Talk:Falun Gong

This is essentially propaganda

It's really a disappointment to find how biased this article is. It fails to document the many negative experiences of families who have member lost to the group, which has aspects of a cult including paranoia toward critics and beliefs with no reasonable basis in reality. It also presents the group as benign when it is well-known to promote zealotry in it's members and is, itself, a group that denies human rights of other people who have different belief or life-styles. Lastly, it fails to discuss the group's ties to Right Wing political movements including the use of the Epoch Times to engage in political influence.

It is not my place to change the article since that would doubtless start an undesirable situation where proponents of the movement battle to control the content as often happens on Wikipedia. That would not be productive. Therefore, I only offer my basic criticisms here for reasonable people to consider and as a warning of the nature of the article as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Xiao-zi (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment. Some of it would fit in the "Speculation on rationale" section I think. RhinoMind (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xiao-zi: I find that this article is mostly substantiated by third-party sources that comply with WP:REPUTABLE. Thus, it would not fit the definition of a propaganda. Moreover, in the media campaign section, it states that the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the disinformation campaign against Falun Gong. The supposed "negative experiences" and other negative issues that you mentioned above align precisely with the claims made by the disinformation campaign of the Chinese Communist Party.

Also, I took a deeper look into the alleged "Falun Gong self-immolation" by the Chinese government. It seems that this was proven entirely as a hoax aimed toward demonizing Falun Gong, according to an abundance of third-party findings. This would indicate that it's the Chinese communist government that is disseminating propaganda, but not this article. Inferring from facts mentioned above, the Chinese state-run media would be considered as unreliable sources WP:QUESTIONABLE, and one should not rely upon them.

It seems true that a lot of Falun Gong practitioners work in the Epoch Times. Nevertheless, associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate. Because, say, if most employees in the ABC News are Christians, we wouldn't write on the Wiki page for Christianity that "Christians are related to the ABC News". It's the same case here, we shouldn't relate any media company to a spiritual practice that only upholds Truth-Compassion-Forbearance.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: The premise behind the last paragraph is empty, considering our own article on The Epoch Times opens with is a multi-language newspaper and media extension of the Falun Gong new religious movement, cited not by a PRC state controlled or pro-PRC outlets, but none other than Politico and the Wall Street Journal, and, to that end, the Epoch Times page itself under discretionary sanctions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:: It seems quite evident that some Falun Gong practitioners started the Epoch Times. However, the chief editor of the Epoch Times, Stephen Gregory said that "Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China." This is the reason why it is inaccurate to associate the Epoch Times with Falun Gong. Doing so would be as illogical as stating that ABC News is associated with Christianity when its founders are Christians.--Thomas Meng (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism or Controversy section?

In this talk page some user mentions a Criticism section, but it seems that it has been deleted. I find this strange, as such a section (or separate page) is rather common in Wikipedia new religious movement's pages, specially from those that remain active. This omission only fuels the idea that this is a propaganda piece and not objective information about the Falun Gong. --Bolocholo (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bolocholo: This is absolutely propaganda. This line is particularly amusing: 'Although it is often referred to as such in journalistic literature, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult."'. The citation is to a book written by a journalist... 47.151.145.217 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is this blatant propaganda on Wikipedia?

No, seriously. These people, whether you defend China or not, are batshit insane, and should not be given a free pass to remove objective views or criticism of the Falun Gong on here. They legitimately believe some random Chinese dude is their god, that Trump is the second coming of Jesus, and that the CCP are satanic otherworldly beings. They believe that evolution & science are made up, much like evangelicals. Their membership count is massively inflated (even the Chinese Catholic Church has more people) and they're a menace to anyone that has to deal with these people, much like Scientology in the 80s and 90s. This page needs a massive overhaul ASAP. 24.255.224.93 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The source of your claims is highly questionable. Since, if you read the reference section, you will find that this article is completely based upon third-party reliable sources WP:RELIABLE. While on the other hand, the Chinese state-run media have been actively engaging in the propaganda campaign to demonize Falun Gong, and your claims line up exactly with their propaganda. The link here reveals some facts behind the most well-known example of its disinformation campaign--the so-called "Tiananmen self-immolation". https://www.falsefire.com/en/--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate cult claims, potentially unreliable sources, Epoch Times

