diaspora community, as a response to a persecution. Narrative cohesion thus demands that we first introduce the facts of Falun Gong's suppression, and then explain Falun Gong's response, of which these properties are undoubtedly a part.

2) The statement that Falun Gong "administers" the Epoch Times is not well supported. As I have stated above, it is beyond dispute that the Epoch Times was founded by persons who practice Falun Gong. But this is not the same as being owned, operated, or administered by Falun Gong. There are groups that serve as quasi-official mouthpieces or press offices for Falun Dafa, but the Epoch Times is not one of them. It should suffice to say that the Epoch Times is an initiative undertaken by adherents of Falun Gong, or that it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, or similar. Because that much is absolutely clear.

3) There's the question of neutrality, including WP:WEIGHT. Bloodofox has been quite candid about his disdain for things Falun Gong-related, and while I appreciate the candour, we need to try to present issues from a neutral point of view. What does that look like? Well, just as we would not heap praise on the Epoch Times in the lead section by, say, noting the journalistic awards it has won, neither should we try to define it by cherry-picking the critical sources that we like. Both approaches serve propagandistic purposes, and run a risk of WP:recentism. The lede section of an article on Falun Gong is simply not the place to hash out arguments about the editorial merits or defects of a newspaper, or to debate its place within a Chinese-language media ecosystem, or whatever else. Remember: our goal is not to induce readers to think well, or poorly, of the Epoch Times.

Should we write that there is a consensus that calls FLG a "new religious movement"? - No, because no such consensus exists. To reiterate the points made above: I have no objection to including "new religious movement" as one of the labels that has been applied to Falun Gong. I find it strange that this was not in the article, which is why I added it in one of my recent edits. This is undoubtedly one of the terms that reliable sources have used to describe the practice.

But it is not the sole, authoritative definition, and there is some dispute (including among scholars) about its usefulness and accuracy. So while it should be included among a list of terms used to describe Falun Gong, I see no reason why it should be given preeminence in the first sentence when more neutral descriptors may be available to us.

Again, reliable sources use many different terms to define Falun Gong, and scholars will often employ several different terms interchangeably. The most common terms in the academic literature include religion/religious movement, a form of qigong, a cultivation discipline, a new religious movement, and so on. (Several experts have written specifically about the difficulty of pinning down a definition for Falun Gong: it simply does not neatly fit into any of the existing categories). Dozens of academic references could be produced to support any one of these labels.

In addition to the wide variance in terms, the NRM definition has also been disputed; David Ownby, for instance, has stated that it "doesn't make sense" to describe Falun Gong this way. Another editor put it well: the goal is not at all to "scrub" this term from the encyclopedia—that doesn't make sense. The goal, rather, is to avoid unnecessary reductionism. There is a space in this article to describe the problem of Falun Gong's categorization, where some of the nuance here can be drawn out. But the first sentence should offer a simple, neutral descriptor. The previous version called Falun Gong a religious practice. There may be reasons to dispute that label too—I briefly outlined some above—but it is a commonly used term that generally carries neutral denotations (I think). Another proposal is "spiritual practice," which is even more broad, and perhaps less likely to provoke a dispute. But happy to hear counter-arguments.TheBlueCanoe 08:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still lawyering to get the phrase new religious movement out of the article, and you're talking a whole lot about nameless individuals rather than citing reliable secondary sources. Your desire to maintain a version of the article that just so happens to align with exactly how the organization would prefer to present itself is noted, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, flatly, and without mincing words, simply refer to the organization as a new religious movement. It's that simple. Again, NRMs often don't like to be called NRMs, but academics don't tailor their analyses to the desires of their subjects.

Secondly, your repeated removal of any mention of the various propaganda arms of the NRM and downplaying of connection ('well, gee, these members just so happened to form an organization....') and bizarre flattery about "journalistic awards" (what?) is in no sense aligned with the reality of what is exclusively a propaganda arm of Falun Gong, is not going to be taken seriously by anyone who has reviewed the propaganda eco system surrounding this group. The Epoch Times in particular, and other media arms of the Falun Gong are widely known for their political involvement with extreme-right circles, investing large sums in campaigning for Donald Trump, and spreading conspiracy theories, including about Covid-19, just to name a few topics. You seem fixated on keeping these topics out of the article by any means necessary—and there are several other accounts hovering around this and related articles with the same revert-happy aim.

I'm not interested in engaging in intentionally obfuscating conversation about these topics with you. I'm currently putting together a section that addresses these topics with reliable sources.

Finally, I suggest you drop the 'you just don't like them' angle—we get it a lot in pseudscience and fringe circles, and it's a clear red flag that they can't argue from reliable sources anymore. Please don't waste my time with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am not "lawyering to get the phrase new religious movement out of the article." I have said repeatedly that the phrase should be in the article. I included it in one of my recent edits. I'd ask that you stop misrepresenting my position and accusing me of bad faith.
• I have not "repeatedly removed" mention media organizations created by Falun Gong practitioners. These organizations are described in the article, and I agree that a reference in the lede is also appropriate. I've raised reasonable disagreements with your edits in this respect, and would ask that you address them calmly.
• Which of my statements would you like me to support with reference to RS? Because I am happy to oblige.
• Other editors here have agreed that changes should be worked out through discussion and consensus-building, and that we should approach proposed changes systematically, issue-by-issue. You are now saying that that you are unwilling to do this, and that you intend to force through the changes you want without discussion. Is that right? If so, I'm afraid we'll have to appeal for some kind of mediation here. TheBlueCanoe 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not play games here, these are your edits: , , , . All those reliable sources? Poof, gone. You removed them. Again and again. That's scrubbing. No, they're not flattering for the organization for many readers, but Misplaced Pages isn't here to promote any organization.

