Talk:Falun Gong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Falun Gong was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 29, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted
July 20, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
December 27, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article



Sources[edit]

TheBlueCanoe Last time I was asked for secondary sources instead of primary. I provided them. Is another problem being manufactured?Rajmaan (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall that. See my comments here. The issue was not limited to an over-reliance on primary sources (you cited TIME Magazine on both occasions, unless I'm mistaken). Instead it was one of figuring out how to accord the right amount of weight to these issues in relation to other aspects of the doctrine, and how to contextualize them, etc. We actually did use your edits as impetus to come up with a solution, and the page includes a discussion of supernatural abilities. It seems you were MIA for that part of the discussion.TheBlueCanoe 04:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
i think they (ie secondary sourceS) may actually be, rajmaan, given the policy on WP:PRIMARY. the idea is that we cannot use primary sources to make a point we want to make. for example that falun gong religious beliefs are funny or silly because there are aliens and stuff. i might agree, but actually we would need to find a chinese religious scholar who can explain what role these thoughts have in the flg doctrinal system. we can't just pick something and stick it in because it sounds ridiculous. that's my understanding of the policy anyway. others can correct me if i'm wrong. i just took a look at david ownby's book on google books and it only seems to mention aliens twice, in passing.Happy monsoon day 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no discussion of aliens and views towards technology and science on the page. And what constitutes tendentious edits are using Falun Gong run media and representing them as third party RS by failing to mention their provenance in the article.Rajmaan (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a sudden lack of disinterest in discussion when reliable secondary sources are provided on Falun Gong's hostile positoin towards modern western science and their belief that it comes from aliens- the article as it stands now currently presents Falun Gong's anti-science views as CCP propaganda, when I provided reliable secondary sources from scholars and primary sources from Falun Gong themselves on their belief that science was created by aliens to subvert humanity. It seems as if the page is being whitewashed and sanitized by these people User:Colipon has discussed User:Colipon/Falun Gong.Rajmaan (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's the thing: there have been many discussions before about whether belief in aliens should be on this page, and each time, it comes down to a question of due weight. The extraterrestrial issue is apparently a very insignificant aspect of the belief system. It’s curious that the editors who insist on aliens being mentioned don’t make the same demands for other aspects of the doctrine that feature far more prominently in both the primary and secondary literature, such as its discussions of spiritual anatomy, the structure of the universe, the concepts and implications of inborn quality, the evolution of Buddhism, forms of enlightenment, art and aesthetics, and so on.
Moreover, everyone who proposes the inclusion of the alien material does so because they think it reflects poorly on Falun Gong. That is, they don't make arguments about its encyclopedic value—they argue that it's important because it makes Falun Gong look bad. You seem to be no exception. Given some of your previous edits to this page[1], it's not clear that you're actually here to build an encyclopedia.
Anyway, I'm not opposed in principle to elaborating a bit more about Falun Gong's views of and relationship to modern science in a way that observes principles of neutrality and balance.TheBlueCanoe 00:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been a question of due weight if the article at present wasn't trying to falsely present Falun Gong's very well soured anti-science views as CCP propaganda. The propaganda campaign focused on allegations that Falun Gong jeopardized social stability, was deceiving and dangerous, was "anti-science" and threatened progress. The article as of now is claiming that Falun Gong's views on science are either CCP propaganda or as stemming from "traditional Chinese cultural thought" and "traditional Chinese medicine". This is NPOV and unbalanced. It says nothing about the fact that Falun Gong is anti science because it believes Aliens created modern science and use it to subvert humans and therefore by deliberate omission presents it as either traditional Chinese views or CCP propaganda. Either delete the cited passages or mention the aliens to restore balance and due weight.
You support the inclusion of Falun Gong's own newspaper Epoch Times as an RS without indicating it is pro Falun Gong in Falun Gong related articles. In other words, things that you think makes Falun Gong looks bad gets deleted by you regardless of encyclopedic value while Falun Gong sources can be used if they make Falun Gong's opponents look bad.
