Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Extremely unbalanced, needs massive rewrite.

Falun Gong is not an uncontroversial organisation and this article does not present a fair and unbiased assessment overall. Its tone is apologetic: lots of time is spent legitimising the group, emphasising it’s spiritual practices and apparent persecution, whereas mentions of the many controversies surrounding Falun Gong and its leadership are few and far between, tacked like footnotes onto the end of sections detailing its “decentralised organisational structure”. Considering this is a group some would describe as a far-right, anti-science cult, this article is in need of a serious rewrite to ensure balance and objectivism. Fleabag500 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Best of luck, there are a lot of FG adherents on wiki and they (and whatever IP/socks/meats the larger organization throws at you) don't go down without a fight. This is the single most difficult topic area on wikipedia to effect change in bar none. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is already biased against Falun Gong. It cites at least one source who is on the Chinese government payroll (James Lewis). It quotes from at least one article (LA Magazine) that was retracted. It falsely claims that Li Hongzhi founded the Epoch Times (relying on the retracted article). It falsely attributes a statement to Li Hongzhi (that he supposedly instructed followers to lie), even though it is clear that Li never said that. It is directly contrary to what Li actually teaches, as the vast majority of scholars recognize. Unfortunately some people seem more interested in using the article to smear Falun Gong than to accurately and neutrally describe the practice or summarize the literature concerning it.

As for whether Falun Gong is “far-right,” you seem to be conflating The Epoch Times with Falun Gong generally. They are not synonymous. A lot of Falun Gong practitioners disagree with The Epoch Times’s political positions. And the article already summarizes Falun Gong’s association with Epoch, and describes Epoch as far-right, including right up front in the introduction.

The description of Falun Gong as a “cult” is a hateful and inaccurate slur, as many scholars have explained (including Ian Johnson, Danny Schecter, David Matas & David Kilgour, whose books are all cited on the page). JackUpdike (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The argument for bias here seems very, very weak. "at least one source" which may possibly be sympathetic to China indicates absolutely nothing in terms of bias for China.

Even if the Epoch Times was not directly created by Li Hongzhi, Falun Gong's influence on it is pretty much undisputed. So it seems very strange indeed to cite this as an example of bias. Because it reads more like a misunderstanding than anything malicious, and even then it isn't too far from the truth.

"it is clear that Li never said that"

That's kinda vague? And isn't indicative of bias.

Fact is, the article is very much pro-Falun Gong. And the existence of one or two sentences that may possibly have a slightly critical view of it is not indicative of bias in the slightest.

Falun Gong practitioners may disagree with the views of the Epoch Times, but as far as I am aware, figures like Li have never rejected it or disputed it and far-right views seem to be mostly prevalent within it. For example, say tomorrow, the majority of Catholics decided to support Gay Marriage, that doesn't mean Catholicism is now accepting of gay marriage. Genabab (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment seemed vague, as I’ve covered these issues in detail on this talk page before and didn’t want to be redundant. To take the most important point, that it is clear Li Hongzhi never instructed followers to lie as the article claims, all one has to do is look at the source for that claim. It is (at footnote 31), an article by Heather Kavan. If you click through to her article, it links to the lecture in which she claims Li instructed followers to lie (Touring North America to Teach the Fa, 2002, https://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm). Any fair-minded reader can look at it and see that Li said no such thing, and that Kavan mischaracterized his words. Anyone can use their common sense and realize that if Li’s intention was to mislead outsiders, then Falun Gong would not leave the lecture publicly available online, as it is. Any knowledgeable editor should see that Kavan’s claim is contrary to the weight of scholarly authority, including the most prominent independent scholars of Falun Gong like David Ownby and Benjamin Penny, who have each emphasized the centrality of the truthfulness principle in Li’s teachings. (See, for example, quotes from Ownby at fn. 34 (Li enjoins cultivators to practice truth in their lives) and Penny at fn. 36 (“in Falun Gong cultivation adherence to the code of truth, compassion, and forbearance is not just regarded as the right and responsible course of action for practitioners; it is an essential part of the cultivation process. Lapsing from it will render any other efforts in cultivation worthless.")

When I raised this issue and requested that Kavan’s false claim be removed from the article, the response instead was to add another citation (from James Lewis) as ostensible support for the false claim. Lewis of course is the “scholar” who now makes money in China as he churns out anti-Falun Gong material. It is shameful that the false claim remains in the article. And I’m sorry to say it, but it does seem like anti-Falun Gong bias among some editors is the reason why it does.

Similarly, the objectively false claim that Li founded The Epoch Times remains on the page long after it was first raised for reconsideration, even though it is sourced to an article that was retracted. That is not “a misunderstanding.” It is a willful failure to correct a false claim. And it flouts the wiki policy on reliable sources. You’re right that there is an association between Falun Gong and Epoch, and it is fair to describe it, but why not do so accurately?

Lastly, I disagree with your suggestion that far-right views are prevalent among Falun Gong practitioners. It seems that you are attributing views that you associate with Epoch to practitioners generally. I encourage you to look at the Falun InfoCenter website for a different perspective (https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions). Thank you for your consideration. JackUpdike (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing it up, but I think the central point still stands. This isn't indicative of bias and more as an error that hasn't been fixed. I could make a similar point with the Wikipedia page on Nick Land, which in all honesty is by in large misinterpreted Nick Land's views. But it would be a stretch to conclude from that, that the page is necessarily biased against him. It's just an error that happens to not have been fixed.

As for why it hasn't fixed already? Well it's a big article that also has been protected from edits. Which kinda cuts down the number of potential people who'd have fixed it.

I haven't heard anything before this of James R. Lewis being heavily biased and "on the Chinese payroll" (an accusation which I think is thrown about a bit too liberally). Hell, even if he was that doesn't necessarily make his analysis wrong. More importantly, the work he made on Falun Gong is limited. He made one book in 2018, hardly "churning out" propaganda for the Chinese.

And again, all this would indicate (if it does even indicate bias at all, which I am still skeptical on), is an amount of bias which is dwarfed by the rest of the article, which via a quick read-through is very apparent that it has a very strong pro-FG bias.

In what way is it a "willful" failure. Editing this page is very difficult after all as I previousy described.

I didn't even suggest that? My point was that, what the average Joe thinks doesn't really matter when talking about an organised religion's views. Which are pretty far-right, considering that Li did propogate anti-miscigenation, which likely influenced the Epoch times to support Far-Right German Nativists too. There is even a potential argument to be made that the teachings of Li are even anti-semitic.

Quoting from here: https://en.falundafa.org/eng/lectures/19980904L.html

"The way alien beings get human beings to shake free of the gods is to mix the races, causing human beings to become rootless people, just like the plant hybrids people make nowadays. South Americans, Central Americans, Mexicans and some people in Southeast Asia—all of these races have been mixed. None of this can evade the gods’ eyes. Alien beings have made rather extensive preparations for overtaking human beings."

The idea of an "alien race" trying to take over the world by encouraging race mixing? Never heard that one before.

Now am I saying that Li definitely means Jews here? No. Not necesarily. But when people say things like this (more famously with "lizards") it usually ends up going there. Which is probably worthy of note. Genabab (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You can find the discussions JackUpdike is referring to in the archives (Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_45. Suffice to say his recollection of them bares only a slight resemblance to the actual discussion. MrOllie (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do review the archive, and judge for yourselves whether I misrepresented anything. Mr. Ollie is the editor who added the cite to Wuhan University’s own James Lewis, supposedly as a second source for the claim that Li Hongzhi instructed followers to lie. The Lewis article that he cited doesn’t even make that claim, however. It is a bogus citation to support a false claim. Again, please take a look and judge for yourselves. JackUpdike (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You’re wrong about James Lewis – he wrote a lot more than one book attacking Falun Gong, and it’s a matter of public record he was on the CCP payroll as a professor at (state-run) Wuhan University. He collaborated with anti-Falun Gong propagandists associated with Wuhan University since at least 2016. He attended anti-Falun Gong propaganda conferences in Wuhan in 2016 and 2017. (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-12/03/c_136797683.htm). In July 2017, he promoted the anti-Falun Gong views of three Wuhan professors at an international conference. (https://www.cesnur.org/2017/jerusalem-program.htm ). By 2019, he had secured employment himself at Wuhan University. His online CV boasted that Wuhan University awarded him an “Initial Research Fund” grant to keep him gainfully employed through at least 2022. (https://whu-cn.academia.edu/JamesLewis/CurriculumVitae). Wuhan University hired Lewis at the same time the CCP was engaged in a “sweeping campaign” designed to “eliminate dissent and turn universities into party strongholds.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/world/asia/china-student-informers.html). Once he started collaborating with the Wuhan propagandists, Lewis did in fact “churn out” anti-Falun Gong material. In July 2017, he contributed a chapter called “Understanding Falun Gong’s Martyrdom Strategy as Spiritual Terrorism,” to the Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism, and he published an article in Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, both of which attacked Falun Gong. In the Fall of 2017, he devoted an entire edition of his journal, the Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review, to articles uniformly hostile to Falun Gong. In May 2018, he published his book Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom. In November 2018, he published an article “A Burning Faith in the Master,” in the Journal of Religion and Violence. In February 2019, Equinox published Enlightened Martyrdom: The Hidden Side of Falun Gong, which Lewis co-edited with Huang Chao, one of his Wuhan colleagues. That book also contains chapters from each of the other three Wuhan professors Lewis had collaborated with since at least 2017. In February 2020, Lewis and Huang co-wrote an article called “Falun Gong: Origins, Growth, Conflict” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Lewis’s writing also has appeared on the English-language version of Kaiwind, a CCP propaganda site. Kaiwind’s English-language home page [which Wikipedia blocks] is the epitome of an authoritarian regime’s propaganda, designed to incite hatred against Falun Gong and other disfavored spiritual groups. Lewis also repeatedly cited to that website in his writings. He is a corrupt source. Even putting all that aside, his article cited at footnote 32, ostensibly as support for the claim that Li Hongzhi instructed followers to lie, doesn’t say that.

I understand that it may be difficult for any particular editor to make substantive changes to the article, but when we cannot get consensus even to correct clear factual errors, there is a problem with some editors’ objectivity.

