This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 |
Falun Gong is not an uncontroversial organisation and this article does not present a fair and unbiased assessment overall. Its tone is apologetic: lots of time is spent legitimising the group, emphasising it’s spiritual practices and apparent persecution, whereas mentions of the many controversies surrounding Falun Gong and its leadership are few and far between, tacked like footnotes onto the end of sections detailing its “decentralised organisational structure”. Considering this is a group some would describe as a far-right, anti-science cult, this article is in need of a serious rewrite to ensure balance and objectivism. Fleabag500 ( talk) 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The changes between September and the most recent revision seem to have removed almost all information about the group in China or the Chinese government's views on the Falun Gong, leaving only information about the group in the United States. I would have just reverted back to the lede from the September revision if the article's rewrite wasn't already under discussion, but instead I'm going to post this here first and then do it BOLDly while inviting anyone who finds it problematic to comment here.
The main issue is that removing all the bytes except the ones about America removes all the bytes that relate to the article. Not one section of this article is about America. The change to the lede removed all mentions of the persecution of the Falun Gong by the CCP when the article actually does have a section about their persecution; there's even a whole Wikipedia article about it which is linked to in this article. I'm not saying this with a pro-Falun Gong POV, I'll admit to being biased against their views, but we have to consider what a lede is in the first place. If the lede gives the reader the false impression that the Falun Gong are exclusively an American thing, if there's no correlation between what the lede says and what the article says, then it's just a bad lede. The older revision did a better job at fulfilling this function, but if editors believe it had other issues (e.g. POV concerns) then we can use this talk section to collaborate on a new phrasing. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
presenting current data first and foremoststrikes me as WP:Recentism and not
good balance. Jumping from objective facts about FG (1st paragraph) to suddenly "FG and the far-right in the media" ( 2nd paragraph of the edit I reverted), and then back to the history, development and persecution from decades ago messes with the flow. ~~ lol1 VNIO🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It says the Falun Gong is a 400km compound[sic]? The hyperlink itself says 427-acres. So... Can we please change that? A 400km compound would be mighty impressive. 199.126.146.44 ( talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please label this group as a dangerous cult, instead of justifying their existence 2601:42:C103:A7A0:0:0:0:B4D4 ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
[ [5]] and [ [6]] [ [7]] and more. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The truly huge persecution section on the article is WP:UNDUE. It's the largest section on the page. Granted, Falun Gong is known very well for its persecution, but it's still undue, especially since the beliefs and practices section is significantly shorter. Falun Gong is still a religion after all, so the beliefs and practices section should be the largest section. Compare this article to Baháʼí Faith or Ahmadiyya. Their persecution is widely known and have their own articles, but the persecution section doesn't take up half the page. Mucube ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
"In 2006, allegations emerged that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry." I'm not sure where this info is from, but I heard about the organ harvesting sometime between late 2003-2005. Of course it was word of mouth at the time, so perhaps the statement intended to include the word "published?" I know very specifically that it was before 2006 because I was in Seattle for college until 2006 and definitely heard about it on campus. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 ( talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Others have also raised concerns about the neutrality of this article. Falun gong is very controversial but the article paints the subject positively and is very light on controversies and negative POVs. I am requesting that a tag indicating the potential lack of neutrality in the article is promptly adopted to inform readers. Ronak19 ( talk) 23:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead paragraph is very uninformative. It's missing a ton of important information, but for some reason someone found it necessary to include the exact size of Falun Gong's headquarters in the lead. The second paragraph also focuses Falun Gong's outreach organizations overseas, which is also odd given that there are only two paragraphs in the article body specifically talking about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. The lead section should be rewritten to focus more on Falun Gong's history within China and its beliefs, and less on the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Mucube ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The article makes pains to laud the religion and provides zero criticism of it, not to mention using plenty of POV terminology over encyclopedially neutral terms. Beware, TIGERS may be present. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that this article should be tagged as NPOV. The neutrality (or in this case, the lack of it) of this article is an issue that's been brought up before by other users, including here on the current talk page. Tridentarii3apologist ( talk) 06:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
False claim from inaccurate source This sentence currently in the article is inaccurate. The source is not credible. Under subheading - Central Teachings. The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.
REASONING Inaccurate statement: "These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice."
The source quoted is Kavan. Her paper is inaccurate so not a reliable source. She states that: "However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21])."
However when reading the source she uses (Li, 2002, p.21), Kavan has left off the remainder of the sentence "and trying to be good people". This is the spiritual part of their practice - self improvement following moral teachings. Qigong exercises and self improvement. Kavan's paper is therefore misleading and not a credible source. (see the source text pasted below)
The second source by Lewis [39] is not relevant to the statement and should be deleted.
The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.
Here is the information pasted directly from the source that Kavan refers to in her paper. [Li, 2002, p. 21]) "When you clarify the truth don’t say high-level things; the main thing isn’t to have people understand what the high-level, profound Fa is. Well, people who are particularly good are an exception, and you can tell them about it. But when you clarify the truth to an average person, just tell him that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand. After they learn about the truth, people will see all the propaganda for what it is, lies, and they’ll naturally see how despicable and evil it is." Nita Bon Bon ( talk) 02:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
As others had mentioned. The article suffers from POV issues. And I am particularly aware there are no shortage of many controversial teachings in Falun Gong as published by their own website and multiple media outlets have also exposed it. Some of them include teaching members that evil aliens created all our technology and use them to destroy humanity, or that advanced nuclear power plants had already existed thousands of years ago [9], and also even on promising that learning Zhaun Falun can help one attain supernatural powers which the Falun Gong founder has also self claimed to have. However its leader Li now tells believer followers to hide away all their "high level" teachings away from the public to avoid being shut down.Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]) [10] And this article seems to exemplify just that. It is written in the way that its leader LI prefers. To hide all their "high level" beliefs and to instead convince the public that they're not really a religion but just a vanilla harmless "exercise" group. Most recently is this edit here [11] that just unreasonably removes well-sourced information that mentions what the leader does claim about himself and of the world. 210.8.65.14 ( talk) 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph the first and second sentences do not have a space between them. A space needs to be added.
