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)

Edit request to add in that Li has claimed to have supernatural abilities

Add in the following edit in bold text, inside the article's 'Beliefs and practices' chapter:

Falun Gong's leader Li Hongzhi has claimed to have mastered eternal youth and successfully cultivated numerous supernatural abilities. Li promises his followers that Falun Gong can potentially teach them to also become eternally youthful and to be able to cultivate numerous supernatural powers including the ability to heal from all diseases, if they join Falun Gong and follow its teachings.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Note; I already asked for this edit to be added in 3 weeks ago. But it wasn't even addressed at all twice now by my count, after requesting. I previously had first informed the monitor of this talk page Anachronist to revert the recent deletion of the info and had gave him many strong sources, however he had stopped replying after that request.[6] Perhaps he didn't see. So why I later made a formal request but it got "closed" despite Actualcpscm did not even address at all whether or not such proposed information, in bolded text, is to be added into the article. I am starting to think it's impossible to ever add such information. But such information should be mentioned, and not removed, because the public deserves to know. I wish I was making this up but it's very true and confirmed by many top sources. I don't believe anyone including even veteran Falun Gong members deny this vital information. And I hope whoever answers this request, will do so in the interests of the public right to know, and not out of some loyalty to Falun Gong and the fear the public would see it less positively if they are aware of more real facts about it. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: No, I didn't see it. I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, as do many other editors. If you want to get the attention of someone, use the {{reply}} or {{ping}} templates, as I just did with you, to cause a notification to appear.

In the first source you cite above, the abstract (the only thing I can see) does not support what you state in the text you are proposing, it gives what seems to be only a tentative suggestion.

The second source on slate.com is a personal essay or editorial written by a practitioner, who provides a secondhand quote from Li's book. It would be better to cite that book. Both the Slate piece and the book would be considered primary sources.

The third source deals primarily with the controversy around organ harvesting and devotes one sentence to the assertion of "supernatural powers" and another about curing deseases, but says nothing about those powers being "numerous".

The fourth source from ABC is another editorial that says nothing about immortality, diseases, and supernatural powers. I don't even know why you cited it.

The fifth source from ABC is a long rambling piece that is horrible to navigate, but it does say something about how Li claims that all diseases can be cured. I see nothing about supernatural or magical claims, but maybe I missed them in that mess of an article. It's hard to find anything of substance in it that supports the text you propose.

Based on that analysis, I find these sources weak, and the proposed text misrepresents what they say.

Therefore, this edit request is  Declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I believe you are mistaken here as my first given source is by David Ownby and he does support my proposed texts in full that Li claims he can teach people supernatural abilities and to heal from all illnesses. [7] I also don't agree that sources like David Ownby are deemed "weak" here. I mean there is even an entire dedicated Wikipedia article for his book titled, Falun Gong and the future of China. It shows editors consider him to be a major expert on Falun Gong otherwise why even have an entire article on his book and even mention him 36 times literally in the current Wikipedia article for Falun Gong already? You cannot cite someone so many times in the wikipedia article already yet now deem him to be weak. Furthermore how is it even possible to have top professional outlets like the New York Times[8], Radio Free International [9], BBC[10], ABC news, Business insider [11] all say the same thing that Li Hongzhi does claim to have supernatural powers? Are they all lying to defame Li? Seems unlikely. And your reasoning seems arbitrary when you say no sources precisely say "numerous" abilities. But it's a "numerous" amount considering Li claims he can fly, walk through walls and make himself invisible and so many other claims. I didn't want to include all of them as it would take endless paragraphs to list them all so I summarised as "numerous". I don't think you can just dismiss all those sources as all weak when they are professional journalists and of an expert scholar already frequently cited in the current article already, and I hope you don't mind if I will request this to be settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion if we really cannot agree as I honestly do believe you are wrong in your analysis here that my sources are "weak". TasmaniaBridge (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: If you have full access to that first source by Ownby, I'd like to see some quotations from it. The abstract does not support your proposed text. In that sense, it is a weak source. It may well be a strong source but it's behind a paywall for me.

