Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 28 July 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

RfC on describing Falun Gong as a new religious movement

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

Should this article say in the lead that Falun Gong is a new religious movement? Doug Weller talk 08:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A - Yes.
B - No.

!Votes

Note that this is not a ballot and the closer will make a decision based upon the quality of the arguments.

• Weak yes but for wholly OR reasons. It seems to be it meets the overly wide definition of what religion is today.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, it clearly is one. If Buddhism is a religion, even though many of its practitioners are atheists, then Falun Gong is certainly one too. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, there are many RSes that describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica and countless academic sources. Just a few examples:
  • Chapter in an Oxford University Press book
  • peer-reviewed East Asian studies journal article
  • peer-reviewed sociology journal article
  • peer-reviewed sociology journal article
  • peer-reviewed communications journal article
  • peer-reviewed academic journal article
  . — MarkH₂₁ 10:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The article already mentions that academics of religion label it a new religious movement and doesn't provide any academic counterexamples. Followers of the religion really only reject the label because:
  - they want potential supporters and converts to think it's complementary to whatever belief system they already hold (c.f. similar attempts by Scientology and Trancendental Meditation).
  - they think the religion is the correct and eternal form of the Qigong practices that all historical Buddhist and Taoist sects imperfectly imitated and corrupted. (Vajrayana in turn has a comparable history of claiming to be much older than it really is, so I guess that part is traditional).
  Neither of those reasons is part of our mission. The only reason to not label it as such would be a level of WP:GEVAL on par with listing Mormonism as the religion of the Kingdom of Judah. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes I don’t know why we would treat them differently from any other new religious movement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• A (yes) Even if there were followers of FLG ideology in earlier times, its existence as a large, cohesive spiritual organization with leadership and codified tenets (Teachings of Falun Gong, 1992) is undoubtedly "new". Its leader claims practicing this "higher form of qigong" (that he discovered) allows one to attain Tao...alongside "supernormal abilities and gong potency" like levitation...which are not possible with the lower levels of qigong people were practicing earlier. This distinction especially--that only his qigong methods and teachings lead to higher states of being--disqualifies FLG from being truly "ancient". As for the religion aspect:
  • FLG has an origin story for mankind.
  • In Falun Dafa Li proposes general religious themes like central tenets and "evils" to avoid, and then formulates a detailed, systematic doctrine outlining a path to salvation.
  • As with other religions (and cults), "bad things" are ascribed to the machinations of unseen/unrecognized beings or wills--in FLG, these are aliens that have come to Earth to take over humans' perfect bodies (by fomenting the conflicts that stimulate technological progress, which eventually will lead to our ability to clone humans, to whom "the gods in heaven will not give ... a human soul", allowing the aliens to replace the soul.) These evil beings manifest more often and more clearly as you progress through the cultivation process, and you must guard your xinxing against mounting "demonic interference" (taking the form of sexy ladies and telephones ringing when you're trying to do exercises).
  • "Good things" like being healed are of course attributed to the cultivation system, and "if your illness has not been cured, that is ... an issue of your enlightenment quality". (And if your illness later returns, it's actually not the same illness but rather "tribulations" arranged by Master Li to improve your mind-nature; if you are a true cultivator you can no longer get "human" illnesses because " been busy coming in and out of " curing you. Even if you don't feel cured). JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes it is what it is and that is why many reliable independent sources describe it as such. We could even consider the current mention overcited. —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes until there are good alternatives. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No - not as the single, master description, but Yes as one of several labels or categories that has been used to describe the practice.

That is the nature of the dispute here, which was not captured by the original question.

No one on the relevant talk page has argued that the NRM label should be excised, or that it is not used by reliable sources. Rather, the question is whether it is the term that should be given prominence in the first sentence of the article on Falun Gong, or whether there are better options. Academic sources describe Falun Gong using several different terms, often interchangeably (e.g. a religion, a religious movement, a qigong practice, a 'cultivation practice,' a spiritual discipline, and so forth). At least two scholars have argued that the "New Religious Movement" label does not make sense as a description for Falun Gong. Given that such a dispute exists, and that other descriptors may be more accurate, this should not be the single, authoritative definition used to describe Falun Gong. (Note that until last month, the lead sentence referred to Falun Gong simply as a "religious practice," and earlier versions used "spiritual practice.") TheBlueCanoe 04:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per MarkH21's sources, this appears to be the most common label and we should follow RS accoding to core content policy. buidhe 00:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• No(t as the main definition). But it's complicated.

  The question as posed is leading. The question could have also been "Should Falun Gong be called a religion/spiritual practice/discipline/etc. in the lead?" To which one would also have to say "yes, along with the other ways it has been classified."

  It is unclear why New Religious Movement should be the primary or controlling classification. It is not clear that it is the most common "label" - and in any case, good social science (and tertiary sources) proceed not by labeling things, but by describing them.

  I would modestly suggest that we editors not be too ready to "read into" a phenomenon like Falun Gong Western-oriented styles of thinking and classification, and instead examine the anthropological and area literature that has focused on such phenomenon, situating them in a specific Chinese cultural context.

This is what I came up with at my university library in 40 minutes of digging. I am sure there is a great deal more to it.

The question of classification is not simple in any social science, especially on matters of religion.

I do not think we have any warrant to simply override all this and declare a "master definition" to which all others are subservient due to our particular tastes.

What was the description before all this? Based on the above, I think if there has to be a single master definition, it be the most widely accepted — i.e. "religion" or "religious practice" — with the various alternatives then given in the appropriate place ("self cultivation practice," "new religious movement," "social movement," "spiritual discipline" etc. etc.)

"Religious practice" or "religion" is already covered by "new religious movement." The latter is primarily a sociological classification that is disputed in the literature and is only one among a number of classifications available for Falun Gong. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Reliable sources—including handbooks on new religious movements—flatly and overwhelmingly refer to Falun Gong as a new religious movement. This is only really controversial to adherents, particularly those who hope to veer the conversation away from discussion about Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong's compound headquarters in Deer Park, New York. It's fairly typical for groups like these to present themselves as 'ancient' and as a 'spiritual movement' to obfuscate their pyramid-shaped structure, but Misplaced Pages isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For readers unaware, here are just a few examples of how unequivical scholars are about this observation:

• Barker, Eileen. 2016. Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, cf. 142–43. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1317063612
• Clarke, Peter. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1134499694
• Hexham, Irving. 2009. Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, pp. 49, 71. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0830876525
• Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, pp. 23–24, 33, 119, 207. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1108655897 ("Even though Falun Gong began as a quigong group, it is now widely regarded as a new religious movement", p. 33)
• Oliver, Paul. 2012. New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 81–84. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781441125538
• Ownby, David. 2005. "The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China" in Lewis, James R. & Jesper Aagaard. Editors. Controversial New Religions, 195–96. Oxford University Press.
• Partridge, Christopher. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, 265–66. Lion. ISBN 978-0745950730.

And if that didn't make it clear, and although adherents will claim otherwise, there's nothing remotely controversial about this in academia—we have plenty of quotes like, "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions. Oxford University Press.) :bloodofox: (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. And yes, maybe there is some historical nugget, but, like Mao's co-option of "traditional" Chinese medicine, any resemblance to the historical is largely coincidence. Guy (help!) 22:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Very strong No, not as a bald statement. Nathan868 was not looking at the full breadth of scholarship on May 10 when he changed the wording from "Chinese religious practice" to "Chinese new religious movement". Bloodofox doubled down on the previous term by adding the adjective "overwhelmingly" while citing a bunch of sources, but even these did not tap the breadth of scholarship. Some of Bloodofox's sources describe the Falun Gong in complex or multiple terms, for instance Andrew Junker who calls it first a social activist group and then a religious movement. And his James Lewis source is from 2005, before Lewis learned more about the movement and radically changed his position. His 2018 book Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom is a much better assessment. We should call the Falun Gong a political activist movement that evolved into a religious movement in order to carry out its goals. The chronology is critically important here. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Junker himself repeatedly refers to the group as a new religious movement throughout his book, as cited in the article (p. 33: "Even though Falun Gong began as a quigong group, it is now widely regarded as a new religious movement"; p. 24: "a politicized new religious movement", p. 29: "not only is Falun Gong a new religious movement, it is also a case of a charismatic community led by the heroism of a faith healer turned messianic preacher", etc.). It is indisputable that academic sources in fact overwhelmingly refer to the group as a new religious movement, as has now been repeatedly demonstrated. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it ought to be stated as a new religious movement since there are several reliable sources pointing it out to be a religious movement. Idealigic (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but this need not be exclusive of other terms. Despite others editors' assertions to the contrary, I find the question in the RFC ambiguous. If the question is whether that should be the primary description to the exclusion of all others, I don't think so. I see no compelling reason to prevent the use of other descriptive terms also found in reliable sources. As others have mentioned, it can be problematic to honestly identify that "most" reliable sources use a particular phrasing, especially considering there may be many less-known but equally reliable (by wikipedia standards) sources that we're unaware of. However, just using the language "new religious movement" is clearly supported by reliable sources and I see no non-idealogical argument that would prevent the use of that term alongside others that come from reliable sources. Arathald (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly FG is regarded as a NRM by sources. To be honest, my natural impulse would be to call it just a new religion (I don't see the purpose/meaning of "movement" in the context of religion), but it seems sources like the term NRM very much. That certainly does not mean we couldn't use another description in addition to NRM to describe FG's other facets. Notrium (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, David Ownby nailed it. It's the most apt categorisation I have come across to date. -- Ohc  22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• @TheBlueCanoe: There were an awful lot of edits that removed the words newreligious movement from the lead sentence entirely though.It’s the most common descriptor by RSes compared to the example alternatives that you list, so it’s not unreasonable for it to be the sole descriptor in just the first sentence.Regardless, you have a proposal for an alternative lead sentence incorporating the other terms? — MarkH₂₁ 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not actually clear that it is "the most common." But even if it were numerically, the books by Benjamin Penny, Junqing Wu, David Ownby, and Ming Xiao all suggest that the matter is far more complex. They do not primarily adopt this classification, but others like folk religion, lay religion, religion, etc. All of those sources are embedded in the native linguistic and cultural context of Falun Gong; quite different from a Western discipline (new religious studies) whose primary function is in a sense precisely about sociological abstractions. This is the point Ownby is making above. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Cleopatran Apocalypse: A handful of sources that apply different labels or debate categorization doesn't change that; Misplaced Pages reflects what most RSes say. Regarding your specific quotes:
  • All of the quotes from Weihsuan Lin just say that they have spiritual practices, rather than call Falun Gong a spiritual practice.
  • You quote Benjamin Penny's uses of other labels; he himself has also written (bolding mine):

    Falun Gong is a new religious movement that grew out of the widespread enthusiasm for qigong during the 1980s and early 1990s in China.
    — Benjamin Penny, Chapter 28: Falun Gong from Handbook of East Asian New Religious Movements, Brill Publishers, 2018.

  • You also quote David Ownby who himself wrote a book chapter called The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China as well as (bolding mine):

    There is little doubt that the most objective Western scholars would categorise Falun Gong as a new religious movement.
    Falun Gong is now undoubtedly the best known of Chinese new religious movements
    — Ownby, David (2003). "The Falun Gong in the New World". European Journal of East Asian Studies. 2 (2): 303–320.

Nobody is saying that these labels are mutually exclusive, but it's pretty clear that a vast number of RSes describe it firstly and plainly as a new religious movement. There's no reading into this from editors; the examples I listed above are good social science (and tertiary sources) from reputable academic journals across a variety of disciplines and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and there are countless others. — MarkH₂₁ 06:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both (@MarkH21: and @Cleopatran Apocalypse:) for the measured analysis. We could use more of it.

