Talk:Falun Gong/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

This is an archived discussion page. DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. Please go to the main talk page and join the discussion there.

Archived discussion:

Contents

Starting Over, take two

This page has rampant repetition. Several paragraphs are repeated. Needs to be unlocked and fixed.

  • 1. I applaud whoever froze this page. It was the right thing to do.
  • 2. Over the weekend, there were a series of incremental edits done by FG practitioners and others which had the effect of massively re-writing and re-organizing the article. Dilip was part of that effort, but others were as well.
  • 3. In response to this major attack, I gathered together all the "critical sections" on the FG as quickly as I could because I could see that through clever systematic editing they would all be gone or obscured by new writing here and there. I also asked for mediation.
  • 4. I agree with Dilip that the "Awards and Recognitions" section was deleted, but it was not deleted by either me or Samuel. In order to have a basis for an organizational discussion, I ask everyone to check out the version of the article as of Fire Star's 6:12 25 April edit:
  • [1]
  • You'll see that at that point the Critics and controversial teachings section had 7 sub categories, the last one of which was Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards & recognitions. You will notice that Fire Star had put in a link in the Awards and recognitions section to the corresponding Critics and controversial teachings section.
  • 5. In my opinion, the only way we are going to resolve some of these contentious issues is to adopt an approach similar to the splitting of sections on the issue of FG awards and recognitions.
  • 6. As an over-all strategy, I propose that we first try to reach some agreement on structure, by which I mean what sections and sub-sections we will have. Once we've reached agreement, we should all be bound by that structure. In other words, no arbitrary deletion of any sections or major re-arrangements without extensive discussion on these pages.
  • 7. Once we've agreed to an over-all structure (and again I propose that we consider splitting the article) some high level administrator should be prepared to step in again and freeze the article, as was just done.
  • What say the rest of you?

--Tomananda 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment It all sounds so complicated, Tomananda! I feel I need to take a breather and do some meditative exercise; but the existing schools and systems are all so alien, so outré! :D Etaonsh 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree that the editing the last few days was crazy. There were more people chiming in than just the regulars, and they were making seemingly random reversions and edits that muddied the already turbulent waters, which is why I requested the protection. We can propose an outline here and discuss towards a consensus of what we want in the main article and the spinoffs. If we can find neutral enough language for the facts in unequivocal public prominence, then I think we can get a good, intellectually interesting article out of this, neither puff-piece advertising or condemnatory. We just want people to know more about FLG, whether that makes them sign up for it or avoid it is up to them. --Fire Star 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. CovenantD 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Fire Star. What about we request a fair policeman here to watch every change. For me, I don't even know who is to ask to freeze the page. I applaud the page is protected now. So, next, should we discuss section by section? For example, I have a question. Why the image of the self-immolation is deleted? It was originally provided by Chinese news agency Xinhua, not FLG, ok? (but later on I heard the Xinhua edited that part). You know they are often careless or lazy to research the teachings when they slander FLG. :) Last time, one graduate student of Chongqing univresity was raped [2], the school denied she is a student and deleted her major from the online catalog on their website, but they forgot deleting the Word version. They don't know there is a webarchive.org. Sigh! I think we may need really smart people here to tell what is true and what is false. Thanks! Fnhddzs 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
We have to be the fair policemen here. People who can forgo our own biases to forge a consensus. If we do get an outside mediator (which is a possibility) we will add weeks to the process. I'd like to ask people to sign on who are willing to agree to disagree and just argue technical points of the prose in the article, put a pound sign # before your name and it will number you like this:
  1. --Fire Star 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fnhddzs, we should agree on a structure for the article before we start talking about individual sections or photos. Before that, we have to get people to agree to how we're going to discuss it. CovenantD 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV

There is a bias towards Falun Gong which has developed naturally in the article as a result of the fact that most people interested in the subject are involved in it - but this is not NPOV. It isn't sufficient to know FLG philosophy, and the fact that the CCP thinks it's evil - the reader needs to know why it comes to that conclusion. Yes, I know, a child could work it out, once knowing of the basic egalitarian philosophy of Communism, and having gleaned the ways in which FLG seems to go against that from the Talk page. But it needs to be explained up front. Whole Western parliaments have been deceived by over-simplifications regarding this movement, which would not be any more legal in those countries, in view of its swaggering breach of apolitical limitations, than it is in China. The vast dimensions of the problem, the worldwide problem of the inability of law enforcement agencies to contain law-breakers, and China's residual Third World backwardness arguably need mention here. None of which is to condone illegal acts by government against individuals involved. Etaonsh 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We can report the reasons for persecution that others have promulgated, but we can't come to any conclusions ourselves, because of No original research. The communists also suppress other religious organisations, too, so perhaps there is some documentation about that to compare with FLG? --Fire Star 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed - but unlike generations of biased reporters, perhaps we need to draw attention also to the distinction between religious organisation which meets with government approval, and that which doesn't, while not forgetting that such a distinction is ubiquitous, even here in the West. Etaonsh 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree most of your part. If you ask why CCP banned Falun Gong, an article on The Epoch Times seems to answer some (On the Collusion of Jiang Zemin and the Chinese Communist Party to Persecute Falun Gong). But, IMHO, can I ask you why Hitler killed Jewish people? Why Christians were killed by Romans in earlier times (sorry my memory could be wrong on this, correct me for the details)? We should not let such whys put more bias in our mind. Fnhddzs 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Bias is to allow the act of killing/persecution to obscure the rights and wrongs of the matter. Good ideologies/religions commit bad acts; bad people also get persecuted. Etaonsh 22:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand what you mean, Etaonsh. That is why I propose a section covering "benefits claimed from practitioners" to see why practitioners think it is good. We can not support anything just because it is persecuted, right? Only good things cannot be persecuted. (Hi, can I write in your board? If not, I can move to a new section.)Fnhddzs 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I rethink about this. Who you mean by "bad people"? Who you mean by "good people"? I think normal people should not be persecuted. Even criminals have human rights. Fnhddzs 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hitler killed Jews because he truly believed in a master race and used the American eugenics movement (the idea of preventing so-called degenerates from reproducing) as a basis. The teachings of Li Hongzhi are very much in the tradition of the eugenics movement. I'm not saying he is a Nazi because of that, but some of the thinking about race, homosexuality, etc. is practically identical. --Tomananda 22:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. In links from Fnhddzs and search engines it becomes apparent that British and American legislatures have seemingly voted in favour of Falun Gong and against the CCP in this conflict. Not only is this important and relevant information, but it also seems vital to research into their actual debates prior to voting to ascertain their level(s) of awareness of the facts you state above. Etaonsh 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, Etaonsh. You deleted my replies on this question to muffle the discussion. Now you raised it again. You are rude. I will repost my replies back. Fnhddzs 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, Fnhddzs. I didn't delete anything. False accusations are pernicious. Etaonsh 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • YOu are a liar. You deleted my stuff regarding the interracial children in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive7#Replies_from_Fnhddzs

and I had to repost to my section. Now I repost part of them here to refresh. Alright. repost my replies to Tomananda here since Etaonsh deleted my post in 'his' section. :) Fnhddzs Tomananda. You cannot say something like this. Did Master Li kill anybody as Hitler does? He does not have bias on anybody. He may just point out something that may really be true in a probably higher standard. In a higher standard, all humans have sins according to Jesus. But does that mean Jesus have hatred on humans? .... Fnhddzs 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC) We can check the history also. Fnhddzs 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If this is what you mean? or delete my piece? Sorry I don't quite get your meaning. Please go to [3] for my replies. Thanks. Fnhddzs 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article in the appropriate place.

So you want it on the bottom again? Sorry honey, I just can't do that, you mean more than that to me. Etaonsh 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Outline of Sections

Let's start with this outline from 6:12 25 April as a base:[4]

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Financial and business aspects of FG
  • 3. Theoretical background
  • 4. Teachings of Falun Dafa
  • Culivation of Truthfullness, Compassion & Endurance
  • Qi Gong and Gong
  • 5.Cultivation of mind and body
  • Thoery of disease
  • Attitude toward mainstream healthcare
  • Research into health claims
  • 6. Awards and recognitions
  • 7. Critics and controversial teachings
  • Difference between Falun Gong and Qi gong
  • Li as savior or supernatural entity
  • Demons
  • Enlightenment
  • Falun Gong and sexual orientation
  • Claims about averting catastrophes and preventing the explosion of the universe
  • Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 8. Ethics
  • 9. Chinese government crackdown
  • The media war
  • The Tiananment Square self-immolation incident
  • Allegations of organ harvesting
  • 10. Foreign views on Falun Gong
  • Is Falun Gong a cult?
  • Falun Gong presence overseas
  • Protests against President Hu U.S. visit
  • 11. Reference
  • 12 External links
  • Falun Gong sites
  • Critical sites
  • Other sites

Here’s one suggestion on splitting the article with 2 new pages separate from the home page:

  • New Page #1: Category 7 above “Critics and controversial teachings”
  • New Page #2 Category 9 and 10 above, combined into one page.

The advantage of this approach is that moves to separate pages material which is most apt to grow over time. And as new information comes in, there will be the most controversy for editing within those topics. What remains in complete form on the home page would be the stuff which (although still controversial) might wind up being the most stable. Hence when/if there is another revert war, it would be contained in one section.

Also, I don’t mind moving some of the sub-sections into different chapter headings. For example I would be ok with moving “Demons” to Category 5 and “Awards and recognitions” to category 10. --71.198.77.89 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Can you reformat the outline? It's showing up as a block of text which makes it difficult (for me at least) to follow. CovenantD 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So much better. Thank you. I suggest we start simpler than that.

What should come first?

  • Teachings or Origin CovenantD 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Origins--Tomananda 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with CovenantD. If we want to let people know what it is, it is a good idea to let itself talk about itself, even briefly. People could look up another article [5] for details. Origins is ok to me too.
Comment If Demons moved to Category 5, it sounds a part of cultivation instead of in critics? I am confused on this.
I agree with 71.198.77.89 to split new pages for the time-growing things such as Category 9 and 10. But before actions, I think we may wait other editors about at least hours (due to time difference) to finalize. Thanks. Fnhddzs 22:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My goal is to allow at least a day for voting and comments, maybe longer if it looks like one day isn't long enough. CovenantD 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
At least a day is needed, but we need to discuss more than just the first item. And we also need to be sure to hear from 3 editors who have been working on this article for a long time: Fire Star, Olaf and Miborovsky. Concerning my suggestion on moving Demons, I said that only because Dilip has added so much Falun Gong context to that section that it no longer seems to belong in the Critical section. Actually, Dilip did more than that...he deleted my modest two or three sentences (inluding a Li quote) all together. I reinstated my copy as the first paragraph, however. But it's clear we have been working at cross purposes. The practitioners want this article to read like a Falun Gong instruction manual rather than an encylopedia article--Tomananda 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It was I who rewrote the section. The section is called "demons", yet what was written didn't explain Falun Gong's concept of demons at all. Your quote was too heavily weighted and no context of how this fits into Falun Gong's concept of demons was given. No explanation why was given. It was clear that rather than trying to provide a summary of Falun Gong's concept of demons you were trying to present one phenomenon in a way that might make the reader think negatively of Falun Gong. I rewrote the section to accurately represent Falun Gong's teachings on demons. Your quote is not central to Falun Gong's belief of demons. We can't just put things into this article just because we think they are interesting or because they may influence others to share our opinion. Mcconn 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
However long it takes :) My apprehension in doing more than one or two things at a time is that it will get bogged down and so confusing that we can't be sure who agreed to what. 'But', in the spirit of working towards a goal, I'm fine with Demons being in both Teachings and Critics, allowing both sides to present SHORT synopes (sp?). If they get too large, they get spun off into their own articles. CovenantD 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree! We should wait long enough. I found your comments in the first paragraph, Tomananda, "Li Hongzhi, in his books and lectures, claims that his methods are superior to those of any other qigong school." Is it? I need citation. Here is a Falun Gong book website which writes "It differs fundamentally from all other practices and has eight major distinguishing characteristics." [6] But your comments seems a bit different from that to me. Maybe now it is not time to discuss details. But since you talked first. Fnhddzs 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was Fire Star, and he/she (I try not to assume) is looking up suitable references. One is needed for the Falun Gong teachings article, too. CovenantD 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


A simpler outline here:

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings
  • 2.1 Falun Dafa
  • 2.2 Falun Gong exercises
  • 2.3 Cultivation practice
  • 3. Controversial Teachings of Falun Gong
  • 3.1 Falun Gong and healing
  • 3.2 Li as a savior or supernatural entity
  • 3.3 Claims to historical influence
  • 3.4 Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 3.5 Ethics
  • 3.6 Falun Gong and sexual orientation
  • 3.7 Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong
  • 4. Faun Gong Organization
  • 4.1 Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong
  • 5. Government crackdown
  • 5.1 The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
  • 6. Falun Gong and US—China relations
  • 6.1 Allegations of organ harvesting
  • 6.2 April 2006 state visit protests
  • 7. Foreign views on Falun Gong
  • 7.1 Is Falun Gong a cult?
  • 7.2 Falun Gong presence overseas
  • 8. References
  • 9. External links
  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites

More topics can be added to section 4 and 5. Also, instead of pictures, links should be used, people complainded about the excess use of Falun Gong pictures. What do you guys and ladies think? --Samuel Luo 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Don't get me wrong - I love the basic numbering, but I can't support something that has the subcatagories yet. My reason is that we need to decide what's going to be large enough to have it's own article with just a link and a summary here. I think Teachings and Controversial will both fit into that classification and if we approve the subcatagories too soon we'll end up with the same huge unwieldy thing that existed before. So how about this one?

A simpler, 'simpler' outline here:

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings
Main article: Falun Gong teachings
  • summary
  • 3. Controversial teachings of Falun Gong
Main article: Controversial teachings of Falun Gong
  • summary
  • 4. Faun Gong Organization
  • 5. Chinese Government crackdown
Main article: Chinese Government crackdown of Falun Gong
  • summary
  • 6. Falun Gong and US—China relations
  • 7. Foreign views on Falun Gong
  • 8. References
  • 9. External links
  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites

We can decide subsections later, cause I think it's going to be it's own debate -um, discussion :) If others think that links and summaries are appropriate for other sections, I'll agree to that too. CovenantD 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I think a title as Falun Gong presence overseas is better than category 6. This is English wikipedia, not a U.S. version. Who cares about US-sino relation here. Also category 7 could be combined with Falun Gong presence overseas somehow. I have no clear idea yet.
  • a few images could be inserted. for example the little girl and the self-immolation. The self-immolation is orgined by Xinhua agency. It is factual, neutral. Never the suicide image which contradicts to Falun Gong teachings. The mistakes made by somebody ignoring Falun Gong teachings while slandering it should NOT be made here.
  • The article is in a bad shape. We should not wait too long and let it be there too long. Fnhddzs 02:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Controversial teachings of Falun Gong" should be a separate page, so is the crackdown of the Falun Gong. Firestar, can you create the "Controversial teachings of Falun Gong" page now? --Samuel Luo 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the page in question should be titled "Critics and Controversial Teachings" or "Criticism and Controversial Teachings." But overall, I'm happy with the broad outline of major categories presented above. I also agree with Covenant's proposed break-out pages:

  • Falun Gong Teachings (and practices?)
  • Criticism and Controversial Teachings
  • Chinese government crackdown

With the title changes I am proposing for these three big topics, I think we would have a wealth of material for each, thereby justifying splitting these three topics to other pages.--Tomananda 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I agree something could be done with category #6 and #7. I really like "Falun Gong and US - China relations" as a separate topic, but I am not sure it needs to be a separate section. Here's a proposal for a combined section:

6. Falun Gong and international issues:

  • Foreign views on Falun Gong
  • Falun Gong and US-China relations
  • Falun Gong's political agenda

--Tomananda 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just some first impressions: 1. I oppose the title "Falun Gong organisation", because it's misleading. Falun Gong is more like a network of voluntary practitioners. Practitioners are not members of an organisation, nor do they take orders from superior officials. 2. Falun Gong's "political agenda" is also an exaggeration and definitely not a NPOV: the only thing we've wanted is basic human rights for the Chinese people and acknowledgement of CCP's crimes. Cultivators do not seek political power. 3. Another issue is that this rearrangement was supposed to clarify the most important teachings of Falun Gong; naming the third chapter "Controversial teachings of Falun Gong" sounds like a bad idea. 4. Where did the chapter "Theoretical background" go? It was really good. 5. Allegations of organ harvesting doesn't belong under China-U.S. relations 6. "Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions" as a subtitle is not a neutral wording. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A simpler outline here:

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings
  • 2.1 Falun Dafa
  • 2.2 Falun Gong exercises
  • 2.3 Cultivation practice
  • 3. Controversial Teachings of Falun Gong
  • 3.1 Falun Gong and healing
  • 3.2 Li as a savior or supernatural entity
  • 3.3 Claims to historical influence
  • 3.4 Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 3.5 Ethics
  • 3.6 Falun Gong and sexual orientation
  • 3.7 Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong
  • 4. Faun Gong Organization
  • 4.1 Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong
  • 5. Government crackdown
  • 5.1 The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
  • 6. Falun Gong and US—China relations
  • 6.1 Allegations of organ harvesting
  • 6.2 April 2006 state visit protests
  • 7. Foreign views on Falun Gong
  • 7.1 Is Falun Gong a cult?
  • 7.2 Falun Gong presence overseas
  • 8. References
  • 9. External links
  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites

More topics can be added to section 4 and 5. Also, instead of pictures, links should be used, people complainded about the excess use of Falun Gong pictures. What do you guys and ladies think? --Samuel Luo 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Don't get me wrong - I love the basic numbering, but I can't support something that has the subcatagories yet. My reason is that we need to decide what's going to be large enough to have it's own article with just a link and a summary here. I think Teachings and Controversial will both fit into that classification and if we approve the subcatagories too soon we'll end up with the same huge unwieldy thing that existed before. So how about this one?

A simpler, 'simpler' outline here:

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings
Main article: Falun Gong teachings
  • summary
  • 3. Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong
Main article: Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong
  • summary
  • 4. Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance
Main article: Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance
  • summary
  • 5. Falun Gong Organization
  • 6. Chinese Government crackdown
Main article: Chinese Government crackdown of Falun Gong
  • summary
  • 7. Falun Gong outside of China
Main article: Falun Gong outside of China
  • summary
  • 8. References
  • 9. External links
  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites

We can decide subsections later, cause I think it's going to be it's own debate -um, discussion :) If others think that links and summaries are appropriate for other sections, I'll agree to that too. CovenantD 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I think a title as Falun Gong presence overseas is better than category 6. This is English wikipedia, not a U.S. version. Who cares about US-sino relation here. Also category 7 could be combined with Falun Gong presence overseas somehow. I have no clear idea yet.
  • a few images could be inserted. for example the little girl and the self-immolation. The self-immolation is orgined by Xinhua agency. It is factual, neutral. Never the suicide image which contradicts to Falun Gong teachings. The mistakes made by somebody ignoring Falun Gong teachings while slandering it should NOT be made here.
  • The article is in a bad shape. We should not wait too long and let it be there too long. Fnhddzs 02:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Controversial teachings of Falun Gong" should be a separate page, so is the crackdown of the Falun Gong. Firestar, can you create the "Controversial teachings of Falun Gong" page now? --Samuel Luo 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the page in question should be titled "Critics and Controversial Teachings" or "Criticism and Controversial Teachings." But overall, I'm happy with the broad outline of major categories presented above. I also agree with Covenant's proposed break-out pages:

  • Falun Gong Teachings (and practices?)
  • Criticism and Controversial Teachings
  • Chinese government crackdown

With the title changes I am proposing for these three big topics, I think we would have a wealth of material for each, thereby justifying splitting these three topics to other pages.--Tomananda 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I agree something could be done with category #6 and #7. I really like "Falun Gong and US - China relations" as a separate topic, but I am not sure it needs to be a separate section. Here's a proposal for a combined section:

6. Falun Gong and international issues:

  • Foreign views on Falun Gong
  • Falun Gong and US-China relations
  • Falun Gong's political agenda

--Tomananda 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I'm gonna go with Controversies about Teachings of Falun Gong, just to keep it focused. I've made the change to my proposed outline above. I think If we throw the word Critics or Criticism in then that might open it up to any form of criticism. The International title still needs some work, also to keep it focused, but I don't have any ideas yet. CovenantD 04:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a page call "controversy and criticism" many topics can fit into this heading. --Samuel Luo 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We cannot limit the break-out page to just teachings. The topic "Controversy and criticism" is already used elsewhere in Wikipedia. See for example the Scientology site: [7] --71.198.77.89 05:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CovenantD. I think it's a better title, it will contain the same information, yet will be less inviting to senseless criticism. Tomanda, I don't think your proposed #6 is necessary. Falun Gong doesn't have a political agenda, that's your own POV. Maybe your referring to Falun Gong's reaction to the persecution, but this is already contained within Chinese Government Crackdown I believe. I think the proposed outline, as of my post, is good. However, where do awards and recognition go in this? Isn't it sort of the converse of Controversies about Teaching of Falun Gong? If so, then it should be given equal weight on the page, i.e. its own section. If this is agreed then I suggest its place be after or before Falun Gong organization. Also, I suggest using the word persecution rather than crackdown in "Chinese government crackdown". The term "crackdown" refers to the beginning, which was the start of the "persecution". If we are going to talk about the whole thing, referring to things from 1999 to present, then we should use the word "persecution". Mcconn 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Persecution is a rather loaded word. May I suggest "suppression" instead? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have mentioned that I 'disagree' the section of US-China relationship. Falun Gong is present over sixty countries. A lot of countries: Canada, Norway, Ireland helped to rescue Falun Gong practitioners in China. In my personal view, they seem to do better than U.S. A U.S. citizen Falun Gong practitioner Charles Li was in prison in China for three years.
  • I 'agree' that we should have an equal-weight page for awards and recognition as for critics and controversaries. Thinking about those many Falun Gong practitioners in China who would rather risk their lives than give up Falun Gong. There is enough reason that Falun Gong is worth doing. There is plenty to write in that article. If agree, who could start that article?
  • It is not exaggerating to use the word persecution considering the seven years, unspeakable terror. Even Genocide is not exaggerating. In China, people got prize if you report somebody practicing Falun Gong to the police. Police got promoted if they convert a practitioner to give up, no matter what means they use. Not to mention the organs were cut and sold finally. Sigh. If somebody wish their bad deeds be beautified, just please do not do it. Now that it happened, please do not deny it. If we want to stand neutral, we have to face the reality.
  • I diagree the section of Falun Gong's political agenda. Falun Gong claimed it has no political agenda (I can find citation).
  • I propose to add back 'Falun Gong's presense overseas' instead of Category 6 and 7.
  • 5. Falun Gong in China
Main article: Falun Gong in China
  • summary

Fnhddzs 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes to the equal weight idea on the "Award and recognitions" and the critical section. And with that example, it's clear we have to have a broader page title than just "controversial teachings" as someone else pointed out above. It could be "Criticism and controversial teachings" or just "Contoversy and criticism" as is used in the Scientology article.--71.198.77.89 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    changed Fnhddzs 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We don't need a seperate page for Awards and Recognition yet. At present this section isn't that long. If it becomes much longer than perhaps we can do a summary/seperate page. We also don't need to say "about Falun Gong". I don't think it's correct English and it's fine to just say "Awards and Recognition" Mcconn 08:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the sub-chapters don't even exist yet, so I think we can wait on the "Falun Gong and US-China relations" topic (although I think it would be extremely interesting and informative). Also, the same for "Falun Gong's political agenda" -- it can wait, since it's not written yet and maybe some other title would work.--71.198.77.89 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    oppose strongly. US-China relations are not correlated much with Falun Gong. And do you mean to forge political agendas for Falun Gong? Cultivation Practice is Not Politics No Politics Fnhddzs 08:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Miborovsky that "Chinese government suppression of Falun Gong" works. The word "suppression" is very broad and is frequently used in the political/social sense.--71.198.77.89 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it could also be good. Fnhddzs 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am ok with changing the main topic heading to "Falun Gong presence overseas"

--71.198.77.89 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Fnhddzs 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, everybody, I've read the comments left overnight and incorporated them into my Simpler, simpler outline at the top of this section. Check it out now.

