Talk:Falun Gong

Porter Masters Thesis

@TheIntrospectorsfacts you recently added significant material cited to Noah Porter from 2003. This is from his master's thesis. We don't generally treat masters' theses as being reliable sources; generally the cutoff is doctoral theses. Now Porter does have peer-reviewed work on the FLG subsequent to the thesis, which is absolutely reliable, which is why I'm starting this conversation rather than just deleting it all as unreliable. But I'm concerned you are giving undue weight to a document that is technically unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments.  Indeed care should be exercised when citing dissertations, esp. if they have not been vetted and published. According to  [WP:SCHOLARSHIP], a master dissertation is considered a reliable source if shown significant scholarly influence. In this regard, Porter’s 2003 thesis has been cited 48 times in a Google Scholar search. As for academic peer reviewing, Junker 2019 called Porter’s work an "influential MA thesis published on the topic" (p.8), and Ownby 2008 referred to it as an “excellent” ethnographic study (p.21). TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok I'll leave it in but let's try to keep inclusion to due levels since we do have better sources even from this author. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I forgot I tolerated this entry a year previously when I recently removed it. I still don't really like relying on masters theses when better sources are available. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

US Government Association, Requesting Clearer Language

Anonymous -- Somebody should add the association of Falun Gong with the CIA, NED and US government funding in clear language somewhere in this article. Without it, the article presents a plainly biased viewpoint. Presenting this organization as an organic religious movement which is persecuted in China is a propaganda narrative. What it actually is is a US-organized and US-funded anti-CCP religious movement which is persecuted in China.

Like I would suggest Is Li Hongzhi a CIA Agent? Tracing the Funding Trail Through the Friends of Falun Gong (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27212328) as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80a0:cf0:82e0:fd5d:109d:6697:c5f2 (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Falun Gong has any ties with CIA or other American organizations, moreover in the doctrine of Falun Dafa is written that is fundamental for its practitioners to avoid getting involved in political fights, or to pursue political goals. To say it clearly, Falun Dafa doesn't seek the overthrowing of the current Chinese government. You can verify by yourself reading all the book of the practice, you will find that I am right. Alessandro Lomastro (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2026

Template:Edit extended-protected In the section "Exercises", add an alt text describing Falun Gong. I don't know what should be in the alt text but I will try.

[[File:Five Exercises of Falun Dafa.jpg|thumb|alt=Falun Heavenly Circulation, Strengthening Divine Powers, Buddha Showing A Thousand Hands, Falun Standing Stance, Penetrating The Two Cosmic Extremes|The five exercises of Falun Gong]]

~2026-53171-3 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Done I added "The five exercises of Falun Gong: " at the start to provide context. Newbzy (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yanfei Sun's Book

Below is a discussion that began on the user talk page of JArthur1984, who's recent edits I reverted. I think it is best that the topic be discussed here.

Hello, I just undid your revisions on four pages related to Falungong. I can tell you put in a lot of work to go through everything in as much detail as you did, but I have strong objections to the book you used as your primary reference. Yanfei Sun, by her position at a Chinese institution, cannot be considered a reliable source on this topic. Refer to Wikipedia:Academic freedom and Wikipedia for some guidelines on how to address academic work from institutions that lack academic freedom. Mainly though, I think this falls under WP:COISOURCE because the Chinese government controls and funds Zhejiang University, where the author is based, she is restricted in her ability to report on the topic independently. If you want to pursue this further, please take it to the reliable source noticeboard. Also, rushing through a flurry of edits that sweep across so many topics makes it difficult to have a nuanced discussion on each topic. Even your edits that didn't specifically rely on this source had other issues, and there were too many to address individually. If you want to discuss this action, please bring it to the relevant talk pages. —Zujine|talk 17:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your guilty-by-association argument, despite any trace of guilt. The book has not been criticized for bias or inaccuracy. The scholarship of Yanfei Sun has not been called into question. The book itself was published by the University of Chicago Press, not by Chinese presses. If there were serious problems with her scholarship, her peers would be describing them, which has not happened.

And I note that you restored[7] the primary source faluninfo.net which leads me to believe that you are fine with this particular "obvious conflict of interest". Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's please move this discussion to a relevant talk page. I will start a topic on the Falun Gong page. Also, I did not restore any particular source. Rather, I reverted a whole collection of edits that I found fundamentally problematic. —Zujine|talk 21:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

—Zujine|talk 21:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see your edit war mass reversions across multiple pages. The logical leap that a source written by an academic at a Chinese institution automatically is a "COI" source on China-related topics is deeply sad to see, completely unfounded, and not what COI means, even a bit. The fact that you made mass reversions across multiple pages even on matters not sourced to the academic text, which is published by University of Chicago Press furthermore, shows that this is likely an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, on your part.

Imagine thinking that academics for about 1/5 of humanity could be automatically disregarded by virtue of nationality. What a shame, and fortunately, not something our rules and policies allow. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I did a bit more research on this. In the Acknowledgement section of the book, the author Yanfei Sun said Template:Xt Here is her webpage at Zhejiang University, which is funded and controlled by the Chinese government.

