Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 2 July 2020

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

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

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

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggesting for editing this contentious topic and getting on the 'same page'

In the current set of edits that were just made (and reverted) and in the ongoing discussions above, there are multiple open 'lines' of discussion and disagreement. I suggest that these been broken up and discussed separately, in multiple threads simultaneously. For example, one section could be about the lead. Discuss only what should be in the lead paragraph on the FLG's* involvement in media etc. Another section is about the section in the article where these issues are hashed out. And when editing, I suggest NUMBER YOUR EDITS and write a corresponding number on the page, so //that actual edit// can be discussed. It is completely unproductive and pointless to do reverts which are going to include like 20 contentious things. Break each of the contentious things up into 20 (or whatever) separate disputes, and hammer each one out, in the section which it corresponds to.

For example, maybe someone objects to the block excerpt from NBC because it's simply a WP:DUE issue; or objects to the point about the precise financial relationship between "Falun Gong" and those media companies being unclear (when, according to these scholarly works, it's actually quite clear); or objects to whatever else. Edit it as you see appropriate (delete, refactor, find a better source), NUMBER IT, start a discussion ABOUT THAT EDIT. Then the editing and discussion can be dynamic, multi-threaded, and consensus reached on each point of dispute separately.

I don't know if this is standard practice, and if anyone has a better idea, please suggest it, but that is how I propose we proceed. Please let me know if this suggestion is not clear.

*well, the article is not going to put it vaguely like that: "the FLG" is a shorthand we use. In most cases we would specify if it's "the teachings of FLG," or "people who practice FLG," or "an organization founded and primarily staffed by people who practice FLG," or whatever it may be. This is not a single organizational structure, but a practice spread across the world, where the individuals who practice it do things in order to gain social recognition (and in their religious goals, "saving people," if I have the terminology correct.) And yes, I have been reading David Ownby's book and three dissertations by anthropologists which we should be citing. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I get that there's an effort by adherents to paint Falun Gong as an 'ancient and international spiritual practice' rather than a new religious movement centered on Li Hongzhi that operates out of a secretive compound in Deerpark, New York. However, as numerous media sources make abundantly clear, the organization is also quite politically involved, and there will be no scrubbing this from the article because Misplaced Pages isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"This is not a single organizational structure, but a practice spread across the world, where the individuals who practice it do things in order to gain social recognition (and in their religious goals, "saving people," if I have the terminology correct.)” Yeah, that describes almost every single religion on earth... FG isn’t special or unique, we treat them like any other New Religious Movement. I see no disagreement among non-SPA editors btw so I’m not convinced there are any real content disputes here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:@Horse Eye Jack: I have no idea what "the efforts of adherents are," or who are supposed to be the SPAs here. My comment above was a meta-proposal as to how disputes be navigated, as a technical manner, going forward. Would you both please respond to the suggestion itself rather than simply reiterate your personal opinions about Falun Gong and other editors? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you have no idea "what "the efforts of adherents are," or who are supposed to be the SPAs here.”? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been following this topic for awhile. My interest in this wiki page was piqued after reading the recent NBC piece accusing EpochTimes of "racism" and propagating conspiracy theory that the Chinese Communist Party manufactured COVID. NBC subsequently amended parts of this article and its title. For good reason--its piece on youtube garnered 3000 downvotes and 265 upvotes, a staggering 91.9% disapproval rating.

I am curious and would genuinely like to understand how and why this page is being thus organized. We know that this group has been on the receiving end of abject human rights atrocity in China. We know that this group has been subject to forced organ harvesting, which in the decision of the China Tribunal on Forced Organ Harvesting, has been taking place against a large number of member of this group for a substantial period of time. There is an article that described the cold genocide of Falun Gong.

I would genuinely like to know why, despite all these humanitarian crises, this wiki page decides to confer the top priority, and place the spotlight, on a quote from a report by a Los Angeles magazine describing Falun Gong as a conspiracy theorist cult obsessed with aliens, and on where some of their members live, how they have arranged relationships, and their zoning disputes.

Some of these assertions may well be true. But it confounds me they were given such preeminence, over and above an objective and partial account of this movement, its central teachings and belief system, its exercises, and its experience of abject human rights abuse. It reminds me of what happened during the era of Nazi Germany, whose press is obsessed with the Jewish conspiracy, such as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", when its people are being culled in the millions.

It may be a truism to say that the representation of a topic must inevitably adopt a narrative, and different narrative forms, in turn, will produce different responses to the social practices involved in genocide: empathy and ownership, or revulsion, alienation, and dehumanization (Daniel Feierstein). The narrative I see that is being propagated now on this page, is a narrative of conspiracy and political radicalism, calculated to invoke revulsion and dehumanization against the victims of genocide.

The accuracy of these assertions of political radicalism, and conspiracy theories aside (I look forward to discuss this at another time), I'm all but certain that the current portrayal violates the standards on "article structure", "due and undue weight" and "balancing", by giving priority to a fringe aspect of this movement, over its central elements and experience.

Ultimately, I think it is an issue of basic human decency. I may stand corrected, but it seems to me that the forced organ harvesting on 5-6 figure scale is probably more important than a zoning dispute that some of these members have with their neighbours.

I am genuinely, and honestly curious about others think. Am I really alone or wrong in thinking this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs) — HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can someone suggest a focus for an RfC?

I think this would help deal with the issues and bring in editors who haven't been involved with the article, but I don't have time to do it. It needs to be done in strict accordance with WP:RfC. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what an RfC is gonna solve, the problem isn't lack of new faces its a lack of new faces who stick around under assault from the “regulars” here, anyone who disagrees is labeled an “activist” and threatened with ARBCON . I would have left this page as quickly as I came a month or so ago if my normal reaction to being hit wasn’t to hit back 2x as hard, the abuse you have to put up with to contribute here is more than any wikipedia editor should ever have to endure.

I’d support an ANI for BlueCanoe and Marvin 2009. Both seem to have spent the last decade being disruptive on FG related articles, Marvin’s first edits more than a decade ago were promotional edits for New Tang Dynasty Television and more than a decade later they’re still barely strayed beyond FG related pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: it would be WP:AE, not WP:ANI. But thinking about it more, an RfC over the NRM issue would probably be a good starter. I'm not going away. If no one else wants to start one, I will on the NRM issue alone. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: It is a pity you used an inexperienced new user's editing error (the first edit over 10 years ago) for misleading people. I have relied to you on this topic twice.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive410#User:Marvin_2009_reported_by_User:Horse_Eye_Jack_(Result:_)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marvin_2009#Conflict_of_interest

As to your accusation "spent the last decade being disruptive on FG related articles". I have mentioned to you:

As far as I noticed, historically speaking, activists often came to do things forbidden in WP:SOAP. As WP:ARBFLG shows, 2 of them were indefinitely banned for this topic. Years back, another 2 anti FLG activist users I encountered were also banned for the topic. Activists can be easily identified, as they tend to add WP:OR contents or CCP related unreliable sources. They are not necessarily CCP followers though. BTW, users who try to prevent activism shouldn’t be called “disrupting” wiki pages, nor should they be labelled as FG followers or COI in an attempt to discredit them.

Preventing vandalism by some activists on controversial topics, spent many of my edits. While other pages are not as controversial as these, there is no need for much talk or changes. The key for identifying activist is as WP:SOAP mentioned

“content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not for: Advocacy, propaganda. …You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.“

I did not advocate my own opinions in the articles, but have rather accurately represented what reliable sources say which was not “deflected criticisms” of Falun Gong.

I have confidence my edits were made while sticking to Wiki rules and under good faith. Again, I have never been and am not paid by anyone to make edits in Misplaced Pages.

BTW, there are really a lot warnings and a lot of AN/I on your talk, including one friendly message from admin Doug: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Horse_Eye_Jack#

@Marvin 2009: The last half of your comment is unrelated to anything here, and is a strange ad hominem. Can we focus on this? — MarkH₂₁ 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

that was to address the false accusation “spent the last decade being disruptive on FG related articles". I have no intention to attack any one. Precious Stone 22:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a false accusation, 7 of your top 10 edited pages were within the FG space and 10 of 10 of your top edited talk pages were within the FG space when I first advised you of how your editing history was likely to be perceived as WP:SPA if you kept pushing it. You also copy pasted whole sections from your talk page onto mine without providing an explanation and disparaged me in edit summaries and on talk pages, excuse me if I find your behavior to be disruptive and aggressive. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Let’s focus on the content dispute. — MarkH₂₁ 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I revisit this page after years to find it's like being in a time warp. The SPAs are still there pushing their propaganda, and fighting even the smallest attempts to steer the article away from their orthodoxy. Plus ça change. -- Ohc  15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on describing Falun Gong as a new religious movement

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

A - Yes.
B - No.

!Votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't seem that the key problematics identified by The Blue Canoe have been addressed, and instead people are simply asserting their preferred term. The sources we have at present give a variety of terms for defining, classifying, and describing FLG - with NRM being among them. (Note also that most of the sources which use NRM are in the field of NRM studies or sociology; just as many of the sources that come at it from an area studies or cultural field use terms like 'spiritual practice' or 'religion' etc. Each group of scholars wants in a sense "ownership" of the phenomenon, to be the ones who speak about it authoritatively. It seems that FLG is all of these things, depending on who is doing the classifying. We are in the invidious position of having to implicitly adjudicate between how much prominence is given these discourses, while keeping in mind all of Misplaced Pages's content and neutrality policies.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just realized that this conversation seems to have become derailed again. It seems that most people don't disagree with the "religion" formulation. I propose then that we proceed on that basis, as the so-called "master definition" in the first sentence, then get into the more detailed questions of classification in the appropriate section. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV and due weight in section organization

Currently, the first section of this article following the lede is titled "Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and political involvement.” It includes long excerpts of exclusively critical/one-sided news reporting on these two entities, with a fair bit of loaded language thrown in for good measure.

Editors defending this section have argue that the material is “well sourced,” and therefore should not be removed. Alas, WP:RS is not the only content policy on this encyclopedia. If it were, the encyclopedia would become a massive garbage heap of disjointed facts and statements. We are editors: our job is to curate, to select, to summarize, and to present information in a manner that is narratively coherent, digestible, and that represents a neutral point of view.

To that end, even if this entire section passes WP:RS (and it might not; I’ll leave that open for now), it most definitely fails to adhere to other content policies, notably WP:NPOV, WP:DUE. Here’s a non-exhaustive explanation of why:

• The placement of this section at the top of the article’s body is narratively incoherent, and assigns it undue weight and prominence. The article should absolutely include summary descriptions of the media/arts organizations established by Falun Gong adherents, which include Shen Yun and the Epoch Times. But these organizations didn’t arise in a vacuum. They grew out of a very specific context: scholars tend to situate this as part of a broader claim-making strategy that the Falun Gong community adopted ‘’as a response to the suppression in China’’ (refer to Ownby, Penny, Junker, Noakes, et al). The creation and orientation of these organizations can only be understood in light of Falun Gong's broader history, beliefs, and its suppression in China. These are essentially activities undertaken by members of an exiled faith community, as a response to a persecution.

Narrative cohesion demands that, in an article about Falun Gong, we first introduce what Falun Gong is, the historical context in which it arose, the history of antagonism and repression by the Communist Party, the scattering of a diaspora, and the response from Falun Gong to that repression, and the assessments thereof. That is why information about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun (etc.) had been placed under the subheading “Falun Gong’s response to persecution.” It either belongs there, or perhaps “Falun Gong outside China” or “international reception.”

• The placement of this section at the top of the article’s body is an example of WP:UNDUE. This is not an article about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. This an article about the faith system of Falun Gong. There are multiple books written about the persecution of Falun Gong, the history of Falun Gong, the beliefs system of Falun Gong. There are ethnographic studies of the diaspora communities, and books about Falun Gong’s international advocacy. There are at least three whole books focusing on allegations of state-sanctioned organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. An article about Falun Gong should cover these topics in a way that is coherent and proportional to their prominence in reliable sources. That some Falun Gong-adjacent organizations have been criticized by left-leaning media organizations for their support of Trump or for disagreeing with the theory of evolution (or whatever) is not the most important thing about Falun Gong, and we misrepresent the body of literature on this topic when we pretend that it is.

• The placement of this section at the top of the article’s body is an example of WP:RECENTISM. This one is obvious. In an article about a globally dispersed faith community with an interesting and complex history, we should take a long-term, historical view, and not allow the article to be overtaken by whatever the recent controversies are.

• The content of the section is exclusively negative, and is not a representative sample of the full range of academic discourse on these topics. This section is sourced entirely to fairly recent (last few years) news article, from organizations that are all identified as leaning quite far to the left of the political spectrum, and all making essentially the same criticisms. Irrespective of where this section is in the article, the content of the section itself fails WP:NPOV; it is cherry-picked and fails to represent a full or representative spectrum of views in a neutral and proportional manner. Positive, or even neutral, assessment of the Epoch Times or Shen Yun are missing entirely, as are responses from these organizations to the criticisms that have been made. The use of lengthy excerpts lifted straight out of these articles is especially bizarre.

I'll note that the addition of this material never gained consensus on the talk page. Editors have simply edit warred to keep it in, in various incarnations. The WP:BURDEN now rests with them to explain why it should be kept in this form. TheBlueCanoe 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Man, these attempts at scrubbing the article to parrot the Falun Gong's narrative sure are relentless, but they're rarely this transparent. The "globally dispersed faith community" this guy is talking about is new religious movement based out of Deer Park, New York that rotates around the teachings of one man, Li Hongzhi.

For years, this article has been haunted by editors such as this guy, who have aggressively pushed, lawyered, and edit-warred to ensure that the article reads as a puff piece for Hongzi's new religious movement. These swarms of editors are now on the defensive because within the last year media has caught wind of the Falun Gong's politicial activities and support of far-right groups and conspiracy theories, alongside relentless promotion of Donald Trump through the group's media extension, The Epoch Times.

Now they're pushing to have the material wholesale removed—the sources are legion, and it's not happening. In fact, what the article needs is a total rewrite reflecting what reliable sources actually say about the pyramid-like structure of this particular new religious group and its activities, something this article currently goes to great lengths to avoid. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the above has anything to do with aggressive pushing or lawyering. I agree that the criticisms can and should be summarized and placed in the article appropriately per WP:NPOV. The article should read like a well-structured scholarly overview.

I also want to add the only way forward is for each of us to go through the discussion points one by one and calmly defend our views with reasonable arguments. Misplaced Pages is based on these kinds of discussions. Some editors still seem unwilling to engage in that process. Bstephens393 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that the above account, Bstephens393, had last edited in 2013 before snapping back into editing on May 20, 2020 to edit Falun Gong articles and to weigh in on RfCs against editors aiming to keep the article from parroting Falun Gong talking points.

This return from a long retirement occurred exactly as the Falun Gong article saw a push to insert material not in line with how the new religious movement presents itself, including the introduction of discussion regarding The Epoch Times' and Shen Yun ().

The account generally supports TheBlueCanoe's requests and pushes the same similar 'hey, mainstream media is left-wing!' narrative (example), while tauting that it has not edited the article. This sort of thing is all too typical for this and other Falun Gong-related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Blood of ox, you need to actually respond to The Blue Canoe and stop the ad hominem. He provided a quite extensive argument and your response is... "attempts at scrubbing the article to parrot the Falun Gong's narrative"? Please. Respond to the arguments and refer to Misplaced Pages policy when doing so.

Specifically on the procedural rather than content issues at play, the observation about the manner in which the editing has been conducted seems quite accurate. In fact, that is why I find myself here right now. Rather than attempting to persuade anyone or engaging in serious argument, you're simply accusing people of being FLG puppets. I urge you to actually respond to the substantive arguments that have been put forward. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The high relevance and importance of Falun Gong's media wings and their political activity is obvious, and backed by a plethora of sources. The Blue Canoe's above call for "positive" coverage of The Epoch Times is also ludicrous. And while wont to complain about tone and "white fury" toward Falun Gong (and also the Chinese government), the above account also started editing in this space around May 20, and immediately attempted to have yours truly topic banned at arbitration. This attempt was rejected and editors noted that there appears to be some level of off-wiki collusion going on at this articles and others. Whatever the case, like the Blue Canoe, Cleopatran Apocalypse has also repeatedly tried to scrub the article, removing any and all mention of Shen Yun and The Epoch Times and the phrase new religious movement, of which the FG does not approve. Not a surprise that the account consistently echoes the above two accounts. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apocalypse: I believe that you are innocently assuming too much good faith here. FLG, like its nemesis the CPC, is highly sensitive to any form of criticism. At the moment, in the absence of the Wumao here on WP, WP:SPA editors like TBC have been running around for years, working to polish up the image of FLG whilst removing anything remotely critical of the movement. These editors are extremely disruptive and do not deserve any sympathy. I am glad they are facing strong push-back. -- Ohc  22:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm noting that Bloodofox has not responded to the objections raised above, but has instead a) doubled down on casting aspersions against other editors; and b) continued to perpetuate the same problems noted above by adding another lengthy, out-of-order section at the top of the article body that gives undue prominence to the location of FLG's U.S. based of operations. Again, no problem including something about this in the article, but this presentation fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT again. I am going to condense both these sections and move to the relevant parts of the article. If Bloodofox wants to revert, I hope to see convincing responses to the above. TheBlueCanoe 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have in fact responded to your attempts at replacing the phrase "new religious movement" with "indigenous religion" and all sorts of other absurdities, and will continue to improve the article despite these attempts. The fact that this article made absolutely no mention of Dragon Springs is just as ridiculous as the fact that it made no mention of the fact that Shen Yun and The Epoch Times are media extensions of the new religious movement until recently. Not to mention the organization's political involvement. All of this is quite telling.

Of course, the three above editors (and various other single-issue editors that have a tendency to crawl out of the woodwork on this topic) have fought these additions tooth and nail by way of a variety of tactics since their introduction—as illustrated above—but the article continues to march closer toward reflecting reliable source coverage by the day. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)§

Transparent scrubbing attempts like these are classic examples of obstruction and are unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Very briefly, I agree that the section could be moved further down in the article. The block quotes are also too long. Much of the content can still be preserved outside of block quote form though, moreso than the latest edit. There’s a middle ground here. — MarkH₂₁ 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Agreed. TheBlueCanoe 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I support condensing any excess quotes to prose, as is typical on Misplaced Pages. However, I fully expect the material to be repeatedly removed or obfuscated, and so I recommend including the quotes in the citation for readers to follow. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I made a comment earlier today and realized that it might fit better in this discussion. I also realized that I'm not alone in my concern about prioritizing a number of block quotes portraying the fringe aspects of the movement (obsession of aliens, arranged relationships, zoning disputes) over the main introduction of the movement, such its central beliefs, teachings, practice, exercises, and its experience of human rights persecution. Assuming that these fringe aspects are true, they should be relegated to one of the back section, in a manner commensurate to their degree of importance in relation to the overall movement.

Honestly, I am quite surprised that there is this much controversy over a straightforward religious group that is persecuted in China. It is almost like human rights and lives do not matter (at least not as much as whether these people have arranged relationships, whether they were informed that their visas expired, whether they have zoning disputes, and whether they believe in the existence of aliens). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)— HollerithPunchCard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I came for the RFC, and thought I'd leave my thoughts here as well, as an outside perspective. A good wikipedia article will cover controversies on a given topic with no regard for politics or ideology. However, an article about a religion *beginning* with discussion of controversies, particularly discussion of a single controversy, does strike me as WP:UNDUE. In looking at several articles of other religions or religious groups, including ones with significant controversy around them, every single one of them begins with an overview of its history and belief system, and this article is a clear outlier in how it's presented.

I don't know or care the history of the editors involved in this discussion, my interest is in addressing the issues being discussed in line with Misplaced Pages's policies. While certain aspects of individual editors' edit histories could be concerning, that is not an argument to ignore valid points they're making. In particular, I don't see anyone in this current discussion advocating for "scrubbing" this article to push a viewpoint that doesn't belong, because at face value, the point is valid. As far as there are "sides" to the controversies in this article, this discussion makes it clear to me that if ideological editing is happening, it's likely not happening just from one side. This is why wikipedia has policies, let's please stick to those. Arathald (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If one were to divide the page's recent history into 'camps', then there are two here:

A.) A camp that had ensured that up until last month the article made no mention of the organization's media extensions and ensured that the article contained no mention of the group's controversial headquarters compound in Deerpark. Accounts in this camp edit-war to return to that. They consist primarily of a swarm of single-purpose accounts. This camp will frequently also complain about "left-leaning media organizations", as you see Blue Canoe doing above, and will also repeat some variation of the line 'everything must be understood in the FG's history of oppression'. This includes Falun Gong's support of the extreme right in locations like over here in Germany (cf. New Republic's report).

B.) Second, thee's a camp that treats this like any other Misplaced Pages entry by reporting on what an increasing and already overwhelming numbers of reliable sources say by adding that content to the article. In response, the camp A repeatedly removes these sources or, when that fails, attempts to downplay them, frequently emphasizing persecution instead, and gooes on lengthy and vague diatribes on this talk page that usually distill down to 'you don't understand'.

Here's an explicit example of camp A scrubbing from just yesterday and then there's attempts at removing any reference to The Epoch Times and Shen Yun (, , etc.), and/or the phrase new religious movement—despite extensive sourcing, at times replacing this text with more flattering couching not backed by reliable sources (eg. ). A constant thread is the removal of numerous reliable sources of which the group clearly doesn't approve. This data was first introduced to this article last month. Since then attempts at scrubbing it off have occurred dozens of times. Again, what we're talking about here is basic information: Well-sourced discussion of FG's media extensions and its headquarters compound.

Currently the article largely reads as a misleading puff piece: It still downplays, for example, the place of founder and leader Li Hongzhi as central to the organization's operations, decisions, and ideology throughout, instead emphasizing that the new religious movement is some sort of 'indigenous religious practice', and simply repeating what FG says about itself.

Falun Gong's political activity and media extensions make for a unique case. If you can find another similar situation out there, I'm sure many of us would like to hear about it. The closest comparison I can make is to Scientology, which has its own sordid history with Misplaced Pages (Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages), but Scientology, to my knowledge, never backed political groups and promoted political conspiracy theories quite like FG does through its various media extensions.

There's a reason this has gotten—and is getting—so much media attention: An explicit political shift around 2015-2016 by FG, and the aforementioned hardline promotion of the extreme right in places like over here in Europe. It'd be nice to know how to fend off the repeated attempts at scrubbing to get this article up to at least WP:GA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did say I didn't care about the history. I'm here to provide my perspective on how to keep this page and discussion in line with wikipedia's principle's and policies. Not once in this discussion have you actually addressed the issue at hand, resorting to ad hominem attacks on other editors and while I'll still assume good faith, it's hard not to read this as an attempt at poisoning the well as other editors are coming in to respond to an RFC. Falun Gong's political activity has zero bearing on the subject at hand and my opinion about it, unless you're proposing that reordering the article is some kind of retribution for alleged bad faith editing. I'm well aware of the issues with other religions/religious groups including Scientology, and indeed, that's one of the pages I looked at to determine treatment of other religious groups on wikipedia. Frankly, your focus on behavior and issues unrelated to the question of article ordering is somewhere between a straw man and whataboutism. If you believe there are other issues in the article (which I don't entirely disagree with), you are free to have a discussion about that elsewhere on the talk page instead of trying to derail this discussion on article order. If you wish to do something about other editors' behaviors you view as inappropriate, you need to follow the proper channels to do so. Attempting to do so by repeatedly making ad hominem attacks to the exclusion of any rational discussion of the matter actually being brought up is inappropriate, counterproductive, and if you haven't already run afoul of the project's policies and standards, in my opinion you are very close to doing so. If you wish to continue this discussion, please focus on discussing the matter at hand, the order of the article, which as I pointed out is inconsistent with every other article concerning a religious group that I looked at, including ones with similar political controversies. I'll reiterate that I support reordering the article so that it doesn't begin with a discussion of controversies. I do not support removing the information from the article, therefore your concerns about "scrubbing" the article are unfounded insofar as the opinion I've expressed is concerned. Arathald (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The concerns about scrubbing are very real, the last move wasn’t as much a move as borderline vandalism by one of the regulars here . Thats the context I think Bloodofox should be taken in, yes they are mad and maybe getting a bit ad hominem but there is also a large contingent of editors (some SPA) who are trying to remove all negative information about FG from the page. I agree with you that the section should be moved, however I also agree with Bloodofox that this page has some of the most serious POV issues I’ve ever seen in wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

TheBlueCanoe's terrible edit was not technically vandalism but it was extremely disruptive and worth a block. I think TheBlueCanoe should be topic-banned from Falun Gong for that. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. It's the sort of blatant censorship that we banned employees of the Church of Scientology for trying. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it called "scrubbing" when this person has written a detailed argument as to why they believe the various points at dispute should be given this-or-that emphasis, all with clear reasons... and the response is not to argue against them but accuse them of being a Falun Gong hack and call for them to be banned? No. Everyone saying that should stop and actually respond to the arguments being made. Everything else is simply a waste of time and a distraction. This editor is clearly extremely familiar with the literature (a deficit I am trying to remedy myself).

We're at the point where these are all questions of recentness, dueness, and disputes over the reliability of sources. People can disagree about that stuff. It's standard fare, in other words. Respond to the arguments themselves rather than call names. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

CA, TheBlueCanoe isn't familiar with the literature and your frequent boosting of them looks weird based on that. Compliments are nice, but when they aren’t true its makes people wonder. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apocalypse: If you can't see the pretty obvious censorship and obvious off-site canvassing by FG members going on (or just want to pretend that's not the case for some reason), TBC's arguments ultimately boiled down to "since this article is about Falun Gong, we should ignore sources that don't fit their perspective unless we can balance them with sources that do," but I'll address them more specifically. The placement at "the top" (i.e. the intro) is necessary because the intro summarizes the rest of the article. The argument that the intro material is undue is a frankly asinine as it condenses a half dozen paragraphs to three sentences. The argument about recentism forgets that FG is, in the grand scheme of things, recent too -- activities since 2016 make up about 15% of Falun Gong's time on earth. The argument that the contents of that section are "negative" clearly betray bias on TBC's part. It's rooted in the assumption held by most POV-pushers that there's an infinite number of positive and negative sources, that any article material that doesn't kowtow to the subject is merely cherry-picking the negative sources, and that we have some sort of duty to only report the positive stuff or give the positive and negative equal validity without regard to truth or falsehood. To support that edit gives you no real room to complain about content over process, and your request toward bloodofox to stop pointing out obvious off-site canvassing by members is a call for us to stick stringently to process. You can't expect us to keep going high if you're going to look the other way at your side going low. Now, if you don't think that process only applies to the side you disagree with, what have you to say about the obvious off-site coordination to engage in censorship? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree on the topic ban, I would also put Cleopatran Apocalypse up for a topic ban as they have a very similar editing history as TheBlueCanoe and are being similarly disruptive (albeit very politely, but polite disruptive editing is still disruptive). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I simply disagree that the diff you pointed out is a case of censorship. The user provides a bunch of reasons for why the same information should be integrated/summarized in the article, not at the very top of the article... no one responds to those reasons but instead calls them a hack and so on. It is actually a question about whether some compound the group has in New York is more relevant than, I don't know, organ harvesting. Isn't it? Most of these seem to be post-Trump media things, which does strike me as classic recentism. Just respond to the arguments themselves.

I haven't complained about issues of apparent coordination and whatever else because... how to prove anything, and where does it stop? By the same logic one could point to the appearance of a bunch of previously uninvolved editors and say it's a conspiracy. Including on the other side. There's just no point in any of these meta-arguments. I keep saying: let's respond to the actual disputes about how the numerous RS should be represented on the page. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I missed the personal attack above by Bloodofox. The revert in question was after you had put all the information on the page while thumbing your nose at discussion and calling everyone FLG hack cultists. I was more concerned with what I felt was the bullying and aggression than the content itself. And the reporting to arb com was for the same reason. Don't try to twist it around and claim that I was trying to delete any and all reference to NRM, Shen Yun, Epoch Times, etc., which is ridiculous. The problem was the biased approach. If FLG activists come and shove in stuff about torture and so on into the first paragraphs, and edit war to put it back in, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a shill for the Chinese government, I will revert that too and report them. (And then be accused by them of being a Chinese government agent, perhaps? Amazing.) Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If (overt) FLG activists (who openly admitted as such) come to the article, would you stick words in their mouths too? So far, the only persons using the words "hack" or "cultist" in this discussion is you. If multiple uninvolved admins were openly discussing the prospect of Wumao editors involved in the article, would you accuse non-admins making the same observation of "calling everyone Communist spies"...? Would you defend someone with a history of pro-PRC edits turning the entire Persecution section into one bland paragraph in the History in China section after they argued that "The content of the section is exclusively negative, and is not a representative sample of the full range of academic discourse on these topics"? Would you misquote sources that use synonyms for persecution to argue that "persecution" isn't the correct term? Because that's the level of defense you've been giving. Oh, and what would you assume of an editor in behaving such a way who said "'the CPC' is a shorthand we use. In most cases we specify if it's 'the teachings of the CPC,' or 'people who work with the CPC,' or 'an organization founded and primarily staffed by people who work with the CPC,' or whatever it may be"...? Would you not have a hard time not reading their use of "we" as identification with said group? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am following the discussions on this page with interest. I am new contributor, but a long time user. Never have I seen a wiki page fraught with such heated controversy, with such inflammatory and toxic attacks hurled against one another, and such serious allegations being freely mounted. It is not lost on me that there is a war over public opinion going on surrounding the issue of FG, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that that war is being fought in this space.

Without dwelling deeper at this time, it seems disingenuous to me that one camp (yes this are clearly camps here) would purport to champion free speech, and condemn censorship, and yet in the same vein call for wholesale topic banning against the alternative voice. One would think that censoring an expression, is lesser evil yet than taking the voice away from a person altogether. It seems that the interest here is less the merits of the subject matter, than victory by any means necessary, at all costs--please correct me if I'm wrong. Feel free to disagree, but I personally find this attitude morally reprehensible.

We are dealing with a unique subject matter here (although such uniqueness certainly does not exempt this topic from the standards of objectivity and truth, in fact, the converse is true). Discussions of a group's practice and belief is not the same as the description of, say, a lawn mower. Elementary principles of mutual respect, religious freedom and respect for diversity, means that insider perspectives should, at least, be accorded a minimum standard of respect, and allowed a reasonable degree of representation. In fact, contemporary social research has held that differences should not only be recognized--"insider expertise" should be privileged. As such, LGTBQ people are understood as having certain special knowledge or authority on queer issues, women on gender issues, racial and ethnic minorities on race issues, etc.

What I have observed so far on this page is quite the opposite. Internal perspectives on FG are being driven out, precisely on the basis that they are held by the FG community itself. Editors are being witch hunted, and scrutinized, not for the merits of their contributions, but for any possible or suspected association with FG. It is almost as if this community does not get to speak about their own beliefs and community. I find this contrived effort to marginalize the FG community on this page downright reprehensible. If you are to replace all mentions of "Falun Gong" on this page with say, "Jew" or "Islam", the average bystander would find the discussions on this page a shining example of antisemitism and islamophobia.

In a way, I'm not surprised. Since long, I have been trying to figure out why is no one speaking out on the gross human rights violations taking place against FG in China, including forced organ harvesting, despite the sheer gravity of the matter. I think I found my answer on this page. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Re Never have I seen a wiki page fraught with such heated controversy You've almost no experience with the site, then.

Re such inflammatory and toxic attacks hurled against one another Please point to an example of a personal attack instead of making unevidenced accusations (which is a type of personal attack).

Re it seems disingenuous to me that one camp (yes this are clearly camps here) would purport to champion free speech, and condemn censorship, and yet in the same vein call for wholesale topic banning against the alternative voice It seems even more disingenous to lie about what one group of editors is saying. Some users have only called for topic bans of notably disruptive users who are removing any voice other that FG's -- it is hypocrisy for you to to not condemn pro-FG censorship in the same breath you accuse us of censorship with.

Re "insider expertise" should be privileged -- which is why we favor academic and journalistic sources that worked with the LGTBQ community over those that have not, and why we cite academic and journalistic sources that have actually studied FG over those going off of hearsay. The problem here is that some FG members don't like the conclusions drawn by those academic or journalistic sources because it doesn't fit with the narrative put out by Li Hongzhi.

Re Internal perspectives on FG are being driven out, precisely on the basis that they are held by the FG community itself. This false accusation is the sort of personal attack you accuse others of making.

Re Since long, I have been trying to figure out why is no one speaking out on the gross human rights violations taking place against FG in China, including forced organ harvesting, despite the sheer gravity of the matter. And now we know you haven't even read the article at all. No one is contesting the material in there, which rather disproves your accusation that the NPOV editors here are 'anti-FG'.

Come back when you actually understand the situation instead of cluttering the page with emotional propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am amazed at the kind of cognitive dissonance that someone has to contend with to churn out the kind of response given above. Throughout my contributions on this page, I have made every effort not to name names, and indeed, I have not named anyone in my comments. Most if not all of my comments are framed as general, impersonal observations. Yet, there are person(s) who immediately and spontaneously identify themselves with my observations. It is *almost* as if such persons are aware that they fit the descriptions I made.

Those who have seen my earlier comments would know that my concern surrounding the important human rights issues experienced by this group is not that they were not incorporated in the article, which is clearly a straw man. Rather, the concern was that they were not given due weight, as at one point, the article began with discussions of some New York compound, some zoning disputes, arranged relationships, issues about not being informed of Visa status, and discussions of belief in aliens--matters that appears absolutely peripheral to the central beliefs and experience of this movement.

Within a single response, I have been accused by this kind user of (i) cluttering the page with emotional propaganda, (ii) making false personal attacks, (iii) being disingenuous, (iv) lying and (v) being hypocritical. It is *almost* as if my observations about toxicity and bad faith on this page are true. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You initially wrote "no one is speaking out", but after you were schooled on that, you try to redefine your comment as one of due weight. Nobody is fooled by such arguments. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's almost as if your previous post was made with the assumption of bad faith toward users trying to balance FLG's claims with outside sources, attacked such users with false accusations (such as lying about what anyone can see people have written on this page), and making accusations of censorship that you should be pointing squarely at FLG activists but didn't.

And you're still mischaracterizing the comments that people can read on this very page. That's just straight up gaslighting. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be an agreement that the excessive use of block quotes is inappropriate in this article. I attempted to summarize this content, but that was reverted and replaced again with lengthy block quotes. Unless someone can provide a good reason why these should be retained, and why the article should have multiple, redundant sections and internal POV forks as it relates to Shen Yun and the Epoch Times, this content should just be summarized concisely in the appropriate parts of the article.TheBlueCanoe 22:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What WP:POV forks? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As this is what TBC has so far called "summarizing" and "condensing", I think anyone following this knows what to expect: Scrubbing. These sort of systemic attempts at removing information about the group's headquarters and media extensions should be taken seriously: When this article isn't watched, you can expect that TBC and other single-purpose will zero in on these sections and remove them, returning them it to its previous state. For this reason, I'll add my voice to the chorus above in support of a Falun Gong topic ban for TBC account.

What isn't being discussed here is the bizarre misinformation in the article, and the fact that many of these sources stem from the early 2000s. Falun Gong is squarely focused on Li Hongzhi, but you'd never know this by reading this: The vast majority of the article's space is spent discussing claims of organ harvesting. It often simply repeats Falun Gong narratives about itself, rather than discussing topics that readers will find far less palatable. This article needs a section-by-section review and rewrite, rather than constant attempts to scrub away any mention of the FG's headquarters compound and media extensions. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Some users appear to be unaware that Persecution of Falun Gong exists and is a fabulous resource so they keep expanding the relevant sections here. I think we should directly link it in the intro instead of the pipe we have now, that would clear up most of the confusion and make it easier for us to separate the malicious accounts from the unaware. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• "The vast majority of the article's space is spent discussing claims of organ harvesting." - Really? You might want to look again.
• This article has hundreds of citations, most of them to high quality academic sources.
• "Falun Gong is squarely focused on Li Hongzhi" - I don't know exactly what that means. Clearly Li is the teacher of the practice and has an active role in it, but if you read the work of scholars who have done a lot of field work within the Falun Gong community, you would find that the structure and teachings of the practice actively militate against worship of the person of Li Hongzhi, who has no personal contact with the vast majority of Falun Gong adherents.
• There have been no attempts to "scrub" or remove information about Falun Gong's media extension. The article has contained information on Shen Yun and the Epoch Times for years, without controversy. No one has argued that these references should not be included. But they should be included in a way that is neutral, proportional to their prominence in the relevant literature, and narratively coherent. Anything less disrespects our readers and runs afoul of a core pillar of the encyclopedia. The edits you have made clearly failed those standards, and the continued inclusion of lengthy block quotes highlighting your preferred point of view, to the exclusion of others, also seems WP:UNDUE.

Not everyone who disagrees with your style of editing is "scrubbing" or "obstructing" you, and repeated accusations to that effect are disappointing. I would suggest again that you address the substance of the concerns raised, rather than continuing to attack other editors.TheBlueCanoe 23:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The "information" you mention is trite. For example, from 2019 ():

• "In 2006, Falun Gong practitioners in the United States formed Shen Yun Performing Arts, a dance and music company that tours internationally"

No mention of the fact that the group operates out of Falun Gong's Dragon Springs headquarters, by where Li lives. Ain't that funny? The same goes for the puffery surrounding The Epoch Times, with no mention of Li's personal involvement of the paper, which is only coming to light over the past few years due to media reports. The way they're both written, readers would think that these individuals had somehow independently come up with these ideas. Of course, in 2020, it's clear that isn't the case.

Speaking of the Dragon Springs compound headquarters, the article quite conveniently made no mention of it at all until last month. Considering the compound has been owned by Falun Gong since around 2000 and has thereafter been its headquarters, one might wonder exactly why it has been left out of the article space.

The scrubbing attempts are transparent but they're also old news: They're expected from TBC and other single-purpose accounts and will likely continue until an admin steps in, but we should now really be looking at the many problems with the rest of the article, because there are many. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Considering the compound has been owned by Falun Gong since around 2000 and has thereafter been its headquarters, one might wonder exactly why it has been left out of the article space."

Probably because the first mention of it in scholarly literature was in a book published in 2019. It's not a conspiracy dude.TheBlueCanoe 23:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Media reports about the compound and records of its ownership have been around for quite some time, at least several years before Junker's mention, obviously. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Corporation(s) info missing

Presumably Falun Gong/Dafa has some main corporation/association/charity (in USA)? Probably we should include official info on that "main" corporation, give it considerable weight (if it exists), and also find which other organizations are associated with Falun Dafa. Notrium (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd also like to know, including the entity that owns the Deer Park compound and that presumably enjoys 401 status. It would explode their "there is no organisation" narrative, though . -- Ohc  23:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 on curiosity about this too. My reading so far indicates that all of the organizations somehow function "independently" (with presumable backchanneling), but if there is detailed and reliable information about a central organization overseeing it all then it would be relevant for us. FYI I believe you mean 501(c)3 status which designates nonprofit entities in the United States. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The owner of the Deer Park holding is likely: International Falun Dafa Association Inc. EIN: 82-2273365 | Cuddebackville, NY, United States (the last entry at the following link). Or possibly one of the others. Mojoworker (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Junker source identifies the site at Dragon Springs as operating as a registered charity (presumably a 501(c)c?). If I understand correctly, that is not inconsistent with the claim that it's registered as a "church" or religious organization as well. There are also "Falun Dafa Associations" registered in probably dozens of international jurisdictions, so this isn't new. One question, however, is whether it makes sense to say that "Falun Gong" operates out of Deep Park, and this goes to the question of what Falun Gong means in this context. Is it a body of moral teachings and physical movements? If so, it is not "based" out of a geographical location. Is it a community of believer? The community is globally dispersed, there are legally registered Falun Dafa charities and not-for-profits in numerous jurisdictions, and most of it followers are in Mainland China. So the claim in the lede that Falun Gong is "based" out of Deer Park doesn't make sense.TheBlueCanoe 22:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources repeatedly and consistently note that the Dragon Springs compound in Deerpark is Falun Gong's handquarters, where Li lives nearby. Shen Yun is also based out of Dragon Springs. This isn't in question. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking through my copy of Junker's book, which is the only scholarly work that deals with this topic, and I don't see Dragon Springs described as Falun Gong's headquarters. There's one reference to Falun Gong networks headquartered in New York, but that could just as easily be a reference to something like the Falun Dafa Information Center.TheBlueCanoe 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Surely you're well aware that this topic has been covered by media sources since at least 2015, and that a certain organization under the name DRAGON SPRINGS BUDDHISTS INC trademarked the phrase FALUN GONG in 2005-2006.

A few examples of coverage include:

• "Dragon Springs buddhists Inc" trademark of "FALUN GONG" (2005-2006)
• AP Dragon Springs report (2019)
• Record Online Dragon Springs report (2015)
• report of Falun Gong-affiliated local election candidates and accompany controversy surrounding Dragon Springs (2015)

And there are plenty more. Remarkable that this article has somehow just sidestepped all of this for so long. I'm also not convinced that scholars have not discussed Dragon Springs yet: I'm currently pulling results for Shen Yun's connection to the schools in and around the compound in scholarly literature, which I'll post about. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

1 Revert Rule

Seeing today's set of reversions and in an attempt to keep the article from descending into another bout of edit warring, I am imposing a 1 Revert Rule on the article as an Arbitration Enforcement action. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Organization Section: "Decentralized"

Currently the article goes to some length to claim that the Falun Gong is "decentralized", often backed by non-WP:RS sources like falundafa.org, and says that the Chinese government claims otherwise. This is obviously dubious, particularly given the structure of the organization in 2020, and its coordinated political involvement with outreach efforts like The Epoch Times, propaganda arms like Shen Yun, and schools at the Dragon Springs compound. This section needs to be totally rewritten from more recent reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the section of Falun Gong's organization contains 26 citations. One of these is to the Falundafa.org. Twenty-five are scholarly sources, most of which represent the work of scholars who have done extensive field work with this community. Incorporating more recent scholarship (e.g. Junker, Penny, Gutmann) would make sense, though I don't think their findings are at odds with earlier scholarships, but is complimentary.TheBlueCanoe 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The number of citations is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what they actually say, and if what they say is still valid. It's pretty clear in 2020 that FG is not "decentralized", despite what the article claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not about what Falun Gong claims. These are the findings of scholars who have studied the topic extensively. And a quick survey of the latest academic work on Falun Gong's diaspora organization does not refute the claim that Falun Gong is "decentralized." The whole book is about how Falun Gong's diffuse, decentralized structure made it more effective than the hierarchical, centralized Minyun movement in organization as a social movement. Here are a few examples (From Andrew Junker's "Becoming Activists in Global China", published in 2019):

• "This turn to social movement activism was carried out in a diffuse, decentralized, and bottom-up way motivated by Falun Gong’s religious ethic of activism. The charismatic leader did not direct the mobilization. Instead, the followers “led” by transforming themselves into a modern, nonviolent protest movement." (p. 11)

• "How many Falun Gong practitioners are carrying out all this activism? Even after years of research, I cannot answer that question with certainty. The Falun Gong does not have official membership lists, congregations, dues, or other means of directly accounting for its size. Local activism is carried out in decentralized ways by intensely committed devotees, either in small cells or even as solitary individuals. "(p. 22)

• "I have signaled this theme a few times in the book when I spoke of the “progressive potential” of Falun Gong mobilization, especially in reference to how practitioners acted on their own initiative in a decentralized way and to how they emphasized persuasive outreach to publics." (p 184)

• " organizational template of a quasi-political party, however, was poorly suited to mobilization in diaspora. Simply maintaining and running a formal institution, according to highly bureaucratic rules, which were themselves frequently debated, absorbed too much time and too many resources. Furthermore, the bureaucratic model emphasized hierarchy and impeded decentralized, grassroots, voluntarist, creative initiative by participants. In this respect, Minyun’s organizational template was the exact opposite of Falun Gong’s ethic of activism, which imbued each individual with a sense of personal duty to “step forward,” but did not dictate the means or attempt to coordinate in any high degree the specifics of protest. The Falun Gong organizational form avoided paralyzing battles over leadership while maximizing the resources and creative capacities. The new religious movement had higher levels of grassroots participation and found more rewarding and meaningful ways to engage members. Ironically, the democracy movement emphasized hierarchy and centralized control, whereas the indigenous Chinese new religious movement encouraged self-authorized, direct participation and autonomy. The latter model was not only more participatory, it was also better suited to diaspora, where the activist community was thinly spread across many cities and contexts. Any bureaucracy would struggle under such conditions to coordinate effective action; one that aspires to be a stateless political party or exile government faces even higher challenges.

When I have a moment I can do the same survey of Noakes, Penny, etc. TheBlueCanoe 23:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

James R. Lewis describes an organization that is ruled from the top by Li Hongzhi. Joachim Gentz describes how the Falun Gong membership follows whatever is said by the "charismatic leader" Li Hongzhi. It is true there is no rigid hierarchy in the Falun Gong membership, but everything points to the man at the top, which forms a central locus of thought. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Binksternet is getting somewhere. However, assuming that the Falun Gong membership follows absolutely Li Hongzhi's words, this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to make the claim of centralization. Centralization presupposes structure. It requires not just a locus of thought, but also a concentration of initiative, power and function. It is a basic presupposition of most, if not all religion, that the authority and validity of the founder's teachings/instructions are unconditional and self-evident within the sphere of that religion. Unconditional adherence is not, in and of itself, equivalent to centralization. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If the leader is still alive then yes unconditional adherence is in fact equivalent to centralization. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

History section drops off in the late 1990s

Currently the "history" section discusses persecution by the Chinese government, only for it to simply drop off when the move to the United States—specifically to Dragon Springs—occurs in the early 2000s. While this once again emphasizes a variety of claims of persecution, this is not where the new religious movement's history ends, and it needs to pick up from there to discuss things like the new religious movement's move to its Dragon Springs headquarters in Deerpark, New York, as well as its political turn at around 2015-2016. There's about 20 years missing from the history section. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The section is titled "history in China." The section actually describes not the whole history in China, but the development of Falun Gong in China prior to 1999. A renaming of the section might be the solution here. TheBlueCanoe 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Much of that seems to be covered under the Falun Gong outside China section and the dedicated Falun Gong outside China page, I’d say lets add a history subsection to that section to mirror how its been done with the inside China section. I will note though that the Falun Gong outside China page is also probably in need of a re-write, it has some of the same issues which plague this page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What are these issues that necessitate a rewrite? Are any of you able to catalogue them, through reference to a thorough survey of the relevant literature? TheBlueCanoe 23:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that disruptive accounts like yours have/are whitewashing the page. The babe in the woods act isn't cute. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, if there is an argument, make it. Bald and loaded assertions of disruption and whitewashing are not constructive HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Article makes no mention of Falun Gong schools: Fei Tian College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts

In or around the Dragon Springs compound exists at least two schools: Fei Tian College in Middletown and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts. Remarkably, the article makes no mention of either of these private schools. With very few exceptions, private schools that hold religious affiliation in the United States are either Christian or Jewish, and very rarely maintain association with new religious groups, which makes the existence of these schools notable and remarkable.

As sources that mention it note, the Dragon Springs compound is notoriously secretive, but it is obviously the new religious movement's headquarters in the US, as well as some of its extensions, like Shen Yun. Fei Tian Academy of the Arts has received less media coverage, but there are mentions of it more broadly.

Here's a report on the school from 2017 to start with, but there are various other mentions of it, and Fei Tian College seems to hold CHEA accreditation via the New York State Board of Regents (see also NYcollegesorg), but I can't find any information from the U.S. Department of Education on its status otherwise. The college also has a Twitter account. One of its two posts is an Epoch Times promotional piece, of course. I'll build a section on the topic and add it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea that the movement has an actual headquarters — of the kind that performs administrative and organizational functions for the global body of adherents — quite undercuts their own claims, as well as those in much of the ethnography I've been reading recently. Can you provide exact excerpts from the reliable sources which you believe show that it is "obviously the new religious movement's headquarters in the US"? Of course this would discuss what that actually means. And the specific evidence on which the judgement is based. I.e., do we mean a "headquarters" in a kind of symbolic sense? ("This is where the master lives, this place is very special") or in a very practical sense ("This is where we have the 9-5ers processing membership donations from the flock and organizing parades in St Louis.") Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The headquarters according to reliable sources is in New York at the Dragon Springs compound/palace. I guess that since Li is what would be called in the context of Indian spirituality a guru or godman (India) and all power is derived from him and all power flows to him an argument could be made that the headquarters is wherever the godman is. Do we know where this godman lives? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, according to NBC News, Li lives near Dragon Springs:

Li lives among hundreds of his followers near Dragon Springs, a 400-acre compound in upstate New York that houses temples, private schools and quarters where performers for the organization’s dance troupe, Shen Yun, live and rehearse, according to four former compound residents and former Falun Gong practitioners who spoke to NBC News.

They said that life in Dragon Springs is tightly controlled by Li, that internet access is restricted, the use of medicines is discouraged, and arranged relationships are common. Two former residents on visas said they were offered to be set up with U.S. residents at the compound.()

It still amazes me that somehow editors managed to keep mention of Dragon Springs off of this article for so long. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that answers our question beyond a shadow of a doubt then. It is weird to have so many people call day night, but not unprecedented when dealing with the more dangerous NRMs like FG or Scientology. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Section on genocide categorization ?

Given the intense interest in questions of categorization, what do editors think of having a sub-section, in the area dealing with the anti-Falun Gong campaign, about the thinking around whether the Chinese government's actions against the Falun Gong should be considered a genocide?

Some of the relevant references on this issue might include:

• Bejesky, Robert. 2004. “United States Obligations under International Law and the Falun Gong v. Jiang Zemin Lawsuit: A Justified Reaction to a Threat to Public Security or Genocide-You Decide.” UC Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol'y 11: 295.
• Cheung, Maria, Torsten Trey, David Matas, and Richard An. 2018. “Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China.” Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal 12 (1): 6.
• China Tribunal. 2019. “Final Judgement Report.” China Tribunal. June 17, 2019. https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgement-report/.

It's also noted in Dictionary of Genocide (ABC-CLIO, 30 Nov 2007) by Paul R. Bartrop and Samuel Totten (a giant in the genocide studies field).

Note that the China Tribunal judgement, which makes extensive discussion of the genocide question, was rendered by a former war crimes prosecutor who prosecuted Slobodan Milošević. I can pull out some quotes from the above sources if that is helpful. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summary by Binksternet, explanation requested

In this edit you removed several references to Falun Gong primary sources. Whether the Falun Gong texts themselves cannot be cited because they are primary sources as to the Falun Gong teachings is debatable — it appears in the way they were being cited, they were not being interpreted, but only cited for the plain text. It's immaterial anyway since they were accompanied by a secondary source.

But you also removed references to the Ethan Gutmann article, which is not a primary source. Can you explain why you called this piece of journalism a primary source, and removed it along with the others?

More generally, editors may wish to disaggregate their edits and leave more precise summaries.

I don't think it matters that the FLG teachings are cited for those sections, but it's not clear why the Gutmann reporting should be removed. I suggest it be restored, and more care taken to ensure precise and accurate edit summaries in future. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I was cleaning up after an edit from bloodofox which removed a bunch of references. The edit summary from bloodofox named "falundafa.org, omnilogos.com, david-kilgour.com" as reliability problems.

I noticed that the removal left orphan named references scattered throughout the article. The automatic bot AnomieBOT also noticed the orphans, and fixed them by bringing back the problematic references.

The reference named "gutmannfuyou" was one of those, part of bloodofox's naming of david-kilgour.com as unreliable. I removed it for that reason. Binksternet (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't properly explain why you removed the Gutmann reference. Obviously the actual source of the article is not the personal website david-kilgour.com, as it says in the reference itself, and which you must have seen when you removed it. It's not clear at all why it was actually even sourced to that website. I googled the article and found it in five seconds: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2009/07/20/occurrence-fuyou-street/. You could easily have done that yourself, thus preserving the material in the article while correcting the reference. Instead, you removed it with the explanation that you were removing primary sources (but this was not a primary source).

Would you like to restore the reference with the actual source? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatran Apocalypse, National Review is a source to avoid. See WP:RSP. Gutmann and Kilgour's work is widely reported in reliable sources, so if this is not in those sources, then it's probably outside the realm of what's considered significant. It works both ways: primary sources for or against FG are equally unacceptable. Stick with secondary sources, preferably in peer-reviewed academic journals. Redux: Binksternet is right. Guy (help!) 09:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that Gutmann isn’t a regular National Review writer or on their staff I’m not sure we should be using this for anything other than Gutmann’s personal view which is not how it was being used. Now we can certainly use Gutmann’s personal view (he is a subject matter expert after all) but I wouldn’t put it in wikipedia’s voice and I would make sure to attribute it to Gutmann. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with Horse Eye Jack. Right now we have another user deleting content, this time a published resource. This user explains that it was a mistake. A fellow editor did not accuse this user of disruption or censorship, and instead, invites this kind user to undo the mistake. This user does not respond. If it is a mistake, then that mistake should be corrected.

With respect, I disagree with JzG that this Gutmann source should be removed. The WP requirements on sourcing has mandatory standards and recommendations. The Gutmann source is published WP:PUBLISHED, and verifiable WP:VERIFY. My friend himself acknowledged that Gutmann's work is widely reported in reliable sources, which gives the author additional credence. It is arguable if the Gutmann source is primary or secondary, but it is accompanied by a secondary source in any event. Even on the assumption that it is a primary source, WP:PRIMARY sources are not categorically banned, only that they should be used judiciously, based on context WP:RSCONTEXT, and common sense. Gutmann's work adds an important perspective to the section, there is no suggestion this source is inaccurate or duplicative. In the absence of concerns about WP:WEIGHT, I see no reason why it should be purged from the page.

I would also invite JzG to explain why National Review is a source to avoid. I'm open minded -- let issues be openly discussed and prevail on their merits. These endless WP:PERSONAL, attacks, accusations, and calls for topic banning has got to stop HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear I support its removal in context, it probably could have been better explained in the edit summary but I don’t think it was a mistake. I missed entirely the "This user explains that it was a mistake” part, can you provide a diff? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I also support the removal of National Review sources along with any and all personal websites, which shouldn't even be in question. The equation of removing unreliable sources to the constant scrubbing and censoring that the article has so regularly seen is nonsense. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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