I've given Awards and Recognitions it's own section with a Critics subheading. If it get too large, it can be spun off. I think that Awards and their associated Critics should be kept together, unlike Teachings and Controversies about teachings which are both large enough for their own articles. The goal is to keep the sections focused and balanced. I'm keeping the Falun Gong organisation for now. Not having leaders or membership is a form of organizing, just not a formal one. I've combined the two sections following Chinese Government crackdown into one called Falun Gong outside of China. For geographic reasons, I don't like the Overseas. You could get from China to France without going overseas so the word just isn't accurate. Given the scope, I think it too will need it's own breakaway article. Let me know what you think of it now. CovenantD 14:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, guys. Thanks for your hard working. I agree most part of outline of CovenantD, except I propose Category 5 is changed to 'Falun Gong in China'. Considering China has both phases before the crackdown and after crackdown. Also this looks symmetric with Category 6. How do you think? Fnhddzs 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

71.106.174.113

Just so you people know, 71.106.174.113 (trace ip) got 24 hours from me for his grossly uncivil and thoroughly despicable behaviour. Not sure how much use it would be, but it's something. That was WAY over the line. I'm not about to dignify him with showdiff links, I think it'd be best if nobody sees it. Too bad I get get rid of edits completely, it's beyond my level. If you see anyone resembling him or having his edit patterns, notify me (or Fire Star, or any other admin) immediately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh to Samuel Luo, I reverted along with those edits one of yours which was in response to his/hers. Since nothing constructive was said in his/her original edits I think there is no loss. Apologies nevertheless. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet #1: 164.67.59.37 (trace ip). As I suspected, I'm now on the list albeit with a misspelt name. 24 hours. One was probably done at home (Verizon) and the other at work/school. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

Hi Everybody, I agree with most of the changes. What about a seperate page on "The History and Origins of Falun Gong" ?

"Falun Gong Organization" is a title on something non-existant. I will talk about it as a practitioner. There is nothing more to Falun Gong that doing the exercises and cultivation of one's heart-nature ( xinxing) and doing the exercises. There isnt even any need to go to any practice site. I taught myself the exercises using videos on the wesbite and the books and I do the exercises early morning, and study the books. There is not even a practice- group where I live. I intent to point out that is all there is to Falun Gong practice.

The book Falun Gong States[8]:

"When propagating Dafa and teaching the exercises, no Falun Dafa disciple is allowed to collect a fee or accept any gifts. Anyone who violates this rule is no longer a Falun Dafa disciple."

"All local Falun Dafa Assistance Centers are civic organizations for genuine cultivation practice, are only for organizing and assisting cultivation activities, and are neither to be run as economic enterprises nor managed using the methods of administrative organizations. No money or possessions are to be kept. No activities are to be held for healing illnesses. Assistance Centers are to be managed in a loose manner"

"The assistants should cherish Falun Dafa, be enthusiastic to work for it, and be willing to serve others voluntarily. They should take initiative to organize exercise sessions for practitioners"

"The assistants should teach the exercises to others voluntarily. Collecting a fee or accepting gifts is forbidden. Practitioners should not seek fame or profit, but merit and virtue"

Dilip rajeev 14:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, I appreciate your input and your enthusiasm for what you believe in. However, I disagree with you on this one. A decision to forego leaders and membership lists is a form or organization, albeit not a formal one. Even the quote you supplied uses the word organizing. That aspect needs to be covered to some extent. CovenantD 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I just had some concerns on the way the title is phrased in the present version. On second thought, taking into consideration what you've pointed out, I feel the section is necessary. Dilip rajeev 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong teachings summary

Since I don't see any opposition to the 'link and summary' idea for this section, maybe somebody can start working on a summary and submit it here for discussion.

Some points to remember as you write this:

  • It need to be from a neutral point of view.
  • It should summarize the article on Falun Gong teachings, not reproduce it word for word. KEEP IT SHORT!!
  • Long blockquotes are inappropriate for a summary.
  • There wil be a separate article on Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong so none of that need be in the summary on Teachings.

-- CovenantD 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start working on a summary of the teachings right now. It's late where I am though, so if I don't finish it quickly, you may not see it for a few hours. Mcconn 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, I have some suggestions. What is our goal of this article? I remember you said we want people to learn more Falun Gong. But I think we'd better put something like: "Welcome to our wikipedia Falun Gong article, written by volunters from the world. We hope that you will find this article helpful learning about Falun Gong. All of the content in this site – excepting the founder's writings – represents the ideas and opinions of editors and should not be taken as representative of Falun Dafa itself." I borrowed this sentence mostly from [9] I think it takes too much responsibility to give a definition or summary of Falun Gong to our limited knowledge. I feel better with this sentence as an umbrella. How you guys think? Fnhddzs 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
um, no. That disclaimer is part of Wikipedia already - it's not exclusive to this article at all. We start with that sort of thing here and it has to on all 1 million+ articles on Wikipedia. CovenantD 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is my summary of the teachings. I didn’t know how long or short to make it. I believe that this is quite concise and only touches upon the very fundamentals of the practice.

The foundation of Falun Dafa are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that the "Buddha Law", in its highest manifestation, can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness (or Truth), Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Endurance)'. These are also believed to be the characteristics of the universe. Through adherence to these principles, Falun Dafa is practiced by improving one’s xinxing (heart nature) within daily life. Selfishness, fame, anger, jealousy, and all other mentalities at odds with the characteristics of the universe must be gradually relinquished while maintaining an ordinary life in society. In Falun Gong practice this is called cultivation. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍. It is emphasized that only through repeated study and application of the teachings of Falun Gong can a person acquire a good understanding of their content.

Mcconn 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Have at it, guys and gals. Just so everybody knows, I'm going to stay out of the substance of the summary and only look at formatting, grammar, size (which looks really good), links and the like. CovenantD 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I slightly altered the statement on attachments. Mcconn 11:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Practitioners Cannot Dictate the Stucture

The above discussion about Awards and recognitions is between several practitioners and so its not surprising that you would conclude among yourselves that the "Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions" section should be subsumed into the main page on Falun Gong rather than be part of a break-out page on Criticism and controversial teachings. This is not acceptable and will immediately provoke another revert war. If you look back at the revert war we just got through you'll see that Dilip or other practitioners continually deleted existing critical content from this very section and that's what will happen again.

If you expect the editors who are critical of Falun Gong to respect your editing whenever possibe you must respect ours. The Wikipedia policy is to assume good will. The organizational decisions we are now dealing with are meant to prevent future revert wars, not encourage them. Here's a revised, simplifed structure:

A simpler, 'simpler' outline here:

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings

Main article: Falun Gong teachings

summary

  • 3. Critisism and controversial teachings of Falun Gong

Main article: Criticism and controversial teachings of Falun Gong summary

  • 4. Awards and Recognitions
  • link to Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 5. Falun Gong Organization
  • 6. Chinese Government crackdown

Main article: Chinese Government crackdown of Falun Gong

summary

  • 7. Falun Gong outside of China

Main article: Falun Gong outside of China

summary

  • 8. References
  • 9. External links
  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites

If the practitioners think the word "Criticism" is too harsh (I certainly don't) I will accept Controversial teachings and practices of Falun Gong as an alternative. Under no circumstances will I accept a watered-down "criticism" page which is restricted just to the teachings. That would totally undermine what we are trying to do here.

Also, I think we should (and can) all agree on one general principle which is this:

Whenever there is a Falun Gong topic on the main page with a corresponding topic in the critisism page (as with these two awards and recognition pages we are discussing) we will agree to cross-link those two sections within the body of each section. That way readers can easily go back and forth between two sections. In fact, Fire Star did exactly that before this article was frozen. Fire Star: what are your thoughts on this? --Tomananda 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's get one thing clear - I made my revisions based on what everybody wrote and a look at the amount of content.
Second, your assumption that everybody who commented is a practioner is false
Third, your assumption that anybody is dictating structure is false. These are discussions, with revisions continually being made based on input.
Now on to your points.
Awards does not have it's own article nor was it proposed to. From what I've seen, there's not enough content on awards and their questionability to merit two separate pages. Either they both get separate articles or neither should. If there's too much to fit into this article, then they can be spun off into a single article that covers both the awards themselves and the questionable nature of them. If that gets too big, then it can be split again. So, until such time as there's enough content to warrant it, I oppose Questionable nature of the Awards being split off unless it's with Awards or Awards gets its own article. I think creating Questionable as a subsection will avert most of the vandalism you fear, since it will provide a space for both side to present "their" facts.
I've already explained why I think Controversial Teachings needs to be limited to that. There's plenty of room for the critics, which you obviously are, to have their say in parallel sections or articles. CovenantD 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, we might as well plan right now for Awards to get it's own breakaway page I've made the change to the simpler, 'simpler' outline here I'm tracking. Until I see enough content to justify two pages, I'm refer to it as one article named Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance. Comments? Tomananda, I hope you are willing to see that I'm operating in good faith. CovenantD 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the title of Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance. proposed by CovenantD. What about Falun Gong Awards, their questionable importance and benefits claimed from practitioners ? I feel there is a lot to write about benefits testified by practitioners. That's why they do not give up despite the high-strength oppression. I think this is also very interesting. We gave critics a room, why not give practitioners a room. I will welcome a better title. But I would like the new struture to have this. How do you think? Fnhddzs 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really about the title so much as the concept that for some topics we will separate out the views of critics from the non-critical reporting of Falung Gong teachings and practices. Frankly, I think this approach benefits both the pro and con editors in a big way. Concerning your point about reporting postitive stuff, such as results of Falun Gong practice, I don't have a problem with that so long as the material is sourced. I am realy trying to reach some stability in the editing process here and from past experience I know that we must split out certain topics to avoid all out confrontation. This is a show-stopper for me.--Tomananda 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The new article for criticism

I hope that the revert war doesn't start again on the criticism page. Of course, it won't do if it falls into the hands of those who want to pour in whatever they want. For instance, the same policy for reputable sources will apply there - random text files from obscure sites will not be allowed, et cetera. It will not be turned into a Xinhua style exposé, either. Splitting the article will not work if people don't take earlier castigation seriously. Just a reminder. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Who could watch on the new page? We need to find a policeman before starting it. CovenantD or Tawker or Fire Star or some volunteer, would you join us on the new page? We need to find a person on duty. Just don't want to repeat the frustrating experience. I remember Fire Star said we have to be the policeman ourselves. Why not somebody volunteer or nominate, then we vote? Any ideas? Or anybody can notify an admin? We need to find one online (not offline) if the war starts. How to find? Thanks! Why wikipedia does not this function automatic? something like "automatic detection of vandalism" and then automatically roll back to the version before that. :) Fnhddzs 21:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could ask for mediation. If we can't even agree on fairly straight-forward structural changes which are well established in other Wikipedia articles...such as splitting off an entire section on Controvery and criticism (or similar title) I don't feel very optimistic about the future prognosis for this article. We haven't heard from Fire Star or Mirobovsky on this issue yet.--Tomananda 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The Faun Gong has many controversial teachings and practices and it has drawn criticisms from Chinese scholars as well as American cult experts. A page call “Criticism and controversial teachings and practices of Falun Gong” is warranted.

The Falun Gong is originated from China and no one knows more about the group and its founder than those who grew up and worked with Li before he became the world’s savior. Reports from China definitely should be included. There is no reason to assume that we and the visitors can be easily fooled by any lies from either the Chinese media or the Falun Gong. Olaf, if you delete them I will delete all contents from Falun Gong websites since these info are from neither reputable nor creditable sources.

Also since there are plenty of Falun Gong pictures on the Faun Gong teaching page, the “Criticism and controversial teachings and practices of Falun Gong” page should be reserve for pictures from critics.

I am looking forward to a new beginning and thankful for everyone involved. --Samuel Luo 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,Tomananda I don't mean I am pessimistic on agreeing on structures. I am optimistic on that. I am just concerned about what happened before the page was frozen. Fnhddzs 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think #5 should be changed to sometthing more neutral, like Falun Gong and the Chinese government. Yeah, I'm editing myself. What think ye?
The Controversies about the teachings section can include critiques from anywhere - it's not location specific. Same with pretty much most of the Controversy or Questionable sections.
Pictures should be appropriate for the topic they accompany and should not be 'reserved'. As if that would work anyway :)
I want to point out something that may not have occurred to everybody yet. If we can come to agreement here in the talk, then unlock the page and put our text in place, then ANY change that happens after that violates consensus of the editors and is AUTOMATICALLY vandalism. I know I'm going to keep a copy of our final version ready to plop in whenever somebody makes changes. And I will be ruthless about it. No talk, no change. :) CovenantD 23:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel. I appreciate that you communicate here and let us know your reason. I understand what you mean and your concerns. Yes, I agree reports from China are important, but we should include both sides (but obviously it is hard to voice from the oppressed part), ok? The truth does fear to be disputed. It will be clearer and clearer. We have to do the translation for them since this is an English website. However, we must be clear about the background of the allegations from the people you mentioned who grew up with Master Li or etc. First, they may testify falsely under the pressure of the government. Second, there are proofs of they are false. Please allow us to include all those articles that disapprove the allegations. For example, it was alleged that Master Li has a big house in China and was shown on TV (I don't mind he has one or not). However, it turns out somebody else (with the same name)'s house since there was a cigar despoit box (smoking has no benefit at all, clearly stated in Falun Gong.) on a table in the house. I think many practitioners are fully aware of all these allegations by the goverment. However, nothing was true according to my investigation :) (nobody want to be fooled:). That is another reason why many Falun Gong practitioners would not give up Falun Gong despite the persecution. Since they think it is something very nice and wonderful, at least to them. That is why I request a section covering "benefits claimed from practitioners". I understand we cannot support something just because it is persecuted.

Regarding to the suicide photo, I have repeated that it is to demonize Falun Gong. Since it is a sin to kill or suicide, stated clearly in Falun Gong teachings.

Samuel, why not we settle down the issues first before starting that article? Thanks! How other editors think? Fnhddzs 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, CovenantD. Thanks for your hard work. It seems you are always working here. I like your idea. how about a title like Falun Gong in China Fnhddzs

Besides relations with the government and Origins, which gets its own section, what else specifically about China do you think needs to be covered? CovenantD 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional commentary about the criticism page

If, for example, an editor would try to use the propagandistic suicide picture of a hanged man that somebody introduced earlier, we would not tolerate such material. Criticism from reputable sources is allowed, of course, but same standards should apply to each and every Wikipedia article. As I've said before, even if you found the most scandalous exposé you've ever encountered, it doesn't belong here if the source doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards. Anybody can publish his own rantings on a private website, but this is a high-quality encyclopedia. And even if the source is OK, we can only state that such-and-such source has claimed this-and-that, not present these allegations as facts unless they're confirmed. Something I've had to deal with repeatedly is that a lot of people confuse the alleged original sources with the actual source they're accessing themselves.

We must also remember that the Chinese government is involved in a genocide. Material for promoting and justifying these actions would not be allowed, especially if it's not confirmed by a third party or at least under investigation. I realize that this requirement is a rather obscure one, so we'll have the discuss it further. However, a lot of the Chinese material is no better than anti-semitic indoctrination in Nazi Germany: it is meant to incite hatred against a marginalized group of people whose voice has been suffocated by violent and lawless means. The U.S. concurrent resolution 188, unanimously passed by the Congress, states: "Propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination", and that is something we'll certainly keep in mind. No doubt we'll add this statement onto the critics' page as a disclaimer. When these measures are observed, I have nothing against a page for Falun Gong criticism, and I hope we can co-operate in mutual respect and good faith. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No such disclaimer should be added. Sources published from the PRC is subject to the same standards as any. No more no less. That includes the US Congress, Falun Gong, and Epoch Times. What I'm seeing is a disturbing trend for pro-FLG editors to blanket criticism because "they are from communist sources". In the same vein, I can delete every single sentence that is taken from a Falun Gong source because it's Falun Gong propaganda. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Miborovsky, then delete everything, either pro or anti, otherwise, you have bias. Don't disguise it under the hat of fairness. Fnhddzs 02:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Believe me when I say that if I could, I would. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The credibility of the source is what we are concerned about. Newspapers in China have claimed Falun Gong is run by the FBI ( Seriously ). Dilip rajeev 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticism article will be open for everybody's editions. I didn't mean that we would specifically underline the Congress resolution, but it definitely has its place on that page. One disturbing trend that I'm seeing is that of anti-FLG editors throwing in almost anything to further their cause. That's why we need to pay a lot of attention to this issue. As for myself, I have no specific agenda except to keep this article neutral while admitting my own subjective position openly. Of course, I'm bound to introduce new material from a practitioner's point of view, but I wouldn't approve of unsourced claims or questionable editions even if they showed Falun Gong in a positive light. For example, I added the criticism about the methodological bias of the 1998 health survey. But I've never seen a lot of people do anything but pour in whatever denouncements and critiques they could find, oftentimes garnishing them with a tint of sarcasm or questionable interpretations, and that's what I'm worried about: personal crusades don't fit into balanced and long-term teamwork. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my concern. Anti-FLG editors are more than welcome to "throw in almost anything", as long as their additions are sourced, reliable and verifiable. So are pro-FLG editors. But right now from what I'm seeing some editors are treating this article as their own exclusive playground, arbitrarily dictating the value of certain sources and wishing to withhold editing rights from other. See this edit:

... Of course, not that many people make use of this talk page already so it's effectiveness is questionable. Could we limit edits to only those involved in the Project? It would be soooo useful to stop the hacks. :) CovenantD 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Disturbingly Unwikipedian, to say the least. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't get me wrong, Miborovsky. Your example is not to your point. I don't see CovenantD is either anti or pro. And the edit did not have serious problem. with :) mark why you take it so seriously. why you do not notice the much more serious edit problems. Fnhddzs 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not an edit problem. Edit conflicts are negotiable. Compromising the basic tenets of Wikipedia is not. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
New Wikipedians don't have to know everything about everything, but I hope you know that they're allowed to act in a slightly Unwikipedian manner.
The value of "certain sources" has not been arbitrarily dictated. It is clear that we do not accept stuff from private websites. If supporting information can be found from another (preferrably more reputable) source, or if we're reporting two sides of the story (an accusation and a rebuttal, for instance), we'll have to evaluate each case individually. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not, in fact. Give me an official policy where it says that new editors can choose not to adhere to basic Wikipedia policies. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You're so silly, Miborovsky. Making a slightly uninformed comment is not breaking Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --Olaf Stephanos 04:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the defense, everyone. What I wrote was totally tongue-in-cheek frustration at the edit war; I know full well that's not the way Wikipedia works. Simply reading the rest of my posts should demonstrate that. I've been working damn hard to make sure everybody's input is heard. Moborovsky, chill. CovenantD 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No, now I'm more concerned with Olaf's belief that certain users are allowed to ignore certain official policies. In this case it's not even a policy, it's a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If CovenantD is merely joking, then please accept my apologies. Nevertheless, I think Olaf has to understand that no, new editors are not "allowed" to behave Unwikipedian-ly. They can make mistakes, and they should corrected, and they are expected not to make the same mistake again. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • hey, I am more concerned about you. Miborovsky. Olaf may not be perfect, neither anyone here. And we are willing to improve. But why you did not say anything to Samuel's obviously conclusive word and obviously Unwikipedian behaviour? Why you follow tightly with others and use some words like fundamental aspect of Wikipedia but leave someone at large? Do you use dual-standards to exercise your power? Please brighten up your eyes! Fnhddzs 06:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mibrovsky, Please appreciate the fact that CovenantD is the only editor who has managed to bring some order in this chaotic discussion. He has been more "wikipedianly" than any of us. Friend, I honestly cant see what you are blaming CovenantD for. Dilip rajeev 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mibrovsky, Friend, if you want to see examples for really "un-wikipedian" stuff please go through the edit history of the page.

