Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 24 August 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

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)

Did I claim that I'd been characterized as both pro-FLG and anti-FLG here, on this talk page? I have a life outside of Misplaced Pages and I'm involved with East Asian research on a professional level. Do you think I would have any interest in paying much attention to what's been going on with this article if this was not the case -- if I didn't know extensively about related topics?

If you remember, I tried to work with you in a very civil manner and even refrained from editing for a long time because I hoped for a reasonable discussion. I endorsed your suggestion for including the NRM label, and a single cherry-picked master narrative was the only thing I was ever opposed to, since reliable sources do not support that. Didn't work. The center did not hold. You kept engaging in ad hominem attacks against other editors unlike anyone else. Of course such behavior will antagonize everyone who has reasonable disagreements with you, and curbing such goofballery is not unreasonable at all. To make it clear: I am not opposed to your viewpoint or the sources you propose. I'm not opposed to fundamental disagreements. All this time I have been talking about the form of the process, not the content. To be frank, I do believe that you actually understand what I'm saying, but admitting that would seem like a concession. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please take it to my talk page. There we can discuss the finer points of your edit history since your sudden return from 2013 to lend talk page support and reversions to TheBlueCanoe and crew. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Let me get back to you within a few days to discuss and try to work it out. Bstephens393 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn, in a 2002 paper that we already cite, says "In 1998 New York City became the headquarters for the group and the Falun Gong website was established." This corresponds to Li Hongzhi moving to New York in 1998. So the headquarters of Falun Gong is clearly connected to Li. And Rahn establishes importance to the fact of the group having a "headquarters". Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Archived and other unused sources

I was looking through old versions of the article, and other reports about Falun Gong, and found some sources that we could use. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hudson Reporter, "Shen Yun returns." December 2011. Talks about the "political underpinnings" of the Shen Yun performance, portraying Falun Gong persecution along with a skewed and biased version of Chinese history.
• Heather Kavan, "Friendly Fire: How Falun Gong Mistook Me For an Enemy". November 2017. Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review. Kavan talks about how Falun Gong members wooed her as a scholar and then harrassed her after she began publishing her critical analysis.
• UK Guardian, "Shen Yun". February 2008. Mentioning how the Shen Yun show is modern propaganda, not a portrayal of Chinese history as advertised.
• The Ledger. Opinion piece: "Propaganda posing as entertainment". January 2016. Talking about how Shen Yun is Falun Gong political propaganda, including anti-gay, anti-atheist and anti-miscegenation.
• PRI. "Why China Fears the Falun Gong". July 2014. An explanation of Falun Gong in the format of question and answer.
• Washington Post. "In the face of criticism, China has been cleaning up its organ transplant industry". July 2017. Update on organ harvesting in China.
• UK Guardian

We should also mention Samuel Luo, an ex-Falun Gong member who exposed a lot of the group's inner workings on a website some time around 2003 or 2004 (I'm guessing.) The Press Telegram says Luo was hounded by Falun Gong who tried to suppress his website. SFGate reported the same thing, as did the San Diego Union Tribune. He's also in the New Yorker piece that we already cite. Roman scholar Leonardo Sacco cites Samuel Luo in his scholarly article "Is Falun Gong a Sect or a Religious Movement? A Comparative Approach?" published in 2011. Samuel Luo is part of the Falun Gong story. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As for Samuel Luo, I don't think he's an ex-member? His name seemed vaguely familiar, and then I remembered encountering it in the archives. Voilà. Apparently he is/was an anti-Falun Gong activist who in 2007 received an indefinite topic ban by ArbCom with the following rationale: "Aggressive SPA edit warring on Falun Gong articles; stated intent to disrupt and go out with a bang." Thereafter, he seems to have set up a number of sockpuppets that eventually got banned as well, and based on this his disruptive editing was so exceptional that he was specifically mentioned in a notice on top of this article's talk page for a very long time. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Leonardo Sacco cites the following:

• Samuel Luo, What Falun Gong Really Teaches, « Cultic Studies Review », ii, 2003, at International Cultic Studies Association, http ://www.icsahome.com (accessed November 23, 2009)

This page by Michael D. Langone, "The PRC and Falun Gong", hosted at ICSA, says Samuel Luo was a family member of Falun Gong practitioners, so I'm wrong about him being ex-Falun Gong.