To avoid edit warring I won't continue reverting reverts to my edits. While listing the organization as a cult would obviously be biased as there is no consensus either way, to ignore all legitimate claims by Western cult experts that describe it as such is biased. Secondly, many claims in the article are unsourced, and a few link directly to CIA-funded organizations, which cannot not be considered an unbiased source without sufficient evidence when reporting on states hostile to the US such as China. Finally, the Epoch Times is only mentioned in a single paragraph near the bottom of the page, despite it being a "media extension of the Falun Gong", from the Epoch Times' own wikipedia page. The sources listed for the claims in my edit were all legitimate, so I'm not sure why they were simply reverted without any discussion on the topic. Nathan868 (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article already contains a fiarly robust discussion of the "cult" appellation, drawing on high quality RS (which Ross and Singer are not), and explaining the CCP's appropriation of the term as part of its efforts to stigmatize FLG. But this is a complicated topic: "cult" is clearly a pejorative and loaded term, but it lacks fixed meaning in the academic literature. Your summary in the lede section is not an accurate or unbiased representation of what scholars say about this topic.
• It is acceptable for claims in the lede to be unsourced, because they are expanded on in the article's body. Which "CIA-funded organizations" are you referring to?
• That characterization is not accurate, as I understand it, in that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organizational structure that could sustain a media organization. There is clearly some affiliation here, but you're overstating it. This article is about the faith system. Finally, there already is an allusion in the lede section to the Epoch Times and other activities undertaken by FLG followers to disseminate their anti-CCP messages. That is enough for an already long lede.TheBlueCanoe 18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the Epoch Times is a wing of Falun Gong is also irrelevant for our purposes, they’re a generally unreliable source and shouldn’t be used on *any* wikipedia page including this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As numerous reliable sources state quite flatly, The Epoch Times is most definitely the media wing of the Falun Gong, and that needs mention in the lead, as this extension, as well as Shen Yun, are by far the most visible aspect of the organization. Additionally, Falun Gong is definitely a new religious movement. Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Which of the claims "link directly to CIA-funded organizations,” please be extremely specific. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reiterating what I've said above, my understanding is that FLG is a faith system that lacks an organization structure that would allow it to have a "media arm." That the Epoch Times was founded by people who adhere to Falun Gong, and that it reports sympathetically on the topic of Falun Gong, is beyond dispute. But the precise nature of that connection actually quite foggy, given the paper's own insistence that it is not formally or organizationally tied to Falun Gong (a plausible position, given what I've read about the practice).

We could also debate the neutrality of the statements you've chosen to include about the paper. But again, that's actually beside the point. This is an article on Falun Gong as a faith system. So whatever the connection between the Epoch Times and Falun Gong, and whatever the editorial merits or defects of the Epoch Times are, the second paragraph of this article is not the place for it.