(Currently the article reads "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun.They are known..." but it should read "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun. They are known...") Pauldunahoo ( talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
the commentary regarding the Epoch News in the article is deliberately misleading and exhibits clear left wing bias. As a biased statement it should be removed from the article. 50.250.214.1 ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request that the article is tagged as being flawed in POV. I explained the reasoning in the thread I created above that is titled, "It's Li approved POV". Because I strongly agree with the two threads above made from user @KeithTyler and @Tridentarii3apologist, that the article needs to be tagged as suffering from POV issues. And directly above I have also already given my thorough explanation why that’s necessary and rightfully pointing that some information has been wrongfully removed. [24] And that such removed information was well sourced by the BBC. [25] So again like others also asked, do add in the tag that the article suffers from POV issues. Couldn’t be more clearer on that.
Secondly I suggest to add in these key facts into the article at minimum that Falun gong promises people they can achieve “redemption” in the form of attaining supernatural powers, to help them heal from diseases and even to attain eternal youth or immortality if they join Falun Gong and follow it. And the Falun Gong group endorses that its leader and also founder Li, has already mastered eternal youth and attained supernatural abilities. Currently that information is not present in the article despite being incredibly important and deserves inclusions Suporting sources are [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] and I do believe such true information is necessary for this article. TasmaniaBridge ( talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The webpage (Falun Gong - Wikipedia) says that Falun Gong is a religion.
Yet, practitioners often point out that Falun Gong is NOT a religion. For example, unlike a religion, Falun Gong does not have anything to do, with a: (i) god; (ii) paradise; (iii) hell; and, (iv) 'afterlife'.
China's totalitarian government, however, labelled Falun Gong a "religion", for negative propaganda purposes.
The reason why Beijing outlaws Falun Gong is because Falun Gong has never been "approved", by China's totalitarian government.
Chinese people were just doing it. So, that represented an instance of free will - which was not allowed. William F. Sheehan ( talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add in the following edit in bold text, inside the article's 'Beliefs and practices' chapter:
Falun Gong's leader Li Hongzhi has claimed to have mastered eternal youth and successfully cultivated numerous supernatural abilities. Li promises his followers that Falun Gong can potentially teach them to also become eternally youthful and to be able to cultivate numerous supernatural powers including the ability to heal from all diseases, if they join Falun Gong and follow its teachings. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
Note; I already asked for this edit to be added in 3 weeks ago. But it wasn't even addressed at all twice now by my count, after requesting. I previously had first informed the monitor of this talk page Anachronist to revert the recent deletion of the info and had gave him many strong sources, however he had stopped replying after that request. [36] Perhaps he didn't see. So why I later made a formal request but it got "closed" despite Actualcpscm did not even address at all whether or not such proposed information, in bolded text, is to be added into the article. I am starting to think it's impossible to ever add such information. But such information should be mentioned, and not removed, because the public deserves to know. I wish I was making this up but it's very true and confirmed by many top sources. I don't believe anyone including even veteran Falun Gong members deny this vital information. And I hope whoever answers this request, will do so in the interests of the public right to know, and not out of some loyalty to Falun Gong and the fear the public would see it less positively if they are aware of more real facts about it. TasmaniaBridge ( talk) 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
As an interested reader I would like the introduction of this article to inform me about what Falun Gong is, how many people do practice it and where. I would like to know the essence of its teachings, what kind of religion is it (in this case seemingly close to buddhism), what are its excercises about, is it Yoga or Gig Gong?. What I primarily read is a negatively touched information about its media outlets. Are the media the main purpose of Falun Gong? The introduction isn't a good abstract of the article in my opinion. 79.116.124.252 ( talk) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:
"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their anti-evolutionary stance."
The repeated use of the they/their pronoun leads to ambiguity. The pronoun "their" in the clause "their anti-evolutionary stance" could be interpreted as indicating either the Falun Gong, or the CCP. To demonstrate the ambiguity, the following examples are provided, with editorial comments inside square brackets:
"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [the CCP's] anti-evolutionary stance."
or
"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [The Falun Gong's] anti-evolutionary stance."
As it is well known that the anti-evolutionary stance is held by the Falun Gong, not the CCP, I propose replacing the word "and" with the phrase "as well as", to clarify that Falung Gong, not the CCP, holds anti-evolutionary beliefs. As follows:
"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as their anti-evolutionary stance." Nitr0smash ( talk) 07:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, I seldom find pleasure editing this polarizing topic. I've tried to stay away from this article as much as I can, but feel compelled to intervene today, for reasons apparent below.
I am proposing to restore the following edit to the article, which essentially sought to introduce a source on the subject's own, alternative voice in response to a paragraph of adverse representations about them. (I take no stand on the truth of these adverse representations, but am prepared to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they are meritorious). Here's the link to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=1163082716&oldid=1163073121
I'm not the author of this edit (the "Edit") that I'm seeking to restore. But I believe that it has been improperly reverted by Binksternet, in disregard and violation of WP, as particularized below.
The chronology is as follows:
1. On July 2, 2023, an editor named Thomas Meng introduced the Edit with the edit summary: "Statement by the president of Falun Dafa Association on homosexuality".
2. On July 5, 2023, Binksternet reverted this Edit, with the edit summary: "rv PR messaging, false in practice".
3. On July 10, 2023, I restored Thomas Meng's Edit, with the edit summary: "Binkersnet's alleged ground for undoing another editor's edit is "PR messaging - false in practise." Since when has Binksternet become a reliable source on the conduct of Falun Gong adherents toward homosexuals? This paragraph cites primary sources and opinion sources liberally. Surely the FG Info Center is allowed to express a contrary view about FG? WP:NPOV WP:ABOUTSELF"
4. On July 10, 2023, mere hours later, Binksternet reverted the Edit again for the second time, without discussion, with the edit summary: "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"
In my respectful view, Binksternet's repeated reverts are problematic for the following reasons:
a. First, Binksternet's alleged justifications for these reverts, i.e. "false in practice"; "we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views", finds no basis in any editing policy, including the WP:COPO, whatsoever. There's not even a barest attempt to appeal to those editing policies, which we are bound to follow;
b. Instead of appealing to the WP, Binksternet simply asserts what he thinks to be true, and uses that opinion which he personally holds to justify his reverts. The problem, of course, is that Binksternet is not a reliable source on this issue. Editing not based on what the sources say, but based on what he personally thinks the article should say, is a quintessential breach of WP:NPOV - the adherence to which by him is non-negotiable.
c. Third, his allegation of the content of the Edit being "false in practise" is bald, unsubstantiated and devoid of support from any reliable source. To specify, the source being introduced by the Edit states that Falun Gong adherents respect the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community, and do not oppose their efforts to establish their rights. Binksternet baldly alleges that this is "untrue in practise". Yet, I can find no published sources supporting Binksternet's suggestions that Falun Gong adherents do not respect, and opposes the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community.
In this regard, all of other sources on this issue of homosexuality in that paragraph seeks to address the content of Li Hongzhi's teachings, but none speaks to the practical conduct and behaviour of Falun Gong adherents in regards to homosexuality, which is a different issue, and which is what the Edit squarely seeks to address, contrary to Binksternet's allegations.
d. The allegations accusing Li Hongzhi's teachings for promoting homophobia, contained in the material paragraph of this article, is overall supported by 11 sources. One of these sources is a cherrypicked quotation from a primary Falun Gong text (which is patently not a reliable secondary source), about 5-8 of them are stuck behind paywalls (and are potentially primary research), and about a handful of them simply could not be found on the internet (at least not for me in a brief ten minutes google search). There are also one or two opinion pieces, which are not reliable secondary sources either, incorporated into this article without any attribution to the authors, thereby being held out as facts.
Issues of the status of these sources as WP:RS aside, which is a topic for another day, the Edit sought to be made is the only source being adduced as an alternative viewpoint relevant to this issue, which in my view, is clearly warranted in the interests of WP:BALANCE. And as the Edit seeks to quote an authoritative representative of the very subject of this matter, the Edit also falls within the ambit of WP:ABOUTSELF.
e. Finally, Binksternet's reinstatement of his edit without discussion and consensus, is a plain disregard and breach of the additional editing rules established for this article, which I quote,
"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."
Binksternet made no attempt to discuss his/her reinstatement on talk, and simply proceeded to reinstate his edit, within hours of my revert of his change.
In light of all of the above, I respectfully wish to revert Binksternet's deletion of the Edit, and restore that Edit to this article. I value and seek the input of fellow editors to all of the above, and will proceed with my intended action, if appropriate in light of others' views and input on this matter.
Thank you all for your time in reading my long rambling post, and have a great day. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 13:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gongare very relevant to
Falun Gong as it is taughtMrOllie ( talk) 15:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says that the editor who adds content needs to demonstrate verifiability (i.e. source & cite). WP:ONUS says that satisfying that burden does not guarantee inclusion - consensus is required in addition to citing reliable sources. — MarkH21 talk 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article
I would just add that including Falun Info Center's statement would not create any false balance. The Center's statement saying that they treat everyone with compassion and tolerance, including homosexuals, aligns with what most academic sources say about their central teachings. No sources contradict their statement, and it doesn't contradict the founder's statements either, so it appears well-balanced to me. Thomas Meng ( talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
File:610 Office.jpg from "Faluninfo.net" is included under the "Persecution" section, and it includes some interesting content, but it is captioned only as "610 Office's organization in China", which I feel is a bit lacking in context or commentary that might be necessary for such a chart. Combining this with its relatively poor quality (absolutely chock full of JPEG artifacts and is unreadable at thumbnail sizes), I am wondering if the caption could in any way be improved to help the reader understand its context and its encyclopedic relevance, or if it could be removed? If I weren't subject to the blue lock, I probably would have just done the latter. Bakutosz ( talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The practice emphasizes morality and the cultivation of virtue, and identifies as a practice of the Buddhist school, though its teachings also incorporate elements drawn from Taoist traditions.
Has 2 citations. 1 is relevant to this sentence, the second is a hit piece targeting the Epoch Times. Marieke77 ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change, "Deerpark, NY" to "Deer Park, NY". In the first paragraph of this Wikipedia page, the headquarters for Falun Gong is incorrectly written as, "Deerpark, NY". In fact, the town is "Deer Park, NY". I am the source for this as I grew up in Dix Hills, NY, which borders Deer Park. Both towns are in Suffolk County, on Long Island, NY, just outside of NYC. Lostinnh ( talk) 23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion of Falun Gong adherents and WP:SPA accounts attempting to influence this page over at [[ Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Adherents attempting to whitewash Falun Gong]. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Since we'e seen a flare up of adherents attempting to sculpt the article to their preferred vision lately, perhaps it's time to revisit this article. Right now we have a lot of issues stemming from the earlier treatment of this article as if it were yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm. These include:
It's high time this article has all old references excised. These were often essentially puff pieces for the group and echoed their claims. This is no longer the case. We need modern sources discussing what this organization is and how it operates. For example, we currently lack significant discussion about how the Falun Gong has evolved into an extremely wealthy conspiracy theory superspreader with deep US government connections. To get an idea of what's going here today, and especially how interlinked the Falun Gong is with sections of the contemporary GOP and certain far-right groups here in Germany, here's an article from October 2023:
We're only presenting the tip of the iceberg of what this group actually is on this article. A lot has happened in the meantime as wel, like closure of the Falun Gong college at Dragon Springs ( [53]), the "worldwide headquarters of the Falun Gong". :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Can we please remove the WP-mention from the WP:LEAD? Article content on it may be WP:PROPORTIONal (I haven't looked) but having it in the lead appears very WP:NAVELGAZING (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. Stop discussing the behavior of editors on this talk page. There are places to discuss editor conduct, and this is not one of them. If this continues then there will be sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I note that the above CLEANSTART account (@ Sennalen:), ran by an individual that once operated under another account and who may well have edited here before, appeared on this talk page recently. Since then, this user has restricted edits to responding to my own comments here with nothing but taunts and claims of attempting to ensure WP:ROPE, evidently by a constant barrage of taunts and insults. Someone should step in about this behavior. We've got a bunch of editors here who contribute exactly nothing to the page but spend a lot of time flooding the talk page with taunts, insults, and complaints aimed at those of us who are actually contributing material here and trying to get to the bottom of what's going on. That's not helpful. Yet aparently my most recent additions on Ultrasurf were simply too much for them, and the user attempted to reduce it down to as sanitized a version possible. I guess removing it entirely would be too suspect, so this is the second best thing. In doing so, they've removed all of the sourced discussion about the Epoch Times and any mention of the Falun Gong outside of it being created by adherents, incuding their connection to the State Department under the Trump administration. These new edits focus on Pack and snip out discussion of the Epoch Times and the Falun Gong. I've since reverted these changes. I've been around here a long time and welcome edits to my contributions. That's normal process here. However, this appears to be a pretty blatant move to attempt to remove the well-sourced discussion about the web of influence between the Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, and the State Department during the Trump administration. For example, note for example the cutting out of mention of the Falun Gong in the source quote "concerted effort to divert funds to the Falun Gong software Ultrasurf was a criminal conspiracy". You'd also never know the Epoch Times was at all involved here. But of course the Falun Gong still claims the Epoch Times is irrelevant to the Falun Gong and has no connection to the org as well. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
|
For some reason the current article makes no mention of the Falun Gong's Ultrasurf and its ties to US government policy. This has received significant media attention in the past few years, as adherents continue to seek to further influence US government policy toward China (and the general US public via other Falun Gong arms like The Epoch Times). Here's a 2020 article on it from The New York Times:
According to the article:
Notice that here we again see wild claims about millions stemming solely from Falun Gong's own estimates. Now, I'm not sure what the status is of this today but any scenario involving a new religious movement focused on a leader who claims to levitate and who is well known for spending millions on everything from disinformation on climate change to vaccine misinformation potentially receiving huge amounts of money from the US State Department is extremely notable and needs thorough coverage. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
...
I was not aware how deep this went before reading more into it. How bizarre. Imagine how much attention this would get if it were about for example Scientology. But it's also typical of what WP:RS have been saying since around 2016. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is the entire bloated section on Ultrasurf sourced to a single NPR article, and a breaking one at that ("first being made public by NPR in this story")? Are we of the mind that every single article must contain everything ever mentioning a subject? Seems like WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUEWEIGHT is being ignored in favor of the urge to cram in as much as possible. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This article has recently seen an injection of lots and lots of sources to Freedom House. Especially this 2014 article has been getting plastered by single-purpose accounts here, often burying mention of the group's many propaganda arms, attempts at influencing elections, and/or any mention of the world of Falun Gong rotating around the words and whims of its commander and leader, Li Hongzhi.
Giving this Freedom House report a quick look, it raises some serious alarm bells. For one, Freedom House seems to be pretty cozy with Falun Gong, so much so that they're not only echoing the group's preferred self-definition over non-Falun Gong-affiliated media and scholastic sources (the phrase new religious movement being a big no-no in Falun Gong circles), but also—if you can believe it—directly citing Falun Gong websites for claims about government suppression.
For example, Freedom House here cites http://www.faluninfo.net ("Falun Dafa Information Center"), this is one of Falun Gong's many websites. It contains the usual claims of "a direct and authentic connection to genuine traditional Chinese culture" that Li Hongzhi just "introduced to the public", with links to where to get books etc. Freedom House treats this site as reliable source, claiming that it shows evidence of government crackdowns and mass signatures, among other topics. They also use data from interviews with adherents, the same group that actively attempts to whitewash this page into yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm.
Here's another undated example—only the second report I've even looked at—where Freedom House cites faluninfo.net for demographic information on the Falun Gong (ref 31, p. 126), among other data points apparently taken from Falun Gong sources. Are we even certain there are millions and tens of millions of contemporary Falun Gong adherents in China, all hanging on the word of Li Hongzhi? That's a big claim of a lot of people.
It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole. That's a clear violation of WP:RS. Remember, this is the group behind The Epoch Times we're talking about here.
But it also begs an important question: is this typical of Freedom House? Are they just echoing what they're told by the Falun Gong? What exactly is Freedom House's relationship to the Falun Gong?
Or maybe the question ist, what was Freedom House's relationship to Falun Gong? It seems like that around 2016-217, when Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong went all in with an apocalyptic narrative around supporting the Trump administration and the 'Epoch Times became all but omnipresent pushing misinformation and gained special government access, it appers they saw a lot less coverage from Freedom House.
Did something change? :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Do not ask for another's personal details... Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.
When at an impasse seek broader input on the specific issue at hand. Don't make broad (and non-neutral) postings at a noticeboard and then carry on the argument there. Without a focus on a specific issue it will be far less likely that the discussion will draw uninvolved participation. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a thread over at WP:RSN about Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources. It can be found here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 15:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, @ HollerithPunchCard: has requested all changes I've made to this article in the past few weeks to be reverted ("This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023") and asked that my account be banned from editing the article ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration").
This would have major ramifications for this article, including the removal of most sources from the article from the past several years. Discussion here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 10:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 |
Falun Gong is not an uncontroversial organisation and this article does not present a fair and unbiased assessment overall. Its tone is apologetic: lots of time is spent legitimising the group, emphasising it’s spiritual practices and apparent persecution, whereas mentions of the many controversies surrounding Falun Gong and its leadership are few and far between, tacked like footnotes onto the end of sections detailing its “decentralised organisational structure”. Considering this is a group some would describe as a far-right, anti-science cult, this article is in need of a serious rewrite to ensure balance and objectivism. Fleabag500 ( talk) 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The changes between September and the most recent revision seem to have removed almost all information about the group in China or the Chinese government's views on the Falun Gong, leaving only information about the group in the United States. I would have just reverted back to the lede from the September revision if the article's rewrite wasn't already under discussion, but instead I'm going to post this here first and then do it BOLDly while inviting anyone who finds it problematic to comment here.
The main issue is that removing all the bytes except the ones about America removes all the bytes that relate to the article. Not one section of this article is about America. The change to the lede removed all mentions of the persecution of the Falun Gong by the CCP when the article actually does have a section about their persecution; there's even a whole Wikipedia article about it which is linked to in this article. I'm not saying this with a pro-Falun Gong POV, I'll admit to being biased against their views, but we have to consider what a lede is in the first place. If the lede gives the reader the false impression that the Falun Gong are exclusively an American thing, if there's no correlation between what the lede says and what the article says, then it's just a bad lede. The older revision did a better job at fulfilling this function, but if editors believe it had other issues (e.g. POV concerns) then we can use this talk section to collaborate on a new phrasing. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
presenting current data first and foremoststrikes me as WP:Recentism and not
good balance. Jumping from objective facts about FG (1st paragraph) to suddenly "FG and the far-right in the media" ( 2nd paragraph of the edit I reverted), and then back to the history, development and persecution from decades ago messes with the flow. ~~ lol1 VNIO🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It says the Falun Gong is a 400km compound[sic]? The hyperlink itself says 427-acres. So... Can we please change that? A 400km compound would be mighty impressive. 199.126.146.44 ( talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please label this group as a dangerous cult, instead of justifying their existence 2601:42:C103:A7A0:0:0:0:B4D4 ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
[ [5]] and [ [6]] [ [7]] and more. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The truly huge persecution section on the article is WP:UNDUE. It's the largest section on the page. Granted, Falun Gong is known very well for its persecution, but it's still undue, especially since the beliefs and practices section is significantly shorter. Falun Gong is still a religion after all, so the beliefs and practices section should be the largest section. Compare this article to Baháʼí Faith or Ahmadiyya. Their persecution is widely known and have their own articles, but the persecution section doesn't take up half the page. Mucube ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
"In 2006, allegations emerged that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry." I'm not sure where this info is from, but I heard about the organ harvesting sometime between late 2003-2005. Of course it was word of mouth at the time, so perhaps the statement intended to include the word "published?" I know very specifically that it was before 2006 because I was in Seattle for college until 2006 and definitely heard about it on campus. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 ( talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Others have also raised concerns about the neutrality of this article. Falun gong is very controversial but the article paints the subject positively and is very light on controversies and negative POVs. I am requesting that a tag indicating the potential lack of neutrality in the article is promptly adopted to inform readers. Ronak19 ( talk) 23:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead paragraph is very uninformative. It's missing a ton of important information, but for some reason someone found it necessary to include the exact size of Falun Gong's headquarters in the lead. The second paragraph also focuses Falun Gong's outreach organizations overseas, which is also odd given that there are only two paragraphs in the article body specifically talking about the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. The lead section should be rewritten to focus more on Falun Gong's history within China and its beliefs, and less on the Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Mucube ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
The article makes pains to laud the religion and provides zero criticism of it, not to mention using plenty of POV terminology over encyclopedially neutral terms. Beware, TIGERS may be present. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest that this article should be tagged as NPOV. The neutrality (or in this case, the lack of it) of this article is an issue that's been brought up before by other users, including here on the current talk page. Tridentarii3apologist ( talk) 06:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
False claim from inaccurate source This sentence currently in the article is inaccurate. The source is not credible. Under subheading - Central Teachings. The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.
REASONING Inaccurate statement: "These principles have been repeated by Falun Gong members to outsiders as a tactic for evading deeper inquiry, and followers have been instructed by Li to lie about the practice."
The source quoted is Kavan. Her paper is inaccurate so not a reliable source. She states that: "However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21])."
However when reading the source she uses (Li, 2002, p.21), Kavan has left off the remainder of the sentence "and trying to be good people". This is the spiritual part of their practice - self improvement following moral teachings. Qigong exercises and self improvement. Kavan's paper is therefore misleading and not a credible source. (see the source text pasted below)
The second source by Lewis [39] is not relevant to the statement and should be deleted.
The statement and source footnoted should be deleted to improve the accuracy of the article.
Here is the information pasted directly from the source that Kavan refers to in her paper. [Li, 2002, p. 21]) "When you clarify the truth don’t say high-level things; the main thing isn’t to have people understand what the high-level, profound Fa is. Well, people who are particularly good are an exception, and you can tell them about it. But when you clarify the truth to an average person, just tell him that we’re being persecuted and that we’re only doing exercises and trying to be good people, and they’ll be able to understand. After they learn about the truth, people will see all the propaganda for what it is, lies, and they’ll naturally see how despicable and evil it is." Nita Bon Bon ( talk) 02:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
As others had mentioned. The article suffers from POV issues. And I am particularly aware there are no shortage of many controversial teachings in Falun Gong as published by their own website and multiple media outlets have also exposed it. Some of them include teaching members that evil aliens created all our technology and use them to destroy humanity, or that advanced nuclear power plants had already existed thousands of years ago [9], and also even on promising that learning Zhaun Falun can help one attain supernatural powers which the Falun Gong founder has also self claimed to have. However its leader Li now tells believer followers to hide away all their "high level" teachings away from the public to avoid being shut down.Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]) [10] And this article seems to exemplify just that. It is written in the way that its leader LI prefers. To hide all their "high level" beliefs and to instead convince the public that they're not really a religion but just a vanilla harmless "exercise" group. Most recently is this edit here [11] that just unreasonably removes well-sourced information that mentions what the leader does claim about himself and of the world. 210.8.65.14 ( talk) 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph the first and second sentences do not have a space between them. A space needs to be added.
(Currently the article reads "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun.They are known..." but it should read "...including the dance troupe Shen Yun. They are known...") Pauldunahoo ( talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
the commentary regarding the Epoch News in the article is deliberately misleading and exhibits clear left wing bias. As a biased statement it should be removed from the article. 50.250.214.1 ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request that the article is tagged as being flawed in POV. I explained the reasoning in the thread I created above that is titled, "It's Li approved POV". Because I strongly agree with the two threads above made from user @KeithTyler and @Tridentarii3apologist, that the article needs to be tagged as suffering from POV issues. And directly above I have also already given my thorough explanation why that’s necessary and rightfully pointing that some information has been wrongfully removed. [24] And that such removed information was well sourced by the BBC. [25] So again like others also asked, do add in the tag that the article suffers from POV issues. Couldn’t be more clearer on that.
Secondly I suggest to add in these key facts into the article at minimum that Falun gong promises people they can achieve “redemption” in the form of attaining supernatural powers, to help them heal from diseases and even to attain eternal youth or immortality if they join Falun Gong and follow it. And the Falun Gong group endorses that its leader and also founder Li, has already mastered eternal youth and attained supernatural abilities. Currently that information is not present in the article despite being incredibly important and deserves inclusions Suporting sources are [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] and I do believe such true information is necessary for this article. TasmaniaBridge ( talk) 03:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The webpage (Falun Gong - Wikipedia) says that Falun Gong is a religion.
Yet, practitioners often point out that Falun Gong is NOT a religion. For example, unlike a religion, Falun Gong does not have anything to do, with a: (i) god; (ii) paradise; (iii) hell; and, (iv) 'afterlife'.
China's totalitarian government, however, labelled Falun Gong a "religion", for negative propaganda purposes.
The reason why Beijing outlaws Falun Gong is because Falun Gong has never been "approved", by China's totalitarian government.
Chinese people were just doing it. So, that represented an instance of free will - which was not allowed. William F. Sheehan ( talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add in the following edit in bold text, inside the article's 'Beliefs and practices' chapter:
Falun Gong's leader Li Hongzhi has claimed to have mastered eternal youth and successfully cultivated numerous supernatural abilities. Li promises his followers that Falun Gong can potentially teach them to also become eternally youthful and to be able to cultivate numerous supernatural powers including the ability to heal from all diseases, if they join Falun Gong and follow its teachings. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
Note; I already asked for this edit to be added in 3 weeks ago. But it wasn't even addressed at all twice now by my count, after requesting. I previously had first informed the monitor of this talk page Anachronist to revert the recent deletion of the info and had gave him many strong sources, however he had stopped replying after that request. [36] Perhaps he didn't see. So why I later made a formal request but it got "closed" despite Actualcpscm did not even address at all whether or not such proposed information, in bolded text, is to be added into the article. I am starting to think it's impossible to ever add such information. But such information should be mentioned, and not removed, because the public deserves to know. I wish I was making this up but it's very true and confirmed by many top sources. I don't believe anyone including even veteran Falun Gong members deny this vital information. And I hope whoever answers this request, will do so in the interests of the public right to know, and not out of some loyalty to Falun Gong and the fear the public would see it less positively if they are aware of more real facts about it. TasmaniaBridge ( talk) 03:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
As an interested reader I would like the introduction of this article to inform me about what Falun Gong is, how many people do practice it and where. I would like to know the essence of its teachings, what kind of religion is it (in this case seemingly close to buddhism), what are its excercises about, is it Yoga or Gig Gong?. What I primarily read is a negatively touched information about its media outlets. Are the media the main purpose of Falun Gong? The introduction isn't a good abstract of the article in my opinion. 79.116.124.252 ( talk) 11:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:
"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their anti-evolutionary stance."
The repeated use of the they/their pronoun leads to ambiguity. The pronoun "their" in the clause "their anti-evolutionary stance" could be interpreted as indicating either the Falun Gong, or the CCP. To demonstrate the ambiguity, the following examples are provided, with editorial comments inside square brackets:
"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [the CCP's] anti-evolutionary stance."
or
"They [The Falun Gong] are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their [The Falun Gong's] anti-evolutionary stance."
As it is well known that the anti-evolutionary stance is held by the Falun Gong, not the CCP, I propose replacing the word "and" with the phrase "as well as", to clarify that Falung Gong, not the CCP, holds anti-evolutionary beliefs. As follows:
"They are known for their views against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as well as their anti-evolutionary stance." Nitr0smash ( talk) 07:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, I seldom find pleasure editing this polarizing topic. I've tried to stay away from this article as much as I can, but feel compelled to intervene today, for reasons apparent below.
I am proposing to restore the following edit to the article, which essentially sought to introduce a source on the subject's own, alternative voice in response to a paragraph of adverse representations about them. (I take no stand on the truth of these adverse representations, but am prepared to assume, for the purpose of argument, that they are meritorious). Here's the link to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Falun_Gong&diff=1163082716&oldid=1163073121
I'm not the author of this edit (the "Edit") that I'm seeking to restore. But I believe that it has been improperly reverted by Binksternet, in disregard and violation of WP, as particularized below.
The chronology is as follows:
1. On July 2, 2023, an editor named Thomas Meng introduced the Edit with the edit summary: "Statement by the president of Falun Dafa Association on homosexuality".