I'm curious how you think we could establish what "most RS" say, or what the most common term is among academics studying FLG. It seems to me that, before we can assert with confidence that this is what most sources use, we would need to do a pretty extensive survey of the academic literature and actually try to do a quantitative (and qualitative) assessment. That would be a major undertaking, and I can't claim to have done this. But having read most of the major scholarly texts on this topic, it seems to me that is no consensus on how to describe the practice, as so much of it is contingent both on the cultural context and the scholarly discipline (e.g. sociologists may be more partial to NRM, while historians of China may use terms that are more adapted to that culture). While there are indeed large numbers of RS that use the NRM label, there are at least as many that use "religion," "religious movement," "faith system," "qigong," "cultivation practice," etc.

So, given that we don't know what term "most" academics use, and that scholars in fact use many different labels interchangeably and with great frequency, what criterion should we apply when deciding what description to give? Three things come to mind (you may have more ideas):

• It should be a term that has broad support among reliable sources, particularly academic sources
• It should be as accurate as possible (which may also mean it should be quite a broad category)
• It should be a term that is at least somewhat accessible and recognizable to an English-speaking audience
• Insofar as some categories are contested, it should be as neutral as possible,

Is that reasonable? If we can agree on this, then settling on a word would be easier. TheBlueCanoe 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the only term which fits the above criteria is New Religious Movement and thats exactly the term which is being objected to. We’d be right back at square one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. "Religion" or "religious practice" or similar also fits these criteria. So does "spiritual practice" or "spiritual discipline" or similar. We have options. But is there agreement that these criteria are appropriate? TheBlueCanoe 00:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but they don’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As I've had to explain to salespeople elsewhere on the site, synonyms aren't different things. "Contemporary" = new. "Spiritual" = religious ("Spiritual but not religious" just means "I'm enthusiastically indecisive about my religious beliefs, probably as a result of being more broadly than deeply educated about theology"). "Faith system" = religion. "Grouping" = movement. "Network" = movement. A contemporary faith system network is a new religious movement. A modern spiritual grouping is a new religious movement. The "other" terms that scholars are using are synonymous with New Religious Movement.
If FG wasn't centered around the teachings of Li Hongzhi, then FG sites wouldn't collect everything he's written and said to the exclusion of other Qigong teachers. Because Li was born just last century and (even if he is just rehashing older ideas) he disavows the authority of any surviving lineages that predate him, his teachings are new. These teachings might generally be about "self-cultivation" but explains it with and provides means that are well within the realm of religion (any attempt to label it "science" would require a "pseudo-" in front of it). And this is a distinct movement, or else all this would just be a couple of sentences in the Qigong article. It is not Chinese lay religion in toto as was inaccurately quoted earlier. It is a new religious movement, full stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone finally explain to me what the real issue is with a description along the lines of "Falun Gong has been described as x, y, , and z", as long as we identify the most common characterizations in reliable sources? Obviously NRM is one of them. To me it's clear that there are good arguments supporting various definitions, some of which overlap to a degree. I'm not in favor of any kind of ambiguous word salad, but the concept of a hermeneutic circle applies here as elsewhere: all parts are part of a whole, and nothing can be truly understood or defined without its cultural, historical and literary context. While I'm personally agnostic about all kinds of spiritual matters, I know enough about Chinese history, culture and the classics of comparative religion to oppose reductionism and oversimplification. This dispute is between those who seek to pinpoint a single, specific ontological slot and those who believe that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source that should simply describe what reliable secondary sources are saying. My understanding is that the latter is what WP:NPOV is all about, and that it is also a guardrail against ideological or tendentious editing, even when it is not immediately apparent to the vested parties.

To draw attention to just some of the complexities, I'm quoting Noah Porter's thesis , with a reference to Xu Jian's article in The Journal of Asian Studies:

"Falun Gong was first introduced to the Chinese public as a qigong practice, not as a religion or superstition (although even in China, these boundaries been contested). Qigong is primarily seen as a way to keep healthy rather than a religion; the Chinese government has generally tried to encourage it as a science and discourage religious or supernatural elements. However, the category of science in China tends to include things that are generally not considered scientific in the West, including qigong and traditional Chinese medicine (Kipnis 2001: 36). “Chinese traditions assume a profound interpenetration of matter and spirit, body and soul Like most qigong practitioners, Falun Gong do not make a clear distinction between physical and spiritual healing” (Madsen 2000: 244). Even within qigong, there have been struggles between science and supernaturalism: Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists—so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted. In it, two conflicting discourses became identifiable. Taking “discourse” in its contemporary sense as referring to forms of representation that generate specific cultural and historical fields of meaning, we can describe one such discourse as rational and scientific and the other as psychosomatic and metaphysical. Each strives to establish its own order of power and knowledge, its own “truth” about the “reality” of qigong, although they differ drastically in their explanation of many of its phenomena. The psychosomatic discourse emphasizes the inexplicable power of qigong and relishes its occult workings, whereas the rational discourse strives to demystify many of its phenomena and to situate it strictly in the knowledge of modern science. " Bstephens393 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Scholarship on the topic of the Falun Gong overwhelmingly and flatly refers to the Falun Gong as a typical new religious movement. Examples include the following:

• Barker, Eileen. 2016. Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements, cf. 142–43. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1317063612
• Clarke, Peter. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1134499694
• Hexham, Irving. 2009. Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements, pp. 49, 71. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0830876525
• Junker, Andrew. 2019. Becoming Activists in Global China: Social Movements in the Chinese Diaspora, pp. 23–24, 33, 119, 207. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1108655897
• Oliver, Paul. 2012. New Religious Movements: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 81–84. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781441125538
• Ownby, David. 2005. "The Falun Gong: A New Religious Movement in Post-Mao China" in Lewis, James R. & Jesper Aagaard. Editors. Controversial New Religions, 195–96. Oxford University Press.
• Partridge, Christopher. 2004. Encyclopedia of New Religions: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, 265–66. Lion. ISBN 978-0745950730.

And these are just a few extremely obvious examples from a span of over 15 years. We report on what reliable sources say, and reliable sources are not ambiguous on this matter. Media sources, on the other hand, note that the new religious movement is frequently referred to as a "cult" (a recent example), which is also quite typical for new religious movements. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats a very good point... I hadn’t noticed that the whole “use all valid descriptions” crowd has not once mentioned cult although that would unquestionable be on the short list if we’re making a list of valid ways to describe FG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The question that Bloodofox answered (repeatedly) is whether there are reliable sources that describe Falun Gong as NRM. That is not the question I posed. For instance, under this talk page section, the collapsed list of sources posted by User:Cleopatran Apocalypse contains various mainstream descriptions and their sources. None of the editors has provided the rationale for an exclusive master definition instead of an inclusive list of reliably sourced definitions, one of which is New Religious Movement. I keep wondering how many more times, and with how many alternative phrasings, this same-old question must be brought to our attention. (As for Business Insider, there is currently no consensus on its reliability.) Bstephens393 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of an inclusive and complex description rather than a cherry-picked exclusive master definition (as if such a thing would ever be representative of all the literature.) To me it looks like those in favor of the NRM label are looking for the presence of that phrase rather than looking at the complex breadth of descriptions in those same sources. And as I said in the above section, the Lewis source from 2005 is said by Lewis himself to be incompletely researched with faulty conclusions. Lewis wrote a much better book in 2018, Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, which followed his 2017 paper Understanding Falun Gong’s Martyrdom Strategy as Spiritual Terrorism. Lewis says he had "failed to keep up with the developing scholarship on Falun Gong" and, after a firm reassessment in 2015, he says the larger picture of Falun Gong showed itself to be complicated and contradictory. Lewis makes a strong case for the Falun Gong to be a cult following a charismatic leader, Li Hongzhi (LHZ), who clearly thinks of himself as "Buddha returned – or as a spiritual master superior to the historical Buddha." LHZ repeatedly calls for his followers to martyr themselves in defense of Falun Gong. Lewis also talks about how Falun Gong is very much a political organization, despite disavowals of that aim by LHZ. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Scholars use the phrase new religious movement for what is coloquially referred to as a cult. That's why media sources repeatedly refer to Falun Gong as a cult whereas scholars flatly and overwhelmingly refer to the group as a new religious movement.

The new religious movement itself, of course, would prefer the general public to think of it as an ancient tradition rather than a new religious movement financially and ideologically centered on Li Hongzhi—but that's not the reality of the situation, of course. This very typical of new religious movements.

But don't take it from me: "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions. Oxford University Press.:bloodofox: (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a question of what goes in the article at all, but about which is the very first definition provided. The Blue Canoe suggested that it be "a term that has broad support among reliable sources, particularly academic sources; be as accurate as possible (which may also mean it should be quite a broad category); be a term that is at least somewhat accessible and recognizable to an English-speaking audience; Insofar as some categories are contested, it should be as neutral as possible." These are sensible guidelines, and the responses so far have not disputed their appropriateness, or suggested other guidelines for adjudicating, nor responded to how X term is best justified with reference to those guidelines. They have simply asserted their preferred term. But given that we have a dispute, we need to have a common language for resolving it.

With this in mind... I think that terms like "traditional practice" or "faith community" lean a bit too much to one side, whereas terms like "social movement" and "New Religious Movement" lean too much to the other. All are valid descriptors in my mind, and there is space for all such classifications in the article... but as a single, simple, uncontested term (in the scholarship), I think that "religion" is fairly hard to go past. Something that is an NRM is perforce already a religion; i.e. NRM is simply a more specific description sociologists use for certain kinds of religions.

FLG does not like the "religion" description, because they are unincorporated (though its practitioners establish corporations themselves) - but it is manifestly a religion. Nor is the term "religion" a primarily sociological classification, or term of art, of only a few decades vintage, the application of which specifically to FLG has been contested (including by Ownby himself, saying the term “makes no sense” in the Chinese context; I guess his view changed over time? I read his whole book recently - recommended - and he also notes there that the NRM term is scholars' "way of disputing Chinese authorities’ claims about the dangers inherent in the movement without necessarily telling us much about Falun Gong itself"; elsewhere he writes that NRM studies is a "a highly divided and polemicized field" which "spends too little time on the context and history of individual groups" and too much time classifying "good" groups and "bad" ones. He also notes that for all of the FLG social movement activism, it is deeply religious in character. Junqing Wu also raises doubts about the utility and neutrality of the NRM appellation, saying that it has actually just become a byword for cult. That seems another reason for not using this term as the master definition for Falun Gong, since the first term used should be the most scrupulously neutral.)

It almost seems as though the stakes of this discussion are about whether the term is used on the page at all. That is not the case. It is about the very first declarative sentence which establishes what Falun Gong "is". This term should be the absolutely lowest common denominator in the sources - not something that is in dispute, and around which controversy swirls. Falun Gong is a religion. Is there anyone here who disputes that?

Therefore I suggest that we cut our losses, call it a religion in the first sentence (Benjamin Penny's book does so in the title), and then get into the complexities and disputes around classification and the competing scholarly disciplines that vie for authority to define Falun Gong and on what basis, in the body of the article.

If the NRM term has become more accepted recently (presuming we can show that) then that would also be worth noting.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You write: "This term should be the absolutely lowest common denominator in the sources - not something that is in dispute, and around which controversy swirls."

Agree - that captures the criterion I outlined on using a label that is as neutral as possible. And yes, if Falun Gong is a NRM, it is most certainly also a "religion." Religion is also a term has extensive support in the academic literature ("The Religion of Falun Gong" is literally the title of one of the leading scholarly works on the topic).