Luo's paper may be found within a PDF of Cultic Studies Review, volume 2, number 2, 2003. The PDF is a Google drive link on the ICSA website. In the paper, Luo says he first became alarmed at Falun Gong when his practitioner mother started talking about aliens living in the world among us, that the world is ending and only Li Hongzhi can save people. Luo discusses the aspects of Falun Gong that are religious, and the aspects that are cult-like:

One of the most important and common methods that cults use to control their followers can be called "exclusion of the outside world." Cult members are taught not to trust people outside of the group, including family members. This component of mind control is definitely found in the Falun Gong teachings. Falun Gong practitioners are made to distrust the moral thinking of non-practitioners who are called "ordinary people". This is done intentionally by master Li, who repeatedly teaches: "As a practitioner you cannot act according to the ordinary people‘s standards."(15) This manipulation technique not only isolates practitioners from non-practitioners, including family members and friends, but also creates a system where practitioners only share information with other practitioners. As a result, practitioners mutually reinforce each other‘s belief in the teachings, thereby eliminating any conflicting or alternative views.

Since Sacco cites Luo, and since Luo was published by ICSA, I think we can include some of Luo's conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what User:Bloodofox told me a few weeks ago about a peer-reviewed article published in 2003: "An article from 2003 is of historic interest, and that's the extent of it. That was 17 years ago. Passing off an article about the NRM from 2003 as if it is still relevant in 2020 is, to put it politely, laughable." Assuming that he's consistent, I don't think he would agree with the inclusion? What do you think? Bstephens393 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am more inclusive than that one statement by Bloodofox, probably a hot-headed reaction. I accept sources for their relevant place in time. We Misplaced Pages editors are expected to balance the sources in the process of summarizing them. In some cases, an older paper will still be relevant, while in others it will not. Or the older paper might be presented as a moment in time, representative of the thinking at that time. Or parts of the older paper might still be good even though other parts will have been superseded. In all cases, we must judge the literature ourselves and balance it to compose an accurate summary. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Patsy Rahn's paper which we already cite compares Falun Gong to previous religious sectarian rebellions in China, the most recent being Yiguandao. We should tell the reader about the extensive experience of sectarian revolt in China, which was not always damaging to the government, but was viewed suspiciously because of the great damage possible. Successive governments quashed every sectarian rebellion except the one led by Zhu Yuanzhang who overthrew the government in 1368 and established the Ming dynasty with himself on the throne. The Yiguandao sect was suppressed by the Qing government, the Nationalist Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. All of these Chinese governments agreed that a religious sect with millions of followers was a dangerous entity to allow within China. Something about this, explicitly naming Yiguandao, should be in the article. At the very least we should cite Rahn in the first paragraph of the section "Causes" which is looking for a citation. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a dominant theme and certainly deserves to be covered properly. What is also sorely lacking is the overall context of state-sanctioned qigong in the 1980s and 90s and the sociopolitical environment in which Falun Gong grew and was popularized, since the sectarian revolt narrative leaves out a number of important considerations about the internal power politics inside the CCP and China's scientific community. I recently saw this Capstone Essay which contains a number of high-quality academic sources that we should take a close look at, even though we shouldn't directly link to it. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In 2012, the Atlantic ran a piece about the stability (or not) of the Chinese government. They said that the Chinese Communist Party's crackdown of Falun Gong seems "less surprising" after considering that the Qing Dynasty succumbed to internal pressure from anti-Manchu secret societies (also to foreign pressure), and the Kuomintang succumbed to a movement from inside China (also war with Japan). Which explains the harsh defensive measures taken by the CCP in 1999, who were trying to prevent another internal movement taking over the government. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Junker is cited in the article but he wrote another piece which would be very useful: "The Transnational Flow of Tactical Dispositions" (2014). Junker compares Minyun and Falun Gong tactics in their two very different forms of protest against the Chinese government. Among the interesting observations delivered by Junker are that the two groups have some overlap in membership, that Falun Gong was aware of the failure of Minyun tactics, and that the Falun Gong movement is both religious and political in aim. Junker says that the Falun Gong's practice of "clarifying truth" to outsiders is for spreading the group's story of persecution, not for recruiting. Junker calls Li Hongzhi a faith healer in the early years of Falun Gong. In 2019, Junker published another comparison of Minyun and Falun Gong: "Comparing Falun Gong and Minyun as Movements". We should incorporate some of this material. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Junker's observations are certainly worth including. There are a couple ways to do this, and perhaps a few sections where the content would be relevant. One area is in the section on Falun Gong's organization, where we might benefit from one or two lines summarizing Junker's observation that, as the persecution in China forced Falun Gong to develop the approaches of a social movement with political aims (i.e. ending persecution), its decentralized and hierarchical character made it more effective at mobilization than other anti-CCP social movements such as Minyun.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reuters: "Facebook removes small pro-Trump network based in Romania"