No need to continue to refer back to this mysterious "other editors" chorus (evidently the many single-issue accounts that happen to float around this and related articles, often new, often with few edits), we have substantive issues to add to this article, and nobody needs permission.

We report on reliable sources on English Misplaced Pages, which for this topic would be academic works or WP:RS-compliant media reports (so, no, not—as you call them—the "award winning" Epoch Times), the type you're removing over and over in the diffs above. We provide reliable sources, and sometimes we have to discuss them, ideally in a succinct, accurate, and straightforward manner. That's all there is to it on Misplaced Pages.

And when that's not the case, there's good reason to ask why that's not happening. In short: Back your claims with WP:RS-compliant sources or move along. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

With respect, there are significant problems with the edits you made, particularly in regards to their compliance with WP:NPOV (that something is supported by a RS does not preclude the possibility that it doesn't conform to requirements for balance, due weight, etc.). I was reverting to a stable, consensus version of the page while those disagreements were being hashed out. But you simply have not address the substance of the concerns that have been raised. Instead you have repeatedly accused other editors of engaging in conspiracy to censor you, edit warred to enforce your changes, ignored the actual content of the objections raised, misrepresented the positions of other editors, and declared your intention to force through changes without discussion. This is not behaviour that conduces to a healthy editing environment.TheBlueCanoe 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Tip: It's not a good look to go back and insert new questions into a series of comments and questions someone has already responded to. As for the rest, again, stick to WP:RS-compliant sources, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. When reliable sources say things about a new religious movement that the new religious movement does not approve of, we don't defer to the new religious movement's opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yes, obviously. That we should rely on reliable sources has never been in question. What a strange strawman.

I am not objecting to your edits because you've failed to produce RS to support your position (though sometimes your statements require a very strained reading of those sources...). Nor am I objecting out of deference to how Falun Gong might want to be portrayed. I'm objecting your edits because, as I elaborated at great length above, I believe they are not consistent with WP:NPOV.

I'll just put it straight: are you willing to address the actual content of the objections that have been raised, and to work constructively, in good faith, to reach an agreement on proposed changes? TheBlueCanoe 19:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you did not respond to the "go back and insert new questions into a series of comments and questions someone has already responded to" part: do you acknowledge that one should not do that? I am getting more and more WP:IDHT vibes from you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is that "dispute ( among scholars) about its usefulness and accuracy"? I still have not seen any scholarly sources that say FLG is not a NRM, only ones that do not use the term. (Another IDHT.) This is a crucial point. If you cannot give any such sources, your claim that there is no consensus among scholars that FLG is a NRM goes poof, together with your claim that bloodofox's edits are POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you review my earlier comments on the matter closely, you would see that I had provided a source. But here it is again:

While many Westerners may see parallels between Falun Gong — with its charismatic leader, foundational texts and focus on bodily health — and “new religious movements” which sprang up in the US in the 1960s, Ownby argues that the label “makes no sense” in the Chinese context.

Further elaboration comes from Ownby's 2003 journal article "The Falun Gong in the New World," (European Journal of East Asian Studies, 2 203, p 605):

To most Chinese, the very word ‘religion’ has a vaguely foreign or bureaucratic sound, and the idea of a ‘new religious movement’ makes little sense. Thus qigong practitioners do not ‘believe in a religion’ (xinjiao) as would members of a church. Instead, they ‘cultivate’ (xiuyang), a word that, even in translation, faithfully renders the connotation of prolonged physical, meditative, and moral practice.

In his book "Falun Gong and the Future of China," Ownby further states that the NRM designation is "rather imprecise" and "doesn't tell us much about Falun Gong itself."

Note that this is not an absolute rejection of the term "new religion" or "new religious movement" (Ownby himself uses these words interchangeably with other descriptors at times) but it speaks to the term's deficiencies — the questions of accuracy and usefulness, in other words.

The question you raised is whether there exists a consensus among scholars that Falun Gong should be described as a religious movement. My point is that there is no such consensus — no more than there is a consensus that it should be called a religion, a self-cultivation discipline, a faith system, or a qigong practice, for example. And all of these terms have broad support in the academic literature, and all can be problematized on one way or another. So, among the many labels that are commonly used scholarly works, why would we treat NRM as the authoritative label in the opening sentence? No one has answered this question.TheBlueCanoe 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Right: Sorry, I overlooked those. Now we have those extensive quotes, the discussion should become simpler though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources: Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and other extensions

So, it's no secret that the Falun Gong's extensions, or, as MSNBC puts it (below) "propaganda outlets", especially The Epoch Times and Shen Yun are quite active and very visible. Since this article currently somehow avoids this topic, let's take a look at what WP:RS-compliant sources report the connections about this topic, and then introduce discussion based on reliable sources into the article. So let's take a look at some recent media coverage (in-article links excluded):

• Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Relatively unknown before 2016, Epoch Times enjoyed a surge in traffic after the presidential election thanks to stridently pro-Trump content. NBC News reported in 2017 that the site was drawing millions of visitors a year, more than The New York Times and CNN combined. But Falun Gong didn’t restrict its pro-Trump stance to the paper.

This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:

• Roose, Kevin. 2020. Epoch Times, Punished by Facebook, Gets a New Megaphone on YouTube. The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Little is known about The Epoch Times’s finances and organizational structure. The nonprofit Epoch Times Association, which operates it, reported $8.1 million in revenue and $7.2 million in expenses on its 2017 public tax filings. An investigation by NBC News last summer found ties between the outlet and other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations, such as the Shen Yun dance performance series and the video broadcaster , and said the organizations 'appear to share missions, money and executives.' ... Three former Epoch Times employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the organization .. described its staff as primarily Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom had little previous experience in journalism. Editorial employees, they said, were encouraged to attend weekly “Fa study” sessions outside work hours, during which they would gather to study the teachings of Falun Gong’s spiritual leader, Li Hongzhi. ... The Epoch Times has long denied having direct ties to Falun Gong. Mr. Gregory said that the organization was primarily funded through subscriptions and ads, and that "donations are a small part of our income."

