Talk:Falun Gong

Considerations for lede section

I've just reverted some edits to the lede section for which there did not appear to be a consensus. This is a challenging article, particularly for editors who have not read extensively on the subject or are unfamiliar with inter alia differences between English and Chinese rendering of terms, or with Chinese religious traditions. For example, there's an extended debate among scholars about whether "new religious movement" is an appropriate label to apply to FLG. David Ownby, for instance, has written that it is an incoherent descriptor for FLG once you understand its origins in Chinese cultivation traditions. So you can certainly say that some people have described it this way—we have a whole section dedicated to the conflicting descriptors used for FLG—but it's far from the definitive descriptor. It also conflicts with the group's self-understanding as a practice that has been passed on privately for many generations. The debate around the "cult" appellation is even murkier, even when we set aside the ethics of allowing a group's persecutor to be the one that defines them (and that's not an insignificant consideration). The chief thing here is that the Chinese term "xie jiao" has a radically different meaning than "cult." The Chinese government has adopted the latter term for propaganda and PR purposes, but it's simply not accurate, and doesn't even reflect the Chinese government's internal logic. TheBlueCanoe 02:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

First if you read Susan Kavan's research. The chinese government had multiple different reasons why they disliked FALUN GONG. One of them was the fact they believed the leader was a phoney and was brainwashing people to believe in aliens and against modern medicines, etc That is basically them saying it is a cult. They had defined it as a cult by even explaining the specific criteria sufficient enough, using their language.

You appear to assume the only people who HAS EVER explicitly categorised falun gong as a brainwashing Cult is the Chinese government. Honestly the vast majority of Western people will agree that Falun gong is a cult when they learn the NON DECEPTIVE facts that its leader 'self' claims to be a CHOSEN ONE, who was handpicked by an immortal being in the mountains at age 12, etc and can teach people his supernatural secrets if they listen to him.

You don't have to be a chinese commie to think that. And even tho I know FG is a cult and personally I indeed label every person who claims to be the only one who can solely save others in the apocalypse and also delay the apocalypse, as a dishonest cultist. But that's just me.

My own opinion here and I don't appreciate you subtly and passive aggressively implying that I don't even honestly believe my opinion and simply a chinese communist official. That's blatant unwarranted paranoia designed to shut other people up.

I was an ex FG member, thinking initially it was just a fitness social club, and from my own personal experience. I met a woman who i had a polite argument with. She tried to convince me that i was living in a bubble and that our human mind was capable of more than we realise. She quoted the overused adage that humans only used like 1 percent of their brain and then she told me about telekinesis, telepathy, expert practitioners' claimed feats, etc and she was literally serious. I was SHOCKED but there's a confused 17 year old boy who was vulnerable and in a helpless period in his life, who naturally became attracted to the idea that he can become omnipotent powerful and solve all his life's problems like poor self esteem with learning supernatural abilities. He believed because he wanted to believe. And willfully ignoring any common sense that it's not real as that the practitioners themselves had no idea how to do telekinesis.His sense of reality was impaired because he was actually suffering a psychological break from reality and FG exploited all of that. I was disgusted to put it frankly. it was painfully hard to watch and i believe fg is an evil in itself because of that experience that broke my heart. I felt deep pity for that boy and the irony was i too had no clue after reading Wikipedia 2 years ago l, that FG lured people in with false promises of mastering telepathy and telekinesis that leader LI himself has self claimed to have mastered.

That was when I quit. Because I am a realist and nobody including Li himself has ever proven that telekinesis is a real thing. He made all these miraculous self claimed stories about himself and the ONLY people completely fooled into listening to his supernatural bibliography are vulnerable naive members who never bothered to practise critical thinking and ask the neccessary questions on why they should believe his sacred bibliography. On Wikipedia, those egotistic stories that Li made. are not anywhere close to explicitly written here because fg public relations know that majority of Westerners feel exactly the same way as me, after i FINALLY learn the whole thing.

FG is NOT an exercise group as most people seem to think. It's covertly posing as an actual religion with the leader painted as some kind of supernatural genius with self claims that no adult westerner with critical thinking, would ever easily fall for. The chinese government rejected his teachings as dishonest and even tho i don't agree with harvesting organs from people you dislike. I however don't believe that Li should be immune to all professional criticisms and that nobody can shed awareness on his cultist background.