2. On July 5, 2023, Binksternet reverted this Edit, with the edit summary: "rv PR messaging, false in practice".
3. On July 10, 2023, I restored Thomas Meng's Edit, with the edit summary: "Binkersnet's alleged ground for undoing another editor's edit is "PR messaging - false in practise." Since when has Binksternet become a reliable source on the conduct of Falun Gong adherents toward homosexuals? This paragraph cites primary sources and opinion sources liberally. Surely the FG Info Center is allowed to express a contrary view about FG? WP:NPOV WP:ABOUTSELF"
4. On July 10, 2023, mere hours later, Binksternet reverted the Edit again for the second time, without discussion, with the edit summary: "rv... we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views"
In my respectful view, Binksternet's repeated reverts are problematic for the following reasons:
a. First, Binksternet's alleged justifications for these reverts, i.e. "false in practice"; "we are not going to allow Falun Gong a platform for their views", finds no basis in any editing policy, including the WP:COPO, whatsoever. There's not even a barest attempt to appeal to those editing policies, which we are bound to follow;
b. Instead of appealing to the WP, Binksternet simply asserts what he thinks to be true, and uses that opinion which he personally holds to justify his reverts. The problem, of course, is that Binksternet is not a reliable source on this issue. Editing not based on what the sources say, but based on what he personally thinks the article should say, is a quintessential breach of WP:NPOV - the adherence to which by him is non-negotiable.
c. Third, his allegation of the content of the Edit being "false in practise" is bald, unsubstantiated and devoid of support from any reliable source. To specify, the source being introduced by the Edit states that Falun Gong adherents respect the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community, and do not oppose their efforts to establish their rights. Binksternet baldly alleges that this is "untrue in practise". Yet, I can find no published sources supporting Binksternet's suggestions that Falun Gong adherents do not respect, and opposes the rights and freedom of the LGBTQ community.
In this regard, all of other sources on this issue of homosexuality in that paragraph seeks to address the content of Li Hongzhi's teachings, but none speaks to the practical conduct and behaviour of Falun Gong adherents in regards to homosexuality, which is a different issue, and which is what the Edit squarely seeks to address, contrary to Binksternet's allegations.
d. The allegations accusing Li Hongzhi's teachings for promoting homophobia, contained in the material paragraph of this article, is overall supported by 11 sources. One of these sources is a cherrypicked quotation from a primary Falun Gong text (which is patently not a reliable secondary source), about 5-8 of them are stuck behind paywalls (and are potentially primary research), and about a handful of them simply could not be found on the internet (at least not for me in a brief ten minutes google search). There are also one or two opinion pieces, which are not reliable secondary sources either, incorporated into this article without any attribution to the authors, thereby being held out as facts.
Issues of the status of these sources as WP:RS aside, which is a topic for another day, the Edit sought to be made is the only source being adduced as an alternative viewpoint relevant to this issue, which in my view, is clearly warranted in the interests of WP:BALANCE. And as the Edit seeks to quote an authoritative representative of the very subject of this matter, the Edit also falls within the ambit of WP:ABOUTSELF.
e. Finally, Binksternet's reinstatement of his edit without discussion and consensus, is a plain disregard and breach of the additional editing rules established for this article, which I quote,
"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message."
Binksternet made no attempt to discuss his/her reinstatement on talk, and simply proceeded to reinstate his edit, within hours of my revert of his change.
In light of all of the above, I respectfully wish to revert Binksternet's deletion of the Edit, and restore that Edit to this article. I value and seek the input of fellow editors to all of the above, and will proceed with my intended action, if appropriate in light of others' views and input on this matter.
Thank you all for your time in reading my long rambling post, and have a great day. HollerithPunchCard ( talk) 13:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Li Hongzhi's teachings on Falun Gongare very relevant to
Falun Gong as it is taughtMrOllie ( talk) 15:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says that the editor who adds content needs to demonstrate verifiability (i.e. source & cite). WP:ONUS says that satisfying that burden does not guarantee inclusion - consensus is required in addition to citing reliable sources. — MarkH21 talk 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)However, the editor in question, Thomas Meng, has satisfied that onus, as his Edit is sourced and cited. Editors do not need your permission or discuss with you to include cited information in an article
I would just add that including Falun Info Center's statement would not create any false balance. The Center's statement saying that they treat everyone with compassion and tolerance, including homosexuals, aligns with what most academic sources say about their central teachings. No sources contradict their statement, and it doesn't contradict the founder's statements either, so it appears well-balanced to me. Thomas Meng ( talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
File:610 Office.jpg from "Faluninfo.net" is included under the "Persecution" section, and it includes some interesting content, but it is captioned only as "610 Office's organization in China", which I feel is a bit lacking in context or commentary that might be necessary for such a chart. Combining this with its relatively poor quality (absolutely chock full of JPEG artifacts and is unreadable at thumbnail sizes), I am wondering if the caption could in any way be improved to help the reader understand its context and its encyclopedic relevance, or if it could be removed? If I weren't subject to the blue lock, I probably would have just done the latter. Bakutosz ( talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The practice emphasizes morality and the cultivation of virtue, and identifies as a practice of the Buddhist school, though its teachings also incorporate elements drawn from Taoist traditions.