Dilip rajeev 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


  • The following statement is from America’s leading cult expert Dr. Margaret Singer. “I have no doubt that Falun Gong has many of the characteristics of a true cult, including utter obedience to a charismatic leader, coercive thought control, financial exploitation of its followers, a doomsday prediction that promises salvation only through total obedience and subservience to the cult leader, zero tolerance for dissent, and a very strict organization from which it is difficult to escape.” (source: Cults in Our Midst revised edition, page 352.) Olaf, feel free to post your disclaimer, the above statement will be posted as a disclaimer on the Falun Gong main page when yours is up. Also, there is no genocide of practitioner; claims (lies) of this sort have been used by the Falun Gong cult as a tool to gain sympathy and support but more importantly to silence critics.
  • I must point that, Falun Gong does not need to gain sympathy at such a cost! Genocide is genocide. Not a mean to gain sympathy. Falun Gong is a cultivation system for mind and body refinement, regardless whether there is genocide. But now that it happened, certainly we should stop persecution. Fnhddzs 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Cult expert or not, the above quote indicates that this person knows very little about Falun Gong. There is absolutely no financial exploitation or anything remotely like this in Falun Gong, not even donations are asked for. It's already been made clear that the organization is not strict at all, but instead, extremely loose, which is one of things that characterizes Falun Gong. And any one can come and go as they please. As for "obedience" to the Master, it's your choice if you want to follow his teachings or not, just as it is in other non-cult spiritual practices. Mr. Li does not predict any doomsday, or say that those who don't follow him will die or have bad futures. The whole quote is so wrong. Sometimes we as editors need to look not only at the source, but at it's information as well. If what the source implies is clearly false then we can't include it just because it's from a credible source. Also, there is a big difference between quoting a US congress statement concerning Chinese media and quoting one person's opinion about a spiritual movement. Mcconn 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticism article will be open for everybody's editions so is the Falun Gong teaching page and others. Olaf, you don’t call Falun Gong’s websites as private websites? What I see here is a plot that practitioners are inserting unsourced and unidentified information published on Falun Gong websites while attacking the creditability of other sources in order to take over the page. --Samuel Luo 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • One very important point: controlling information is a mind control (brainwashing) technique. In order for the mind to make decision information is needed; when one controls information that others receive one controls others' minds. (source: Steven Hassan, Releasing the Bonds, page 43.) Olaf, you are trying to control people’s mind.

--Samuel Luo 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously. I've heard that wearing a tinfoil hat could protect you from that, though. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, Try as you may, you cant cover truth with lies. All teachings of Falun Dafa are available for anyone to go through, on the Falun Dafa website. Dilip rajeev 15:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I feel the same way of you, Samuel. I mean you are trying to control information. Everybody should bear in mind that in China, all TV and newspapers are controlled by the government. There is no freedom to say something true as long as it contradicts with the government's policy. Also please bear in mind, some media outside of China are afraid of China. For example, Ta Kung Pao (HK newspaper) was subsidized by CCP fifty years ago. Yahoo-Hong Kong helped to arrest the reporter Shi, Tao (not a practitioner) by disclosing his information to the police and he was sentenced to 10 years. [10] There is no freedom to express. In terms of treating Falun Gong, there is no exception. If we talk about reputable sources, we cannot naively find them from an environment without freedom of expression. But the contradition from the source itself (such as the self-immolation video) would be very convincing. Yes, lies cannot cover the truth, paper cannot wrap the fire! Fnhddzs 16:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Samuel, there IS genocide to practitioners [11]. Claims to its nonexistence will bear the same responsibility. If wikipedia is a serious place, you should take that responsibility. At least you cannot make conclusive remarks. Fnhddzs 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"There IS genocide" is a conclusive remark if I've ever seen one. Besides, verifiable, reliable sources, please? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a case in court over several countries. Miborovsky, I agree I was just trying to voice mine. But why you do not point this to Samuel, only point at me? I am sorry I cannot compliment your fairness. Fnhddzs 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

trying to post citations. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2000 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 1999

China-Amnesty International report 2005 China-Amnesty International report 2004 China-Amnesty International report 2003 China-Amnesty International report 2002 China-Amnesty International report 2001 China-Amnesty International report 2000 China-Amnesty International report 1999 We can compare before 99 and after. The 99 report have no Falun Gong since it reports year 1998. Here is the index for all AI reports [12] Fnhddzs 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in any of these articles is the word "genocide" mentioned. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not say they are citations for genocide. They are citations for persecution. Here is a newspaper mentioning that "As of December 2005, 61 lawsuits had been filed in about 30 countries charging Jiang and several other senior officials with genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity for their roles in the treatment of Falun Gong in mainland China."

The Reflector --- Organs for sale : China accused of killing Falun Gong members I know you may say it cannot prove the genocide, but you could not disapprove it, right? Or what is your base to disapprove it? I would be more than happy to believe you are neutral since we really wish people like you as an admin be neutral. Sometimes, I found, staying neutral to everything is impossible. Everyone believes something and have a rule in his/her heart whether s/he admits that. Let justice prevail. Fnhddzs 05:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish to say that the burden of proof lies on the accusor and not the accused. So the comment "I know you may say it cannot prove the genocide, but you could not disapprove it, right? Or what is your base to disapprove it?" does not hold any ground.

24.189.163.169 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, you are right. but you forgot to say "there is no genocide" is an assumption in the western law system. That is my concern. assumption is not factual. What is wiki's policy in terms of assumption?Fnhddzs 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa dude you are really trying to grasp on to something not there. "acussation of genocide has to be proven to say there is such a thing. You can't just say ok I say there is a purple elephant and you have to prove me wrong that there isn't one. Doesn't work like that. And assumptions are just that assumptions. no factual data to back it up so it's not fact. But you are saying There IS a genocide which means you are staying it's a fact. Fact has to be backed up by proof. and the burden of proof lies with the accusor. 24.189.163.169 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not say we have to say there is genocide. But I strongly oppose there is no genocide. I wish you can understand me. Please don't be so angry. Fnhddzs 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • calm down. What I am really concerned is you did not say anyting when somebody say "there is no genocide" but you keep biting when somebody say "yes". when I say "there IS" was to Samuel to express my personal view. Not to suggest we write it that way. Sorry for the confusion. Fnhddzs 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Samuel, there IS genocide to practitioners [13]. Claims to its nonexistence will bear the same responsibility. If wikipedia is a serious place, you should take that responsibility. At least you cannot make conclusive remarks. Fnhddzs 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)" This is not a view point if you say there IS. You could have said I believe there is which points toward a more personalized view. And no I'm not angry. Just pointing out what's logical. 24.189.163.169 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, sir. Fnhddzs 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I could also say there is not a view point if Samuel say there is no genocide, could I? Fnhddzs
  • Absolutely it's samual's view point that there isn't. But genocide of FLG practitioners is NOT a FACT. 24.189.163.169 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • NEITHER is no genocide of FLG practitioners a FACT. Fnhddzs 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • never did i say that there is no genocide a fact either but like I've said before. When you say a crime is committed, you have to provide the proof. Because you are stating that it's a FACT that it happened. If there is no proof, the general consensus is it did not happen. (That's what I meant by "The burden of proof lies with the accuser and not the accused.") 24.189.163.169 19:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate we have discussion on this logic issue. I think I agree part of what you mean. I did not mean to write the article that way (there IS). but I could not agree it did not happen. I just think we should put the same weight on the other side. It hurts to say either way based on our current knowledge. We just need to present both sides, or not to mention it. Anyway, there is an old Chinese saying. If you wish others not know what you do, just don't do it. Let justice prevail. As wikipedia editors, we may not care about this. If we care about facts, the wording should not lean. Fnhddzs 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thing is it can't be given equal weight. As I've said before I say there is purple elephants, can I give equal weight to there is purple elephant and no there isn't. I also can say I got raped by an alien, but I have no proof of it... can you say I really did get riped by aliens? no, you just put it in as an accusation and that's it. Now if you want to prove it... the people that said there is has to prove it. Or find something to say there is. Also ever heard of innocent until proven guity? All really simple laws. 24.189.163.169 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Anyway, there is an old Chinese saying. If you wish others not know what you do, just don't do it. Let justice prevail." That's an assumption that CCP did commit genocide which is not a FACT. So as stated before where's your proof. 24.189.163.169 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not make any conclusions in "Anyway, there is an old Chinese saying. If you wish others not know what you do, just don't do it. Let justice prevail." It is an ancient saying plus a sentence with no accusations. Are you sober?Fnhddzs 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ok I sorry if I misread the intention of that proverb then. What was the proverb in reference to then? Just want to clarify. 24.189.163.169 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, have we agreed on a structure yet? CovenantD 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I was almost ok except Category 5 'Falun Gong in China' sounds a bit better to me, but I can compromise to a different version if reasonable. Did we hear from everyone? I guess we need to wait.Fnhddzs 06:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am re-posting the last outline. We've already discussed the criticism section and the split article on awards. It seems to have enough support at this point. As to "Falun Gong in China.." do you realy mean that for section 5? Overall, we should try to accept the idea that none of us are going to be totally happy with the content no matter what we do. My standard, which is borrowed from Fire Star, is that we should try not to edit at the expense of others. That means we add content rather than deleting it, providing the content meets Wikipedia standards. So if we can agree to this broad outline, then we can go on to assigning the sub-topics into the big categories.

A simpler, 'simpler' outline here:

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings

Main article: Falun Gong teachings

summary

  • 3. Critisism and controversial teachings of Falun Gong

Main article: Criticism and controversial teachings of Falun Gong summary

  • 4. Awards and Recognitions
  • link to Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 5. Falun Gong Organization
  • 6. Chinese Government crackdown

Main article: Chinese Government crackdown (or suppression?) of Falun Gong

summary

  • 7. Falun Gong outside of China

Main article: Falun Gong outside of China

  • 8. References
  • 9. External links
  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites

--Tomananda 07:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomananda. I was looking at [14] and there was a typo in numbering. So what I mean is category 6 in your outline. But it is not an essential issue to me. Just think it seems symmetric with Category 7. I'd like to hear others. Fnhddzs 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mibharovsk, my motive for writing is clearly visible to you. I have a chip on my shoulder directed towards some of the editors of this page. You should already know why. There can be no logical Wikipedian policy that would disbar me from writing this. Are you going to block once again? All eyes on you! I am going to side with Fnhddzs. He/she knows what he/she is saying. Sounds like genocide it is! Give some compelling evidence otherwise?

As the only third party on the page, I think you should listen to Fhnddzs. He/she is obviously right.

Your argument makes no sense. Sounds like genocide so it is? In fact, as Miborovsky correctly points out, none of the many human rights, United Nations or United States reports you cited even mentioned the word genocide. Not one. The fact that someone may have died or even been tortured by a corrupt guard while under detention does not consititute genocide. The claims of genocide appear to be used by the Falun Gong to create a special protected status for itself.--Tomananda 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a outline for the structure of the page, but before that I need to respond to Fnhddzs regarding the genocide accusation first. In the court of law anyone is presumed innocent until he/she is found guilty by the court. The reason being anyone can sue anyone else in the court; filing a lawsuit against someone really does not mean that the defendant is guilty. Whenever accusing someone of committing a crime as serious as genocide, you better have good evidences, that is why Миборовский demanded verifiable, reliable sources from you Fnhddzs. On the other hand I am not accusing anyone of committing any crime therefore I don’t bear the burden of approving anything and that was why Миборовский did not refute my statement. Миборовский is fair.
  • You can see here [15] that the UN describes genocide as ""any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;..." Think about this in light of what is happening or has happened in the persecution. Taipei's China Times reported on September 1, 2000 "The Chinese Communist Party has decided to escalate its oppression of Falun Gong and plans to eradicate Falun Gong within three months." Eradicate?... It's clear that according to the UN definition we are talking about a genocide. Take a look at this report for more insight [16]. Mcconn 10:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The “Criticism and controversial teachings of Falun Gong” page should have the following two sets of titles. In honoring the work of editors who created the existing titles this material should stay. The new titles introduce material needed for people to fully understand the Falun Gong.

  • Criticism and controversial teachings of Falun Gong

Existing titles:

Li as a savior or supernatural entity
Difference between Falun Gong and Qigong
Demon
Fa-rectification and enlightenment
Falun Gong and sexual orientation
Claims to historical significance
Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

New titles:

Falun Gong teachings on medical treatment
Falun Gong’s view on other religions
Falun Gong’s doomsday theory
Falun Gong’s view on critics
Falun Gong teachings on races
Falun Gong teachings on medical treatment
Falun Gong’s recruitment method

--Samuel Luo 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no "doomsday theory". You must understand that nobody would allow such POV subtitles into the article. And Falun Gong doesn't "recruit"; you've obviously chosen such a word to emphasize that Falun Gong would "convert" or even pressure people to join its "organisation" in a cult-like manner. The demand for neutral wordings has been pointed out a zillion times before. Also, "Falun Gong's view on other religions" assumes that Falun Gong is a religion. While I understand that a lot of people would feel like this, the subtitles ought to be entirely neutral. --Olaf Stephanos 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Olaf. The subtitles he mentioned are unacceptable. Mcconn 14:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The subsections suggested by CovenantD were quite comprehensive and Neutral and I think most editors had agreed on that - kindly refrain from trying to pour your POV in - that will only serve to interfere with the edit process. Dilip rajeev 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Dilip rajeev 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings all. I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute much lately, the real world won't go away just yet! I want to congratulate you all on the more collegial atmosphere that now prevails. One thought about the criticisms section: I think we should have it just for notable criticisms from the CCP, Rick Ross, other religions, etc. and have them sourced properly, of course. The "controversial teachings" bit has to be handled more delicately, and probably in the Falun Gong teachings article, not the dedicated criticisms article, using bland statements like "Li claims that his methods are superior to those of any other school of qigong" and then provide links to quotes where he says such things. We don't have to have block quotes of things we can link to, unless one or two are immediately germane. --Fire Star 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi,Miborovsky. I agree to No more no less, only in a truely fair sense. There is no freedom of expression, publication or speech, under the control of CCP. Falun Gong practitioners vs. the CCP government is peaceful people without weapons and with no pay from no organizer vs. a state with army/police/agents/money. Think about it, it is the faith or good heart that works. Not money or external forces. This background may help us to tell which part is true. Fnhddzs 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Firestar, who is this Rick Ross you mentioned? Does he teach at some respectable university? I sincerely doubt it. You know, I may say whatever I want about the nature of the Thirty Years War, but it doesn't mean anything to someone investigating it. You need to have sources who actually have some relevance. Is Ross a cult expert? Would he invariably call my religion, the Christian faith, a cult as well? I know the CCP would. I don't think these are viable sources. Introduce some methodology for Pete's sake! I think Mccon is totally right!

Mibhorovovsky, I know you are just itching to block me. But now, all eyes are on you. Go ahead. I dare you.

As a neutral third party to this discussion, I have to encourage some of you to make better arguments. In fact the very way that some things on this site have been said have inevitably led to my having a HUGE chip on my shoulder directed towards some of you. You should know that, though Mibhorovosky reverted what I said and blocked me, leading to censorship.

Mibhorovovosky, this sounds like a personal attack to me. Check it out:

       *  very important point: controlling information is a mind control (brainwashing) technique. In order for the mind to make decision information is needed; when one controls information that others receive one controls others' minds. (source: Steven Hassan, Releasing the Bonds, page 43.) Olaf, you are trying to control people’s mind.

--Samuel Luo 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why wasn't Samuel blocked for 24 hours for making this pejorative accusation towards Olaf? Samuel has no grounds to make this accusation. In academics, it is quite well known that ALL writing is biased, and reflects personal characteristics of the one doing the writing. For Samuel to make such an argument here is out of line. He has no justifiable grounds to do so. Therefore, you must conclude that this is a personal attack on Olaf's character and his actions!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.75.9 (talk • contribs).

  • Exactly what I was bothered. Agree. I wish to see your improvement, Mibhorovovosky. Fnhddzs 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't be neutral if you have "a HUGE chip" on your shoulder about some of the people involved. CovenantD 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I can because these editors use the most inane methodologies. It's quite evident. They have earned my lasting enmity. As a good Christian, I take no issue with what is going on here. But I think Olaf and Dijip and some of those others are good people who seem honest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.75.9 (talk • contribs).
Lasting enmity, Christian and neutral. If you say so. And please sign your edits by typing four tilde (~). It's that thing you get when you hold down the shift key and hit the key next to the 1. CovenantD 22:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Well, do you think Mibhorovovovsky missed the ball on blocking Samuel? It's quite obvious to any layman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.75.9 (talk • contribs).

Accusing someone of trying to control information (/minds) is an accusation towards a person's conduct. Your behaviour was a slanderous accusation against several persons' being. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes Reversal of Burden of Proof applies

The popular interpretation of "burden of proof" is that if one party accuses another party of something, the accuser should provide evidence to validate his/her accusation. In modern civilized societies, however, under certain circumstances, the responsibility to present evidence is reversed [17][18][19][20][21]. "Reversal of the burden of proof" is usually applied when the accused is in possession of, or monopolizes, the evidence. Reversal of the burden of proof does stand in these situations on the basis of justice and moral principles. A civilized society prevents those with power from harming and exploiting less powerful groups.

Since the CCP is a totalitarian regime that used to ignore its people and blocks information, reversal of the burden of proof becomes absolutely necessary in order to uphold justice.

What an idiot. I don't see Chinese people worshipping giant portraits of Hu Jintao, or pray to him everyday. Your sayings are moot, especially from someone who never set foot in China.--PatCheng 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

PatCheng, I warn you. Stop personal attack! Also, nobody do worship. Don't see any special about no worship. Fnhddzs 04:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

PatCheng has been warned. More personal attacks will result in a block. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.

The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other beliefs about thermodynamics.

A classic example comes from Criswell's final speech at the end of Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space: "My friends, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?". Considering that the incident in question involved grave robbers from space, the burden of proof is being incorrectly assigned.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof 24.189.163.169 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, you are still talking about the "burden of proof" generally. I am talking about it regarding this article. I found the background seems to warrant a "reversal of burden of proof". I wish you could say the same thing in China when Falun Gong practitioners were accused. Unfortunately, China's law systems assume the accused are guilty. I understand we are talking about some international thing. Just keep the background in mind. We also have to consider the situation that the same standard cannot be applied. for example, the different law systems between China and Western countries. I am glad we are communicating on this though. Fnhddzs 20:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


  • sorry was gone for so long. Was researching on who the actual burden of proof will rest on internationally on genocide. And according to this article I read. It's the prosceutor that has to provide proof. Ie: the accusor. (had to make sure so I don't give any false info.) not my intention/goal to deceive anyone. This is in relationship to Milosevic and his time at the UN tribunal. Enjoy.

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1875

Also this quote from "wikipedia's burden of proof: An evidentiary burden or burden of leading evidence is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption." Which I think China already did with the concentration camp episode. When no evidence was found by the US inquiry... the burden of proof lies on the accusor again.


Damn I'm becginning to feel like a lawyer.


24.189.163.169 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • In that case, the "reversal of burden of proof" seemed not applied. I guess that is because Milosevic was overturned then. He was not in possession of, or did not monopolize the evidence at that time. So your example is interesting but seems not applicable to the case we were discussing. Also the China laws presume the accused guilty, which is the opposite to the law in free world. How to account for that difference may not be answered by us. But it seems that history showed that
if Milosevic could be sued before he was overturned, more innocent people could be saved;
If nazi killing could be investigated before waiting for evidence too long, more innocent people could be saved.