@Thebluecanoe.. You are precisely doing that here by censoring any mention of the word "cult", even when it is officially the statement of China's government itself.. You could easily have contextually written that Chinese government dislikes fg and calls it an evil cult, to predominantly attack it. You don't have to literally remove the whole thing from awareness.

And please do not wrongly state the only people who ever calls FG as a cult is TYPICALLY the Chinese government.. Susan Kavan is an educated kiwi who does not work for the Chinese government and her sources indeed were directly LI'S own published papers that ONLY he wrote and there is no excuse to say that he didn't mean what he wrote and was only kidding. That zip don't fly.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am not EVEN suggesting that we call FG as a cult in Wikipedia. NO so please don't twist my words.

All i am suggesting here is CONSIDERATIONS of Inputting key significant facts in the lead section, that FG is different from major religions in that it was created very recently by a man who is still alive today. You say the religion is passed down many generations. That is misleading because it naturally gives the impression that it is an ancient religion. That's not the real story.

Also consider putting in the Lead Section that it is created by LI, who self claims, quoted in western interviews, to be chosen by a real life immortal from the mountain at the age of 12.

Most people will make up their own minds whether it is a cult or not. But at least you didn't withhold fair awareness away from them.

Cus a cult that censors Wikipedia so that people of the general public is not aware that its creator and self appointed leader is alive, claims to be chosen by an actual immortal being at age 12 and wrote that he can delay the apocalypse, etc, etc, is honestly how they can actually survive under the radar.

His self claimed written stories are clearly dishonest but censoring his stories on Wikipedia is equally dishonest. 120.18.154.73 (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the inappropriate censoring here and ganging up + editing out anyone who disagrees with them. With reasons that aren't justifiable. The chinese gov calls it a cult and removing it because you "personally" don't believe they genuinely meant it, is not your call to make. That's their official chosen public stance. They are largely significant to FG and you don't choose for them on what they publicly call FG.

And fyi, the Chinese gov literally critised Li publicly for brainwashing about aliens and preaching that modern medicines was counterproductive. Li later repeated the EXACT same stuff in western media and his publications in the west.

So can you tell me what the real true Chinese word is for cult? Regardless It seems like China already perfectly explained it as a group brainwashing people to believe in space aliens that arrived on earth a century ago and to not trust their modern medicine. Just because they didn't have the vocabulary for cult doesn't mean they genuinely don't see it as a cult.

If they used the English word of cult and completely understand the definition of that word. Then publicly that's their stance. Your argument to censor them is based purely on semantics. China had many con artists claiming to be gods.. xie jiao described the con artists which could also be termed a cult except the government used am umbrella term for the many conmen as illegal religious activities.

So don't use mental gymnastics to pursuade they don't genuinely believe it's a cult when clearly, based on the evidence and how they very specifically described it, they obviously did.

@thejluecanoe Also calling it a new religious movement is unethical as the religion is perpetrating the teachings that LI is the Chosen leader plus wise saviour with no equal, and we should regard all his egomaniac ramblings as spiritual law. Those spiritual laws are just stroking Li's ego as if he is actually superior to his fellow man

- "Li claims supernatural powers, developed through training with spiritual masters in the mountains from his youth; his book, Zhuan Falun ("Turning the Law Wheel"), posits that he can treat disease moreeffectively than medicine, and can telekinetically implant the falun, or law wheel, into the abdomens of his followers, where it absorbs and releases power as it spins (other beliefs attributed to Li are that he can fly, that Africa has a two billion-year-old nuclear reactor, and that aliens invaded Earth about a century ago, introducing modern technology; one type, he told Time magazine, "looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone")."

Can anyone honestly read the above information and not think that Li is clearly dishonest? Of course personal opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia article but I am not suggesting to say that he is dishonest.

Merely to simply add sufficiently li's many supernatural and egotistic claims into the Wikipedia lead section so people can know essentially who the sole author/leader of the religion Li really is and make up their own minds. As currently the lead section needs that.

