Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong

Persecution vs Suppression

Was raised as an issue on the Falun Gong talk page Talk:Falun_Gong on 1 March 2015. There was no debate and it is now in Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_39. In addition to Persecution of Falun Gong being the more commonly used term (as mentioned in March), the definition of suppress is not clear when applied to FG. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suppress has 7 meanings of which a number could apply. Definition of persecute - to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation. This seems to be appropriate for FG. But I think discussion should be transferred to main FG talk page as it affects many articles with FG information, including articles about Chinese politicians. Suppression has been replaced in many articles with persecution. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They can be used interchangeably in the article body. Just like practitioner/adherent/devotee, etc. It's really not a big deal.—Zujine|talk 13:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To me there is a big difference between them which is why I raised it as a topic both here and on the main talk page. I've seen a banner with 1 million killed on it. Falun Gong from China know how many of their FG friends have gone missing, which to me indicates organ harvesting may only be responsible for a small proportion of FG killed.

So far I've met 2 FG who don't know how many times they were arrested in put in jail. This seems to be the most common form of persecution. One had an electric baton used on her face, but was fortunate to have enough money to pay a bribe and got out. Her sister didn't have enough money to pay a bribe and suffered more. The other FG who told me about what happened to her spent 9 months in a labour camp working 14 hours a day 7 days a week eating food we would throw out and only cold showers. She was kept awake for long periods. An attractive young FG woman I know seems to be too traumatized by her experience in China to want to talk about it. I can recommend asking a few FG from China what happened to them in China. Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Purgatoryoflife (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Ok so really Aaabbb11, how come all I have seen in all my years living in China and all those people around me has seen is the fact that people who practice FG tend to die of diseases that could have being cured. and it's not a persecution, it's a ban on an unscientific teaching made by a man with no valid proof of anything that he teaches. So letting people live a lie is the right thing to do? I believe this page needs some edit, same with the FG page. Just to reiterate, when people that you love gets some disease and refuse the proper treatment then dies because they practiced FG, you would want a ban as wellPurgatoryoflife (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be that FG practices are not healthy or sensible, but that does not account for the extreme reaction to FG by the Chinese government. China has exported the persecution of FG members to other countries, with Chinese secret police abducting FG members (Who initially came to the US as students and became illegal residents) in California, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.214.5 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

"The Flourishing of Religion in Post-Mao China and the Anthropological Category of Religion" from Andrew Kipnis was published in 2001, and not in 1979, as the article states it. Change the date of this reference from "1979" to "2001" 137.50.170.247 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No Chinese Rationale

I've noticed that the "Rationale" subsection of "Statewide Persecution" does not list any sources from China itself or its foreign offices which have covered this subject intensively. The Chinese government and the CCP has stated their rationale for banning Falun Gong multiple times to many different countries, however, the "Rationale" section does not include ANY of these translated Chinese sources. For starters a something should be added that states:

"The Chinese government and the CCP have stated that the persecution against Falun Gong is justified because the group denounces the use of science, denounces the ability of any government to rule, promotes the leader Li Hongzi to a messianic and infallible figure, and organizes its followers against the Chinese state apparatus."

This might be a bit condensed, but it reflects the accurate sentiment of the Chinese Communist Party on why Falun Gong is undergoing persecution. At the moment, the rationale listed in the subsection is something guessed at by "foreign observers". The "Rationale" subsection should contain the rationale of the Chinese Communist Party as they themselves state it and not the guesses of "foreign observers". There are multiple sources to back up the aforementioned statement as well, all sites are the official Chinese embassy websites for a variety of countries:

Though some of these pages are older, Falun Gong was outlawed in 1999 and the rationale presented in these articles is likely the same rationale used to ban the group and is likely the continuing framework that the Chinese Communist Party uses to justify its persecution.

Cincinnatin (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Cincinnatin: The reason for not including the Chinese Communist Party’s rationale is that its sources are generally unreliable as they are state-sanctioned and WP:QUESTIONED sources. In the case of persecution, they are designed specifically to demonize and eradicate Falun Gong. For example, China scholars Daniel Wright and Joseph Fewsmith wrote 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",

Fewsmith, Joseph and Daniel B. Wright. "The promise of the Revolution: stories of fulfilment and struggle in China", 2003, Rowman and Littlefield. p. 156

This is why the Falun Gong related Wikipedia articles do not use CCP biased sources,but use reliable third-party findings for references.--Thomas Meng (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of wiki is to give information, it's ok to quote Hitler in an article about Nazi policies and viewpoints, how is this any different? Quoting CCP sources isn't suggesting they are right, it is just showing what they say and leaves space for what response has been made on those statements.Czarnibog (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Czarnibog: Yes, but wiki is not a place to disseminate demonizing propaganda WP: SOAP. The persecution of Falun Gong is different from the Holocaust in the way that the Holocaust is already over and universally condemned, and that its lies have been thoroughly exposed, while the persecution of Falun Gong is still ongoing and the CCP's propaganda still deceives people. So, putting this CCP propaganda here will only give credit to its false narratives and in turn lend support to the ongoing human rights atrocities that it commits.