Your text synthesizes a conclusion from the sources you cite. See WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot do that, even if the conclusion is correct. I am not arguing with your conclusion, in fact I agree with the statements you propose, but I am not seeing the sources you cite support them. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I hope you don't take this the wrong way as I want to be respectful but also honest here. I do admit that I am somewhat biased here against the FG views for claiming that its still living leader has supernatural abilities and that he had achieved eternal youth and promises that followers can learn to achieve the same if they follow Li's "honest" teachings loyally. And what I cannot stand is how the Wikipedia article neglects to even mention that context at all. Maybe because certain editors fear it comes across as a scam to most people. Probably because it is a typical scam as I know boastful Li is lying about having supernatural powers. And am not saying we should call him dishonest but we should at least show the public what he boastfully claims about himself and of this world, and not always hide it. Yet a past editor chess, have deleted it from the article and why I have requested to add in such info back in, that Li claims to have supernatural powers, as it is essential information people should minimally know of FG. And despite what you say, there are multiple strong sources supporting such info as true facts. [12][13] [14] And it is honestly hard to take you seriously when you do say stuff like my sources doesn't support my proposed texts. I don't want to get deep into some circular endless partisan debate. But I think you should know I have read previous editors here, and one editor looks to be uninterested in editing, gave his reasons for their lack of interest. The User Horse eye back writes, "This page is WP:OWN by the members of the sect, uninvolved editors generally take a few steps in and then jump back out because of the overwhelming COI editing". [15] and he bids others good luck in trying to make a difference. I hope he isn't right but he does seem experienced and I admit he really got into my head after I read that post. And really, I don't want to waste my time, as I do have a lot on my plate in the real world and also I can tell that we can't agree with one another at all, at this rate. I would say it supports and you would deny and back and forth. That's not going anywhere so we need to resort to some alternative dispute resolution instead of just us arguing to no end. I read there's a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where they can tell you what is a reliable acceptable source and what isn't and suggest to start there as it's perfect for us. And see if my sources really are unacceptable by others. So if the Third opinion or reliable sources noticeboard says it's unacceptable, I may not agree with that but I will respect the decision. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. No, I am not offended in the least. In fact, I don't really have any stake or opinion in what the article states. My only concern is that the article complies with Wikipedia content policies. The additional text must not misrepresent sources, and must not synthesize conclusions from sources. The text you proposed is a good start, and you and I already agree that your proposed text is factual, but that isn't enough. The sources are all that matter. I didn't find support for the text you proposed (the way your wrote it) in the sources you cited. Removing "numerous" would be an improvement unless you cited a source that says something similar. But collecting together a bunch of different sources to conclude that the word "numerous" is correct is WP:SYNTHESIS.

There is a distinction you have missed. Declining your proposal does not equate to rejecting your proposal. It just means that adjustments are needed to make it solidly grounded in reliable sources. This is required to prevent its future removal from the article again.

I am still interested to know what's in that first source that you feel supports what you wrote, because all I can see is the abstract, which doesn't really help. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well I should probably tell you now that I would be super busy and going on a trip for next 2 days. So won't be able to reply for some time and not trying to ghost. But I should just say I believe the Washington Post had read Li's book and said that Li had wrote that at age 8, he had attained supernatural powers: which includes bending metal pipes, become invisible, rise into the heavens.[16] So unless Washington Post is an unreliable source. I believe that is good enough source to add in that he does claim to have attained supernatural powers. Also Falun Gong's official own website [17] talks heaps about people with supernatural powers. It even claims that American magician is a being with real supernatural powers and that people can actually cultivate supernatural abilities. This factor should be weighed in here to show that my other sources are accurate about Falun Gong is claiming that it can teach people to learn supernatural powers. My sources include Radio Free international who do not seem to have reason to both lie about Falun Gong promising followers they can cultivate supernatural powers through Falun Gong and are professionals that don't make amateurish mistakes.[18] If you still disagree that my sources are bad, then we simply cannot agree. I will ask if you could then just post my sources and what I had wrote here, on the Reliable sources noticeboard or on third opinion. If they agree with you, then I will not agree of course, but I will accept it. But I hope if they agree with me, you would respect their decision and add my proposed information and sources in.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: That Washington Post article alone is a good enough source to support your proposal, worded a bit differently to remove the redundant superlative "numerous", and the Radio Free International source, as I stated earlier, is good for the medical assertions. The rest of those sources you proposed earlier aren't as good. Primary sources (Falon Gong's website and first-hand accounts) should be avoided. Just a couple of good sources should be enough, and those two seem OK.