User:Marvin 2009 very closely resembles those SPA accounts described by Colipon and its fascinating how STSC gets reported for arbitration and topic banning while Marvin 2009 is somehow still free to edit Falun Gong articles and no one has spoke out against his edits. His entire account is literally dedicated to defending Falun Gong. It appears that these SPAs are gaming the system and playing good cop and bad cop with some appearing to be more overtly neutral than others and editing unrelated topics occasionally to pretend not to be an SPA, while hovering around the Falun Gong article. In the talk page archives there were editors like Ohconfucius and Colipon who are critical of the CCP and didn't let that get in the way of confronting Falun Gong SPAs trying to whitewash the article until the deluge of SPAs got them banned by arbitration and apparently pro Falun Gong SPAs are given free reign over the article.Rajmaan (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I did edit other pages, like 2008 Sichuan earthquake etc. However i came across some users who seem to be dedicated to provide false info to Wikipedia articals, especially FG related articles, I had to explain again and again what they put in the related pages are just opposite to the sources they provided. Otherwise I could have had more time for editing other pages. User:Rajmaan seems to be such a user. This time User:Rajmaan added the line "Li claimed that his teachings can be used to halt fast cars in addition to curing illness" in the at least two articles again. But in my response to Rajmaan last November , I made it very clear that according to the Time report Mr. Li simply WON'T cure illnesses and Mr. Li claimed that his teachings can NOT be used to halt fast cars. I do not understand how could User:Rajmaan keep adding entirely false and opposite meaning into the pages. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Your edits on other articles like 2008 Sichuan earthquake are all dedicated to pushing an anti-CCP viewpoint, the same viewpoint aggressively propagated by the Falun Gong. I edit other articles which have nothing to do with Falun Gong and the CCP. Your edits are openly pro Falun Gong and anti CCP. You even cited a Falun Gong source (NTDTV) on the 2008 Sichuan earthquake article.Rajmaan (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Time report, so now you agreed that you should not put the false info in the articles? Finally, that is a progress. Hope you won't add those inaccurate stuff again after a while. As to the earthquake article, I am not like you and have no bias to NTDTV. I added other sources and as well as one NTDTV source. I do not think it is a Falun Gong source. Minghui website could be considered as a Falun Gong source. NTDTV is quite different. Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No material proof was provided of changed wording from the TIME article. A claim was made and wasn't backed up. You should understand people have a very hard time believing pro Falun Gong SPA accounts and taking their words when they provide no sources or evidence. NTDTV was founded and is run by Falun Gong members and is pro Falun Gong and anti CCP. The vast majority of your edits are dedicated to sanitizing Falun Gong's image and attacking the CCP.Rajmaan (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I provided you the evidence at least twice. What you wrote in the article is just the opposite to the source. According to the Time report Mr. Li simply WON'T cure illnesses and Mr. Li claimed that his teachings can NOT be used to halt fast cars. Have you ever read the Time report you sourced??? The simple fact whether the Time report said this or just the opposite is not dependent on whether i am a SPA account or not. Why do you continue to post your false and fake info and put a label on me? As to what you said about NTDTV is anti CCP and a Falun Gong media. I do not think i agree with you on this. I noticed NTDTV has programs that disclosed CCP nature, but this does not necessarily mean NTDTV is anti ccp. For example, i disclosed the quote you referred from the Time is not accurate and has just the opposite meaning to the info in the sourced report. This does not mean i am anti Rajmaan:) I just want to clarify the basic facts from the report you sourced! NTDTV is not deserved to be called anti CCP by disclosing CCP nature. Yes, NTDTV may have FG practitioners as their staff members. This is not equivalent to your statement NTDTV is Falun Gong media either. For example, it is said that NewYork Times has many Christians as their staff members, but NewYork times does not represent Christians' view and is not a Christian newspaper. Marvin 2009 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You just repeated a common Falun Gong talking point used to deflect criticism of their media operations.