Hmm, alright. Let's take a look at the NBC article that this entry mentions:

• Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online.

Quote:

Despite its growing reach and power, little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times.

The outlet’s opacity makes it difficult to determine an overall structure, but it is loosely organized into several regional tax-free nonprofits. The Epoch Times operates alongside the video production company, NTD, under the umbrella of The Epoch Media Group, a private news and entertainment company whose owner executives have declined to name, citing concerns of "pressure" that could follow.

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

... In 2009, the founder and leader of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, came to speak at The Epoch Times' offices in Manhattan. Li came with a clear directive for the Falun Gong volunteers who comprised the company’s staff: “Become regular media.”

And more straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC article discussed below:

• Ruhle, Stephanie. 2019. "Pro-Trump news outlet The Epoch Times funded by Chinese spiritual group". August 20, 2019. MSNBC. Online.

Caption quote:

NBC News has exclusively learned that the popular conservative news site The Epoch Times is funded by a Chinese spiritual community called Falun Gong, which hopes to take down the Chinese government.

The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:

• Tolentino, Jia. 2019. "Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling, World of Shen Yun". The New Yorker. Online.

Quote:

Falun Gong also has its own media outlet, a newspaper called the Epoch Times, which was founded in 2000. (The chairman of the newspaper’s board has said that it is “not a Falun Gong newspaper,” because “Falun Gong is a question of an individual’s belief.”) The paper skews conservative: among its recent pieces are stories headlined “Why We Should Embrace President Trump’s Nationalism,” “Government Welfare: A Cancer Known as Communism,” and “President Trump, Build the Wall.” It also is the world’s foremost purveyor of Shen Yun content, publishing such stories as “Excited Fans Welcome Shen Yun at Taiwanese Airport,” “The Vivid Storytelling of Shen Yun Symphony Orchestra,” and “Shen Yun Audiences Already Waiting for Next Year."

And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):

• Busvine, Douglas. 2018. "German far right far ahead in use of social media". Reuters. September 13, 2018. Online.

Quote:

Instead, the researchers found that AfD supporters amplified the reach of media coverage of stories that the AfD posted or commented on. Social media users sympathetic to the party often tweeted links to stories in Die Welt, a conservative daily, but also to right-wing media outlets.

These included news sites such as Junge Freiheit and the German edition of the Epoch Times, which is part of a media group set up by Chinese-American members of the Falun Gong sect and focuses on the same immigration issues at the heart of the AfD platform.

There are many, many, many more sources out there discussing these topics—thousands—and in fact we can and should dig further into these topics. Additionally, this does not take into account the various other extensions of the organization, such as the Society of Classical Poets, which fly a little further under the radar but with aligned goals.

So, yeah, why again isn't this discussed extensively—or at all—in this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write this up. I will digest come back with some questions and some other scholarly and newsy sources that could be useful in informing this discussion. Then hopefully we can come to some agreement on how best to present this topic in the article (beyond what is already there). TheBlueCanoe 20:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Beyond what is already there"? There's nothing in the article about any of this. And you know it: You have in fact been removing references to this topics when they're introduced. Readers can compare just a few recent edits: , , , . :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have restored a paragraph of the lead that seems important and appropriately sourced. —PaleoNeonate – 04:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To me it's fairly obvious that there are several unaddressed concerns in the section directly above this. Was there a particular reason to start a new section, as if editing could proceed as usual, nothing really needs to be hashed out, and the controversial article discussion guidelines can be thrown to the wind? Note that personally I have abstained from all edits and reverts to the article. We need logic, reason, patience, and good manners, so that everybody can present their viewpoint here on the talk page and expect respectful answers from their fellow editors. I don't see that happening in this instance. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I had suggested to split the discussion up into a new-religious-movement part and an Epoch-Times-Shen-Yun part. TheBlueCanoe acknowledged having overlooked and ignored this suggestion at first (User_talk:Hob_Gadling#an_oversight) and agreed that is was a "reasonable idea". Effectively, it is what eventually happened: the previsous section turned into the new-religious-movement discussion, and this one into the Epoch-Times-Shen-Yun discussion. This is fine in my eyes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll suggest that we use this thread to figure out what the article ought to say about the Epoch Times, in addition to what is already in the article. (There's an entire paragraph about it under "Falun Gong's response to persecution," which has never been removed or contested, as far as I know).

In deciding what the article should say on this topic, obviously we can't be guided by a cherry-picked selection of critical sources. The content should be a neutral and representative reflection of what the literature says about this topic as it relates to Falun Gong. I'm still pulling together some examples that will, I think, provide a good cross-section of the discourse, and will post it here shortly. But as to the recent revert: I raised numerous issues with that particular addition, which have been buried by snipping and accusation, rather than being answered. I wonder if we need a separate thread specifically to discuss that edit, in which I can repost my objections, and then we can specifically debate the merits of that edit. TheBlueCanoe 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked" sources? Please, these are high-quality media sources, and there are absolutely no shortage of them: Must have been quite some cherry bumper crop ever since 2016 for that analogy to work! There are literally thousands and thousands of articles—and more published by the day—about these topics that discuss exactly what we're discussing here, yet somehow this article has historically made no mention of it at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