Falun Gong and "Falung Gong media" again in the news, this time for more pro-Trump shadow groups and in Romania, as reported by Reuters:

Facebook previously removed much larger and better-connected networks that supported Trump, including one connected to the Epoch Times here which was founded by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and often criticizes the government of China.

Facebook said on Thursday it had removed another network that reposted content from the Epoch Times and other Falun Gong media in a follow-up action.

Source:

• Menn, Joseph. 2020. "Facebook removes small pro-Trump network based in Romania". Reuters. August 6, 2020. Online.

At this point, "Falun Gong media" seems to be the better phrase than "extensions". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Falun Gong media," like "extensions" that are "administered" by Falun Gong, is ambiguous and imprecise. There is no direct administrative relationship between Falun Gong (as a faith system, a registered not-for-profit, or community of believers) and these organizations. What is accurate and precise is to say that these organizations were founded by Falun Gong adherents. Unless otherwise stated, they do not claim to represent Falun Gong in any broader sense.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We should word it as close as possible to the sources, and in this case it reads "which was founded by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and often criticizes the government of China", for instance. It doesn't say that it's centrally controled, but does say that it's affiliated via supporters. —PaleoNeonate – 09:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. There's absolutely no doubt that these media are affiliated with FLG supporters, and that has to be made clear to understand their political leanings, especially in regard to the PRC. I support the idea of using the wording from the source. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We have several sources that just refer to these entities as "Falun Gong media", and given that these media extensions operate as arms of Falun Gong in every way, this is by far the most accurate way of referring to these entities. The attempts at playing down Shen Yun and The Epoch Times as 'just having been founded by Falung Gong members' by the embedded supporters here is both transparent and unhelpful, particularly when we even have Li referring to entities like The Epoch Times as "our media". As the many media sources we have on this topic make clear, this is a topic only controversial among adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems to me that there also should be space dedicated to the criticism of elements of Falun Gong, such as the cult-like environment, the cult of personality of Li Hongzhi, the opposition to homosexuality, the opposition to Western evidence-based science and medicine, all of which are not mentioned at all in the article. One thing that is mentioned, but briefly, is its involvement with far-right political groups and media Eccekevin (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Other criticisms include how they have disrupted happy, family-oriented cultural events such as Christmas parades with gruesome photos and protests, and how they have hounded those who published negative findings about them. Around their headquarters in New York state near Pennsylvania, they have been criticized for ruining the rural, small-town atmosphere. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no agreement amount reliable sources that Falun Gong has a "cult-like environment." To the contrary, most scholarly sources say that it does not display the features (particularly the more invidious features) that are typically associated with "cults." The whole cult categorization is of dubious value in any case, as it lacks a clear definition depending on the discipline. Most of the content you're proposing would be better integrated into the relevant sections of the article, with factual and neutral descriptions. Falun Gong's teachings against homosexuality, for example, are dealt with under 'social practices,' and that seems appropriate. Whether or not a person regards sexually conservative teachings as "controversial" is entirely subjective and contingent on the reader's system of values and beliefs. There should be a section, I believe, that deals holistically and in a balanced fashion with Falun Gong's relationship to modern medicine and the (dispute) impact it has on practitioners' health.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A contradictory aspect is that intolerance of homosexuality is not an expression of universal peace, truth, etc. In the modern world, anti-LGBT and anti-feminism activism is controversial. As for the cult definition or environment, a charismatic leader is one of the critera used by experts to classify them, for instance. Another is the level of friction with the world. It will be difficult to find reliable sources contesting such (necessary to reorient the article). —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT and anti-feminism activism is a different position from religious/metaphysical essentialism of most traditional (and, in FLG's case, traditionally influenced) religions and spiritual practices. For instance, I'm pro-LGBT rights myself, but I don't consider Tibetan Buddhism, Islam, Falun Gong and other religions inherently unacceptable or problematic as long as their adherents are not trying to impose a socio-political agenda on others. Of course, we're not concerned about my opinions or any other editor's opinions per se; what I'm saying is that we must take a look at the descriptions in various reliable sources and represent them honestly, i.e. without an a priori filter based on whatever we happen to postulate as orthodoxy or heresy or even "social justice." Bstephens393 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You're well aware that Falun Gong is a new religious movement built around Li Honghzi in the 90s, and you're well aware that deflecting Li's statements to what-aboutisms regarding ancient religions is not helpful. Leave that sort of puffery to Falun Gong's PR agency. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

