Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:54, 21 May 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Falun Gong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Falun Gong, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Falun Gong. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Falun Gong at the Reference desk.

	Falun Gong was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 29, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 20, 2014 Good article nominee Listed December 27, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Falun Gong / New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Falun Gong work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Fss

This is essentially propaganda

It's really a disappointment to find how biased this article is. It fails to document the many negative experiences of families who have member lost to the group, which has aspects of a cult including paranoia toward critics and beliefs with no reasonable basis in reality. It also presents the group as benign when it is well-known to promote zealotry in it's members and is, itself, a group that denies human rights of other people who have different belief or life-styles. Lastly, it fails to discuss the group's ties to Right Wing political movements including the use of the Epoch Times to engage in political influence.

It is not my place to change the article since that would doubtless start an undesirable situation where proponents of the movement battle to control the content as often happens on Misplaced Pages. That would not be productive. Therefore, I only offer my basic criticisms here for reasonable people to consider and as a warning of the nature of the article as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Xiao-zi (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment. Some of it would fit in the "Speculation on rationale" section I think. RhinoMind (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xiao-zi: I find that this article is mostly substantiated by third-party sources that comply with WP:REPUTABLE. Thus, it would not fit the definition of a propaganda. Moreover, in the media campaign section, it states that the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the disinformation campaign against Falun Gong. The supposed "negative experiences" and other negative issues that you mentioned above align precisely with the claims made by the disinformation campaign of the Chinese Communist Party.

Also, I took a deeper look into the alleged "Falun Gong self-immolation" by the Chinese government. It seems that this was proven entirely as a hoax aimed toward demonizing Falun Gong, according to an abundance of third-party findings. This would indicate that it's the Chinese communist government that is disseminating propaganda, but not this article. Inferring from facts mentioned above, the Chinese state-run media would be considered as unreliable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE, and one should not rely upon them.

It seems true that a lot of Falun Gong practitioners work in the Epoch Times. Nevertheless, associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate. Because, say, if most employees in the ABC News are Christians, we wouldn't write on the Wiki page for Christianity that "Christians are related to the ABC News". It's the same case here, we shouldn't relate any media company to a spiritual practice that only upholds Truth-Compassion-Forbearance.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: The premise behind the last paragraph is empty, considering our own article on The Epoch Times opens with is a multi-language newspaper and media extension of the Falun Gong new religious movement, cited not by a PRC state controlled or pro-PRC outlets, but none other than Politico and the Wall Street Journal, and, to that end, the Epoch Times page itself under discretionary sanctions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:: It seems quite evident that some Falun Gong practitioners started the Epoch Times. However, the chief editor of the Epoch Times, Stephen Gregory said that "Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China." This is the reason why it is inaccurate to associate the Epoch Times with Falun Gong. Doing so would be as illogical as stating that ABC News is associated with Christianity when its founders are Christians.--Thomas Meng (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism or Controversy section?

In this talk page some user mentions a Criticism section, but it seems that it has been deleted. I find this strange, as such a section (or separate page) is rather common in Misplaced Pages new religious movement's pages, specially from those that remain active. This omission only fuels the idea that this is a propaganda piece and not objective information about the Falun Gong. --Bolocholo (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bolocholo: This is absolutely propaganda. This line is particularly amusing: 'Although it is often referred to as such in journalistic literature, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult."'. The citation is to a book written by a journalist... 47.151.145.217 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is this blatant propaganda on Misplaced Pages?

