Talk:Falun Gong

Reuters: "Facebook removes small pro-Trump network based in Romania"

Falun Gong and "Falung Gong media" again in the news, this time for more pro-Trump shadow groups and in Romania, as reported by Reuters:

Facebook previously removed much larger and better-connected networks that supported Trump, including one connected to the Epoch Times here which was founded by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and often criticizes the government of China.

Facebook said on Thursday it had removed another network that reposted content from the Epoch Times and other Falun Gong media in a follow-up action.

Source:

• Menn, Joseph. 2020. "Facebook removes small pro-Trump network based in Romania". Reuters. August 6, 2020. Online.

At this point, "Falun Gong media" seems to be the better phrase than "extensions". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Falun Gong media," like "extensions" that are "administered" by Falun Gong, is ambiguous and imprecise. There is no direct administrative relationship between Falun Gong (as a faith system, a registered not-for-profit, or community of believers) and these organizations. What is accurate and precise is to say that these organizations were founded by Falun Gong adherents. Unless otherwise stated, they do not claim to represent Falun Gong in any broader sense.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

We should word it as close as possible to the sources, and in this case it reads "which was founded by supporters of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and often criticizes the government of China", for instance. It doesn't say that it's centrally controled, but does say that it's affiliated via supporters. —PaleoNeonate – 09:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. There's absolutely no doubt that these media are affiliated with FLG supporters, and that has to be made clear to understand their political leanings, especially in regard to the PRC. I support the idea of using the wording from the source. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We have several sources that just refer to these entities as "Falun Gong media", and given that these media extensions operate as arms of Falun Gong in every way, this is by far the most accurate way of referring to these entities. The attempts at playing down Shen Yun and The Epoch Times as 'just having been founded by Falung Gong members' by the embedded supporters here is both transparent and unhelpful, particularly when we even have Li referring to entities like The Epoch Times as "our media". As the many media sources we have on this topic make clear, this is a topic only controversial among adherents. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems to me that there also should be space dedicated to the criticism of elements of Falun Gong, such as the cult-like environment, the cult of personality of Li Hongzhi, the opposition to homosexuality, the opposition to Western evidence-based science and medicine, all of which are not mentioned at all in the article. One thing that is mentioned, but briefly, is its involvement with far-right political groups and media Eccekevin (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Other criticisms include how they have disrupted happy, family-oriented cultural events such as Christmas parades with gruesome photos and protests, and how they have hounded those who published negative findings about them. Around their headquarters in New York state near Pennsylvania, they have been criticized for ruining the rural, small-town atmosphere. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no agreement amount reliable sources that Falun Gong has a "cult-like environment." To the contrary, most scholarly sources say that it does not display the features (particularly the more invidious features) that are typically associated with "cults." The whole cult categorization is of dubious value in any case, as it lacks a clear definition depending on the discipline. Most of the content you're proposing would be better integrated into the relevant sections of the article, with factual and neutral descriptions. Falun Gong's teachings against homosexuality, for example, are dealt with under 'social practices,' and that seems appropriate. Whether or not a person regards sexually conservative teachings as "controversial" is entirely subjective and contingent on the reader's system of values and beliefs. There should be a section, I believe, that deals holistically and in a balanced fashion with Falun Gong's relationship to modern medicine and the (dispute) impact it has on practitioners' health.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A contradictory aspect is that intolerance of homosexuality is not an expression of universal peace, truth, etc. In the modern world, anti-LGBT and anti-feminism activism is controversial. As for the cult definition or environment, a charismatic leader is one of the critera used by experts to classify them, for instance. Another is the level of friction with the world. It will be difficult to find reliable sources contesting such (necessary to reorient the article). —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT and anti-feminism activism is a different position from religious/metaphysical essentialism of most traditional (and, in FLG's case, traditionally influenced) religions and spiritual practices. For instance, I'm pro-LGBT rights myself, but I don't consider Tibetan Buddhism, Islam, Falun Gong and other religions inherently unacceptable or problematic as long as their adherents are not trying to impose a socio-political agenda on others. Of course, we're not concerned about my opinions or any other editor's opinions per se; what I'm saying is that we must take a look at the descriptions in various reliable sources and represent them honestly, i.e. without an a priori filter based on whatever we happen to postulate as orthodoxy or heresy or even "social justice." Bstephens393 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You're well aware that Falun Gong is a new religious movement built around Li Honghzi in the 90s, and you're well aware that deflecting Li's statements to what-aboutisms regarding ancient religions is not helpful. Leave that sort of puffery to Falun Gong's PR agency. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The truths or untruths of Li Hongzhi's claims are highly uninteresting to me. We can only refer to what reliable sources say. The only thing I've emphasized is giving due weight to all the significant narratives about Falun Gong that are found in such sources. More than one of them contextualizes FLG within both the modernized qigong discourse and the traditional xiulian beliefs it emerged from. That should be covered accordingly. Not much to debate here. Bstephens393 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