• There is a dispute among scholars as to whether Falun Gong should be referred to as a "new religious movement," and scholars with backgrounds in Asiatic religious traditions, in particular, find the label to be inappropriate and confusing. The group's self-understanding also would not support such a description (i.e. Falun Gong's own teachings state that it was previously transmitted orally, through a lineage system, that dates back many generations). We cannot demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim, and so it is best not to take a definitive position in the lede section. The debate on this can, however, be elaborated in the article's body.TheBlueCanoe 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Source after source flatly acknowledges and describes The Epoch Times as the media extension of the Falun Gong, and the paper relentlessly promotes both the new religious movement and its extensions, such as Shen Yun. The Epoch Times is absolutely not WP:RS, as is abundantly clear, and the Falun Gong is not a reliable source for itself, given its media wing's promotion of conspiracy theories, propaganda-like promotion of extreme right-wing politics, and a host of other reasons, as has been discussed on Wikipedia numerous times. Scholar after scholar after scholar flatly refer to the group as a new religious group, despite the organization's claims of being "ancient religion"—which is itself typical of new religious movements. Wikipedia isn't censored, and we don't take a new religious movement's position as the default–we stick to reliable secondary sources, and there's no shortage of them these days. This sounds a lot like you're parroting the organization's talking points. Again, Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether the Epoch Times is a reliable source is not relevant to this discussion about what should go in the lede of this article. I honestly don't know what you're going on about. "Wikipedia isn't censored" is not a convincing retort to the argument that articles should be weighted fairly and proportionally. This is especially true in a lede section. Readers of this article are presumably here to learn about Falun Gong as a faith system. They are not to learn about what you think about the editorial merits of a newspaper founded by some of its followers. On the matter of the new religious movement label, I did not dispute that some people use the term. I pointed out that there exists a dispute among scholars about the merits of this label. That dispute extends to Falun Gong's own account of its provenience. And yes, a group's self-definition is one of the factors that should be assessed when deciding how it is described. Not the only factor, but certainly a factor.TheBlueCanoe 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A simple search of academic sources pulls up dozens and dozens of reliable sources flatly discussing that the orgazation as new religious movement, that The Epoch Times is its media extension, and we don't turn to organizations themselves for self-descriptors, particularly those promoting fringe theories (WP:RS, WP:FRINGE). In 2020, there's zero question in academia about the organization being a new religious group and zero question that The Epoch Times is the media extension of the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You simply have not engaged seriously with the literature then. Just as you can produced examples of scholars calling Falun Gong a "new religious movement," one could also produce examples of scholars calling it a religion, a form of qigong, or a form of "cultivation" in the tradition of Chinese antiquity. One could likewise produce examples of scholars debating whether NRM is a useful or accurate term. The point is that there is considerable disagreement about the most appropriate way to describe the practice, and that is why there is a whole section in the article dedicated to this question. In the lede section, we should adopt the description that is most neutral, and I'm afraid NRM is not it.TheBlueCanoe 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I write extensively about new religious movements, and there's obviously no question that this group falls within the paremeters. There's a small mountain of academic secondary sources that flatly state as much. The new religious movement itself may object to being described as a new religious movement, but they often do—nothing new there. We stick to what reliable secondary sources say. Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet. Prior to my additions, the article made no mention of the phrase new religious movement—clearly scrubbing all mention of it—despite the tremendous amount of academic literature flatly describing the organization as such. That's very telling. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodofox, we should treat Falun Gong like any other New Religious Movement. I’ve always been impressed with how tolerant wikipedia is of Mormons and I don’t think theres any reason we should treat other New Religious Movements differently. We can say the religion believes itself to be ancient, but I don’t believe there is any question of Falun Gong’s age in the literature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to make a case for why this article should, in the first sentence of the lede section, describe Falun Gong as a new religious movement. I have pointed out that while some scholars do indeed use this label, others prefer to use other terms (e.g. religion, qigong, cultivation practice, etc.), and dispute the NRM appellation. For example, David Ownby, who at one time was among the most active scholars writing on Falun Gong, says that it "makes no sense" to call Falun Gong a new religious movement.[1]

Given that there is such a dispute, and given NRM carries some potentially loaded connotations, there is no reason why we should use this word a the definitive description of Falun Gong. It can certainly be included among the list of categories that have been used, and I'm happy to do just that.

By the same logic, the previous version of the article referred to Falun Gong simply as a "religious practice." This is also a contested term, particularly if we consider the connotations of the Chinese word "zongjiao," the meaning of which is far more circumscribed than "religion" in English. (i.e. the Chinese term for religion is used to describe groups that a) enjoy official sanction from the state; and b) have formal institutional structures). Just as Falun Gong's self-understanding does not support being referred to as a NRM, it has also historically resisted the "religion" label, though I note that the dispute arises mostly from differences in language. At risk of sounding a bit new-agey, the most neutral description for the opening sentence is probably something like "spiritual practice".