This is not about guilty-by-association and I am not saying that Chinese academics should all be disregarded on all topics. I'm saying that this book on this topic should not be considered reliable. Over the past 10 years, Sun’s research has been funded by the Chinese government. Her livelihood requires compliance with the Chinese government policies. Writing about Falun Gong in ways not approved by the Chinese government could result in the loss of her job, and there are numerous reports of academics and intellectuals being sent to jail for their work.

I understand the book was published by Univ. of Chicago Press. But per WP:COISOURCE, Template:Xt A 2023 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) report listed (p.15) that University of Chicago received $153,725,241.26 funding from China and Hong Kong from 2013-2022. I don’t think this can be ignored.

It’s important to also say that this stance is not an attack on Yanfei Sun or other Chinese academics. It's a statement of reality regarding academic freedom in China. Her book has five chapters on various religions in China, with only one chapter on NRM that includes Falun Gong. On other religions that have no serious conflicts with the Chinese government, the book could have less COI issues and be used as a source, though in-text attribution is strongly recommended. But regarding Falun Gong, given the well documented persecution and propaganda campaign that the CCP has been waging on the group, the COI issue of this book is too big to be used as a reliable source.

Moreover @JArthur1984, I did not engage in edit warring. I reverted you and requested dialogue. You made over 50 edits to FG pages in a couple of days without any talk page participation. Moreover, after you were reverted, in violation of the policies on this page in particular, you reverted the revert prior to engaging in conversation and without waiting. That's a major problem. And while we are discussing the topic, I suggest you revert yourself. Here is the policy, which shows up at the top of the page every time you make an edit: "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message." —Zujine|talk 15:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Nothing you have shown from Sun's professor webpage to a quote by Sun prove that she has a bias. The notional bias is inchoate; unheard, unseen and so far inactive. Dismissing her scholarship on this basis is ludicrous. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This does not support your position, at all. There is no COI issue. You are asserting guilt-by-nationality. You are not engaging with the text itself or the edits themselves, the substance of which dispels the illusory "COI" issue. You reverted tens of edits not dealing with the University of Chicago press source about which you complain. You re-added Falun Gong self-published sources, underscoring that this is a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OWNERSHIP, not the illusory COI concern. This is all rather unseemly. Please don't do it again. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Zujine that Sun's "livelihood requires compliance with the Chinese government policies. Writing about Falun Gong in ways not approved by the Chinese government could result in the loss of her job".

China ranks near the bottom of all countries in the Academic Freedom Index by Friedrich-Alexander University. According to a Scholars at Risk report,

Template:Tq2

In this report, they cited dozens of examples and case studies documenting Chinese academics being penalized for writing / commenting on something not in line with Party narratives. I highly recommend reading about the case studies in that report, especially from page 27—34.

Given the above, Sun would likely face similar consequences had her work on Falun Gong not been approved by the CCP, as Falun Gong is considered CCP's top enemy. Adding to the fact that Sun is funded by the Chinese government, her work on Falun Gong is a WP:COISOURCE. Thomas Meng (talk)

No basis exists for these ludicrous leaps of logic. There is no evidence to find that the work of this Chinese academic publishing in University of Chicago Press is "funded by the Chinese government." The detractors of this academic source have made zero effort to engage with it, or any particular edit. This text is matter of fact, discussion the suppression of Falun Gong, arrests, laogai, etc. The detractors of this source have made no effort to engage with the text itself, or indeed any particular edit. In fact, they have reverted tens of edits that don't even rely on the University of Chicago Press text they challenge. It is flabbergasting. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's astonishing how two decades of careful work by a scholar can be dismissed by some editors here based on nothing but phantoms of unproven bias. Yet they are fine with citing Falun Gong's own webpages. The bias appears to flow just one direction. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Bink, there’s no Falun Gong sources restored on this page. We are discussing Sun’s book, not Falun Gong sources here. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Od Regarding the funding source, here is what Zhejiang University’s certificate issued by the Chinese government says:

What’s more, the University is directly managed by the Communist Party of China (CPC), according to the certificate:

According to Phoenix News [1],

So, there’s no leap in logic here: Since Sun joined Zhejiang University in 2016, she has been funded by an institution managed and primarily funded by the CCP. The CCP punishes academics whose writings do not align with Party narratives. Sun writes about Falun Gong, considered the CCP’s top enemy. How can her work not be a WP:COISOURCE? Thomas Meng (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the University of Chicago Press book authored by a Chinese academic is no where near close to a COI concern. Without engaging with the actual text, you are attempting to establish a bright line rule based on author nationality. It is completely ordinary for universities, around the world, to receive government funding. And yet academic sources are a favored source on Wikipedia, not a disfavored source.

You have raised no doubt about any particular assertion in the text, or the author in particular.

Moreover, here are some evaluations of the text by notables who have, in fact, engaged with it:

Richard Madsen (sociologist): "Based on over ten years of research, including some of the best ethnographic field work I have seen done in China, this book takes a comprehensive view of the whole range of contemporary Chinese practices. It is a magnum opus, a landmark study that will be a foundation for the study of Chinese religions and the sociology of religion in general for generations to come."