One quibble is that "religion" is not perfectly without dispute either, because it doesn't reflect the self-understanding of the practice itself (surely, this is one point of view that ought to be considered. We shouldn't be excessively deferential to a faith system's view of itself, but when describing a faith system, we have to at least provide the means of understanding it from within its own ontological frame). In the Chinese context, some of the objections that scholars have raised on the NRM label are also applicable to the "religion" label.TheBlueCanoe 18:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These attempts at wiggling away form the widely applied term "new religious movement" and complaining about scholarship while also lambasting US media as 'left wing' aren't going anywhere. Scholars overwhelmingly refer to the group as a NRM. Media sources, on the other hand, repeatedly note that it has been widely referred to as a cult.

Those are easily the two most widely applied terms when referring to the Falun Gong, both among academics and in colloquial discourse. We even have direct quotes from scholars saying exactly that, as I've repeatedly quoted. I think we've had more than enough obfuscating, blurring, and wriggling to avoid these realities on this page, particular from one-issue accounts that mysteriously arise from dormancy when these topics come up on Misplaced Pages.

This is particularly an issue given that the above two accounts have complained about media more broadly elsewhere on this page, here and here. Lobbying to attempt to remove the phrase NRM is, of course, in line with the desires of this particular group, but not what the vast majority of reliable sources on this topic reflects. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatran Apocalypse's suggestion of using the label "religion" instead of "new religious movement" is a good one. Elsewhere on this page Helen Farley is cited as saying "new religious movement" but in her 2013 paper in Journal of Religion and Violence titled "Self-Harm and Falun Gong: Karmic Release, Martyrdom or Suicide" she calls the group a "religion" and points out that is not simply a harmless system of meditations for maintaining good health as its adherents would prefer you to believe, but "first and foremost a rigorous system of morality" (Farley, 2013). In that assessment she cites Penny 2003, 644; Chan 2004, 676; Ackerman 2005, 501; and Burgdoff 2003, 336. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore comments that aim to impugn the motives of other editors, or that repeat earlier assertions that have already been refuted (e.g. "scholars overwhelming use x term" is an assertion that cannot be made without doing a comprehensive survey of the academic literature. If it were undertaken, one would find considerable disagreement among scholars. "Many scholars use x term" is a valid statement, bu just as one can make that claim about the NRM designation, one can also apply the same method to find ample support in academic literture for "cultivation practice," "Qigong," "Religion," and so forth). I proposed above that the way forward here is to establish agreement on the criteria that should be used to decide on the summary description offered in the opening paragraph. Here again were the criteria I proposed (with amendment as explained):

• It should be a term that has broad support among reliable sources, particularly academic sources
• It should be as accurate as possible (which may also mean it should be quite a broad category)
• It should be a term that is at least somewhat accessible and recognizable to an English-speaking audience (while avoiding excessively Euro-centric definitions or concepts)
• It should be as neutral as possible (e.g. avoiding labels that are highly contested).

I added one qualifier to third point above. While it seems obvious that the term we use should have a plain, English-language meaning, we should be careful to avoid a very Euro-centric definition. We have to remember that this is an indigenous Chinese faith system/practice that, as many scholars have noted, defies easy categorization based on "western" concepts. An article about a Chinese faith system should not attempt to force it into different, culturally specific categories at the expense of accuracy. Similarly, we should bear in mind that, when dealing with certain sociological terms, a word's use within an academic discipline is not always the same as the popular meaning of a term. If there's agreement on the criteria, then we can have a meaningful discussion about which terms best match them. TheBlueCanoe 18:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude you’re beating a dead horse... Just stop. Its interesting that you brought up Qigong, would you be surprised to know that your first edit to wikipedia was on that page? In fact your first edits appear to be related to the exact same discussion topic we have here... Falun (symbol) and New Tang Dynasty Television followed Qigong. You certainly have been active in this space a long time, now why would someone who has been active in the space for so long post such blatant bullshit as "We have to remember that this is an indigenous Chinese faith system/practice” why? The idea that FG is one of China's indigenous religions is laughable, its younger than most of the other NRMs with wiki pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The matter of how Falun Gong should be described on this encyclopedia is not a "dead horse." This thread is literally discussion about how to describe the group, and multiple editors are attempting to engage in this conversation in an intellectually seriously way. If you find this topic uninteresting, and if you're incapable of participating constructively, I'm sure you can find other things to do with your time.

And thank you for illustrating what an ad hominem argument looks like. I do indeed have an interest in Chinese religion and philosophy! But there's a benefit in that, which is that I know something about the corpus of scholarly literature on this topic. Enough to know, for example, that several academic sources have described Falun Gong as an indigenous Chinese practice, and this is not at all "laughable" as you claim (seriously, if it's not indigenous to China, where you do you suppose it's from??). Here are some examples:

• "Falun Gong emerged from a milieu that was culturally shaped both by strands of traditional religious culture, which has a long history in China, and by the institutions and discourses that characterized China’s socialist era. With only quite minor exceptions – such as Li Hongzhi borrowing in a bricolage way from Western New Age discourse and popular culture – Falun Gong was a thoroughly indigenous Chinese movement".

• "The allegation that organs have been harvested from prisoners of conscience first emerged in 2006 from diaspora practitioners of Falun Gong, an indigenous Chinese spiritual practice suppressed by the PRC authorities since 1999".

• "Anyone who has studied the group must admit that there is something deeply indigenous about Falun Gong. As Arthur Waldron puts it: “…anyone who knows Asian religion will instantly see that Falun Gong fits into a tradition that extends back before the beginning of recorded history.”

• "although it is not a recognized religion, Falun Gong is steeped in indigenous practices of qigong, in addition to incorporating moral ideas and meditative practices from Buddhism and Taoism. It represents an indigenous spiritual, moral, and health movement that appears to be an opposite to Marxism with Chinese characteristics, opposite in the sense that it is spiritual rather than materialist, concerned with personal self-cultivation rather than social reconstruction, and lacks a dialectical view of history and class struggle. At the same time the movement's emergence directly challenges whether socialism has really benefited the citizenry, since here is an indigenous religious movement flying in the face of the Marxist prediction that with social modernization religion will simply wither away. The church-state perspective highlights the fact that Falun Gong's open practice in public spaces represents a religious challenge not only to the government's near absolute authority but also to its attempt to cordon off religion from public life and public view. The ethnographical perspective foregrounds how, as an indigenous religious development, Falun Gong directly contravenes Han Chinese Nationalist self-understanding, because most of Falun Gong's practitioners within China are Han Chinese. The fact that Han Chinese would turn to ancient spiritual sources contradicts the Han Chinese narrative about its lack of religiosity, thus representing a deeply internal threat in the government's nationalist identity."

• " not so much a new religion as a recognizable variant of widespread qigong practices. Its leader is seen as a charismatic figure with extraordinary levels of insight, but most founders of Buddhist and Daoist sects in Asia – even of groups considered quite mainstream – are considered by their followers to have extraordinary spiritual capacity most Falun Gong members are well integrated with the rest of society. For many, Falun Gong practices are attractive precisely because they do not take an undue amount of time and do not interfere with work or ordinary social life. Some of Falun Gong’s claims will seem incredible, even bizarre, to secular people, especially Westerners…But Falun Gong is by no means the only group to make such claims. Though perhaps near the outer edge of the normal spectrum of Chinese indigenous spiritual practices, Falun Gong does not seem to go far enough over that boundary to be considered a cult”.

Back to my question, because I don't want this discussion derailed again: is there agreement on the basic criteria that we should be applying, as outlined in my previous comment? Or would anyone like to proposed changes to those criteria? TheBlueCanoe 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And in today's news, man on Misplaced Pages claims new religious movement founded by Li Hongzhi in the early 1990s and based out of a compound in Deer Park, New York is in fact an ancient tradition. By this guy's proposed criteria, Scientology—which is considerably older than Falun Gong—might as well also be an "indigenous practice". Bizarre stuff and so far out of line with scholarship that this conversation is veering into deep fringe territory. Stick to the sources and skip the lawyering, thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The above statements are all attributed to scholarly sources (and one book from a scholar, but in a popular imprint). They were provided as examples of instances where Falun Gong has been described in the academic literature as an indigenous Chinese spiritual practice. Note that I am not necessarily arguing that this is the description we should use on the encyclopedia. At this stage I'm just trying to work toward a consensus on the criteria that should be used in deciding on a description, and I am not advocating for a particular outcome.

Again, are the proposed criteria agreeable (to everyone who actually wants to work through this in a measured and thoughtful way?) Have I missed something? TheBlueCanoe 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Now let's take a look at these squirrely citations, shall we? In the order in which they're cited above:

• Andrew Junker, who repeatedly and flatly refers to Falun Gong as a "new religious movement"–like just about every other scholar
• Matthew P. Robertson of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, chaired by Lee Edwards of the The Heritage Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom (surprise?)
• A book by non-scholar Ethan Gutmann published by Prometheus (note their half-functioning website)
• Unclear what is going on here exactly
• And, finally, no citation provided

Finally, I wouldn't bet that editors won't check up on what you're citing moving forward, and I recommend actually checking to see if an individual you're claiming to be a scholar is, well, a scholar. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Indigenous" is laughably wrong and ridiculous. We cannot tell the reader flatly and baldly that Falun Gong is indigenous to China. Whoever is trying to fit that word in must stop. I can see that it has already been stuffed into the article, but as soon as protection is lifted it will be removed. The problem with the word is that it is used in the source in a contradictory manner, first to describe qigong, saying "Falun Gong is steeped in ancient indigenous practices of qigong". After that, the author conflates the term "indigenous", using it describe qigong mixed into Falun Gong, thereby giving a false halo of elderly standing to the obviously modern group. It is not accurate, and requires removal. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. The Blue Canoe has presented a variety of sources showing that Falun Gong is referred to as "indigenous" — certainly, I presume no one disputes that it appeared in China, whether or not under the circumstances claimed by the founder or not... but the response here is not actually quite responsive to the issue. Indigenous means "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native." Is Falun Gong native to China, or not? It's hard to know what to make of comments like "laughably wrong and ridiculous", or that whoever is putting the word in — which we see appears in multiple reliable sources — "must stop." What accounts for this? It seems it is fine to cite non-scholars in other contexts; why not this one? The purpose it would seem is not to give a "false halo of elderly standing," but to properly characterize the cultural and religious milieu in which Falun Gong exists... is it not? I do not understand the commitment to shout this down on the basis of its supposedly positive valence.

More specifically, I observe a double-standard in how sources are being handled. The arguments against these sources above are not exactly clear — Robertson is out because the organization is conservative? Gutmann is out because he's not a scholar (what about other non-scholars? What about scholars in unrelated disciplines?) It's simply confusing. I also think the tone should be more collegial. What is "accurate" is, apparently, determined by reliable sources, and The Blue Canoe provided several. It's thus far from clear that it "requires removal," and much further justification for the problems with the sources needs to be provided. I'm not aware of any rule stipulating that all sources with conservative leanings are banned from the encyclopedia. Having just checked, it appears that Robertson is a PhD student as well, for whatever that is worth. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no such consensus — in fact, the poll above demonstrates an overwhelming support for following reliable sources, which is Misplaced Pages policy, and sticking to what scholars overwhelmingly use: New religious movement. We have a mountainrange of quite straightforward sources flatly and quite straightforwardly referring to the organization as a new religious group, and even outright stating that is what scholars use to refer to the group.