Don't worry about getting busy in real life. That's always more important, and remember, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply again. My point is guy self appointed himself as the leader and claims to have supernatural powers and wisdom. He teaches publicly that his book can help others to cultivate their supernatural abilities. All such info is true and seems you agree that my proposed text is factual. But say the sources and wording of proposed texts needs attention. But want to wrap it up and it seems we can at least agree the Washington Post source is good and that it is better to not mention "numerous". Instead just go follow how the Washington Post and Radio Free International words it. I could agree with that. I revised my proposed edit and you can add it in, more or less with whatever appropriate changes to it you deem is needed.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Put into beliefs and practices chapter; According to the founder Li in his book, "Zhuan Falun", he claims to have cultivated supernatural powers at the age of 8 and that he could perform feats such as invisibility and being able to bend metal pipes. And that at fourth grade, he had been able to pass through the walls and enter a locked classroom.[19] According to Radio Free International, the same book of "Zhuan Falun" promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body”.[20]TasmaniaBridge (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Noticed you haven't responded but then realised I had forgot to get your attention with a ping. I made a reply to your last response and hope you will notice. TasmaniaBridge (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: I'd omit some specific details that seem unnecessary. More like this: According to the founder Li in his book, "Zhuan Falun", he claims to have cultivated supernatural powers starting at age eight.[21] According to Radio Free International, the same book of "Zhuan Falun" promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body”.[22] ~Anachronist (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Yes, that would be fine by me. I would agree with your revision and confirm I have no real issues with it.TasmaniaBridge (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@TasmaniaBridge: Would you suggest exactly where it should go? The "Beliefs and practices" section is pretty large. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist:Really wherever you think is good but I would suggest the same place where the similar info had used to be present just a month ago. ->Within the "Central teachings" subchapter, you can add the info following right after that final paragraph in the chapter saying "Li says that he is a being who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as the result of rampant evil. When asked if he was a human being, Li replied "You can think of me as a human being."[12][57][58]". And then add in your revised edit, that despite he tells others to think of him as human. He also claims to cultivate supernatural abilities by age 8 and his book, promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body".TasmaniaBridge (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Added. This is exactly how talk page collaboration is supposed to work. Thank you for your patient persistence. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist It is easy to verify that the edit you made is false. The cited book Zhuan Falun is on the web, so I cross-checked. The source RFI and your edit state: "promises practitioners that it can teach them to cultivate “supernatural powers” such as being able to “see through a wall or into a human body"".

In Zhuan Falun, chapter 2, celestial eye: "A person with a low-level Celestial Eye may have the penetrative vision to see things through a wall and look through a human body. ... We are opening the Celestial Eye for everyone here, but we do not open it at or below Celestial Eyesight. Why? Though you sit here and have begun to practice cultivation, you are, after all, just beginning from the level of an everyday person with many everyday people’s attachments still not abandoned. If your Celestial Eye is opened below Celestial Eyesight, you will have what everyday people regard as supernormal abilities, as you can see things through a wall and see through a human body. If we provided this supernormal ability widely and if everyone’s Celestial Eye were opened to this level, it would severely disturb ordinary human society and disrupt the state of ordinary human society."

So just the contrary is true. 79.116.124.252 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We state what reliable secondary sources say, not what primary sources say about themselves. In any case,"may have the penetrative vision to see things through a wall and look through a human body" does not contradict the edit. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

As an interested reader I would like the introduction of this article to inform me about what Falun Gong is, how many people do practice it and where. I would like to know the essence of its teachings, what kind of religion is it (in this case seemingly close to buddhism), what are its excercises about, is it Yoga or Gig Gong?. What I primarily read is a negatively touched information about its media outlets. Are the media the main purpose of Falun Gong? The introduction isn't a good abstract of the article in my opinion. 79.116.124.252 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read as far as the third paragraph of the lead section? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A non-biased correction of ambiguity

The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:

"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their anti-evolutionary stance."

The repeated use of the they/their pronoun leads to ambiguity. The pronoun "their" in the clause "their anti-evolutionary stance" could be interpreted as indicating either the Falun Gong, or the CCP. To demonstrate the ambiguity, the following examples are provided, with editorial comments inside square brackets:

"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [the CCP's] anti-evolutionary stance."

or

"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [The Falun Gong's] anti-evolutionary stance."