Your suggestion of anti-Semitism is such a stretch that it hardly merits a response. Your suggestion that Li Hongzhi “propagates” anti-miscegenation also is incorrect. In fact, mixed-race marriages are common among Falun Gong practitioners. As the Falun InfoCenter (https://faluninfo.net/misconceptions-intolerant/) explains, “many Falun Gong practitioners married people of different race, and have children of mixed race after they took up the practice. Of the 14 individuals who make up the Information Center’s staff, fully 4 fall into this category. Falun Gong practitioners of all races and national origins are regarded equally in the community, associate together freely, frequently intermarry, and receive full support from their co-believers.” JackUpdike (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

He has talked about not involving in politics, though.

https://gb.falundafa.org/chigb/jjyz_49.htm

https://gb.falundafa.org/chigb/jjyz2_28.htm

English:

https://en.falundafa.org/eng/jjyz49.htm

https://en.falundafa.org/eng/jjyz2.htm#NoPolitics

harguahbguodfhfuhbdsufhbdsueubfurbueghuyhurehuwe9rifoeeereworewrewbfhua0g9rb9wewebiewbawe9raewbrhaiwebew9ufebifewbru9fwgbewifbeuwabhhhhibfebihfaw9abifuewawiufbhfu9ewfiuebwfiuefh9uewifefuibebwiufebwifbewifbu9iewufiebwwufebwhefuhbhebhfuewhfehwfewhiaif999fhn (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What the page needs is an accurate overview of their religious tenants in the opening description rather than poisoning the well by saying it's linked to the "far-right", "QAnon", and "Donald Trump". 2600:1700:4150:1A00:5107:A41C:B042:D557 (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Article lede

The changes between September and the most recent revision seem to have removed almost all information about the group in China or the Chinese government's views on the Falun Gong, leaving only information about the group in the United States. I would have just reverted back to the lede from the September revision if the article's rewrite wasn't already under discussion, but instead I'm going to post this here first and then do it BOLDly while inviting anyone who finds it problematic to comment here.

The main issue is that removing all the bytes except the ones about America removes all the bytes that relate to the article. Not one section of this article is about America. The change to the lede removed all mentions of the persecution of the Falun Gong by the CCP when the article actually does have a section about their persecution; there's even a whole Wikipedia article about it which is linked to in this article. I'm not saying this with a pro-Falun Gong POV, I'll admit to being biased against their views, but we have to consider what a lede is in the first place. If the lede gives the reader the false impression that the Falun Gong are exclusively an American thing, if there's no correlation between what the lede says and what the article says, then it's just a bad lede. The older revision did a better job at fulfilling this function, but if editors believe it had other issues (e.g. POV concerns) then we can use this talk section to collaborate on a new phrasing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems the deleted (now reinstated) content was removed by User:Heyallkatehere who described it as "fluff." It doesn't look like they've participated in the above talk sections so perhaps I was wrong to assume the article overhaul being discussed had anything to do with the lede. Maybe this won't be as controversial as I expected it to be.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Would've appreciated a ping, I didn't get notified of this, I'd have happily explained why I removed those sections. I admit, it may have been overkill to remove the full section about persecution in the lead, however it reads as very... overly lengthy. My main issue with the current lead, is it seemingly intentionally (by the original author, I mean, not you, vanilla.) buries the section discussing the less tasteful things to past what you can see without scrolling, which could give someone the false impression that they're uncontroversial, or not know about epoch times which is... yikesy. Heyallkatehere (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to give the restructuring of the lead another go, as I feel I can strike a decent balance, let me know if you have any notes or suggestions with what I do, and feel free to make changes yourself. Heyallkatehere (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity my intent here is striking a good balance between having the needed historical info, but presenting current data first and foremost. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Heyallkatehere: presenting current data first and foremost strikes me as WP:Recentism and not good balance. Jumping from objective facts about FG (1st paragraph) to suddenly "FG and the far-right in the media" (2nd paragraph of the edit I reverted), and then back to the history, development and persecution from decades ago messes with the flow. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How is the second paragraph non-objective fact? There are numerous sources that Falun Gong is associated with these organizations, and far right is not a subjective term. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What I mean by objective facts is the question of "what is it in the grand scheme of things", i.e. a new religious movement by Li Hongzhi, not a hot topic in the press. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

First, recentism is an essay, not a policy. Second, recentism is about current and breaking or still developing news, falun gong having those associations is long-running and not making headlines. It just is current, relevant information, and thus I feel belongs toward the top. The historical info is important, for certain, but the lead is first and foremost about what the topic is, not how it got there, even if such information may be relevant and put into the lead. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

to quote WP:LEAD:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Recentism is an essay on WP:NOTNEWS and notability, the former a policy and latter a guideline. As per WP:LEAD itself, the lead summary of § International reception and § The Epoch Times and Shen Yun should be given less emphasis because § History inside China and § Persecution are significantly larger in size. I let a random number generator pick the references in the article and sure enough, [1][2][3][4] they talk more about the persecution than The Epoch Times or any other far-right affiliates. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording, let me know if the current state is more to your liking. I still have some notes to add, such as rephrasing epoch times to note that it is a part of a falun gong run and supported conglom. Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

also, what do you think of a summary sentence in para 1 establishing its notability for both the extensions and persecution? It'd prolly be a bit hard to write, but it could make the restructuring of the next paragraphs far less impactful, which I think we'd both prefer. Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I still think it's better to introduce information about Falun Gong itself first before any affiliates and "subsidiaries" due to, again, the sheer size of § History. This is just going too deep into some extreme beliefs before before anything about the main principles of the movement and whatnot, the "statements of facts" as WP:PRIMARY puts it. The article body also puts The Epoch Times and reception all the way at the bottom.

I have no opinion on implementing the persecution in para 1. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel as though the body putting it at the bottom is rather unrelated, and quite frankly the body has plenty of it's own issues, but I need a break, so I'm gonna log off and chill for about an hour or two, and reassess. Cheers, trying not to make this a fight :) Heyallkatehere (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Heyallkatehere:, you'll find that this article is talked by adherents who want anything that doesn't fit the organization's talking points removed. They'll try any angle. What they want is discussion about the Chinese government and nothing else. Take a look through the article's talk page history—you'll find that new religious movement scholars have discussed this very article as an extension of Falun Gong propaganda. Don't let adherents bully you into removing well-sourced material about this group. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodofox oh don't you worry, I'm not concerned about getting duped. I know the history. I just need to dodge the dis.sanc. so I don't get in trouble. Plus, they had a valid point, the body of the article doesn't match the lead. mind you, I'm not exactly gonna fix that in the way they hope Heyallkatehere (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear it. Most of the body has needed a complete rewrite for a long time. At the moment, much of it just reads like another Falun Gong propaganda tract. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I never said anything about deleting nor including content, I just think the current paragraph order is simply jumping all over the place. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 16:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

400km!?!?

It says the Falun Gong is a 400km compound[sic]? The hyperlink itself says 427-acres. So... Can we please change that? A 400km compound would be mighty impressive. 199.126.146.44 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@199.126.146.44 I meant the Falun Gong has a compound, "Dragon Springs" that is apprently 400km (doesn't say square, just... 400km). 199.126.146.44 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for notifying. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

Please label this group as a dangerous cult, instead of justifying their existence 2601:42:C103:A7A0:0:0:0:B4D4 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Per MOS:LABEL. No sources were given. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Claim for aliens etc has reliable sources

[[5]] and [[6]] [[7]] and more. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Massive persecution section is WP:UNDUE

The truly huge persecution section on the article is WP:UNDUE. It's the largest section on the page. Granted, Falun Gong is known very well for its persecution, but it's still undue, especially since the beliefs and practices section is significantly shorter. Falun Gong is still a religion after all, so the beliefs and practices section should be the largest section. Compare this article to Baháʼí Faith or Ahmadiyya. Their persecution is widely known and have their own articles, but the persecution section doesn't take up half the page. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Historically, this article has bene subject to adherents emphasizing persecution above all else, and attempting to hide or downplay information about the group's leadership, beliefs, and organization. I agree that the persecution section is far too large in comparison to the rest of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

2006 Organ Harvesting Allegations

"In 2006, allegations emerged that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry." I'm not sure where this info is from, but I heard about the organ harvesting sometime between late 2003-2005. Of course it was word of mouth at the time, so perhaps the statement intended to include the word "published?" I know very specifically that it was before 2006 because I was in Seattle for college until 2006 and definitely heard about it on campus. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This article needs a tag indicating that it is unbalanced or not neutral

Others have also raised concerns about the neutrality of this article. Falun gong is very controversial but the article paints the subject positively and is very light on controversies and negative POVs. I am requesting that a tag indicating the potential lack of neutrality in the article is promptly adopted to inform readers. Ronak19 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, and quite urgently. One of the most egregious cases I've ever seen, this article is almost entirely useless and really needs a full rewrite and monitoring. 67.168.233.142 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Make the changes, with reliable sources, instead of just saying there are issues. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A tag is the first step to resolving major issues. This page is WP:OWN by the members of the sect, uninvolved editors generally take a few steps in and then jump back out because of the overwhelming COI editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems most of the sources are generally also biased. It's a biased article sourced by biased articles. Not sure it can really be saved... 68.43.149.98 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we do the same for the victims of Khmer Rouge & the Holocaust?--2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Falun Gong, go to those articles. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead paragraph is very uninformative. It's missing a ton of important information, but for some reason someone found it necessary to include the exact size of Falun Gong's headquarters in the lead. The second paragraph also focuses Falun Gong's outreach organizations overseas, which is also odd given that there are only two paragraphs in the article body specifically talking about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. The lead section should be rewritten to focus more on Falun Gong's history within China and its beliefs, and less on the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The literature in English is more about negative reactions to Falun Gong activism outside of China. We are accurately representing the literature. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Serious POV and should be protected

The article makes pains to laud the religion and provides zero criticism of it, not to mention using plenty of POV terminology over encyclopedially neutral terms. Beware, TIGERS may be present. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2023

I suggest that this article should be tagged as NPOV. The neutrality (or in this case, the lack of it) of this article is an issue that's been brought up before by other users, including here on the current talk page. Tridentarii3apologist (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I see only one discussion about NPOV, and that seems to be mostly confusion about source reliability. NPOV does not seem particularly debatable here. If you disagree, please provide concrete examples and your own argument. Thanks :) Actualcpscm (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

False claim from inaccurate source This sentence currently in the article is inaccurate. The source is not credible. Under subheading - Central Teachings. The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.

REASONING Inaccurate statement: "These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice."

The source quoted is Kavan. Her paper is inaccurate so not a reliable source. She states that: "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 (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21])."

However when reading the source she uses (Li, 2002, p.21), Kavan has left off the remainder of the sentence "and trying to be good people". This is the spiritual part of their practice - self improvement following moral teachings. Qigong exercises and self improvement. Kavan's paper is therefore misleading and not a credible source. (see the source text pasted below)

The second source by Lewis [39] is not relevant to the statement and should be deleted.

The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.