About that second paragraph

I recently got myself into hot water on this topic after clicking through my watchlist and seeing the current second paragraph being warred about. I fell down a rabbit hole, because it all seemed so strange (not merely the content itself, but the behavior around it). There is simply no doubt that this group's multiple media properties and performing arts companies as well as its views on sexuality and sexual identity are content suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. What I found so strange was the way it was insisted this content be included. The second paragraph is a case in point: at least two parts of it are not even accurate 1. (that FLG "administers" the media properties - that's not what the source says; my current read is that the relationship between FLG and these media seems rather more complex), and that 2. Shen Yun contains anti-LBGTQ messages. This is not in the New Yorker article. It says in passing that "apart from the... homophobia," but doesn't actually say where or whether there was homophobia in Shen Yun. This is presumably an error of the source. But even so. Why do not we also include what else she noted in passing, such as Shen Yun's extraordinary use of a gigantic face of Karl Marx in front of a red tide (presumably of blood!) Falun Gong's anti-communist rhetoric appears far more prominent than its opinions about homosexuality, which when I read their press office now they seem not particularly strident about: https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions-intolerant/ (do they lie because they know that discrimination against homosexuality is not tolerated in the West? I am curious to look at some ethnographies). In any case, I found the Karl Marx face just as, if not more striking. So why don't we put that in the second paragraph as well?

Or alternatively, why doesn't the page have a proper discussion of FLG-associated media entities, which includes an accurate representation of the precise nature of the relationship between FLG and the entities, and the other commercial and cultural initiatives?

I would suggest the discussion of these matters largely mirror how other religions are discussed on Misplaced Pages. I presume that the page on Catholicism notes that Catholics run newspapers and media companies (I can think of some, including some which have garnered controversy), the page on Islam notes that Muslims run newspapers (many I could also think of, several quite controversial) and so on. How are these relationships described? I suspect that Falun Gong-associated media entities are relatively more significant for Falun Gong, which is a new... religion... and they serve a function vis-a-vis the Chinese state actions against Falun Gong adherents in China - but I think that would make sense for the general approach. Without any benchmark for the appropriate way for a tertiary source to discuss something like this, what tethers the dispute? Indeed, why not make it the lead, and include Marx, anti-gay, anti-evolution, and every other thing we don't like that is associated with this group? There is a reason for it, and that reason relates to what encyclopedias are for and how they are supposed to read.

In the meantime, the second paragraph as it stands now is an embarrassment. It should just be removed. Put in some placeholder text about FLG adherents founding media and performing arts companies to spread their message, or whatever it may be. There's a way to write about this without either doing propaganda for or against the group, which is the entire point. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to create a new section to address this (per above), but will reply here instead.

Editors (who, from what I can tell, never touched this page before this week) continue to add a new second paragraph to this article (most recently here) without attempting to obtain a consensus, and without addressing legitimate concerns that have been raised about this content. As some of those objections have been buried in other threads, I will summarize those objections here, and ask that these objections be resolved before reverting again. Apologies for the repetition.

• A neutral and representative lede section could absolutely include reference to the media/arts organizations established by Falun Gong adherents, particularly the most notable ones, like the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Scholars tend to situate this as part of a broader claim-making strategy that the Falun Gong community adopted as a response to the suppression in China (refer to Ownby, Penny, Junker, Noakes, et al.), and that seems the appropriate context in which to address this.
• Putting this information into the second paragraph of the article is narratively incongruous, and assigns it undue weight and prominence in the article. The creation of the Epoch Times and Shen Yun, along with other Falun Gong activism, can only be understood in light of Falun Gong's broader history and its suppression in China: these are essentially activities undertaken by members of an exiled diaspora community, as a response to a persecution. Narrative cohesion thus demands that we first introduce the facts of Falun Gong's suppression, and then explain Falun Gong's response, of which these properties are undoubtedly a part. The final paragraph of the lede has historically been the place where Falun Gong's overseas activism is mentioned, and that is where it makes most sense to include a reference to these organizations.
• The statement that Falun Gong "administers" the Epoch Times does not accord with the source. While it is beyond dispute that the Epoch Times was founded by persons who practice Falun Gong, this is not the same as being owned, operated, or administered by Falun Gong itself. There are groups that serve as quasi-official mouthpieces or press offices for Falun Dafa (e.g. the "Falun Dafa Information Center"), but the Epoch Times is not one of them. It should suffice to say that the Epoch Times is an initiative undertaken by adherents of Falun Gong, or that it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, or similar. Because that much is absolutely clear.
• There's the question of neutrality, including WP:WEIGHT. We need to try to present issues from a neutral point of view. What does that look like? Well, just as we would not heap praise on the Epoch Times in the lede section by, say, noting the journalistic awards it has won, neither should we try to define it by cherry-picking the critical sources that we like. Both approaches serve propagandistic purposes, and run a risk of WP:recentism. The lede section of an article on Falun Gong is simply not the place to hash out arguments about the editorial merits or defects of a newspaper, or to debate its place within a Chinese-language media ecosystem, or whatever else. Remember: our goal is not to induce readers to think well, or poorly, of the Epoch Times.
• With respect to the statement that Shen Yun promotes anti-LGBTQ and anti-evolution messaging, this appears to have very thin support, and furthermore fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. The claim about anti-LGBT messaging is not directly supported in the source; the source contains one passing reference to "homophobia," but the context is ambiguous (e.g. is that a reference to Falun Gong teachings, or to a particular scene in Shen Yun's performance? Not clear). Other editors have noted this concern elsewhere. In any case, this is not a neutral or representative description of Shen Yun, and it certainly doesn't belong in the second paragraph of an article about the faith system of Falun Gong.TheBlueCanoe 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

These attempts at promoting a sanitized version of the present article grow more strained by the day. There's no worming around or dodging the many, many media sources that have come to regularly report on this stuff since the Falun Gong's involvement in the 2016 US presidential election. Just one recent example, as discussed among many other references in a section of this talk page above:

• Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020.