As it is well known that the anti-evolutionary stance is held by the Falun Gong, not the CCP, I propose replacing the word "and" with the phrase "as well as", to clarify that Falung Gong, not the CCP, holds anti-evolutionary beliefs. As follows:

"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as their anti-evolutionary stance." Nitr0smash (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed change: multiple reverts by Binksternet

Ladies and gentlemen, I seldom find pleasure editing this polarizing topic. I've tried to stay away from this article as much as I can, but feel compelled to intervene today, for reasons apparent below.

I am proposing to restore the following edit to the article, which essentially sought to introduce a source on the subject's own, alternative voice in response to a paragraph of adverse representations about them. (I take no stand on the truth of these adverse representations, but am prepared to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they are meritorious). Here's the link to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=1163082716&oldid=1163073121

I'm not the author of this edit (the "Edit") that I'm seeking to restore. But I believe that it has been improperly reverted by Binksternet, in disregard and violation of WP, as particularized below.

The chronology is as follows:

1. On July 2, 2023, an editor named Thomas Meng introduced the Edit with the edit summary: "Statement by the president of Falun Dafa Association on homosexuality".

2. On July 5, 2023, Binksternet reverted this Edit, with the edit summary: "rv PR messaging, false in practice".

3. On July 10, 2023, I restored Thomas Meng's Edit, with the edit summary: "Binkersnet's alleged ground for undoing another editor's edit is "PR messaging - false in practise." Since when has Binksternet become a reliable source on the conduct of Falun Gong adherents toward homosexuals? This paragraph cites primary sources and opinion sources liberally. Surely the FG Info Center is allowed to express a contrary view about FG? WP:NPOV WP:ABOUTSELF"

4. On July 10, 2023, mere hours later, Binksternet reverted the Edit again for the second time, without discussion, with the edit summary: "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"

In my respectful view, Binksternet's repeated reverts are problematic for the following reasons:

a. First, Binksternet's alleged justifications for these reverts, i.e. "false in practice"; "we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views", finds no basis in any editing policy, including the WP:COPO, whatsoever. There's not even a barest attempt to appeal to those editing policies, which we are bound to follow;

b. Instead of appealing to the WP, Binksternet simply asserts what he thinks to be true, and uses that opinion which he personally holds to justify his reverts. The problem, of course, is that Binksternet is not a reliable source on this issue. Editing not based on what the sources say, but based on what he personally thinks the article should say, is a quintessential breach of WP:NPOV - the adherence to which by him is non-negotiable.

c. Third, his allegation of the content of the Edit being "false in practise" is bald, unsubstantiated and devoid of support from any reliable source. To specify, the source being introduced by the Edit states that Falun Gong adherents respect the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community, and do not oppose their efforts to establish their rights. Binksternet baldly alleges that this is "untrue in practise". Yet, I can find no published sources supporting Binksternet's suggestions that Falun Gong adherents do not respect, and opposes the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community.

In this regard, all of other sources on this issue of homosexuality in that paragraph seeks to address the content of Li Hongzhi's teachings, but none speaks to the practical conduct and behaviour of Falun Gong adherents in regards to homosexuality, which is a different issue, and which is what the Edit squarely seeks to address, contrary to Binksternet's allegations.

d. The allegations accusing Li Hongzhi's teachings for promoting homophobia, contained in the material paragraph of this article, is overall supported by 11 sources. One of these sources is a cherrypicked quotation from a primary Falun Gong text (which is patently not a reliable secondary source), about 5-8 of them are stuck behind paywalls (and are potentially primary research), and about a handful of them simply could not be found on the internet (at least not for me in a brief ten minutes google search). There are also one or two opinion pieces, which are not reliable secondary sources either, incorporated into this article without any attribution to the authors, thereby being held out as facts.

Issues of the status of these sources as WP:RS aside, which is a topic for another day, the Edit sought to be made is the only source being adduced as an alternative viewpoint relevant to this issue, which in my view, is clearly warranted in the interests of WP:BALANCE. And as the Edit seeks to quote an authoritative representative of the very subject of this matter, the Edit also falls within the ambit of WP:ABOUTSELF.

e. Finally, Binksternet's reinstatement of his edit without discussion and consensus, is a plain disregard and breach of the additional editing rules established for this article, which I quote,

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."