Also, WP: IS recommends independent findings. So we should keep them.--Thomas M. (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to use the words The Chinese Communist Party Claims and summarize or paraphrase, surely there are third party statements out there. Refusing to even infer what CCP claims is a form of propaganda that puts Falun Gong in a strange position among fringe religious movements of being validated on exempt from any form of criticism. We don't have to justify any of the persecution to be free of bias, but outright refusing to cover part of the issue is extreme lack of impartial reporting.

Czarnibog (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Czarnibog: I understand your concern. Actually, the statewide persecution section covers this. It quotes Jiang's own words and clearly states the real reason why Jiang launched the persecution based on Jiang's own letter. It says: "On the night of 25 April 1999, then-Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin issued a letter indicating his desire to see Falun Gong defeated. The letter expressed alarm at Falun Gong's popularity, particularly among Communist Party members.[33]".

So this covers the CCP rationale, stated by Jiang himself.

But for the rationale that user Cincinnatin proposed, I think it fits in the category of "demonizing propaganda" that multiple scholars have already identified, which only serves as a coverup for the real rationale behind the persecution.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How about no? Wikipedia is not a validating source for pro-genocide propaganda. We don't validate claims that the Armenian genocide never happened, We don't validate claims that the Holocaust never happened and I fail to see why we should validate China's claims either. The sources you mention are state media, are WP:QUESTIONED and are arguably primary sources. RedAlert 007 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Proper image to include in Background section for letting readers know what Falun Gong is.

Toronto Falun Gong practitioners meditating

@Binksternet: In your edit here, you deleted a photo in the Background section that has Falun Gong practitioners meditating in it (image on the right) , saying that it's irrelevant to the persecution.

But keep in mind that it's the Background section wherein it introduces what Falun Gong is to unfamiliar readers. The first sentence of this section says: "Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a form of spiritual qigong practice that involves meditation, energy exercises, and a moral philosophy..." So it would be good to include this image as it will help readers know what Falun Gong meditation/energy exercise looks like.--Thomas Meng (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The photo is rah-rah cheerleading stuff, a blatant promotion of Falun Gong. (See, it's so beautiful. Why would anybody persecute these nice people.) I have nothing against meditation and health exercise, but I definitely have something against right-wing political forces masquerading as a religion and dumbing down the world with pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Those are all your opinions. Also, the photo had been here for a long time before you deleted it. Can you point to the policy that it violates? Do you have a better proposal? You can't just list your own biased, personal, and political opinions to justify editing the page. Please respond with something substantive so that we can continue the discussion --Thomas Meng (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:Neutral point of view has a bearing on the matter, in keeping the article to a neutral narrative. WP:Conflict of interest comes into play with pro-Falun Gong editors adding promotional text and images. WP:PEACOCK is about promotional words but I think images can be just as promotional. The gist of PEACOCK can be seen at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, which says we should not be trying to promote a cause or advertise for an organization. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: So you've accused me of having a COI. Consider this: for the Nazi's persecution of the Jews, would you say that I have COI issues simply because I positively describe Jewish people? Or, for the article that I'm editing now, Ni Yulan, a human rights lawyer persecuted in China, would you say that I'm promoting her because her image on the page is beautiful?

By saying that I'm "promoting" Falun Gong only because adherents in the picture are good-looking, you suggest that only ugly and uneducated people practice Falun Gong. This is false. According to David Ownby's study, there are roughly 77% of adherents holding at least a university degree in Toronto (image on the right), Montreal, and Boston. Also, Ownby says: "Chinese practitioners include many engineers, scientists, computer programmers, accountants, and professors."

And "right-wing political forces" definitely won't gain as much all-party parliamentary&congressional support as Falun Gong does.

Overall, I think your source of information aligns too much with the communist propaganda. It might be very helpful for you to do a comprehensive research on what Falun Gong actually is using reliable sourcesnot influenced by the Communist regime's propaganda.--Thomas Meng (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

My wife and I got a good laugh at the idea that I was purposely helping the Chinese Communist Party. Thanks for that moment of hilarity.