Quote:

Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Relatively unknown before 2016, Epoch Times enjoyed a surge in traffic after the presidential election thanks to stridently pro-Trump content. NBC News reported in 2017 that the site was drawing millions of visitors a year, more than The New York Times and CNN combined. But Falun Gong didn’t restrict its pro-Trump stance to the paper.

The organization and its media extensions are well known for its anti-LGBQT and anti-evolution stances, its promotion of conspiracies, and its funding of extreme-right politics, just to name a few. While it's alarming that this article has gone so long without mentioning what it is today best known for, 'defenses' like the above two demonstrate how this has gone on for so long. (@Fiveby:, @TheBlueCanoe: mentioned you as "other editors" by way of a diff, fwiw) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issues noted above. There are millions of things that have been written about Falun Gong in reliable sources. In determining what the lede of this article should consist of, we need to consider that material as a whole to determine that the most important, fair, and proportional representations are. You have just alleged that Falun Gong is "best known for" its "funding of extreme-right politics", "promotion of conspiracies" and "anti-LGBQT stances." That is a remarkable and unsupported claim. Perhaps that is what you associate with Falun Gong, but your personal opinions are not clearly reflected in the corpus of scholarly literature. I will ask again: are you willing to engage constructively and in good faith to address these substance of these concerns? TheBlueCanoe 17:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless you've been living under a rock, you'd be aware that the media coverage of these topics since 2016 has strongly emphasized the connections between Falun Gong, its extensions, and support of extreme right-wing politics and ideology in the US and abroad. It just so happens that Falun Gong extensions have been quite active politically since that time, and, in 2020, the new religious group is certainly most strongly associated with the activities of its extensions, especially The Epoch Times. That isn't likely to change anytime soon. No need to continue to invoke the invisible chorus of "other editors" for "consensus" when we have plenty of quality sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's tone down the rhetoric, shall we? I would like you to address the questions that I raised. These are all reasonable objections, which you have not addressed.

We can presumably agree, per WP:LEAD, that the lead section should summarize, from a neutral point of view, what the major features of a topic are, and that it should present facts in a manner that is intelligible and with appropriate relative emphasis or WP:WEIGHT. We determine that by surveying the best sources available to use, which in this case would include the books that have been written about Falun Gong, as well other sources such as human rights groups, think tanks, and news agencies. Do you agree? If so, and setting aside even the question of factual accuracy and neutrality, your edit clearly fails to adhere to these requirements. I'll give an example. The topic of organ harvesting from Falun Gong adherents has received substantial, renewed media attention in the last two or three years. Last year an expert tribunal, headed by a famed international jurist, found the Chinese party-state has sanctioned the large-scale killing of Falun Gong adherents for their organs. There are at least three books that deal extensively with this issue, along with several academic journal articles. In short, thousands of pages of reliably sourced material has been written about the issue of organ harvesting from Falun Gong adherents. By contrast, less than one full sentence has been written in a reliable source about Shen Yun's alleged anti-LGBQT messaging (whether the "homophobia" in question was even properly credited to Shen Yun is, as I said, unclear). And yet you have given this more prominence in this article than thousands upon thousands of pages written about organ harvesting. You have edit warred to enforce your position, over the justified objections of other editors. This is just such bizarre behaviour.TheBlueCanoe 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We can mention organ harvesting in the lede and emphasize repression in China more, but thats not an argument to exclude the other stuff... Including their undisputed control over the Epoch Times and Shen Yun and the fact that Shen Yun’s messaging is at times extremely homophobic. Denying basic facts of reality like those is to me much more bizarre behaviour. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, please stop trying to use wikipedia to push the agenda/view of your organization. WP:NOTHERE conduct like this will not be tolerated much longer. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm inclining more and more to take this to ArbCom.

In the mean time, you may want to dial back the unsupported talk page claims and ad hominem. TheBlueCanoe 17:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That'd be more productive activity than your daily attemptd to scrub the article, and may well get more editors to help in improving the article. It currently reads largely as a promotional piece composed by the organization and needs a lot of work to get it into a neutral state. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

To me it still looks like the concerns User:BlueCanoe raised above have not been addressed by editors who have taken the initiative to rewrite the article. While I don't question that the rewriters have legitimate concerns, we're not really seeing any discussion over the relative weight of the newly proposed sources. The editors seem particularly favorable toward progressive (leftist) descriptions of the movement; for example, Jia Tolentino of the New Yorker Magazine is former Deputy Editor of Jezebel, which has been ranked just a half notch to the right from extreme left by mediabiasfactcheck.com . Similar political orientation, to a lesser degree, has been recognized in the New Yorker , MSNBC , NBC News , and others. My personal political leanings don't matter, but I'm a classical liberal, and therefore this really caught my eye.

Note that I am not claiming that these sources somehow fail WP:RS. They don't. In my view, these viewpoints should be presented fairly and honestly. It is their due weight in relation to other sources (or, if you prefer, the due weight of other sources in relation to them) that should be discussed on the talk page. There is no legitimate basis for constructing a narrative that mostly omits non-progressive media outlets and peer-reviewed academic publications, or tries to manufacture an impression of a consensus based on a cherry-picked selection of reliable sources. Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and undue weight, "just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I am not suggesting that I have the answers, and I probably don't need to keep repeating that I have refrained from both editing and reverting. What I'm saying is that these matters need to be hashed out very carefully. (This is even more the case since we all know the movement is actively persecuted by a party that (nominally) identifies as extreme left and has a fair amount of leverage in the West as well.)