"For example, neither practitioners in general nor those who work for the Epoch Times like to call it a Falun Gong newspaper, even though it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners, most if not all of its publishers are Falun Gong practitioners, many of its journalists are Falun Gong practitioners, and at least part of its staff is made up volunteer workers, many of whom are Falun Gong practitioners. They don't like to be called a Falun Gong newspaper in part because they fear they will not be taken seriously and thus will have difficulty reaching the readers they hope to reach. Would you call the New York Times a Jewish newspaper? " Falun Gong and the Future of China, David Ownby Rajmaan (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
My view includes that NTDTV is quite different to Minghui, the Falun Gong website, so my view is not the same as what you referred. If you do not think my view is correct, you should have explained why it is not reasonable. You did not give your rationales, but preferred to talk about how similar my view with FG practitioners'. As Wikipedia editors we need to be cautious of WP:PA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You edit on Falun Gong related articles and use sources affiliated with Falun Gong on other articles related to China and the CCP. Don't hijack and derail the discussion. This is about Falun Gong SPAs and Falun Gong's views on science.Rajmaan (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As the evidences i showed you earlier, the stories you described, such as curing disease, halting fast cars and your another edit, have no ground at all. For the first two, the Time source provided the opposite meaning to your edits (but you kept adding into the pages). Third one is the most absurd edit among your three edits. Why did you add such an absurd story without any base? To disrupt a page is not necessarily require SPA account. You might not be SPA account but your edits disrupted the related pages many times, because many of your edits turned to be entirely false, misleading and disruptive. NTDTV was referred by many neutral scholars and won awards many times. You comments show bias on NTDTV, while I have no discrimination to NTDTV. The content i referred from that NTDTV report was: "Xin Ziling, former publishing director at China's Defense University spoke to Voice of America. He said that Hu Jintao wanted to help, but Jiang Zemin was above him. Hu Jintao only had the power to give orders to a major general. Above that level, Jiang Zemin must give orders. Xin Ziling says that Hu Jintao "can not speak" to the military." This is absolutely not a made-up store similar to your three posts. You may further investigate on this. In fact, many other Chinese medias had similar coverages. Here is one example from NANZAO.COM: "然而,在郭、徐主持军委日常工作期间出了问题,例如,汶川大地震发生后,中央决定成立以总理温家宝为首的救灾指挥部,统一指挥军队和地方的救灾力量。但温家宝竟然指挥不动参加救灾的部队。他下令尽快打通通往汶川的道路,有关将领却迟迟不行动。陈炳德的文章称,胡锦涛曾数次来电话,称现场人手不够,他每次接电后都请示军委首长后增兵。...有人说前总书记江泽民是郭和徐的后台,此话属实与否,不得而知,但二人确实由江一手提拔为中央军委委员。中共十六大后,江泽民留任军委主席,郭伯雄和徐才厚就成了他治军的左右手。总书记胡锦涛只兼任军委副主席。当时军中的口号是「坚决听从党中央、中央军委和江主席的指挥。」于是为郭徐架空胡锦涛设下伏笔。" I notice any info related to Jiang Zemin's crimes seem not to be welcomed on Wikipedia. Some IDs tend to whitewash or simply delete them in use of excuse. Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You consistently edit Falun Gong articles to sanitize them of all things you perceive to look negative towards the Falun Gong and edit other articles related to CCP officials and controversies to insert negative POV with Falun Gong linked sources. Many newspapers repost entire articles from other agencies like AFP and AP except they don't editorialize and add their own obfuscation, distortions, lies and fabrication into the report. If you wanted to cite from VOA or SCMP (nanzao) you would have cited from their website and not NTDTV and its distorted coverage in order to push them as a source on Wikipedia.Rajmaan (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Above words were simply attacking me with no any base. NTDTV info and other source were both there. You can tell the NTDTV message and SCMP message are quite close. There is no distorting in this regard. The fact is that Rajmaan added false info to the related pages many times. Marvin 2009 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Using Falun Gong affiliated sources with their own POV bias and obfuscation when the original source is available on topics related to CCP or China can be considered part of an agenda to sneak in the use of biased and POV sources on Wikipedia. The fact that epoch times articles are being cite din articles on organ harvesting attests to this. Falun Gong believes science was created by aliens to work against humanity as attested in RS secondary sources and you are trying to sidetrack this discussion.Rajmaan (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many policies. Verifiability is just one of them. No original research is another. Just because something is said by Li Hongzhi, printed by FLG or CCP papers does not mean it automatically has a place in this topic. Whatever mentioned in such primary sources are considered opinions, except for widely known undisputed facts like Li Hongzhi is Chinese. We don't cover opinions just because it exist. If Li's opinion on whatever subject (e.g. hypothetically, his birth date) is supported by an extremely small minority then even mentioning such opinion here violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Also you need the secondary sources to prove contextual significance. E.g. why should a hypothetical dispute about Li's birth date mentioned outside of Li's own article? You can't just say the birth date debate matters to FLG. That is your original research unless validated by secondary sources. "If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack" --WP:ONEWAY--Skyfiler (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

@Whaterss: can you elaborate which parts of this article read like an advert and why? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. Maintenance template removed. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sibelius Monument (Helsinki)[edit]

There is a more-or-less permanent exhibition at the Sibelius Monument (Helsinki): [2]. Not sure of this is notable. It really does seem quite incongruous when one visits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Falun Gong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)