Here is the information pasted directly from the source that Kavan refers to in her paper. [Li, 2002, p. 21]) "When you clarify the truth don’t say high-level things; the main thing isn’t to have people understand what the high-level, profound Fa is. Well, people who are particularly good are an exception, and you can tell them about it. But when you clarify the truth to an average person, just tell him that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand. After they learn about the truth, people will see all the propaganda for what it is, lies, and they’ll naturally see how despicable and evil it is." Nita Bon Bon (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I can't make heads or tails of it. Please rewrite this so it's more clear. Like, what statement? what source? why is that source not reliable? Drmies (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Professor Kavan performed the analysis of Li's teachings, concluding that Li was asking his followers to be evasive about Falun Gong to non-believers—to lie. We are not going to try and analyze Li's teachings on our own, as that would be a violation of WP:No original research; an unbending policy. You are asking for that exact thing, to look at Li's statement and interpret it differently than Kavan did. That's not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The point I am making is that Kavan (in her paper that is referenced in the wiki article) has left out part of the quote from Li. The part of the quote that she left out changes the meaning completely so her paper is biased. It changes the meaning from 'Li instructed practitioners to lie' to Li instructed practitioners to simplify their explanations of the practice when talking to people so they can understand. Kavan's paper says that Li said to 'just tell people that it's exercises'(with the claim that he is instucting them to lie), however when you go to her source Li actually said 'Just tell them that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand'. There is no instruction to lie. Lavan is not a credible source and is biased towards the group. The words 'instructed' and 'as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry' are inflammatory and not backed up by the source she has used which says something altogether different.

There is no membership to Falun Gong so 'members' is also inaccurate.

1. CHANGE FROM

These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice.

TO

These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong practitioners to outsiders to explain in simple terms what the practice is. Li stated, "Just tell them that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand“ [Li, 2002, p. 21]

2.

Remove the Kavan source which is inaccurate and inflammatory and put the original source (Li, 2002, p.21)

3. Remove the second source by Lewis [39] as it is not relevant to the statement it is supposed to be a source for.

Thank you Nita Bon Bon (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's beyond belief that Kavan failed to read the whole passage. No, the whole passage was taken into consideration, and the part about talking to non-believers was highlighted because it reveals the rift in Li's system. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

What rift are you referring to? It's acceptable to include information in the wiki article about Li giving advice about how to speak to non-believers, however any academic interpretation of the paragraph regarding what he said would result in the understanding that Li was telling them to keep things simple for people and talk about the basics, rather than to 'lie' - the source is biased. The wiki article policies state there must be a "neutral point of view". Saying Li told them to 'lie' when the source says otherwise is not neutral. The sentence should state exactly what happened.

Thus the need to change the source to the original source (Li) and change the text to "These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong practitioners to outsiders to explain in simple terms what the practice is. Li stated, "Just tell them that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand“ [Li, 2002, p. 21] Nita Bon Bon (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't have enough leverage in your argument to remove Kavan's scholarship as unreliable. To make Kavan unreliable, other respectable scholars in her field must question her work. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Kavan's quote is incorrect. It's simple to see if you take a look. It's not accurate to describe that quote from the source as 'instructing people to lie'. The Falun Gong practice instructs people to be truthful not to lie. Therefore this part of the wikipedia article is currently biased and incorrect as well. The rules state that the article must have a neutral point of view. Nita Bon Bon (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remember WP:OR. Wikipedia primarily relies on secondary sources, not primary sources or original research. See also WP:RS. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have read this (WP:OR) and Kavan is not a reliable source. She has misquoted. If secondary sources are incorrect and therefore unreliable then the statement and the footnote should be removed or corrected - yes? For the integrity of the article, the statement and source should be removed or corrected as recommended. Nita Bon Bon (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to accept that Kavan is not a reliable source just because you disagree with her. She hasn't misquoted. MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nikita Bon Bon, lies of omission is lying. And you are acting like the Higher teachings are real and honest. But with all due respect, I think you are possibly aiding a potentially harmful cult and seem to believe its teachings are the higher truth. You are endorsing actions like "don't tell people what FG teach" for the stated reason that they can't understand the complicated 'Truth' like we do, so now we must hide it from them unless they understand the truth themselves". But apparently when this so called truth is dubiously preaching whacky beliefs like that evil space aliens wanting to take our bodies, and in developing your supernatural powers and even refusing modern medicine but use faith in Li's teaching instead to cure yourself from serious diseases. That seem to me like a classic dangerous cult where insiders are now taught that others outside, don't understand such things and so must not tell them about it. Despite if they did, I think many people will try to warn them they are in a cult.[8] 210.8.65.14 (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's Li approved POV

As others had mentioned. The article suffers from POV issues. And I am particularly aware there are no shortage of many controversial teachings in Falun Gong as published by their own website and multiple media outlets have also exposed it. Some of them include teaching members that evil aliens created all our technology and use them to destroy humanity, or that advanced nuclear power plants had already existed thousands of years ago [9], and also even on promising that learning Zhaun Falun can help one attain supernatural powers which the Falun Gong founder has also self claimed to have. However its leader Li now tells believer followers to hide away all their "high level" teachings away from the public to avoid being shut down.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 (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]) [10] And this article seems to exemplify just that. It is written in the way that its leader LI prefers. To hide all their "high level" beliefs and to instead convince the public that they're not really a religion but just a vanilla harmless "exercise" group. Most recently is this edit here [11] that just unreasonably removes well-sourced information that mentions what the leader does claim about himself and of the world.210.8.65.14 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit you reference removed text because it was missing a citation, in accordance with WP:BLP policy. We cannot have unsourced statements about a living person. If you want to propose specific changes, please do so in the form "change X to Y" or "remove X" or "add X after Y", citing reliable sources to support the change. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And lastly that's another issue here. Do check it again. It's wrongful editing to later put in a tag claiming that it is lacking a citation when that's untrue. I can see that the editor had cited BBC correctly and also BBC is a reputable strong source. [12] Do readers even have a chance to know that the one and only Falun gong leader Li self claimed to have achieved eternal youth or that he even promises his practitioners they can quickly learn supernatural powers by reading his book and listening to his words completely and unconditionally? [13] Those are just facts that you wouldn't be able to learn from today's Wikipedia article because it appears certain editors hijack this article to prevent the public from ever being aware of it.210.8.65.14 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The deleted text was in fact well sourced by BBC link. Words also even came from Li himself as he tries to convince the public in a Times interview that people should not trust the government or scientists but only on him alone to be their saviour as he claims to be uniquely the only person in the world chosen save humanity in the upcoming apolpcaptic alien plot. [14] And nonetheless such an interview and information is also referenced by a wide range of second hand outlets nowadays like ABC news and Business Insider to name a few. It's easy to find sources and here is three. [15] [16] [17] The man appears to me as a real world charlatan that makes up lots of tall tales like claiming he mastered eternal youth or other lies. We are told of Yinghai, or "subtle babies," that appear all over the bodies of high-level Falun Gong practitioners; of ancient cities on ocean floors; of a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor in Gabon, Africa; and of the fact that civilization has been left "in complete destruction" 81 times in its history -- a fact Li discovered only after "a meticulous check which I once did And he just expects followers to believe and learn this as truth unconditionally without question. [18] For example, the revisionist lessons on existance of ancient nuclear reactors are even still publicly taught in their own website, just because Li insists on it as proof that the world is going to end and why his followers need him to save them. [19] I know most average normal people are not so naive and can tell it's a cult if you mention such whacky teachings to them. And because I suspect since most people are not so easily fooled, its leader Li now tells believer followers to hide away all their "high level" teachings or his lame lies away from the public, to avoid being most likely and rightfully shut down as he is aware of the backlash that is likely to come when more people are aware of what he really teaches to his followers. 210.8.65.14 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to make a specific suggestion, or not? Propose the text you want to add, and the source you want to cite. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

See my new formal request in the thread just below and previously I didn’t even ask for a specific edit to be added in. So don’t know why you keep asking me that as if pushing the impression I am wasting time. Just initially pointing that some information has been wrongfully removed. And more importantly that I agree with the other editors here like Keith Tyler in above two threads, that the article needs to be tagged as having serious pov issues and I have also at great lengths, thoroughly explained why that’s necessary. Yet you not once have addressed any of that. It seems perhaps you are not as interested in my reasoning but keep sidestepping to asking me for specific edits to add in. So if you insist, I will tell you to go please revert this edit [20] because here are multiple strong sources supporting that info as true facts. [21][22] [23] and also tag the article as poor in the POV department. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2023 - Missing space

In the second paragraph the first and second sentences do not have a space between them. A space needs to be added.

(Currently the article reads "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun.They are known..." but it should read "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun. They are known...") Pauldunahoo (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove contraversial left wing talking points regarding the Epoch news agency

the commentary regarding the Epoch News in the article is deliberately misleading and exhibits clear left wing bias. As a biased statement it should be removed from the article. 50.250.214.1 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that it's the same thing, per WP:EPOCHTIMES we should indeed remove that source EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with right- or left-wing. Epoch is a mouthpiece for Falun Gong and publishes conspiracy theories. It was deprecated as a source by Wikipedia in 2019. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see that Epoch Times is not used as a source, but there are sources about it. There's no need to remove things. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

Request that the article is tagged as being flawed in POV. I explained the reasoning in the thread I created above that is titled, "It's Li approved POV". Because I strongly agree with the two threads above made from user @KeithTyler and @Tridentarii3apologist, that the article needs to be tagged as suffering from POV issues. And directly above I have also already given my thorough explanation why that’s necessary and rightfully pointing that some information has been wrongfully removed.[24] And that such removed information was well sourced by the BBC.[25] So again like others also asked, do add in the tag that the article suffers from POV issues. Couldn’t be more clearer on that.

Secondly I suggest to add in these key facts into the article at minimum that Falun gong promises people they can achieve “redemption” in the form of attaining supernatural powers, to help them heal from diseases and even to attain eternal youth or immortality if they join Falun Gong and follow it. And the Falun Gong group endorses that its leader and also founder Li, has already mastered eternal youth and attained supernatural abilities. Currently that information is not present in the article despite being incredibly important and deserves inclusions Suporting sources are [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] and I do believe such true information is necessary for this article. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It appears that your concern so far has only been with one controversial edit. I don't think the article presents a particularly favourable view of the movement, and one disputed edit does not change that. I don't quite understand the relevance of the teachings to the POV issue; that is extremely similar to what many mainstream religious movements teach. Please elaborate and feel free to ping me with your response. Also, be aware that your account appears a lot like a single-purpose account. That is not per se a bad thing, but be sure to adhere to the relevant policies and guidelines when editing and making suggestions. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't usually visit Wikipedia very often so my bad for replying 3 weeks late. But thank you for replying here and informing me of your decision. But I need to point out here that you didn't address almost half my request. Because in the second half of my request, I have asked to add the proposed information, that is in the bold text. But you did not say anything of it or address?TasmaniaBridge (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Not A Religion!

The webpage (Falun Gong - Wikipedia) says that Falun Gong is a religion.