David A. Palmer (whose own academic texts are throughout our topics on China and religion): "Quite frankly, this is the best book on the sociology of religion in China to have ever been published. It marks the coming of age of the field: after two decades of research and discussions by scholars, for the first time a theory has been built that is fully adapted to the Chinese reality and fits historical and contemporary cases ...."

Peter van der Veer: "This impressive book has all the makings of a modern sociological classic. For anyone who wants to understand Chinese society today, this is required reading."

John A. Hall: "This is an extraordinary book -- indeed, an instant classic -- based on years of field work ..."

This is WP:BESTSOURCES. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This does look like a COI source, given the state control. I didn't know Univ of Chicago received so much money from China. Has the content you want to include been covered by other sources? If so, using independent sources would be better. It seems the persecution has been well covered by many sources. A kind reminder of WP:ONUS. MrGerLib (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It already is an independent source. It’s a best source, an academic text published by University of Chicago Press. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

“Generally reliable” doesn’t mean reliable all the time. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Again, on other religions that have no serious conflicts with the Chinese government, the book could have less COI issues and be used as a source with in-text attribution.

I am only talking about the content on Falun Gong, which takes less than 20 pages of the book, not even a full chapter. But interestingly, you cited it 20+ times on this page and many more times on other Falun Gong pages.

Glowing reviews from a few scholar friends don’t mean much here, just as Template:Xt per WP:COISOURCE. There is no guarantee they have read every word of the Falun Gong chapter.

This is about academic freedom, not about nationality. Since you are sensitive about it, let me propose a scenario with a different nationality. Suppose University of Chicago received $150 million from Russia, then published a book by a scholar from Moscow State University. The book looks professional and innocuous overall with a few glowing reviews from the author’s scholar friends, but it has just one small chapter of 20 pages on Russia-Ukraine conflict. Would you consider it appropriate to cite this chapter with no COI concerns on Ukraine’s wikipedia page, and cite it dozens of times? —Zujine|talk 19:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This analogy is not actually analogous. To start with Falun Gong is not a state and China is not in a state of war with it. Furthermore you are persisting in trying to posit that an academic best-source should be disregarded effectively on the basis of ethnicity no matter how you dress it up. Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

If it were about academic freedom, why are you not satisfied by the positive evaluations from other Wikilinked scholars? Why would that not dispel your concern?

As @Simonm223 observes, that is not analogous. But even in that more extreme case, the University of Chicago Press book would still not be COI. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Context does indeed matter as no academic working at a PRC university would be permitted to write in a non-critical fashion about any of what the CCP's calls the "Five Poisons" (such as Falun Gong). Prior to Xi Jinping, there was space for a bit of nuance on these topics in PRC universities, but those days are long gone. - Amigao (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a "just so" story to exclude any academic that challenges American biases regarding China. No, sorry, that dog won't hunt. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly. Falun Gong, like all of the Five Poisons, are clear red lines that all academics in the PRC are keenly aware of and must navigate carefully regardless of whatever biases exist in a university outside of the PRC. Returning to the topic at hand, perhaps there are ways to deal with this using adequate WP:INTEXT attribution and proper caveats. That is probably where the focus should be. - Amigao (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

While acknowledging the author’s professional qualifications, readers should be made aware of the following:

That Professor Sun joined China's state-run Zhejiang University in  2015/2016, as part of a project to attract overseas talents titled “One Hundred Talents Project” (百人计划), the project offers “base salary, research funding, accommodation, moving subsidy, support for children’s school admission…national and provincial funding, awards, and allowances.”

In particular, under the “eligibility criteria,” applicants for the project are required to “maintain the correct political direction” (坚持正确政治方向), a phrase commonly used in official Chinese political discourse to indicate alignment with Communist Party policy.

I agree with @Amigao that adequate in-text attribution and caveat is necessary in this context. Wikipedia:Academic freedom and Wikipedia has such an example: "According to __ scholar at Moscow State University...". Following this example, I suggest this in-text attribution: "According to Yanfei Sun, a sociologist at China’s state-run Zhejiang University..." TheIntrospectorsfacts (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's probably better to indicate the source as Yanfei Sun, a sociologist from China. I wouldn't call Zhejiang University "state-run". That sounds like an awkward attempt to emphasize a particular view that may not be entirely accurate. Vacosea (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Certain editors would rather not use Chinese scholars to discuss this NRM at all. Simonm223 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Minor location-related nitpick

I got curious about Dragon Springs, after attending a Shen Yun show in the UK. I’m curious as to why it’s reported three times in the article that it’s in Deerpark, NY. The address I obtained from a manual scouring of the map in Apple Maps is 150 Galley Hill Rd, Godeffroy, NY 12729. Google Earth records it as: 150 Galley Hill Rd, Cuddebackville, NY 12729. Not sure whether this is a worthwhile, desirable or even valid edit (there may be reasons I do not comprehend for citing it as Deerpark) but there it is, for those better qualified to comment and/or act as appropriate. GeekFriday (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Each time the media describe the location of Dragon Springs in New York they say Deerpark, for instance The Guardian in the UK. If we try to ferret out something contradictory by looking at maps, we would be violating the hard policy of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)