Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Falun Gong

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

About organ harvesting[edit]

Some pro-Falun Gong media claim that CCP has conducted some live harvest operations without anesthesia. For example, this news report in The Epoch Times: (archived version: )

"This includes the testimony of a former paramilitary police officer, who said he witnessed a live harvest operation conducted without anesthesia, and that of a former health care worker in Jinan."

Also this report from a website of Falun Gong itself: (archived version: )

However, it seems that it is very unlikely to do such a surgery without the use of anesthesia:

It seems that it is very hard, if not impossible, to conduct such a surgery without the use of anesthesia

-- (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been evidence for organ harvesting. ( There are some counter arguments against them in the same page (, but it got "debunked".( I put airquotes because it probably has a pro Falun Gong bias. Also, I think the The Grayzone is not a good source and we have enough. PS don't use Epoch Times/NTD --Noobmaster420 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Number of practitioners[edit]

crossposting this from wikipedia where I was banned for criticising The Master.

There are no credible sources for numbering in the millions. Persecuted minorities often claim far larger numbers in order to assert the validity of their claims. The only vaguely credible report is from a Chinese defected spy who worked in China's Australian diplomatic mission. The Senate inquiry reported that Chen Yonglin stated there were 60 000 practitioners in China which is less than 0.1% of the currently stated figure that is promoted by The Epoch Times, a falun gong run publication.[1]

  • The Falun Gong is a self-described spiritual movement that blends aspects of Taoism, Buddhism, and the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi. There are estimated to have been at least 2.1 million adherents of Falun Gong before the Government's harsh crackdown on the group beginning in 1999. There are reliable estimates that hundreds of thousands of citizens still practice Falun Gong privately." [2]
  • "Falun Gong is a self-described spiritual discipline that is Buddhist in nature. Falun Gong combines the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline) with the teachings of its founder Li Hongzhi. Prior to the Government's 1999 ban on Falun Gong, it estimated that there were 70 million adherents; the Government subsequently adjusted the number of adherents to approximately 2 million. Falun Gong sources estimate that tens of millions continue to practice privately."[3]
  • "Falun Gong sources estimated that since 1999 at least 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been sentenced to prison, more than 100,000 practitioners had been sentenced to RTL, and almost 3,000 had died from torture while in custody. Some foreign observers estimated that Falun Gong adherents constituted at least half of the 250,000 officially recorded inmates in RTL camps, while Falun Gong sources overseas placed the number even higher."[4]

Li Hongzhi claimed 70 million adherents, the 1999 investigation into Falungong by the CCP identified 2.3 million practising FalunGong according to Zong Hairen in 2002. [6]

various other sources state 70 million as the CCP official figure as of 1999 but the source of this figure is unclear. [7] [8] [9]

In an interview with Time Magazine Hongzhi claimed 100 million but rounded it down to a conservative 60 million as an 'official' 'CCP figure.' [10] His ability to conduct this census may be because he possesses the psychic ability to perform remote viewing.[11]

I admit however that i am not spiritually enlightened which is possibly why i am so attached to the meaning of numbers which take different forms in different dimensions so The Truth will not be revealed to me due to my being possessed by demons which seek to confuse me.[12] Perhaps i need to chant The Masters name some more.:65

So there are estimates of between 60 thousand and 70 million with the higher estimates giving no source but it's likely to be activists. the 60 thousand estimate gives the name of a defected Chinese government operative who has been confirmed to have been a consulate official. he stated in his testimony that he was a member of 601 and working as an analyst he would have access to restricted documents. He affirms that he believes falun gong to be a peaceful organisation and argues that he did all that he could to protect practitioners. 60 000 members in china is the number that should be used. There are 90 000 clandestine organ transplants from falun gong practitioners every year.[13] If this sounds inconsistent it's simply because you're not enlightened enough to understand the multi-dimensional consciousness of Glorious Leader. (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


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. (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. 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)