No, seriously. These people, whether you defend China or not, are batshit insane, and should not be given a free pass to remove objective views or criticism of the Falun Gong on here. They legitimately believe some random Chinese dude is their god, that Trump is the second coming of Jesus, and that the CCP are satanic otherworldly beings. They believe that evolution & science are made up, much like evangelicals. Their membership count is massively inflated (even the Chinese Catholic Church has more people) and they're a menace to anyone that has to deal with these people, much like Scientology in the 80s and 90s. This page needs a massive overhaul ASAP. 24.255.224.93 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The source of your claims is highly questionable. Since, if you read the reference section, you will find that this article is completely based upon third-party reliable sources WP:RELIABLE. While on the other hand, the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the propaganda campaign to demonize Falun Gong, and your claims line up exactly with their propaganda. The link here reveals some facts behind the most well-known example of its disinformation campaign--the so-called "Tiananmen self-immolation". https://www.falsefire.com/en/--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate cult claims, potentially unreliable sources, Epoch Times

To avoid edit warring I won't continue reverting reverts to my edits. While listing the organization as a cult would obviously be biased as there is no consensus either way, to ignore all legitimate claims by Western cult experts that describe it as such is biased. Secondly, many claims in the article are unsourced, and a few link directly to CIA-funded organizations, which cannot not be considered an unbiased source without sufficient evidence when reporting on states hostile to the US such as China. Finally, the Epoch Times is only mentioned in a single paragraph near the bottom of the page, despite it being a "media extension of the Falun Gong", from the Epoch Times' own wikipedia page. The sources listed for the claims in my edit were all legitimate, so I'm not sure why they were simply reverted without any discussion on the topic. Nathan868 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article already contains a fiarly robust discussion of the "cult" appellation, drawing on high quality RS (which Ross and Singer are not), and explaining the CCP's appropriation of the term as part of its efforts to stigmatize FLG. But this is a complicated topic: "cult" is clearly a pejorative and loaded term, but it lacks fixed meaning in the academic literature. Your summary in the lede section is not an accurate or unbiased representation of what scholars say about this topic.
• It is acceptable for claims in the lede to be unsourced, because they are expanded on in the article's body. Which "CIA-funded organizations" are you referring to?
• That characterization is not accurate, as I understand it, in that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organizational structure that could sustain a media organization. There is clearly some affiliation here, but you're overstating it. This article is about the faith system. Finally, there already is an allusion in the lede section to the Epoch Times and other activities undertaken by FLG followers to disseminate their anti-CCP messages. That is enough for an already long lede.TheBlueCanoe 18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the Epoch Times is a wing of Falun Gong is also irrelevant for our purposes, they’re a generally unreliable source and shouldn’t be used on *any* wikipedia page including this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As numerous reliable sources state quite flatly, The Epoch Times is most definitely the media wing of the Falun Gong, and that needs mention in the lead, as this extension, as well as Shen Yun, are by far the most visible aspect of the organization. Additionally, Falun Gong is definitely a new religious movement. Misplaced Pages isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which of the claims "link directly to CIA-funded organizations,” please be extremely specific. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reiterating what I've said above, my understanding is that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organization structure that would allow it to have a "media arm." That the Epoch Times was founded by people who adhere to Falun Gong, and that it reports sympathetically on the topic of Falun Gong, is beyond dispute. But the precise nature of that connection actually quite foggy, given the paper's own insistence that it is not formally or organizationally tied to Falun Gong (a plausible position, given what I've read about the practice).

We could also debate the neutrality of the statements you've chosen to include about the paper. But again, that's actually beside the point. This is an article on Falun Gong as a faith system. So whatever the connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong, and whatever the editorial merits or defects of the Epoch Times are, the second paragraph of this article is not the place for it.