Binksternet made no attempt to discuss his/her reinstatement on talk, and simply proceeded to reinstate his edit, within hours of my revert of his change.

In light of all of the above, I respectfully wish to revert Binksternet's deletion of the Edit, and restore that Edit to this article. I value and seek the input of fellow editors to all of the above, and will proceed with my intended action, if appropriate in light of others' views and input on this matter.

Thank you all for your time in reading my long rambling post, and have a great day. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about how the NPOV policy handles balance. It emphatically does not refer to WP:FALSEBALANCE - we don't give both sides of an issue space simply for the sake of giving both sides. It is not Binksternet who has the WP:ONUS to achive consensus for this content, it lies with those who are trying to get it into the article. You should not reinsert this content again. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, MrOllie. Can I take your position to mean that an editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion, as Binksternet did? Does other editors agree with this? Not trying to be rhetorical - it's good to clarify.

Secondly, I think we can all agree that balance means giving coverage to viewpoints proportionate to their establishment in reliable sources. It begs the question of what that balance is, which is a matter of judgment and consensus. I think we can agree that both of us know what the principle means, we disagree on their application. Your position is that that a fair balance means 11 adverse sources and 0 positive source. My view is that a fair balance warrants 1 positive source to 11 adverse sources.

Also you ignore my point about WP:ABOUTSELF. Any reason why this principle shouldn't apply in support of the Edit? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if your source counting were the way we do things (again, per WP:FALSEBALANCE it is not), we would consider independent sourcing. Falun Gong reps issuing press releases would not tilt our evaluation of the sourcing. Aboutself doesn't apply to 'unduly self-serving' claims and this certainly qualifies. See also WP:MANDY. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

How else may balance or weight given to a particular viewpoint be measured, if not by the number of sources cited and represented in support of that viewpoint? Can you suggest an alternative way to objective measure balance or weight? Thanks for point out WP:MANDY, which is an essay, that is outranked by policies and guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_guidelines_and_essays), especially the WP:COPO, under which WP:ABOUTSELF is a subset.

Also I disagree that WP:MANDY applies here. WP:MANDY refers to self-serving denials that are patently and proven to be untrue. I've made the point in my first post in our discussion that the content of the Edit has not been contradicted by any source, let alone reliable source. I'll be happy to stand corrected, if you can provide me with any published sources showing acts of homophobia or anti-LGTBQ advocacy engaged by the Falun Gong community, which would go towards showing that the Edit is untrue and constitutes a Mandy-style denial. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The founder's words on the subject are more than sufficient for the purposes of this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If this article is about Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gong, then maybe (the practise of cherrypicking is objectionable but is a topic for another day). But this article is patently not about that. This article is about Falun Gong as it is taught, practised, and the major history and events surrounding it. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it your position that Falun Gong adherents routinely ignore Li Hongzhi's teachings? If so, I'd like to see sources for that. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly not what the Edit and its source is saying. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gong are very relevant to Falun Gong as it is taught MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying that those teachings are irrelevant (putting aside the issue of cherrypicking for now). There are dozens of sources on those teachings in this article, and I'm not taking issue with that, in this discussion.

The issue is that those teachings are not all there is to this subject which is on Falun Gong as a whole, contrary to your allegation that "The founder's words on the subject are more than sufficient for the purposes of this article". HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Also Ollie, can you please confirm that the following rule is true and applies to this article, which is what I glean from your comments at 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)?

"An editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion."

I've asked you to confirm and you did not do so. I think this is an important rule to clarify, and give us a lot of clarity and structure in approaching future edits on this article and related articles down the road. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't confirm, because such things are not the purpose of this talk page. If you have questions about how Wikipedia works you can ask them elsewhere, like at WP:TEAHOUSE. - MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I only asked because you raised this proposition, and relied on this proposition to support Binksternet's undiscussed reinstatements, implicitly holding out that proposition to be true. Your failure to confirm is respectfully noted. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I did raise the proposition you are making. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether you raised it aside, is it a yes or not to the following, in your view?