Now, it's pretty clear where you fall on this, consensus and the overwhelming body of scholarly sources obviously don't back it. There's certainly no consensus to flatly refer to the group as a 'religion' to somehow tiptoe around the most commonly used phrase: New religious movement—and certainly no consensus to refer to it as 'indigenous', lol, and the Blue Canoe's coverage of including "positive" coverage of The Epoch Times now that it is clear that it won't be removed from the article is also ludicrous.

Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and we don't tiptoe around scholarship's use of the phrase "new religious movement" here or anywhere else to appease any outside body. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would characterize the results of this RfC differently. The question was whether Falun Gong should be described as a NRM in the lead, and the consensus appears to be Yes to that question, but with several editors noting the qualification that NRM should not be the singular definition given in the lead sentence, or as the "master definition" of Falun Gong, because there is some disagreement in the academic literature about the term's accuracy and usefulness, and because it is a sociological term of art, and there's no reason for that discipline to take precedence.

Also, as noted by myself and several others, Bloodofox's assertion that this is "the most commonly used phrase" has not been demonstrated. The editor has produced several examples of scholars using the term, which is all well and good, but just as a dozen references to NRM can easily be produced, the same method could turn up dozens of references in the scholarship to other terms, such as "qigong," "religion," "spiritual practice," and so on. This has been noted multiple times, and Bloodofox seems to be refusing to get the point.

I see a few editors have proposed "religion" in the leading sentence (of maybe "religious practice" would flow best)? This does seem to be a fair compromise: it has extensive support in the scholarly literature, it's a term with a plain English meaning, it's accurate, and it's a value-neutral terms. The only slight hesitation I'll raise, for the purpose of this discussion, is that the Chinese translation (zongjiao 宗教) has a much more confined meaning. "Religion" in Chinese refers exclusively to institutionalized religions, and specifically those approved by the state. Although Western scholars have argued that the Chinese definition of the term is far too limited and that Falun Gong does satisfy the definition of a "religion" as understood in the West, Falun Gong itself resisted the classification as a zongjiao 宗教. TheBlueCanoe 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can bury this talk page in academic pieces flatly referring to Falun Gong as a new religious movement, complete with quotes that state that scholars refer to Falung Gong as a new religious movement. That has flatly been demonstrated. I've provided dozens. Meanwhile, your lawyering (the question posed above was literally "Should this article say in the lead that Falun Gong is a new religious movement? Yes or No"—no room for misunderstanding there—the consensus is clearly yes) and repeatedly mentioning "several" editors without naming exactly who is getting quite old, but scrubbing attempts like these are flatly unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And anyone can flood the talk page in academic sources that refer to Falun Gong as a "religion," or a "spiritual practice," or a cultivation system, or a qigong practice. We've been over this.

Lest the discussion be derailed again: beyond the objection that I raised to the "religion" descriptor in the first sentence, are there other objections or discussion?TheBlueCanoe 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion above this discussion (although you clearly don't care for the results so far). Calling Falun Gong an "indigenous religion" obviously isn't going to fly. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The quote that says "The allegation that organs have been harvested from prisoners of conscience first emerged in 2006 from diaspora practitioners of Falun Gong, an indigenous Chinese spiritual practice suppressed by the PRC authorities since 1999" is from Matthew Robertson, a FLG practitioner with whom I have sparred for years. He cleverly stealthed that classification in. But it isn't a classification that necessarily excludes the NRM label. I believe "indigenous" simply means home-grown – Merriam Webster defines it as "produced, growing, living, or occurring natively or naturally in a particular region or environment", which it pretty much is, without implying any sort of historical longevity. Acting very much like the CPC with its propagandists, and seeking to banish whatever stigma is attached to any new label it feels uncomfortable with, the FLG is deliberately conflating the practices of qigong with Falun Gong, which arguably is a new-age fusion of evangelism and breathing exercises. David Ownby, one of the most prominent experts on the movement, amongst many other scholars, refers to it as a "new religious movement", and that probably fits better than any other label that I have seen to date. -- Ohc  22:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem comes with mixing “indigenous religion” as used by religious scholars with “indigenous religion” as some sort of colloquial where it can mean whatever we want. In religious studies religions are generally broken down into three main categories: indigenous religions, world religions, and new religious movement. This is why any label of indigenous is contentious as it can be used to backdoor in arguments about FG not being a NRM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The indigenous religions article definition would exclude the characteristics of FLG, I have no doubt. Anyway, as you pointed out (and also from my own experience), TBC has been loyally prosetylising for the FLG flag since their first days on WP, so I'd say they are not a disinterested nor dispassionate editor as far as this topic is concerned. -- Ohc  22:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

These arguments against the term "indigenous" are important in pointing out that while terms have certain precise meanings — to which Falun Gong may indeed conform in this instance — words also have vaguer sensibilities, and we may not wish to convey them in certain cases. Whether or not I agree in this case, the general structure of the argument is true. I'd note it applies just as well to NRM, however, around which there is dispute in the literature. This is why I suggest the dullest and least connotative word available, "religion" or "religious practice" in the first sentence, and all the other classifications in a section dedicated to the classification of Falun Gong. At this point, Falun Gong may even be an "essentially contested" concept.

BTW, Ohconfucius, regarding your comment below: I thought we were supposed to assume good faith about everyone. The one thing I do when I go to this page is, first, take a deep breath, then carefully read what people write and form a judgement. The Blue Canoe knows the literature on this topic inside out, and I respect that. His arguments are presented clearly. People respond with personal attacks and he simply moves on. Others should respond to the actual points he makes.

Finally, @Ohconfucius: you may also want to see whether you are allowed to doxx Misplaced Pages editors like that, if it is even that person. In fact, I just read that policy and you should probably delete the name and request oversight. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"NRM, however, around which there is dispute in the literature.” can you show us where in the literature this is disputed? I literally have not seen it be directly disputed once. All I’m asking for is a quote from a WP:RS, doesn't even have to be more than a sentence long. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I pasted that for you above, in the sources that were collapsed. Including by Ownby himself. See also in Junqing Wu's book, p. 16 "The term “new religious movement” has recently been coined to replace the value-laden “sect” and “cult”.28 Falun Gong has sometimes been categorised as such. However, this term is also unsuited to Chinese lay religion as defined above, as it is commonly used to refer to groups of post-Second World War origin. Besides, “new religious movement” has already started to carry negative implications as well." It's not that I agree or disagree necessarily, but simply that the argument has been made, language has highly complex emotional effects on readers, and we should try for scrupulously neutral (and accurate) wording. By definition issues of classification are not quite questions of empirical or scientific accuracy as such. Social science classifications are as much products of specific fields as anything else. So there are always going to be disputes about the use of specific labels. The categorization should be addressed at greater length in the body. The plain factual statement of "Falun Gong is X" should be the absolute common denominator. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Junqing Wu is speaking about what they define as "lay religions,” (a term of their own creation as they contend that there is no adequate term in western academia to describe the totality of the concept) not FG in particular. There is no other mention of FG in the section The Target Object of the Heresy Construct: ”Lay religion" where you pulled that quote from. In fact the condition "However, this term is also unsuited to Chinese lay religion as defined above, as it is commonly used to refer to groups of post-Second World War origin.” wouldn’t apply to FG as they were founded post WWII. Only the second contention could be made to apply in an extremely roundabout and indirect way to FG, they don’t contend that NRM is an inappropriate term for FG just "lay religions” in general. You’re gonna need to do better than that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Junqing Wu categorises FLG as a "lay religion" and in that passage he says that the term NRM is not suitable for lay religions. So, it seems clear to me that he is casting doubt on the utility and appropriateness of this term in the context of classifying FLG. Ownby is above quoted saying the term NRM "makes no sense" in a Chinese context. Note that I'm aware of the paper where he uses this in the title; but you asked for signs of dispute, an indication that the term is in some sense in question. In his book Ownby says that the NRM classification can also be a way of "disputing Chinese authorities’ claims about the dangers inherent in the movement without necessarily telling us much about Falun Gong itself."

My view on the term is that of course Falun Gong is an NRM. But I also am rather more aware that the term itself is a sociological abstraction. There's no reason it should be the single master definition that comes first in the article, and that terms with absolutely no baggage are to be preferred. Moreover, area experts in Chinese religion are to be favored over sociologists, because FLG arose from an entirely different cultural and social context. I've made these point several times. No one has explained why a more neutral term like simply "religion" or "religious practice" does not do all of the work that NRM does in the lead sentence, without doing any other work. There's no consensus for the change, and no reason has been given against "religion" or "religious practice." Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Summing it up - religion?

As this dispute above petered out, the last words were Horse Eye Jack demanding some scholarly source which cast doubt on the utility of the NRM appellation, which I provided.

Has anyone explained why "religion" or "religious practice" is not suitable for the first sentence? To note once more, the issue is not whether or not FLG "is" an NRM or not, but whether that's the best master definition. I advocated a broader term and not a sociological abstraction, and I don't actually see any reasoned pushback against it above. FLG doesn't describe itself as a religion, but it obviously is. This simply seems the least controversial, widest-use term. And all the other ways it's been categorized get hashed out in that section. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As in secondary scholarship, which overwhelmingly and flatly refers to the group as a new religious movement—and for which it is a cookie-cutter example, there's overwhelming consensus to use the phrase above. Religion obviously doesn't take into account the meaning behind new religious movement, namely that it was founded by its leader, Li Hongzhi, in the 90s. You're beating a dead horse. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are very fond of these words — but how do you define or quantify "overwhelmingly and flatly"? Please try. All you can really say is that these terms are used to describe the group in many sources. Just like all the other terms that were brought forth. Your continually insisting on this doesn't change the fact that other terms are also "overwhelmingly and flatly" used to refer to the group (see, since we don't quantify or define our terms, I can use the adjectives freely see). The problem is how to adjudicate between which "overwhelmingly and flatly" used term is the one to use as the master definition. All you can say for your side is "overwhelmingly and flatly" and that everyone except you and a few other editors hate everything that is negative.

There is not a question that FLG is an NRM. There is also not a question that it is a religion. You want to emphasize the "new" aspect of it; I am saying that there are more substantive reasons to emphasize the "religious" aspect of it, and sources calling into question the utility of the NRM term specifically. So, you should respond to that and not keep repeating yourself. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Summing it up we appear to have an overwhelming consensus to use NRM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we need another RfC that asks a question about whether the lead sentence should refer to it as x or y. That was not the question this RfC asked. TheBlueCanoe 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of primary sources

I've restored some of the primary sources that were removed, along with the secondary sources that were (perhaps inadvertently, in some cases) removed along with them. WP:NOR allows for the use of primary sources under some circumstances:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The primary sources that I've restored fit these criteria. In other cases, I've added secondary sources en lieu of the original, primary sources that were listed.TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

These sites (such as falundafa.org, faluninfo.net, and minghui.org) are obvious WP:RS fails, much like Falun Gong's The Epoch Times. Once again, we're not here to echo the organization's talking points, but report on what reliable secondary (and tertiary) sources say. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support removal of these primary sources. They most definitely do not meet our criteria for careful use of primary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better to have Ownby, Penny, etc., comment on the primary source material, to analyze and evaluate it. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is about Falun Gong. You have removed the very source text of Falun Gong's teachings/scripture (or whatever you call it) from this page, on the allegation of WP:RS. I find this position wholly incredible. The source text forms a core element of the very subject matter of the article. There is no interpretation more objective than the very thing that is being interpreted.

I repeat the policy on WP:NOR: A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The information affected is nothing more than straightforward description of a text written in plain language that can be easily verified, unless you are suggesting that the task of verifying the text at hand is beyond your state of education.