I was not accusing you of adding a promotional photo showing people meditating. Other editors have done that. The first I could find was this photo added by Devives in January 2015.

You are putting false words into my mouth. I never said anything about photos having to show "ugly and uneducated people". But I am certainly of the opinion that beautiful photos are not appropriate in any article about persecution. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet:I never said, nor implied, that you "purposely helped" the regime. I only said that your sources of information are potentially in line with the regime's propaganda. This is according to a quote from a congressional testimony that states:​​​​ "...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".

Both the image on the right (added by me) and the image added by Devives in 2015 show Falun Gong adherents doing FLG excercises. So your COI accusation did seem to direct at me as well. But this accusation is based on your own bias, as shown in your sarcasm: "See, it's so beautiful. Why would anybody persecute these nice people"  It's not a good idea to label users departing from your view as having a COI. 

As I've said before, this kind of images is not promoting anything. It's only a plain and descriptive image informing readers what FLG practitioners do.

Also, in addition to your bias, you said that you "definitely have something against..." This indicates a clear anti-FLG cause. But it violates WP:SOAP , which states that one should not try to promote any cause on wiki, as you've also noted above. With a bias and an anti-FLG cause, it is not a surprise that you consider any nonnegative description or photo of this persecuted group a "promotion". However, biases and agendas do not justify the deletion of this photo.--Thomas Meng (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

You are quoting "a congressional testimony" which is really just anti-Communist think tank lobbyist Sarah Cook talking to Congress on her own initiative. It's not an official position taken by the US Congress.

My involvement here is not because of Falun Gong getting persecuted by China. Of course that's a horrific problem, but I feel it's primarily a Chinese one. As an American, I am responding instead to Falun Gong's pseudoscientific beliefs which are making the world more stupid, and Falun Gong's clumsy intrusion into American politics, pushing a far-right agenda and clinging to Trump as their champion.

The photo is promotional. It helps Falun Gong gain sympathetic thoughts. This article is not about helping one side or the other in a persecution situation. Do we feature beautiful photos of happy Chinese communists? No. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet:In my previous post here, I pointed to the issue of you casting aspersions on the FLG belief itself, rather than doing a comprehensive research of it based on facts and prominent scholarship. Also, you are clearly pushing your own POV on the subject matter, and we know that wiki is not a Soapbox WP:SOAP.

Whether or not this photo evokes readers' sympathy is up to their own perception and it’s a completely irrelevant issue. What is relevant here is whether we've presented accurate information by adding this photo, which seems like we did (as suggested by the FLG demographics and my RS's above). 

Besides, I’m a bit puzzled as to why you are so concerned with readers feeling sympathy toward Falun Gong upon looking at the photo. It seems like you want the article to be such that it would make readers feel antipathy toward FLG since you bear some kind of personal grudge against it.--Thomas Meng (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 

Neutrality is not the same as antipathy. Neutrality is what we're aiming for here. No promotional photos, please, not of Falun Gong and not of Chinese Communists. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

...Which brings up another issue: Why does the "Background" section explain the Falun Gong's position but not the Chinese government's position? Further down in the article there's a section called "Rationale" but this material could be introduced alongside the Falun Gong position to form the background to the conflict. The current layout is clearly not neutral, as it gives the Falun Gong a platform to tell its story. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: It's not promotional, because it conforms to plain facts and accurately describes FLG.

For your second topic, please refer to my points made in the section above this one. If you want, we can discuss it there.--Thomas Meng (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No promo photos. Just no. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I have provided sufficient evidence proving how this is not a promotional photo, while you have provided none. Here are two more press releases from both the democratic and republican party officials, which further prove that FLG is peaceful and have all-party support. I do not want to waste anymore time replying to your POV advocacy. Please keep in mind that it is not accepted behavior according to WP policies.--Thomas Meng (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

What is the relevance of American politicians to the question of whether we should have beautiful photos of Chinese communists or Falun Gong meditations? Not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• With all due respect, including this image to Background section would not do any harm. It simply show how the practitioners look like. Yes, the image is not related to US politics, and it should not be. Let's not consider everything from the angle of US politics. By the same token, it would be fine to provide image of communists (and even an image of "happy communists" or an image of communist propaganda) on a page about communists. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition, this photo is not propaganda. Propaganda images are different. For example, first image in section "Propaganda" of this page is indeed a Chinese propaganda poster, but it is just fine on the page. On the other hand, not having the image for Background section is not really a big deal. Having such long discussion of this minor issue between two participants is remarkable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Truthfulness" as a moral principle

This edit by Thomas Meng re-introduces the disputed idea that Falun Gong teaches "a set of moral principles—truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance—that guide practitioners' daily lives." It's not neutral for Wikipedia to parrot this material as if it were objectively true.

