This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thomas Meng (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 28 April 2020 (→This is essentially propaganda: Some things to point out). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:27, 28 April 2020 by Thomas Meng (talk | contribs) (→This is essentially propaganda: Some things to point out)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falun Gong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| 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  |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is essentially propaganda
It's really a disappointment to find how biased this article is. It fails to document the many negative experiences of families who have member lost to the group, which has aspects of a cult including paranoia toward critics and beliefs with no reasonable basis in reality. It also presents the group as benign when it is well-known to promote zealotry in it's members and is, itself, a group that denies human rights of other people who have different belief or life-styles. Lastly, it fails to discuss the group's ties to Right Wing political movements including the use of the Epoch Times to engage in political influence.
It is not my place to change the article since that would doubtless start an undesirable situation where proponents of the movement battle to control the content as often happens on Misplaced Pages. That would not be productive. Therefore, I only offer my basic criticisms here for reasonable people to consider and as a warning of the nature of the article as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiao-zi (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for your comment. Some of it would fit in the "Speculation on rationale" section I think. RhinoMind (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Xiao-zi: I find that this article is mostly substantiated by third-party sources that comply with WP:REPUTABLE. Thus, it would not fit the definition of a propaganda. Moreover, in the media campaign section, it states that the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the disinformation campaign against Falun Gong. The supposed "negative experiences" and other negative issues that you mentioned above align precisely with the claims made by the disinformation campaign of the Chinese Communist Party.
- Also, I took a deeper look into the alleged "Falun Gong self-immolation" by the Chinese government. It seems that this was proven entirely as a hoax aimed toward demonizing Falun Gong, according to an abundance of third-party findings. This would indicate that it's the Chinese communist government that is disseminating propaganda, but not this article. Inferring from facts mentioned above, the Chinese state-run media would be considered as unreliable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE, and one should not rely upon them.
- It seems true that a lot of Falun Gong practitioners work in the Epoch Times. Nevertheless, associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate. Because, say, if most employees in the ABC News are Christians, we wouldn't write on the Wiki page for Christianity that "Christians are related to the ABC News". It's the same case here, we shouldn't relate any media company to a spiritual practice that only upholds Truth-Compassion-Forbearance.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Missing important information
Inconvenient information has been "accidentally" left out, making for a biased article:
- Links with far-right propaganda networks:
- https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 - https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/kiff-disproportionate-funding-goes-to-media-outlet-linked-to-falun-gong
- Concerns over practitioners refusal to medical treatment:
- https://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/6789-more-falun-gong-followers-die-after-refusing-medical-treatment.html - https://www.jstor.org/stable/26671407
- The cult claims that modern technology was given to humanity by aliens: https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19980530L.html
- The cult claims that homosexuality is Satan's plan to undermine capitalism: https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-the-specter-of-communism-is-ruling-our-world-introduction_2547882.html
- The cult claims that race-mixing generates children without soul: https://falundafa.org/eng/eng/lectures/19961012L.html
- Listing in The Cult Education Institute: https://www.culteducation.com/group/1254-falun-gong/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelof01 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Court case in Spain
The section on the Court case in Spain is outdated. The court case it mentions was dismissed by the Audiencia Nacional since it lacked jurisdiction. A second case was also dismissed and it is currently on a Supreme Court appeal stage. --MarioGom (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- "El Supremo estudia el martes una querella de Falun Gong contra China por genocidio que rechazó la Audiencia Nacional". La Vanguardia (in Spanish). 7 July 2019. Retrieved 8 October 2019.
Duplication in Critcism section
The first three paragraphs of the Criticism section are almost verbatim repeated under the subheading Cult of Personality. The section probably needs a once over and incorporation of some additional notable critiques to capture the full range of discussion, especially given the length of the article as a whole, but I understand this is controversial. Ffe9 (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, fixed Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Use of Epoch Times as a source?
Considering the Epoch Times is known to be strongly associated with the Falun Gong itself and considered to have significant bias regardless, is using it as a source of information in this article at all advisable? The body itself doesn't particularly clarify upon this point, and the phrasing somewhat implies that the information cited should be taken as given. --Kawdek (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- This article also uses Minghui.org, Falun Gong's own public teaching website as source. The research papers/reports cited in the article are either sponsored by Falun Dafa, or involved by them. The source of information is exatrmely speculative and secretive. Unfortunately, removing or editing on this page may result in unwanted battle and fight from Falun Gong members who use wikipeida. --Loned (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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