This applies equally to those who would prefer to have the article read like a Falun Gong puff piece, and those who believe that Reality has a well known liberal bias. And even if you don't agree with all of Larry Sanger's points (I don't), I think it's evident that we're dealing with an interpretation of WP:NPOV that is fundamentally opposed to giving due weight to WP:RS, and instead seeks to construct a narrative based on certain ontological and epistemological presuppositions, such as secular materialism. I repeat once again my previous comment: this does not look like encyclopedia-building. Rather, it has started to look more and more like a struggle for definitional power. And as much as I agree with his point about the NRM label, I regret to say that User:Bloodofox seems to be spearheading these efforts without too much concern for addressing all the legitimate concerns that User:BlueCanoe has recently put forward. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Bstephens393 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Resorting to a strategy of attacking the credibility of a journalist at The New Yorker, the experts she interviews, and, ahem, "liberals" will take this conversation exactly nowhere. This particular journalist is literally one of thousands writing about this topic. None of this is any secret now. Take those attacks on coverage by The New Yorker to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see how that works out for you, otherwise you are wasting your time and mine. While you're at it, if one glance at this ad-covered amateur site didn't indicate to you that it is an obvious WP:RS fail, then this thread at RSN will help. This coverage from the The New Yorker is very firmly in compliance with WP:RS.

Additionally, the new religious movement discussion is gone and over—there are simply far, far too many high-quality sources that flatly refer to the organization as a new religious movement over the past few decades. No attempt at mudying the waters is going to make that fact any less clear.

The article is certainly currently composed as a puff piece, avoiding mention of the extensive political and financial involvements of the organization and its extensions beyond the second paragraph, which the editor you're often chiming in to support attempts to remove daily. These daily attempts at scrubbing the article of mention for what the organization is today best known are not serving the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Then address the concerns, discuss the relative weight of the sources in relation to others, seek to build bridges, consider others' viewpoints, and present your case constructively and in good faith. I did not make any complaints about WP:RS here, which you should be able to see just by rereading my comment above. The question is about the relative weight of various reliable sources and what is considered a fair and accurate description based on all the available WP:RS. I understand that you prefer action over discussion, but you seem to be extremely dismissive of anybody who disagrees with your Archimedean point. Be a discussant, not an activist. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please notify me when you open that RSN thread about The New Yorker, mediabiasfactcheck.com, and "liberals". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would I open a RSN thread when I have never complained about the reliability of a source? Are you saying that, for example, these characterizations have nothing to do with reality, either? Do you think all reliable sources are required to be politically "neutral"? Or did you experience some cognitive dissonance and did not even want to consider the point I was making? I'm at a loss for words here. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The community college course link you've provided, which contains a graphic from allsides.com that places, for example, Jacobin and MSNBC in the same "left" political bracket and says that mediabiasfactcheck.com "is listed WITH SERIOUS RESERVATIONS", is (while humorous) irrelevant here. Here's a direct link to RSN, where such discussion would be far more appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously the granularity of that graphic is coarse, but that does not refute my essential point: there is a correlation between the sources you deem the most pertinent and their positioning in several appraisals of their political leanings (not reliability). Your comments are based on the assumption that we're discussing the WP:RS policy, but we're not. Or at least I am not. Just to make it clear: we're not in disagreement about that policy. What we seem to disagree about is the proper (and, in the case of a controversial article, mandated) procedure for discussing the due and relative weight of a very large corpus of peer-reviewed academic literature about the subject matter, as well as a very large corpus of WP:RS newspaper articles. This is what needs our full focus, and it involves good faith and a willingness to treat fellow editors as peers, not as subordinates. Let's all just keep WP:Five pillars in mind, shall we? Bstephens393 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh, just coming back to this. So what is the actual reason for the second paragraph, as it stands now? It's still not clear to me. It seems clear that these forms of activism are an important part of the Falun Gong experience, but the inclusion of the anti-evolution thing here is bizarre (not only the content), and it's still not clear why it's all meant to go in the lead?? Why not say that Cate Blanchette watched the performance (just to pick a random pro-Falun talking point for argument's sake)? What is the point of all this?

I think an important question is whether or not the media and other organizations are actually administered centrally by the Falun Gong. From what I can tell so far, technically there is no such thing as a central Falun Gong organization, but I'm happy to be corrected. This would make relationship between these entities and this page a bit more complex.

I am getting quite curious about all this. For the editors who have more experience on the topic, apart from the fairly sensational media articles that keep getting quoted, what should I read and what scholars should I look at? I have done some drive-by stuff on this page from time to time, and my main interests lie elsewhere, but the acrimony has piqued my interest. It obviously does not seem a matter of reliable sources alone? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve never seen a WP:RS say that Falun Gong doesn't have a central administrative structure, that argument seem to be made entirely by Falun Gong followers. Why would a religious group with no central administrative structure make a palatial compound in upstate New York to house its administrative structure... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that your reading of the academic literature on Falun Gong is extremely thin. That Falun Gong has a diffuse, horizontal network structure, rather than a centralized and hierarchical administration, is very well established by the scholarly sources who have conducted the relevant field work and research. This doesn't mean there is no organization at all, but that it is deliberately weak "as a point of doctrinal significant," as one source put it. No system of membership, no tithing, no direct intervention in the lives of followers, no clergy or ranks, none of that. This is all in peer-reviewed and academic sources.TheBlueCanoe 14:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just a comment about the homophobia point: it’s not solely restricted to a passing mention in the New Yorker. For instance,

  Falun Gong has moralistic, socially conservative beliefs, preaching against homosexuality and sex out of wedlock.
  — The Guardian

  Among them, Li has railed against what he called the wickedness of homosexuality, feminism and popular music while holding that he is a god-like figure who can levitate and walk through walls. Hurley, who wrote for The Epoch Times until he left in 2013, said he saw practitioners in leadership positions begin drawing harder and harder lines about acceptable political positions.
  “Their views were always anti-abortion and homophobic, but there was more room for disagreements in the early days,” he said.
  — NBC News

  Ma, who faced intense pressure from the city's Chinese community not to vote for the resolution, also came under attack because of Falun Gong's antigay teachings
  — Bay Area Reporter

  — MarkH₂₁ 15:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

All are references to the conservative sexual morality of Falun Gong, but not to Shen Yun. The New Yorker reporter appears to have conflated the two things as well.