When we discuss about this here in a peaceful fashion, could we remember the lessons given from history also? Fnhddzs 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tibetans filed genocide law suit against Jiang Zemin this year [22] I think the aritcle may include the fact that Falun Gong practitioners filed genocide law suit.Fnhddzs 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From our Genocide article:
"Much debate about genocides revolves around the proper definition of the word "genocide". The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in this legal definition has been criticized. Some historians and sociologists when discussing genocide include actions against such groups. Most generally, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a social identity.[citation needed]
A major criticism of the international community's response to the Rwandan Genocide was that it was reactive, not proactive. The international community has developed a mechanism for prosecuting the perpetrators of genocide but has not developed the will or the mechanisms for intervening in a genocide as it happens. Critics point to the Darfur conflict and suggest that if anyone is found guilty of genocide after the conflict either by prosecutions brought in the International Criminal Court or in an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal, this will confirm this perception.[citation needed]
According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnical, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonkillings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.[1]"
If we are going to use the word genocide in any of the articles, we have to say who uses it and who doesn't use it. We can't apply it ourselves. --Fire Star 01:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on a basic structure for the article

  • 1. Origins
  • 2. Falun Gong teachings
Main article: Falun Gong teachings
  • summary
  • 3. Criticism and Controversies about Falun Gong teachings
Main article: Criticism and Controversies about Falun Gong teachings
  • summary
  • 4. Theoretical background
  • 5. Falun Gong organization
  • 6. Falun Gong awards and their controversial importance
Main article: Falun Gong awards and their controversial importance
  • summary
  • 7. Falun Gong and the Chinese government
Main article: Falun Gong and the Chinese government
  • summary
  • 8. Falun Gong outside of China
Main article: Falun Gong outside of China
  • summary
  • 9. References
  • 10. External links
  • 10.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 10.2 Critical sites
  • 10.3 Other sites
Okay, everybody, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let's figure out if we've finalized the basic structure for this article. I've looked over everyone's comments again (including my own) and tried to incorporate them. I've fixed the numbering, and I think we can come to agreement on this one. Let's find out.To keep it simple, I'm setting up areas for Support, Oppose, Questions, and Comments. Shall we give it, say, three days? CovenantD 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Support the proposed structure
CovenantD 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed structure

Questions before I can decide
I'd still like to know what exactly is meant by "Falun Gong organisation" and whether people feel this is a misleading subtitle. Chapter 5 could be "Falun Gong awards and their disputed importance" (rather than questionable). And what about "Theoretical background", where did that one go? ---Olaf Stephanos 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Organization can cover the various interpretations, such as the lack of membership and formal leaders, that sort of thing, as well as other views on the matter. It's not meant to imply that there is a formal structure, just provide a place for that discussion. Olaf, since yours are the first questions, I can edit the above outline to include Theoretical background, which I've done. Sorry I missed that one. I like Disputed much more that Questionable, so that goes in too. :) I won't be able to make changes once the first vote comes in, so ask away. CovenantD 20:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"Disputed" implies something whose true meaning is being debated, while "questionable" means the thing in question is found to be objectionable by some. I think "controversial" is the best word here. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
So noted. Fnhddzs, as the only person to vote so far, how do you feel about this proposed change? CovenantD 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
no comments. not an essential issue to me. absent vote on this change. Thanks. Fnhddzs 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Change made. CovenantD 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments about the proposed structure

Support 90% Comments: 'Falun Gong in China' instead of 'Falun Gong with the Chinese government'. Fnhddzs 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess in all the edits you missed my earlier question. What aspects of Falun Gong in China do you think need to be covered that aren't already in another section? I'm not debating you, I'm trying to understand your reasoning, and balance that against the potential for Falun Gong in China to be too broad of a topic. CovenantD 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Falun Gong in China may be too broad. this would be covered in orgins/history, awards and with the government. Fnhddzs 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SupportThis structure for the article has my full support. The Fading Light 9:10, 27 April 2006

  • A little late, but I support the proposed structure as well. --Fire Star 01:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments I assume the old "Cultivation of mind and body" part will be put in "Falun Gong teachings". But there is a subsection 6.4 Research into health claims [23]. I don't think it belongs to teachings. So where it can go? Combined into Awards and controversial importance part? Maybe the title could be changed? Fnhddzs 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To 70.33.75.9/71.106.174.113/164.67.59.37

If you make personal attacks you WILL be blocked. My blocks to your different IP addresses were for personal attacks you made. Samuel Luo has not made a personal attack. You have, first on all the anti-FLG editors and then me when I blocked you for the first time. Try it again, and it wouldn't just be 24 hours. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

All of these editors gained my enmity after I read their dialogues. At first it was only Etaonsh who infuriated me(see "Nazism and the Swastika"). But, as I read each of these people's writing, more joined the list (Samuel Luo, Firestar, and Tomanda). As you will notice, you didn't join the list until later, although reading your writing and how you dropped the ball with Samuel Luo makes it evident you also are an anti FLG editor. Therefore, to categorically claim that I made attacks on "all the anti FLG editors" is clearly false. Or maybe that is the real reason you blocked me, because I called out your friends, as you obviously didn't block Samuel Luo.

Are you currently living in Russia? Can we have a cup of coffee? I can give you good career advice. =)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.75.9 (talk • contribs).

Uh huh. So you think your personal attacks were justified?
Oh and no thanks. As a double agent working for the KGB and CIA, I can make a decent living. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Anyone familiar with the aforementioned people will know it is true. Plus, my last post was a mockery. It was a metaphor. So you are saying that there would be no grounds to block and revert my posting IF it merely mentions the facts of their life and accuses their conduct?

But you will thoroughly enjoy a face to face meeting. Have courage my fellow Russkie! Do I have to bribe you to get you to come? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.75.9 (talk • contribs).

Still unrepentant huh... that they are metaphors do not excuse you in any way. Mockery of other editors is personal attack. "IF it merely mentions the facts of their life and accuses their conduct"... you won't be blocked under WP:NPA at least, but then I wonder what your intent was for posting these "facts of their life" [sic]. And how true they are. You can be blocked for incivility, libel and harassment. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No to Covenant's outline!

Looks like we are not going to cooperate after all. Those who wish to post critical edits of the Falung Gong cannot accept Covenant's change of categories #3 and #6. This will not work and we will have a revert war from day one. I have posted above about why that is the case. This decision must be made with the agreement of critics of Falun Gong, it cannot be made by majority vote since there are more FG practitioners on this site than there are critics. The only acceptable scheme for # 3 and #6 in the outline is:

  • 3 Criticism and contrvoversial teachings
  • Or: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong teachings and practices
  • Or: Criticism and controvery (as in the case of Scientology)

In other words, this section CANNOT be limited to the teachiings.

  • 6 Falun Gond awards and recognitions

link to Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions (a section in the criticism page).

If the above two modest requests are not honored, I request that we seek a mediator immediately before continuing to waste our collective time in this discussion. It seems clear that the practioner editors on this site will not be happy unless they can dictate the content of this article in such a way that effectively kills critical voices. Fire Star: could you please facilitate getting us a mediator for this process as soon as possible? --Tomananda 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We can go over this again, nothing is written in stone. We have to find language that satisfies a consensus of our editors, and I believe it is possible. I am critical of FLG, and I am also critical of the CCP, and I think it is possible to satisfy people who are one or the other or both (as in my case). But we should take it one step at a time. Propose your changes to those sections and we can try to work them in. If people want a mediator, we should set a deadline (24 hrs., 3 days, etc.) and if we don't have a consensus by then, we can request one. That is my suggestion. --Fire Star 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star: I am not proposing something new here. If you go back and read through the discussion you'll see that Covenant has actually changed the wording I had proposed and we had discussed. My objection is not over this word over that, but rather that the "criticism" page title really can't be limited to criticism just about the teachings. There are Falun Gong practices that critics write about as well. In Covenant's proposed wording, most people would conclude the entire page is only about Criticism and Controversies about the teachings. I am happy to suggest a number of different variations in language which avoid this problem, such as:

  • Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong teachings and practices
  • Criticism and controversies about the Falun Gong
  • Falung Gong critics and controversies

There was already some favorable responses to these types of formulations in the discussion, so frankly I am at a loss as to why we are still debating it. I know we're supposed to assume "good faith" but somehow I can't escape thinking that the intent here is to only sanction a criticism page that can address the teachings, but not the controversial practices of the Falun Gong.--Tomananda 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You should have asked. My concern is the size of the article. If it's thrown wide open to generalized Criticisms, it's going to become a huge unwieldy thing not unlike this article is now. I'm certainly open to having as many criticism sections as needed but not one huge monstrosity. From what I've seen, others agree. Point and counterpoint, point and counterpoint. CovenantD 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see the difference between Criticism and Controversies about Falun Gong teachings and Criticism and controversial teachings other than one is more specific than that other, a good thing when referencing a separate article. As far as #6, no. I've explained that I want to keep the bit about awards and the controversy about them together. You have yet to present a reason why they should be split. CovenantD 02:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
PS - Please don't make the assumption that those who support this are Falun Gong practitioners. You know what they say about assuming...
When I said things aren't written in stone, I meant that the proposed outline is a starting point. The article content then has to be decided. While I agree following a template similar to established articles isn't a bad idea, we usually don't have a completely different set of pro and con articles on every subject. I don't yet see a reason to separate Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and Falun Gong awards and recognitions. We can balance both presentations in one article, I believe. --Fire Star 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Criticism could be to teachings or other than teachings. The title does not limit it to teachings although it may read that way (by the effect of "and"). Well, but we may need a section to talk about Falun Gong other than teachings: such as research into health claims. It does not have to be a separate article. Maybe melt into the criticism if everyone feel fair. Fnhddzs 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe we want to think about another set of categories: Falun Gong claims and the Controversies about Falun Gong claims. CovenantD 03:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star: The existing section Questionable significance for Falun Gong awards [24] was written in its present form to fit into a Criticism page section precisely because the earlier version which had been part of the main FG awards section suffered endless deletions by Dilip, Mcconn or others. It becomes exhausting to defend the same content over and over again, even after it has been discussed to death, especially when you are outnumbered by the so many Pro-Falun Gong editors. I am not proposing this approach for just any topic and agree with you that wouldn’t make sense. But there are some topics which split very nicely into two sections, and this “Questionable significance of FG award” section is a good example. In an earlier version of the article you did cross-linking between these two sections and I found that most effective. All a reader had to do was click to see the other point of view. Plus, there is virtually no redundancy between the two articles. I did a separate post to you above, please check it out. Thanks. --Tomananda 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: You suggested that we set a deadline for coming to agreement on all the structural issues, including the content of the new sections and that if we don't reach a consensus by that point you would seek an editor. I think this is a good idea and propose that we allow ourselves 4 days to complete this task. By my caluculation, that will take us to May 1st. In Wikipedia time I think that's 04:00 1 May 2006. What say the other editors?--Tomananda 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

4 days is very generous I'll say, fine with me. I'll be looking over your diffs above tonight. --Fire Star 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd say you're assuming bad faith on the part of certain editors. I'd also say that you must have missed it where I suggested three days when I set out the proposed outline. It seems that everybody checks in at least that often. But whatever. I just want to see it done. CovenantD 04:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That is assuming that after 4 days there is no agreement, I'd think. If it isn't done and ready to roll in 4 days, it will be because of some intractable problem. 3 days would be better, 2 days better still and 5 minutes ago perfect. The proposition was for the seeking of mediation from an outside editor after no agreement. It was a suggestion. I've already done a request for comment on this article a month ago and got no reply. The next step is mediation, then arbitration. That is usually only done with intractable conflicts between mutually antagonistic editors, which has really settled down here, so I'm 99% sure it will be unnecessary. --Fire Star 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Fire Star, are you firm? We cannot be spoiled again after 4 days. Otherwise, it just wastes time. Some people seemed to seldom log in. Fnhddzs 04:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Covenant, I suggested 4 days instead of 3 because we are going into a weekend and some people are not always on line throughout a weekend. No slight intended.--Tomananda 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
4 days is ample time. Let's not limit ourselves to this, however. If we can get it done in two or three days that would be better. I'd like to see the article unlocked as soon as possible. As for whether the awards section should be split into two seperate article, I would say that it really depends on the amount of content. If there is enough content to sustain one section which is objective, simply listing the awards and recognition Falun Gong has recieved, and the another that discusses the relevence of these from different perspectives, then why not? I agree with Tomanda that it would be easy enough for people to click on the links to their coresponding pages. As for the title, I feel that the word "disputed" is more neutral than "questionable", so I opt for its usage in the title of the section. I think the title "Criticisms and Controversies of (or "about") Falun Gong" is the best for that page. Mcconn 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Mcconn: The article on the criticism side cannot be, as you suggest, a "discussion of the relevance of these awards from different perspectives." By definition, it is a report on the disputed significance of these awards. There can be a response to those allegations, but by definition the section will lead with the diputes.
I agree disputed is better than questionable, which implies too much on our part. Disputed conveys the same concept with less emotional charge, IMO. --Fire Star 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Just recall Miborovsky seemed like the word "controversial" better.

"Disputed" implies something whose true meaning is being debated, while "questionable" means the thing in question is found to be objectionable by some. I think "controversial" is the best word here. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Fnhddzs 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with Disputed significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions as the topic heading. I am also ok with some version of your other suggested page title as well. Here are some variants:
Falung Gong: controversies and criticism (I think criticism is best in singular form)
Criticism and controversies concerning Falun Gong
--Tomananda 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, thank you for changing the heading so that I'm no longer being yelled at. It was really disturbing.
Tomananda, I'm not sure that you are seeing that other people want a separate Controversy page or section for each point, not just a separate article that covers all of them. As far as I can see, you seem to be the only holdout on this. You also don't seem to be addressing the concern that a single Controversy page will become too large. Would you speak to this please?
I'd also like to point people to TOC item #8, the proposed summary of the 'Teachings' section. Anybody have comments on it? CovenantD 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were all in agreement that there would be one "Criticism" page with sub-topics, such as those which have already been discussed above. The starting point should be to deal with the content and topics we have now and agree to what section they go to. I've written several proposals on this above. So I am not sure there's disagreemnt here, unless you object to the Cricitism page being broken up into separate topics, but I don't think that's what you are saying.--Tomananda 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of changing titles, I notice someone has gone ahead and created a separate page for the criticism section which only addresses the teachings. As I've said repeatedly this is not acceptable and I question why this page was created in the first place. Please my most recent posts on this subject. In the last post I proposed two titles, and there are more that we could discuss.
Falung Gong: controversies and criticism (I think criticism is best in singular form)
Criticism and controversies concerning Falun Gong

Fire Star: can you please go ahead and change the title of that existing page to one of these titles? Or suggest an alternative wording that is broader than just the teachings? Somehow I feel like we keep spinning our wheels but some of what appears to be agreed to gets ignored. In fact, why was that page created in the first place? We are supposed to be reaching agreement here on the structure of the article and the titles of the separate pages, so why has a separate page already gone up with an unacceptable title? We talk about assuming good faith, and I do try to assume good faith, but then I discover that something like this has happened. Please, as we go forward, let's work in the order of the suggested topics and reach agreement one at time. After that, we need to go back and deal with assigning the sub-topics into their appropriate sections. --Tomananda 16:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're dealing with a difference in interpretation. I'm talking about having many different articles that cover the different points of Controversy, all linked back to this article and cross-referenced to the similar pro- topic. I'm interpreting support for the outline that shows that format as support for that concept. You seem to want a single Controvery article broken into sections. The way I see it, they are basically the same thing except that in my plan there will be more overall room for Controversies and each one will be more specific. I don't think we're that far apart in concept. CovenantD 17:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and that's not a separate article that the link you refer to points at - it's the relevant section of the main Falun Gong article, just until the separate article gets written. It's an example of how the pro and con pages will cross link. CovenantD 17:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Still not clear and what you have in mind. Do you envision a separate page for different broad topics that relate to controversies and criticism? My understanding from looking at other Wikipedia articles as a model (eg: Scientology) is that the links that are embedded in the main page typically link to sub-sections within the Criticism page. Is that how you see it working?
--Tomananda 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm proposing many different articles, each covering a separate part of the controversy that is Falun Gong. I'm not wanting to limit the length of text about controversies (or positives, for that matter), just limit the size of each article. Wikipedia suggests about a 32k article. A single article covering all controversies will far exceed that. The Scientology article is far above that. If each controversy is treated separately, each can recieve the attention people want to give it. Does that clear up my ideas and my reasoning? CovenantD 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Covenant: now I understand what you are proposing. I don't have an objection to that scheme, but I wonder if we should go that far at this point given the fact that our existing content is minimal. So far the discussion above really hasn't addressed multiple criticism pages as you are proposing. Under your proposed scheme, I would have to think a bit about how best to break up controveries and criticism into separate pages, and I imagine so would everyone else. Clearly it depends on the topic. For example, I can envision something like this:

  • Controvesial teachings on sexual orientation or: Is Falun Gong homophobic?
  • Controversial teachings on racial differences or: Is Falun Gong racist?
  • Self-promotion of the Falun Gong (including a section on allegations of manipulation of politicians to get support)
  • Is Falun Gong a cult?
  • Do Falun Gong's teachings on sickness jeopardize the public heath?

If we go this direction, the result will be that we will have many pages which have just "stubs" as the starting text. Certainly the article as it exists now does not warrent this many separate pages, but down trhe road it could. What are other editors' thoughts on this?--Tomananda 18:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of the five examples you list, I see #1, 2, 4 & 5 fitting under Controversies about Teachings. Number 3 falls under both Controversies about awards and Falun Gong outside China, depending on the context. Of course if any particular Controversies article isn't large enough to support itself we look for something to group it with. I can see Awards and Controversies about awards all fitting nicely into one article, for example, thus presenting both sides in one space but still keeping the size right and not bloating the main article. CovenantD 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Is Falun Gong a cult? is more about practices (the disciple-master relationship and what FG practitioners are expected to do) than teachings per se. And the controversies of awards section does fit nicely into a separate criticism page on Controversial practices of Falun Gong if we're going to separate teachings from practices. Obviously, more needs to be written in this "practices" category, because everyone has been spending the most time on the teachings. But I could envision part of practices covering the Falun Gong as an organization issue. Yes, I know that the FG always claims not to be an organization, but that claim is easily challenged by critics. In fact, a bit of those challenges already exist in the current version.--Tomananda 18:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. So if I understand you, you're proposing that two new sections be added, Practices and Controversies about practices, probably right after the two on Teachings. Correct? (I'd really like to keep Awards and their controversial importance as a stand-alone because between the two of them I see enough material to justify it.) CovenantD 19:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we would have to have a separate "Practices" section with title "Criticism and controversies about practices." One of it's subsections would be Is Falun Gong a cult? But there would be others. Concerning your statement about the Awards section, the reason I object to combining everything into that section is that past practice has shown that the practitioners do a lot of blanking of the material in that section, even though it was thoroughly sourced and debated in earlier discussions. For your reference, this is the section we are talking about:

[25] So in order to agreee to combining this with the main awards section, I would have to have a committment from the practitioiners that they would: 1) not delete this as a separate section under the Awards topic by trying to cherry pick the sentences and merge them into the main section. 2) the title for that sub-category, based on our prior discussion, would have to be: Debatable significane of Falun Gong awards and recognitions. What this means is that if editors who are pro-Falun Gong want to present other points of view about awards and recongitions, they would be expected to create another section under the main topic, rather than trying to rewrite the critical section to obscure what it reports. --Tomananda 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Still the critized content cannot be groundless. Everybody has right to write any part. Fnhddzs 22:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To me "debatable" implies views from both sides. That means doubt towards their significance, as well as support, either of which can be debated. Also, I can assure you that I won't rewrite anything in attempt to obscure its meaning, I don't believe in that. However, I may rewrite things in order to clarify their meaning. Mcconn 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
We should present a balanced perspective. It shouldn't obscure the intent of any party or side if we present them all, within reason. "Questionable" and ("debatable slightly less so) seems slightly pejorative to me, "controversial" and "disputed" seem more neutral. That is just my opinion, though. --Fire Star 17:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "disputed", but "controversial" is also ok with me. I also want to mention that I disagree with the suggestion of the title "Is Falun Gong homophobic?". The term "homophobic" means different things to different people and in recent years has incorrectly been used by many as a label for those who simply don't believe in homosexuality. When weel split up the article before he linked the section to a page like this Christianity and homosexuality. All of the pages like this use the heading "xxx and homosexuality", which I think is the most neutral way to present the section. So I instead suggest this style of heading, i.e. "Falun Gong and Homosexuality". Mcconn 18:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree, that is a better title to me. Fnhddzs 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

I think just "Organization" would be better than "Falun Gong Organization" - That makes it clear we are discussing the Organization of Falun Gong rather than an organization (noun). I suggest that we keep "Research into Health Benefits" as a seperate section. Research along these lines are still in its infancy but there is some material available - including the survey on 12000 chinese practitioners and research from Dr Feng. Enough material for a sepearate section I'd say. And it doesnt fit into the other sections - we need a seperate section for that. Apart from that, I agree with mosty other titles.