• There is a dispute among scholars as to whether Falun Gong should be referred to as a "new religious movement," and scholars with backgrounds in Asiatic religious traditions, in particular, find the label to be inappropriate and confusing. The group's self-understanding also would not support such a description (i.e. Falun Gong's own teachings state that it was previously transmitted orally, through a lineage system, that dates back many generations). We cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim, and so it is best not to take a definitive position in the lede section. The debate on this can, however, be elaborated in the article's body.TheBlueCanoe 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Source after source flatly acknowledges and describes The Epoch Times as the media extension of the Falun Gong, and the paper relentlessly promotes both the new religious movement and its extensions, such as Shen Yun. The Epoch Times is absolutely not WP:RS, as is abundantly clear, and the Falun Gong is not a reliable source for itself, given its media wing's promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda-like promotion of extreme right-wing politics, and a host of other reasons, as has been discussed on Misplaced Pages numerous times. Scholar after scholar after scholar flatly refer to the group as a new religious group, despite the organization's claims of being "ancient religion"—which is itself typical of new religious movements. Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and we don't take a new religious movement's position as the default–we stick to reliable secondary sources, and there's no shortage of them these days. This sounds a lot like you're parroting the organization's talking points. Again, Misplaced Pages isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether the Epoch Times is a reliable source is not relevant to this discussion about what should go in the lede of this article. I honestly don't know what you're going on about. "Misplaced Pages isn't censored" is not a convincing retort to the argument that articles should be weighted fairly and proportionally. This is especially true in a lede section. Readers of this article are presumably here to learn about Falun Gong as a faith system. They are not to learn about what you think about the editorial merits of a newspaper founded by some of its followers. On the matter of the new religious movement label, I did not dispute that some people use the term. I pointed out that there exists a dispute among scholars about the merits of this label. That dispute extends to Falun Gong's own account of its provenience. And yes, a group's self-definition is one of the factors that should be assessed when deciding how it is described. Not the only factor, but certainly a factor.TheBlueCanoe 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A simple search of academic sources pulls up dozens and dozens of reliable sources flatly discussing that the orgazation as new religious movement, that The Epoch Times is its media extension, and we don't turn to organizations themselves for self-descriptors, particularly those promoting fringe theories (WP:RS, WP:FRINGE). In 2020, there's zero question in academia about the organization being a new religious group and zero question that The Epoch Times is the media extension of the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You simply have not engaged seriously with the literature then. Just as you can produced examples of scholars calling Falun Gong a "new religious movement," one could also produce examples of scholars calling it a religion, a form of qigong, or a form of "cultivation" in the tradition of Chinese antiquity. One could likewise produce examples of scholars debating whether NRM is a useful or accurate term. The point is that there is considerable disagreement about the most appropriate way to describe the practice, and that is why there is a whole section in the article dedicated to this question. In the lede section, we should adopt the description that is most neutral, and I'm afraid NRM is not it.TheBlueCanoe 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I write extensively about new religious movements, and there's obviously no question that this group falls within the paremeters. There's a small mountain of academic secondary sources that flatly state as much. The new religious movement itself may object to being described as a new religious movement, but they often do—nothing new there. We stick to what reliable secondary sources say. Misplaced Pages isn't a promotional outlet. Prior to my additions, the article made no mention of the phrase new religious movement—clearly scrubbing all mention of it—despite the tremendous amount of academic literature flatly describing the organization as such. That's very telling. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodofox, we should treat Falun Gong like any other New Religious Movement. I’ve always been impressed with how tolerant wikipedia is of Mormons and I don’t think theres any reason we should treat other New Religious Movements differently. We can say the religion believes itself to be ancient, but I don’t believe there is any question of Falun Gong’s age in the literature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to make a case for why this article should, in the first sentence of the lede section, describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement. I have pointed out that while some scholars do indeed use this label, others prefer to use other terms (e.g. religion, qigong, cultivation practice, etc.), and dispute the NRM appellation. For example, David Ownby, who at one time was among the most active scholars writing on Falun Gong, says that it "makes no sense" to call Falun Gong a new religious movement.

Given that there is such a dispute, and given NRM carries some potentially loaded connotations, there is no reason why we should use this word a the definitive description of Falun Gong. It can certainly be included among the list of categories that have been used, and I'm happy to do just that.

By the same logic, the previous version of the article referred to Falun Gong simply as a "religious practice." This is also a contested term, particularly if we consider the connotations of the Chinese word "zongjiao," the meaning of which is far more circumscribed than "religion" in English. (i.e. the Chinese term for religion is used to describe groups that a) enjoy official sanction from the state; and b) have formal institutional structures). Just as Falun Gong's self-understanding does not support being referred to as a NRM, it has also historically resisted the "religion" label, though I note that the dispute arises mostly from differences in language. At risk of sounding a bit new-agey, the most neutral description for the opening sentence is probably something like "spiritual practice".

