Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleFalun 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
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 20, 2014Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article



Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falun Gong. 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) 01:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius Monument (Helsinki)

There is a more-or-less permanent exhibition at the Sibelius Monument (Helsinki): [1]. Not sure of this is notable. It really does seem quite incongruous when one visits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Falun Gong. 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) 18:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be mention of Falun Gong's (supposed) WP:Fringe beliefs?

Unicornblood2018 recently inserted content that dramatically shifted the POV of the article by emphasizing some WP:FRINGE beliefs that Falun Gong supposedly holds, such as Li's divine status and the existence of aliens. I removed the edits because they were mostly identical to this source and re-merged some details from the source to the appropriate section in the lede.

My question is: should there be mention of WP:FRINGE beliefs that Falun Gong supposedly holds? Given that this article has weathered a lot of controversy, the current version of the article is a product of compromise and consensus and dramatically shifting its POV would demand a very legitimate reason. Inserting information about Falun Gong's WP:FRINGE beliefs would create a more negative tone, a tone that isn't present in the current article. How we would insert such information without violating WP:NPOV when the topic is so controversial and most information comes either from the Chinese government or from Falun Gong-linked sources is another major question.

Some reliable sources discuss Falun Gong's WP:FRINGE beliefs, including a TIME article that describes its belief that aliens are introducing modern technology in order to start cloning humans, and that a cloned human wouldn't have a soul, with the end game being a total replacement of humanity with human bodies possessed by aliens. [1] To what extent these beliefs are notable is up for debate. Leugen9001 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should politics inhibit us from reasonably heeding critical questions about Falun Gong?

Leugen9001 had asked why "aliens" that he labels as "fringe" beliefs of falun gong, should be allowed on the wiki page and then proceeded to acknowledge that the info was still backed by a reliable source.

I wouldn't call aliens as non relevant fringe beliefs. They were conspiracies and dangers warned from the FG leader Li himself and he mentioned stories of aliens both in China and also again in a western interview hence minimal bias. And they are still an interesting part of history in regards to FG. Wikipedia is supposed to include all relevant history.

I understand that truth can be twisted or alternatively hard to prove. And being responsible in editing Wikipedia is key to ensuring integrity of content.


But I ask you when the Falun gong leader Li claims that there is a dedicated heaven for every 'pure' races and that mixed race people are doomed in not being able to go to heaven.

____Have you ever questioned how he even came up with this concept of heaven?___

You never once seen it as reeking of sexual racism and deliberately against interracial relationships?

That he may just be another bigot with an agenda against race mixing as he basically pulled his own concept of heaven out of thin air and legitimising it as his "spiritual law".

  • Alot of close minded Conservatives are not uncommonly against interracial relationships and so a religious doctrine that dooms any mixed race offspring just seems like manipulative passive brainwashing to me, of the naive people that thinks that Li is the real deal in spirituality.

Of course that can be just be another crazy conspiracy theory.

So I will back my case from here on by first clearing ambiguity and changing the issue of biases into a non issue by using only Li's own words and writings.

____________

There are plenty of sources that have indicated that Li tried to basically encourage others in refusing modern medicine or listening to their doctors' advice if they became ill.

Why did he do that and why should he not be criticised for being irresponsible?

The government then ridiculed him for being irresponsible in 1999. That is not put on Wikipedia for some reason. Why?

My sources that back those facts that Li was advising against modern medicine, are literally written from Li himself. 

(Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a
  • Aliens are more than some fringe belief. It reveals how willing Li is in trying to convince others that he is their "saviour".

Why should we not even question at all how he came up with aliens? For the record, I believe he made those stories up.


What reasonably caused Li to claim himself as an expert in actual aliens and why insist to others that somehow he knew all the conspiracies and dangers of these beings? Classic scaremongering or actual delusions?

Why should this be omitted from Wikipedia? I feel there need to be some consideration on how he managed to even come up with his concepts of heaven, harmful medical advice and warnings of aliens?

Or do we shamelessly hold our tongues to avoid being seemingly insensitive to a religion which may just be an actual conman disguising his cult as a legitimate religion.

It's the classic moral loophole. A racist subtly spills hate and uses freedom of speech to protect himself. A living modern day person posing as a buddha uses freedom of religion to protect his cult. When has it been an issue to just say a racist is a racist and a conman is a conman when it's staring right in front of us.

Qigong was not invented by Li. That is an actual fact. Even the hand movements in falun gong came from Thai dancing.