"Falun Gong and Chinese Government" really wouldnt fit the material likely to be discussed under that title - I'd say the title should be something Like "Chinese Government's Crackdown on Falun Gong" or "The Persecution of Falun Gong in China"

Dilip rajeev 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dilip - For the Chinese gov't section, I was aiming for something with a NPOV. I don't think either of your suggestions fit that criteria. You may notice that it used to be Crackdown, but was changed for just that reason.
Capitalization should be enough to take care of the Falun Gong organization section. CovenantD 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Organization" is NPOV. The "Falun Gong Organization" implies there is a "Falun Gong Organization".

Also, we could refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity , there is a separate part of "persecution". If we don't want to single out Chinese government, we could just use a title "persecution". Personally, I know not every official in Chinese government wish to start the persecution.[26] The defectors Chen Yonglin and Hao, Fengjun [27][28] could be examples. Yet, I am still thinking we cannot deny the fact that it is the CCP-led Chinese government or CCP who did the persecution, regardless it was not their consensus decision. Fnhddzs 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree to keep "Research into Health Benefits". It does not belong to teachings. If combined into critism, I feel unfair. Fnhddzs 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some link about what is persecution. [29][30] Obviously there is persecution to Falun Gong according to these links and other reports I posted before. Fnhddzs 23:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, you are wrong. It sounds like a "crackdown" or "persecution" to me. How that could even be disputed is beyond conventional wisdom. It was many years ago that I read of Falun Gong and the crackdown. There must be hundreds of witnesses in regards to this. Newspaper reporters, diplomats, tourists, Chinese nationals, and so on. Dijip, I am starting to suspect Covenant is really an anti- FLG editor posing as a pro- FLG editor. I thought you might like to know. That is the impression I get.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.174.113 (talk • contribs).

Don't forget to sign your edits. CovenantD 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
User:71.106.174.113 has been blocked for repeatedly using multiple accounts to disrupt the main FLG page, make threats and vandalise pages. IMO, his comments above were another attempt to initiate a needless dispute between editors working together in good faith. --Fire Star 03:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Fire Star, although I have to admit I found it amusing. With Tomananda convinced I was pro-Fulan Gong, and this one convinced I was anti-, I figured I couldn't get better credentials for my neutrality. :) CovenantD 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been accused of being on both sides by unhappy editors, too, and not just here. As the old Wiki-saying goes "an article is truly neutral when you can't tell the POV of the author by the article they've written" or something like that. Any lawyer could convincingly assassinate Li's (or anyone's) arguments and character in an article, but that isn't what we are here to do, it isn't encyclopaedic. A neutral, dry article will give readers enough info to make up their own minds. If what Li says sounds credible to them, FLG has another aherent; if it doesn't, they don't. That shouldn't be up to us. --Fire Star 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Yeah, if some facts themselves are negative (such as persecution), we cannot hide them by using a neutral word. NPOV does not mean our wording is always neutral. We are not helping Falun Gong to get disciples (or to the opposite) by using the word "persecution". Fnhddzs 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults 24.87.87.211 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dilip's Reply

I disagee, "71.106.174.113". Covenant is not putting forward his POV or anything. There was some controversy on this before in the talk section and Covenant adopted a title thats least likely to attract dispute - thats all.

I do think what happens in China meets, beyond any ambiguity, the criteria for a "persecution" or "crackdown". Could we really lie to ourselves on that? No. In my opinion, the truth matters far more than using objective language to please everybody. I want to remind the editors that the section is on the CCP's crackdown on Falun Gong not "Chinese Government and Falun Gong" but we cant keep arguing endlessy over trivia right now. If the title "CCP's crackdown on Falun Gong" is a POV the whole section is a POV. Eitors are requested to go trhough the pages of Amnesty International on the matter. Even if you just consider US Congress resolution No. 188 or U.N reports on the Persecution of Falun Gong - it is easy to appreaciate that "crackdown" or "Persecution" is obviously not someone's POV( Point of View). It is not my "Point of View" that peoplea re being incarcerated and tortured to death for practicing Falun Gong and striving to be better people. It is certainly not my POV that Chinese goverment has destroyed huge amounts of Falun Gong books, blocked access to webpages on Falun Gong and Officially banned Falun Gong.

I request Fire Star to lift the ban on the IP considering that it is only human to react emotionally when people come to understand the exent of cruelty involved in the Chinese Government's crackdown. At the same time, I request that 71.106.174.113 be understanding of Fire Star's temporary block on your IP. We are all working towards a factual article here, your inputs to the effect are most welcome, "71.106.174.113".

Dilip rajeev 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. "Persecution" is a very negative term, however, we shouldn't avoid it simply for that reason. What the Chinese government has done fully meets the term's definition, which has been acknowledged by many third party sources, as Dilip mentioned. I opt for "persecution" rather than "crackdown" or "suppression" becuase it more clearly describes the reality of what is being discussed. I also want to say that we are all editors putting time and effort into this article. It doesn't matter what our stance on Falun Gong is, we need to do our best to cooperate and respect each other. Mcconn 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


The title of the criticism page

Hi CovenantD, could you give us an update on the title of the criticism page? I understand that we have till May 1st to finalize the structure of the article, how much have we accomplished? Sorry, my job kept me very busy last two days and all these postings are pretty hard to follow. Thanks. --Samuel Luo 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel: Seems not ready 100%, but it won't hurt you get the summary ready. Fnhddzs 19:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a few more hours to let others give more feedback on the recent comments and suggestions, then I'll try to pull it all together. CovenantD 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for unlocking the page

Is it correct to understand that once the structure is agreed upon and applied the page will be unlocked? If that's the case, then fine, I'll be glad to be able to edit it again. However, in addition to stucture, much of the edit war was also over content. Will the resolution of these disputes be left for after the page is unlocked? Mcconn 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Once the structure is agreed upon we can start really working on the summaries that are going to replace a lot of the content that's there right now. I know that you've worked up one for the Teachings section that hasn't been reviewed yet. If anybody else wants to start writing up summaries, this would be a good time. I'd hate to see all this agreement break down the moment we start editing content. I'd suggest we agree on a few summaries before unlocking the page. CovenantD 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I share the viewpoint - we need to work on the summaries first. Dilip rajeev 06:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Credibility of Chinese media is suspectable

  • Just raise one observation: Chinese newsreports after the crackdown are totally different with before the crackdown [citation available later]. I have said, in China, after you are claimed as the target (enemy), you are labeled as anything they want and lose human rights. Overnight, a previous vice State Chairman (e.g. Liu Shaoqi) was called anti-revoluntionary and many 'evidence' for his crimed were forged suddenly and published on the newspapers. Therefore, the credibility of all news after the crackdown is weak or zero. Also think about why similar allegations (such as 1400 cases) do not occur in other countries or areas? We know Falun Gong is quite popular in areas out of mainland China -- for example, Taiwan. So I think we should seriously keep this background in mind when citing media reports. Fnhddzs 07:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese government's news has more credibility than your propagandic Epoch Times. And Liu Shaoqi was persecuted in the Cultural Revolution 40 years ago. Does your head still live in the 60's?--PatCheng 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • HI, Pat. If Liu's event happened 40 years, how do you explain the 1989 June 4th massacre? The CCP's nature has not changed. Fnhddzs 04:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It hardly helps your case that you only name one country where complaints are not made re the widespread practise of Falun Gong, and that country happens to be that part of China in which many of the most intractable enemies of the Communist régime have taken refuge - in fact it draws attention to Falun Gong as a likely cover for political activity. Also, why must I accept your implication that enemies of Western régimes don't get 'labelled as anything they want and lose human rights'? Etaonsh 07:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The allegations did not occur on ALL countries/areas (including Hong Kong and Macow) except mainland China, as far as I know. Neither before the crackdown. Isn't it an interesting phenomena? I only mentioned one area where there are many practitioners. I think they are quite close geographically. I also know Falun Gong is popular in other areas such as South Korea. Because I personally like to watch movies from these two places. I like some culture of those areas. That's why I take them for examples. I did not say western media are always true. Fnhddzs 08:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But participants here objecting to Falun Gong and citing examples are not (all, if any) from mainstream China - are you implying our contributions don't exist (because it certainly looks like it)? South Korea is also clearly an example of an hotbed of political anti-communism. You merely draw attention to the fact that fascistic Falun Gong has failed to take root in Western liberal democracies. You seem to be trying to change the goalposts of the discussion re suppression of dissent/labelling of dissidents to one about media, instead of addressing the issue raised. Etaonsh 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Etanosh, The Concern the editors have is that media in main land China is state controlled. We know what the CCP has been doing to Falun Gong practitioners. United States Resolution No. 188 states:

"Propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination."

Dilip rajeev 11:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The real issue to me is whether the media is genuinely free, varied, affordable and thereby subject to real, democratic forces of demand. Whether it is dominated by the state, individuals, cartels or a social class is surely very much secondary going on red herring? Etaonsh 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I am concerned about media. Since we have to refer to the sources from media. I am surprised why you are not concerned. I am not clear about all western countries. But I know areas such as Canada, Norway, U.S. etc. are supporting Falun Gong. As I know, no country except China has those allegations. South Korea and Taiwan exercise democracy, don't you know? If they are anti-communism, you imply Western democracy are pro-communism?:) Fnhddzs 15:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Western democracies vary greatly in this respect from McCarthyist heritage America to Western continental Europe with its tradition of proactive, influential CPs. But I think it's reasonably NPOV to state that South Korea and Taiwan, with their territorial-related anti-communist issues, look right-wing and anti-Communist at times from a broad Western perspective, with our (outward) traditions of tolerance and Christian/liberal values. Western gullibility to alien Eastern traditions is arguably at root another side of the racist coin - the aliennesss of the alien can be exaggerated, resulting in sluggish assimilation and understanding; part and parcel of which is that it can become romanticised, exaggerated, stereotyped and misunderstood - 'Karma Cola.' Even with 'First World' standards of living, ignorance remains a big issue even at the highest levels, as shown in the recent WMD debacle. If millions depend on sources like Wikipedia for briefings on topics like Falun Gong, with our current, one-sided impasse, it is no wonder that national parliaments show evidence of having failed to identify two valid sides in the conflict, thereby, arguably, contributing little or nothing to its resolution. As stated above, I too am concerned about the media, but see it as only one part of the labelling and demonisation of dissidents issue, which is a worldwide phenomenon. Etaonsh 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have personal knowledge of other countries. So some of what I said may be partial. Falun Gong itself has nothing to do with the concept of country[31]. I just tried to address about the reputation of media concerned in our edits and why Credibility of Chinese media is suspectable.Fnhddzs 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a picture [32] where 36 Falun Gong practitioners from Western countries went to Beijing Tianmen square to express "Falun Dafa is good" and appeal for stopping the persecution, on Nov 20, 2001. Fnhddzs 15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the 36 practitioners named Zenon Dolnyckyj wrote a book "Coming for you". It is downloadable from [33].Fnhddzs 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Although info from China news sources is questionable. I have to point out that FLG sources are not immune from problems. We're talking about sources which reports highly detailed torture scenes (who was the witness?), neglects contradicting facts with no reason (CNN Tiananmen report), and twists facts to fit their master's sayings (Feng LiLi on the pineal gland). If one wants to waive info from China by merely attacking the source, FLG reports should probably not be used either.

--Yenchin 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it isn't just info from China news sources which is questionable. If I read Fnhddzs rightly, it isn't just the source which is questioned, but its unity. I can't allow this common view to pass as NPOV without countering that non-communist, Western-type media, which supports Falun Gong, is largely owned and therefore dominated by rich men, major news corporations and, inevitably, their (similarly uniform, inevitably anti-communist, pro-subversion) POV. Etaonsh 21:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. What I said "support" just means they are reasonable. Please refrain labeling anybody who is reasonable as pro-Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 01:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I was focusing on the correctiveness of the info and didn't notice much about this. FLG members often waive away reports from China as propaganda, smear tactics and so on. Like any evidence China brings up is for the sake of giving FLG a bad name. By this logic, any evidence brought up by FLG could also be for the sake of FLG propaganda. As well as the anti-communism you mentioned. --Yenchin 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Laugh loud. It is amusing to read about your funny logic. Did ever Falun Gong news run monopoly in any area? If anything is questionable, feel free to raise. But it is not comparable to CCP propaganda based on the obvious reason. Since CCP has the possession of the evidence, it is hard to get the evidence of tortured people, and the exposed are just tips of ice berg. Look at this beautiful woman. Her face was disfigured by shock torture. After the torture was disclosed, she was killed. [34] Feel free to raise other questions. Fnhddzs 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Falun Gong has no money, no power to manipulate anything unreasonably.

So? Pot calling the kettle black. As for "hard to get the evidence of tortured people", since you admit it, then how could FLG media obtain reports from multiple prisons from multiple prisoners? Anyone with common sense would point out the stories are over the top and are mere propaganda. Yet I don't see anyone waiving the reports. So why whine over China's propaganda?

--Yenchin 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Another example of CCP's lie. Anybody here still remembers the June 4th, 1989 Tiananmen massacre? Where were you then? What did you hear about it? Tell you my personal experience: I was in mainland China but not in Beijing then. The CCTV broadcasted the video and told us No students died, ruffians first attacked the army and burnt the army truck. I watched the CCTV and everything seemed true. I did not understand why students were so violent. I did not know the truth until later I left China. I met my previous college teacher (was in same lab in China ) in the new country. He told me before June 4th night, he biked to the square to check around. Fortunately he returned early. After June 4th, he heard that the school across the street of my college (in Beijing) rescued five bodies back. You may wonder why they rescued dead bodies. Since they were evidence. Evidence will be erased if not rescued. He went in person to see the bodies. Very very terrible. Somebody was punched through by their bike and the body still connected to the bike due to the tank grinding. .... If this teacher did not tell me, I could hardly believe what was reported by western media. I think this background is important for our judgement of media creditability. Fnhddzs 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Red Herring, this has nothing to do with what's happening to FLG.--Yenchin 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page

Okay, folks, let's try to keep our edits a little closer to the topic of editing the article. Some of this is getting pretty far off track. CovenantD 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should stick to the article. For the article, our judgement of Xinhua and the CCP's, or Li Hongzhi's, Time magazine's or even the BBC's credibility isn't the issue. The issue is how to report the subject of this article. We can't exclude a source because we ourselves think it is in error or mendacious, or simply because we do not like it. If the source has credibility issues, those should be discussed at the source's pertinent Wikipedia article, which can be footnoted and the article linked to. It would be OK, I'd think, if there is a notable rebuttal to report it, as long as the rebuttal also is from a public source. --Fire Star 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, All (especially Fire star). that sounds reasonable to me. Fnhddzs 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope this is upheld clearly in the future. --Yenchin 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Syntax error...

Normally I wouldn't complain about locked pages havin such problems, but the OPENING SENTENCE says "Falun Gong ... is also known as Falun Dafa ... is..." The blockage prevents me from fixing that. elvenscout742 08:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Says it all. Etaonsh 08:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

'Crackdown,' 'Clampdown' and NPOV

Much as this NPOV editor allows himself considerable leeway for human empathy for the oppressed, 'crackdown' clearly suggests an unreasoningly peremptory oppression (you can almost hear the bones breaking!). Presumably a point came when the Chinese Communist Government felt that Falun Gong's ostensibly merely conceptual mass crypto-fascism risked actual consequences - this, their reality, is not touched upon in the article, and therefore, presumably, dismissed as collective paranoia - and clamped down on the movement, with the crude physical human consequences that aborting such a Leviathan, as it had become, would almost inevitably involve. Please bear in mind that many such 'dissidents' received warnings of the newly illegal status of their de facto cult, and are promoting the falsehood, which has infiltrated Western media (including Wikipedia), that Falun Gong is an entirely apolitical, innocent exercise craze whose following has merely attracted the envy of an irrational, totalitarian government. I prefer 'clampdown' (which is not, as one revert warrior sought to suggest, a 'misspelling' of 'crackdown'!). Etaonsh 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary of where we are on the structure

A few days ago, I proposed the above structure for the main Falun Gong article. The following people voted to support that structure.

CovenantD 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The Fading Light 9:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
90% . Fnhddzs 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Fire Star 01:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda would like to have two new sections added, Practices and Controversies about practices, falling right after the two pro and con Teachings sections.

Dilip rajeev would like to rename #5 simply Organization.
Dilip rajeev and Fnhddzs would like to keep Research into Health Benefits as a separate section.
Dilip rajeev, Fnhddzs and Mcconn would like #6 to be Chinese Government Crackdown.
Etaonsh prefers Clampdown.

I think that covers it in a nutshell. If I've overlooked anything, please forgive me. I assure you it wasn't intentional, just damn difficult to cull out of everything that people have written. -- CovenantD 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember we like the word persecution, if I am correct. Thanks.Fnhddzs 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Infact, myself and Mcconn preferred the word persecution. Dilip rajeev 11:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I like "clampdown" myself but our North American friends may not understand it entirely. Another term that may be useful for our purposes is "suppression". --Fire Star 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re 'crackdown v. clampdown:' am I correct in the belief that this 3-1 majority is composed entirely of those involved in the cult, and therefore clearly non-NPOV? Etaonsh 10:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To make things going, I am considering to compromise to use the word "suppression". Fnhddzs 17:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

'Suppression' isn't much of a compromise - it still seems to have unpleasant connotations, whereas 'clampdown' seems NPOV. If 'our North American friends' haven't heard of that, Fire Star, I suggest they need to learn the language of firm benevolence. Etaonsh 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's Persecution-3 and Clampdown-2, with Olaf and Miborovsky not expressing a preference that I recall. CovenantD 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the structure, while, as mentioned, preferring the term "persecution". I agree that research into health benefits should be a seperate section as it doesn't quite fit into any of the other sections. Mcconn 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Suppression is a legal term, as in "the evidence (or in this case the movement) was suppressed" so I thought it might be useful considering the CCP has outlawed FLG. Repression and persecution seem to have political overtones, but of the two I would prefer persecution. Prosecution is in many cases accurate, but not all, of course. Perhaps "described by FLG adherents as persecution"? --Fire Star 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong teachings summary (Take 2)

A few days ago Mcconn was kind enough to write up a draft for the Teachings section. The link to the main article and the summary we agree on is all that will be left - the rest of it, which is pretty much a dup of the Teachings article anyway, would go away under the structure under which we're close to agreeing. I'm copying the draft here so people can start commenting on it. CovenantD 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my summary of the teachings. I didn’t know how long or short to make it. I believe that this is quite concise and only touches upon the very fundamentals of the practice.

The foundation of Falun Dafa are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that the "Buddha Law", in its highest manifestation, can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness (or Truth), Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Endurance)'. These are also believed to be the characteristics of the universe. Through adherence to these principles, Falun Dafa is practiced by improving one’s xinxing (heart nature) within daily life. Selfishness, fame, anger, jealousy, and all other mentalities at odds with the characteristics of the universe must be gradually relinquished while maintaining an ordinary life in society. In Falun Gong practice this is called cultivation. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍. It is emphasized that only through repeated study and application of the teachings of Falun Gong can a person acquire a good understanding of their content.

Mcconn 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong, with its crypto-fascist sentiments and denial, is blatantly an appalling latter-day travesty of the principles of 'Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness (or Truth), Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Endurance).' Etaonsh 09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please give me your definition for "fascism", as it seems you don't necessarily know what it is about. ---130.232.37.53 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel obliged to respond to opaque criticisms without explanations. Etaonsh 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Etaonsh, this doesn't seem like a good faith effort to improve the draft. Care to try without the sarcasm and blatant POV? CovenantD 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Etaonsh, you clearly don't understand what Falun Dafa is about. I suggest you take the time to read Zhuan Falun from cover to cover. I don't expect you will agree with all of what it says, but it will at least give you much deeper insight into what the practice really is. Actually, I suggest that all critics, or anyone who is serious about understanding Falun Dafa, read the book. It is the core of what Falun Dafa is about and is what practitioners study regularly. You really don't know Falun Dafa unless you've read it. Mcconn 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article in the appropriate section
Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content.

a bit of explanation why this article is problematic

hello, I'm kobi, I'm new to wikipedia so excuse me if i make errors here. I see we start to get the article into shape, but fairness, as usually understood, like putting in the two sides can't be applied here. because ever since the persecution started the communist regime started making so many lies. on the first month the newspapers and media were saturated with 347 articles on falun gong, while in the seven years prior to that, no one heard of any trouble and ofcourse people only benefitted from it.
also, you can't compare it to scientology or others, since falun dafa is not an evil religion or some cult.
so in context to this article: I think that criticism should belong in the persecution section, the chinese communist government's brainwash of the country or together with censorship of the internet and sources of information.
I really prefer no criticism at all. this is wikipedia. it's supposed to be factual. have you seen an article about a music band where part of the page is why some people don't like it?!
okay, thanks for hearing me out. I hope i can help you get into order with this :) Kobi_Lurie

This comes over to me as plausible hogwash. Of course Wikipedia articles include negative aspects of pop idols, where appropriate!: see Gary Glitter. 'I really prefer no criticism at all.' However poignant, this sounds evocative of the worst excesses of a totalitarian politburo! Etaonsh 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with Etaonosh here. To say that criticism of the Falun Gong cannot be "factual" is hogwosh. It is also symtomatic of the totalitarian nature of the Falun Gong. Total control of message and image, with all kinds of sanctions for people who stray from the Master's approved message. Unlike Sakyamuni, who allowed his teachings to be modified and adapted to different cultures, Li Hongzhi demands absolute control over his teachings. Those who disobey him are threatened with punishment. The biggest punsishment is that a practitioner will lose the Master's protection and then be subject to all kinds of bad things happening. It's not unlike a Mafia protection racket. --Tomananda 23:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think criticism is welcomed but cannot be groundless. You have to read the Falun Gong books first to have an idea. Otherwise you are critisizing something that does not exist. Don't be lazy. That's my personal point. Fnhddzs 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to you, considering that you never set foot in China, and base all your judgments on FLG conspiracy theories.