Falun Gong teaches that people can levitate, that qigong can cure a disease, that aliens designed our airplanes and computers, that aliens are promoting the mixing of the human races as part of a plan to overtake humankind.[1] None of this nonsense is remotely truthful. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: First of all, my addition is supported by two high-quality sources: 1. a U.S. democrat senator's office 2. Scholar Benjamin Penny. Also, WP:NPOV states that we should represent reliable sources. So, unless you prove that the democrat senator and scholar Benjamin Penny are unreliable, we should not remove their depiction of FLG.

Secondly, your concern is addressed by scholar of religious studies, David Ownby here in his interview at Rice University. 

Ownby says:  "In my reading of what other people have said about Li Hongzhi [Falun Gong's teacher] they are very quick to single out strange remarks that he has made and to make fun of him … too often I feel that the journalists who have done this, or the scholars who have done this, have done this at the expense of careful analysis."

“Modern journalists...find all the discussion [in Falun Gong] about being good to be irrelevant because it’s boring. So they focus  on something else...But when you read Li Hongzhi’s writings, when you talk to Falun Gong practitioners, over and over and over again they come back to the notion of being good … there is a great pleasure in being able to devote oneself to being good.”

Ownby's quote indicates that Falun Gong's moral principles and para-scientific teachings are not mutually exclusive: adherents of Falun Gong can be truthful in their daily lives (not knowingly lie) while having whatever belief in parascience they want.--Thomas Meng (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We cannot simply repeat the Falun Gong teachings as if they were objectively true. We can describe them in terms of scholarly evaluation, for instance Dr Heather Kavan of Massey University who writes in 2008 that the Falun Gong are "evasive" when talking about their beliefs to outsiders, and are instructed to lie to non-believers ("tell them that we're just doing exercises." —Li 2002) Kavan writes that Falun Gong spokespeople use their slogan, "truthfulness, compassion, forbearance", as an evasion, to ward off any deeper investigations. Kavan also says that Li instructs his followers to use stories of persecution as a tool to gain sympathy with the listener, with the unstated goal of recruiting them. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Cite: Kavan, H. (2008). "Falun Gong in the media: What can we believe?". Power and Place: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference. (pp. 1 - 23).

a U.S. democrat senator's office Right, because in the US, politicians are authorities on religion. Oh, wait. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Good point. I will list some other research by religious studies experts below. Note that I use the democrat senator's press in part as a supplementary response to Binksternet's POV accusation on FLG (he accuses FLG of being a "right-wing political force") in the talk page section above.--Thomas Meng (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's not like a politician would ever say nice things about one group of people to score points with them, nor would any American politician ever have a reason to demonize the Chinese government, right? Nevermind that Leahy was just repeating FLG's claims verbatim with no critical examination nor really the relevant academic background. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And upon further reflection, what functioning society is not going to at least pay lipservice to the idea of honesty? Even hierarchies founded upon lies are going to tell those on the bottom to not lie to them. Some groups (particularly religions) might explain what exceptions are permissible (whether to protect secrets or lives) in ways that even their own members are uncomfortable with, but these are generally the exceptions.
Every religion (with perhaps the exception of some deliberately anti-mainstream fringe and elitist sect) is going to at least not contradict its background society's standards on honesty -- if not exceed them. Indeed, many religions regard Truth an sich as at least an aspect (if not identical to) the Divine -- a fact that our core articles on other religions (much less spin-off articles) either don't mention, barely hint at, or give the briefest and most understated mention possible. It is almost a given that any religion will view itself as true (or at least "true enough") -- the only distinction is to what extent a religion will see other religions as compatibly true. Thus mentioning truthfulness in this article is completely WP:UNDUE. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson: Since WP:WEIGHT, in this case, is about how extensively FLG's moral principles are covered in RS's, and to what significance do RS's regard FLG's core principles as authentic and legitimate in practice (in FLG adherents' daily lives), we should rather focus on RS coverage instead of comparison with other religions.