Source http://i.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/295092/The-gospel-truth-Falun-Gong

120.18.154.73 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't much of that material — which is indeed relevant — already in the article, where it is properly contextualized and cited to appropriate sources? I think the objection so far is to the peremptory addition of contested content in the lead. The personal background is not particularly relevant or helpful, though I am sorry to hear the story. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apolocolypse That background story is the WAY to make a point that this article desperately needs to improve it into a neutral full article MAYBE at last. I read this Wikipedia article 2 years ago and realised it needs so much work.

Deleting it will only hinder awareness. I can prove it strongly to everyone and maybe to you only if you are truly objective here. And not trying to make an excuse to edit me out.

Let me tell you something.🙁😢

If I were to emphasise on the article rn that Li had claimed he mastered supernatural powers and stated he was selected by an immortal at age of 12.

And he published papers in the west where he claims that modern medicine was ineffective compared to his methods. And most importantly, talked about the aliens who landed on our planet whilst claiming to be an expert of their existence.

All these facts are true and deserve a place on the article. Will it seriously last for very long?

I'll most likely be edited out within a week completely via lame excuses that it is ie, a fringe belief or other beuacratic biased mental gymnastics rationales that are hard to beat without my story here.

Nobody denies that Li made a lot of self claims of spiritual wisdoms and that he is the master of supernatural abilities. He goes to teach other people his wisdom and his "self" claimed mastery of the supernatural arts. True followers only listen to him because they believe what he is telling them.

Is it harmful?

He pushes claims that heaven is where mixed race people are destined to be eternally away from their "pure race" parent.

He makes practitioners to tell people FACTS that Li mastered telepathy, telekinesis, and ETC where apparently he learned them from an immortal in the mountains. And so they too can master telekinesis omg....because Li is the honest proof of that.

Li made his own larger than life claims of supernatural mastery in his own publication books where he is at war with aliens and demons that indeed sounds like a chapter from the x files.

The falun gong group is making promises to recruits that they can seriously teach you the skills of telepathy, telekinesis, etc whilst claiming that Li has mastered those arts.

Which is why that it is CRITICIAL that we emphasise in Wikipedia that it was LI who authored those teachings and claimed his own credibility that he was the highest master of these spiritual arts. And he dictated that his followers should believe he is honest and that his teachings are of his high quality wisdom.

- so instead of "FG teaches that, etc, etc ~it has to be changed into Li teaches that, etc, etc and his practitioners relay his teachings into others. And his supernatural life story of aliens, telepathy, training with immortals must be CLEARLY inputted in the Lead Section.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.228.42 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 

But in Wikipedia rn, it talks about the religion as an independent separate thing as if it is no different from any other conventional religion. It distances li from the explanations of the individual teachings, giving it an impression that each teaching is an ancient established commandment.

- By not clearly linking Li as being the key person who created those teachings out of thin air and claim them as spiritual laws, is sneaky. Every teaching in the article must explicitly identify its author aka LI and in the lead section must have Li's full background and every one of his self claimed stories. Otherwise you are censoring the real person behind the teachings deliberately. 

And That has this deceptive effect to help distance Li away from it almost as if the religion is not being pushed by him. As if it wasn't created by him. Like he never boasted of telekinesis and telepathy or wisdom of apocalypse, that was used to convince followers of his credibility and that's the impression people get when reading the article. And like sheep, they fully accept other people to trust his honesty that his wisdom is divine. 

Except i question it because i see them push an obvious lie too shamelessly. And hide the extent by white washing the wiki article equally dishonestly and just using the Chinese government organ harvesting tragedy, to shield them from people bringing awareness to their own dishonesty.

I'm Sorry but just because one dishonest person had a difficult time, does not give him the right to con other people without criticism.

Wikipedia for this article is very sneaky in that it generally protects Li from having any kind of obvious causality with falungong, and it is as if followers are merely choosing him as their leader without his actions, and they are just learning healthy habits from him. Whereas in reality it's a cult when some poor followers are being convinced that Li's teachings can teach them telepathy and telekinesis because Li himself self claims to have learned it from an immortal and practitioners all treat him aa a honest man that is enough to convince naive individuals.