All he added was his stories of aliens, his supernatural exploits, apocalyptic visions, his concept of heaven, teachings that lacked any scientific basis and suddenly it's a "legitimate" religion that sees Li as its saviour and his advice means more than others. Despite his advice is highly questionable.


__________

There are many reliable sources written by Li himself and those sources ironically exposes certain realities.


In one of them, Li tells his followers to deliberately lie to the public and to withhold information about the religion's "higher teachings" to the non falun gong public and instead to tell others that they are just an exercise group.

It would appear to me that it reduces the unneeded "heat" than if they were to call themselves a religion with a divine living leader as its "hero" when operating in the west.

Again the official source to back that fact that Li instructs his followers to lie for his religion and help keep a low profile under the public's radar by claiming to just be an exercise group, came literally from Li himself.

Since that's pretty significant and is officially written by Li himself with no one disputing it. Why after all these years, that one thing has never been reported once on Wikipedia?

__________


"The Western media get most of their information about Falun Gong from press releases disseminated by the Rachlin media group. This group is essentially a Public Relations firm for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin, who is one of Li’s inner circle.

Journalists also get their stories from interviewing participants. However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]). Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs, and resort to formulaic principles and repetitions of their slogan ‘truthfulness, compassion, forbearance’.

Moreover, Li sets the terms of the debate by directing members to get sympathy by telling listeners about the persecution, with the hidden intention of later turning them into converts (Li cited in Rahn, 2005; see also Li, 2002, 2003a).

Members do not see this strategy as deceptive: a Falun Gong spokesperson told me that by focusing on the persecution and not pushing their religion or leader, members were being inoffensive.


.....The Western media do not usually describe Falun Gong as a cult, because of pressure from Falun Gong, and members tell the media they are just an exercise group. However, as Wong and Liu (1999) observe, Falun Gong seems unusually proselytising for an exercise group. Also, on newcomers’ second or third visits they are given scriptures showing Li’s rejection of those who just do the exercises every day (usually Zhuan Falun, but see also Li, 1997; 1998b).

I noticed that newcomers never returned after they were given the reading material, except for one man who reappeared only to put the books on the table and rush out the door. When – six months into the fieldwork – a member told me that Falun Gong was not about doing the exercises at all, I was not surprised. She had already given me this information via Li’s writings. If the ambiguous – some might say deceptive – recruitment tactics make Falun Gong sound like a cult, we should look further at what exactly a cult is.....


..... If we employ these criteria, Falun Gong could be described as a cult. By his own account Li is the exclusive saviour of the world.

He teaches that members are superior to ordinary people, and they must relinquish “affection for kinsfolk, love between a man and a woman, an affection for parents, feelings, [and] friendship” (Li, 2003b, lecture 4, para. 3).

Also, Falun Gong activities take up large amounts of practitioners’ time each day. To be sure, practitioners are free to exit Falun Gong whenever they want, but this freedom is a physical reality, not a psychological one. As the Chinese members I met had no exposure to other spiritual paths, they believed the peace they experienced in meditation is only available through Falun Gong.

Moreover, if they are left behind in the apocalypse they will suffer horribly (Li, 2000a). (The date of this event is uncertain because Li can use his mystical powers to delay it, but participants were expecting it within the next 25 years.) 


                 Heather Kavan

________

Which begs the question. What exactly are these higher teachings that needs to be hidden from the public? What kind of people would trust in those teachings and believe in the supernatural?


Also what kind of person goes around preaching truthfulness yet at the same time also hypocritically forbidding his followers to be completely truthful about his religion?


There are too many smoking guns that are not being addressed. And it's Wikipedia's actual purpose to expose these kinds of things yet they are not covered on wiki. Why?


_________ Wikipedia is about holistic truths. And not for propaganda that only accepts information if it supports a certain desired image by its most keen editors.

If the inconvenient facts are correct and not false and have my sources like the 1999 Times interview with Hongzhi, they should be included and not buried.

All my questions are not without reason and my stance is that truth should not be censored if it is indeed backed by solid sources.

My answer to the question from the editor Leugen9001 that it's not a fringe belief but the responsible spotlight that highlights blissfully ignored questions.

Like why the actual leader of the religion, would even make such questionable claims in the first place and why should they be legitimised as a religion as they are after all only a few decades old?

And why are their teaching being unconditionally immune to any criticism on Wikipedia today by using Orwellian tactics by subtly stating neutral bias must equate to always seeing falun gong positively and nothing less than that , despite there are known truths that ring alarm bells?


