Jump to content

Talk:Freedom of religion in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 冷雾 (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 28 February 2023 (→The section Tibetan-Muslim sectarian violence is irrelevant: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

China is atheist state e don't have reconized or official religion. Is allowed all private religious worship, except if it included praticse contrary to law or if it is praticsed in forbidden place. Vess

Persecution

Why is there no mention of China's well-documented violent persecution of various religions? --Doodlebugboodles 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this section has been totally "sanitized". Besides the severe persecution of the Falun Gong, there is absolutely no mention of the very real and likewise severe repression of the Roman Catholic Church - which the Communist Party has tried to replace with the mock "Patriotic" Catholic Church - which is as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Suggest readers log on to the CNS Catholic News Service to read about the real violence and cruelty enacted upon the Catholic Church in China.

How hilarious. What was "banned" by China was a seperate powers influence over the Chinese Government. The Catholic Church in China must simply abide by Chinese laws and standards, im sorry if you find a problem with a nation removing the Catholic Churches monetary control, but thats how they wish to run their nation. It actually says something about the Catholic Church if it is unable to run solely on belief and doctrine without money. 124.178.37.30 (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

POV

This article currently reads like an anti-PRC screed, with balancing needed on the aspects of religious freedom that actually is permitted there, however limited it may be.Ngchen 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+++ Response +++

China is the third largest country on earth. As such it is very diverse. Religious freedom in one part of the country in no way means that reports of persecution in another part are untrue. After living in China for more than 10 years, I have seen first hand both the openness and the iron fist. To any who would deny the reality of religious persecution, I would like to introduce them to my friends who have been questioned and threatened by the police because of their faith, both expats and Chinese citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.183.33 (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

third largest? your ignorance is thick, consistent with your beliefs, as it's clear you're referring to population and china has pretty much always been the most populous country, for many centuries in any case and is only in the near future about to be eclipsed by india which has only been a country for less than a century. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Believers are dominant in the West outside of narrow subcultures and gross bias such as is evident in this article is still the norm although I believe we are on the precipice of change wrt to that. As things stand now, there's zero acknowledgement that religion is a social evil which the PRC tolerates and probably shouldn't. As it moves to more effectively act in the interest of its people, 47% of whom are already convinced non-believers, the largest such population on the planet, it is only right that it should try to increase that percentage or at least not encourage a backslide and by inaction or permissiveness on foreign influences allow regression to primitive conditions which China has spent thousands of years overcoming and from what is at this point the position of a plurality of it's population with some softness that can be expected to move to the right position more or less rapidly if the central government does the right thing. Lycurgus (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

This page merits further elaboration. I've recently made a number of ambitious proposals on several other pages, and I'm not sure when I'll have time to get to them, but maybe someone else would like to dive in here. I'll propose some suggestions on how the article could be expanded:

  • Include a section on the understanding of religion and religious freedom in the (relatively modern) Chinese context. The Chinese conceive of religion quite differently than those in the West; the very term for it (zongjiao) is a rather recent neoterism, having been coined with the arrival of Christian missionaries. This kind of background can provide a more solid theoretical basis to understand the question of religious freedom. Heck, while we're at it, we could also briefly explain notions of religious freedom and orthodoxy in imperial China.
  • Describe the legal structure surrounding the practice of religion, including stipulations for Communist Party members. Also, a look at the state and party organs involved in overseeing and/or suppressing religious expression
  • Include a section that looks further back to the founding of the PRC, and examines religious freedom over time. This should include a history of the five 'patriotic' religions, as well as an exploration of religious freedom under Mao
  • Expand and improve the focus for sections dealing with specific (non-registered) religious groups and the challenges to religious freedom. Add other groups, such as Muslims (particularly in Xinjiang), non-Tibetan Buddhists, Taoists, and the dozens of other groups classified as 'heretical' by the MPS.
  • Describe religious practice and regulations within the registered religious communities
  • Consider adding a section looking at legal challenges to the party-state's restrictions on religious freedom (ie. Weiquan movement), and maybe international reaction to these restrictions. Maybe a section on the outlook is in order, pending it isn't too speculative.

This is all I can think of for now. This seems more interesting than some of my other projects, so maybe I'll get to it soon. If anyone else would like to work on the article, I strongly recommend referring to Congressional-Executive Commission on China annual reports, which are really stellar resources on this topic. Homunculus (duihua) 05:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong section needs updating

This uncited statement "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since July 20, 1999" may have been true until about 2001 or 2002, but by 2003 the number of press articles had dropped markedly, as shown in the first 2 graphs at http://www.cesnur.org/2009/slc_lemish.htm The article states "As we can see, while there was relatively strong interest in the story when it first emerged, Western press gradually began ignoring it as time went by."

People's Daily has deleted the information in this link http://en.people.cn/special/fagong/1999072200A101.html

This link http://www.un.org/press/en/2004/hrcn1073.doc.htm (General Debate on Civil, Political Rights Concludes) added on 22 July 2007‎ doesn't relate to text and should be deleted.