That is the reality and none of what i written is false or out of context. Sorry if i refuse to believe it is okay to censor FACTS that Li talked about aliens and he said that an immortal in the mountains literally chose him at age 12. Because his religion is now hurting innocent delusional boys, who is going to spend the next decade trying genuinely hard out of desperation, to master telepathy, and end up depressed that he cannot master it like dishonest Li had self claimed to do.

In Wikipedia rn, you can't see anything resembling my story in an obvious way. That's the problem and why my story is so Important.

- It is all instead written neatly and people tend to read it and leave. If they read my story, they'll actually be like h*ly c*rap.. I definitely didn't see that on the Wikipedia page.. I didn't realise that this group has people telling other people that li mastered telekinesis and was trained by an actual immortal being.. And that they claim he mastered those arts and they can teach me to become like him and master telekinesis because we only use 1 percent of our brains"

No, 😭 no one will read the Wikipedia article rn and is able to say that despite none of what I said is false.. Why? Because of criminal censoring and why my story needs to stay here until this article becomes improved and emphasise That those teachings are solely created from LI who claims they are wisdom but they are his words alone and every teaching im the article must be emphasised that it was created by Li FIRST and to also include his background and all his outrageous self claims OPENLY in the LEAD Section without illegal censoring so people can finally actually understand the author of those teachings.

And yes, i do have a real problem watching those fg practitioners brainwashing that poor inexperienced boy into believing he can master telepathy because of a leader who is obviously lying about his supernatural life story. 😥

Deep down I fear many editors here are likely falun gong public relations team playing defence and making sure these true facts are never written here. I suspect they know the same as me and likely they don't even think that Li is a honest person at all.

Because if they were true believers, they will logically allow statements like "li claims that he was chosen by an immortal at age 12, etc" and "scaremongering warnings of outer space aliens in his TIME interviews" to be written on the article because they see it as the obvious truth.

But they deliberately censor all that. Only because they know and fear that the rest of the world finally sees that as obvious dishonesty. Because it is. 120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@bluecanoe you do need to reverse your last censoring as the Chinese gov didn't lie about officially calling it a cult. That is a solid fact backed by reliable evidence. You are welcome to add contextual information but you should never delete it completely as it is important part of falun gong's history.

When I read western news even today. They white wash it by saying china banned them because of political reasons. That they were "larger" and preached true democracy. And I actually agreed with them once without knowing anything at all prior. Except the facts were that China wasn't even aware of what they were doing only until they surrounded government buildings in protest because some of them were previously arrested by local police for harassing a university professor who criticised their leader as a fraud, to retract his opinion.

That does not sound very democratic and once china began to see what the fuss was all about, all they had to do was read Li's books and teachings to know enough that he is a con man using religion to profit from people who believed him completely.

Fg original enemies were journalists and university scholars who published their opinion that Li was a fraud and those critics were publicly protested against, LONG before fg was ever termed illegal. Fg went to the government later on, hoping that the gov would be pressured to help them except the gov took the critic's side as they deemed fg as fraudulent too.

Who in the right mind would ever be okay with a man who decieve others that he is some kind of supernatural superhero plus scaremongers complete false fictional claims about aliens, 2 billion old nuclear reactors in Africa, training with an immortal in the mountains during his youth and teaching people how to be more like him, to remember to stay with your own race, see homosexuality as an immoral act against the universe which karma itself will assure to punish, and that medical medicine is doing more harm than good if you were a true believer.

Before people go call me a bigot. I actually respect the concept of reincarnation but that's very different from listening to another living person who shamefully lies about having supernatural powers and can teach it to others without showing proof of his boasts.

"illegal religious activity" or "xie jiao" is merely the umbrella official legal terms that china had for fg to classify its legal status. The word cult is simply more understandable to the western context who doesn't have laws specifically targeting cults. We only have laws against fraud which is how a western government would criminalise a cult. They don't ever say you're arrested for cult charges but for mass "fraud".

In china, outside of their 5 sanctioned established religions. They have a history of wacky religions that deem a living person, who is often the leader, author and benefactor, to have supernatural powers and promises he can teach it to others at a price. They Are all cults but China only calls them "xie jiao". The interpretation is more accurately a simpler way to state that the religion is illegal because it qualifies as a criminal level cult.