Not talking about aliens is just the perfect way to continue keep awareness away from answering those critical questions.


Sources


Li, H. (1997). Falun Dafa: Lectures in the United States, pre-publishing version. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm


Li, H. (1998b). Essentials for further advancement: A Falun Gong practitioner’s guide. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2006, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz.htm


Li, H. (1998c). Falun Buddha Fa: Lecture at the first conference in North America, March 29-30, New York. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/north- america.htm


Li, H. (1999). Falun Dafa lecture in Sydney. Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm


Li, H. (2001a). Falun Gong: Principles and exercises for perfect health and enlightenment. MA: Fair Winds Press.


Li, H. (2002). Touring North America to teach the Fa, March. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2005, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm


Li, H. (2003a). Teaching the Fa during the 2003 Lantern festival, Feb. 15. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/ la2003/la2003_e.doc


Li, H. (2003b). Zhuan Falun: Turning the law wheel. Taiwan: Yih Chyun Corp.


  • Source of excerpt written by Heather Kavan can be currently downloaded as pdf from the Massey University link below.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf 







Unicornblood2018 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My intent here is not to say that information regarding certain Falun Gong beliefs that would cast the movement in a negative light should never be included. Instead, I wish to remain neutral on the topic itself and note that there needs to be thorough discussion and consensus, given the complex and controversial nature of this topic. I would also like to note that the current revision of this article is a product of compromise and consensus; thus, although we must improve it in accordance with Wikipedia's general editorial practices, we must also take into account the legitimacy of certain decisions that have already been made, and accept or reject different parts of current consensus depending on whether or not they are correct.
Wikipedia is supposed to provide WP:DUE weight to different viewpoints. I am not going to comment on whether or not the characterization of Falun Gong as a cult is legitimate. I'm only going to say that Wikipedia does not appear to present much evidence supporting the Chinese Government's viewpoint and that we must make sound editorial judgements as to how much of that evidence should be included. We need to look at what reliable sources say and whether or not the characterization of the group as a cult is held by a sizable portion of scholars who are not involved with either the Chinese Government or Falun Gong. --Leugen9001 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reintroduced some of the content that you added. I did so in a body paragraph rather than in the lede because the information would otherwise have dramatically shifted the POV towards a more negative one, which I believe shouldn't be done without sufficient consensus and discussion. --Leugen9001 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would furthermore like to note that Wikipedia is not supposed to make major decisions about what's true or not because Wikipedia does not have the capacity to carry out rigorous WP:Original Research. Instead, per WP:NOTTRUTH, we must go by the consensus of reliable sources. Thus, it doesn't matter how convincingly you argue that Falun Gong is a cult here, since Wikipedia is not an avenue for original research and its content must instead be based on what reliable sources say.--Leugen9001 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see somebody already chimed in here. I echo the above, and add that we need to ensure that different topics are weighted appropriately. In describing FLG teachings, for example, there's general agreement that this article should provide an overview of the most important aspects of the doctrine and the practices. Given how prolific Li is in his writings and public lectures, we could never hope to describe everything he has ever written.TheBlueCanoe 00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Leugen9001 — I neglected to explain my rationale for some of my edits of your last version. On the 300 protests, those details are found in the relevant section further down in the article. Seems a bit too in-the-weeds for the intro section, especially since there are many other salient details about that time period that we omit here. On reincarnation and enlightenment, those are definitely central concepts. I thought those were already included in the 'teachings' section, but maybe not explicitly enough.TheBlueCanoe 01:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the inclusion of information that might make the POV more negative, such as certain beliefs espoused by Li Hongzhi that were described by User:Unicornblood2018, should such information be included? If we do not include such information, are we promoting an incomplete view of the group? I believe that decisions relating to whether such information should be included should be based on sound editorial judgement resting on reliable sources. While Chinese Government-linked sources do include a lot of information that places Falun Gong in a bad light, and some of that information may be verifiably correct, such sources might not be appropriate for judging due weight due to their bias. Most uninvolved mainstream sources characterize Falun Gong as a respectable religious movement. However, I believe that it may be necessary to discuss the extent to which the arguments of the Chinese Government are being presented. Currently, the following is the only passage that really delves into the Government's point of view:

Xinhua News Agency, the official news organization of the Communist Party, declared that Falun Gong is "opposed to the Communist Party of China and the central government, preaches idealism, theism and feudal superstition." Xinhua also asserted that "the so-called 'truth, kindness and forbearance' principle preached by [Falun Gong] has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve", and argued that it was necessary to crush Falun Gong to preserve the "vanguard role and purity" of the Communist Party.