Also, just a side note: your comparison of FLG to other religions in terms of hierchichal structure is quite different from the views presented in  this Australian government report. It seems, according to this report, that FLG has very little and informal organizational structure with no hierarchy whatsoever.--Thomas Meng (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That you think I was talking about hierarchy in FLG indicates that you didn't understand my post. Let me be clearer: almost any system of thought is going to say "yeah, be truthful" (so that's not unique, and articles about groups that worship the very concept of Truth as divinity itself do not blather on about truthfulness in the articles on them, much in less tangential spinoff articles. That is what I mean when I say that bringing up truthfulness is undue. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ian thomson: This may be right in those other religions that you refer to, and they might not emphasize those moral values since they focus on other things in their teachings. But in the case of Falun Gong, the weight reliable sources and Falun Gong itself give to its core moral principles truthfulness-compassion-tolerance make it a distinct aspect of Falun Gong that differs from those other religions.

Groups that worship the very concept of Truth as divinity itself do not blather on about truthfulnnes in their articles may be due to the lack of RS coverage and the lack of coverage in their own teachings. But in articles regarding Falun Gong, becuase of the immense emphasis given upon truthfulness-compassion-tolerance, it makes it an inherent part when describing what FLG is in the Background section. The seven reliable sources below all prove this point.

I'm sorry for the late reply, since initially I thought that my point goes back to WP:WEIGHT, so I intended to not reiterate. But apparently not, as WP:WEIGHT is intended to prove Kavan's viewpoint not worthy to include, while my point above is about the emphasis on truthfulness-compassion-tolerance given by FLG texts and RS coverage. Those two are slightly different. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The key issue here, is wether Binksternet's deletion [2][3]of the RS sourced content explaning FLG's  moral principles were justified or not. Kavan's words alone don't justify. In fact, Kavan's view is not even sufficient for inclusion due to its lack of weight WP:UNDUE:

In most notable scholarly researches regarding FLG, researchers often expound on FLG's core moral principles—truth-compassion-tolerance, and none of them share Kaven's view. Here I will list some of the most prominent examples. 

1. Professor Benjamin Penny's book:  "Falun Gong cultivation adherence to the code of truth, compassion, and forbearance is not just regarded as the right and responsible course of action for practitioners;it is an essential part of the cultivation process. " 

2. Professor David Ownby's book: "Falun Gong is profoundly moral. The very structure of the universe, according to Li Hongzhi, is made of of the moral qualities that cultivators are enjoined to practise in their own lives: truth, compassion and forbearance." 

Ownby even emphasizes that it's in part because of those moral principles that so many people practice FLG.

Here are some other books by award-winning journalists that also explained FLG's core moral principles and most certainly do not share Kavan's view.

1. Wild Grass: Three Stories of Change in Modern China By Ian Johnson, a WSJ journalist who won the pulitzer-prize for his reporting on FLG. 

2. Falun Gong’s Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or “Evil Cult”? By Danny Schechter, former journalist, who possesses a Nieman Fellowship in Journalism at Harvard University. 

Overall, Kavan's view is indeed very rare, and it directly contracdicts the findings of other prominent scholars.--Thomas Meng (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 

Unless those sources say that FLG is being persecuted because of truthfulness, what does it have to do with the Persecution of Falun Gong? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Interestingly, scholarly sources actually do say that Falun Gong is persecuted because of truthfulness (and compassion, and forbearance)! Well, sort of. Here's an example from Oxford University professor Vivienne Shue:

"The challenge posed by popular religious beliefs and practices like those of Falun Gong cuts right to the heart of the Chinese state’s own logic of legitimation….[Falun Gong’s teachings] stand in the profoundest possible opposition to the present political order. They assail the ethical truths on which the entire political construct is meant to rest. However peacefully they practice their meditation exercises and however much they may regard “politics” as being beneath them, those swept up in the Falun Gong phenomenon never had a chance of remaining “apolitical” in China. With its slogan, “Zhen, Shan, Ren” (真, 善, 忍) – “Truth, Goodness, and Forbearance” – Falun Gong makes almost a perfect counter-hegemony. Truth! – but not the state’s narrow empiricist truths. Goodness! –but not the state’s dubious versions of benevolence. Forbearance! – but not the state’s vulgarly assertive “wealth and power” concept of what it means to attain transcendent glory. Precisely because Falun Gong does represent such an absolute challenge – a challenge to the very foundations of the state’s authority and legitimacy – government officials insist on complete extermination of the threat." (Shue, Vivienne. “Legitimacy Crisis in China?” in Gries and Rosen eds. State and Society in Twenty-first Century China: Crisis, Contention, and Legitimation. (Routledge, 2005)</ref>.

And another from The Communist Party's own Xinhua news agency, explaining the basis for the persecutory campaign:

"The so-called ‘truth, kindness and tolerance’ principle preached by Li Hongzhi has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve." (Xinhua News Agency, quoted in Renee Schoof, “China Detains Government Officials from Banned Meditation Group,” Associated Press, July 26, 1999)

And another academic source:

"At the heart of Falun Gong’s moral philosophy are the tenets Zhen, Shan, Ren (truth, compassion, and forbearance), which represent the fundamental nature of the universe—the ultimate manifestation of the Buddha Law, or the Dao. This force represents the divine ground of being: it is the source of order in the universe, animating and giving rise to all things. The cosmos itself, and all that is contained in it, are thought to embody this quality of Zhen Shan Ren. Whereas Voegelin’s gnostic believes that the order of being is corrupt and must be overthrown, Falun Gong holds that it is inherently just and benevolent. Not only that, but the purpose of human life, and the means of salvation, lies in assimilating oneself to this divine nature and relinquishing the self. In Falun Gong’s core text Zhuan Falun, Li writes “This characteristic, Zhen Shan Ren, is the criterion for measuring good and bad in the universe… No matter how the human moral standard changes, this characteristic of the universe remains unchanged, and it is the sole criterion that distinguishes good people from bad people.” In other words, Falun Gong maintains there is an immutable and unchanging truth that exists independent of human experience, society, and culture. The CCP rejects the notion of a moral law standing above mankind. Instead, truth can only be grasped through social practice. As Mao Zedong wrote in 1963, “Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice and from it alone. They come from three kinds of social practice: the struggle for production, the class struggle, and scientific experiment.” In this respect, Falun Gong’s teachings are at best irrelevant, if not downright subversive, insofar as they suggest that the party is subject to judgement by a higher authority."("Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought," Lee Trepanier Ed. (Lexington Books 2020).

So yes, a description of what Falun Gong is, and how its theology led to it being persecuted, is absolutely relevant.TheBlueCanoe 23:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe worth highlighting: "stand in the profoundest possible opposition to the present political order", "The CCP rejects the notion of a moral law standing above mankind", "insofar as they suggest that the party is subject to judgement by a higher authority". These appear to explain that the clashes are political, rather than being because of a general teaching of peace, truthfullness, honesty, that are golden rules and ethics ideals for many other groups (BTW, I was raised in a group that constantly calls itself "the truth"; while it's acceptable for the related article to say that they do, it would be inappropriate for it to say that they have the ultimate truth they claim). —PaleoNeonate – 19:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you have to say Well, sort of because that's not actually why they're being persecuted. As PaleoNeonate points out, the CCP just doesn't like for any other group to claim to have a higher standard of truth than the CCP -- they're not persecuting FLG just because they claim to believe in truthfulness. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

According to TBC's sources, the higher standard of truth held by FLG that you are refering to is in fact FLG's moral principles—truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. TBC's third source states that: "Falun Gong maintains there is an immutable and unchanging truth that exists independent of human experience, society, and culture. The CCP rejects the notion of a moral law standing above mankind." The "unchanging truth" this source refers to is FLG's moral law that FLG maintains as the sole criterion judging good from bad.

PaleoNeonate says that the clashes are political, rather than being because of a general teaching of peace, truthfullness, honesty. However, according to the TBC's first source, it is exatly those moral principles that have been politicized by the CCP. The source says: "However peacefully they practice their meditation exercises and however much they may regard “politics” as being beneath them, those swept up in the Falun Gong phenomenon never had a chance of remaining 'apolitical' in China. With its slogan, “Zhen, Shan, Ren” (真, 善, 忍) – “Truth, Goodness, and Forbearance” – Falun Gong makes almost a perfect counter-hegemony."

So, mentioning FLG's tenets is absolutely relevant, especially when it also serves as a description of FLG in the lead and Background section.--Thomas Meng (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, you're just showing that the CCP doesn't like for anyone to claim to have a higher truth standard than them. This is why they go after Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Christian house churches, other political parties... This is why the Shaolin temple has been reduced to a mere circus act. Falun Gong isn't special, as much as they imagine themselves to be. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your comment above doesn't seem like an objection to adding FLG's tenets. Since this article is concerning FLG, not other religions, and reliable sources have given such a due weight to these principles and their relevance to the persecution, it is proper for us to include in this article.--Thomas Meng (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thomas Meng: Is this the discussion you were claiming the consensus related to the Kavan piece came from? I don’t see a consensus here, let alone the clear consensus which supported your edit at Li Hongzhi you claimed existed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not seeing any further objections to my comments conerning Kavan's view's lack of weight as well as the relevance of FLG's tenets to the persecution. So I assume that we've reached a consensus as of now.--Thomas Meng (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, this is all tl;dr for me, but if there is no consensus, then one could very easily frame it as a question for an RfC: should "..." from such and such book be included to the page? End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the reliability of James R. Lewis

I would like to connect some dots and investigate the legitimacy of Lewis's claims when it comes matters related to FLG and the Chinese Communist regime.

