Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Falun Gong

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
RW Cult Template.png

This Cults related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)



So... the BMJ[edit]

They published an article suggesting the organ harvesting is real. That's a real big legitimate name they put on that claim. Thing is the only source cited in the article is "The People's Tribunal" and "informal tribunal". Feel conflicted about the legitimacy of the information. Even though the article doesn't actually give you a way to track down the source, this seems to be it. The members of the tribunal seem to be legitimate human rights lawyers, for what that's worth.

So, I'm hoping for a second set of eyes. Given the severity of the charge, and the credibility of the BMJ, I wonder if it's relevant for changing the status quo of the article. Maybe not? The actual verifiable information is super perfunctory. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

About that second set of eyes? I don't want to go solo on overturning the page saying it's a conspiracy theory because I misunderstood the reliability of the source. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that section should be revised based on this report. This page confirms that the BMJ news is based on The China Tribunal. The China Tribunal's members seem well-qualified and seem to be unaffiliated with Falun Gong. Bongolian (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The China Tribunal is another front of Falungong. Several of their directors officials are connected to FLG media organs [1]--LucasGeorge (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it needs another revision based on that. It doesn't necessarily mean that the report is wrong, but it adds some doubt to its veracity based on its covert funding. @Ikanreed — Bongolian (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This is why extra eyes is so important. Having Epoch Times bylines is full on instantly discrediting for this particular issue. Like, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If they were a legitimate organization, they'd have disqualified people from directorships for it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
China Tribunal is not funded by Falun Gong, but even if it is, the evidence is rather strong. https://chinatribunal.com/final-judgment/--Noobmaster420 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

About Aliens and the Chinese Poem[edit]

Hi there, I just saw the section where you mentioned aliens. However, I actually found some sources that state that the Pentagon has a $22 million project in researching aliens. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/12/18/the-government-admits-it-studies-ufos-so-about-those-area-51-conspiracy-theories/ I think, for the sake of making this article a more credible one, we should not regard the subject about aliens as a joke, and should, therefore, take the section about “having fun” of “talking about aliens” down.

Secondly, I think we should replace the Chinese Poem’s unprofessional English interpretation with the professionally translated version from Falun Gong’s website. Since the Chinese version itself is from there as well. This will also make the web page look more reliable. --Daltonliucello (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, if you want to make the case for alien visitations being taken seriously you would probably be better of starting at Extraterrestrial rather than at the article of a religion which happens to include them along with loads of other pretty "dubious" stuff ("dubious" being the politest word which occurs to me).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Separate page on persecution[edit]

I think a separate page/section is required, instead of only criticizing Falun Gong itself. Even if they are crazy wingnuts, it does not justify their genocide. Same thing as Jehovah's Witnesses during the Holocaust. --Noobmaster420 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Really? You have no activity besides the creation of pages on The Grayzone and Qiao Collective? Do you expect us to believe that you aren't one of the Falun Gong cultists itself? Falun Gong has taken over my countries entire state department, I hate these foreign groups that the security services allow to infiltrate the United States and control our policy. American foreign policy should belong to Americans, foreigners should stop coming to America being willing pawns for the security service and attempt to influence our foreign policy and advocate war against their home countries. Every time a right wing fascist political organization loses a political struggle for control of their home nation they infest the United States and try to bring us into their problems, it's disgusting. BTW, as is typical you could not quite hide your fascist leanings, using alt-right terminology like "anti-white" in your page on the Qiao Collective.2601:140:8900:61D0:9CD5:EEA0:B42F:9A48 (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm so alt-right I made a page on Avi Yemini and condemned Grayzone for promoting alt-right people. Godwin's law at display.--Noobmaster420 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure democracy is one of the “Greatest Evils”?[edit]

I checked the seventh evil in both Google and Bing Translate, and both come out with something like “Rebelling against the heavens”. No mention of democracy in sight. I know machine translation isn’t always reliable, but if two different services don’t find democracy in that sentence, I think we have a problem. Mikwee (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't directly say that democracy is bad, but rather that theocracy is good (Everybody should follow the heavens everywhere at all times). Since this group (and other ultraconservative groups like it) have characterized modern liberal democracies as "unnatural" and "sinful," one can take it to be against democracy. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If the text only says that opposing theocracy is the evil, then wouldn't other forms of government such as oligarchy or military distactorship also be evil, and thus the interpretation "democracy, because it goes against the will of heaven" is reading too much into the text? Retiredpoopermalikged (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
No, because religion and philosophy are concerned with good vs. evil (morality). As a rule, oligarchies and dictatorships do not care. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell "the will of heaven" may refer to divination itself and not theology. The Chinese believed in a kind of general determinism as could be described with methods of divination. Fortune telling was very popular: fortune telling was common using astrology, calendars, bone-reading, five elements ("五行"), dreams, and aspects of physical objects. DocYankemPrevent Truth Decay!20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The machine translation if run directly against the Rationalwiki article translates 自主亂民 逆天叛道 as "independent mob guards apostasy". On Google Translate itself, together "自主亂民 逆天叛道" is "rebelling against the sky", but separately 自主亂民 is "autonomous people" and 逆天叛道 is "rebellious". An English translation of Li Hongzhi, which I assume is more authoritative than machine translations, states here that the translation is "Acting on one’s own decisions, deranging the masses—Against heaven, betraying Dao." I personally think "against democracy" is kind of a bit too strong considering that they seemingly are allied with pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, but they also are strongly aligned with the democracy erosion engaged by Trump and other far right parties in Europe via their Epoch Times mouthpiece. Pro-authoritarian-lite in Western Europe / US but anti-authoritarian-China-style-"communism". That's honestly... quite messy. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
They can be very much against democracy and still decide that working with pro-democracy groups is strategically useful, at least for the moment. I don't see why "against democracy" is putting it too strongly. Political alliances are often not about ideology-Flandres (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that the focus of the text is really rebelliousness, against the Dao. I know that Dao is often translated as "the way," and that in the Daodejing it is defined very vaguely, but it comes across as quite transcendent. While Falun Gong may believe that there is a form of government that is in accordance with the Dao (I don't know if they actually have such a belief. The group's political ambitions, or lack thereof, are as obscured to me as they appear to be to the rest of you.), it seems to me that 自主亂民 逆天叛道 would encompass more than simply "Democracy." Retiredpoopermalikged (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I found the English translation of Hong Yin here. Noting that #7 states "Acting on one’s own decisions, deranging the masses— Against heaven, betraying Dao.", I don't know how to interpret the first part. I have updated our translations to more closely resemble that reference. I do find it hard to find information about those ten evils, leading me to think it might not be the most important tenet in Falun Gong, though it is certainly an interesting one. FYI I know nothing about Falun Gong other than what I have learnt today. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: #7, I can't count

Why are we using The Grayzone as a source?[edit]

I noticed that in the fifth paragraph of this section, The Grayzone was used as a source. I put a "dubious" tag next to the problematic sentence. I don't think it's reliable and it should be removed! What do you all think? LongStylus (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of The Grayzone as a dubious source, and have removed it from the article. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 12:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! LongStylus (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC)I'd just like to ask LongStylus to use the preview buttom. You've made more than 50 edits on this article. That's a bit annoying IMO. GeeJayK (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
As for sources, well, I started a discussion on RW:CS about them. I'd be happy if you guys could check it. GeeJayK (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, GeeJayK. I'll try to be less trigger-happy with the Edit button from now on. It does make scrolling through the Fossil record a pain in the butt, so it wasn't a good idea. I've checked out your discussion and left a comment. LongStylus (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)