Should the Chinese Government view be portrayed as credible? Of course not! We shouldn't favour the words of a dictatorship over the words of reliable sources. But the details of what the propaganda says are very notable. The current article has the effect of creating a caricaturized and unhelpful view of the Chinese Government's propaganda: State-run loudspeakers saying that a good socialist citizen must be a liar who is unkind and gives up easily! I believe that we must, within reason, include some of the evidence cited by the Chinese Government--not to prove their view right, of course, but rather to provide due weight to covering the existence of notable things said about Falun Gong, keeping in mind relevant policy and good editorial practice. --Leugen9001 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"State-run loudspeakers saying that a good socialist citizen must be a liar who is unkind and gives up easily!" Personally for your article in your quote box, I think they were more competing over what the "largest influential' values for their society should be. And to be honest, I don't believe that Chinese Gov wants the majority of their people to become like Buddhist monks who puts peace and kindness well above ambition and making money. But that also doesn't necessarily equate into wishing their citizens to be jerks and picking fights with each other either. They said not in common, and not complete "opposite". — Regardless whenever chinese newspapers are being interpreted into English, it is possible that the original meaning can be distorted or lacking in the outputted English version. And causing readers to be prone to not fully grasping of the original true message as interpreted quotes are not always skilled in delivering the entire message sufficiently. Hence doing research to double check if China is in fact telling people that they need to become mean or lazy, would be wise. That original news piece was in chinese so the quality of interpretation always has to be considered and added in with care. As improper additions of any poorly translated quotes would attenuate the integrity of the wiki. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to give you a more fulsome reply when I have I have a bit more time, but check out the "media campaign" ction. This deals in some depth with the nature of the Chinese government's claims against FLG, putting them in broader context. The government's view is also presented throughout the history sections (e.g. its criticisms of qigong as anti-scientific, etc.). On FLG teachings, we are absolutely giving an incomplete view — the practice's master has written tens of thousands of pages on a sprawling array of topics, and we can't hope to cover them all here. Given these constraints, our goal is to give a representative overview of these teachings and the core tenets and practices. So the question becomes 'what do the best reliable sources say are the important teachings of FLG'? TheBlueCanoe 04:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leugen9001 wrote"article has the effect of creating a caricaturized and unhelpful view of the Chinese Government...." And based on that it makes them look so foolish and works against them. That quote should be added in? True objectivity would mean publishing their top official warnings about Falun Gong and then adding on info to whether it is accurate or not. We all know the chinese government's official excuse on why they banned him. Their story was that they were supportive of FG when it was just an exercise group. But they claimed that FG diverted from that when it started pushing claims of apocalypse, opposing modern medicine, that Li was the saviour, making protests against critics. Etc Are there any truth to any of this or just false propaganda? None of this is ever covered on wiki.Unicornblood2018 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like to point out when Russians commies once accused the Americans of covering up Japanese unit 731 war crimes that exploited their civillians, in which the Americans called "communist lies" despite the evidence. Yet it turned out to be the true. Just because the Chinese are run by a dislikable one party communist state does not permit us to lose our objectiveness to their official warnings. If there are indeed any truth to their severe warnings that can currently be supported by both reliable western scholars and Li's own writings and speeches, then failure to simply publish that these warnings are not "lies" , are similarly driven by political filled hatred and inhibition. Which is the Whole Point of my thread.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page should include all the significant critical statements from the opposition  like Li opposing modern medicine or Li telling followers of scary aliens, and objectively add on whether they have truth in it or not, by using reliable sources.That is how we need to do things to improve the page. - Ultimately every info's right to be published should be based on whether it's indeed backed by reliable sources and also how it's written on the wiki page. Using excuses to remove them by calling them fringe beliefs or that they contradict the editors' unofficial consensus, (which would be questionable if a backed source were to contradict them anyways) should not be permitted and does not give precedence over any info if they are indeed backed by reliable sources and are significant to the topic. Unless you can produce a contradicting info that is backed by an even better source, then my question is that are there any sufficient excuses to remove info if they are 1. significant, 2. well backed by reliable sources and 3. Highly relevant and written appropriately into the wiki page? Political inhibition is not an excuse.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Dowell, William. "Interview with Li Hongzhi". TIME. Retrieved 31 August 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong&oldid=857860827"