As a curious aside, it's fascinating how much importance these left-wing outlets assign to teachings on sexuality, given the relative lack of importance accorded to it in Falun Gong's own precepts, and the non-existent place in Falun Gong advocacy. That a Chinese Buddhist faith system would have conservative values around sexuality is...not that shocking, honestly.TheBlueCanoe 14:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Its inappropriate to say that the reporter for a WP:RS is conflating the two when obviously they aren’t, the Shen Yun performance they attended was homophobic... End of story. If you would like to take this to RSN please do, otherwise drop the stick Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Last Paragraph of the Lead Section

@Horse Eye Jack: canceled a lot well sourced materials without a reasonable explanation, I have the following questions for you:

• You said "That doesnt reflect the talk page discussion". but on this talk page, if you check, you can find a few users noted on talk page that for the sentences starting with “Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad…” are not covered. I checked and found these notes are true. If you disagree, please quote the words from the sources showing sentences with the same or a similar meaning. I also found another line in the same paragraph “The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun” is not covered in the sources. if you can find similar lines supporting this statement, please quote them here. Otherwise, please do not add back not supported materials.
• The contents from the sources including Newsweekly, ABC AUS, MSNBC, SF Chronicle, Forbes, SF Gates, WSJ, etc, seem to be reliable. they should not be deleted. Precious Stone 18:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"If you disagree, please quote the words from the sources showing sentences with the same or a similar meaning” I already did as did others, stop WP:beating a dead horse. Adding sources and information to the lead which are not in the text of the article is inappropriate, no matter what the source is (you also appear to be misusing those sources, but thats a separate issue). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

i just ctrl+F your name on this page, cannot find any related quotes, could you please copy to this section of the talk page. i doubt it exists, as i checked the sources.

now you are saying "Adding sources and information to the lead which are not in the text of the article is inappropriate" the sources 20-25 in this lead section seem to have been added in recent weeks. you added them as well?

i provided quotes from the sources. you can compare the quotes from the contents. nothing misused there. Precious Stone 19:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The text you seek to add is riddles with spelling and grammar errors, please don’t vandalize the lead like that. Its also not appropriate to say that Shen Yun isn’t a part of FG when that contradicts the sources given. You knew you did not have consensus for this edit, why did you make it again? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to correct any spelling or grammar errors. Your other accusation has no ground. I never said shen yun isn't a part of FG. On the contrary, I specified FG followers formed Shen Yun in 2006 by providing source and citing the related lines from the source. You have never provided any citing to support the claim “The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun”, nor to the lines “Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad…” Yesterday you claimed “I already did as did others“. This is simply not true. Nobody did that. In fact, there is nothing like these lines in the sources. You are adding WP:OR to the article. A few spelling errors cannot be called vandalizing, but adding WP:OR content and lied about it could be vandalizing the lead page, and so could the deleting a lot of RS. Precious Stone 18:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What OR content have I added? Shen Yun is based out of the headquarters of FG in upstate New York btw and is part of FG , thats well covered by the sources in the article. From NBC "The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP:OR contents you added were at least the line “The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun”, and the line starting with “Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad…”.

I have asked you about source evidences of these lines for 2 times, as per WP:V. You never provided them, and falsely claimed that you and others did.

Once again, I already told you I never said “shen yun isn't a part of FG. On the contrary, I specified FG followers formed Shen Yun in 2006 by providing source and citing the related lines from the source“. btw, your Business Insider source said Chinese experts view Shen Yun as part of falun gong's elaborate and well-put together public relation plan. That is different with your words.

Your NBC source considered this group as outreach effort of falun gong. Both Business Insider and NBC source have quite different meanings with the two lines we are talking about.

You are welcome to change the two OR lines with similar meanings from these two sources. other sources, like the NYT, if they did not touch this area, they should not be used to support the claims. In addition, you should add back the well sourced other materials. Precious Stone 20:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your response is incomprehensible, do you think you can boil it down to a single line? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

i just put them into separate paragraphs. Please review them again. The main point is that your cited contents from the two sources do not support your edit on the article page. Precious Stone 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have missed "Shen Yun rehearses at the compound when it isn't touring cities including London, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington.” among other things in that article. Sources have now been repeatedly provided for those statements and they are to be found in the body of the article. The NBC piece seems to *exactly* match the contentions made about both, they aren’t just founded by followers they are part of the religion. I won’t be adding the rest of the material, its due perhaps a line or two more but lets save the paragraphs for the body. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, your cited words "Shen Yun rehearses at the compound when it isn't touring cities including London, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington.” have nothing to do with the two lines we are talking about.

The NBC piece does not match the two lines at all, as I have discussed above.

In the body of the articles, i also did not see anything like these two lines either.