James R. Lewis on Falun Gong's Control of Relevant Wikipedia Entries and Media Strategies (2018)

Writing back in 2018, academic James R. Lewis discusses something numerous editors on this page have also noted over the past several months: Falun Gong's continued and aggressive influence on Falun Gong-related English Wikipedia entries, and how "relevant Wikipedia entries turn out to be little more than mouthpieces for the FLG point of view" (p. 81).

The source:

• Lewis, James R. 2018. Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom. Cambridge University Press.

Lewis highlights Falun Gong's extensive internet presence, and how editors who have to date contributed to English Wikipedia entries associated with Falun Gong to the point where "Falun Gong followers and/or sympathizers de fact control the relevant pages on Wikipedia" (p. 80), and how this is particularly important for Falun Gong as an organization due to the SEO results of these entries and how the entries can influence other media entities. Leiws notes also how this fits in as part of Falun Gong's general media strategy, such as Falun Gong media like The Epoch Times, New Tang Dynasty, Sound of Hope Radio, and, as Lewis discusses, the Rachlin media group. Lewis reports that the Rachlin media group is the Falun Gong's de facto PR firm operated by Gail Rachlin, spokesperson for the Falun Dafa Information Centre. (p. 80). Lewis also discusses how Amnesty International apparently does not independently verify its reports from Falun Gong groups, accepting material directly from Falun Gong organizations as fact (p. 80).

Here's a quote that sums it up:

FLG has thus been able to influence other media via its presence on the web, through its direct press releases, and through its own media. (p. 80)

Currently any comment or discussion left on this talk page gets met with the same group of accounts, who produce talking points as if on cue and fight tooth and nail to maintain a status quo that reads like any Falun Gong-related press release. This is very much in line with what Lewis describes (my bolding):

The Falun Gong organization has been most successful at promoting itself to the world outside of mainland China as a peaceful exercise group being unfairly targeted by the Chinese government. As we have seen, this is partly the result of denying or downplaying the aspects of Li Hongzhi's teachings that are vengeful, belligerent, or violent. However, it also the result of a conscious media strategy that involves, on the one hand, creating its own media outlets, and, on the other hand, taking advantage of anti-PRC sentiments in Western media. (p. 76)

The presence and activities of Falun Gong editors has plagued these articles for a long time-including now—and not only do we need coverage of this in the article, but we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points. Enough is enough: It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts and build a reliable, neutral article on Falun Gong and related topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you able to find more sources about media manipulation by FG? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing discussing Wikipedia that I've seen yet, but sources discussion Falun Gong's media activities by way of The Epoch Times and Shen Yun, for example, are plentiful and frequent, like this NBC News article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please name all the editors you're specifically referring to. I'm also curious about the "Falun Gong talking points", since Falun Gong affiliated sources shouldn't be used except in rare cases described here. Also let me know why you consider a Wuhan University professor on the Chinese government payroll to be a particularly noteworthy source for building what you call a reliable, neutral article on Falun Gong and related topics. Bstephens393 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your account would be one, certainly. And rather than using this space to promote Falun Gong talking points and conspiracy theories, I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Link to Dragon Springs

Please, under the Dragon Springs compound in Deerpark, New York section, add a {{Main|Dragon Springs}} template and on the sentence "Falun Gong operates out of Dragon Springs, a 400-acre compound located in Deerpark, New York." link to the page Dragon Springs. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It currently reads: "400 acre" (sans hyphen); it should be corrected to read: "400-acre". This is a minor, uncontroversial copy-edit, and therefore permitted under the rules of editing full-protected pages. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, "mid to late 1990s" should read: "mid-to-late 1990s". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done (all three). The article protection has been downgraded to extended confirmed protection. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated restriction

I have downgrade the protection to extended confirmed protection and downgraded the consensus required restriction to "All edits to the article need a clear consensus on this talk page for the change if challenged" after the past month of full protection. Please let me know if you have any questions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Under the section about media outlets controlled by Fulan Gong, a new media outlet known as China Uncensored is gaining popularity and it is controlled by the religious movement. [1] [2] 173.79.246.41 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Thank you very much for your suggestion! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)