James R. Lewis on Falun Gong's Control of Relevant Misplaced Pages Entries and Media Strategies (2018)

Writing back in 2018, academic James R. Lewis discusses something numerous editors on this page have also noted over the past several months: Falun Gong's continued and aggressive influence on Falun Gong-related English Misplaced Pages entries, and how "relevant Misplaced Pages entries turn out to be little more than mouthpieces for the FLG point of view" (p. 81).

The source:

• Lewis, James R. 2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom. Cambridge University Press.

Lewis highlights Falun Gong's extensive internet presence, and how editors who have to date contributed to English Misplaced Pages entries associated with Falun Gong to the point where "Falun Gong followers and/or sympathizers de fact control the relevant pages on Misplaced Pages" (p. 80), and how this is particularly important for Falun Gong as an organization due to the SEO results of these entries and how the entries can influence other media entities. Leiws notes also how this fits in as part of Falun Gong's general media strategy, such as Falun Gong media like The Epoch Times, New Tang Dynasty, Sound of Hope Radio, and, as Lewis discusses, the Rachlin media group. Lewis reports that the Rachlin media group is the Falun Gong's de facto PR firm operated by Gail Rachlin, spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Information Centre. (p. 80). Lewis also discusses how Amnesty International apparently does not independently verify its reports from Falun Gong groups, accepting material directly from Falun Gong organizations as fact (p. 80).

Here's a quote that sums it up:

FLG has thus been able to influence other media via its presence on the web, through its direct press releases, and through its own media. (p. 80)

Currently any comment or discussion left on this talk page gets met with the same group of accounts, who produce talking points as if on cue and fight tooth and nail to maintain a status quo that reads like any Falun Gong-related press release. This is very much in line with what Lewis describes (my bolding):

The Falun Gong organization has been most successful at promoting itself to the world outside of mainland China as a peaceful exercise group being unfairly targeted by the Chinese government. As we have seen, this is partly the result of denying or downplaying the aspects of Li Hongzhi's teachings that are vengeful, belligerent, or violent. However, it also the result of a conscious media strategy that involves, on the one hand, creating its own media outlets, and, on the other hand, taking advantage of anti-PRC sentiments in Western media. (p. 76)

The presence and activities of Falun Gong editors has plagued these articles for a long time-including now—and not only do we need coverage of this in the article, but we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points. Enough is enough: It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts and build a reliable, neutral article on Falun Gong and related topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:04, 24 August 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