You can add anything mentioned in the sources, but you are not suppose to add original research. Any one is not allowed to misrepresent a source for promoting one's own narrative in Misplaced Pages.Precious Stone 22:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I would characterize this debate as follows: User:Horse Eye Jack is inferring from the source, and User:Precious Stone is calling that WP:OR. I agree that we can't assume that the source implies something that is not explicitly stated. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Marvin 2009 is proposing significant changes to the lead and calling the status quo WP:OR. I have made no independent edits just a revert, however the original wording is supported by the reliable sources we have. If other users feel we need to flesh that out more in the body I think we could definitely add a few paragraphs in addition to the scattered sentences we have now. We certainly have the sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bstephens393's is right on. Yes, what happening here is "User:Horse Eye Jack is inferring from the source." which is against the statement from WP:SYNTHESIS:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

According to the editing history, yes, User:Horse Eye Jack did not add those original research at the first place, but when others tried to fix the errors, User:Horse Eye Jack defended them in use of many false statements, as shown below

• 1 when I asked source evidences of these lines, as per WP:V. User:Horse Eye Jack did not provide, but falsely claimed that he and others did.
• 2 when I continued to ask about the supporting sources for the two lines, User:Horse Eye Jack provided a line from one source: "Shen Yun rehearses at the compound when it isn't touring cities including London, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington.” However, this has nothing to do with the two lines we are talking about.
• 3 User:Horse Eye Jack's claim "Sources have now been repeatedly provided for those statements and they are to be found in the body of the article. " is entirely false as well.
• 4 User:Horse Eye Jack's claim "The NBC piece seems to *exactly* match the contentions made about both" is not true either. You may go ahead to exactly cite these a few words from this NBC source (or describe the same meaning in use of your own words) for replacing the two original research lines. But you should not infer from the source, as per WP:SYNTHESIS. Plus, other 5 sources cannot be misused for supporting these two lines.
• 5 User:Horse Eye Jack's claim " the original wording is supported by the reliable sources we have. If other users feel we need to flesh that out more in the body I think we could definitely add a few paragraphs in addition to the scattered sentences we have now. We certainly have the sources." First, there is no source among the provided 6 sources that support those two lines. Secondly, now are you acknowledging your earlier claim "they are to be found in the body of the article" is false? If you believe those contents already exist in the body, why do you think you need add more. In fact, they do not exist in the body either.

In conclusion, there is no supporting materials from the provided sources for those two lines. The king does not wear clothes :) Precious Stone 13:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to wait to have consensus before making your edit. I have reverted you. Your arguments are bleeding into WP:PA and your assertions are incorrect. Please WP:AGF and respect WP:CIVILITY. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I moved the citations around, it now more than satisfies WP:BURDEN. As such my work here is done. You however still need to get consensus for each individual change you wish to make, you will need to provide an explanation of each change you intend to make to the article. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You said “I moved the citations around, it now more than satisfies WP:BURDEN.” Please be aware that your edit made a source used for the same line twice. This cannot satisfied WP:BURDEN at all. Plus, none of the sources support the content.

I have explained each edit I recently did on the page in great details. You failed to provide any constructive argument, except for those false statements I listed above.

To list one’s own untruthful words is not a kind of WP:PA. It was to seek your further explanation.

It is good that you remember we should follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, however, they are not manifested in each revert you recently did. I said you may add any sourced content you would like to add and you should not keep those WP:OR. This was to respect WP:NOR, WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.

You also remove many reliable sources. This is against WP:NPOV.

When those WP:OR lines were recently added at the first place. You did not ask for any discussion or consensus. Now when I provided reliable source to fix errors, I did provide detailed reason for each edit, and discussed with you here. It is clear that those WP:OR words have no source to support. Precious Stone 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” I have satisfied that condition. Where did you provide explanations for your individual edits? Also its not OR... And looking at the edit history I don’t think it ever was, these appear to be very basic and reasonable descriptions of available reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

nope, you did not, since your statements were false (as listed above one by one) and your cited lines from the sources are quite far from the two lines. For the reliable sources i added in, i often quoted the lines from the sources, so any one can easily compare the quotes with actually added contents. You failed to provide any quote from the sources that support those lines.Precious Stone 18:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a comically bad edit, with a clear agenda to portray the group as harmless victims, while downplaying and obfuscating the new religious movement's close involvement with far-right politics and conspiracy theory mongering via its media extensions. We have multiple sources that outright refer to these extensions, particularly Shen Yun as, for example, propaganda. Attempting to obfuscate and hide activity from an organization like this on Misplaced Pages is a lost cause: Misplaced Pages isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

With respect to WP:BURDEN, a reminder that the lede section was very stable for years. It was substantially altered by Bloodofox beginning a few weeks ago. Legitimate concerns were raised regarding Bloodofox's edits with respect to WP:LEAD, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, including WP:WEIGHT. These concerns have been repeatedly raised, and never addressed. Instead, users have edit warred to enforce their preferred version, and repeatedly accused other editors of acting in bad faith. This is not a platform for activism, and it is not a battleground. The recent additions, which you folks appear to have been warring over, has the same problems as Bloodofox's earlier, contested additions, and I have reverted. TheBlueCanoe 21:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

These "concerns" that were "repeaedly raised" were done so by a bunch of single-issue editors and new editors who just happened to be aggressively pushing for a lack of inclusion of media coverage since 2016. This particular editor has been pushing hard to scrub the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Extreme-right"

In the lead, The Epoch Times is described as promoting extreme-right politics. There are 3 sources provided: NYT, New Republic, and

Yes, I would be wary of using language like "extreme right-wing," particularly when the label is applied by sources that are quite far to the left, where perceptions of what constitutes "extreme" are....rather strained. Support for Trump is not evidence of "extreme" right-wing tendencies. TheBlueCanoe 21:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• Religion articles needing attention
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles