Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 41

Why should politics inhibit us from reasonably heeding critical questions about Falun Gong?

 * MAJOR Notice

I want to make one thing clear. I wrote my discussion piece on Falun Gong talk to help improve the article by opening people's constricted mentalities to the topic.

I feel politics have corrupted people's integrity. And hence the sole and only purpose of my original discussion on Falun Gong Talks. Below is just my honest opinion to give perspective. If you feel I have lied or made mistakes in stating certain facts, feel free to reply. My endgame is for people after reading my thread to go research and find their own reliable sources. And add it to Wikipedia. I do not advise people to simply put their opinions on wiki without a source to back it. In fact majority of my own sources used in the discussion is literally written from falun gong leader Li himself. I was trying to tell people not to let politics to corrupt their writing. And this is the primary purpose of my writings below. After reading, follow the rules of Wikipedia but take my discussion as a metaphor to break the corrupting influence of political inhibition which I feel is a significant problem and biased barrier.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC) _______________

Leugen9001 had asked why "aliens" that he labels as "fringe" beliefs of falun gong, should be allowed on the wiki page and then proceeded to acknowledge that the info was still backed by a reliable source.

I wouldn't call aliens as non relevant fringe beliefs. They were conspiracies and dangers warned from the FG leader Li himself and he mentioned stories of aliens both in China and also again in a western interview. And they are still an interesting part of history in regards to FG. Wikipedia is supposed to include all relevant history.

I understand that truth can be twisted or alternatively hard to prove. And being responsible in editing Wikipedia is key to ensuring integrity of content.

But I ask you when the Falun gong leader Li claims that there is a dedicated heaven for every 'pure' races and that mixed race people are doomed in not being able to go to heaven.

____Have you ever questioned how he even came up with this concept of heaven?___

You never once seen it as reeking of sexual racism and deliberately against interracial relationships?

Or why he taught that mixed race people are to be punished by karma just for being born?

That he may just be another bigot with an agenda against race mixing as he after all pulled his own made concept of heaven out of thin air and legitimising it as his "spiritual law".


 * Question is for those, who can think for themselves, and answer honestly. And to boost needed awareness as most of us just assume that that concept was made a few centuries ago or should not be questioned in our minds. But our minds are free and nobody can prevent us from asking question to ourselves. Can't believe i have to say this but don't write questions or opinions on wiki. I meant ask to yourself in your own head lol.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Alot of close minded Conservatives are not uncommonly against interracial relationships and so a religious doctrine that dooms any mixed race offspring just seems like manipulative passive brainwashing to me, of the naive people that thinks that Li is the real deal in spirituality.

Of course that can be just be another crazy conspiracy theory. And it's irresponsible to write that on wiki if they are not backed or ambiguous.

So I will back my case from here on by first clearing ambiguity and changing the issue of biases into a non issue by using only Li's own words and writings.

____________

There are plenty of sources that have indicated that Li tried to basically encourage others in refusing modern medicine or listening to their doctors' advice if they became ill.

Why did he do that and why should he not be criticised for being irresponsible?

The government then ridiculed him for being irresponsible in 1999. That is not put on Wikipedia for some reason. Why?

My sources that back those facts that Li was advising against modern medicine, are literally written from Li himself.

(Li, 1998b; 1998c; 1999; 2001a


 * Aliens are more than some fringe belief. It reveals how willing Li is in trying to convince others that he is their "saviour".

Why should we not even question at all how he came up with aliens? For the record, I believe he made those stories up.

What reasonably caused Li to claim himself as an expert in actual aliens and why insist to others that somehow he knew all the conspiracies and dangers of these beings? Classic scaremongering or actual delusions?

Why should mere mentions about Li talking about aliens in a 1999 Times interview, be omitted from Wikipedia by Leugen9001? I feel there needs to be some consideration on how he managed to even come up with his concepts of heaven, harmful medical advice and warnings of aliens?

And by putting that story in, we allow readers to know some real history, and not be hidden from it.

Or do we shamelessly hold our tongues to avoid being seemingly insensitive to a religion which may just be an actual conman disguising his cult as a legitimate religion.

It's the classic moral loophole. A racist subtly spills hate and uses freedom of speech to protect himself. A living modern day person posing as a buddha uses freedom of religion to protect his cult. When has it been an issue to just say a racist is a racist and a conman is a conman when it's staring right in front of us.

Qigong was not invented by Li. That is an actual fact. Even the hand movements in falun gong came from Thai dancing.

All he added was his stories of aliens, his supernatural exploits, apocalyptic visions, his concept of heaven, teachings that lacked any scientific basis and suddenly it's a "legitimate" religion that sees Li as its saviour and his advice means more than others. Despite his advice is highly questionable.

__________

There are many reliable sources written by Li himself and those sources ironically exposes certain realities.

In one of them, Li tells his followers to deliberately lie to the public and to withhold information about the religion's "higher teachings" to the non falun gong public and instead to tell the "general" others that they are just an exercise group.

It would appear to me that it reduces the unneeded "heat" from the general public if majority were to discover them as an active religion that strongly preaches certain controversial beliefs and that it has an actual living leader today who actually created that religion that made him the "hero".

Again the official source to back that fact that Li instructs his followers to lie for his religion and help keep a low profile under the public's radar by claiming to just be an exercise group, came literally from Li himself.

Since that's pretty significant and is officially written by Li himself with no one disputing it. Why after all these years, that one thing has never been reported once on Wikipedia?

__________

"The Western media get most of their information about Falun Gong from  press releases disseminated by the Rachlin media group.  This  group is essentially a Public Relations firm  for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin,  who is one of Li’s inner circle.

Journalists also get their stories from  interviewing participants. 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]). Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs, and resort to formulaic principles and  repetitions of their slogan ‘truthfulness, compassion, forbearance’.

Moreover, Li sets the terms of the debate by directing members to get sympathy by telling listeners about the persecution, with the hidden intention of later turning them into converts (Li cited in Rahn, 2005; see also Li, 2002, 2003a).

Members do not see this  strategy as deceptive: a Falun Gong spokesperson told me  that by focusing on the persecution and not pushing their religion or leader, members were being inoffensive.

.....The Western media do not usually describe Falun Gong as a cult, because of pressure from Falun Gong, and members tell the media they are just an exercise group. However, as Wong and Liu (1999) observe, Falun Gong seems unusually proselytising for an exercise group. Also, on newcomers’ second or third visits they are given scriptures showing Li’s rejection of those who just do the exercises every day (usually  Zhuan Falun, but see also  Li, 1997; 1998b).

I noticed that newcomers never returned after they were given the reading material, except for one man who reappeared only to put the books on the table and rush out the door. When – six months into the fieldwork – a member told me that Falun Gong was not about doing the exercises at all, I was not surprised. She had already given me this information via Li’s writings. If the ambiguous – some might say deceptive  – recruitment tactics make Falun Gong sound like a cult, we should look further at what  exactly a cult is.....

..... If we employ these criteria, Falun Gong could be described as a cult. By  his own account Li is the exclusive saviour of the world.

He teaches that members are superior to ordinary people, and they must relinquish “affection for kinsfolk, love between a man and a woman, an affection for parents, feelings, [and]  friendship” (Li, 2003b, lecture 4, para. 3).

Also, Falun Gong activities take up large amounts of practitioners’ time each day. To be sure, practitioners are free to  exit Falun Gong whenever they want, but this freedom  is a physical reality, not a psychological one. As the Chinese members I met had no exposure to other spiritual paths, they believed the peace they  experienced in meditation is only available through Falun Gong.

Moreover, if they are left behind in the apocalypse they will suffer horribly (Li, 2000a). (The date of this event is uncertain because Li can use his mystical powers to delay it, but participants were expecting it within the next 25 years.)

Heather Kavan

________

Which begs the question. What exactly are these higher teachings that needs to be hidden from the public? What kind of people would trust in those teachings and believe in the supernatural?

Also what kind of person goes around preaching truthfulness yet at the same time also hypocritically forbidding his followers to be completely truthful about his religion?

There are too many smoking guns that are not being addressed. And it's Wikipedia's actual purpose to expose these kinds of things by 'correctly' publishing available info that is backed by reliable sources aka from Li himself, yet after all these years, much are not covered on wiki.

_________ Wikipedia is about holistic truths. And not for "one sided" information if it supports a certain desired image by its most keen editors.

If the inconvenient facts are correct and not false and have my sources like the 1999 Times interview with Hongzhi, they should be included and not buried.

All my questions are not unreasonable to consider and my stance is that truth should not be censored cos of some political inhibition, and if it is indeed backed by solid sources.

My answer to the question from the editor Leugen9001 that they are not a fringe belief but the responsible spotlight that highlights blissfully ignored questions.

Like why the actual leader of the religion, would even make such questionable claims in the first place and why should they be legitimised as a religion as they are after all only a few decades old?

And why is an editor using Orwellian tactics by subtly stating neutral bias must equate to always seeing falun gong positively and nothing less than that and to not contradict their (wiki editors) created unofficial consensus (which would be questionable if a reliably backed source were to contradict them anyways), despite there are known truths that ring alarm bells?

Should I just go with "the program" and not ever question these things?

Not putting in Li's talks about aliens is just the perfect way to eliminate awareness from answering those critical questions.

Sources

Li, H. (1997). Falun Dafa: Lectures in the United States, pre-publishing version. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm

Li, H. (1998b). Essentials for further advancement: A Falun Gong practitioner’s guide. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2006, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz.htm

Li, H. (1998c). Falun Buddha Fa: Lecture at the first conference in North America, March 29-30, New York. Retrieved March 26, 2001, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/north- america.htm

Li, H. (1999). Falun Dafa lecture in Sydney. Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm

Li, H. (2001a). Falun Gong: Principles and exercises for perfect health and enlightenment. MA: Fair Winds Press.

Li, H. (2002). Touring North America to teach the Fa, March. Retrieved Feb. 12, 2005, from http://falundafa.org/book/eng/na_lecture_tour.htm

Li, H. (2003a). Teaching the Fa during the 2003 Lantern festival, Feb. 15. Retrieved June 3, 2005, from http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/ la2003/la2003_e.doc

Li, H. (2003b). Zhuan Falun: Turning the law wheel. Taiwan: Yih Chyun Corp.


 * Source of excerpt written by Heather Kavan can be currently downloaded as pdf from the Massey University link below.

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

Edit ~ What you do with your awareness after answering these questions in your head and of yourself. Is to go and do research and find out more information and use critical thinking instead of superficially reading english publications written by falun gong public relations team. Obviously don't take Chinese media at face value either. But the Chinese media and Western media do actually agree on certain things together and that is a good first place to start. When learning about FG instead of relying on websites made by FG public relation teams. Use your wits. I had added another dedicated thread to about how poor the current Wikipedia's reasoning for the banning of falun gong. But it's been wholly removed so I will upload it again after discussing it over with the censorer first.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My intent here is not to say that information regarding certain Falun Gong beliefs that would cast the movement in a negative light should never be included. Instead, I wish to remain neutral on the topic itself and note that there needs to be thorough discussion and consensus, given the complex and controversial nature of this topic. I would also like to note that the current revision of this article is a product of compromise and consensus; thus, although we must improve it in accordance with Wikipedia's general editorial practices, we must also take into account the legitimacy of certain decisions that have already been made, and accept or reject different parts of current consensus depending on whether or not they are correct.


 * Wikipedia is supposed to provide WP:DUE weight to different viewpoints. I am not going to comment on whether or not the characterization of Falun Gong as a cult is legitimate. I'm only going to say that Wikipedia does not appear to present much evidence supporting the Chinese Government's viewpoint and that we must make sound editorial judgements as to how much of that evidence should be included. We need to look at what reliable sources say and whether or not the characterization of the group as a cult is held by a sizable portion of scholars who are not involved with either the Chinese Government or Falun Gong. --Leugen9001 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reintroduced some of the content that you added. I did so in a body paragraph rather than in the lede because the information would otherwise have dramatically shifted the POV towards a more negative one, which I believe shouldn't be done without sufficient consensus and discussion. --Leugen9001 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would furthermore like to note that Wikipedia is not supposed to make major decisions about what's true or not because Wikipedia does not have the capacity to carry out rigorous WP:Original Research. Instead, per WP:NOTTRUTH, we must go by the consensus of reliable sources. Thus, it doesn't matter how convincingly you argue that Falun Gong is a cult here, since Wikipedia is not an avenue for original research and its content must instead be based on what reliable sources say.--Leugen9001 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad to see somebody already chimed in here. I echo the above, and add that we need to ensure that different topics are weighted appropriately. In describing FLG teachings, for example, there's general agreement that this article should provide an overview of the most important aspects of the doctrine and the practices. Given how prolific Li is in his writings and public lectures, we could never hope to describe everything he has ever written. The Blue Canoe  00:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry Leugen9001 — I neglected to explain my rationale for some of my edits of your last version. On the 300 protests, those details are found in the relevant section further down in the article. Seems a bit too in-the-weeds for the intro section, especially since there are many other salient details about that time period that we omit here. On reincarnation and enlightenment, those are definitely central concepts. I thought those were already included in the 'teachings' section, but maybe not explicitly enough. The Blue Canoe  01:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the inclusion of information that might make the POV more negative, such as certain beliefs espoused by Li Hongzhi that were described by User:Unicornblood2018, should such information be included? If we do not include such information, are we promoting an incomplete view of the group? I believe that decisions relating to whether such information should be included should be based on sound editorial judgement resting on reliable sources. While Chinese Government-linked sources do include a lot of information that places Falun Gong in a bad light, and some of that information may be verifiably correct, such sources might not be appropriate for judging due weight due to their bias. Most uninvolved mainstream sources characterize Falun Gong as a respectable religious movement. However, I believe that it may be necessary to discuss the extent to which the arguments of the Chinese Government are being presented. Currently, the following is the only passage that really delves into the Government's point of view:


 * Should the Chinese Government view be portrayed as credible? Of course not! We shouldn't favour the words of a dictatorship over the words of reliable sources. But the details of what the propaganda says are very notable. The current article has the effect of creating a caricaturized and unhelpful view of the Chinese Government's propaganda: State-run loudspeakers saying that a good socialist citizen must be a liar who is unkind and gives up easily! I believe that we must, within reason, include some of the evidence cited by the Chinese Government--not to prove their view right, of course, but rather to provide due weight to covering the existence of notable things said about Falun Gong, keeping in mind relevant policy and good editorial practice. --Leugen9001 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "State-run loudspeakers saying that a good socialist citizen must be a liar who is unkind and gives up easily!"  Personally for your article in your quote box, I think they were more competing over what the "largest influential' values for their society should be. And to be honest, I don't believe that Chinese Gov wants the majority of their people to become like Buddhist monks who puts peace and kindness well above ambition and making money. But that also doesn't necessarily equate into wishing their citizens to be jerks and picking fights with each other either. They said not in common, and not complete "opposite". — Regardless whenever chinese newspapers are being interpreted into English, it is possible that the original meaning can be distorted or lacking in the outputted English version. And causing readers to be prone to not fully grasping of the original true message as interpreted quotes are not always skilled in delivering the entire message sufficiently. Hence doing research to double check if China is in fact telling people that they need to become mean or lazy, would be wise. That original news piece was in chinese so the quality of interpretation always has to be considered and added in with care. As improper additions of any poorly translated quotes would attenuate the integrity of the wiki. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope to give you a more fulsome reply when I have I have a bit more time, but check out the "media campaign" ction. This deals in some depth with the nature of the Chinese government's claims against FLG, putting them in broader context. The government's view is also presented throughout the history sections (e.g. its criticisms of qigong as anti-scientific, etc.). On FLG teachings, we are absolutely giving an incomplete view — the practice's master has written tens of thousands of pages on a sprawling array of topics, and we can't hope to cover them all here. Given these constraints, our goal is to give a representative overview of these teachings and the core tenets and practices. So the question becomes 'what do the best reliable sources say are the important teachings of FLG'?  The Blue Canoe  04:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Leugen9001 wrote"article has the effect of creating a caricaturized and unhelpful view of the Chinese Government...." And based on that it makes them look so foolish and works against them. That quote should be added in? True objectivity would mean publishing their top official warnings about Falun Gong and then adding on info to whether it is accurate or not. We all know the chinese government's official excuse on why they banned him. Their story was that they were supportive of FG when it was just an exercise group. But they claimed that FG diverted from that when it started pushing claims of apocalypse, opposing modern medicine, that Li was the saviour, making protests against critics. Etc Are there any truth to any of this or just false propaganda? None of this is ever covered on wiki.Unicornblood2018 (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I like to point out when Russians commies once accused the Americans of covering up Japanese unit 731 war crimes that exploited their civillians, in which the Americans called "communist lies" despite the evidence. Yet it turned out to be the true. Just because the Chinese are run by a dislikable one party communist state does not permit us to lose our objectiveness to their official warnings. If there are indeed any truth to their severe warnings that can currently be supported by both reliable western scholars and Li's own writings and speeches, then failure to simply publish that these warnings are not "lies", are similarly driven by political filled hatred and inhibition. Which is the Whole Point of my thread.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia page should include all the significant critical statements from the opposition  like Li opposing modern medicine or Li telling followers of scary aliens, and objectively add on whether they have truth in it or not, by using reliable sources.That is how we need to do things to improve the page. - Ultimately every info's right to be published should be based on whether it's indeed backed by reliable sources and also how it's written on the wiki page. Using excuses to remove them by calling them fringe beliefs or that they contradict the editors' unofficial consensus, (which would be questionable if a backed source were to contradict them anyways) should not be permitted and does not give precedence over any info if they are indeed backed by reliable sources and are significant to the topic. Unless you can produce a contradicting info that is backed by an even better source, then my question is that are there any sufficient excuses to remove info if they are 1. significant, 2. well backed by reliable sources and 3. Highly relevant and written appropriately into the wiki page? Political inhibition is not an excuse.

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble following you. It seems you've gotten a lot of your information reading Heather Kavan's article. I just re-read this thing and gosh, it is a remarkably shoddy piece of scholarship. No wonder the 610 office's media arm is so fond of her. I suggest looking into some more authoritative sources if you hope to get a more even-handed account of things. Anyway, on to the specific issues. What are you suggesting we add? Let's deal with this one item at a time.
 * You mention that we should include the Chinese government's 'official warning' against Falun Gong. Which one? We include several already. There was a deterioration in the relationship that played out over several years, and it's not as simple as you're positing above. For instance, you write that the state was in favour of FLG when it was "just an exercise group," but that official support ceased when it started "pushing claims of apocalypse, opposing modern medicine, that Li was the saviour, making protests against critics." You're misinformed, and your chronology is messed up. Falun Gong was never just an exercise group; its spiritual aims were apparent from the start. The group does not preach about an impending apocalypse. It does include beliefs that might be similar to concepts of faith healing, in that it holds illness to have karmic causes, but is not against modern medicine per se. Tensions between FLG and the state are best attributed to a variety of institutional causes at work starting in the mid-1990s: i.e. FLG refused co-optation by the state and declined to establish a communist party branch; its founder didn't participate in official, government-organized qigong meetings and such; anti-qigong forces were ascendent within the Party bureaucracy, while some of qigong's main defenders died in the mid-1990s, etc. (ADD: the state did express concern that FLG had a "religious patina" and preached "theology," but this is also a problem of institutions: there is no way for a new religion to gain official sanction in China). FLG followers only started picketing against critical newspaper articles after its books were banned from further publication in 1996, and after the ministry of state security started quietly cracking down on them. I think this history is covered in the article pretty well, isn't it?  The Blue Canoe  18:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * And one more thing: the idea that we're "holding our tongue" because of religious or political sensitivities is a straw man. I haven't seen anyone argue that as a reason for including or not including certain information. My concern is with making sure the article is coherently written and organized, and that it adheres to a NPOV. There is an element of editorial discretion involved, which is why we're discussing this to try to find where the article might be lacking. The Blue Canoe  18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm new on this page and happened to run across this discussion. I just wanted to comment on the idea that Falun Gong practitioners lie to outsiders and claim they're "just doing exercises." Unicornblood is quoting this from Heather Kavan. I've practiced Falun Gong since the early 2000s, and I am familiar with the teachings, and it seems to me that this is a really bad faith interpretation by Kavan. In context, Li said that when Falun Gong practitioners are talking to people about the persecution they're suffering in China, it is unnecessary to explain Falun Gong's spiritual beliefs if the person doesn't want to hear about spiritual beliefs. ("If they don't want to hear about other spiritual beliefs, we don't talk to them about spiritual beliefs; tell them that we're just doing exercises.").

This is because the goal is not to turn people into Falun Gong converts, as Kavan mistakenly claims. It is to explain the Chinese government's crackdown against innocent people while being sensitive of the personal religious/spiritual convictions of the other party in such discussions. Therefore, it can be understood as advice against proselytizing. If you go to Falun Gong websites like Falundafa.org, literally the first line on the landing page states that Falun Gong is an advanced form of self-cultivation from the Buddhist school. There is no attempt to obscure or conceal the nature of the practice, or to pretend it's just exercises. Each and every piece of Falun Gong's teachings is there, for free, for anyone to read for themselves, in multiple languages and various translation versions. It couldn't be any easier to access them. It's not some secretive group. Oh, and Kavan's account of the mixed-race marriage issue is equally in bad faith and informed by a very selective, unsophisticated reading of Li's teachings. I'm in a mixed-race marriage myself. So are a large number of my friends who practice Falun Gong. It's seriously not an issue – it has never been frowned upon in the Falun Gong community. Based on what I've seen over the last 20 years, the number of mixed-race marriages among Falun Gong practitioners around the world is significantly higher than in the population at large. If you guys want me to explain this further, please let me know. Polyunsaturated (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)



If Falun Gong is publicly against gays and mixed people. They will lose social support.Their opposition is much more subtle by stating that mixed race people can't go to heaven and gay people would be punished by karma. Yet karma logically indicate that to be punished, you must have done bad things, which implies the message that gayness and being mixed race is inherently a bad thing.

Anyways the reality is that the general western public doesn't actually know what falun gong really is. When they see FG in the park, they do see it as an exercise group honestly. Most westerners would not be able to tell you that FG is not like Christianity or Islam. Those 2 religions are really old and their leader is not a living person. But Fg is recently made and had a current living leader who is designated as the wise one and gives out sacred teachings of heaven, etc.onto others.

And Li's own writings highlights troubling protocols that are unsurprisingly hidden from the public and designed to be evasive. And there is enough solid evidence that FG or at the very least Li and his inner circle suppressed certain facts from the public. Like that Li had advocated against modern medicine. The fact that Li never publicly apologised for it, does shows weakness in character to me. Someone who's unwilling to reveal errors of their ways and discredit harmful teaching that he himself published. Today his followers deny that Li has ever published that in his work despite he clearly published it. That is what first disturbed me the most.

Hence you maybe or maybe not be someone trying to sabotage this thread by using words without sources and I simply cannot just take your words at face value just like that. You must understand that if you want to convince here, please abstain from writing Hearsay on this thread in which basically anyone can just claim as facts without having to back it with sources. If you want to make a Statememt, Please provide your sources. I hope u understand that etiquitee. I don't mean to be rude by seeming suspicious but naivety by simply taking other people's words at face value is not smart. Unicornblood2018 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is clearly the focus of concerted partisan efforts to tailor the impression to an agenda. As is always the case, our job is to deliberate, discuss, and resolve accurate and topical content.Mavigogun (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you're forget ,FLG is form China. China(PRC)is a what country? A communist country,a socialist countries.The ruling party is a Communist Party! The history of Occident anti-China,anti-communist is not so short. FLG just caught this feature，they use the occident mainly social environment，Conversely defame PRC,and her ruling party-CPC. and CPC&PRC,mainly media are not so careful on Propaganda PRC blow cult to out china 233御宅 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, 233御宅, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to advocate for any partisan- or to pass judgement.   Moreover, edits require more than reasons- they must reflect referenced objective understanding.    As long as you position yourself as advocate, your efforts here will be a disservice.    As an aside, your grasp of English is transactional, at best, and severely negatively impacts your edits.    Consider consulting with a fluent collaborator when posting, as what you've offered here is not entirely intelligible.Mavigogun (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Cult or religion?
I'm not a religious person. But I respect religions as they are sacred beliefs.

And I read the talk page. And feel there are two things alarmingly missing in the current wiki page.

Considering falun gong leader and creator is :


 * A man who made extreme claims that he can comprehend the impending apocalypse, and he alone can save his followers from it.


 * Make serious conspiracy tales of highly intelligent aliens and how they are "evil" and plotting doomsday plans for us.


 * Personally discourages people from taking modern medicine or doctor's advice when ill, so to not upset bad karma. And to only take his advice instead.


 * Tell and emphasise an image to the uninterested public that falun gong is more like an exercise group. And a philosophy just like Buddhism.


 * Despite it behaves just like a religion with self created definition of heavens that only accepts pure race people and not mixed race people. Who are doomed at birth


 * Hence passively discourage followers from marrying people of a different race as mixed race children can't go to heaven.


 * Also speaks of homosexuality as flawed and with karma rightfully punishing them, etc

''Basically the issue I have is that the leader claims that these are spiritual indisputable facts. He is still alive today and was not born centuries ago.

He is clearly either a liar or delusional. Or logically he really is a higher being and I am the delusional one.''

But I doubt that I'm delusional.

It makes me wonder if we are just aiding and dressing a cult legitimacy. Why is his words trusted more than others?

Many cult leaders in the last century have basically done the same. Being egotistic to think they are a saviour. Being dishonest and inventing teachings they push as facts despite not backed by science.

Wikipedia can be a tool for herd mentality particularly in young naive minds. I am not suggesting that we call it as a cult here.

'But i do think it's only moral to include a chapter that highlights the difference between ancient religious figures and emphasises the Falun gong leader Li is not ancient but a living human being today, who really made these original claims all by himself''. That he does not have supernatural abilities or valid proof behind his recent claims in the past decades. Yet expects people to be trusting of his highly egotistic words as spiritual laws and as legit facts.

Which by its sensitive privilege discourages logical arguments or critical thinking behind his legitimacy because they are allegedly of the divine ways. Which he practically self claims. And the wiki page reflects that discouraging of critical thinking strongly.

''Hence why its Crucial to also include a single chapter that has its critics. Who thinks it's a cult.'' These critics must be educated in western liberal universities, with a professional understanding of actual cults, and to include their career opinion of falun gong.

These two suggestions are to be discussed here first. Feel free to give me your suggestions, in whether to follow through or not.

Stingrayintrasensory (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not "follow through" please. This article is very sensitive, yours is a new WP account and your arguments above are OR and not RS (Reliable Sources). Try using e.g. this instead: Falun Gong Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom James R. Lewis, Universitetet i Tromsø, Norway

as a source if its points are missing in the article. (The implicit violence section 5 there was interesting to me.)


 * Stingrayintrasensory Agreed on massive POV bias in this article. I've made minor additions in the short description, feel free to contribute to article to achieve Neutral point of view. As it is, this reads like a advertisement from the Falun Gong itself. Granted, it's not surprising that many of the contributors to this page are likely to be practitioners, as they have the most interests and knowledge of the group, however, that's exactly why the article is far-far from neutral. Any contribution to maintain neutrality of article is welcomed.Gw2005 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think FLG is a religion.You know，they say themselves is a qigong group.I think it's a cult. You mentioned“A man who made extreme claims that he can comprehend the impending apocalypse, and he alone can save his followers from it.”Indeed, he claims he is the god.(FLG form China,the establisher LI is a chinese ,too.When he preached，he says he is"The reincarnation of Shakyamuni (Sakyamuni is the founder of Buddhism, Buddhism is a religion, not a cult)" I'm a Chinese,and I very disgust FLG. He says " he alone can save his followers from it."If his followers was ill.He will tells to them:"Don't go to see a doctor, don't take medicine, don't cure，You just will 转法轮（法轮=falun,The concept of wheels, but very abstract，so they can 转(turn) it）" Some followers' family are very worry them.The end,followers are dead,but they don't think they're dead,because Li tells to them"You will go to the Western Paradise"（LOOK!he very likes Plagiarizing Some concepts of Buddhism，this can make followers believe FLG）this confuses followers,so their family usually have these two situations：1.The believer Preach FLG to other famliy members,then the family all are believers.2.believer Split with its family. When I'm a Primary school student，my school’s bulletin board has been affixed with posters such as "anti-cult, revealing the evil nature of Falun Gong".Tell us don't believe any cult(such as FLG),tell us Li asks his believers to donation,he says“The more donations, the more GONGDE, the more happy you will be after the West bliss (death)”，asks them to ignite themselves for dead early. 'cause it's a cult,The Chinese Communist Party will carry out anti-cult activities. FLG Escape from mainland China，still Propaganda FLG 233御宅 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "I don't think" isn't our standard here- this isn't a platform for personal expression.


 * "When I'm a Primary school student，my school’s bulletin board has been affixed with posters such as 'anti-cult, revealing the evil nature of Falun Gong'"   If this anecdote can be supported by credible reference, I'd very much support inclusion in a section speaking to Chinese Government's regard of Falun Gong.


 * Contrasting the above two statements provides a path for developing this article.  While not all credible references are appropriate for inclusion, credible references are prerequisite for inclusion.    Independently, our feelings and ideas are of no consequence.


 * Reconsider, 233御宅, your declaration of partisanship on these issues on your user page, as such is in direct conflict with the spirit of Wikipedia. Mavigogun (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OK， I think FLG is evil cult,because no have any religion founder will says it is the god,now god come to believers,for save them. how about this? 233御宅 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, 233御宅, what you or I personally believe is not relevant to Wikipedia: there is no place here for the opinions of editors.  "Blue is ugly" is a subjective opinion; while there may be some basis for claiming "red is exciting", such statements must be qualified by reference and utilized without argument or attempt to synthesize conclusions.Mavigogun (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a no brainer. It is a cult and no, that's not even a subjective opinion but an undeniable logical fact. It depends on looking at both the followers and current leaders.

Christianity and Islam for example.. All its people alive today honesty believe in their religion and faithfully continue its traditions over centuries. None of them today are dishonestly rewriting spiritual laws to claim they themselves are the sole saviour of mankind or make modern stories of evil conniving aliens who created our technology, etc

None of the Christians and Muslims today are creating new religions. They are innocently following what was already established.

Whereas Falungong has a leader/author RN who deep down must be obviously aware that he is dishonest. And lying about his claims that he was chosen by an immortal and can teach people telepathy and supernatural capabilities. Many of what he says, may be fully believed by others but he himself is aware that he is LYING.


 * Being completely aware that you are brainwashing others with your false promises and lies. Collecting followers who don't dare to call you a liar and to carry out his weird teachings as undeniable truths.


 * While he continues being the leader and is currently alive and benefiting personally from deceiving others by claiming to be selected by an immortal at age 12 and trained with that immortal in Spiritual arts. That Is the definition of a brainwashing cult in a modern 21st century legal sense. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.


 * Maybe after Li dies and the religion is continued by innocent followers for 2 centuries. Then it is a legitimate sacred religion where there is no dishonest "living" cult leader to benefit directly from his deceptive fraudulent influence.

Regardless i don't suggest that we call it a cult on Wikipedia here because that's just an original opinion. But instead FAIRLY bring awareness that this is a religion created by a living man who clearly fooled others that he is some kind of chosen one by immortal beings who trained him to attain mastery of the supernatural like telepathy :(, and unique self claimed insider wisdom of the dangerous extraterrestrial high tech aliens who landed their ship on our planet.

You can't even make this stuff up Basically in a nutshell, you believe in li and his abilities plus unquestionable wisdom and his stories of being the real deal aka a real life spiritual legend. You believe in his teachings because Li has mastered them all and you should not question his honesty.

And only he can save you from the aliens amd apocalypse. Because his followers believe that he's not an actual liar, they follow his teachings so they will learn mastery of supernatural abilities, and be enlightened like him.

Most religions are more in worshipping a deity.. Falun gong consists of luring people with false promises that they can help you master telepathy and other supernatural feats. And who does not want to master that? It would be awesome if it was actually real but LI is deceiving them and he SHOULD be aware that he has no idea how to do telepathy and claiming to be an expert is an outright pants on fire FIB.

Falun gong is ultimately a cult when it still benefits the LIVING leader by flattering his ego as a wise powerful man via self aware deception and luring others with false promises of mastering telepathy, etc in which the living leader LI also self claims to be the legitimate master.

A religion also has a living leader except he didn't create the rules and designate himself as chosen by immortals whom he personally trained with, via his own words. Nor that he can teach others telepathy, etc

That's the key difference and falun gong is a cult at its brainwashing purest. No rational person would ever disagree that it is not a cult and think that LI is an honest man who indeed was chosen by immortals and can save us from aliens and apocalypse because he is a hero and genuinely cares about others. 😹

120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC on lead
How should the lead section deal with the characterization of the group as a cult by the Chinese government? Leugen9001 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I think users on all sides should desist from edit warring. We should maintain the previous consensus wording until a new consensus is reached. Leugen9001 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree- the possible inclusion of the "evil cult" characterization is best first confronted here. A large number of articles suggest the relationship of Falun Gong and the Chinese government is topical and noteworthy.  That said, placing the adversarial characterization of a conflicting partisan at the lead elevates that view and synthesizes a definitive authority.   It seems a bald smear.   Imagine the VERY FIRST characterization of Homosexuality being cast by Jerry Falwell- "Homosexuality, alternatively known as a vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven-"   Clearly inappropriate, right?    While the regard of bigots toward homosexuals may have an appropriate place somewhere on that page, elevating that regard to a definitive place in the lead would promote a highly subjective partisan perspective at a place and in a manor at odds with the purpose of objective Wikipedia editors.

Mavigogun (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a false equivalence between the fringe, fundamentalist Christian far-right in the U.S. (Falwell on homosexuality) and multiple mainstream WP:RS, one of which is published by a U.S.-based public education 501(c)3 nonprofit. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After claiming "multiple mainstream" sources, you cite yet another Chinese government propaganda piece.  Discerning credible sources is fundamental to the integrity of Wikipedia, and ourselves as editors.Mavigogun (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence for your own hyper-partisan claim that the U.S.-based nonprofit source I gave, which was previously present as reference number 6, has anything to do with Beijing. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The "article" reproduced at the web site link you provided was produced by an organ of the Chinese government- "sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China and published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences".  What you've characterized as a "hyper-partisan claim" is in fact merely reporting the content of your reference.   Clearly, these organizations are expressions of the Chinese government- and by definition have 'everything to do with Beijing'.   As an aside, conveyance of non-profit status in the US does not impart or signify any sort of credibility/authority- it's a tax distinction, not a content endorsement.   Our interests here would be better served were you, CaradhrasAiguo, to make your focus the article and its sources rather than pejorative characterization of my motive.   Presuming good faith is fundamental to collaborative efforts.

Mavigogun (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Both sides agree that it is notable that some characterize the group as a cult. If we do want to include it in the lede, it should be done in a responsible and organic way. is alternatively known as a cult sounds quite awkward. The Chinese government says the group is a cult, but it has not changed the group's name to "a cult". Instead, it should be more like seen as a cult by the Chinese government and some/few external scholars with the language adjusted to fit neutrality and due weight. The wording should be neutral and should not attempt to smear either the Falun Gong or the Chinese government.Leugen9001 (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Topically, the Chinese Government regard is clearly a prominent part of the history Falun Gong.  The public disposition, reports, and self definition should also be given due weight, as appropriate.   It is not our mission to make anyone look good- only report; this very well may include context that reflects poorly in the mind of readers.   So, sure, "smear" no one- but don't white-wash actions either; protecting folks from themselves isn't our mission.


 * Our job is to contrive a concise document recording key elements to provide a timely apprehension of the topic; the lead acts as a definitive summation of that topic. For sure, "evil cult" is not the common, objective understanding of Falun Gong- nor is "cult" resloved, a hedge offered up only after the baldly pejorative description was rejected.  Depending on manifestation, I might strongly support mention of the characterization in a section speaking to the Chinese Government's relationship with Falun Gong- but in the lead?  Absolutely not- and not just because doing so would harness Wikipedia to a partisan agenda. Partisans CAN have facts right, or not -but we must eschew judgements as we may, leaving valuation to the reader.  Here, "cult" is a judgement we are not pressed to make- and including the characterization in the lead would be imposing a valuation.


 * As with most belief systems, Falun Gong inspires judgement.  My personal experience with Falun Gong has been limited to a dance-theater performance- it's what drew my interest to this page.   That experience was unpleasant, the performance including aspersions and demagoguery for me and people like me.   As distasteful and outrageous as that was, I am not here as defender or to speak in condemnation of Falun Gong or the Chinese Government- my contributions are aimed at the integrity of Wikipedia.   That said, the article is not a place for editor testimony or partisan advocacy.  Mavigogun (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should be primarily focused on making a good encyclopedia article. I think that both User:Mavigogun and User:CaradhrasAiguo are contributing in good faith. I think we should distinguish between the WP:LEAD and the first paragraph of the lead. In both versions the Communist Party's view on Falun Gong is stated, but it seems that, correct me if I am wrong, User:CaradhrasAiguo would like it to be mentioned in the first paragraph. This begs the question: how prominent should the mention of its perception as a cult be?


 * The version by User:Gw2005 places the text is alternatively known as a cult in front of or religious spiritual practice that combines meditation and qigong exercises with a moral philosophy. I think that this is an overemphasis because its perception as a cult is a notable but not defining characteristic: we must first define what the Falun Gong even is before we can talk about people seeing it as a cult. If we decide to include it--a big "if" that will depend on far stronger consensus than a few editors--then we should include it after the group's definition.


 * Furthermore, section 3 states Although it is often referred to as such in journalistic literature, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult." Having a prominent mention of the accusations that the group is a cult would require changing the entire article, which would in turn require a thorough check of what reliable, independent sources say on this matter. Independent sources means no Xinhua, CCTV, Epoch Times, or any websites with a potential partisan point of view, for or against. Leugen9001 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Just do it in a neutral way, so long as it does not give the impression that "Falun Gong is illegal in Hong Kong", and make it clear to the readers that it is the mainland authorities who are cracking down the practitioners. It is obvious that Hong Kong practitioners have existed for many years, and the Hong Kong police do nothing. However, I have not seen Falun Gong practitioners in Macau, so I am not sure whether the Communist Party cracks down the Macau practitioners or not. Even if something was done in Macau to Falun Gong's disadvantage, it could have been done clandestinely. Tony85poon (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Put it in the fourth paragraph, and attribute it clearly to the Chinese government (the one that begins On 20 July 1999, the Communist Party leadership initiated a nationwide crackdown and multifaceted propaganda campaign intended to eradicate the practice... Their characterization as a cult by the Chinese government is part of that crackdown and is relevant only in that context.  Saying 'some people' consider them a cult or that they're 'also known' as a cult is WP:WEASEL, and placing the opinions of the Chinese government all over the lead is WP:UNDUE - it should be worked into the existing paragraph on that topic. It absolutely cannot be mentioned without attribution - "cult" is plainly not NPOV language, so it must be attributed, and in this case virtually all coverage makes it clear that that description is coming from a single source.  We can say "the Chinese government considers them a cult" or something of that nature, but we can't say "they're also considered a cult" without specifying who thinks that.  -- Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the above summation and recommendation by Aquillion speaking to source clarity (Chinese Government), due weight (in section associated with Chinese Government regard), and parsing of weaselly wording ("also known").


 * I'll remind participants in this discussion that our own personal experience is not a basis for editing- if you just KNOW something is so, you gotta find credible references of sufficient weight to support the edit.


 * Lastly, while presuming good faith generally, we are amidst a concerted Falun Gong-related vandalism campaign, with rotating sock-puppet accounts used to damage a number of pages related to this topic.   Some such are overt, with hostile user names and juvenile edits marking them clearly, while others are more subtle.   Amidst all that noise, it is incumbent for editors acting in good faith to make the difference between their efforts and vandals plain by exemplifying the values of Wikipedia.Mavigogun (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Show me the where the "subtle vandalism" exactly are. I would like to have a look and chime in when necessary. I believe that Wiki-administrators should do the right thing! Block vandalists from editing for a certain period of time. If they do nothing and tolerate vandalism, what's the point of having administrators in the first place? Tony85poon (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I like to weigh in after reading this section and the ones before it, that this article is compromised by falun gong apologists who are censoring anyone out of their bias. And comprising this article. It is obvious that falun gong is a cult for one indisputable reason. The leader and creator Li is the one who created the spiritual laws by himself and expects everyone to just take his word for it. One of such laws is that mixed race people can't go to heaven. Which conveniently discourage interracial relationships using religion to influence others. I call it brainwashing because it's really just manipulative tactics from people who are against race mixing. Same subtle thing with gays.

There's many examples and fully documented history like Li discouraging modern medicines, etc that are not on the article still.

Instead there is an edit war where editors use beuacratic smokescreens to silence other editors who are not FG apologists and who WISHES to put in documented facts that are fully BACKED by reliable sources aka LI HIMSELF. That he discouraged others of modern medicines when ill, he made-up stories of evil super-intelligent aliens who made our technology, he also claims to be very special person in that only he has the capacity to save people from the apocalypse, etc, etc. NoNE of that is written because of editors who are clearly sweeping it under the rug and trying to bully others into not writing any of that. Instead they pressure other editors to have a consensus where FG is shown only positively.. I suspect political bias as I find it hard to believe why an obvious cult is being protected here. I read the entire discussion from beginning to end just now and genuinely shocked.


 * I believe that as long as you have indisputable facts that are backed solidly by reliable professionally documented secondary sources like Universities, newspapers, or Li's own made publications etc. Then anyone who tries to delete or suppress that information or call it a fringe belief or some other excuse, should be banned. And their edits reversed.

120.18.48.193 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mavigogun..I think the solution is to create a new dedicated section in this article to Cults, and the arguments for why it is a cult and reasons against it, by published scholars and solid secondary sources.. Btw you say that homophobia is also present in Christianity and that Christianity is not deemed a cult. True but the key difference is that Christianity was a religion created approx 2 thousand years ago. Whereas Falun Gong was created only a few decades ago by a man who is currently alive and made it all up all by himself and has called it a religion in which he's conveniently the important leader, which now deeply influences vulnerable others to fully believe him. To believe that mixed race people can't go to heaven and also gays are inherently a rotten lot of individuals because karma only attacks bad people. And that Lee is a special person of great wisdom.

That's the straight facts and on Wikipedia here, editors DO have an objective duty to highlight the FACT that it is different from conventional religions in that the owner is ALIVE, the fact that he made it up all by himself including his self importance and lastly if you want to be OBJECTIVE. The chinese gov criticised him for telling people not to take modern medicine because of karma, aliens scaremongering, apocalypse, claiming to be special and that he can help people get to heaven if they only qualify via his PREJUDICED laws, etc. If you were truly impartial and not taking sides. THERE IS NO REASON to not put that piece of real history in this article. BUT IT'S NOT For no good reasons..

and i feel it's ONLY due to editors' bias and politics that indeed impeded and have held back the article's integrity for far too long for many years now. That is not good in any way. There needs to NOW be a section without excuses that gives a voice to professional documented scholars who believe it's a cult, like the woman in this source link below.

Personally I believe that a man who self appoints himself as a Buddha in modern times is a potential cult leader. The same with any man who appointed himself as Jesus reincarnated. And Lee calling himself in this day and age that he is a special person with sole knowledge and abilities to outlive the apocalypse, deal with high tech non human aliens and help you understand how go to heaven using his rules, without explaining how he knows this stuff, sounds like a cult influencer to me.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf 120.18.48.193 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm an aussie living in Sydney and am the same guy with previous ip address ~ 120.18.48.193. I use a mobile phone on Vodafone network so my ip address automatically changes. But I'm the very same person as directly above and continuing on with OP's question on how to "deal with the characterization of the group as a cult by the Chinese government". I think by simply quoting the Chinese government official statement about FG as a cult and describing its validity. Seems obvious enough. 🙊

I casually practiced FG in 2016 and have seen first-hand the points made. They aren't ridiculous. Like how they treat people who ask questions is so true. Like why should we believe Li's questionable claims and what makes him that legitimately special. I smelt a rat of deception which is why i left in the first place. I thought Wikipedia is at least the place where objectiveness and openness of the facts and full coverage answers are protected. Instead this page article literally reads as a FG promotional pamphlet where it hides the obvious but inconvenient truth.

They almost won me over with peer pressure and non scientific backed FAKE promises that you can achieve supernatural powers beyond your human peers. And FG is akin of the political agenda of xenophobia, pure race idolising, homophobia, luring less mature people with promises of magical benefits like telekinesis and immortality, beuacratic stonewalling and peer pressure on the suppression of asking questions or factual unflattering opinions about FG legitimacy. Any mention of obvious but inconvenient truths is met with accusations.

Additionally the Chinese government called it a cult because it obviously is a cult. How can Wikipedia consensus nowadays take political sides on a factual topic?😕



<The current article has the effect of creating a caricaturized and unhelpful view of the Chinese Government's propaganda: State-run loudspeakers saying that a good socialist citizen must be a liar who is unkind and gives up easily! I believe that we must, within reason, include some of the evidence cited by the Chinese Government--not to prove their view right, of course, but rather to provide due weight to covering the existence of notable things said about Falun Gong, keeping in mind relevant policy and good editorial practice. --Leugen9001 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)>

Leugen9001 already appears to have ingrained political bias against the Chinese government and the reasons why he distorts the consensus inappropriately.

- Only objective factual information should take precedence and top priority over any politically biased consensus.

The ccp in relevance to this particular discussion, published this official statement about Falun Gong to back their reasoning. It should be fairly included in this article without any more excuses. And not to just cherrypick statements that make them look bad.

< “Falun Gong is against modern science, preaches the end of the world, forbids its followers watching TV or being treated in hospital and maintains that diseases do not exist and that ailments are due to sins people commit. They preached that UFOs had arrived on earth; aliens had taken over human bodies, and were trying to annihilate humanity through the control of TV and radio.“ >

Based on the indisputed source already given in this discussion, that entire relevant paragraph from the Chinese Government can not be seriously argued as being far from truth.

Source - https://www.patheos.com/blogs/wakeupcall/2013/10/falungong/ 120.17.40.64 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * On the cult label and related topics discussed above, here are some finding from experts and reliable sources
 * The US Freedom House’s *Written Statement for Congressional-Executive Commission on China Hearing - Falun Gong: Review and Update The Origins and Long-Term Consequences of the Communist Party’s Campaign against Falun Gong says: “One more point deserves clarification. The CCP and Chinese officials typically assert that Falun Gong needed to banned because it is an “evil cult” that was having a nefarious influence on society. The claims have not held up to scrutiny when investigated in China, nor when one considers Falun Gong’s spread in other parts of the world, including democratic Taiwan. As importantly, in the context of the current discussion, it was only several months after Jiang initiated the campaign that a resolution was passed punishing involvement with “heretical organizations” and that the Party’s propaganda apparatus zeroed in on a slightly manipulated English translation of the Chinese term xiejiao to claim that Falun Gong was an “evil cult.”[17] Unfortunately, today, media reports about Falun Gong often erroneously state that “Falun Gong was banned as an ‘evil cult’,” with little further explanation. In fact, the label came later and as noted above, the reasons behind it had little to do with anything “evil” about Falun Gong. By using this incomplete reference, media inadvertently repeat the Party line and may plant the thought in readers’ minds that a repressive campaign that has turned millions of lives upside down might be justified.
 * The label “evil cult” was given to Falun Gong by Jiang Zemin several months into his campaign to crush Falun Gong. Jiang bypassed the Chinese legal system and initiated his persecution via edict. On July 20th, 1999, without warning, Falun Gong practitioners were arrested in large numbers throughout China, though having broken no law. On July 22nd, a massive propaganda campaign demonizing Falun Gong was launched which spurred even greater numbers of arrests and incarceration. The persecution continues today and has caused terrible suffering to innocent people. It is worth noting that the resolution mentioned in the Freedom House report above, which was passed in October 1999 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China did not mention Falun Gong at all. Following the Resolution, in 2000, The China State Council and China Public Security Department published a list of illegal cults, which did not include Falun Gong either. There is no legal basis for Jiang Zemin’s persecution, according to one European Parliament testimony
 * A Freedom House Special Report: The Battle for China’s Spirit (Page 112) "Chinese state media and officials have offered their own explanation for the crackdown, seeking to frame the campaign as a necessary move against an alleged “evil cult” that had a nefarious influence on society. But such claims run counter to internal party documents and the lack of harmful outcomes in other countries where Falun Gong has spread. International scholars have repeatedly concluded that Falun Gong does not have the attributes of a cult.24Even in China, the label only appeared in party discourse in October 1999, months after the crackdown was launched, as the propaganda apparatus seized on a manipulated English translation of the Chinese term xiejiao. This suggests that the term was applied retroactively to justify a violent campaign that was provoking international and domestic criticism. David Ownby, a leading scholar on Chinese religions, notes:The entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong and the effectiveness of the group’s activities outside China." Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


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


 * In response to the IP user above, please note, Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Pleas also note what Noah Porter said in his book :“After doing some more reading and thinking, I came to a few conclusions: I realized that Falun Gong might teach these things are not good, but they would not try to impose their beliefs on others in a way that I would find objectionable. For example, they would not prevent a biology or astronomy professor from teaching evolution or a more mundane origin and composition for the moon, nor would they take any action against rock musicians.” As to the concern over Falun Gong’s teachings on distinct heavens for people of different races, this aspect of the practice’s cosmology is "in no way amounts to an endorsement of racial purity," and in fact many Falun Gong practitioners have interracial children.


 * 1) BTW, CCP demonizing Falun Gong is a basic fact, which has been well documented. Here is one example Daniel B. Wright: The Promise of Revolution: Stories of Fulfillment and Struggle in China's Hinterland where China scholars asserted that for several months after Falun Gong was outlawed, China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric; the government operation was "a study in all-out demonization". CCP sources are not reliable on this topic. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * okay first of all. I don't need all that irrelevant and off topic information. You're clearly deliberately diverting away from the topic that I highlighted and filling it with your biased fluff apologist speech, without discussing in depth what i mentioned prior.

My point is that it's not indistinguishable from Christianity and islam. Saying otherwise is indeed Orwellian because the man who created fg and invented himself its highest leader and spiritual authority, is still alive and that info needs to be at least be put EXPLICITLY in the article's introduction, given its significance.

Also it doesn't matter what the Chinese communist party says. The important thing is to just publish their official statements objectively, like accusing LI of preaching against modern medicine and complex science, that he can help them survive the apolcolypse, etc and also based on external western sources, that actually did happen.

The claims that it is a cult is based inherently on Li's own publications, interviews and western scholars like Dr. Heather Kavan who professionally researches and studies cults.

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

Many of the sources were directly from Li himself. He did try to brainwash others that illness don't exist and are symptoms of karma and that taking medicines was counterproductive. That just alone is dangerous and illegal given the fact that Li himself was originally given an official health doctor position and high authority by the government when he initially started.

There are many qigong groups in China that are based on Buddhism, taoism, etc that are not banned nor prohibited. Tai chi, wushu and other traditional Chinese arts are still practised. Many of the reasons for why China disapproved of Li's newer traditions was not in the wrong.

When he was only teaching qigong, the government encouraged and praised him. But when he started talking about extraterrestrial aliens trying to perfect human cloning, modern medicine dangers, apocalypse, claiming to have inherent spiritual wisdom and can "save" people from the apocalypse if they listen to him and make him their highest leader. That was when they felt uncomfortable in continuing it.

If an aussie man in modern Australia did the same thing today, he would instantly be called a con artist and cult leader, and go to jail for abusing his doctor accreditation. Of course not everyone agrees it is a cult which is why there needs to be a dedicated section in the article that includes both sides of the arguments from published scholars. 120.17.227.48 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think, in the lead paragraph, should be the mainstream opinion. And when we edit a belief or religion, we should be careful and responsible, avoiding being "out of context", or we may mislead and hurt others.Wetrace (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * @wetrace PLEASE do not give me excuses on censoring important and significant FACTs like Li self claiming his special background and that he is alive today.

The introduction should ONLY have actual TRUE facts that are undeniable and NEEDED regardless of whether or not it appeals to the falun gong public relations censorship wishes.

Western media quotes Li’s own story that he was spiritually cultivated at ONLY the age of four, and at twelve years of age was discovered by an actual Taoist immortal being from the mountains.

When most westerners hear that today, alarms bells are naturally ringing because that's the typical self claimed line of so many cult leaders in the past decade. It reeks of fraud and calling it a religion does not give it an excuse to censor information that its creator and leader is alive. He is no god but only self claims to have special backgrounds. He will never be a god among those who don't rely on his self claimed words alone.

He only exploits politics here to shield his legitamacy of his religion and why unlike other cult leaders who are publicly seen for who they are, he is protected by 2 things. Politics and suppression of facts.

But Wikipedia should not have political biases nor should they censor information that people deserve to know.

If Wikipedia deliberately hides or suppresses REAL information away from significance, that his RELIGION IS not ancient but created very recently by him ALONE. Then ironically you are misleading others via lies of omission.

Because you make them assume that falun gong is an actual ancient religion handed down by thousands of generations. Making its heritage older than it really is because people like myself automatically assume religions are ancient. That is deceptive.

And most importantly, it must be known that only HE claims to be chosen by an immortal being to lead man. And only HE self claims that he was spiritually cultivated at age 4, etc. The egoism and sheer amount of obvious hard to believe bibliography of this man, is deliberately censored and edited out almost immediately.

Why?

Falun gong's security of its legitimacy is based on making sure the public knows as little as possible about its background.

However they don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the world and whatever ugly inconvenient reality. If it is true, and a big deal. It must not be censored. Let the people know about its background fully and let them judge for themselves. If a cult leader claimed to be the only one to save man from aliens and was chosen by a mysterious immortal living on s remote mountain.. Censoring that info is inappropriate.

I hope when someone writes that this religion is not ancient and created by Li who is conveniently the chosen leader because he self claimed that the immortal being had blessed him, etc are not to be censored anymore. Some people influence others with political ideology or ideas. He influences others ~ (the most naive falungong practitioners) by self claiming as a religious supernatural celestial, which is wrong. Personally i know that at least half the practitioners in Sydney don't truly believe it and leave, but I sadly witness young teenagers at high school age and confused with schizotypal personalities buy li's stories fully.

But most people are not naive and Wikipedia shouldn't have to hide any of that information because the falun gong public relations team are FULLY AWARE that the whole world is not as easily gullible and hence why they have to censor because if people know all the historical facts that are reported by western media and li's own interviews. They would not be kind. 120.17.227.48 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. I think it's not about politics but facts and edits in accordance with wiki-rules. Some opinion below for your reference.


 * The Original Research has no weight in editing, even though it is quite long.
 * I read some solid and fact-independent-verifiable experts' testimonies (links provided last time by another user: 〈The Origins and Long-Term Consequences of the Communist Party’s Campaign against Falun Gong 〉and 〈European Parliament testimony〉) in the US congress and European Parliament were conducted under oath. While, an anonymous IP user ,without evidence and reasonable discourse, assert those were biased !? Maybe this could tell who is biased here.
 * A piece of recent Catholic news 〈China's 'genocide' unlike any other〉 indicated that an unprecedented persecution toward Falun Gong practitioners is ongoing in China. In fact, many authoritative sources and institutional including also recognized that. Governments much concerned and oppose the persecution.
 * We, human have learned lessons from history, One perhaps due to being mislead ,unknown resentment and hatred, one could unwittingly mis-characterize the teachings of a faith using all kinds of so-called "political correctness" labels. 2000 years ago early Christian went through this, and so did today some belief like Falun Gong in the past decades.
 * Among all the belief systems, there are always something one cannot understand, or "out of context" and distortion.
 * In the world today, so many countries and institutions discuss that CCP has been infiltrating into the free world, but there are still numerous neutral scholars' studies and mainstream institutions impartially introduced Falun Gong faith issue, as referred in the page. The Conclusion of so many neutral scholars and mainstream institutions, based on verifiable facts, shall not be outweighed. Wetrace (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * what has any of that got to do with what i said? Ironically it seems like you are just full of politics and using political reasons to censor what is NOT even original research BUT literally Li's own publication itself. It can not be more of a "reliable source" than that. Saying otherwise is just Orwellian gaslighting tbh.

I am not endorsing an attitude of hate here but instead of transparency. If Li had indeed talked about aliens, modern medicines being harmful and to be discouraged, and that he claims that he was chosen by an immoral from the mountains at the age of 12, etc via his own verified interviews and published papers. Then excuses via political motives are not justifiable as Wikipedia does not take political sides, but instead is dedicated to being an encyclopedia.

Also do not attack my character but instead my actions. If anything, it appears that the other political motives are people with sinophobia or right wing nature. A Breitbart paper writes enthusiastly about falun gong. Many neo nazi papers and known white supremacists like kkk authors are obsessed with falun gong and from my understanding, Li is as Conservative as it gets. He never was able to fully accept homosexuality as being nothing wrong and to say otherwise, is white washing his public teachings that gayness is by rightfully judged by karma.

It is no secret that hardcore racists attack Muslims for their human rights violations, not because they actually care about Muslims nor human rights but they just want to attack them. Similarly they are most adverse to admitting good things about Muslims.. Same thing with non white chinese people.

So leave politics out of this. Using political reasons to censor actual information can go both ways. If the only reason why an information os to be censored is because of political biases.. Then you shouldn't be a Wikipedia editor.

And gaslighting false reasons however is not acceptable.. Li's own self published work and his own interviews with Western media, is not original research.

They're not liess. They're significant. And people have a right to be aware of it. Censoring it only means that you are afraid of people knowing the relevant truth and that is alarming.

120.18.154.73 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @marvin 2009 um no, do tell your biased politically china hawk, Ethan Gutmann that if any Living western man today claims he can walk on water, calls himself a saviour, can heal the terminally sick, etc then most of the modern world will not call it a religion but a cult.

At least Christianity nowadays has no "living" conman and its followers are following roughly 2 millenials of sacred beliefs after human Jesus has already long died. That's a huge difference and Ethan Gutmann is a biased china hawk who you seem to be very familiar with. I only just researched him and realise this topic is less about the facts but indeed nothing more than pathetic politics. Wikipedia should not take political sides and only present facts. What you completely deleted in the Wikipedia article are Verified Facts with plenty of solid evidence to back it, such as LI's own publishings in America.

The Irony is that the Chinese government is aware of Li's supernatural self claimed life stories whilst the vast majority of the west is completely unfamiliar with it. When i first tried fg, i honestly assumed Li was just a traditional fitness and philosophy instructor. I didn't actually expect a man who actually claims supernatural powers and can teach it to others. Whilst profiting from selling his commercial materials. No wonder it is an illegal religious activity if its helping a con man profit from sheer fraud.

And fyi, those Falun Gong practitioners who have interracial children, must be real proud that their children cannot go to heaven nor can the husband and wife be eternally together in the afterlife. *sarcasm*. Bro, Its classical passive aggressive manipulative brainwashing. Ie If i was a true naive fg believer, I of course wouldn't want to ever considering marrying a woman of a different race even if i really loved her. As i will painfully think I be only be separated from her in our afterlife for eternity. That's motivational enough to shy away from race mixing.

Your explanation and author are apologists grasping at straws here and maybe you shouldn't edit Wikipedia anymore as you are clearly biased to not accept reality of falun gong and delete information in the wiki article that should never have been deleted, whilst using mental gymnastic reasons for deleting it. An example of a cult is basically Li stating he has real superpowers and for others to reject modern medicine and listen to his solutions instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.228.42 (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

120.17.101.20 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Falun Gong for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Falun Gong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Falun Gong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 09:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)