Talk:Falun Gong

Tiananmen Square Incident needs to be properly referenced

Under the media campaign section, in the final paragraph, there's a line which reads "much the same rhetoric employed by the party during Tiananmen in 1989". Since this is referencing the Tiananmen Square protests, please refer to it as such so as not to confuse the incident with the name of the square itself. Please change this line to "much the same rhetoric employed by the party during Tiananmen Protests of 1989". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh25 (talk • contribs) 10:48, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

Change this sentence. The Washington Post reported that sources indicated not all of the Politburo Standing Committee shared Jiang's view that Falun Gong should be eradicated,

To The Washington Post reported that sources indicated not all of the Politburo Standing Committee shared Jiang's view that Falun Gong should be eradicated.

Switch out comma for period to end this sentence. Spellingmistakes (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 04:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS)

China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS) is cited in the section History inside China: 1992–1996, but I have not been able to verify that this organization exists, although it is cited by Human Rights Watch here:

• DANGEROUS MEDITATION: China's Campaign Against Falungong: II. WHAT IS FALUNGONG? (2002-01)

Also, I found a citation in Made in China Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2, May 2020, p126 here:

"In an at-this-point-unrelated development, in 1981 the All-China Qigong Science Research Association (中华气功科学研究会, QSRA) was established under the All-China Association of Chinese Medicine (中华全国中医学会)"

When I searched 中华气功科学研究会 on Baidu (China's version of Google (blocked in China)), I found this:

"2018年2月6日，中国气功科学研究会被民政部社会组织管理局列入非法社会组织。" ¹

Which translates as:

"On February 6, 2018, the Chinese Qigong Scientific Research Association was listed as an illegal social organization by the Social Organization Administration Bureau of the Ministry of Civil Affairs (MCA)."¹

However, I did find a citation to National Qigong Science and Research Organization (NQSRO) in Qigong, specifically History and origins: From 1949 to 1999: the qigong boom - maybe this is a different translation of the same association/organization? Through a web-search I found Beijng based:

• International Health Qigong Federation (IHQF)

Maybe the International Health Qigong Federation (IHQF) and/or National Qigong Science and Research Organization (NQSRO) were created after the CCP declared the China Qigong Science Research Association (CQRS) to be illegal. Perhaps someone here can fill in the gaps?
Enquire (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Should it be categorized as a "cult"?

Some governments have categorized it as a cult, particularly China's government. Should we mention this in the categories? And also the introduction? WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You can try this edit, but you expect to have to deal with edit warring even harassment with thier editors, as editors of Falun Gong has been using various means to deny being designated a cult by the Chinese government. 重庆轨交18 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly have motivated editors. But so does the Chinese government.

Articles on topics like this should just state that there are two views, and what those views are. Like, "This is a religious movement, adherents say this, and opponents say this". The reader can read between the lines and understand for themselves that it's a cooky belief system.

The current tone just seems off for an encyclopedia. Eg, stating the "members are instructed to lie" based on citations of second-hand reports that don't even have direct quotes stating that members are instructed to lie...

You can still include this stuff, just say "Ex-member Susan had stated that members are instructed to lie...". That's just as effective, and comes off as more credible. 2605:B100:72E:4A89:E01C:426D:EB37:E6D5 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China

I've just been skimming through this article and noticed this sentence in the last paragraph of the section on allegations of organ harvesting: "In June 2019, the China Tribunal — an independent tribunal set up by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China — concluded that [...]". I attempted to do further research into this group but came up rather short in terms of reliable secondary sources assessing their credibility and neutrality. What I did notice, however, is that the article for China Tribunal notes that several Falun Gong practitioners are members of this group, citing the group's own judgements. Here's the text from the judgement, located as a footnote on page 10[1]:

"The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) began in 2014 as a web platform providing a comprehensive information source on the issue of forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience in China. The website features independent reports, lectures, testimonies, government action, latest news, press coverage and videos. Its website says ‘ETAC is an independent, non-partisan organisation. We are not aligned with any political party, religious or spiritual group, government or any other national or international institution. Our members are from a range of backgrounds, belief systems, religions and ethnicities. We share a common commitment to supporting human rights and ending the horror of forced organ harvesting.’ It is not an organisation of Falun Gong practitioners. None of its Advisory Board members is a Falun Gong practitioner. A minority of its committee members are practitioners."

While the group states that it is independent, the presence of Falun Gong members on its committee is of interest. Should this be noted in the article, and if so, how? I do believe that further elaboration is warranted here, but this topic is well outside my wheelhouse so I will defer the issue to editors more knowledgeable on Falun Gong.

Cheers, Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 10:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ethmostigmus: You're right in noting Falun Gong practitioners' presence on ETAC's committee. But this statement on China Tribunal's webpage clarifies their separation:

Whilst ETAC initiated the Tribunal, there is a necessary and scrupulous separation between ETAC and the Tribunal. ETAC manages some of the logistics for the Tribunal (such as arranging the public hearings in London) however ETAC is not, and will not be, privy to the Tribunal’s internal deliberations and consideration of the evidence save to the extent those deliberations are revealed in the Tribunal’s final public decision.

The China Tribunal itself, as you might've noted too, is free of any conflict of interest. Its final judgement says

All members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, volunteer lawyers and the editor of this Judgment have worked entirely pro bono publico (for the public good) which for those unfamiliar with the term or practice means completely without financial return of any kind. None of the members of the Tribunal, Counsel to the Tribunal, the editor or the volunteer lawyers working with Counsel to the Tribunal is a Falun Gong practitioner or has any special interest in Falun Gong.

And just as an aside to help diversify your wheelhouse, peer-reviewed medical journal articles do regard China Tribunal's final judgement highly. For example, The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery published this article, which described the China Tribunal as such:

The most devastating blow to China’s pretentions of adherence to international ethical standards in transplantation was delivered in 2020 by The China Tribunal, an independent and diverse group of investigators who studied organ transplantation in the PRC. The Tribunal is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, a British barrister known for his work as a prosecutor of international criminal activity. Other members include British cardiothoracic surgeon Martin Elliott and noted American historian of China Arthur Waldron.

In general, searching the topic of China's forced organ harvesting in peer-reviewed medical journals shows an academic concensus that the issue exists, leading to some journals' publication ban on transplantation research from China altogether e.g. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation (official statement), Journal of Clinical Investigation (official statement). Hope that you find this post worth your time reading. Best, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We need to include that the Falun Gong is involved and that this is not a neutral source. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent Changes Discussion

Hi, recently User:Augend made some big changes to the lead section. I made a revert based on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV but was reverted back. I will share my reasonings below:

Augend added "The Falun Gong has also received substantial criticism and heavy scrutiny by observers for its

1. "[...] extreme founder veneration" and cited Adam Frank's book chapter to justify. The cited work does not appear to support the claim. It says (p.256):

   Even before the crackdown, differing degrees of commitment to Li Hongzhi and the manner in which followers publicly demonstrated that commitment sometimes prompted disagreement. Judy, for example, criticized those who worshiped Li Hongzhi too zealously, noting “Master Li said ‘treat me as a human.’” Freddy agreed, pointing out that far from seeking worshipers, Li admonished followers to not “get caught up in the images. Don’t fall into attachments"

   This shows that even among Falun Gong practitioners, opinions differ on founder veneration, and Li himself discourages that.
2. "[...] influence operations to secure United States government contracts, thereby increasing its revenue using US federal funds." Augend cited a 2010 WaPo that says the U.S. government gave funding to firewall circumvention tools developed by Falun Gong practitioners. The article mentioned Hudson Institute fellow Michael Horowitz advocating for Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIFC) to receive funding, but it did not say that Horowitz was a Falun Gong practitioner. The article does not support the broad claim that "Falun Gong used influence operations to secure government contracts". Also, the funding was provided to GIFC, not to Falun Gong per se.
3. Augend changed "Falun Gong experiences repression in China" to "Falun Gong has been notable in receiving substantial government scrutiny in China", but sources overwhelmingly describe the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China as persecution or repression. We can't call well-documented torture and school expulsion due to one's peaceful belief in Falun Gong "government scrutiny". (Source: last article, Death Trap, in this series https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/ian-johnson)
4. Augend changed "[Falun Gong] criticizes the purportedly self-imposed limits of modern science" to "denying the truthfulness of science". But criticizing science's limitations is not the same as denying its truthfulness.
5. Augend added "involvement with political information operations and disinformation campaigns in the United States and Europe." and cited two media articles about The Epoch Times. But ET says that it does not represent Falun Gong, and these two articles did not generalize ET's coverage to the entire Falun Gong community, whose vast majority of practitioners are in China and have no connections with ET.

For full explanation, please go to my talk page discussion with Augend where my reasonings are more detailed but too long to post here. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng Thank you for your commentary. I am traveling in the near term so I will make my comments brief. I agree with you on points 1 & 3; perhaps the language can be revised to be more neutral, but I do not believe omission altogether of these important facets is the best treatment. 2 & 5 are both involving organizations that sources describe as substantially connected to the movement's organization & leadership and I believe they should be treated as such. 4 is a matter of semantics. However it is my opinion that reliable sources are more consistent with the notion that the movement denies the faculty of science rather than merely questioning it. Augend (drop a line) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)