Yet, practitioners often point out that Falun Gong is NOT a religion. For example, unlike a religion, Falun Gong does not have anything to do, with a: (i) god; (ii) paradise; (iii) hell; and, (iv) 'afterlife'.

China's totalitarian government, however, labelled Falun Gong a "religion", for negative propaganda purposes.

The reason why Beijing outlaws Falun Gong is because Falun Gong has never been "approved", by China's totalitarian government.

Chinese people were just doing it. So, that represented an instance of free will - which was not allowed. William F. Sheehan (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows WP:Reliable sources, giving the most weight to WP:SECONDARY sources from topic scholars, who definitely represent the group as a new religion, albeit with qualifications depending on the sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request to add in that Li has claimed to have supernatural abilities

Add in the following edit in bold text, inside the article's 'Beliefs and practices' chapter:

Falun Gong's leader Li Hongzhi has claimed to have mastered eternal youth and successfully cultivated numerous supernatural abilities. Li promises his followers that Falun Gong can potentially teach them to also become eternally youthful and to be able to cultivate numerous supernatural powers including the ability to heal from all diseases, if they join Falun Gong and follow its teachings.[31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

Note; I already asked for this edit to be added in 3 weeks ago. But it wasn't even addressed at all twice now by my count, after requesting. I previously had first informed the monitor of this talk page Anachronist to revert the recent deletion of the info and had gave him many strong sources, however he had stopped replying after that request.[36] Perhaps he didn't see. So why I later made a formal request but it got "closed" despite Actualcpscm did not even address at all whether or not such proposed information, in bolded text, is to be added into the article. I am starting to think it's impossible to ever add such information. But such information should be mentioned, and not removed, because the public deserves to know. I wish I was making this up but it's very true and confirmed by many top sources. I don't believe anyone including even veteran Falun Gong members deny this vital information. And I hope whoever answers this request, will do so in the interests of the public right to know, and not out of some loyalty to Falun Gong and the fear the public would see it less positively if they are aware of more real facts about it. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: No, I didn't see it. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, as do many other editors. If you want to get the attention of someone, use the {{reply}} or {{ping}} templates, as I just did with you, to cause a notification to appear.

In the first source you cite above, the abstract (the only thing I can see) does not support what you state in the text you are proposing, it gives what seems to be only a tentative suggestion.

The second source on slate.com is a personal essay or editorial written by a practitioner, who provides a secondhand quote from Li's book. It would be better to cite that book. Both the Slate piece and the book would be considered primary sources.

The third source deals primarily with the controversy around organ harvesting and devotes one sentence to the assertion of "supernatural powers" and another about curing deseases, but says nothing about those powers being "numerous".

The fourth source from ABC is another editorial that says nothing about immortality, diseases, and supernatural powers. I don't even know why you cited it.

The fifth source from ABC is a long rambling piece that is horrible to navigate, but it does say something about how Li claims that all diseases can be cured. I see nothing about supernatural or magical claims, but maybe I missed them in that mess of an article. It's hard to find anything of substance in it that supports the text you propose.

Based on that analysis, I find these sources weak, and the proposed text misrepresents what they say.

Therefore, this edit request is  Declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I believe you are mistaken here as my first given source is by David Ownby and he does support my proposed texts in full that Li claims he can teach people supernatural abilities and to heal from all illnesses. [37] I also don't agree that sources like David Ownby are deemed "weak" here. I mean there is even an entire dedicated Wikipedia article for his book titled, Falun Gong and the future of China. It shows editors consider him to be a major expert on Falun Gong otherwise why even have an entire article on his book and even mention him 36 times literally in the current Wikipedia article for Falun Gong already? You cannot cite someone so many times in the wikipedia article already yet now deem him to be weak. Furthermore how is it even possible to have top professional outlets like the New York Times[38], Radio Free International [39], BBC[40], ABC news, Business insider [41] all say the same thing that Li Hongzhi does claim to have supernatural powers? Are they all lying to defame Li? Seems unlikely. And your reasoning seems arbitrary when you say no sources precisely say "numerous" abilities. But it's a "numerous" amount considering Li claims he can fly, walk through walls and make himself invisible and so many other claims. I didn't want to include all of them as it would take endless paragraphs to list them all so I summarised as "numerous". I don't think you can just dismiss all those sources as all weak when they are professional journalists and of an expert scholar already frequently cited in the current article already, and I hope you don't mind if I will request this to be settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion if we really cannot agree as I honestly do believe you are wrong in your analysis here that my sources are "weak". TasmaniaBridge (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: If you have full access to that first source by Ownby, I'd like to see some quotations from it. The abstract does not support your proposed text. In that sense, it is a weak source. It may well be a strong source but it's behind a paywall for me.

Your text synthesizes a conclusion from the sources you cite. See WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot do that, even if the conclusion is correct. I am not arguing with your conclusion, in fact I agree with the statements you propose, but I am not seeing the sources you cite support them. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I hope you don't take this the wrong way as I want to be respectful but also honest here. I do admit that I am somewhat biased here against the FG views for claiming that its still living leader has supernatural abilities and that he had achieved eternal youth and promises that followers can learn to achieve the same if they follow Li's "honest" teachings loyally. And what I cannot stand is how the Wikipedia article neglects to even mention that context at all. Maybe because certain editors fear it comes across as a scam to most people. Probably because it is a typical scam as I know boastful Li is lying about having supernatural powers. And am not saying we should call him dishonest but we should at least show the public what he boastfully claims about himself and of this world, and not always hide it. Yet a past editor chess, have deleted it from the article and why I have requested to add in such info back in, that Li claims to have supernatural powers, as it is essential information people should minimally know of FG. And despite what you say, there are multiple strong sources supporting such info as true facts. [42][43] [44] And it is honestly hard to take you seriously when you do say stuff like my sources doesn't support my proposed texts. I don't want to get deep into some circular endless partisan debate. But I think you should know I have read previous editors here, and one editor looks to be uninterested in editing, gave his reasons for their lack of interest. The User Horse eye back writes, "This page is WP:OWN by the members of the sect, uninvolved editors generally take a few steps in and then jump back out because of the overwhelming COI editing". [45] and he bids others good luck in trying to make a difference. I hope he isn't right but he does seem experienced and I admit he really got into my head after I read that post. And really, I don't want to waste my time, as I do have a lot on my plate in the real world and also I can tell that we can't agree with one another at all, at this rate. I would say it supports and you would deny and back and forth. That's not going anywhere so we need to resort to some alternative dispute resolution instead of just us arguing to no end. I read there's a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where they can tell you what is a reliable acceptable source and what isn't and suggest to start there as it's perfect for us. And see if my sources really are unacceptable by others. So if the Third opinion or reliable sources noticeboard says it's unacceptable, I may not agree with that but I will respect the decision. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. No, I am not offended in the least. In fact, I don't really have any stake or opinion in what the article states. My only concern is that the article complies with Wikipedia content policies. The additional text must not misrepresent sources, and must not synthesize conclusions from sources. The text you proposed is a good start, and you and I already agree that your proposed text is factual, but that isn't enough. The sources are all that matter. I didn't find support for the text you proposed (the way your wrote it) in the sources you cited. Removing "numerous" would be an improvement unless you cited a source that says something similar. But collecting together a bunch of different sources to conclude that the word "numerous" is correct is WP:SYNTHESIS.

There is a distinction you have missed. Declining your proposal does not equate to rejecting your proposal. It just means that adjustments are needed to make it solidly grounded in reliable sources. This is required to prevent its future removal from the article again.

I am still interested to know what's in that first source that you feel supports what you wrote, because all I can see is the abstract, which doesn't really help. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I should probably tell you now that I would be super busy and going on a trip for next 2 days. So won't be able to reply for some time and not trying to ghost. But I should just say I believe the Washington Post had read Li's book and said that Li had wrote that at age 8, he had attained supernatural powers: which includes bending metal pipes, become invisible, rise into the heavens.[46] So unless Washington Post is an unreliable source. I believe that is good enough source to add in that he does claim to have attained supernatural powers. Also Falun Gong's official own website [47] talks heaps about people with supernatural powers. It even claims that American magician is a being with real supernatural powers and that people can actually cultivate supernatural abilities. This factor should be weighed in here to show that my other sources are accurate about Falun Gong is claiming that it can teach people to learn supernatural powers. My sources include Radio Free international who do not seem to have reason to both lie about Falun Gong promising followers they can cultivate supernatural powers through Falun Gong and are professionals that don't make amateurish mistakes.[48] If you still disagree that my sources are bad, then we simply cannot agree. I will ask if you could then just post my sources and what I had wrote here, on the Reliable sources noticeboard or on third opinion. If they agree with you, then I will not agree of course, but I will accept it. But I hope if they agree with me, you would respect their decision and add my proposed information and sources in.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: That Washington Post article alone is a good enough source to support your proposal, worded a bit differently to remove the redundant superlative "numerous", and the Radio Free International source, as I stated earlier, is good for the medical assertions. The rest of those sources you proposed earlier aren't as good. Primary sources (Falon Gong's website and first-hand accounts) should be avoided. Just a couple of good sources should be enough, and those two seem OK.

Don't worry about getting busy in real life. That's always more important, and remember, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply again. My point is guy self appointed himself as the leader and claims to have supernatural powers and wisdom. He teaches publicly that his book can help others to cultivate their supernatural abilities. All such info is true and seems you agree that my proposed text is factual. But say the sources and wording of proposed texts needs attention. But want to wrap it up and it seems we can at least agree the Washington Post source is good and that it is better to not mention "numerous". Instead just go follow how the Washington Post and Radio Free International words it. I could agree with that. I revised my proposed edit and you can add it in, more or less with whatever appropriate changes to it you deem is needed.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Put into beliefs and practices chapter; According to the founder Li in his book, "Zhuan Falun", he claims to have cultivated supernatural powers at the age of 8 and that he could perform feats such as invisibility and being able to bend metal pipes. And that at fourth grade, he had been able to pass through the walls and enter a locked classroom.[49] According to Radio Free International, the same book of "Zhuan Falun" promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body”.[50]TasmaniaBridge (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Noticed you haven't responded but then realised I had forgot to get your attention with a ping. I made a reply to your last response and hope you will notice. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: I'd omit some specific details that seem unnecessary. More like this: According to the founder Li in his book, "Zhuan Falun", he claims to have cultivated supernatural powers starting at age eight.[51] According to Radio Free International, the same book of "Zhuan Falun" promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body”.[52] ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Yes, that would be fine by me. I would agree with your revision and confirm I have no real issues with it.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: Would you suggest exactly where it should go? The "Beliefs and practices" section is pretty large. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist:Really wherever you think is good but I would suggest the same place where the similar info had used to be present just a month ago. ->Within the "Central teachings" subchapter, you can add the info following right after that final paragraph in the chapter saying "Li says that he is a being who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as the result of rampant evil. When asked if he was a human being, Li replied "You can think of me as a human being."[12][57][58]". And then add in your revised edit, that despite he tells others to think of him as human. He also claims to cultivate supernatural abilities by age 8 and his book, promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body".TasmaniaBridge (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Added. This is exactly how talk page collaboration is supposed to work. Thank you for your patient persistence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist It is easy to verify that the edit you made is false. The cited book Zhuan Falun is on the web, so I cross-checked. The source RFI and your edit state: "promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body"".

In Zhuan Falun, chapter 2, celestial eye: "A person with a low-level Celestial Eye may have the penetrative vision to see things through a wall and look through a human body. ... We are opening the Celestial Eye for everyone here, but we do not open it at or below Celestial Eyesight. Why? Though you sit here and have begun to practice cultivation, you are, after all, just beginning from the level of an everyday person with many everyday people’s attachments still not abandoned. If your Celestial Eye is opened below Celestial Eyesight, you will have what everyday people regard as supernormal abilities, as you can see things through a wall and see through a human body. If we provided this supernormal ability widely and if everyone’s Celestial Eye were opened to this level, it would severely disturb ordinary human society and disrupt the state of ordinary human society."

So just the contrary is true. 79.116.124.252 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We state what reliable secondary sources say, not what primary sources say about themselves. In any case,"may have the penetrative vision to see things through a wall and look through a human body" does not contradict the edit. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

As an interested reader I would like the introduction of this article to inform me about what Falun Gong is, how many people do practice it and where. I would like to know the essence of its teachings, what kind of religion is it (in this case seemingly close to buddhism), what are its excercises about, is it Yoga or Gig Gong?. What I primarily read is a negatively touched information about its media outlets. Are the media the main purpose of Falun Gong? The introduction isn't a good abstract of the article in my opinion. 79.116.124.252 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read as far as the third paragraph of the lead section? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A non-biased correction of ambiguity

The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:

"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their anti-evolutionary stance."

The repeated use of the they/their pronoun leads to ambiguity. The pronoun "their" in the clause "their anti-evolutionary stance" could be interpreted as indicating either the Falun Gong, or the CCP. To demonstrate the ambiguity, the following examples are provided, with editorial comments inside square brackets:

"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [the CCP's] anti-evolutionary stance."

or

"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [The Falun Gong's] anti-evolutionary stance."

As it is well known that the anti-evolutionary stance is held by the Falun Gong, not the CCP, I propose replacing the word "and" with the phrase "as well as", to clarify that Falung Gong, not the CCP, holds anti-evolutionary beliefs. As follows:

"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as their anti-evolutionary stance." Nitr0smash (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Good correction! Anne Linstatter (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed change: multiple reverts by Binksternet

Ladies and gentlemen, I seldom find pleasure editing this polarizing topic. I've tried to stay away from this article as much as I can, but feel compelled to intervene today, for reasons apparent below.

I am proposing to restore the following edit to the article, which essentially sought to introduce a source on the subject's own, alternative voice in response to a paragraph of adverse representations about them. (I take no stand on the truth of these adverse representations, but am prepared to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they are meritorious). Here's the link to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=1163082716&oldid=1163073121

I'm not the author of this edit (the "Edit") that I'm seeking to restore. But I believe that it has been improperly reverted by Binksternet, in disregard and violation of WP, as particularized below.

The chronology is as follows:

1. On July 2, 2023, an editor named Thomas Meng introduced the Edit with the edit summary: "Statement by the president of Falun Dafa Association on homosexuality".

2. On July 5, 2023, Binksternet reverted this Edit, with the edit summary: "rv PR messaging, false in practice".

3. On July 10, 2023, I restored Thomas Meng's Edit, with the edit summary: "Binkersnet's alleged ground for undoing another editor's edit is "PR messaging - false in practise." Since when has Binksternet become a reliable source on the conduct of Falun Gong adherents toward homosexuals? This paragraph cites primary sources and opinion sources liberally. Surely the FG Info Center is allowed to express a contrary view about FG? WP:NPOV WP:ABOUTSELF"

4. On July 10, 2023, mere hours later, Binksternet reverted the Edit again for the second time, without discussion, with the edit summary: "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"

In my respectful view, Binksternet's repeated reverts are problematic for the following reasons:

a. First, Binksternet's alleged justifications for these reverts, i.e. "false in practice"; "we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views", finds no basis in any editing policy, including the WP:COPO, whatsoever. There's not even a barest attempt to appeal to those editing policies, which we are bound to follow;

b. Instead of appealing to the WP, Binksternet simply asserts what he thinks to be true, and uses that opinion which he personally holds to justify his reverts. The problem, of course, is that Binksternet is not a reliable source on this issue. Editing not based on what the sources say, but based on what he personally thinks the article should say, is a quintessential breach of WP:NPOV - the adherence to which by him is non-negotiable.

c. Third, his allegation of the content of the Edit being "false in practise" is bald, unsubstantiated and devoid of support from any reliable source. To specify, the source being introduced by the Edit states that Falun Gong adherents respect the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community, and do not oppose their efforts to establish their rights. Binksternet baldly alleges that this is "untrue in practise". Yet, I can find no published sources supporting Binksternet's suggestions that Falun Gong adherents do not respect, and opposes the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community.

In this regard, all of other sources on this issue of homosexuality in that paragraph seeks to address the content of Li Hongzhi's teachings, but none speaks to the practical conduct and behaviour of Falun Gong adherents in regards to homosexuality, which is a different issue, and which is what the Edit squarely seeks to address, contrary to Binksternet's allegations.

d. The allegations accusing Li Hongzhi's teachings for promoting homophobia, contained in the material paragraph of this article, is overall supported by 11 sources. One of these sources is a cherrypicked quotation from a primary Falun Gong text (which is patently not a reliable secondary source), about 5-8 of them are stuck behind paywalls (and are potentially primary research), and about a handful of them simply could not be found on the internet (at least not for me in a brief ten minutes google search). There are also one or two opinion pieces, which are not reliable secondary sources either, incorporated into this article without any attribution to the authors, thereby being held out as facts.

Issues of the status of these sources as WP:RS aside, which is a topic for another day, the Edit sought to be made is the only source being adduced as an alternative viewpoint relevant to this issue, which in my view, is clearly warranted in the interests of WP:BALANCE. And as the Edit seeks to quote an authoritative representative of the very subject of this matter, the Edit also falls within the ambit of WP:ABOUTSELF.

e. Finally, Binksternet's reinstatement of his edit without discussion and consensus, is a plain disregard and breach of the additional editing rules established for this article, which I quote,

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."

Binksternet made no attempt to discuss his/her reinstatement on talk, and simply proceeded to reinstate his edit, within hours of my revert of his change.

In light of all of the above, I respectfully wish to revert Binksternet's deletion of the Edit, and restore that Edit to this article. I value and seek the input of fellow editors to all of the above, and will proceed with my intended action, if appropriate in light of others' views and input on this matter.

Thank you all for your time in reading my long rambling post, and have a great day. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about how the NPOV policy handles balance. It emphatically does not refer to WP:FALSEBALANCE - we don't give both sides of an issue space simply for the sake of giving both sides. It is not Binksternet who has the WP:ONUS to achive consensus for this content, it lies with those who are trying to get it into the article. You should not reinsert this content again. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, MrOllie. Can I take your position to mean that an editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion, as Binksternet did? Does other editors agree with this? Not trying to be rhetorical - it's good to clarify.

Secondly, I think we can all agree that balance means giving coverage to viewpoints proportionate to their establishment in reliable sources. It begs the question of what that balance is, which is a matter of judgment and consensus. I think we can agree that both of us know what the principle means, we disagree on their application. Your position is that that a fair balance means 11 adverse sources and 0 positive source. My view is that a fair balance warrants 1 positive source to 11 adverse sources.

Also you ignore my point about WP:ABOUTSELF. Any reason why this principle shouldn't apply in support of the Edit? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if your source counting were the way we do things (again, per WP:FALSEBALANCE it is not), we would consider independent sourcing. Falun Gong reps issuing press releases would not tilt our evaluation of the sourcing. Aboutself doesn't apply to 'unduly self-serving' claims and this certainly qualifies. See also WP:MANDY. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

How else may balance or weight given to a particular viewpoint be measured, if not by the number of sources cited and represented in support of that viewpoint? Can you suggest an alternative way to objective measure balance or weight? Thanks for point out WP:MANDY, which is an essay, that is outranked by policies and guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_guidelines_and_essays), especially the WP:COPO, under which WP:ABOUTSELF is a subset.

Also I disagree that WP:MANDY applies here. WP:MANDY refers to self-serving denials that are patently and proven to be untrue. I've made the point in my first post in our discussion that the content of the Edit has not been contradicted by any source, let alone reliable source. I'll be happy to stand corrected, if you can provide me with any published sources showing acts of homophobia or anti-LGTBQ advocacy engaged by the Falun Gong community, which would go towards showing that the Edit is untrue and constitutes a Mandy-style denial. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The founder's words on the subject are more than sufficient for the purposes of this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If this article is about Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gong, then maybe (the practise of cherrypicking is objectionable but is a topic for another day). But this article is patently not about that. This article is about Falun Gong as it is taught, practised, and the major history and events surrounding it. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it your position that Falun Gong adherents routinely ignore Li Hongzhi's teachings? If so, I'd like to see sources for that. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly not what the Edit and its source is saying. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gong are very relevant to Falun Gong as it is taught MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying that those teachings are irrelevant (putting aside the issue of cherrypicking for now). There are dozens of sources on those teachings in this article, and I'm not taking issue with that, in this discussion.

The issue is that those teachings are not all there is to this subject which is on Falun Gong as a whole, contrary to your allegation that "The founder's words on the subject are more than sufficient for the purposes of this article". HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also Ollie, can you please confirm that the following rule is true and applies to this article, which is what I glean from your comments at 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)?

"An editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion."

I've asked you to confirm and you did not do so. I think this is an important rule to clarify, and give us a lot of clarity and structure in approaching future edits on this article and related articles down the road. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't confirm, because such things are not the purpose of this talk page. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works you can ask them elsewhere, like at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I only asked because you raised this proposition, and relied on this proposition to support Binksternet's undiscussed reinstatements, implicitly holding out that proposition to be true. Your failure to confirm is respectfully noted. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I did raise the proposition you are making. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether you raised it aside, is it a yes or not to the following, in your view?

"An editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion."

Not trying to be overbearing or difficult here (I apologize if any offence is taken). The answer to this question is a key to our discussion because if the answer is yes, then Binksternet is justified in making his multiple reverts without discussion, because of the alleged lack of consensus to the Edit being reverted.