Has 2 citations. 1 is relevant to this sentence, the second is a hit piece targeting the Epoch Times. Marieke77 ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Falun Gong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change, "Deerpark, NY" to "Deer Park, NY". In the first paragraph of this Wikipedia page, the headquarters for Falun Gong is incorrectly written as, "Deerpark, NY". In fact, the town is "Deer Park, NY". I am the source for this as I grew up in Dix Hills, NY, which borders Deer Park. Both towns are in Suffolk County, on Long Island, NY, just outside of NYC. Lostinnh ( talk) 23:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion of Falun Gong adherents and WP:SPA accounts attempting to influence this page over at [[ Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Adherents attempting to whitewash Falun Gong]. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Since we'e seen a flare up of adherents attempting to sculpt the article to their preferred vision lately, perhaps it's time to revisit this article. Right now we have a lot of issues stemming from the earlier treatment of this article as if it were yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm. These include:
It's high time this article has all old references excised. These were often essentially puff pieces for the group and echoed their claims. This is no longer the case. We need modern sources discussing what this organization is and how it operates. For example, we currently lack significant discussion about how the Falun Gong has evolved into an extremely wealthy conspiracy theory superspreader with deep US government connections. To get an idea of what's going here today, and especially how interlinked the Falun Gong is with sections of the contemporary GOP and certain far-right groups here in Germany, here's an article from October 2023:
We're only presenting the tip of the iceberg of what this group actually is on this article. A lot has happened in the meantime as wel, like closure of the Falun Gong college at Dragon Springs ( [53]), the "worldwide headquarters of the Falun Gong". :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Can we please remove the WP-mention from the WP:LEAD? Article content on it may be WP:PROPORTIONal (I haven't looked) but having it in the lead appears very WP:NAVELGAZING (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. Stop discussing the behavior of editors on this talk page. There are places to discuss editor conduct, and this is not one of them. If this continues then there will be sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I note that the above CLEANSTART account (@ Sennalen:), ran by an individual that once operated under another account and who may well have edited here before, appeared on this talk page recently. Since then, this user has restricted edits to responding to my own comments here with nothing but taunts and claims of attempting to ensure WP:ROPE, evidently by a constant barrage of taunts and insults. Someone should step in about this behavior. We've got a bunch of editors here who contribute exactly nothing to the page but spend a lot of time flooding the talk page with taunts, insults, and complaints aimed at those of us who are actually contributing material here and trying to get to the bottom of what's going on. That's not helpful. Yet aparently my most recent additions on Ultrasurf were simply too much for them, and the user attempted to reduce it down to as sanitized a version possible. I guess removing it entirely would be too suspect, so this is the second best thing. In doing so, they've removed all of the sourced discussion about the Epoch Times and any mention of the Falun Gong outside of it being created by adherents, incuding their connection to the State Department under the Trump administration. These new edits focus on Pack and snip out discussion of the Epoch Times and the Falun Gong. I've since reverted these changes. I've been around here a long time and welcome edits to my contributions. That's normal process here. However, this appears to be a pretty blatant move to attempt to remove the well-sourced discussion about the web of influence between the Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, and the State Department during the Trump administration. For example, note for example the cutting out of mention of the Falun Gong in the source quote "concerted effort to divert funds to the Falun Gong software Ultrasurf was a criminal conspiracy". You'd also never know the Epoch Times was at all involved here. But of course the Falun Gong still claims the Epoch Times is irrelevant to the Falun Gong and has no connection to the org as well. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
|
For some reason the current article makes no mention of the Falun Gong's Ultrasurf and its ties to US government policy. This has received significant media attention in the past few years, as adherents continue to seek to further influence US government policy toward China (and the general US public via other Falun Gong arms like The Epoch Times). Here's a 2020 article on it from The New York Times:
According to the article:
Notice that here we again see wild claims about millions stemming solely from Falun Gong's own estimates. Now, I'm not sure what the status is of this today but any scenario involving a new religious movement focused on a leader who claims to levitate and who is well known for spending millions on everything from disinformation on climate change to vaccine misinformation potentially receiving huge amounts of money from the US State Department is extremely notable and needs thorough coverage. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
...
I was not aware how deep this went before reading more into it. How bizarre. Imagine how much attention this would get if it were about for example Scientology. But it's also typical of what WP:RS have been saying since around 2016. :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is the entire bloated section on Ultrasurf sourced to a single NPR article, and a breaking one at that ("first being made public by NPR in this story")? Are we of the mind that every single article must contain everything ever mentioning a subject? Seems like WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUEWEIGHT is being ignored in favor of the urge to cram in as much as possible. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This article has recently seen an injection of lots and lots of sources to Freedom House. Especially this 2014 article has been getting plastered by single-purpose accounts here, often burying mention of the group's many propaganda arms, attempts at influencing elections, and/or any mention of the world of Falun Gong rotating around the words and whims of its commander and leader, Li Hongzhi.
Giving this Freedom House report a quick look, it raises some serious alarm bells. For one, Freedom House seems to be pretty cozy with Falun Gong, so much so that they're not only echoing the group's preferred self-definition over non-Falun Gong-affiliated media and scholastic sources (the phrase new religious movement being a big no-no in Falun Gong circles), but also—if you can believe it—directly citing Falun Gong websites for claims about government suppression.
For example, Freedom House here cites http://www.faluninfo.net ("Falun Dafa Information Center"), this is one of Falun Gong's many websites. It contains the usual claims of "a direct and authentic connection to genuine traditional Chinese culture" that Li Hongzhi just "introduced to the public", with links to where to get books etc. Freedom House treats this site as reliable source, claiming that it shows evidence of government crackdowns and mass signatures, among other topics. They also use data from interviews with adherents, the same group that actively attempts to whitewash this page into yet another Falun Gong propaganda arm.
Here's another undated example—only the second report I've even looked at—where Freedom House cites faluninfo.net for demographic information on the Falun Gong (ref 31, p. 126), among other data points apparently taken from Falun Gong sources. Are we even certain there are millions and tens of millions of contemporary Falun Gong adherents in China, all hanging on the word of Li Hongzhi? That's a big claim of a lot of people.
It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole. That's a clear violation of WP:RS. Remember, this is the group behind The Epoch Times we're talking about here.
But it also begs an important question: is this typical of Freedom House? Are they just echoing what they're told by the Falun Gong? What exactly is Freedom House's relationship to the Falun Gong?
Or maybe the question ist, what was Freedom House's relationship to Falun Gong? It seems like that around 2016-217, when Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong went all in with an apocalyptic narrative around supporting the Trump administration and the 'Epoch Times became all but omnipresent pushing misinformation and gained special government access, it appers they saw a lot less coverage from Freedom House.
Did something change? :bloodofox: ( talk) 03:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Do not ask for another's personal details... Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.
When at an impasse seek broader input on the specific issue at hand. Don't make broad (and non-neutral) postings at a noticeboard and then carry on the argument there. Without a focus on a specific issue it will be far less likely that the discussion will draw uninvolved participation. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a thread over at WP:RSN about Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources. It can be found here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 15:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, @ HollerithPunchCard: has requested all changes I've made to this article in the past few weeks to be reverted ("This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023") and asked that my account be banned from editing the article ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration").
This would have major ramifications for this article, including the removal of most sources from the article from the past several years. Discussion here. :bloodofox: ( talk) 10:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)