PatCheng, How do you I never set foot in China?! You are not reasonable. Your words are very POV. I would charge you a personal attack. Fnhddzs 04:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A Fresh Start?

I hope this article can be a fresh start. I like what was written in "Falun Gong teachings summary (Take 2)"
and think it was written well.
English is not my first language, so please fix phrasing or grammar errors.
I translated and used the hebrew falun gong article in wikipedia as basis for this, since I'm from israel.
I am also a practitioner, I read the books and I know full well what the system teaches.
so you can trust that this information is reliable and I hope I can help with that.
okay, here is what I propose: (let's keep it small and simple)

Your command of English is excellent, Kobi - it's not what needs fixing. What does need fixing is the need for a history lesson from the nations who liberated Israel from the Nazi concentration camps on the dangers of appeasement of and collaboration with subliminal crypto-nazi content, notably Li's teachings on homosexuality and racial mixing. Your 'attempt to wipe the slate clean' based on the Hebrew Wiki is a major regression and undermines and attempts to overrule many difficult pages of discussion and work here, which presumably you haven't bothered to read? And as a general rule of thumb, is it a good idea to seek correction from a smaller Wikipedia linguistic community, with its smaller intelligence volume, in a matter of universal interest? Etaonsh 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong (based on the Hebrew Wikipedia article)


Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an ancient spiritual system that originated in China, and opened to the public in 1992 by Mr. Li Hongzhi, founder of the practice.
The system emphasizes Truth Compassion Forbearance as its guiding principles.
Falun Dafa can be translated from chinese as "the great law of the law wheel".
[image: australian practitioners: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/4/41/Australia_practice.jpg]
contents:
1. description of the system
2. the Falun symbol
3. the persecution of the practice in China.
4. the response from international community
5. Falun Dafa in the world.
6. external links.

description of the system:
Falun Dafa is in fact a practice method of qigong. Qi-Gong practices are traditional chinese methods concentrated on the mind, body, and spirit using slow, gentle and meditative movements.
qi gong practices were and are very common in china and asia throughout all history.
these practices were originally called "cultivation-practice" (in chinese: Xiu-Lian) and they originally included not only a set of exercises but also a teaching of clear moral principles and virtues.

Falun Gong is a cultivation practice system. in addition to the exercises, it includes a moral teaching and calls on the practitioner to improve himself or herself, and to assimilate to the qualities of Truth, Compassion and Forbearance.
Falun Dafa contains a set of 5 exercises. four of which are in standing, and one of sitting meditation.
the movements of the exercises look somewhat similar to the slow and gentle movements of Tai-chi or Yoga or other forms of qigong.
the practice is defined as an hollistic overall improvement of body mind and spirit.
the exercises are integrated with the inner cultivation, and complement each other.
it is claimed that remarkable changes, mentally phsically and spiritually, can be obtained when a person cultivates himself according to the teachings together with the daily study and practice. (practice can also be translated as refinement)

Falun Dafa was first introduced to the public in 1992, by Mr. Li Hongzhi, often referred to as Master Li.
Mr. Li held a series of seminars all across China, in which he lectured and taught the moral principles of the system and the exercises.

in these lectures, Mr Li taught that practitioners should always aspire to act according to the principles of truth, compassion and forbearance to think of others before they think of themselves and to treat their personal interests and profit more and more lightly. Mr. Li also taught that the practitioners should not become monks or nuns like cultivators of the past but instead live among and be part of society, like every other man, to work, to be responsible for family and friends and be responsible to society. the goal of cultivation is to get rid of all attachments, and by doing so to reach a clear heart.

The practice in Falun Dafa is a popular qigong activity of the masses, with no formal organization, no name lists and no membership fees. the practice doesn't include religious formalities or formal rules.

that is also why it is difficult to tell just how much followers the movement has, the supporters of the movement say there are more than 100 million followers worldwide, of which 100 million in china alone. the chinese government estimates the number to be 10 million, whereas before the persecution started, a survey conducted by the chinese government talked about more than 70 million. during the years before the persecution, Falun Gong was spread from mouth to mouth in a very rapid rate across china. the chinese government at first welcomed the practice, and even gave a few proclamations and awards.
throughout the years falun dafa has receieved more than a thousand proclamations and awards for benefitting society and improving the moral quality of its people.

the system is always taught free of charge since it isn't commercial (doesn't have a goal of money), it is also not a philosophy, not a religion and doesn't have political objectives.
it is simple pure and clear and attracted many millions of people.

The cultivation in the system is guided by a number of books and lectures that the practice's founder Mr. Li Hongzhi wrote and edited. The main book for cultivation is called "Zhuan Falun" - turning the law wheel.

The Falun Symbol:
[image:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/8/82/Falun_emblem.png] the falun symbol (in the picture) is composed of the swastika sign in the middle, and around it four swastika signs and four taiji signs (yin-yang). the swastika sign is a symbol of the Buddha school and is known to human kind for more than 2500 years, and its meaning in the east is completely different from its meaning in the west.
in the east the swastika sign has symbolized for thousands of years good fortune, protection, infinity and more, while in the west since world war II it has a connotation to racism and genocide because the nazi party took it as its symbol.
the taiji sign is the symbol of the Tao school and it symbolizes the two opposites that complement each other, called yin and yang.

Falun Gong is Being Persecuted in China:
[image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/0/0c/Persecution.jpg] in 1999, the Chinese communist government, together with Jiang Zemin, the then ruler in china, initiated a ban on falun gong and a widespread persecution began.

persecutions happened in china many times since the communist party took power,
in the cultural revolution it tried to eradicate people's faith in god and to eradicate religions and everything traditional. many millions of people died.
in 1989, in the tiananmen square massacre, students asked for democracy and the chinese communist party sent tanks and machine guns to squelch them. thousands died but the media inside china reported nobody died, and those were only warning shots.
CCP used persecutions and terror to stay in power, and wanted to do the same now.

Jiang Zemin was overcome with jealousy for the attraction falun dafa got from the public.
he got infuriated and mad and developed an obsession with falun gong. It sounds absurd and childish that a ruler of a nation would start a persecution out of jealousy but as a matter of fact it's true.
he said: "we'll eradicate falun gong in 3 months"
and gave the order: "destroy their reputation, ruin them financially and eliminate them physically".
He ordered the media to spread lies and defamation. in the first month 347 anti-falungong articles appeared in newspapers and in the TV channels, creating widespread propaganda and brainwash.

when practitioners went to appeal, all roads have been blocked, and police put them in stadiums. atleast hundreds of thousands were stopped from appealing, the exact number is not known.
policemen were forced to participate in this human rights violation or lose their jobs.
they started burning the falun dafa books, and arresting falun gong practitioners.
they torture and murder practitioners and try to make them denounce their faith.
in june 10 Jiang Zemin created the 610 office (called after the date 6/10). this agency's sole purpose is to eliminate falun gong. the 610 agency gets orders directly from the ruler of china and enjoys great authority that even surpasses decisions made in court.

forced labor camps and detention centers were built, and astronomical amounts of money were dedicated just to support the persecution of falun gong.
a tight censorship is achieved by the internet blockade and chinese people themselves were not sure of the truth as all they could hear was the chinese communist party's brainwash propaganda.


today, every citizen in china must sign a denouncement of falun gong (the so-called "repentance statements"). if you don't sign, you will be fired from your job and lose your income, or be expelled from your university or school. practitioners are fined heavy fines arbitrarily, and many of them are forced to leave home.

According to UN statistics [external link 1: http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-05-03/ReligiousIntolerance-2005.pdf] the US government [external link 2: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13608.htm] and various organizations [external link 3: http://www.upholdjustice.org/English.2/AtrocitiesInChina2.pdf] such as amnesty and human rights watch [external link 4: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/china02/china0802-11.htm], hundreds of thousands of people were arrested since the beginning of the persecution, and sent to "reeducation" in forced labor camps. the "re-education" is meant to make practitioners denounce their faith in falun gong.
those who refuse are subject to tortures including electric shocks, tying in painful positions for weeks, sleep deprivation, forced feeding of acid and other substances by inserting a tube through the nose, rape and sexual abuse in women, phychiatric abuse and injection of harmful drugs, and more horrifying acts.



one case of persecution:
Tan Yongjie, 27, severely burned with hot irons by police

On June 2, 2001, while Tan Yongjie was being illegally held at the Luobo Labour Camp in Guangdong Province, three police officers tortured him. First they beat him and tried to force him to write "repentance statements" denouncing Falun Gong. However, Mr. Tan did not say a word. Later, the guards tied him to a pillar. One guard heated up a rusted iron rod on an electric burner until the rod turned red, then pressed the rod against Mr. Tan's legs in over a dozen places while asking: "Do you still want to practice Falun Gong?" Mr. Tan was seriously burned. His legs shook and he cried out loudly. He was in so much pain that he lost control of his bowel functions.

They burnt him. They just pressed the iron rod into his leg twice, and afterwards they said, "If you want us to stop, you better sign these documents." And he never said a word during the whole time. And they just kept burning him, burned him a total of thirteen times.

The guards then dragged him back to his small cell and locked him in. He could neither walk nor sleep because of the pain.
Later, the guards ordered him to care for an orchard. They thought that with such wounds he would not be able to go very far, but he escaped. He jumped on a truck and arrived in Hong Kong on June 10, Later he fled to the United States as a stowaway on a cargo ship to California, eventually he made it to Houston and brought to a hospital.

this miraculous escape was what made this story known. many other cases cannot currently be heard.


the response from internation community:
[a demonstration in washington to end the persecution: image :http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/8/8a/Dcparade20jul01_1_big.jpg ]
in recent years the western world became more and more aware to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
many reports were published by the UN and human rights organizations. in 2001 the american congress passed unanimously a resolution to condemn the persecution of falun gong, and calls the president of the united states to do his best to bring an end to the persecution. [external link 5: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6609be0496.htm ]
beginning in 2002, a series of global lawsuits around the world started appearing. [external link 6: http://www.flgjustice.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=49]
as of this date, in 62 countries all around the world charging Jiang zemin and its accomplices - the main perpetrators and instigators of the persecution with crimes against humanity, genocide and tortures.

Falun Dafa in the world:

(add to here: mainly a skeleton)
After Mr. Li lectured in seminars across china, he went abroad to different places in the world thus spreading Falun Dafa to the rest of the world, making It available to all people, regardless of race, religion, or gender. the main book Zhuan Falun was translated to more than 30 languages, and you can find a local practice site almost everywhere in the world.
[pictures from canada, australia, germany, israel, greece etc.] [for example: falun dafa in israel: image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/thumb/e/e7/Bereshit.JPG/800px-Bereshit.JPG]

external links:
"www.falundafa.org" the main world falun dafa site
"www.faluninfo.net" falun dafa information center
"www.falunart.org" falun dafa and art
"www.zhuichaguoji.org/en" world organization to investigate the persecution of falun gong
"www.flgjustice.org" lawsuits against the persons responsible for the persecution
"www.flghrwg.net" Falun Gong human rights working group

categories: alternative medicine | meditation | China:history

Response as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#A_Fresh_Start.3F above. Etaonsh 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY wish you had read the process that we have agreed upon before submitting this huge thing. I find it distracting and very much in the way. I'm really put off from even reading it because it so totally ignores everything we've been doing for the last few days. CovenantD 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge problem with the first sentence "Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an ancient spiritual system that originated in China, and opened to the public in 1992 by Mr. Li Hongzhi, founder of the practice." Is it ancient or founded by Li? It cannot be both. There is no independent evidence that FLG predates 1992, just Li's undocumented claims. --Fire Star 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with Fire Star. Although Falun Gong draws on concepts and terms from ancient traditions, it also changes the traditional meanings that dervive from those ancient traditions. This has been well documented. Therefore the first sentence above is strictly POV.

Accoring to Falun Gong practioners, the practice and teachings are acient, but according to critics of the Falun Gong, they are new and unique mixture of Buddhist, Tao and even Christian techings, with some extraterristial conspiracy theory thrown in.--Tomananda 23:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A good question. The Falun Gong, according to Master Li, was not open to the public before. He also made the Falun Gong suitable for public spread: "however much you give is how much you gain" [sorry I can't find citation now.] So I think it is correct to say it is ancient. also it is correct to call Master Li the founder. Fnhddzs 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'Persecution'?

If any state sought to enforce any law or prohibition whose breach was widespread, the results would almost necessarily be messy. But to define this as 'persecution' surely strongly implies strong POV leanings towards the offenders? Compare: 'persecution of cannabis users.' Etaonsh 11:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Friend, I request you to go through the teachings of Falun Dafa. Then you certainly wouldnt compare Falun Gong with Cannabis Users. Both the talk page and the article carries stuff that is not even remotely factual. All teachings of Falun Dafa being available for free download, you could go through them and decide for yourself. Dilip rajeev 11:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think my aim was to compare Falun Gong with cannabis users you misunderstand me. But since you raise the comparison, Falun Gong is like cannabis users insisting on retaining shady, illicit baggage even where legal. Which some of them do. Etaonsh 12:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My sole intent was to request you to go through the teachings of Falun Dafa, first hand. Do you really think toturing women and children to death is enforcement of a "law or prohibition" ? Is torturing thousands to death what the civilized world calls a "crackdown"? Dilip rajeev 12:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Etaonsh: I think even cannabis users have human rights. Were they tortured or beaten to death or raped or harvested living organs? Persecution is persecution. Please do not hide it if it is committed. Fnhddzs 15:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Falun Gong practitioners were only fined or maybe jailed because of their beliefs, "clampdown" would be a more suitable expression. But the human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners are among the most aggravated in the world. Besides, Falun Gong practitioners are not doing anything wrong, and their practice hasn't risked their own or other people's well-being - quite the contrary. "Persecution", with all its fascistic overtones, is by no means an exaggeration or POV. ---130.232.37.53 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page
This is not a place to debate Falun Gong and the 'right or wrong' aspects of it. This is a place to talk about the article. I don't see any kind of agreement on titles for the sections in question, just lot's of back and forth between skeptics and practitioners. I think Persecution is inherently POV. I think the only way to retain neutrality in the title is to go with something very bland and let the text speak for itself. CovenantD 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are a couple definitions from dictionary.com:
per·se·cute - To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
per·se·cu·tion - The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor.
I don't see how using this term is POV. Maybe you can explain. This term is acknowledged by people from both sides of the fence as well as by those in the middle. It is what it is. I wish it weren't a persecution and that Falun Gong practitioners had the right to live in China, but they don't and we need to acknowledge that. Mcconn 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, report to you one finding: I looked up the internet. I found there is a term on wiki Persecution of Falun Gong while it is redirected to this article (Falun Gong). Also the following articles mentioned PersecutionChina's Human Rights Record and Falun Gong [http://publici.ucimc.org/oct2002/8.htm The Practice and Persecution of Falun Gong: In Illinois and Around the World] [35] [36] Fnhddzs 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The State Dept. reference is to testimony before a House subcommittee, and even it declined to use Persecution in the title, opting for the vastly more neutral China's Human Rights Record and Falun Gong. The "Independent Media" article is actually written by 2 Falun Gong practitioners, and some of the lines in it greatly resemble the text that kobi provided for us. Near the end of that piece they abandon any pretense of neutrality when they implore readers to take a stand in favor of Falun Gong. Sorry, they both fail to convince me that Persecution is NPOV.. CovenantD 21:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I try to keep all the facts in mind when looking at an issue. I was impressed by the fact that FLG was larger than the CCP at its legal peak and was able to muster numbers capable of bringing down government. Its claims to be apolitical and non-violent are respectively questionable and asking too much from any government in that situation. The Chinese government's view that FLG represents some sort of political threat is hardly based on paranoia. Therefore it clamped down, at a point in FLG's development where the resulting conflict resembles some species of civil war, and as we all know, war results in casualties. I do resent the suggestion that I am trying to 'cover something up' here, from opponents who have repeatedly and deviously reverted and censored to cover up any suggestion that Li Hongzhi might be guilty of foolishly leading millions into a pointless, painful and bloody war with the Chinese government which will achieve nothing, or a return to the laws of the jungle and the unbridled marketplace. Etaonsh 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of the appropriate section!
There does seem to be a contradiction between FLG's apolitical public stance and organising huge public demonstrations. Most of us would define such protest demonstrations as inherently political, especially since they were directed at the party in power, hence the contradiction. At some point in the past this observation was in the main FLG article, but I don't think it survived the months of reversions. It should be mentioned somewhere in our sources. --Fire Star 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A definite distinction must be made between the practitioners' efforts to secure their fundamental human rights (including freedom of belief) in contrast to a group seeking authoritative power and political dominance. It's mostly a question of semantics: Falun Gong could be termed "political" in the first sense but not in the second one. It is the communist party who is using violence against these people; all countermeasures can be seen as political actions, particularly because the oppressor is a political actor in and of itself. In addition, the Zhongnanhai appeal took place because the government had already beaten and abused nonviolent practitioners. It wouldn't have been such a big deal in a free country. I know that the concept of "human rights" in many Western countries is different from China, where a lot of people would argue that the state can withhold rights from its citizens without restraint, as if an individual didn't possess any "natural" freedom. I disagree with this idea, of course.
By the way, would you guys please stop branding useful discussions with that "Hazard X" tag. If we are to reach a consensus of definitions and terms, contextualization of disputed questions is not only beneficial, it is absolutely necessary. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. "This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved". If we don't discuss, is there an alternative to resolve dispution? I think 99.9% discussion so far is article related. I appreciate everybody's patience. Fnhddzs 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

--- The persecution has been exported out of China. Passports of Falun Gong practitioners outside China with Chinese nationality are refused to extend by Chinese Embassy. Falun Gong practitioners with foreign nationality ae refused visas to China and even other countries (such as Iceland) since they are blacklisted. Taiwan Falun Gong practitioners were refused to enter Hong Kong and put in bags in Hong Kong airport and sent on airplanes back to Taiwan. Australian Falun Gong practitioner, David Liang, was shot in South Africa [37]. U.S. Falun Gong practitioner, The Epoch Times technology chief Dr. Yuan Li got beaten in his Atlanta home When All Else Fails: Threats China's Fight With Falun Gong. Just present some articles. I understand we are to report instead of judge. By the way, it is worth mentioning David Liang's feet have recovered well through Falun Gong cultivation practice without hospitalization (hospitals had no way but cut his feet)[38][39]. Fnhddzs 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether or not the Chinese Government began the persecution because of paranoia. It's still a persecution regardless of why the persecuter started it. Also, this is completely different from a civil war. A civil war involves war between two armys of the same nation. The persecution of Falun Gong involves an authoritarian dictatorship in an attempt to "eradicate" by any means necessary an unarmed spiritual practice, with no ambitions of political power. And as fnddzs, this persecution has extended beyond China.Mcconn 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between debated the merits of Falun Gong and debating the topic headings for the article. There is a difference between discussing the article and trying to win others over to your way of belief. I see lots of one and not enough of the other, which is why I've been putting the Hazard X up when I see a thread turn into something not directly addressing the article. CovenantD 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A Suggestion

The Hebrew article has a section on The Falun Symbol. What about a seperate section on the Falun Symbol? Dilip rajeev 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok to me. Fnhddzs 14:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Getting Back to Structure

Just a couple of comments:

  • 1. Contrary to what's posted above, I do not prefer two separate criticism pages, one on teachings and one on practices. I much prefer one combined criticism page for both. Previously

I suggested some titles:

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong teachings and practices
Criticism and controversies about the Falun Gong
  • 2. Has anyone mentioned that because there is so much potential text about Falun Gong exercises and other practices, there is a good argument for having a separate web page to allow full detail about that. I don't mean a separate criticism page (because at this point we really don't have that much text), but rather just a break-out page which would allow a fuller reporting on "practices" as opposed to teachings.
  • 3 Concernng the debate about titles for what used to be called the "crackdown" section, I feel strongly that the word "persecution" is extremely POV. To remind everyone, the idea of having a secton called "Homophobic teachings of the Falun Gong" was strongly challenged earlier for reasons of too strong POV. Surely the work "persecution" fits into that POV category and I think we must reject it. However, I am ok with either "suppression" (which rings true to a Western ear because of its political connotations)or "crackdown."--Tomananda 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Homophobic" literally means "scared/afraid of homosexuals", right? Falun Gong says homosexuality is not in tune with the harmony of the universe. "What human society glorifies is not necessarily all good, and what human beings glorify is not necessarily acceptable to gods": that is maybe one of the oldest ideas of humankind. Therefore, it is primarily a question of natural ethics, not any kind of "phobia". Whether an individual believes that such claims are plausible (as such, or in relation to the practice system as a whole) is entirely up to himself or herself. Nobody's pushing you to agree with Falun Gong's teachings, and you will not meet with discrimination or violence on the practitioners' part because of that. We just hope that you would condemn the atrocities regardless of whether you disagree with some of the victims' personal values and beliefs.
On the other hand, the crackdown surely matches with the dictionary definition of the word "persecution", and it is therefore not a POV in the same sense. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually homophobia has a broader meaning. My dictionary gives: "aversion to gay or lesbian people or their lifestyle or culture." The way Li Hongzhi talks about gays amounts to hate speech. It is outrageous that he denies our humanity, talks about Gods eliminating us, calls us degenerates, etc. Although Li does not advocate violence against gays, his teachings can easily be used by others to justify violence against us. Furthermore, Li is ill-informed about homosexuality. He has several absurd theories about why we are gay (eg: postnatally formed bad things or mental illness) and does not seem to understand that a gay person does not choose to be gay any more than a straight person chooses to be straight. He also doesn't seem to know that homosexual behavior is commonplace in many different species. Yes, Li Hongzhi is a first class homophobe by any standard. He needs to outgrow his small minded view of humanity if he is ever going to be worthy of being called a spiritual leader. But then again he has a small army of volunteer disciples who pursue his political agenda of destroying the CCP and that's what he really cares about, so why should he be concerned about understanding human sexuality as it is? As to your hope that I will "condemn the atrocities"...the only problem is that much of what Falun Gong claims to be happening I don't believe to be factual. --Tomananda 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel convinved that Li Hongzhi has a hatred of homosexuals as people, and also find the fashionable term 'homophobic' malapropos. But you are right to raise the issue of hatred and its consequences, and the problem here, as in Li's statements about race, is a failure to grasp the dangerous likely consequences of his high-profile pronouncements. If Li has at any point issued disclaimers, e.g., condemning racism and violence against homosexuals, they need to be highlighted in the article (in flashing lights!;D). But frankly, I find it hard to envisage any credible retraction once someone has cast aspersions on the ethnic marriage choices of others. Etaonsh 09:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies about the Falun Gong sounds like a good title to me. Concerning the crackdown section, how about this title: the ban of Falun Gong in China? As many have already pointed out, titles should be as neutral as possible. --Samuel Luo 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'Ban' doesn't sound so neutral - it sounds like an officialese understatement by the Politburo. 'Clampdown' evokes the tightening up on something that's been allowed to expand considerably, without saying whether or not it's a good thing. European terminology allows for this type of uncertainty. Etaonsh 08:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the past, we should use the term "the Falun Gong". Depending on the context, either "Falun Gong" or "Falun Gong practitioners" should be used instead. Practitioners don't recognize the term "the Falun Gong" and over the years media have seen that and have also stopped using it. As I've also said repetedly in the past, Mr. Li's lectures are given to practitioners, people who can understand his words in context with the whole system. The fundamental teachings of Falun Dafa are Truth, Compassion, and Tolerance, and everything we believe fits into that. Therefore I understand homosexuality in context with that. As I practitice compassion, I absolutely don't condone any voilence taken against homosexuals because of who they are. And I have tolerence for those who believe differently than myself. Mr. Li has also taught that we should treat homosexuals the same as everyone else. There is no "hate" in this. Mcconn 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So the 'homophobia' which has been reported is a) Li being quoted out of context and/or b) by practitioners who have leaked lecture content to an uncomprehending world? Surely the organisation bears some responsibility for misunderstandings of this nature, and should issue disclaimers where appropriate? Otherwise it would appear that Li Hongzhi has inflicted a potentially dangerous dragon on his apparent enemy the CCP, and amongst the Chinese people? Etaonsh 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"persecution"

Friends, I dont consider the word "persecution" to be inherenlty POV, that is the only term that could even vaguely describe what is happenning in China right now. The Word "persecution appears atleast 4 times in Resolution 188.

H. Con. Res. 188, Unanimously passed (420-0) by the United Stated Congress States:

"Jiang Zemin's regime has created notorious government `610' offices throughout the People's Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder"

Whereas propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination;

Whereas the number of known deaths from torture has reached 422 so far, tens of thousands have been tortured while confined in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to attend brainwashing classes;

Whereas official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes;

Whereas women in particular have been the target of numerous forms of sexual violence, including rape, sexual assault, and forced abortion;

Whereas the campaign of persecution has been generated by the Government of the People's Republic of China, is carried out by government officials and police at all levels, and has permeated every segment of society and every level of government in the People's Republic of China; and

Whereas several United States citizens and permanent resident aliens have been subjected to arbitrary detention, imprisoned, and tortured in the People's Republic of China: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, and its representatives in the United States should cease their harassment of citizens and residents of the United States who practice Falun Gong and cease their attempts to put pressure on officials of State and local governments in the United States to refuse or withdraw support for the Falun Gong and its practitioners;

(2) the United States Government should use every appropriate public and private forum to urge the Government of the People's Republic of China--

(A) to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners and put an end to the practices of torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment against them and other prisoners of conscience; and

(B) to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by allowing Falun Gong practitioners to pursue their personal beliefs; and

(3) the United States Government should investigate allegations of illegal activities in the United States of the Government of the People's Republic of China and its representatives and agents, including allegations of unlawful harassment of United States citizens and residents who practice Falun Gong and of officials of State and local governments in the United States who support Falun Gong, and should take appropriate action, including but not limited to enforcement of the immigration laws, against any such representatives or agents who engage in such illegal activities. Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2002.


107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 188

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

According to Amnesty International:

"...Some practitioners have been detained in psychiatric hospitals. Those who have spoken out publicly about the persecution of practitioners since the ban have suffered harsh reprisals."

3Amnesty International Magazine - Jan/Feb 2003 Bernard O'Hear, AI China Coordinator, reports on Escalating state persecution of the Falun Gong

The term has been used widely in Academic Journals too. See, for instance, The article that appeared in The Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion :

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf

The term persecution appears in several places in the article. THe title says " persecution of Falun Gong " Dilip rajeev 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to the alien (to me) US Congress, even when unanimous, as is claimed, being used to decide an issue like this. I also object to academic journals being used in this way, having recently tried to follow a Wiki link [40] to one on a different topic, and found myself excluded by a subscription fee and examples of a level of content which doesn't seem to merit paying it. I have a long-term bone to pick with Amnesty International over its partiality towards exposing dissent outside its country of birth and allied nations - I emailed them recently on this very topic [41] and got no answer. And why have you started the same topic in a different place? - to hide/run away from things again? Etaonsh 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try to give some examples in Europe. In my impression, I think European people are very supportive. Years ago several Ireland students (Falun Gong practitioners Zhao, Ming [42]; Liu, Feng etc.) were rescued from China's prison, by the efforts of the Irish government and private citizens including Ireland Head of State (or premier?). A book called "The Persecution of Falun Gong" was published in German by Dexheimer, ISBN 3-932273-85-0 in March 2006 [43]. United Kingdom: Lord Avebury, Lord Avebury, Vice Chairman and founder of the UK Parliamentary Human Rights Group was outspoken in a Statement on the Secret Concentration Camp in China [44] Fnhddzs 18:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have met Lord Avebury, and once bought him a drink. But I since found out that his idea of liberalism seems to involve close relations with terrorist organisations - but, as with AI, in other people's countries. No matter how many Euro-sympathisers you cite, it doesn't alter the fact which seems to have emerged from this discussion that FLG has distinct right-wing political leanings which are not understood in an uncomprehending, racist (to the point of not really being interested in such issues) West - even at the highest levels. Etaonsh 18:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Etaonsh: Thanks for discussion. First, Friends. I am trying not to dispute with you. I think that does not help me to try to persuade anybody. If you do feel so from now on, please kindly point out and I should adjust myself. I actually hate pushing others. I think I don't care who "win" the final title of the article. It is our group effort. I appreciate we can communicate here. The reason I am keeping talking here is just to fulfill my responsibility as a proud voter assigned by wikipedia. I think I am responsible to present some information I have learned. And I also have enjoyed the information you have presented. I appreciate it and learned a lot.

Second, go back to "racism". I think Master. Li discussed not only one race. In his fundamental book Zhuan Falun lecture 7 [45], he mentioned about "Asian Jealousy" and Jealousy is a very very serious attachment that each practitioner has to get rid of finally.

Later on I think one main word on race is [46] "From another perspective, the Bible said that Yahweh created man out of clay. In fact, what Yahweh created was one species of white people, not all white people. White people don’t all belong to one species of man—they were created by several divine beings. Yellow people were also created by several divine beings. And other peoples, for example the people of India, the ancient Egyptians, and so on, were all created by different divine beings. People believe that God created man in his own image, when in fact that’s simply how a divine being’s ability works—the man he creates is bound to be of the lowest part of him and the lowest level of particles of him, that’s all. Plainly put, it’s a particle at the bottom of the divine being’s foot; you could also call it a cell. I’ve told you in my Fa lectures before that, every cell of a being—humans, animals, plants, and so on—is in the image of the main body."

I did not see any racism. Master Li also mentioned something that one person in this life could be one race, in his/her previous lifes or next lives could be another race [sorry I don't have time to find citations now, so this may not be accurate]. All in all, I think he did NOT say any race is superior to others. In my understanding, every race has their unique characteristics. I remember you were not happy about some comments on white people. Sorry I forgot the details. I will try to look at your old edits. But anyway, I did not see any race is perfect in Master Li's teachings. Thanks and have a nice day! Fnhddzs 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am quite prepared to believe in the possibilty that Li Hongzhi is not a racist supremacist, but the fact remains, as a visitor to this website, I found allegations that he cast aspersions on racial interbreeding which were nowhere clearly denied by anyone. Unlike him, I live in a multiracial community where such relationships are common, and accepted as normal. But we are far from perfect, and often lack, as a society, the Confucian virtues of civility and politeness, which often seem to shine out from our oriental visitors and immigrants. In fact, in the midst of this racial harmony, there is also racism, a racism which, I am told, can be particularly vicious towards those of mixed race and in similar relationships, an intolerance which can become violent and which is also directed towards homosexuals. In this context, we positively need disclaimers, and from the founder, Li Hongzhi himself! The sophisticated reader can happily conclude that no real enmity is intended towards interbreeders - it was myself, the non-FLGer, who kindly 'bent over backwards,' as it were, and surmised that Li might be referring to the astrological difficulties in classifying and advising their offspring. The sophisticated reader can, similarly, countenance the existence of an opposition to homosexuality which is based on something other than blinkered, narrow-minded hatred. But what you've got to realise, when addressing the public, e.g., on a website like this, is that the readership is wider than that, and the consequences potentially considerable. Etaonsh 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well stated Etaonsh. I couldn't agree with you more. I've started a topic below on this very topic. --Tomananda 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What are all these legalese with "persecution" bolded intended to show? If you think the US reports are NPOV, then you're living in Lalaland. These reports are just as POV as China's own. What about them? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism, Homophobia and the Genesis of Hatred

The idea that a spiritual leader in the 21st Century would base his theology on racial differences is, itself, racist. Here's my idea of spirituality: all humans are of a divine nature worthy of respect. Even the Catholic Church teaches the intrinsic dignity and worth of all people. Individual differences such as race are superficial differences of form. Beyond diferences of form and name, there is a universal commonality of spirit shared by all humanity. Li's world view makes judgments about classes of human beings and those judgments are themselves based on superficial differences of name and form. When it comes to homosexuals, he doesn't even grant that we are human, but rather states we only appear to be human.

History has shown that the first step for spreading a philosophy of hatred towards an entire class of people is to deny their humanity. Li's teachings could easily form the basis for an extermination program directed against homosexuals, all in the name of "eliminating degenerates." As I have said repeatedly, Li's aversion to homosexuals reflects the same language of the American eugenics movement. In the name of building a better society, those academics argued that classes of people whom they considered "degenerate" or "unfit" needed to be delt with by the rest of society. Hitler used the American and British eugenics movement as his justification to eliminate gays, Jews and gypsies. Hatred is a learned emotion and it starts with ideas. Once you lose the ability to look at another human being...any human being...as your brother or sister, you have taken the first step towards systemized hatred. --Tomananda 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong practitioners have never resorted to violence even when they are beaten and tortured in China's labor camps. How would they endorse any kind of violence in society? In addition, Li has never stated that all humans are not of a divine nature worthy of respect. Nor has he ever claimed that any race is superior to others. According to Falun Dafa, any behaviour that is not in tune with Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance goes against the characteristic of the universe.
I'll now speak on my behalf. I agree that it is dangerous to marginalize a group of people, and I know perfectly well the history of Nazism and the eugenics movement. I have always been an anti-racist myself, and I've never known any Falun Gong practitioners who would support racist ideas. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the amount of interracial marriages, particularly between Chinese and Caucasian spouses, is probably more common among the practitioners than the general populace, according to my personal observations. Unfortunately, there's no statistical information available - nobody has made any studies on this issue. But it ought to be taken into account if we are to evaluate how Falun Gong practitioners have interpreted Li's stance on miscegenation. It is a part of today's society. It's normal. It breaks the link to the "main body" on a higher level, but this can be resolved. I see no racial discrimination or supremacism here.
As far as I understand, Falun Dafa's starting point is that what is truly good or bad can be evaluated only from a detached and non-sentimental point of view. Human sexuality is a difficult area, because it involves deep emotions and identity questions. Personally, I have chosen to live a totally celibate life for the sake of cultivation, at least for now, because I'm not married. But I used to have quite a lot of sex, and it is only gradually that I came to understand how important it is to rid oneself of lust in order to attain a more luminous state of mind. Cultivation is about returning to one's original, true self. It's inherently difficult. It's always like swimming upstream. Returning to what is truly good and virtuous will never conform to what one desires.
I can also say that I have absolutely no need to support any ideas just for the sake of creating myself a stereotypical and prejudicial template for viewing the world. I believe that Falun Gong impugns the ontological status of homosexuality and premarital sexual activity (among other things) for a good reason. I used to believe otherwise, so I know rather well where you stand. If I'm proven wrong, I stand corrected - that's no problem. Even now, I wouldn't demand other people to believe in Falun Dafa if they don't feel like it. Only time will tell us all whether or not there's really a Fa-rectification going on, etc. If Falun Gong is really true, there's no use to struggle against reality, regardless of how we evaluate the cosmos from a human perspective. If it's not, then the practitioners simply have to admit that we were wrong. For me, it's not a question of supporting a religion; I sincerely believe that Falun Gong's epistemological approach to reality is veritable. It's about natural laws, not moralistic opinions; this is the conclusion I have reached after observing the unparalleled changes that have resulted from cultivating by Falun Dafa's principles. It's not that I'd otherwise dote upon conservative ideas. And I know that many people don't agree with me about Falun Gong, and that's alright. Besides, we can never exhaustively resolve such questions in our discussions. I know that we all have valid arguments. But neither party can conclusively refute the other, and I hope we could all admit that. This the fundamental point I have wanted to make. ---Olaf Stephanos 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--- --- As I said before, I have seen several pairs of couples (Falun Gong practitioners) from different races (yes, exactly Chinese/Singapore and white people also in my observation). In Master Li's teachings in 1998 [47]. There was a question from an audience: I have a Chinese girlfriend. Through reading the books, I know it’s not right to have an interracial marriage. I decided to break up with her. Teacher: "I’ve never said no to your wish to marry someone of a different race. That’s because this is a problem left to us by history, and it has nothing to do with you."

Also I think the teachings on interracial offsprings are oriented to practitioners or concerned with people who may wish to become a divine being through cultivation practice. But it does not matter to people who don't care about cultivation. Master Li does mention about something like the future human. I don't know when is that. But by no means, Falun Gong could ever have violence or have a discrimination on interracial offsprings. I remember he said something (sorry no citation now): the humans are all on the same level. I think it is good to have this interracial topic in the article as long as we provide a full report from both sides.

Just think what Li is saying here. Does it make sense that the existence of millions of inter-racial people is "a problem"? Is Li saying it's ok for you to be a an inter-racial child, but don't expect to become a divine being? Isn't that a double standard? Doesn't this thinking strike you as absurd? Do gods really have skin? And if they do, can't they change their pigments at will? What absolute nonsense it is to base theology on skin pigments. You might as well say only brown-, black- and blond-haired people will go to heaven, but red-heads will go to hell (or be weeded out in the fa-rectification.) By the way, I understand Li gets his hair dyed. Is that ok? --Tomananda 07:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In Sydney lecture (as far as I can recall), Li's saying that interracial people can practice cultivation just the same. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda, yes, an interracial person can cultivate and return to its devine origin if s/he wishes. Sorry my last words may cause confusion. Thanks for understanding. Thanks Olaf for clarifying. Fnhddzs 17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I had comments on homosexuality before since you know I have a friend who claims she is a gay. She is warm-hearted and willing to help anybody. One time she saw somebody dropped one thing and she fled to catch them and returned the dropped to them. I don't know any teachings on discriminating people with homosexuality, although I know practitioners should get rid of this. There are a lot of things to get rid of gradually or finally, as a practitioner, anyway. It is not easy, yes, like swim upstream. But there is nothing to do with non-practitioners. 146.151.118.209 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you respect that lesbian friend of yours, you should share with her all of Li's teachings on homosexuality. If you have not done so, you are lying to her. --Tomananda 06:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Olaf: Interesting that you made this statement in the negative: "Li has never stated that all humans are not of a divine nature worthy of respect." What's important is that he has never said that they are, nor even come close. He seems to hate the human condition so much that he could never affirm it in such sweeping terms. For Li, it's all about making judgements and creating a feeling of "righteousness"...dare I say "self-righteousness"...for the practitioners.
You strike me as more reflective than many Falun Gong practitioners on matters of dogma, which I respect. And you certainly point out the bottom line in all of Falun Gong teachings: Li's Fa-rectification either is a reality or it isn't. You of course know where I stand on that question.
How many years or decades must go by before you begin to doubt Li's predictions? If I am correct that Li is a con man, I am sure that proof positive will come to light in time. He hides from responsibility well, but you can't hide for ever from the truth. Yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am afraid a great many disciples will be devastated when the real truth emerges. Instead of experiencing a great day of consumation when all the degenerated people of the world are weeded out and practitioners ascend into Falun Gong paradise, individual Falun Gong practitioners will eventually realize that Li's predictions are not true. I don't expect this realization of Li's fraudulent nature to happen all at once, but rather slowly over time. And eventually there will come a time when disillusioned practitioners will ask: how could we have ever believed in that man? I am a 61 year old man who has experienced many cultures and studied many religions. I expect to keep my physical body for some time yet...so please check in with me a few years from now and let me know how you are doing. --Tomananda 06:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, your predictions on the future outcome of Falun Gong are off topic, and somewhat insulting. It seems that you're trying to insite conflict. Please try to have more respect for your fellow editors. Actually, I believe that the paragraph quoted above containing the following words indicates the Mr. Li does indicate that all humans are of a divine nature worthy of respect; "[...]And other peoples, for example the people of India, the ancient Egyptians, and so on, were all created by different divine beings. People believe that God created man in his own image, when in fact that’s simply how a divine being’s ability works—the man he creates is bound to be of the lowest part of him and the lowest level of particles of him, that’s all. Plainly put, it’s a particle at the bottom of the divine being’s foot; you could also call it a cell. [...]" In addition to this, the content of the following quote, also indicating human beings' devine nature or origin, is mentioned multiple times in Zhuan Falun:

We see that in this universe a human life is not created in ordinary human society; the creation of one’s actual life is in the space of the universe. Because there is a lot of matter of various kinds in this universe, such matter can, through its interactions, produce life. In other words, a person’s earliest life comes from the universe. The space of the universe is benevolent to begin with and embodies the characteristic of Zhen-Shan-Ren. At birth, one is assimilated to the characteristic of the universe. Yet as the number of lives increases, a collective form of social relations develops in which some people may develop selfishness and gradually their level will be lowered. If they cannot stay at this level, they must drop down further. At that level, however, they may again become not so good and not be able to stay there, either. They will continue to descend further until, in the end, they reach this level of human beings. [48]

Also doesn't the daoist concept of "returning to one's nature or orginal true self" through cultivation, which is also central to Falun Dafa, suggest that a human being's origin is devine? I think this is quite clear in Falun Dafa. Mcconn 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

'Master Li'

' I remember he said something (sorry no citation now): the humans are all on the same level.'[49](Olaf Stephanos? 06:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)). In which case, wouldn't 'Comrade Li' be more apposite? :) Etaonsh 08:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't write that. But that's the idea. All the human society is on the same level: this plane is the greatest delusion. That is also the reason why people can enlighten. Of course, the amount of karma and virtue on a person differs, and each individual has a different inborn quality and comprehension. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Summaries?