If the answer to the above question is no, then Binksternet is not justified in making his multiple reverts without discussion, and those reverts need to be discussed and very likely undone. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather not engage with WP:WIKILAWYERING, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm WP:WIKILAWYERING. We can agree to disagree. But I would certainly respect it if you do not want to continue this discussion. Cheers and thanks for your participation anyway. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WP:MANDY absolutely applies here. It may be an essay, but it represents broad consensus about these things. To be specific, Thomas Meng added the MANDY statement nine days ago, citing a church's Wordpress blog which he then swapped for the self-published website faluninfo.net. I removed all of that stuff eight days ago, saying it was "P.R. messaging, false in practice". HollerithPunchCard re-added the statement yesterday, and I removed it again less than an hour later. So I made two reverts separated by five days, both of them aligned with WP:MANDY consensus. These reverts should stand. The WP:ONUS for adding new information is on the folks who wish to add it. Consensus for adding has not been established. And in any case, the statement by Falun Gong saying they are not homophobic is contradicted by various third party sources reporting otherwise. There is no reason to give Falun Gong a chance to deny something that is confirmed by others. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet for finally attempting to justify your twice undiscussed deletion of the cited addition based on actual Wiki policies/guidelines/essays, which nonetheless lacks merit for the following reasons:

1. That there is broad consensus to the validity of WP:MANDY (assuming for the purpose of argument that this true), says nothing about whether WP:MANDY should apply here to justify reverting the the Edit in question. Much less does this mean that WP:MANDY, as an essay, outranks WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION, which supports the inclusion of this Edit - an issue that I have raised and you have not addressed.

2. Since you are the one invoking WP:MANDY to support your revert, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that WP:MANDY applies. You have not done so. Your uncited, unsubstantiated bald claim to the alleged existence of contradictory sources is simply insufficient to overcome the Edit which is well cited and sourced.

3. In this regard, yes the WP:ONUS for adding new information is on the editor seeking to introduce that information. However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article (See: WP:REMOVECITE). Deleting the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not seek your consensus first is an example of tendentious or disrupting editing.

4. So far, you have declared the following in support of your reverts:

- "PR messaging, false in practice" (declared twice in support of two reverts)

- "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"

In my respectful view, these actions amount to clear information suppression and WP:CENSORSHIP, partially defined as the following:

- Explaining why evidence supports one view, but under-representing (even deleting) opposing views in order to make an opinion appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.

- Minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question or that support alternative views.

- Generalizing an opinion held by "some" or "many" as if it is held by "all" (or "all credible") sources, while treating an opposing view as not being held by anyone credible.

- Ignoring an opposing view, question or discussion point on the basis that those upholding it are claimed to be misinformed.

- Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

You may not personally agree with the contrary opinion, but that is not a valid ground to erase that opinion from Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I noticed while going through your contributions history that you have been simultaneously pushing for similar edits on allegations of homophobia on Shen Yun, a related page, examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I take no stand on the merits of those edits for the purpose of this post, but they are consistent with the appearance that you are single POV pushing, in breach of WP:NPOV.

In light of all of the above, I ask for your agreement to retract your reverts, until such that you are able to actually demonstrate, with citations of reliable sources, that the Edit you reverted is plainly false and belongs to a Mandy-style denial, and all of the WP grounds that have been articulated here and above do not support its inclusion in this article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: Sorry for the fly-by comment, but I think you are confusing WP:ONUS with WP:BURDEN when you say:

However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article

WP:BURDEN says that the editor who adds content needs to demonstrate verifiability (i.e. source & cite). WP:ONUS says that satisfying that burden does not guarantee inclusion - consensus is required in addition to citing reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this discussion, @MarkH21. I think we can both agree that consensus is required to include a contested source.

This is why I haven't proceeded to restore the deleted Edit, despite my disagreement with its deletion.

This is also why I have initiated a dialogue by raising numerous substantive concerns with the deletion of the Edit, for my friends to address, who, instead of engaging the vast majority of concerns on their merits, mostly point to the lack of consensus in an attempt to end the discussion.

You can appreciate that there is a difference between (i) exclusion in light of reasonable disagreement following a constructive, rule based discussion on the merits of the Edit, and (ii) exclusion simply because of the lack of consensus, in and of itself.

In any words, yes, consensus is necessary, so is a willingness to engage in the consensus-building process, which I think falls short here. There's really a lot of guidance on this point, such as, WP:TALKDONTREVERT; WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS; WP:DISRUPTSIGNS; WP:GAMING; WP:REMOVECITE, which I do not want to belabour. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You are attempting to reverse the burden again, but that is simply not how Wikipedia works. Consensus is needed to add material. MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Right now you (i.e MrOllie) and Binksternet are trying to exclude a properly cited information, and silencing an opinion on this article. You need to do more to justify this exclusion, than just baldly asserting that "consensus is needed". HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. One might be able to make a bold addition, but preserving that edit against consensus is obviously not what the policies you are citing are about. You will not find any 'rule' (again, see WP:WIKILAWYERING) that will allow you to add whatever you want to an article and then force it to remain over the objections of other editors. The reversion has been well justified. That you personally disagree with it does not mean further justification is needed. MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You are avoiding all of the issues I raised on their merits, and objecting for the sake of objecting, thereby creating a lack of consensus to the Edit, and erase it from the article. Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts. It's not just my "personal disagreement" - it's a breach of the policies and guidelines on multiple fronts, which I have shown. You need to actually address my concerns, than to baldly assert the mere presence of disagreement, to sustain the censorship. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel a lot of need to address your concerns when you mix in personal attacks. Also, see WP:SATISFY - no one needs to address everything you write here. I object to the addition beceause I disagree with it for the reasons articulated by Binksternet as well as myself. Stop putting words in my mouth and ascribing false motives to others. MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The only objections you and Binksternet put forth so far is an unsubstantiated reference to WP:Mandy and WP:ONUS, to which I have raised numerous concerns in response. Instead of responding my concerns, you simply assert the bare existence of "objections" on you and Binksternet's part to end this discussion. And when I cite the WPs to support my concerns, you accuse me of WP:Wikilawyering twice. With respect, who's the one making personal attacks?

And no, I did not make any personal attacks against you. My articulation of concerns about your conduct in maintaining an objection without a serious or proper response to your fellow editor's legitimate concerns, is plainly not the same personal attacks.

And the end of the day, I've made my arguments. If you want to defend you or Binksternet's edits on Wikipedia, please respond to my concerns and have a constructive discussion with me - instead of simply saying "I disagree. Hence the cited addition should be removed, because of my disagreement." HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Arguing with a straw man isn't going to get you anywhere. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and my concerns above remain unaddressed. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

HollerithPunchCard, I don't have any personal interest in Falun Gong or Shen Yun. As far as I know, I have not met anyone who is a member. The only reason I'm here is to prevent Falun Gong topics from becoming a platform for the group's views. Of course we should tell the reader what are the views of Falun Gong, but these should come from investigative journalists and topic scholars, not from faluninfo.net. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, which establish what is important to a topic. This is not the place for Falun Gong adherents to insist that they get to skew the topic in favor of their views, using primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet, the sanctimonious lecturing about others trying to “skew the topic in favor of their views” is pretty rich coming from you. As far as I can tell, you’ve done more than anyone to introduce falsehoods into Falun Gong-related articles, and to promote shoddy and unreliable sources so long as they present an anti-Falun Gong view. You’ve pushed CCP-affiliated sources like James Lewis. You’ve insisted that a retracted article should remain on the page, even though it contains assertions that are easily proven false. You added the false claim that Li Hongzhi “instructed followers to lie” even though that one too is easily disproven, and even though it flies in the face of serious scholarship concerning Falun Gong teachings and beliefs.

Think about this, by the 2010’s, it was well-established historical fact that Falun Gong practitioners in China – who by all accounts were entirely non-violent – were being detained, tortured, and in many cases killed for their beliefs at the hands of the ruling Chinese Communist Party. What kind of “scholars” would travel to China in that environment to attend state-sponsored “anti-cult” conferences and denounce Falun Gong? What kind of a scholar would then travel abroad with professors from state-run Chinese universities to promote their anti-Falun Gong views internationally? What kind of scholar would then go on the CCP payroll himself, while continuing to publish anti-Falun Gong materials? What kind of Wikipedia editor would still defend such a “scholar” as a reliable source?

I don’t know where your animus against Falun Gong comes from, but given your track record you have no business posing as an objective editor on this topic.

This article should not be controlled by Falun Gong adherents, but it should not be controlled by anti-Falun Gong activists either. JackUpdike (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I would just add that including Falun Info Center's statement would not create any false balance. The Center's statement saying that they treat everyone with compassion and tolerance, including homosexuals, aligns with what most academic sources say about their central teachings. No sources contradict their statement, and it doesn't contradict the founder's statements either, so it appears well-balanced to me. Thomas Meng (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand scholar Heather Kavan has written a couple of papers describing how Falun Gong practitioners are not in fact tolerant or compassionate. Rather, they are hateful and hostile when their religion is challenged. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This Wikipedia post is written by Falun Gong. It is NOT "written from a neutral point of view." Would you let Hitler or Jim Jones each write his own Wikipedia entry? Anne Linstatter (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My experience on wikipedia says otherwise... How is that statement not unduly self serving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

File:610 Office.jpg graph

File:610 Office.jpg from "Faluninfo.net" is included under the "Persecution" section, and it includes some interesting content, but it is captioned only as "610 Office's organization in China", which I feel is a bit lacking in context or commentary that might be necessary for such a chart. Combining this with its relatively poor quality (absolutely chock full of JPEG artifacts and is unreadable at thumbnail sizes), I am wondering if the caption could in any way be improved to help the reader understand its context and its encyclopedic relevance, or if it could be removed? If I weren't subject to the blue lock, I probably would have just done the latter. Bakutosz (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

inappropriate citation

The practice emphasizes morality and the cultivation of virtue, and identifies as a practice of the Buddhist school, though its teachings also incorporate elements drawn from Taoist traditions.

Has 2 citations. 1 is relevant to this sentence, the second is a hit piece targeting the Epoch Times. Marieke77 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

Please change, "Deerpark, NY" to "Deer Park, NY". In the first paragraph of this Wikipedia page, the headquarters for Falun Gong is incorrectly written as, "Deerpark, NY". In fact, the town is "Deer Park, NY". I am the source for this as I grew up in Dix Hills, NY, which borders Deer Park. Both towns are in Suffolk County, on Long Island, NY, just outside of NYC. Lostinnh (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Lostinnh: Please provide reliable sources that Falun Gong has moved from Orange County to Suffolk County. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess I can get the URL of a map to show where Deer Park is and what its correct spelling is. I was simply correcting the spelling of the name of the town. I considered this a minor edit/detail so did not think a reference other then my own knowledge of 12 years living there would matter.