To Horse Eye Jack, if you read the article, you will see that there are potentially differing accounts of Falun Gong's "age." That's not to say there is a dispute about when it was first popularized—there isn't—but about its lineage and possible historical antecedents, absolutely. TheBlueCanoe 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what reliable, secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly, without dispute, just call Falun Gong a new religious movement. There's no controversy. There are far too many academic sources–including NRM handboks—that, without question, just refer to the group as what it is, a new religious group, to even bother discussing this further. Enough with the promotional approach to this article—we're not here to promote anyone or anything, we're here to produce neutral coverage using high quality sources, and we have those in abundance for this topic, particularly now that The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and more of the organization's extensions are receiving sigifnicant media and academic coverage. Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the scholarly consensus here by pretending that one exists. There are absolutely debates among scholars about how Falun Gong should be classified, and there is by no means an agreement that NRM is the most accurate term. Ben Penny, for example, has written a book called "The Religion of Falun Gong." Not "Falun Gong, the new religious movement." It is just as frequently referred to as a system of qigong, and, as scholars of Chinese religion write, it is most accurately described as a form of cultivation practice (xiulian). As I've cited above, some of the leading scholars in this field have expressly argued that it should not be referred to as a NRM. Anyway, I've amended the article to note that some people call it a NRM, among other labels that have been employed. TheBlueCanoe 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol, we literally have seven of the highest possible quality sources—ranging from 2005 to 2019!—now attached to the phrase "new religious movement". None mention any controversy around the phrase whatsoever, with the exception of one of the earlier sources stating that adherents don't use the phrase. Look, I get that you disagree with this phrase, but I highly suggest you just email some of these scholars rather than spend your day attempting to scrub the phrase "new religious movement" from the article. There's pretty clear scholarly consesus here, and one could easily add hundreds more sources to the phrase if needed. If you find some scholar saying otherwise, go ahead and attach it on their, but attempting to censor the plethora of high-quality sources that make the consensus explicit, as you do here, isn't helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been away for some time and happened upon this page that I used to frequent (mostly with great passivity and abandon.) Can't say I was too surprised to find a bunch of guys debating the same-old, same-old.

Just my two cents. I'm not at all opposed to mentioning the term "new religious movement." I think we have ample reasons to include it in the article. What, in my opinion, is important here, is not trying to impose an authoritative, overarching definition in the lede. There's enough disagreement about this, especially since the only indisputable context where Falun Gong can be placed from a historical perspective is China's qigong movement of the 1980s and 90s. That was a far-reaching cultural phenomenon and wasn't considered a "new religious movement" even by the Chinese state, more like a revival of Chinese traditions in a modernized form. Now, Falun Gong is obviously the most well-known (and probably most "controversial") example, but separating it from this context and how it was understood in China at the time is not only highly anachronistic but also ethnocentric. In other words, there are competing academic narratives with significant support. Since this explanation requires more space than we have in the lede, in this particular issue I'd say that I agree with BlueCanoe, even though I'm sure we could have long and winding arguments about some other stuff on these pages. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but we report on what reliable secondary sources say. We have an immense amount of them—really, a plethora—that flatly state that the group is a new religious movement, without any further discussion. We can expand the section as needed with other voices that fall within WP:RS, but scrubbing the article to replicate the group's talking points is obviously not the solution—and that is essentially what the artilce is at the moment.

Now, as usual, the solution here is to keep digging up reliable sources, just like we do everywhere else on the site, including for other new religous movements (include all those who claim they are definitely, certainly not a new religious movement, and would rather we look away from their political and commercial activities). I'll be happy to provide them, but I propose we get many more eyes who do the same—as I highlight above, plenty of academics and journalists are writing about these topics, particularly in the wake of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, and Shen Yun: Topics absent from this article

In 2020, Falun Gong is best known by way of its extensions, Falun Gong media extension The Epoch Times and performance arts group Shen Yun. Both extensions promote one another, Shen Yun, and Shen Yun ideology, as well as extreme right-wing politics in nations like Germany and the US. Then there's the anti-evolution and anti-LGBTQ sentiment, which has received media attention, alongside the group's high-profile promotion of conspiracy theories and campaigning for US president Donald Trump via its various outlets and extensions.

These aspects of the Falun Gong—for which the organization is today primarily known—are totally absent from the article as it stands. There's a lot of talk in this article about the Chinese government, as well as an essentialy Falun Gong-approved version of the group's history, but there's no discussion about the extensive political, ideological, and commercial involvement of the Falun Gong in international politics, including high-profile events such as The Epoch Times removal from Facebook, and the article doesn't mention topics like the Falun Gong's Society of Classical Poets, one of many extensions of the group aiming to influence the general public. This stuff all needs to be sorted out with reliable sources in an objective, source-reliant manner.

Readers who encounter this article would never know about any of these topics, instead finding a sanitized, essentially promotional overview of the article that could well have been written by the organization itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All of that is covered extensively by WP:RS, we need at least a paragraph each on Epoch and Shen Yun. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times, Shen Yun have Falun Gong Practitioners involved but they are not Falun Gong. Major Changes require consensus Clara Branch (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)