Read below article https://www.patheos.com/blogs/wakeupcall/2013/10/falungong/

If there was a mass cult in china, they will still call it "xie jiao" in their language. They deemed fg was not a normal conventional qiging health group but one that had a leader who was making others believe he's the real life Buddha who can do telepathy and telekinesis, etc and created spiritual laws that conflicted with modern common sense such as trusting your doctor.

The last part about preaching medicine was harmful, was one of the major public reasons why LI got kicked out of China. And Even After they publicly accused him of precisely that. Li still published papers in the west for his followers to read explaining specifically why modern medicine is harmful because it angers karma. What was his excuse for writing that? I'm not even surprised given the ego of this man to think he is immune to the consequences and stubbornly likes to think he knows more than medical professionals who trained their entire lives to help people.

Also stop saying the religion was passed down by many generations. That is deceptive. I am older than the entire falun gong religion itself and i am a millenial. Don't mislead others as if falun gong didn't all start in the early 90s less than 3 decades ago. And you have no qualified reasons to edit that information out of lede section, as political reasons are not allowed.

This Wikipedia article is constant white washing facts by using only biased china hawk editors who politicised fg for their own agenda and know Simply by putting Li's publications and his self claims in the lead section. Other people will finally see it like me.. However because of the Internet, li's published work publicly archived, Susan kavan, etc. It's only a matter of time when people begin to be more aware so censoring real facts is a losing battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.17.66 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what is "Wikipedia rn"? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@apocolapyse I thought that was pretty obvious. It was in reference to the Wikipedia article "right now" on Falun Gong as of Anzac day 2019. What else could I be referring to?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

Its current state is the sum of a long history of deleting and censoring info COMPLETELY without valid enough reasons. And even if a logical reason is actually given, it is used in conjunction with excessively deleting the entire thing instead of editing it proportionately.. A good relevant example is just last month. When USER Marvin 2009 removed completely this paragraph that was added in.

- However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well.

For the record, that was inputted by someone else. Not me. Not like it matters but it was directly bought to my awareness by Marvin 2009, who said it was Original research despite Li did claim mastery of telepathy, delaying the apocalypse, etc in his early books. And he did publish official fg papers to his followers in the west, arguing for the refusal of normal medical treatments.

There is no excuses nor qualifying reasons behind censoring that info at all. That's what's going on that is disturbing. And should be bought into light to be discussed publicly. 120.17.101.20 (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What you said is misleading.

1. Before the editing I noted on this talk page: "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable". In other words, the 1 st source does not support the statement (Original Research) and the 2nd CCP source is not Reliable Source on this topic. As there was no response in 5 days, I did the edit.
2. The persecution and hate propaganda CCP conducted was well documented in reports from international human rights organizations and numerous neutral scholars' studies. It is obvious that CCP apologist is passionate to negate and distort the basic persecution facts and promote CCP propaganda, including cult label, but this isn't a platform for anyone's lengthy Original Research expression. CCP media had tons of former Falun Gong practitioners who followed the party line in demonizing FG. Anonymous IP user's claiming to be an ex Falun Gong practitioner is telling.
3. As per one report from New York Times, CCP looks like a cult based on CCP's own cult definition. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate censoring culture and bullying by FG defensive

Marvin 2009 removed an entire paragraph using what i honestly recognise as merely beuacratical and invalid reasoning . I believe that biased censoring is a serious issue here and degrading the quality of this article due to its political nature.

I believe that a new dedicated section needs to be created to discus openly whether an information truly has a right to be deleted or not from the article.

One editor has last month inputted the following information.

- "However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well."

Marvin 2009 wrote the following after deleting the paragraph in question.

- "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable."

That reasoning is not valid simply for one because it deleted the entire second sentence using an excuse that the source given, didn't state it had multi qualities of a cult.. And deleted the entire third sentence because the second source was a ccp source. However that could have easily be appropriately re-edited to state that ccp were the ones making that report.