As far as Falun Gong having its HDQRs in Deer Park, NY, that was already on that Wiki page and, again, I was simply correcting the spelling, not stating a location. I guess I can use Wikis own page on Deer Park, NY, as a reference for its correct spelling. 2601:19D:C080:3D20:38DA:8AF0:7A70:B63D (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please disregard my previous effort. My apologies. I just did a lot of reading on both Falun Gong and Deerpark, NY. I was very surprised to learn that there are two towns in NY state with that name, just with different spellings. There is Deerpark, NY, in Orange County, NY, where Falun Gong is and Deer Park, NY, in Suffolk County, NY, near where I grew up. I was amazed. In my defense, I just read a good part of a long piece on ex-Falun Gong members and they kept spelling the town as, "Deer Park", which is incorrect. Lostinnh (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That is just probably because they were not actual ex-Falun Gong members but dummies or such or people paid for that story by the CCP. Just guessing. But why else would they not spell properly the place where they lived...? Marieke77 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

LOL, if that were the only error in this Wikipedia piece. Anne Linstatter (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Fringe Noticeboard

There's an ongoing discussion of Falun Gong adherents and WP:SPA accounts attempting to influence this page over at [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Adherents attempting to whitewash Falun Gong]. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Falun Gong and its many propaganda arms in 2023

Since we'e seen a flare up of adherents attempting to sculpt the article to their preferred vision lately, perhaps it's time to revisit this article. Right now we have a lot of issues stemming from the earlier treatment of this article as if it were yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm. These include:

• Downplaying the role of the group's founder, leader, and commander, Li Hongzhi
• Attempting to hide his actual teachings versus a sanitized and 'palatable' presentation based on claims of 'tradition'
• Attempting to hide or downplaying the existence and centrality of Dragon Springs
• Attempting to bury discussion of the group's connection to Shen Yun, the Epoch Times, and any number of other propaganda arms opeated by the group, which the group denies yet is now well documented

It's high time this article has all old references excised. These were often essentially puff pieces for the group and echoed their claims. This is no longer the case. We need modern sources discussing what this organization is and how it operates. For example, we currently lack significant discussion about how the Falun Gong has evolved into an extremely wealthy conspiracy theory superspreader with deep US government connections. To get an idea of what's going here today, and especially how interlinked the Falun Gong is with sections of the contemporary GOP and certain far-right groups here in Germany, here's an article from October 2023:

• Zadrozny, Brandy. 2023. "How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions". NBC News, October 13, 2023.

We're only presenting the tip of the iceberg of what this group actually is on this article. A lot has happened in the meantime as wel, like closure of the Falun Gong college at Dragon Springs ([53]), the "worldwide headquarters of the Falun Gong". :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this article is very biased towards uninformed people. Radically improving this article would require huge amount of efforts. Furthermore, most editors are speak english, so they are biased to what english authors write AAAAA143222 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Can we please remove the WP-mention from the WP:LEAD? Article content on it may be WP:PROPORTIONal (I haven't looked) but having it in the lead appears very WP:NAVELGAZING (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed from the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems quite appropriate for me for the lead as part of the group's general strategy. It is after all about this article. A comparable situation is something like Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's inappropriate on its face, but I do think that there is so much content that is reasonably appropriate for the lead that this bit doesn't make the cut. To use your example, Church of Scientology does not mention attempts to influence Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be right. As an aside, in the latter case, the Church of Scientology's organized attempts at dictating coverage on this site should really be covered in that article, but I am definitely not stepping into another hornet's nest on here anytime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wise. I'm inclined to leave this for a while and see who else chimes in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Both FG and CofS may deserve a mention at List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we can make the final lead paragraph more about how FG tries to change media perceptions generally, including their propensity to sue for defamation and to deliver personal threats to individual scholars and journalists, citing documentation by Kavan and Lewis at minimum. The Wikipedia campaign can be woven in more adeptly in such a paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Do y'all really want start the precedent that every group that has been called out for trying to control narratives on their page has that mentioned in the lead? That would be a lot of organizations and individuals. We should not have this in the lead. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Taunts, snipes, and censorship

Maybe I wasn't clear. Stop discussing the behavior of editors on this talk page. There are places to discuss editor conduct, and this is not one of them. If this continues then there will be sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I note that the above CLEANSTART account (@Sennalen:), ran by an individual that once operated under another account and who may well have edited here before, appeared on this talk page recently. Since then, this user has restricted edits to responding to my own comments here with nothing but taunts and claims of attempting to ensure WP:ROPE, evidently by a constant barrage of taunts and insults. Someone should step in about this behavior. We've got a bunch of editors here who contribute exactly nothing to the page but spend a lot of time flooding the talk page with taunts, insults, and complaints aimed at those of us who are actually contributing material here and trying to get to the bottom of what's going on. That's not helpful. Yet aparently my most recent additions on Ultrasurf were simply too much for them, and the user attempted to reduce it down to as sanitized a version possible. I guess removing it entirely would be too suspect, so this is the second best thing. In doing so, they've removed all of the sourced discussion about the Epoch Times and any mention of the Falun Gong outside of it being created by adherents, incuding their connection to the State Department under the Trump administration. These new edits focus on Pack and snip out discussion of the Epoch Times and the Falun Gong. I've since reverted these changes. I've been around here a long time and welcome edits to my contributions. That's normal process here. However, this appears to be a pretty blatant move to attempt to remove the well-sourced discussion about the web of influence between the Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, and the State Department during the Trump administration. For example, note for example the cutting out of mention of the Falun Gong in the source quote "concerted effort to divert funds to the Falun Gong software Ultrasurf was a criminal conspiracy". You'd also never know the Epoch Times was at all involved here. But of course the Falun Gong still claims the Epoch Times is irrelevant to the Falun Gong and has no connection to the org as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC) The material is not principally about Falun Gong. To the extent that it mentions Falun Gong, it makes up only WP:MINORASPECT of the topic. Above all, the attention to a criminal investigation that appears to have gone nowhere is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. It is not a "well-sourced discussion about a web of influence." It's an insinuation of a web of influence. That is not how the encyclopedia should be written. Sennalen (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) False. The Falun Gong's web of influnce is central to this discussion: it and its Epoch Times receives discussion and mention throughout media coverage of this incident. NYT: A battle involving Michael Pack and a U.S.-funded tech group revolves around software from Falun Gong, the secretive, anti-Beijing spiritual movement with pro-Trump elements. As for your oddly dismissive "appears to have gone nowhere", do you have any updates for us? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I have asked for input from BLPN. Sennalen (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) So - with what account did you formerly edit here? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Falun Gong's Ultrasurf and the US State Department

For some reason the current article makes no mention of the Falun Gong's Ultrasurf and its ties to US government policy. This has received significant media attention in the past few years, as adherents continue to seek to further influence US government policy toward China (and the general US public via other Falun Gong arms like The Epoch Times). Here's a 2020 article on it from The New York Times:

• Verma, Pranshu & Edward Wong. 2020. "New Trump Appointee Puts Global Internet Freedom at Risk, Critics Say". The New York Times. Archive.org link.

According to the article:

This battle revolves around software developed by Falun Gong, the secretive spiritual movement persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party.

Some Falun Gong members have become notable players in American politics. The Epoch Times, a newspaper started by Falun Gong practitioners, has spent millions of dollars on pro-Trump ads, including conspiratorial ones, on Facebook and YouTube — and was even banned by Facebook last year from buying more ads because it had tried to evade advertising rules.

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.

...

At the heart of lobbying efforts supporting the Falun Gong developers are Michael J. Horowitz, a Reagan administration budget official, and Katrina Lantos Swett, the daughter of the former congressman Tom Lantos, Democrat of California and a noted champion for human rights.

...

Ultrasurf estimates that it has over six million users in places like China, Iran and Russia, according to unverified analysis provided by Clint Jin, the company’s founder and a member of Falun Gong.

Multiple cybersecurity experts raised doubts about the company’s numbers.

Notice that here we again see wild claims about millions stemming solely from Falun Gong's own estimates. Now, I'm not sure what the status is of this today but any scenario involving a new religious movement focused on a leader who claims to levitate and who is well known for spending millions on everything from disinformation on climate change to vaccine misinformation potentially receiving huge amounts of money from the US State Department is extremely notable and needs thorough coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

2021 coverage of this from NPR here:

• Folkenflik, David. 2021. "Falun Gong, Steve Bannon And The Trump-Era Battle Over Internet Freedom". NPR. Link.

Of all the disruptions unleashed by the Trump White House on how the federal government typically works, the saga of one small project, called the Open Technology Fund, stands out.

The fantastical tale incorporates the spiritual movement Falun Gong, former White House strategist Steve Bannon, the daughter of a late liberal congressman and a zealous appointee of former President Donald Trump.

And specifically, it involves a fierce, months-long battle over whether the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the U.S. State Department should subsidize software developed by adherents of Falun Gong that auditors found wanting. The decision to prioritize this software stripped money intended for critical apps from a federal fund designed to bolster technology vital to dissidents overseas, officials say.

On top of that, once the software was approved for funding, a grand total of four people abroad used it to access Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, a key purpose for its subsidy. That's right, four. [my bolding]

...

Executives lost their jobs. The U.S. government froze nearly $20 million in funds for other tech projects that helped democracy advocates evade authoritarian regimes.

I was not aware how deep this went before reading more into it. How bizarre. Imagine how much attention this would get if it were about for example Scientology. But it's also typical of what WP:RS have been saying since around 2016. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Write a sentence and add it. Sennalen (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

One sentence ought to do it, right? Funny stuff. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I see the article doesn't mention UltraSurf yet, so it might take two: "Falun Gong members created UltraSurf software in 2002 to bypass the Great Wall of China. In 2021 a whistleblower complaint alleged that financial support for UltraSurf by the Open Technology Fund was a politically-motivated misuse of funds." Sennalen (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your sanitized distillation is neither accurate or useful. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I see you have added a much longer text[54]. Parts of this would make fine additions to Michael Pack, but since very little of it is directly about Falun Gong, it is undue for this page. Sennalen (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

But certainly not over at Ultrasurf, huh? Comic as usual but in fact I did add much about the Falun Gong, Epoch Times, and receiving funding from the US federal government. I'll also have much more media coverage to add to this article. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is the entire bloated section on Ultrasurf sourced to a single NPR article, and a breaking one at that ("first being made public by NPR in this story")? Are we of the mind that every single article must contain everything ever mentioning a subject? Seems like WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUEWEIGHT is being ignored in favor of the urge to cram in as much as possible. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

There are currently actually two sources cited there. As one would expect from something like this, it has been widely covered. One can add many more. Receiving half a million dollars of federal money would be notable for any new religious movement, just as one aspect of the matter. The fact that it's from the organization behind for example The Epoch Times makes it even more notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House directly citing Falun Gong literature and adherents as sources

This article has recently seen an injection of lots and lots of sources to Freedom House. Especially this 2014 article has been getting plastered by single-purpose accounts here, often burying mention of the group's many propaganda arms, attempts at influencing elections, and/or any mention of the world of Falun Gong rotating around the words and whims of its commander and leader, Li Hongzhi.