A comparative perspective: there are a total of 24 distinct citations of the Quran in the page on Islam, and numerous citations of the book of Genesis, book of Exodus, and book of Leviticus, among other primary sources, in the page on Judaism. I dare any of you to go to one of those pages and remove those materials and allege that they are not WP:RS. The allegation that the source text of Falun Gong itself is "unreliable" lays bare your ideological prejudice against Falun Gong.

I strongly believe that the deletions of the source materials should be undone. I'm not defending FG (I don't care for this religion/NRM/indigenous group/whatever you call it, though I'm concerned about what is happening to this group as any decent human being should). But I'm alarmed by what is happening on this page, and what's happening must stop. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As you're well aware, Falun Gong was founded by and remains centered on Li Hongzhi, who is very much alive, and is quite actively directing the new religious movement. These sites are not by any definition reliable. Stick to reliable secondary sources.

Editors will note that the above account's first edit was July 26, on this very talk page, which just so happens to sound quite a lot like Falun Gong extension New Tang Dynasty's complaints about the NBC News piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Are you trying to defame me in this community of being a Falun Gong shill? I will have to remind you of the rules on WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:PERSONALATTACKS, and WP:GOODFAITH. You seem to have made such allegations to almost everyone who disagrees with you. This is a warning for you to stop such behaviour. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone can see your edit history. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: I invite editors to see my edit history and I formally invite you to withdraw this allegation. Your statement that a religious text is unreliable if the leader is alive, but reliable if the leader is dead, is an insult on common sense. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When you showed up nine days ago I looked at your first handful of edits and thought, here's another Falun Gong adherent pushing the official line of the religion. Nothing you've done since then has altered my initial assessment.

Bloodofox is saying that you have used the same exact arguments as may be found at Falun Gong websites. Anybody who is trying to put together a highly reliable and well-sourced Misplaced Pages article about the Falun Gong will not be parroting Falun Gong sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I think you have no business peering into my privacy, or second guessing my identity, much less imposing an identity on me, and then use that identity to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and to poison the well, instead of engaging the merits of my arguments. Just like you, Blinkster, I came to wikipedia to share some of my professional knowledge that I have gathered and continue to gather throughout my career, and which, in some areas, bears certain nexus to the topic of this article.

In my first few posts I commented about the issue of undue representation and prioritisation of some fringe controversies over the central aspects and experience of this movement--an issue that was later graciously rectified by a kind user. I was urged to make that post because I have frequented and relied on this article for more than 10 years, and I noticed some drastic changes to the article recently, and a sharp change in the narrative, that felt to me to be undue, unjustifiable and suspect.

I just read the article posted by Bloodofox and I agree with the content of that article, which is essentially condemning NBC for downplaying the human rights atrocity against FG taking place in China. But me agreeing with that position does not automatically make me an adherent (if my personal religious affiliation, if any, should even matter on the first place)--unless you are saying that no one believes in human rights anymore, except for the FG adherents, such that the two should be equated.

Blinksternet, for your personal accusation against me, I could have said the same about you. You have a prodigious history of wiki contribution to articles about music recordings, and yet you maintain an anomalous, sustaining interest in almost every articles in the FG namespace, which stands out sorely from your editing history and profile. What does this say about your personal motivation or affiliation? One can easily see where such line of thinking rampant on this page can reasonably lead.

I can but will not go down that path. Misplaced Pages is a place for knowledge building and not a WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLEGROUND or a place for scandal mongering. I have decided to contribute my time and knowledge to wikipedia because I believe in these principles. And I'd like to see that they are respected.

Btw, my earlier comments against removing the source text for FG remains unanswered. I have not seen any attempt to respond to those comments, except bare assertions that they are unreliable. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding primary versus secondary sources, WP:RSPRIMARY says that it is greatly preferred to use secondary sources over primary ones, as primary sources can be interpreted wrongly.

My own personal take on it is that the primary sources have been pushed into this article as a promotion of Falun Gong, and should be removed to stop such promotion. There is an endless parade of new users at the various Falun Gong articles, with each new user pushing a positive message, trying to make the Falun Gong look as good as possible. One example (of many) is at the Shen Yun article which is semi-protected against new users and requires a minimum of ten edits and four days on Misplaced Pages before allowing someone to edit it. A new editor, Lijifly, performed ten edits over four days and then, as soon as it was possible, edited Shen Yun on the eleventh edit, giving a positive spin on Falun Gong. I see any new user in this light if they show up at a Falun Gong topic to make non-neutral changes. Misplaced Pages has a name for this: single-purpose account (SPA). Somebody can be single purpose even if they edit in other topics; the other topics may give them autoconfirmed status to edit past semi-protection, or allow them to deny being single purpose, but they are really here for one reason. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're of course right about secondary sources being better. For controversial topics like this one, other than the problem of editor interpretation, the claims of the sources may also be questionable (WP:ABOUTSELF, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems like another storm in a teacup, doesn't it? The issue with these sources — I refer to Falun Dafa Information Center, Falundafa.org, and Minghui.org — is not precisely one of reliability as such... there is no question that they are reliable for the views of those organizations. The point is that they are primary sources. We have a policy for that: they should be handled with care. They shouldn't be used to advance fringe claims. But it is OK to use them for uncontroversial things and basic information. Citing a Falun Gong source on how Falun Gong defines Falun Gong... is normal? What am I missing here? All of the rest of this seems like the typical hot air that goes on. I'm going to check the page now and restore those deletions if it's warranted. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they're not reliable for any purposes. These are propaganda sites from a group that is notoriously shadowy, unreliable, and known to operate a network of propaganda arms. How the group portrays itself is obviously controversial. These sites do nothing more than relentlessly promote the group's narratives about itself.

We're not here to look the other way and parrot the group's talking points, nor are we here to simply take what the group behind entities like The Epoch Times says face value. Stick to reliable secondary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I removed a bunch of faluninfo.net sources and dependent text because they were being used as a reliable secondary source, which they are not. You can see that I left in place the multiple Falun Gong sources supporting the sentence, "Falun Gong sources disputed the accuracy of the government's narrative, noting that their teachings explicitly forbid violence or suicide." So we allow the sources to state a position that the group takes, in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, while watching carefully to prevent undue weight given to such sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The account Bink gives seems right — they are reliable for their own views. That is the only issue in question; so it's simply untrue that "they're not reliable for any purposes." They're reliable for their own views, however we may wish to characterize them (and you needn't keep FORUMing your views on the matter — I think by this point, we all get it). Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Falun_Gong&oldid=965594585

Seems like this user has been trying to purge a bunch of material under the guise of removing primary sources. It's very obvious that any religious teaching can and should be self-referencing its original teaching captured in its religious texts, so removing reference to the core teaching itself, Zhuan Falun hosted on falundafa.org seems very odd. Additionally removing references and mentions of david-kilgour and ethan guttman who are experts on the subject looks like a targeted purge. So not only these edits aren't adding anything helpful or improving, they are actually downgrading the quality of the article. Seems this whole edit is violating WP:COI and is a part of ongoing WP:DIS by this user across multiple related pages. Berehinia (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You think Binksternet has a COI? Really? I don't think WP:COI says what you think it says. Perhaps you'd like to read WP:ASPERSIONS. Mojoworker (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's agree that any attempt to cast aspersions should be avoided here. Attempts to impute nefarious motives to other editors, or to speculate on their religious views as grounds for disregarding policy-based arguments they make, contravene Misplaced Pages's policy on WP:NPA. Back to the point: obviously secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, particularly when making fact-based or novel claims. However, there is no rule against the use of primary sources. To the contrary, we recognize that the appropriate use of such sources enriches the encyclopedia and makes it easier for readers to directly consult the source material if they so choose. When some of the editors here stripped out every primary source in the article, they did in blanket fashion, without considering them on a case-by-case basis. In the course of their removing primary sources, these editors also removed several high quality secondary sources, which confirmed the relevance and accuracy of the primary sources being referenced. I restored most of the primary and secondary sources where they were compliant with WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY, and they were summarily removed again. These should be restored, and if there are any specific instances where they are used inappropriately, then we can discuss those individually. But blanket removal at this point seems to be an exercise in WP:POINT making.TheBlueCanoe

Radio France Internationale on Falun Gong's structure and organization

Lately there's been a lot of discussion on this talk page about Falun Gong's organization and structure. Adding to the NBC News report and others, there's also this article from Radio France Internationale on the topic, which discusses the some organization-related matters.

• van der Made, Jaan. 2019. "Shen Yun: Fighting Communism - and making a stack on the side". Radio France Internationale, May 13, 2019. Online. Last accessed July 6, 2020.

A quote:

In 2001, two years after the start of Beijing's crackdown, the movement acquired a 1.59 km² piece of land at 140-150 Galley Hill Road in Cuddebackville, part of Deerpark Township in Orange County, upstate New York, where it is registered as "Dragon Springs Buddhists, Inc.", a “501 (c)(3)” non-profit organization under US tax law.

Within a decade, an imposing temple complex with pagodas rose up in Deerpark, surrounded by a fence and guarded by security personnel. Local inhabitants initially welcomed the Falun Gong, hoping the organisation would boost the township's taxes which could be used for the improvement of local facilities.

...

At the same time, copying the loose structure it had in China, the Falun Dafa fanned out into a worldwide network of local “Dafa” associations.

Dragon Springs Buddhists, Inc. in the town of Cuddebackville functions as its informal headquarters. Falun Gong adherents stress that they are not paid employees but work as volunteers.

Falun Gong spokesperson Zhang Erping (who points out that he’s a volunteer as well) denies that there’s any formal organization. “We don’t have an office,” he says, “we don’t have a hierarchy thing. We don’t even have a church to go to,” stressing that “there is no organisation to join. I’ve never paid membership for anything.”

But facts speak differently.

The Internal Revenue Service lists 46 local "Dafa" chapters in the US alone, and many of their documents are available to the public via the website Foundation Center. They are all headed, with one or two exceptions, by Chinese-American Falun Gong adherents.

Most associations have the name of a city, followed by “Falun Dafa Association, Inc.” Abroad, the name doesn't always have an obvious reference to the Falun Gong, for instance in the case of the Paris-based “Association Lotus Sacré” or the "Asociación Puro Arte Humano" in Madrid. There are Falun Dafa associations in most big cities around the world – except in China.

They are in charge of organising local activities, including language courses and meditation groups.

And they sell tickets for the worldwide Shen Yun shows.

Another quote:

A money trail pointing to Cuddebackville

Shows take place in some of the world's top venues, including the Lincoln Center in New York, the Kennedy Center Opera House in Washington DC, the Deutsche Oper in Berlin, the Palais des Congrès in Paris and in Taiwan the troupe used the National Sun Yat Sen Memorial Hall.

Supporting positive press coverage and promotion is arranged by New Tang Dynasty TV and the Epoch Times newspaper, both part of the Epoch Media Group, set up by Falun Gong sympathisers.

Tax documents of the “mother company” Shen Yun Performing Arts that date back to 2008 and which are accessible to the public shed some light on the show's finances. The organisation had total net assets of over $3 million in 2008. Ten years later, in 2017, this amount had grown to $95,7 million. Shen Yun seems to make between $10 and $20 million per year.

The 2017 “Return of Organisation Exempt from Income Tax” found at the website of Foundation Center for Shen Yun Performing Arts states $20,495,860 as “Program Revenue,” over $10 million as “Functional expenses” of which about half is listed under “other salaries and wages” – possibly money for the artists of the six orchestras-cum-dance troupes. It lists only 7 full-time staff members with a combined salary of $127,687 and almost $9 million in “contributions and grants.” In total, $19,864,001 is registered as “revenue less expenses” for 2017.