Regardless Li claiming to have supernatural powers and teach it to other people.. Is a pretty standard recognised hallmark of a typical cult. If you need a source to also tell you that a living person today claiming to be a God with superpowers and that person is convincing people to believe him, is a cult. That's unnecessary and simply creating artificial barriers

Cult are easily understood as a social group that's brainwashing its followers, in a way that are generally dishonest or harmful or them claiming their living leader as their saviour who has supernatural powers. The following are facts that are solid.. Can you prove they are fake?

- Li is a man who publicly claims to have supernatural powers that he learned in his youth from an Immortal, such as telepathy and can teach it to others.

- Li also published papers "in the west", telling people about why they should reject modern medicine when they are ill.

- A group that brainwashes people into believing a man has supernatural powers and tries to make others believe that Li knows more than medical professionals.

Those are the "numerous" qualities of a cult which btw is a word that most average person would not find hard to understand.

You don't need to have a source to back everything if it doesn't need it. And even then, you didn't have to delete it all..Could have edited it appropriately but that was not enough to appease certain editors agendas that their undesired yet correct and significant information, is to be censored and not to be discussed fairly.

~ I have been smeared a ccp apologist here. I'm not the one trying to hide information about fg. If they are incorrect or lies that i am trying to protect. I will accept my freedom of speech here to be ceased.. But I am advocating protecting information that are significant and true, from being deleted here. That is how I believe I am the among very few editors improving this article by bringing awareness to inappropriate censoring that has been ongoing for many years on this article.

I don't care about the politics. In fact, I find fg to be politicised more by china hawks with an agenda. Who uses politics to create a false image of falun gong. Via censoring real information which isn't artificial. If lt was, then clearly chinese government is behind that.

- The communists didn't make Li lie about his background, or push him to talk about aliens in times interviews, nor make him write papers telling followers why modern medicine is doing more harm than good.

The only editors with political agendas, are the ones who hide facts like Li claiming stories of aliens and why I originally became aware of such censoring.

Regardless if the fg leader indeed published those papers against modern medicine in the west. They should be recorded on Wikipedia..

If Li claims he mastered supernatural powers like telekinesis, telepathy, etc and those significant facts are correct. Then you have no right to remove facts from Wikipedia. I am not going to argue politics with editors but instead whether or not certain information are facts or not.

This section needs to be created and not blocked. And to be properly vetted. I will accept a ban if i am Protecting information that is untrue. But i suggest a ban for those who are vicious on doing whatever it takes to censor information that shouldn't be censured on the basis of freedom of information. -

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Unicornblood2018:. I note a biographer attributed statements to Li Hongzhi, but some questions. Is the classification as a cult verifiable? Does any other source dispute that view? cygnis insignis 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i already written her down many times. Her name is Heather Kavan. But the other editors shoot her down as ccp propagandist and attack her. I originally covered her work thoroughly in my original section. Read url link below or alternatively just download her pdf direct from Massey University server.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41

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

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Unicornblood2018:. There is a lot of unnecessary discussion, extensive concerns about other users contributions are not appropriate here. I'm reading that study now. I will look at what is proposed for inclusion in the article, then give my view. cygnis insignis 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm something of a newcomer to this complex topic... but I encourage others to look a little through the archive of the discussion. The Kavan material has been addressed at length. I think the short version is that the conference presentation of a professor of media is not (nearly) as reliable a source as the enthographic field work of scholars of Chinese religion. There is a lot of emotion and foruming, which we should avoid. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion, perhaps I will. The Kavan study is not cited in the article, the currently blocked user provided that above, and it was as good a place to start 'measuring a circle' as any other point. @Cleopatran Apocalypse: did you notice where it was decided to be unsuitable for inclusion? Without mentioning the topics which I see as subject to similar problems in content building, some of the competing narratives are shaped by propaganda agencies; fairly obvious that verifiable facts are going to be difficult to find. I'll keep reading the sources and see what emerges as obvious improvements here, those ethnographic studies would be handy if someone has a link. cygnis insignis 08:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some sources

I'll add some links here as I'm revising what I've read. cygnis insignis 09:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Cited by Kavan as another view, some Christopher Hitchens (being Christopher Hitchens ;-)

• Hitchens, Christopher (2 November 2000). "For Whom the Gong Tolls".

When there are questions whether an article is reliable to not, it sounds quite a good practice to trace the views cited in the article. Thanks.