Currently there is no indication of the number of deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaabbb11 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Freedom of religion in China

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Freedom of religion in China's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Leung":

  • From Persecution of Falun Gong: Leung, Beatrice (2002) 'China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era', Journal of Contemporary China, 11:33, 761 – 784
  • From Human rights in China: Leung, Beatrice (2002). "China and Falun Gong: Party and society relations in the modern era". Journal of Contemporary China. 11 (33): 761–784. doi:10.1080/1067056022000008904.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Harvesting

'Organ harvesting' is obviously off-topic to 'Freedom of religion in China' as per WP:OFFTOPIC. I would advise user Marvin 2009 stop putting such content into this article. STSC (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see anyone else has such a strange opinion. Please do not frequently launch edit wars. Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who keeps reverting edits from other editors. If you really want the readers to read about "organ harvesting", I suggest just putting a wikilink instead of whole section that becomes off-topic. STSC (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that was not first added by me. I only tried to not let you damage the article. Taking away FG people's organs due to their belief is not off topic. Marvin 2009 (talk)
There's already a whole section about your beloved Falun Gong within the article. Any further details should be just directed through a wikilink. STSC (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the topics such as i like FG or you hate FG are valid argument? I suggest you not hold double standard based on your personal hatred, which is shown by your two edit:[deleting wikilinks] and [adding wikinlink]. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of organ harvesting of FG practitioners are obviously off-topic in this page. A wikilink will suffice. --Elnon (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
okay, now such a view has two supporters. the opposite view also has two supporters, the editor who first added and me. If there are more editors who agree with your view, you are welcome to delete it. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's not off topic. While I'd suggest Marvin trying to shorten a bit.Wetrace (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important event within reports about freedom of religion. why delete? And UN is still wait CCP's Reply. Many Parliaments made their resolutions about the event.Wetrace (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Genocide happening in China to Falun Gong. Details of this have to be included. 3 books about organ harvesting have been published so far. Ethan Gutmann who published the latest book is long time China watcher. STSC is a known disruptive editor and should be banned from Falun Gong articles. Aaabbb11 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong in China is Happening

So far 3 books have been published including State Organs Transplant Abuse in China with about 6 medical experts contributing chapters including Arthur Caplan who has his own explanation which you can read here Arthur Caplan#Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. Four times European Parliament Vice-President, 2004–2014 Edward McMillan-Scott campaigned against organ harvesting of Falun Gong in China.

My proof

If you search on China Embassy the US embassy is prominent. Yet on topics http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ Falun Gong is missing. But searching on list of china transplant hospitals I get this list http://en.nhfpc.gov.cn/2014-06/25/content_17614528.htm of hospitals that are approved for organ transplant projects. So there are 169 listed but its possible there are many other hospitals that are not approved. Where do all those organs come from when organ donation isn't part of the local culture?

So I don't think its appropriate to use the term allegations when referring to Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. Aaabbb11 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Freedom of religion in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the "Buddhism" section

I'm considering expanding the “Tibetan Buddhism” section to include more historical account and add contents on “Zen Buddhism” to more fully represent the major forms of Buddhism in modern China and show nuances on how Chinese government treat these two schools differently.Yilin7456 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Freedom of religion in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 2 not a good citation

I don’t know how this all works but I have a suggestion. I was trying to see what the evidence was for some pretty unbelievable sentences in the article but citation 2 only goes to a stand-alone title page for the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2011 Annual Report, with no other info. I couldn’t find any way to actually view the report so this citation isn’t good. Maybe I just couldn’t find it but I think it should not be linked to the article and the citation should be removed unless the link can be fixed to view the actual evidence in the actual report. Phoenixgirl199 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a reliable source and the archive link allows to access it in PDF format, —PaleoNeonate – 09:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The freedom of religion in Taiwan is not relevant to the freedom of religion in China

There is no reason this article should include both China and Taiwan. It's like having an article about Freedom of religion in Korea, combining North Korea and South Korea. It doesn't make sense at all. Taiwan's freedom of religion is comparable with that of the United States, whereas China's is not. This article keeps on having to switch between the opposites of Taiwan and China. I suggest this article be separated into two articles, one about Taiwan and one about China, or at least into two sections. Zacharycmango (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to the two entities not having much current legal link. The current mentions of Taiwan should be trimmed; the rest concerning ROC's mainland rule shall be kept as background. The lead should be rewritten to focus on China. Oh and the article Freedom of religion in Taiwan already exists. --Artoria2e5 🌉 17:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Americans, who are a nation but not a nation state may not appreciate the concept of the Chinese nation, which like Korea is currently divided into antagonistic states. In both cases it makes sense to me as neither a chinese nor a korean that a single article exist for each people which notes the differences in the two states. Otherwise you will want to split three ways, in this case China before 1949 and PRC and Taiwan after. Lycurgus (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lycurgus, you should take a look at WP:NPOV/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. —Caorongjin 💬 00:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per suggestions by @Artoria2e5, as the last 70 years have dictated different legal policies around freedom of religion in these regions. —Caorongjin 💬 00:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. The intro explains why the sole objection does not hold water, even while China and Taiwan are related, not withstanding an attempt at defining the need to split as an American problem. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section Tibetan-Muslim sectarian violence is irrelevant

What is the relevance of the section Tibetan-Muslim sectarian violence? While it may be interesting enough to be content elsewhere, how is it related to the subject of the page?

If I know any suitable place to migrate, I would remove the paragraph immediately. 冷雾 (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_religion_in_China&oldid=1142061604"