Separately registered, local Falun Dafa associations in the US (all with "non-profit" status) receive the money generated by Shen Yun ticket sales, pay for the “advertisement and promotion,” “occupancy” and “travel expenses” and in some cases “donate” a substantial part to Shen Yun Performing Arts in Cuddebackville.

For instance, the Southern USA Falun Dafa Association, based in Richmond, Texas, in 2016 states that “Shen Yun show tickets” generated $3,074,255. $1,553,180 was spent on “Advertising and Promotion,” and $853,049 was “donated” to Shen Yun Performing Arts in Cuddebackville. Other associations have published comparable figures.

There's a lot more in the report that is notable for this article. For example, the section on the long-simmering tension between locals and the ever-expanding Dragon Springs/Falun Gong will sound very familiar to readers aware of Scientology's methodical approach to Clearsprings, Florida as its headquarters. (Recent coverage, for readers unfamiliar) The discussion about Li Hongzhi as Shen Yun's "artistic director" is also quite relevant, but also no surprise.

Of course, for editors who have been paying attention, none of this comes as a surprise. The article also discusses the history of the group in the US, which this article currently does not touch on. It also contains some recent quotes form Ownby on Falun Gong and Shen Yun. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

We should probably make a standalone page for the Dragon Springs compound, given all the coverage specifically of it theres no question it meets WP:GNG and significant religious sites deserve their own pages. From what I’ve seen and read its also architecturally significant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, Jack. I'll help. I think the proposed article should be called Dragon Springs but should contain details of everything Falun Gong-related in the Deerpark area. Once that article is up, we can summarize it here and make this article somewhat more concise. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I copied the two relevant sections and will begin cleaning it up and expanding it there if you can start winnowing down what is here. It seems we also have some about self for Dragon Springs . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be some disagreement between how these relationships are characterized by LA Magazine, for instance, and how they're characterized in two decades of academic research. Obviously news coverage shouldn't be used to overrule the latter. Recall as well that, per WP:NPOV, information should be presented fairly, using high quality reliable sources, in a way that is proportional to its importance to a given topic. The current weight and emphasis that is being assigned to these topics is clearly disproportional to their coverage in reliable sources, particularly in authoritative academic sources. TheBlueCanoe 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense. We have several high-quality media sources discussing this topic, as well as FG's political involvement from around and after 2016, something scholars were at that point evidently unaware of. We don't require any other sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Only sophomoric campus rags pick their sources based on an editor's preferred narrative and then claim that "we don't require any other sources". I am not dismissing any reliable sources here, including major newspapers, but User:TheBlueCanoe is correct in this case. Authoritative academic sources are used as the basic foundation for all good Misplaced Pages articles on religion, culture and society, and Falun Gong does not constitute an exception. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not removing the media sources, and no doubt plenty more are coming. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONS Sources removed w/o discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=prev&oldid=966077951

@Binksternet: References removed without a discussion. Please explain and reinstate. Berehinia (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

See #Removal of primary sources several sections above. Mojoworker (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is repeated above, but this particular diff is illustrative of a point I was making. Every primary source removed here was directly supported by high quality secondary sources. The primary sources are not being relied on as RS, but are provided so that readers can directly access the primary source being quoted if they so choose. That's an appropriate use of a primary source.TheBlueCanoe 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't exist to direct people to the writings of Falun Gong. It exists to explain what Falun Gong is all about. Secondary sources do a much better job of that. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"The primary sources are not being relied on as RS, but are provided so that readers can directly access the primary source being quoted if they so choose.” Thats not an appropriate use for a primary source, especially not placed where it was. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede section

There have been some significant changes to the lede section that either were not discussed, or which failed to achieve consensus on this page. I've tried to retain some of the new information that was aded where it had merit, but keeping in mind the principles of WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV.

The key thing here relates to the weight and prominence accorded to the Deer Park temple complex. Some editors seem to think this is very nearly the most important thing about Falun Gong. And yet, for the dozens of books and academic journal articles that have been written on Falun Gong, there are perhaps three pages total written about Deer Park, plus one or two news articles. This is something that can be mentioned in the lede section, but it does not make sense to dedicate a whole paragraph to it so prominently on the page.

Likewise, the suggestion that Falun Gong itself administers various extensions is veering into original research. This is not a characterization that can be credibly made based on reliable sources, and any such description should be appropriately nuanced to ensure accuracy. The description of Falun Gong's activities in response to persecution should be made using a neutral voice, presenting different views fairly, and not giving undue weight to any particular perspective. That should be easy in the lede section, because all we're doing here is offering a factual descriptions of things. In a previous thread I provided an example of what such a neutral, fact-based description could look like, by referencing a similar (but long) paragraph in Junker's book.

Finally, let's avoid WP:tag-bombing in the lede. It's very pointy, and doesn't improve the reader's experience. TheBlueCanoe 15:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the Dragon Springs complex is some kind of centralized administrative center for Falun Gong -- something like the Jehovah's Witnesses WHQ in Warwick, NY -- or whether it is mainly a headquarters for Shen Yun Performing Arts, a refuge for some practitioners who were persecuted in China, and allegedly where Li Hongzhi lives (e.g. according to "rumors" in Junker's book.) The latter characterizations can be backed up with reliable sources. The sources I've seen have also not documented any Falun Gong administrative/executive structure located at this site. This is not too surprising, since peer-reviewed research has determined that the grassroots operations of FLG are decentralized.

The question that really interests me is whether the Dragon Springs complex is a private community and/or workplace for a relatively small number of Falun Gong practitioners involved in some specific projects, with very little or no significance as an "executive compound", or whether it is something more than that. I believe that its prominence in the article would depend on this. Everything I have seen so far indicates that it is closed from the community of FLG practitioners at large (apparently for security reasons, which I think is plausible, considering that the Chinese Communist Party really sees them as enemies of the state.) We can't really infer from the available sources. Therefore, with some reservations -- unless someone can provide me with more conclusive information -- I would relegate this into a section of the article that specifically discusses FLG's extensions and diasporic responses to the persecution in China. Bstephens393 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is all extremely well sourced. Your regular attempts at scrubbing the article will not be tolerated. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not scrubbing. It's about adhering to core pillars of the encyclopedia. If you can demonstrate that the complex at Deer Park is one of the most significant things about Falun Gong, 'as reflected in the corpus of reliable source literature about this topic, then please present it. But information needs to be included in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. TheBlueCanoe 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep writing Deer Park, New York when you mean Deerpark, New York. If you cant remember which we’re talking about just say Dragon Springs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that BlueCanoe also frequently attempts to strip the article of media sources: It's worth highlighting that quality media sources are just as useful as academic sources, and we have plenty of them to draw from. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

They are undoubtedly useful, but peer-reviewed research still has more weight than media sources. "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That's a given, since the editorial process in high-quality journals is much, much stricter. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable and quality news sources are fully acceptable and entirely appropriate for this article. Attempting to remove them from the article is a clear example of disruption. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You're again responding to an imaginary comment in your head, not what is stated above. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a good reason the lead no longer mentions "new religious movement"

And is there really little criticism of it outside China? I don't see any mention in the lead, and it's hard to find in the article although there is a little. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like TheBlueCanoe came through like a bull in a China shop . At this point I can’t assume good faith with them anymore, they seem to be being actively disruptive and working against consensus with no regard for their fellow editors. AGF is not a suicide pact, we’ve been more than tolerant enough. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Blue Canoe had no good reason for removal, especially since many sources describe the connection between Falun Gong and its various arms such as New Tang, Epoch Times, Shen Yun, Sound of Hope, Vision China and Kanzhongguo. This is critically important information, but Blue Canoe was following the official Falun Gong style of trying to get everyone to ignore it. Since Blue Canoe is removing vital information, they have become a serious disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is typical scrubbing behavior from that account. The account should be topic-banned. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have supported that a month ago, at this point I think an indeff is warranted. They’ve had plenty of warnings and chances to change their disruptive editing style. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:TheBlueCanoe, can you give an explanation/rationale for why this has been removed? Bstephens393 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake - I meant to add that back to the list of descriptors that have been given. Note that it is described in the article boddy as a NRM, and that did not change (though the emphasis on NRM category in the "categorization" seems out of line with the sources). It should be in the lead section, as per the consensus at the RfC, but there was no consensus on the lead sentence, and several editors (myself included) raised valid concern about the use of NRM as the single, bald definition to describe Falun Gong. I would recommend consulting that discussion for the full account, but very briefly:

• Editors arguing for Falun Gong to be described authoritatively as a New Religious Movement rely on the fact that numerous scholars have used this term. This is true, but crucially, those same scholars use other terms as well, including religion, spiritual discipline, qigong, cultivation practice, indigenous religious practice, and variations of the above. Dozens of examples could be produced to support the use of each of these terms. Other leading scholars of Falun Gong never use the term NRM.
• Some scholars have disputed the accuracy and the usefulness of the NRM label as it relates to Falun Gong and other Chinese self-cultivation disciplines, arguing that the label "doesn't make sense" in the context of these types of Chinese spiritual practice
• NRM is basically a sociological term of art, and there's no reason why one particular academic discipline should take precedence over any other.
• The authoritative description used in the lede sentence should be as accurate and as neutral as possible, and given the dispute of the NRM label in the academic literature, there are clearly better options available.

I'll restore my edit but will add NRM to the lede section.TheBlueCanoe 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Further to the above, I did not remove descriptions of the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Those remained in the lede in my revision, and in the article body. But the previous description in the lede section was not neutral—it was a selective description that aimed to highlight apparent controversies to the exclusion of other perspectives, and it made claims that appear to have very questionable support and/or comprise original research. Finally, there's a sentence that was removed at one point from the lead, with no apparent explanation, and that should be restored. TheBlueCanoe 18:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Funny, you've now repeated this "mistake" several times during your regular rounds. We report on what reliable sources say, and reliable sources directly state that scholars refer to Falun Gong as a new religious movement. Hiding mention of Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and other media extensions with pipes like "newspapers" is also ridiculous: Enough. I get that FG doesn't like it, but Misplaced Pages isn't censored. Your attempts at scrubbing, obfuscation, and parroting FG talking points are disruptive and are not helping this article. We report on what reliable sources say, and that includes reliable media sources—that isn't going to change, and attempts at scrubbing will be promptly reverted. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a simple way around this problem: discuss the edits on the talk page from the perspective of a) reliable sources, b) due weight, c) other relevant policies and guidelines to consider, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc. It is useless to keep referring to a single policy based on whatever seems to suit your objectives at the moment. Stopping all edit warring and moving to proactive consensus-building also makes it much easier for other editors to voice their opinions. I thought that leading by example (as I've still refrained from editing the article) would encourage others to do the same, but apparently that's not the case. If User:TheBlueCanoe agreed to add NRM to the lede, shouldn't User:bloodofox be happy about reaching an agreement there? If you want to keep up the battleground mentality that has gotten you sanctioned before, perhaps you have to be reminded of the fact that Misplaced Pages is not about winning. There are valid arguments to be addressed and you would be much better off making (and responding to) them with civility. Bstephens393 (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Also, no clue what you mean by "sanctioned before": I suggest you check your facts. Disruptive editing will continue to be called out where it occurs. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have something actionable, please post something on AE. Besides that, please talk about content rather than contributors --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that you are an admin and an admin opened this section to discuss a disruptive edit by TheBlueCanoe on the talk page of a page under discretionary sanctions what is the point of going to AE? And if AE is the appropriate venue then what is the point of discretionary sanctions? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Getting a working consensus of uninvolved administrators. For various reasons, I feel uncomfortable using my ability to impose unilateral sanctions here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I take it that working consensus never materialized? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Compound

Should more information be included in the article to mention their compound? It isn't mentioned that much in the article, and it's a pretty large part of the "religion". As of now, there's a sentence in the lead that just mentions it exists and doesn't really elaborate much. I know there is a corresponding article for the Dragon Springs compound, but it seems to me that some of the information there could also be used here in a summary or something. Heyoostorm (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we should probably have a summary section with a Main link to the Dragon Springs page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

New political involvement coverage from the New York Times and The Verge

Falun Gong receives coverage in a recent New York Times piece:

• Verma, Prashu and Edward Wong. 2020. "New Trump Appointee Puts Global Internet Freedom at Risk, Critics Say". The New York Times, July 4, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 19, 2020.