In this link, it shows that James Lewis is a professor at Wuhan University in China [4], and Wuhan University is under the leadership of (Communist) Party Committee secretaries [5].

What does this entail? It makes clear the agenda of Lewis’ narrative: his perspective must align with that of the Chinese Communist regime's, otherwise he would not have been able hold any position at Wuhan Univeristy, due to the Communist Party’s persecution and mass propaganda campaign[6], as well as the party's leadership of that University. These facts make Lewis's claims unreliable and our reference to him a violation of WP:SOAP.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we are talking about James R. Lewis (scholar), unquestionably a scholar. His paper that we cite was published in 2017 by the scholarly Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, regarding "Li Hongzhi's Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater".[7]

I can see why you would want to undercut Lewis, his conclusions are very much in contradiction to the way Falun Gong prefers to be portrayed.

Heather Kavan describes how Falun Gong adherents try to separate an individual scholar from the larger field of scholarship, as a way to dismiss their work. In "Friendly Fire"[8] she describes how practitioners write "disparaging articles" "denigrating scholars" who reveal negative aspects of the Falun Gong. She says that the Falun Gong tries to "isolate opponents" (scholars) from their "pillars of support" in order to weaken their arguments. You are engaging in this tactic right now. You are being disruptive; you are violating the guideline Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources.

But let's talk about Lewis anyway.

• Lewis co-edited the book, Controversial New Religions, published by Oxford University Press in 2005. His co-editor was Jesper Aagaard Petersen, associate professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The book contains an introduction written by Lewis and Petersen, and it has writings from prominent scholars on the topic of new religions. This proves emphatically that Lewis is accepted as a scholar on the topic, and that he is connected to the field of scholarship on the topic.
• Lewis wrote the book, Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom ISBN 9781108564557, published by Cambridge University in 2018. The book is cited in Michael Jerryson's Religious Violence Today ISBN 9781440859915, published by ABC-CLIO in 2020.
• Lewis co-wrote with Margo Kitts the paper "Suicide, Martyrdom and Violence", published in 2018 in the scholarly Journal of Religion and Violence.[9]

... and there's more work by Lewis showing that he is a peer-reviewed scholar, a respected scholar who is accepted in the community of new religion scholars. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the fact that Lewis is a scholar, and there probably are many other scholars who are also utilized by the Chinese Communist regime in its demonization compaign against FLG, just as how a lot of well-trained journalists are used in the regime's media propaganda campaign (i.e. state-run media, as presented in the freedom house report above). I'm only pointing to the fact that Lewis does not belong to a neutral party, but to the persecuting party that disseminates demonizing propaganda, which is not proper to include in wikipedia.

Lewis should be treated no differently than any other CCP scholar (interestingly, he co-authored an anti-FLG book with another scholar at Wuhan U, with a narrative completely standing with the regime's persecution). So, my scrutiny of his predetermined narrative is justified. Also, please stop putting labels on others and start focusing on the logicallity of my argument.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Baloney. Your argument is based on you making up your own criteria for scholarship. If you show me that other scholars challenge the work Lewis then we have something. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Most valid criticism of Lewis that I've seen seemed to be about his positive portrayal of controversial movements... —PaleoNeonate – 03:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I agree. As User:My very best wishes pointed out below, Lewis has shown support for the Japanese cult (while criticizing Falun Gong), which adds on to the claim that he may not be a proper source to use on WP. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My comment was to suggest that by that assessment, his criticism of any group is likely to be watered down rather than undue, I was not saying that his material should be considered unreliable for that... —PaleoNeonate – 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Quickly looking, it seems that James Lewis is extremely supportive (if not apologetic) of all religious groups, just as in the case of Aum Shinrikyo, with only one notable exception, and that is Falun Gong. Which possibly makes him right about Falun Gong, but I have no idea as not an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, he is apparently a scholar. However, his support of Aum Shinrikyo that organized the famous Tokyo subway sarin attack gives me a pause. According to this, for example, J. Gordon Melton, one of the NRM specialists involved, shortlyafterwards concluded that Aum had in fact been involved in the attack and other crimes. Lewis, however, ... went so far as to publish an article that suggested that the Aum affair was “Japan’s Waco,”... In suggesting that Aum had been framed, Lewis outlined his hypothesis that it “was being made to play the role of scapegoat for the incompetence of the authorities at the highest levels of the Japanese government.". Therefore, I would not recommend using his views for sourcing anywhere in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's old news: two decades old. The 1995 paper, "Japan's Waco", was rightly criticized. Lewis hurt himself with regard to respect of his peers, and he learned from it. His subsequent scholarship has beem much more circumspect and meticulous. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Nice to see you again. Recently I've compiled some academic sources explaining Falun Gong's teachings. They all seem to contradict the Lewis-cited sentence in the background section. But let's first put that aside. The Lewis-cited sentence currently says that FLG practitioners are "instructed to lie" about their practice. Is there a specific sentence in the source saying this? Thomas Meng (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Our article's wording "instructed to deflect from fact" is a summary of Lewis, not a direct quote.