Giving this Freedom House report a quick look, it raises some serious alarm bells. For one, Freedom House seems to be pretty cozy with Falun Gong, so much so that they're not only echoing the group's preferred self-definition over non-Falun Gong-affiliated media and scholastic sources (the phrase new religious movement being a big no-no in Falun Gong circles), but also—if you can believe it—directly citing Falun Gong websites for claims about government suppression.

For example, Freedom House here cites http://www.faluninfo.net ("Falun Dafa Information Center"), this is one of Falun Gong's many websites. It contains the usual claims of "a direct and authentic connection to genuine traditional Chinese culture" that Li Hongzhi just "introduced to the public", with links to where to get books etc. Freedom House treats this site as reliable source, claiming that it shows evidence of government crackdowns and mass signatures, among other topics. They also use data from interviews with adherents, the same group that actively attempts to whitewash this page into yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm.

Here's another undated example—only the second report I've even looked at—where Freedom House cites faluninfo.net for demographic information on the Falun Gong (ref 31, p. 126), among other data points apparently taken from Falun Gong sources. Are we even certain there are millions and tens of millions of contemporary Falun Gong adherents in China, all hanging on the word of Li Hongzhi? That's a big claim of a lot of people.

It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole. That's a clear violation of WP:RS. Remember, this is the group behind The Epoch Times we're talking about here.

But it also begs an important question: is this typical of Freedom House? Are they just echoing what they're told by the Falun Gong? What exactly is Freedom House's relationship to the Falun Gong?

Or maybe the question ist, what was Freedom House's relationship to Falun Gong? It seems like that around 2016-217, when Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong went all in with an apocalyptic narrative around supporting the Trump administration and the 'Epoch Times became all but omnipresent pushing misinformation and gained special government access, it appers they saw a lot less coverage from Freedom House.

Did something change? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a substance to your complaint aside from these sources not being as hostile to the subject as you would like? Sennalen (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be oddly confusing "questions" for "complaint" but the answer is WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

RS is a low bar. The report you linked meets it easily, even if it is WP:BIASED. If there are other views you think the article should give priority to, it would be better to focus on adding them than on removing others. Sennalen (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring your initial snide response (you might've saved that for later), citing the Falun Gong through another source is essentially source laundering. That's obviously not going to fly here or anywhere else on the site. If a claim came from a Falun Gong website, it came from a Falun Gong website. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Even assuming Freedom House is an RS, if it's "burying mention" of more prominently covered aspects of this subject, we have an NPOV problem. If the source is WP:BIASED, we should consider using in-text attribution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are reasonable measures. However, total extirpation of any source suspected of being influenced by Falun Gong is not reasonable. Falun Gong's views about itself are due considerable weight on its own page. If there are sources that challenge those views, that's great. Challenge them. But don't censor them. Sennalen (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

We're not here for "fair treatment" or to "give equal parts", we're here to cover what secondary WP:RS say and this is a deeply WP:FRINGE topic. As with any WP:FRINGE topics, the subject is not a reliable narrator about what it claims to 'believe' and what it is doing. We have numerous sources discussing how the Falun Gong hides views it considers unpalatable to the public. Stick to secondary WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of Falun Gong's views about itself are due for this article. Even without sources challenging their views, we should not lean too heavily on self-description. Trimming self-description is not necessarily censorship. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Bloodofox did not just delete Freedom House for alleged reliance of Falun Gong "self-description". Among the sources deleted were also:

Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China, David A. Palmer, 2007, Columbia University Press

Falun Gong and the Future of China by David Ownsby, 2008, Oxford University Press

China Still Presses Crusade Against Falun Gong, 2009, New York Times

Falun Gong Growing in China despite 10 year ban, 2009, The Telegraph

The Religion of Falun Gong, Benjamin Penny, 2012, The University of Chicago Press

The Cold Genocide of Falun Gong, 2018, International Journal of Genocide Studies and Prevention

Trimming self-description is not censorship - yes. I think there is more than self- description being trimmed here. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Same old same old from this account. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You give the impression of having a personal vendetta against Falun Gong that is far in excess of what any Wikipedia policy requires. Sennalen (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

So far your few contributions to this page have been to complain that I and the WP:RS I've provided are far too criticial of the Falun Gong and the Epoch Times and implying that we shouldn't be questioning NGO coverage of the Falun Gong, even though we have sources noting how uncritical and cozy some of these NGOs have been in their treatment of the Falun Gong as a source.

Now, if you were familiar with my edit history, you'd know I regularly edit new religious movement and fringe topics, especially when they dip into folklore studies areas. And if you were familiar with editing in these corners yourself, you'd know it is typical for adherents to step in and try to block sources they don't like by a ariety of means. And that's why at every corner, it's all about WP:RS. If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going by what I have seen since finding your screed on the fringe noticeboard, so no I don't know the history of you or this dispute. While I've been here though, no one has said that anything you added was too critical, because you haven't added anything. You have been removing things. Part of my advice to you was to stop trying to remove what you don't like and focus on adding the points of view you feel are neglected. Sennalen (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

News flash: I've added most of the sources on this article dated to the past five years. As for "screed", you'll have to ask yourself why you find that offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with @Sennalen. I'm beyond uncomfortable with the sweeping extirpation of stable content on this article by Blood, and the naked animosity and prejudice he declared against the subject of this article and other editors who disagreed with him. I was told or suggested of being an "Adherent" almost every time I try to start a content-based discussion or when I ask him to knock it off. As a result, content-based progress on this page is virtually impossible. I very seldom edit this article, but participating on this talk page for the past 2 weeks has given me the strange impression that I am an "Adherent" (whatever this word means), who should be purged from Wikipedia. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You know, as an aside, I generally ignore the personal attacks and aspersions tossed at me by Falun Gong-aligned accounts here. Why? Because they're pointless. We have plenty of WP:RS that we're reporting on, meaning a lot of this discussion is going nowhere and a waste of time. It's all about contemporary WP:RS. Adherents don't like it, the suddent appearance of very concerned accounts who repeat exactly what they say don't like. It doesn't matter. That's because we report on what what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources say and that's where every single one of these discussion threads ends. You're wasting your time attempting to get these sources of this article: they're going nowhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have long been interested in human rights in China and have observed that it is not uncommon for human rights reports of NGOs, the U.S. Congress, and the State Department, to cite witness testimonies, persecution accounts, and statistics from victim organizations.  These sources are attributed to the relevant groups.  The reports also use statistics from other NGOs, congressional reports, media reports, academic publications, in addition to conducting their original research and analyses.

I reviewed the 2017 Freedom House report you cited.  This Freedom House provided its own estimate of the number of Falun Gong adherents in China - much lower than the estimates from Falun Gong sources - and this was clearly attributed.

This practice of sourcing information from victim organizations occurs even more often in reports on human rights issues in Tibet and Xinjiang.  I have not seen the reliability of such reports questioned in those contexts.

Freedom House is a well-respected NGO known for its work on human rights and democracy.  If the information cited from the Freedom House report in the paragraphs removed from the lead was based on Falun Gong sources, that would be a concern.  If not, I believe that meets WP:RS. Thank you.

Path2space (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Well respected" doesn't mean much for WP:RS when they're just repeating what they're told by the Falun Gong. As I discuss above, Freedom House does indeed treat Falun Gong as a reliable source and regularly cites Falun Gong material. Meanwhile, the Falun Gong is of course the same group behind The Epoch Times. We've got sources discussing how cozy both Amnesty International and Freedom House have been with the Falun Gong. If we cite anything from these NGOs, we need to be quite sure that they're not just repeating what they're told by the Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No, we don't. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Falun Gong is not a contagious vector that contaminates sources. If an independent source repeats Falun Gong claims, that doesn't make the source less reliable; it makes the claims more reliable. Sennalen (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're going to find it difficult to sell the Falun Gong and their Epoch Times as a reliable sources on Wikipedia, but you are of course free to try. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of a discussion that should go to WP:RSN to solicit wider community input, rather than people who won't agree having an extended back and forth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The chain of reasoning seems to be:

1. Epoch Times is unreliable.

2. Therefore all statements by Falun Gong are unreliable.

3. Therefore any source that agrees with a statement by Falun Gong is unreliable.

It's battleground mentality we shouldn't send through the motions of a good-faith process as if it might have some legitimacy. Sennalen (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

How to handle this

1. Focus on content, not on contributor.
2. Really, stop with accusing people of being adherents, or asking about their religious beliefs. It's an inappropriate line of discussion.
3. The above includes calling other users' posts screeds and assuming their motives.
4. For real, 100%, everyone knock this off. This topic is covered by WP:CTOP, and everyone should be following the WP:PAGs. WP:TPG makes it clear, Do not ask for another's personal details... Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.
5. Start a discussion about the sources at WP:RSN outlining the content they would be supporting. Seek wider community input rather than continuing to go back and forth when it is clear you will not agree. All the back and forth does is raise the temperature without making any headway.
6. When you're at RSN, state your argument and then leave it. If the same group arguing here and at WP:FTN carry on at RSN then the chance of getting broad uninvolved participation will shrink.

When at an impasse seek broader input on the specific issue at hand. Don't make broad (and non-neutral) postings at a noticeboard and then carry on the argument there. Without a focus on a specific issue it will be far less likely that the discussion will draw uninvolved participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. This is a conduct issue first and foremost: when asked to justify removing reliably sourced material, Bloodofox only continues to opine about the urgency to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Involving RSN or an RfC is not a bad idea, but it should be up to Bloodofox to describe a desired change and justify it with policy. The onus is is not on the community to submit to a Star Chamber process. In the meantime the content Bloodofox removed[55] should return and remain as status quo. Sennalen (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

RSN is not a star chamber process, and this is not the place discuss conduct issues. WP:AE or WP:ANI are down the hall, but keep that off article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

RSN in itself, no. Presuming the article status quo is unreliable until vetted by RSN would be a star chamber process. AE is where a complaint may eventually be filed. Right now we are still in the WP:ROPE phase. Sennalen (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House & Falun Gong over at WP:RSN

I've opened a thread over at WP:RSN about Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources. It can be found here. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Request Notice

Over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, @HollerithPunchCard: has requested all changes I've made to this article in the past few weeks to be reverted ("This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023") and asked that my account be banned from editing the article ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration").

This would have major ramifications for this article, including the removal of most sources from the article from the past several years. Discussion here. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)