After a quick look at the Christopher Hitchens source, it seems that Hitchens heavily relied on Sima Nan.

Unfortunately, as the Wikipedia Sima Nan page stated Sima “is well known for his staunch support of Chinese Communist Party values and nationalistic, anti-American and anti-universal value sentiments, based on source 1 The page also said The Wall Street Journal describes Sima as "one of China's most divisive advocates of neo-Maoist ideology", whereas Reuters characterized him as "Communist Party defender".Online, Chinese netizens consider him an "anti-America warrior", as a typical entry on Sima's microblog reads: “America is the enemy of all the people in the world... ”

I notice that James Miller’s book Chinese Religions in Contemporary Societies mentioned throughout 1995, former qigong master Sima Nan waged anti qigong activity. (page 164).

According to this book and multiple Chinese sources one example, my understanding is: in 1980s when CCP did not disapprove of qigong, China experienced Qigong boom. There were so many Qigong masters at that time, and Sima was one Qigong “master” as well. By mid 1990s, CCP started to criticize Qigong. It is not unusual that CCP party member Sima closely followed the CCP party line and quickly became the anti-qigong activist. This indicates Sima Nan’s words are not credible on this topic.

BTW, [ https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ Falun Gong in the United States: An ethnographic study] looks like a comprehensive source. Sorry, in recent years it cannot be accessed for free any more. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, some more sources and authors to check out. Sima Nan seems to be a notable figure in this topic. There is another name associated with official media releases, I should have written in down, she was going into politics in the US. I would expect that both names and their waged activities might be relevant to this article. cygnis insignis 17:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

number of practitioners

there are no credible sources for numbering in the millions. persecuted minorities often claim far larger numbers in order to assert the validity of their claims. the only vaguely credible report is from a Chinese defected spy who worked in China's Australian diplomatic mission. The Senate inquiry reported that Chen Yonglin stated there were 60 000 practitioners in China which is less than 0.1% of the currently stated figure that is promoted by The Epoch Times, a falun gong run publication.

The authoritative source that journalists seem to be using is the 2007 US religious freedom report.

• The Falun Gong is a self-described spiritual movement that blends aspects of Taoism, Buddhism, and the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi. There are estimated to have been at least 2.1 million adherents of Falun Gong before the Government's harsh crackdown on the group beginning in 1999. There are reliable estimates that hundreds of thousands of citizens still practice Falun Gong privately."

• "Falun Gong is a self-described spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature. Falun Gong combines the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of its founder Li Hongzhi. Prior to the Government's 1999 ban on Falun Gong, it estimated that there were 70 million adherents; the Government subsequently adjusted the number of adherents to approximately 2 million. Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately."

• "Falun Gong sources estimated that since 1999 at least 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been sentenced to prison, more than 100,000 practitioners had been sentenced to RTL, and almost 3,000 had died from torture while in custody. Some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL camps, while Falun Gong sources overseas placed the number even higher."

• "...NGO Dui Hua Foundation, there were 2,201 Falun Gong prisoners as of June 30."

So there are estimates of between 60 thousand and 70 million with the higher estimates giving no source but it's likely to be activists. the 60 thousand estimate gives the name of a defected Chinese government operative who has been confirmed to have been a consulate official. he stated in his testimony that he was a member of 601 and working as an analyst he would have access to restricted documents. He affirms that he believes falun gong to be a peaceful organisation and argues that he did all that he could to protect practitioners. 60 000 members in china is the number that should be used. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Now here's the kicker. if there are 90 000 clandestine organ transplants taking place every year in China all using only falun gong practitioners what kind of technology are we talking here? Are they dragging people from parallel dimensions? or perhaps David Kilgour is a terrible and unreliable source of information and the references on this page should be checked to ensure figures actually come from somewhere and not pulled out a hat.

Are the demographic figures accurate on this page? 175.36.91.0 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi claimed 70 million adherents, the 1999 investigation into Falungong by the CCP identified 2.3 million practising FalunGong according to Zong Hairen in 2002.

various other sources state 70 million as the CCP official figure as of 1999 but the source of this figure is unclear.

In an interview with Time Magazine Hongzhi claimed 100 million but rounded it down to a conservative 60 million as an 'official' 'CCP figure.' His ability to conduct this census may be because he possesses the psychic ability to perform remote viewing.