To Horse Eye Jack, if you read the article, you will see that there are potentially differing accounts of Falun Gong's "age." That's not to say there is a dispute about when it was first popularized—there isn't—but about its lineage and possible historical antecedents, absolutely. TheBlueCanoe 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what reliable, secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, without dispute, just call Falun Gong a new religious movement. There's no controversy. There are far too many academic sources–including NRM handboks—that, without question, just refer to the group as what it is, a new religious group, to even bother discussing this further. Enough with the promotional approach to this article—we're not here to promote anyone or anything, we're here to produce neutral coverage using high quality sources, and we have those in abundance for this topic, particularly now that The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and more of the organization's extensions are receiving sigifnicant media and academic coverage. Misplaced Pages isn't a promotional outlet. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the scholarly consensus here by pretending that one exists. There are absolutely debates among scholars about how Falun Gong should be classified, and there is by no means an agreement that NRM is the most accurate term. Ben Penny, for example, has written a book called "The Religion of Falun Gong." Not "Falun Gong, the new religious movement." It is just as frequently referred to as a system of qigong, and, as scholars of Chinese religion write, it is most accurately described as a form of cultivation practice (xiulian). As I've cited above, some of the leading scholars in this field have expressly argued that it should not be referred to as a NRM. Anyway, I've amended the article to note that some people call it a NRM, among other labels that have been employed. TheBlueCanoe 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol, we literally have seven of the highest possible quality sources—ranging from 2005 to 2019!—now attached to the phrase "new religious movement". None mention any controversy around the phrase whatsoever, with the exception of one of the earlier sources stating that adherents don't use the phrase. Look, I get that you disagree with this phrase, but I highly suggest you just email some of these scholars rather than spend your day attempting to scrub the phrase "new religious movement" from the article. There's pretty clear scholarly consesus here, and one could easily add hundreds more sources to the phrase if needed. If you find some scholar saying otherwise, go ahead and attach it on their, but attempting to censor the plethora of high-quality sources that make the consensus explicit, as you do here, isn't helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been away for some time and happened upon this page that I used to frequent (mostly with great passivity and abandon.) Can't say I was too surprised to find a bunch of guys debating the same-old, same-old.

Just my two cents. I'm not at all opposed to mentioning the term "new religious movement." I think we have ample reasons to include it in the article. What, in my opinion, is important here, is not trying to impose an authoritative, overarching definition in the lede. There's enough disagreement about this, especially since the only indisputable context where Falun Gong can be placed from a historical perspective is China's qigong movement of the 1980s and 90s. That was a far-reaching cultural phenomenon and wasn't considered a "new religious movement" even by the Chinese state, more like a revival of Chinese traditions in a modernized form. Now, Falun Gong is obviously the most well-known (and probably most "controversial") example, but separating it from this context and how it was understood in China at the time is not only highly anachronistic but also ethnocentric. In other words, there are competing academic narratives with significant support. Since this explanation requires more space than we have in the lede, in this particular issue I'd say that I agree with BlueCanoe, even though I'm sure we could have long and winding arguments about some other stuff on these pages. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say. We have an immense amount of them—really, a plethora—that flatly state that the group is a new religious movement, without any further discussion. We can expand the section as needed with other voices that fall within WP:RS, but scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points is obviously not the solution—and that is essentially what the artilce is at the moment.