"An editor must achieve consensus to a fresh edit, before incorporating that edit into this article, failing which, that edit may be summarily and immediately reverted without discussion."

Not trying to be overbearing or difficult here (I apologize if any offence is taken). The answer to this question is a key to our discussion because if the answer is yes, then Binksternet is justified in making his multiple reverts without discussion, because of the alleged lack of consensus to the Edit being reverted.

If the answer to the above question is no, then Binksternet is not justified in making his multiple reverts without discussion, and those reverts need to be discussed and very likely undone. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather not engage with WP:WIKILAWYERING, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm WP:WIKILAWYERING. We can agree to disagree. But I would certainly respect it if you do not want to continue this discussion. Cheers and thanks for your participation anyway. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that WP:MANDY absolutely applies here. It may be an essay, but it represents broad consensus about these things. To be specific, Thomas Meng added the MANDY statement nine days ago, citing a church's Wordpress blog which he then swapped for the self-published website faluninfo.net. I removed all of that stuff eight days ago, saying it was "P.R. messaging, false in practice". HollerithPunchCard re-added the statement yesterday, and I removed it again less than an hour later. So I made two reverts separated by five days, both of them aligned with WP:MANDY consensus. These reverts should stand. The WP:ONUS for adding new information is on the folks who wish to add it. Consensus for adding has not been established. And in any case, the statement by Falun Gong saying they are not homophobic is contradicted by various third party sources reporting otherwise. There is no reason to give Falun Gong a chance to deny something that is confirmed by others. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Binksternet for finally attempting to justify your twice undiscussed deletion of the cited addition based on actual Wiki policies/guidelines/essays, which nonetheless lacks merit for the following reasons:

1. That there is broad consensus to the validity of WP:MANDY (assuming for the purpose of argument that this true), says nothing about whether WP:MANDY should apply here to justify reverting the the Edit in question. Much less does this mean that WP:MANDY, as an essay, outranks WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION, which supports the inclusion of this Edit - an issue that I have raised and you have not addressed.

2. Since you are the one invoking WP:MANDY to support your revert, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that WP:MANDY applies. You have not done so. Your uncited, unsubstantiated bald claim to the alleged existence of contradictory sources is simply insufficient to overcome the Edit which is well cited and sourced.

3. In this regard, yes the WP:ONUS for adding new information is on the editor seeking to introduce that information. However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article (See: WP:REMOVECITE). Deleting the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not seek your consensus first is an example of tendentious or disrupting editing.

4. So far, you have declared the following in support of your reverts:

- "PR messaging, false in practice" (declared twice in support of two reverts)

- "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"

In my respectful view, these actions amount to clear information suppression and WP:CENSORSHIP, partially defined as the following:

- Explaining why evidence supports one view, but under-representing (even deleting) opposing views in order to make an opinion appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.

- Minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question or that support alternative views.

- Generalizing an opinion held by "some" or "many" as if it is held by "all" (or "all credible") sources, while treating an opposing view as not being held by anyone credible.

- Ignoring an opposing view, question or discussion point on the basis that those upholding it are claimed to be misinformed.

- Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

You may not personally agree with the contrary opinion, but that is not a valid ground to erase that opinion from Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I noticed while going through your contributions history that you have been simultaneously pushing for similar edits on allegations of homophobia on Shen Yun, a related page, examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I take no stand on the merits of those edits for the purpose of this post, but they are consistent with the appearance that you are single POV pushing, in breach of WP:NPOV.

In light of all of the above, I ask for your agreement to retract your reverts, until such that you are able to actually demonstrate, with citations of reliable sources, that the Edit you reverted is plainly false and belongs to a Mandy-style denial, and all of the WP grounds that have been articulated here and above do not support its inclusion in this article. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would just add that including Falun Info Center's statement would not create any false balance. The Center's statement saying that they treat everyone with compassion and tolerance, including homosexuals, aligns with what most academic sources say about their central teachings. No sources contradict their statement, and it doesn't contradict the founder's statements either, so it appears well-balanced to me. Thomas Meng (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand scholar Heather Kavan has written a couple of papers describing how Falun Gong practitioners are not in fact tolerant or compassionate. Rather, they are hateful and hostile when their religion is challenged. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

My experience on wikipedia says otherwise... How is that statement not unduly self serving? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)