![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
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".
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
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
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.
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)
Xinhua News Agency, the official news organization of the Communist Party, declared that Falun Gong is "opposed to the Communist Party of China and the central government, preaches idealism, theism and feudal superstition." Xinhua also asserted that "the so-called 'truth, kindness and forbearance' principle preached by [Falun Gong] has nothing in common with the socialist ethical and cultural progress we are striving to achieve", and argued that it was necessary to crush Falun Gong to preserve the "vanguard role and purity" of the Communist Party.
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Unicornblood2018 (talk) 11:13, 3 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)
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)
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 :
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.)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Mavigogun (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Mavigogun (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
is alternatively known as a cultsounds 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 scholarswith 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)
is alternatively known as a cultin 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.
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)
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)
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.
120.18.48.193 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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?😕
<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>
<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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)