Quote:

Now, allies of Falun Gong are making a big push for the Open Technology Fund and the State Department to give money to some of the group’s software, notably Ultrasurf, developed about a decade ago by a Falun Gong member.

And a little more detailed coverage and analysis from The Verge:

• Brandom, Russell. 2020. "A new Trump appointee has put internet freedom projects in crisis mode". June 23, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 19, 2020.

Quote:

If successful, that shift would also funnel money to groups that are politically sympathetic to the president. One of the letters was co-sponsored by the DC branch of Falun Gong, a religious sect and Chinese dissident group that has become vocally pro-Trump in recent years. Two of the projects mentioned in the letter — Ultrasurf and Freegate — were created by practitioners of Falun Gong and maintain ties to the group. (The other two projects are already recipients of OTF funding.) If the letter’s recommendations are carried through, it would mean millions of dollars in funding for the group. Through its Epoch Times outlet, Falun Gong has become vocally pro-Trump in recent years, building an immense following on Facebook and YouTube while promoting anti-vax and QAnon conspiracy theories.

My bolding. Looks like we'll need to add this to the article, as the FG's efforts to influence the US government is obviously notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, relevant and significant. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Axios

There's also coverage from Axios here: "In media agency shakeup, conservative groups push for Falun Gong-backed internet tools".

Sample quote:

A far-right take-over of an independent U.S. government agency may allow once-fringe ideas promulgated by a controversial religious group to become official policy.

:bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Rv of July 26, 2020 "Truthfulness"

Just explaining this rv . There are two matters at play, and I'll state my views on both. First is the deletion of what the Falun Gong believe. This is the oft-heard "truthfulness" etc. Believe it or not, that is what is in the doctrines and scriptures and is repeated regularly in the literature — so obviously that stuff has to say. We can personally not believe it, but we cannot delete it for that reason. The second is the Kavan addition. Firstly, the source is a conference paper which as anyone who has experience in academia would know, are not nearly equivalent to a peer reviewed paper. Secondly, we could debate her credentials — she is an NRM scholar, does not speak Chinese from what I can tell of her bio (a fairly significant deficit for a scholar who wishes to opine on a Chinese religion) — but I guess it's not necessary given the first problem. And thirdly, she didn't quite say what Bink said she said. Her interpretation of the quoted line is in question anyway. It may be helpful to compare Kavan's work to something like Penny and Ownby. There is a reason they are the leading scholars on this. Scholarship is not about simply dishing out one's opinions; and not every opinion that appears by anyone with a job to ever be published is suitable for us to quote. If it were, this page would be 10x longer than its current length.

As a general rule, we should prefer facts (or the closest we can get to them) over opinions. And if we are getting into opinions, which we always will, then they should be discussed thematically. For instance, the generic problem she is discussing is how the Falun Gong represent their beliefs. I'm actually not sure how much this comes up in the scholarship — but at the very least, extrapolating from a throwaway line that a non-Chinese speaking expert of somewhat dubious credential (at least versus actual experts) says in a conference paper... certainly does not do all the work we might wish, such as allowing us to delete what the core beliefs are and instead assert that the core beliefs are lies. Which the source does not even say. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Heather Kavan of Massey University is a fine source. Analyzing the Falun Gong's activities in the West does not require Chinese language skills. She writes, "However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls 'high level things' to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters... Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs, and resort to formulaic principles and repetitions of their slogan ‘truthfulness, compassion, forbearance’." This instruction to lie undermines very significantly the moral philosophy of truthfulness. Once we know that the truthfulness principle has this internal contradiction, we cannot tell the reader that truthfulness is in fact part of Falun Gong. Rather, we can describe how truthfulness is taught as a moral principle, and that the principle is parroted to outsiders, and then set aside when it's inconvenient.

Kavan's "conference paper" is echoed in her published paper titled "Victims, Martyrs, Crusaders: Archetypal Figures in News Stories about Falun Gong", published in 2017 in the scholarly journal Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review. In that paper, Kavan writes, "They have the impossible task of trying to persuade people that “Falun Gong is good” when the dominant story is more painful than good, and they are expected to proclaim “truth, compassion and forbearance” while zealous members aggressively bait, disrupt and avenge." In the same journal, Kavan published "Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy" in which she says that "innocent members" of the Falun Gong "genuinely embrace" the three moral principles, but that these people are harmed by contradictions when they are instructed to conduct psychological warfare against hostile outsiders.

Buddhist scholar Lao Cheng-Wu (Doctorate of Philosophy from Hong Kong Buddhist Institute) writes that the three moral principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" were invented by Li on January 1, 2001, as a way to gloss over his new and contradictory instructions to his disciples not to tolerate "evils" whereas previously they were taught tolerance with the three moral principles of "Truthfulness, Benevolence and Tolerance". Lao Cheng-Wu says that the three principles of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" were said by Li to represent "cosmic law" rather than the much more defensible idea that they are a good criteria of daily life. Lao Cheng-Wu says that the three moral principles espoused by Li are inauthentic in practice. See The Refutation and Analysis of Falun Gong in the chapter titled "What Is 'Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance'?"

So we have scholars talking about how the principle of truth is contradicted by Falun Gong's own leader. This fact must be part of the narrative we relay to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is indeed relevant, and should be covered here. It also fits a larger pattern. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a conference paper by a speechwriting professor is not sufficient to outweight the decades of scholarship, including intensive fieldwork, that contradicts her findings. The claim that "Truthfulness, Benevolence, and Tolerance" were invented as Falun Gong principles in 2001 is absolutely stunning: from the time of its introduction Falun Gong's core texts centred on these principles, and one need only consult contemporaneous reliable sources to see that.TheBlueCanoe 12:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, a lot of what you've written there appears to be a defense of original research — i.e. the source still doesn't say what you put in the article, but now you've come back with your own interpretation of how the general idea is true. Doesn't work like that. The stuff about 2001 is fairly silly, isn't it? Wasn't Zhuan Falun, the FLG bible, published in the 1990s? I don't think we need to spend a lot of time with material that is demonstrably wrong. We're interested in the cumulative knowledge in the body of scholarship, and we distill and represent the most reliable facts from that. We do not cherrypick the specific opinions that accord with our own and write the article based on them. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede section (again)

Apologies if I'm repeating myself a bit here, because the last time I started this thread it was derailed. Over the last two months or so, changes have been made to the lede section that either were not discussed, or which failed to achieve consensus on this page. In my last edit, as before, I've tried to retain some of the new information that was aded where it had merit, but keeping in mind the principles of WP:WEIGHT, WP:LEDE, and WP:NPOV. I'll explain the rationale here:

• Citations: This is partly a stylistic preference, but I'll propose that we should avoid overburdening the lede section with redundant inline citations. The policy here, per WP:LEDE, is that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation," but further notes that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." In my view, one high quality and uncontested citation is generally sufficient where such citations are necessary at all.

• Deer Park: I've moved the reference to Deer Park from the second sentence to the bottom of the lede, as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. The location of Falun Gong's "informal headquarters" in the United States is not the defining feature of a decentralized practice that has millions of worldwide adherents. Similarly, the location of dance schools is not the defining feature of Falun Gong. I can see the rationale for keeping a reference to Deer Park the lede, but not in the opening paragraph, for the simple reason that this receives very little attention in the reliable sources. For the dozens of books and academic journal articles that have been written on Falun Gong, there are perhaps three pages total written about Deer Park, plus one or two news articles. Andrew Junker's 2019 book is the first scholarly source that mentions it, and even there, it is not discussed as a defining feature of Falun Gong.

• Administered extensions - the claim that Falun Gong "administers various extensions" is veering into original research. Sources do not say this, and given what reliable sources do say about the organizational structure (or lack thereof) of Falun Gong, the assertion does not really make sense. For example, Falun Gong, a registered 501(c)3 in the United States, does not "administer" the Epoch Times.

• Activism abroad - I've restored a more neutral and comprehensive description of Falun Gong's activities undertaken in response to persecution. This paragraph should be made using a neutral voice, presenting different views fairly, and not giving undue weight to any particular perspective. That should be easy in the lede section, because all we're doing here is offering a factual descriptions of things. In a previous thread I provided an example of what such a neutral, fact-based description could look like, by referencing a similar (but long) paragraph in Junker's book.

• Descriptions of Shen Yun and Epoch Times - Related to the previous point, the description of activities undertaken by Falun Gong adherents should be made in a neutral tone, and should be quite general. A previous version of this paragraph contained assertions like "Shen Yun has also received significant media coverage for its emphasis on, for example, anti-evolution..." Significant media coverage in this case is a single article, which includes two sentences that glancingly mention Shen Yun's apparent anti-evolution views. That is not significant, and certainly not significant enough to merit inclusion in the lede section of an article about Falun Gong.TheBlueCanoe 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to improve a bit of the language. I'm not sure what the source is backing up the idea that the Dragon Springs complex is an "informal headquarters." What is that based on? I was looking for the "dubious" tag in order to highlight it again; as far as I'm aware there is no claim that it's a headquarters of any time. What is it headquartering? The Falun Gong does not have a central structure, so in what sense could it be a headquarters, even if informal? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The "informal headquarters" language is used by the Radio France International source. We don't have to use the same language if there's some more accurate term, but it can be used.TheBlueCanoe 15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

All of this has already been discussed above, and this is all very well sourced. The media soures aren't coming out of the article. As an aside, describing Falun Gong activities like that of its Epoch Times extension as "undertaken in response to persecution" is at this point disruptive. Spare us the spin. The Dragon Springs headquarters is obviously very important, and should obviously be in a visible and primary spot in the article. Again, spare us the spin. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, these issues are not settled, because you have repeatedly refused to engage with the substance of the concerns being raised. Instead asserting—without evidence—that your interpretation is "obvious" and definitive. It is not. Do you intend to actually respond to the concerns raised above, or will you just keep edit warring to enforce your position?TheBlueCanoe 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here. We have plenty of sources, and we'll continue to use them: That includes media sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The one-liner approach will not work anymore. Let's just state that every editor who wants to be involved will agree to a civil point-by-point discussion of the merits and demerits of the challenged additions and removals, including structure and due weight. All of this has been avoided by certain editors, but it must change from now on. This has nothing to do with disputing WP:RS; it is the discussion and argumentation process that is being viewed with total contempt by the same editors. Bstephens393 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I get that there are a group of editors here who want the media sources removed, yourself included, but they simply aren't going anywhere, and we can expect plenty more where they came from. Consistently emphasizing a persecution narrative over the activities of the organization, including its activities in politics, is obviously inappropriate: English Misplaced Pages isn't here to parrot Falun Gong talking points. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are shadowboxing and replying to imaginary comments in your head. There have been dozens of legitimate points raised about issues that are central to building a Misplaced Pages article. I have never argued that we should not make use of reliable newspaper sources. Bstephens393 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

After conveniently coming out of a long dormancy to suddenly edit this page, your role here had been restricted to aiding a group of editors who aggressively edit to ensure that the article maintains Falun Gong talking points. That is, until you stepped in today to revert in their favor. It's hardly a mystery. Again, these sources are simply not going anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have defended the inclusion of the NRM label, as well as every other reasonable suggestion, based on my grasp of the topic as a scholar in a closely related field. Needless to say (since I've said it so many times and my actions prove it), I am not against including newspaper sources and have never argued against them. What I have consistently opposed is narrative-building for the sake of expediency instead of a scholarly approach. I started paying attention to this page because of the surprising coincidence between China's offensive in HK and a sudden explosion of activity. If this makes some editors hallucinate arguments and viewpoints that I don't hold, that is unfortunate but outside my control. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bstephens393, you are calling for every point of debate to be answered? I routinely ignore irrelevant debate points as I do not wish to get stuck in the tar baby. Discussion and process are important, but participation here is not a mutual death pact. I am not required to engage wasteful, trolling, nonsensical or irrelevant debate points.