Now, as usual, the solution here is to keep digging up reliable sources, just like we do everywhere else on the site, including for other new religous movements (include all those who claim they are definitely, certainly not a new religious movement, and would rather we look away from their political and commercial activities). I'll be happy to provide them, but I propose we get many more eyes who do the same—as I highlight above, plenty of academics and journalists are writing about these topics, particularly in the wake of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see this question related to the "group's talking points". Obviously we can't use Falun Gong's own words as the guiding principle for how this article should be put together. In anthropology, social sciences and religious studies, there's a separation between emic and etic. What I'm saying is that there is no definitive consensus on the etic definition of Falun Gong in the reliable secondary sources. In this respect, we should definitely give most weight to those who've studied the group and how it's related to the broader Chinese context. But even many of them don't seem to really agree. There is no anachronism or ethnocentrism in "spiritual practice", and it is, by all accounts, the most neutral description that nobody in the academic community disagrees with. An emic description would be something like "high-level cultivation practice", and of course we can't use that as the master definition, either. Now, that would be the group's talking point. But that's not the bone of contention here. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm keenly familiar with the concept of emic and etic, as are the numerous individuals writing about this organization, as it is in fact a key component to fields, like anthropology, wherein one would write about new religious movements. The group's talking point is that they're a "spritiual practice", as you and adherents here are pushing on the article. Our sources, which are legion, flatly refer to the group as a new religious group. There's nothing to debate here—please spare me the tedious lawyering and discuss reliable secondary sources, please. Want to show an example of good faith? Revert the adherent who has removed dozens of high-quality sources from the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still not addressing my concern. We're talking about two different things here. I am not opposed to using the term "new religious movement" as one of the characterizations backed up by secondary sources. I have absolutely no idea why this was missing from the article, if that's the case.

But you're suggesting that we lay down a master definition, even though some of the most authoritative Falun Gong researchers (not its adherents), including professor David Ownby, have disputed the accuracy of that particular label. In other words, to me it appears as if you sought to give an impression of a wide-ranging and far-reaching consensus, whereas I know that the matter is not as simple as that. We're not trying to be populists or ideologues here. Mainstream academic publications must inevitably be ranked higher than, for instance, newspaper articles, and since no real consensus exists, the editors' job is to describe the disputed etic definitions based on the reliable secondary sources. I'm simply opposed to unwarranted reductionism, that's all. There are no "our sources" and "their sources" – there are only highly reputable, less reputable and disreputable sources.

And thanks for asking, but I'm not too keen to take part in whatever edit wars you guys have going on. As I said, this is my two cents. I highly prefer reason over power plays. Bstephens393 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "new religious movement" is being repeatedly stripped from the article, despite being thoroughly referenced to the highest quality sources. I think you can deduce why that is. We have dozens upon dozens of articles from specialists and experts describing the group as a new religious movement, but this is clearly a big no-no for adherents. Again, please refrain with the lawyering and stick to the sources. I've provided you with many, but you're standing by as they're repeatedly removed from the article by adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that adherents stripping the term repeatedly is a problem, and frankly I don't understand why that should be. Whoever is doing this, how about suggesting a proper rewrite that doesn't omit the term?

Well, probably I shouldn't put too much hope on random Misplaced Pages editors. I'll propose something tomorrow or the day after, and then we can discuss. It's getting very late. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you misunderstand how sourcing works. If we have lots of reliable sources that say Falun Gong is a "new religious movement", no amount of sources that do not say that can cancel them. The fallacious reasoning that they can is called argument from silence: if someone does not say "X", that does not mean he implicitly says "not X". What you need to cancel those sources is reliable sources that say Falun Gong is not a new religious movement. All I have seen here in that direction is bluff and bluster. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making the same point as Bloodofox, and it contains the same misunderstanding. I did not say that the NRM label should be removed from this page. Please let me know if I should reiterate the above argument in different words to make it even clearer. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're still trying to scrub the article. Among many other aspects of the new religious movement, Junker discusses the Falun Gong's propaganda efforts (cf. p. 99) and his hostile treatment by The Epoch Times ("we know who you are", p. 101), and so it's unclear to me what you're trying to do with this quote, exactly, which is obviously out of context and inserted to avoid discussion about the well-known activites of the The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Of course, as is ell documented, both are very aggressive and very political propaganda arms of the new religious movement, as is quite widely documented, which you've—for some reason—removed.

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

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