I admit however that i am not spiritually enlightened which is possibly why i am so attached to the meaning of numbers which take different forms in different dimensions so The Truth will not be revealed to me due to my being possessed by demons which seek to confuse me. Perhaps i need to chant The Masters name some more. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

RFC- How many Falun Gong practitioners in china?

Is it bad practice to only use Li Hongzhi's estimate? 175.36.91.0 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (Table copied from Talk:Santa_Claus#About_Santa_Claus which has had no objections. please provide an explaination if this is an inappropriate format in your comment when reverting or to Wikipedia:Teahouse#RFC_help)

Is the stated number of falun Gong Practitioners inaccurate?

Yes, there are multiple figures, mostly from unspecified sources between Li Hongzhi's estimate of 100 million and Chen Yonglin's 60 000.	No, there are 70 million Falun Gong Practitioners.
The estimates range across 4 orders of magnitude with no information regarding how the data was gathered.	The Leader knows all.

175.36.91.0 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) used a table but that is very unusual for an RfC, and indeed, is specifically warned against (see WP:RFCBRIEF) unless special precautions are taken. This RfC is, once again, badly formed; and I have explained this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#RFC help. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears extremely likely to me that the user above — 175.36.91.0 — is the banned user Unicornblood2018. See [1], [2], [3]. I will leave an ANI entry alerting admins to this. It's because it seemed so obvious that it's the same guy that I didn't engage in any of the above discussion. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but surely not the only person who thinks this article needs work and less apparent bias. cygnis insignis 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The instructions for using this format are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. It may be the format that is easiest for the person starting the RFC to accidentally screw up, so it's worth reading the directions. IMO the main advantage is that it provides two places, so that two different people can write an argument for or against it. For example, in this case, it might be best if someone else – someone who thought that the 70 million number was appropriate – would replace the line about "The Leader knows all" line with an actual argument in favor of that number (perhaps it's the most widely cited number?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well said. Currently in this page, the 70 million number was given based on five or six reliable sources. None of the sources said this number was from the FG master. The IP user's words are misleading.

For example, one New York times source referred in the page - Joseph Kahn, "Notoriety Now for Movement's Leader" Archived 4 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine, New York Times, 27 April 1999. Quote: "Beijing puts the tally of followers in his mystical movement at 70 million." So it is clearly this 70 million number was from Chinese government prior to July 22 1999 (when CCP announced the formal crackdown started).

Mr. Chen Yonglin's testimony showed it was two central 610 office delegates who told him this 60,000 number, which is less than 0.1% of 70 million. 610 office's most claims on FG topic are not true. Below is a bit background info.

According to the reference of the 610 office page, 610 office is the Gestapo-like terror organization Jiang Zemin set up to eradicate Falun Gong. 610 used all kinds of brutal inhuman tortures and brainwash lies, as the recent Fox TV program showed. According to the Freedom House, there are tens of millions Chinese still practicing Falun Gong in today China. One reason that 610 often dramatically downsized the FG population size for covering 610's anti-humanity crime. For example, on July 22, 1999, CCP stated through CCTV that there were only 2 million people practicing Falun Gong in China. Before this day, numerous Chinese governmental sources indicated this 70 million number, as referred in the page. In July 1999, Jiang Zemin ordered 610 to eradicate Falun Gong in 3 months. All CCP media were demonizing Falun Gong 24/7 at that time. Chinese felt it was cultural revolution again and not many supported Jiang's crackdown. Jiang started to use the cult label on October 25, 1999 and staged self-immolation in Jan 23 2001 for inciting the whole society be against Falun Gong. At the same time period, forced organ harvest was started to be used in mass scale. It has been many times, 610 delegates on CCP media announced the war against FG have achieved the overwhelming success and almost everyone gave up Falun Gong. The 2nd reason to use this 60,000 number (less than 0.1% of 70 million) for other CCP official, like Mr. Chen, 610 was also showing their performance in the crackdown movement against FG. Both the 2 million number practicing and over 99.9% stopped practicing were part of CCP crackdown propaganda campaign at different times. Both were not true. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)