We are not here to write the pro-Falun Gong narrative of persecution and martyrdom. Rather, we are here to write about the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints about Falun Gong, including many negative assessments. Blue Canoe's very disruptive removal of NBC News should have resulted in a block. Cleopatran Apocalypse's disruptive bit about "Following the persecution in China" is another egregious example of pushing the pro-Falun Gong narrative. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I take this to mean that you and I fully agree on the intent of this article. I could have written the first two sentences of your second paragraph myself. I think we only disagree on the extent that discussion and process have been followed, and how much of those are needed to actually produce a good result that avoids all kinds of confirmation biases and takes the various scholarly and journalistic viewpoints into account. The issue is one cherry-picked master narrative vs. documenting what the reliable sources say, warts and all. I have consistently advocated for the latter. Since I am not pro-FLG or anti-FLG, various people who've picked their side over the years have characterized me as either, since I've always refused to subscribe to any preferred storyline. The only things I am really opposed to are narrative expediency and totalizing discourses. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Over the years"? As in, sometime back in 2013? Because that was the last time you decided to edit Misplaced Pages before you suddenly popped up on May 20, 2020 to lend support to TheBlueCanoe on this very page (). Among other edits, that same day saw you jumping into pro-Falun Gong editor Celopatran's attempt to have me topic banned (Cleopatran had also appeared out of nowhere), where you decided to go after yours truly (). Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Misplaced Pages again on that day. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Is there are reason why we still have massive block quotes on the page? The LA Magazine article that is excerpted at great length does not even appear to exist. TheBlueCanoe 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How could it not exist? The link is dead?? That seems weird. Might be a temporary error in the website. If it's not back up within a day or so, we could just link out to the archive.org version of it. Although I don't think it should be in blockquotes anyway. If the material in the piece was false then it's possible that they removed it, but in that case one imagines they would have written a statement explaining as much. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The language of "media extension" is still in the article. Bloodofox, where are you getting that specific language? I have not seen it in any of the sources cited. This seems to be persistent original research. I'm going to delete it if a source is not provided. My understanding of the technical nature of the relationship between FLG and these media properties comes from the Ownby text and some ethnographies; they are fairly clear that the media are all founded and largely run by FLG believers. But they do not say "extension," as far as I've seen. The idea seems to be to assert that there is a central organization, but again all of the ethnography again contradicts that claim. Why not simply accurately represent the sources, rather than forcing them to yield claims that they do not actually contain? This is a recurring pattern I've observed from the edits of both bloodofox and Binksternet. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Already explained aboved. The media sources aren't going anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the part where the extensive use of blockquoting was and unsupported original research was explained.TheBlueCanoe 16:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As you're quite aware, "extension" is fully appropriate wording for the tentacled situation with Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, etc. We could, of course, have a discussion about whether we should be using the "propaganda" wording that some sources use for these groups or we could flatly refer to these groups as "Falun Gong" groups, as well. Maybe we should consider that approach. Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What original research? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It is original research to claim that these are "extensions" that are "administered" by Falun Gong. This claim is not supported. Note that I am not, and have not, claimed that there is no connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong (there clearly is). But that connection should be defined accurately.

No one has explained why there are still massive block quotes on the page, one of which refers to an article that appears not to exist.TheBlueCanoe 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is amply covered in reliable media sources, as it is covered in the article. "Extension" is fully appropriate. This sort of lawyering is unhelpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think "extension" is appropriate? Although, perhaps it doesn't matter. It is unsourced, vague, and original research. You've simply reasserted your personal opinion, and by doing so have made clear that you think your opinion is more important than our actual content policies. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternately, we could just say "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]) or "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("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") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), but "extension" is also perfectly accurate and valid. Again, this sort of lawyering is going nowhere. If you're floating echoign the The Epoch Times and their claim that they're somehow totally separate from Li or The Epoch Times, you're barking up the wrong tree: The Epoch Times and related Falun Gong media extensions are not a reliable sources—and that's not likely to change anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

New ABC News Australia article: "The Power of Falun Gong"

ABC News (Australia) recently published an article on Falun Gong, Dragon Springs, and Falun Gong extensions like The Epoch Times:

• Campbell, Eric & Hagar Cohen. 2020. "The Power of Falun Gong". ABC News, July 202, 2020. Online. Last accessed July 27, 2020.

A few quotes:

As a young child, Anna came to believe Falun Gong’s teachings too, but there were some that raised deeply personal questions for her. Among them was being taught that she was different to other children because her mother was Chinese and her father was European.

"The leader of Falun Gong claims that race mixing in humans is part of an alien plot to drive humanity further from the gods,” says Anna. “He says that when a child is born from an interracial marriage, that child does not have a heavenly kingdom to go to.”

Some practitioners have explained Master Li’s teachings as metaphorical, such as his claims that aliens walk the Earth and disguise themselves as people to corrupt mankind. But Anna learned it as literal truth. At 11 years old, her mother read her the teachings about mixed-race children.

The family started spending weekends and holidays at The Mountain, flying across the breadth of the US to be closer to the movement’s global base .

“It was my mother’s dream for our entire family to eventually live at Dragon Springs.”

... But for Anna, The Mountain was no haven. The presence of Falun Gong’s leader, Master Li Hongzhi, seemed to pervade the complex.

I've seen the comments from Li regarding aliens and 'race-mixing' come up quite a few times now, but it is nowhere in the article. The same goes for Shen Yun's attitude toward medicine. Given the state of the article until it received scrutiny a few months ago, this is hardly a surprise, but Li espousing alien plots and racism is deeply fringe stuff, and notable.

Further, on the closeness between Falun Gong media entities and Trump campaign figures:

Dragon Springs is just a small slice of an expanding empire connected with Falun Gong. Practitioners set up The Epoch Times, once a free newspaper which is now published online and printed across the USA, Australia and other countries. Last year, in an advertising blitz, The Epoch Times spent nearly $US2 million on Facebook ads which pushed a pro-Trump message. Its YouTube news channel also appeals to a conservative audience.

Another media outlet linked to Falun Gong is the broadcaster NTD (New Tang Dynasty Television), which has collaborated with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon to produce Claws of the Red Dragon, a drama critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Jonathon Lee insists Falun Gong is not politically aligned but many of the practitioners see Donald Trump as an ally in the fight against the CCP.

The Epoch Times maintains it is not owned or operated by Falun Gong, but Ben Hurley, who worked on the Australian English-language edition, says it is in every sense a Falun Gong outlet. “Everyone who works there is a Falun Gong practitioner. They have a few people, a few token non-Falun Gong practitioners that they point to every time, but those people are outside the fortress. They’re not a part of the organisation.”

A group of editors entrenched on this page regularly attempts to downplay anything and remove anything found on this article that does not adhere to Falun Gong's narrative about itself, including discussion of Dragon Springs. Sections regarding Falun Gong's approach to medicine, race, homosexuality, and aliens are also relevant and should be in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those issues are, in fact, addressed in the article. To determine what kind of weight these things should be accorded, we should refer not to a single source, but should look at how these aspects are treated across the body of literature on Falun Gong teachings, representing different sides fairly and proportionally, so that we don't end up giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic, or to one perspective on it. There is no section dealing with the approach to medicine, which is worth adding.TheBlueCanoe 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic of aliens is solely covered in a quote that you're hoping to cut out of the article, for example.

A reminder that we're here to report on what reliable sources say. We're not here to be "fair" to any entity in particular; we're not looking to undercut reliable sources for "balance" in favor of any entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I second what Bloodofox said. In addition "To determine what kind of weight these things should be accorded, we should refer not to a single source, but should look at how these aspects are treated across the body of literature on Falun Gong teachings, representing different sides fairly and proportionally, so that we don't end up giving undue weight to one aspect of a topic, or to one perspective on it.” appears to be proposing a WP:FALSEBALANCE which we are supposed to avoid. You appear to misunderstand the WP:DUEWEIGHT component of the NPOV policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

New Editing Restrictions

@Horse Eye Jack, Bstephens393, Bloodofox, Cleopatran Apocalypse, TheBlueCanoe, and Binksternet: Due to the continual edit warring, I have full protected the article until you all can assure myself or another administrator that all of you will play nicely with one another. Until that time, all edits to the article need a clear consensus here on this talk page. Once that happens, please use {{Edit fully protected}} to ask an administrator to implement the change. Further, everyone pinged here is placed under a 0RR for this article and will be notified of this sanction on their talk pages. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered that Binksternet was not formally aware of the discretionary sanctions within this topic area and can not be the subject of sanctions. I withdraw my comment vis-à-vis him. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, thanks for the note of explanation. I've suggested before that such a remedy be put in place, and think that mediation of this sort would be very helpful (the only alternative at this point may be to request a new arbitration case, which is time consuming for all involved).

The problem here is that the version of the article that is now locked is a new version that never came close to achieving consensus, and contains some frankly embarrassing material that is contradicted by the vast majority of reliable sources. The editors who edit warred to keep this version of the page have demonstrated, in their responses above, that they do not intend to address the concerns raised with respect to those edits. So what is to be done? Shall I provide (again) a detailed, point-by-point explanation of what is wrong with this version, give them an opportunity (again) to reply, and if they refuse (again) to engage constructively on the merits of those edits, then an admin changes them back? TheBlueCanoe 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC) (For reference: this is the thread in which I raise several concerns with the lede section, in which Bloodofox and Binksternet declare their unwillingness to address those concerns).TheBlueCanoe 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Numerous users have in fact repeatedly responded to the questions you repeatedly raise, often between your attempts to scrape media sources from the article. I'll thank you not to misrepresent my edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox and TheBlueCanoe: I do not know what version is the correct version of the article. You all need to come to a consensus about how the article should proceed. If you all find that it is impossible with the current cadre of people who comment here, you should consider launching an RfC to bring in additional editors. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently No Page Has Ever Been Protected As The 'Right' Version. <humor/> I am certainly willing to engage constructively, but I was never going to agree to debate every single point regardless of the value of the debate point. Binksternet (talk)

@Guerillero: I’ve made one edit on the main page since the 10th, in that time I’ve made 12 edits on the talk page. No comment on the others but I don’t think I'm edit warring or not trying to work things out on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: This edit was part of the chain of multi-party slow-moving edit warring. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep thats the one edit. Ok, I can see that. I thought I was returning it to status quo until the talk page conversation was completed. Apparently I misunderstood what was going on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero:Might I suggest restoring the 02:34, 29 June 2020 version per WP:STATUSQUO?
Here is that version:
Here is the diff from the current version:
Anyone who was involved in the edit war and thinks that we just protected the wrong version might want to consider whether the 02:34, 29 June 2020 version is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 28 July 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