Lewis writes in his book, Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom, that FG adherents have been "whitewashing Li Hongzhi's teachings by cherry-picking his moderate remarks rather than discussing his more radical views." He writes that Li "discourages his followers from discussing Falun Gong's inner teachings. Instead, practitioners are instructed to tell 'ordinary people' a simple, moralistic story about how an 'innocent' spiritual group that is 'just doing exercises' is being persecuted by the 'evil' Chinese government." Lewis describes how this is an intentionally false representation.

Lewis says in the ColomboArts piece (" “I am the only one propagating true Dharma”: Li Hongzhi’s Self-Presentation as Buddha and Greater", 2017) that Li Hongzhi directed certain facts to be hidden:

Additionally, the rapid proliferation of Falun Gong websites and other online information supporting Falun Gong helped shape international opinion about the conflict. However, it should be realized that, with Li Hongzhi’s encouragement, practitioners intentionally left out certain essential information about the movement that paint a very different picture of Falun Gong and its conflict with the People’s Republic of China.

Later in the paper, Lewis says "Falun Gong supporters tone down the more radical aspects of Li Hongzhi’s teachings by selectively quoting from his public statements."

Lewis writes in his book, The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Terrorism, that FG adherents are forbidden to discuss Li's claims to be divine, and his strange teachings about aliens plotting to take over the earth, the moon being hollow, that demons in human form "should be killed", etc. Lewis quotes Heather Kavan who writes that, because of Li's censorship of his own earlier teachings, "...practitioners are left unable to explain why Falun Gong is illegal in China. Unable to say that Falun Gong was banned because Li's divine claims and other unusual teachings were considered to be a threat to public safety, and his ability to mobilise large numbers of protesters was a political threat, they tell reporters that they are 'mystified' by the ban."

Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Binksternet:, I just want to discuss a few things with you in response. One is that we can look at some facts when presented with such contrasting views from Wuhan U’s Lewis vs the Western scholars mentioned.

It is a fact that Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured, electrocuted, killed for their organs, etc. under the hands of the Chinese Communist regime; it is a fact that the regime has committed genocide against Uyghur Muslims and other Chinese dissidents; it is also a fact that the regime has always used demonizing propaganda in its persecution campaigns. Meanwhile, there has never been a single case where Falun Gong practitioners ever resorted to violent means in their civil disobedience or protest. This comparison tells us a lot about the role Wuhan U’s Lewis plays and how we should weigh his views vs the Western scholars’.

Another things I believe is that, just like Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, etc (all persecuted in China today) no matter how peaceful the spirtual practice is or how it teaches people to be kind, there’s always going to be certain parts that are incomprehensible by non-believers, and such parts can always be ridiculed from the secular point of view. But according to Lewis’s logic, it seems rather that Falun Gong practitioners should be telling non-practitioners these incomprehensible parts when explaining why they’re persecuted by the Chinese regime. That logic sounds strange to me. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are going with all that. I thought we established very strongly that Lewis is a valid scholarly source. You appear to be challenging Lewis's scholarship through an argument that you formulated yourself, a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The second part is my own reasoning. The first part is essentially trying to say since we have many Western academic sources saying the opposite of what Lewis said, and taking into consideration the fact that Lewis is playing the same role as Dr Joseph Goebbels in demonizing the victims, we should lean toward the Western scholar's research instead. This conforms with WP:WEIGHT and human decency. Thomas Meng (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)