The above discussions are benefical, but let's not get distracted. Who is working on what summaries? There should be one for the citicism/controversy section, one for the homsexuality section, and one for the persecution section. Are there any others that I'm missing? Has anyone taken on the responsibility to write any of these? If yes, please indicate so and perhaps mention your progress. If no, any volunteers? Mcconn 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn, I'm beginning to think that you and I are the only ones concerned with progress on the article itself. CovenantD 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Before we set about producing summary content, we need to come to final agreement on the topics on the main page and which will have auxiliary pages. I think the focus on this point should be on writing just the summary content for those topics which will have break-out pages..otherwise the whole exercise will become too messy. Covenent, do you want to post something as a proposal summarizing where we are at? It should include the main topics, the sub-topics and the topic headings of break-out pages. We haven't agreed to have a separate criticism page just on the topic of sexual orientation and I don't think that is necessary. However, some editors may wish to write a sub-secton on sexual orientation from a Falun Gong POV to appear on the main page, which will be linked to the corresponding section on the criticism page. That's definitely the way to go for all concerned. I again ask (as does Samuel) that at this point we only have one criticism page with a title such as:
Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong teachings and practices
Criticism and controversies about the Falun Gong
Also, I never got a response from any editor on my proposal that there be an entire break-out page devoted to Falun Gong practice (meaning the exercises not the criticism). Do people agree with that? The reason I propose it is the main page should be kept as a reasonably short summary of major topics, and certainly the exercise component of Falun Gong is a big topic unto itself.
We have think in terms of overall proportion of the topics and which will be "big" and which will be "small".
If Covenant can produce a revised outline with just one criticism page for both teachings and practices, together with other break-out pages, their headings and the sub-sections for both, that would be great. I further propose that we give our selves a deadline for this starting task. How about 24 hours from now? --Tomananda 17:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
First thoughts;
I've tried several times now to summarize where we are in our agreement on the structure, only to have it bog down in "What is persecution?" and "Is Falun Gong homophobic?" discussions, so I'm a bit frustrated with the idea right now.
That said, it will take several hours to go through all of the discussion and try to figure out exactly who's agreed to what and how it all fits together.
Mcconn has already written a summary for the Teachings section, which still needs review and comment. It's been ready for over a week now.
There have been multiple votes already for a structure that has multiple pro-and con- articles, not just the single article that Tomananda suggest. Until we hear from those people (Fire Star, The Fading Light, & possibly Fnhddzs) I don't know that it should be unilaterally changed. And I still think that a single Critisisms and controversies article will be too large. So I don't see any consensus yet on structure. CovenantD 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I remember Samuel said "Criticism and controversies about the Falun Gong sounds like a good title to me. --Samuel Luo 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)"

I think a separate practice (exercises) could be ok so we put on more details, as long as we report Falun Gong is a mind and body double cultivation system (both upgrade heart nature and change body). Currently the exercises are included in the Falun Gong teachings article.

I have a question on criticism on practices. Obviously, I think it is for critism/controversaries on things such as the awards (not teachings but not the five exercises), right? So the "practice" has a different meaning from exercises here. Could anyone figure out a new word for "criticism on practices"? Or you think ok? Or we have multiple criticism pages. Tomananda. I remember now awards and its critism are together. I forgot what other critism on things other than teachings you are considering? Maybe they could have separate names instead of using the word "practice". Thank you all for time and patience. Fnhddzs 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought I am ok for the teachings summary [[50]], except that now I just have one point: currently the exercises are within the Teachings article. So this summary would cover some exercises also? Maybe just one sentence such as cultivation of both mind and body[51]. How do you folks think? comments? Fnhddzs 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry everyone, I've had at best 10 or so minutes at a time to look in for the last few days. I hope to get at least one rough outline of a criticisms article done for you all to consider, perhaps tonight, or at least tomorrow. --Fire Star 18:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
We are not communicating well here! I've said repeatedly that at this point in time we do not need separate criticism pages for teachings and practices, but now Fnddzs is asking what the separate criticism on practices page should be called. We can make this task much simpler by considering the size of articles. Using that as a practical approach, I again ask that we have one page for criticism of BOTH teachings and practices and here are two suggested titles:
Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong teachings and practices
Criticism and controversies about the Falun Gong

In addition to that, I have recommended that a separate break-out page be created for Falun Gong exercices (or some other title) because of the length needed to cover that topic. I don't understand why we are having these debates in the abstract. --Tomananda 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Keeping the criticism and controversies page together

I've just gone back and re-read some of the discussion on whether there should be one or multiple criticism pages at this point. Covenant, it's clear that you prefer multiple pages but there is hardly a consensus around that approach. You refer to a "vote" on this issue, but in fact a decision like this requires consensus. Neither Samuel nor I adovcate for multiple criticism pages at this point. Maybe down the road, but for now the amount of content does not warrent two separate pages. I've said this repeatedly.

There was a separate discussion about what to do with the existing section called "Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions" One of the editors..maybe you... felt strongly that this section should not be on the separate criticism page, but rather be part of the main article section on Awards and recognitions. I then said that would only be ok with me if there is agreement on the part of pro-Falun Gong editors to honor that as a separate sub-section, rather than delete it, which was what was happening during our revert war. If the pro-Falun Gong editors can't agree to that now, I argue that the "Depatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions" section be part of a separate criticism page. Can we hear from other editors on this now?--Tomananda 19:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks to all, we are almost there. Just let you know I can go either way: separately or together. Either a single article or a section. Fnhddzs 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: But what about the question of respecting a sub-section on "Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognition" if it is going to be included in the main Awards section? It must not be deleted or subsumed into the larger section if, in fact, it is part of the larger section. That's one of the two issues I raise above.--Tomananda 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it should read "Disputed significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions", which is the most neutral wording. In my opinion, this subsection should be a part of the main article. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Disputed significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions is OK with me. But do you commit to defending the section against vandalism? You'll recall that during our last revert war it was vandalized frequently. --Tomananda 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I see your meaning. Tomananda. It's ok to me to have a subsection. But I have a concern that it may be much longer than the summary of teachings. Should we try to balance all sections on the main page to have the roughly same size? The current version also seems highly correlated with the confusion on Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality. I would report more on Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality as per our previous discussion, stating our argument that Falun Gong is always peaceful[I can find citation on this position], no discrimination intention and so on. Or give a link on the corresponding part of the teachings to clarify this. I think the wording may need to change. I looked at the San Francisco Resolution 66-06 [52], a lot of its text is crossed out. Kind of not official? I think it is totally fine to condemn the persecution but not to agree with the views of Falun Gong, though. I may need to check other citations. But the structure of having a subsection is ok to me. But I would wait for other editors on this. Thanks for bringing up so we could avoid war.
Who is it that just did the above posting? You need to sign your name. In any case, your posting did not really respond to my question. If we include the subsection on Disputed significance of FG awards and recognitions as a subsection of the main page article on FG awards and recognitions, I want a promise from the practitioners not to vandalize it. This is the second or third time I have posted this request, but without adequate response. At this point it looks like we may have a revert war after all. Either that, or we'll need to get a mediator.
--Tomananda 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Friend, We must refrain from labelling editors as "pro" or "anti". The article hass been vandalised a lot. Whole sections including the section on "Awards and Recognition" has disappeared. Dilip rajeev 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind whether 'disputed' or 'debatable'. Fnhddzs 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Still no response to the big question! Regardless of what this sub-section is called, will you honor it or will you vanadalize it? It's interesting how silent the pro-Falun Gong editors are when I ask such a direct question. If we go into another revert war, it certainly won't be my fault. --Tomananda 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted the above. Although I agree the structure, I think the current content cannot be kept without change. I did some research on the San Francisco case Red Star Over San Francisco. I think the "homophobic" or "hate" is POV. Fnhddzs 02:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, the content on the section doesnt meet the standard required of an encyclopaedia article. We need to discuss this with other editors. Dilip rajeev 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps - but the accurate truth of the matter - equivocation on the matter, in the sense of issuing condemnations of homosexuality without disclaimers re hatred and violence from the source - is equally damaging to Falun Gong, as are the attacks on miscegenation: evincing, as they do, a failure to grasp the realpolitik of issuing statements to a global audience. Etaonsh 09:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I'm aware of the difference between consensus and voting - I've been in a consensus operated non-profit for over a decade. I brought up the "vote" to illustrate that we don't have consensus yet. Sorry if I confused the issue. CovenantD 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If pro-Falun Gong editors refuse to play by the rules we must have mediation

Two pro Falun Gong editors have just stated above their intent to delete properly sourced, though critical material on the Falun Gong...specifically the section on Disputed significance of FG awards and recognitions. [53] Meanwhile no pro-Falun Gong editor has voiced a committment to defend the inclusion of this material. Clearly this is not in accordance with Wikipedian standards and I therefore request that we proceed with a request for mediation. Alternatively, there will be a revert war started by the practitioners and finished by others. Fnddzs will promptly delete the SF Supervisor's quote about her concern over homophobic teachings, and someone on the other side will delete Dr. Lili Feng claims in the section on Reseach into health claims. Then a practitioner will delete some of the critical stuff on sexual orientation, while someone else deletes all that POV-driven stuff from the Epoch Times. There will be no end to this game.

By definition critical content about a controversial subject matter will necessarily include things that are appropriately considered POV, but that is no justification for deletion of that content. Editors are free to add additional material to provide a counter to the opinions of critics, but they are not free to simply reject this material. If there cannot be agreement on this fundamental principal of the rules of editing, there is little point in continuing with this discussion. The discussion, like the article itself, will become totally one-sided and that side will be un unchallenged promotional piece on the alleged "goodness" of Li Hongzhi's controversial teachings.

Fire Star: Since you are the most neutral of the senior editors, I ask that you seek mediation at this point. There does not appear to be any reasonable way out of this impasse.--Tomananda 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I agree that critics have a right to introduce material from reputable sources, and I am willing to defend this principle, even if I don't agree with the content itself. I think the article from FrontPage magazine [54] is totally alright, for example. But I will continue to remove material that a) is from obscure, private websites that do not conform to Wikipedia policies, b) is entirely in Chinese, because every editor of the English Wikipedia needs to have an access to the source (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English), c) comes from a secondary source that differs from the original text it is allegedly quoting (for example, in reference to a dispute we had maybe half a year ago, Li has never called interracial people "defective") or d) cannot be directly quoted upon request. Also, I think that we all, pro- and anti-FLG and neutral editors alike, need to understand that the most civilized way to deal with a blooming revert war is to balance the controversial issue by providing additional information.
Are these guidelines OK with other editors? ---Olaf Stephanos 10:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm on the Mediation Committee. Maybe I can help informally, before this gets out of hand.
The basic principle of writing on a controversial topic, particularly one with religious and political aspects, is to provide a balance of points of view, with each POV described fairly. We should be as accurate as possible about the topic. If any point is in dispute, we should not try to settle the dispute with any kind of compromise or "consensus version" of truth. Rather, we should use the formula X says Y about Z.
Now, what little I know about Falun Gong is that it's something like a religion and involves things like maybe movement and meditation, but the mainland Chinese government has outlawed it. It may also have some teachings, such as about "past lives" or "ancestral sins" which can be rectified in the present by acts of repentance. They might even have teachings about present-day life, such as a pronouncement as to whether homosexual behavior is good, bad, or indifferent (I'm deliberately being vague and sloppy here, but please bear with me.)
Some people favor these practices and/or teachings, even with dedication and fervor. Others object to them or even condemn them. Let us keep our own feelings to ourselves (when editing the article, anyway) and just describe Falun Gong's teachings and practices as accurately as we can. If there are disputes about what FG "really" teaches or does, then let's quote sources from both sides of each dispute. Like:
  • Zerol Hwacked, president of the Chinese People's Meditation Society, says she heard a Falun Gong leader advocate the violent overthrow of the Communist government.
  • Yoor So Dum, a teacher of Falun Gong in Taipei, says practioners are loyal to civil authority but insist on "their right to meditate as they wish".
(In case you can't tell, I fabricated these quotes as examples of the kinds of source material we need. ;-)
I'll look in from time to time, and see if this approach is helping, okay? --Uncle Ed 12:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: Thanks for your help. Given what you say, I assume you agree that the reported quotes of politicians and critics in this existing sub-section of the Falun Gong article are ok:[55] I ask that you read this one short section so you will get an idea of what content some of the practitioners intend to delete. One particular quote they will delete is from one of the San Francisco supervisors who actually was a co-sponsor of a pro-Falun Gong resolution, but at the same time said: "I am concerned about these homophobic teachings." That quote appeared in a legitimate US newspaper and is fully sourced, as are a few other quotes from other US politicians and Falun Gong critics. The intent in writing this entire section was to provide needed balance to the pro-Falun Gong section which reports all the awards and recognitions without any critical point of view. The issue here becomes how can this content be protected from vandalism? In the last revert war most of it was deleted many times by Falun Gong practitioners who are uncomfortable with the fact that many critics view Li Hongzhi's teachings as both homophobic and racist. In order to avoid endless revert wars, some of us have attempted to create a separate consolidated "controversy and criticism" page which would include subsections, including this one. In response, the practitioiners are rejecting the idea of one consolidated "controversy and criticism" page. --Tomananda 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


They may have been fictional examples, Uncle Ed, but by golly, they sum it up! But how the devil are we going to get quotes like that in this inflammable global balti? Etaonsh 18:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, in reponse to your initial question I wrote: "I can assure you that I won't rewrite anything in attempt to obscure its meaning, I don't believe in that. However, I may rewrite things in order to clarify their meaning. Mcconn 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)" In addition to this statement, I second Olaf's remarks and guidlines stated above. Also, I will delete content if it's not relevant to the topic. Mcconn 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, how about bringing it up on this talk page and letting consensus decide if it's relevant to the topic? CovenantD 18:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, I agree with following Wikipedia guidelines for sources. Let's avoid another revert war. CovenantD 14:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The homosexuality issue

Falun Gong is in the unfortunate position of being persecuted by the Communist Chinese government and also trying to get support from the Chinese community in America. That's their problem, and Wikipedia can't help them with that. We can only describe their plight.

If FG really does condemn homosexuality, in much the same way as several mainstream Christian denominations do, then they are highly unlikely to get any support from gay rights groups or from the San Francisco city government. The word "homophobic" says it all. Now if they want to launch a PR campaign wherein they try to persuade people that they can be (1) adamantly against homosexuality on moral or spiritual grounds but also (2) not "homophobic", more power to them. But Wikipedia won't be settling that issue for them. The usual definition of "homophobia" includes the idea that any opposition to homosexuality (regardless of grounds) is irrational and hateful. I don't see how FG expects to get support for people who condemn them for crazy, hateful teachings. (But we're not crazy, and we don't hate!) They'll never get much support from that quarter.

Okay, that was probably too much analysis, but the page is protected.

Our only question is how to describe the FG position on homosexuality. I suggest that it's similar to that of some mainline Christian denominations which also condemn it.

  • "Our group says homosexuality is not normal, good, or safe, etc. We're entirely sincere, and we love you.", vs.
  • "Oh, yeah, well our group says your group is nuts! And we're going to use the hate crimes law against you until you shut up or leave town! So there!"

We should describe the dispute fairly, which should result in each side saying, yes, that's exactly how we see the other side. We should not try to come up with a "consensus position" on whether FG is "really homophobic" or "really sincere about loving the sinner, hating the sin", because that is precisely what the dispute is about!

Maybe after we handle the homosexuality aspect, we can move on to the foreign politics, i.e., what goes on in China. I haven't read the whole article yet; I like to go section by section.

Is any of this helping? --Uncle Ed 20:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Now we are talking about the cause of the revert war we had. Pro-Falun Gong editors have challenged, rejected and eventually deleted content that confronts the virtuous image of the Falun Gong that they are building. This content includes quotes like the statement from a SF Supervisor concerning Falun Gong homophobic teachings, creditable sources like the San Francisco Bay Area Reporter, first person accounts from Li’s earliest students, material from the Chinese media and interestingly even Master Li’s own words, like statements from his biography and his poem: the world’s ten evil. In challenging and rejecting this content pro-Falun Gong editors have questioned the credibility of the sources and when all else has failed, deleted them, therefore provoking a revert war.

The formula “X says Y about Z” that Uncle Ed is reminding us usually solves the problem, but it won’t help us because pro-Falun Gong editors can not stand “X says Y (critical and truthful content) about Z.” For example, pro-Falun Gong editors justify their deletion of Li’s earliest students’ statements because they are posted on a private website. However, at the same time they feel justified to insert statements from Falun Gong’s private websites. The problem we face here is that pro-Falun Gong editors, who are Falun Gong practitioners, have no tolerance for critical and truthful content—they even delete Li’s own statements. --Samuel Luo 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, the FLGers revert in a way which is unmistakably and adeptly political, and ignorant with it. More than once I have tried to revert this header [[56]] to something more acceptable, both from the perspective of NPOV and English usage. But the revert warriors keep changing it back, which, as you can see, doesn't reflect the balance evinced in the related discussion beneath. Etaonsh 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You have not 'reverted' the header, you have taken it upon yourself to substantially change it from the meaning that was originally intended. If you disagree with the header, then start another one. Altering somebody's post to a talk page in order to change the meaning is a big no-no. And your assumptions about people's beliefs and motivations is both incorrect and insulting. Not everybody who disagrees with your positions is involved in Falun Gong. CovenantD 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your summary and approach is helpful and if we can get agreement on how to present fair and balanced reporting on the homosexuality issue, perhaps that agreement can carry over to the political stuff as well. Uncle Ed is correct in saying that we will never get a consensus opinion on how to characterize the Falun Gong cocerning its alleged homophobia. Because of that, as a gay editor, I have been working to establish separate edits to present the POV that Li's teachings most certainly are homophobic. As Samuel summarizes above, the problem is that many FG practitioners reject and ultimately delete some of that content, rather than coming up with their own content to add balance. I'm all in favor of having both "sides" contribute edits..and especially individual sections or sub-sections...which say "X says Y about Z" But whenever the Y makes Falun Gong look bad (eg: comments from politicians, critics or even Li himself) the practitioners have deleted that content rather than adding to it. That's been the problem all along. So Uncle Ed, anything you can do to get us beyond that point will be much appreciated. --Tomananda 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to separate ideas which usually go together. For example, Li's lecture in Sydney says:

A lot of people have done many bad deeds. Things such as organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human.

This makes the direct point that homosexuality is bad, classing it in with "bad deeds" such as organized crime activity (Mafia stuff). This is standard condemnation in fundamental Christianity, by the way. Nothing new here, even if "present company" is repulsed by the thought!

Now as to whether comdemning homosexuality is "homophobic", that is the most common point of view. I believe it is the the definition of "homophobia" (at least in the Wikipedia article when I last read it). However, some groups which think homosexuality is bad refuse to accept the label of "homophobic". They regard it as an accusation of being irrational, while asserting that they have reasons for opposing homosexuality. They claim not to "hate" homosexuals, but only to object to "homosexual behavior", much as a parent doesn't hate his toddler for trying to stick a pin into his baby brother - but condemns the "needle attack" in no uncertain terms!

So we have a case where Li says homosexuality is bad. I think both sides agree that he said that. There's the quote, and unless FG practioners say it was fabricated, then it stands and its unambiguous. I see no need to google up another one.

But then there's the conclusion that his anti-homosexuality stance is "homophobic". This depends on who applies the label and what they mean by it. Obviously if they just mean that "he opposes homosexuality" then they are correct. But if they also mean that his opposition to homosexuality is (a) irrational or (b) motivated by hatred, then there would indeed seem to be grounds for a dispute.

Are Hare Krishna's irrational for making vegetarianism a part of their religion? "They're crazy, they won't eat meat!" They have a "reason", even if you and I disagree with it: "That cow might be your sister or your brother" (or some such nonsense like that, based on their somewhat pantheist interpretation of Hinduism).

They have a reason for not eating meat, although most people disagree with that reason. Li has a reason for opposing homosexuality, although many (if not most) people disagree with his reason. At least it's a reason. So is his opposition unreasonable or irrational? I don't think Wikipedia can say so. But the article can certainly say that the San Francisco City Council or the Mayor or Rick Ross or that Chinese couple's son regards his position as irrational. That's news we can use. We can quote the person who advocates that POV.

Some deal for "hate-filled", "hateful", "inducing hate" or whatever (or "fear-based" which is what a phobia is).

Summing up, there are 2 questions here:

  1. Does Li himself (or Falun Gong in general) condemn homosexuality? We show the quotes, and also any denials or retractions.
  2. Does any particular person or group conclude that Falun Gong (or Li himself) is "homophobic"? We can summarize their reasoning: Li condemned homosexuality in his Sydney speech; and Mr. X (or group Y) considers all condemnation of homosexuality to be irrational or phobic, and that's why they labelled FG "homophobic".

Now can we get the article unprotected and start putting this kind of stuff in the article? --Uncle Ed 23:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Relations with Communist authorities

10,000 practitioners assembled in a peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office

Ahem. It may be premature to branch out into another issue, but I know a bit about Chinese law and government. If I'm not mistaken, China (unlike the US) has no tradition of supporting demonstrations of any sort - at least not since Mao first came to power around 6 or 7 decades ago. (In the US, the right of the people to "assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances" is enshrined in the world-famous "Bill of Rights".)

So calling the demonstration "peaceful" presents a point of view which the Chinese government is likely to disagree with. They might call it a "breach of peace", much as New Yorkers might call it breach of peace if demonstrators tied up traffic in Times Square or blocked all subway entrances leading out of Wall Street. Sure, it's not "violent", but, well, you get the idea.

So we probably should say that they assembled, and did their exercises or whatever. But we should also say whether they had (or sought) permission to do so.

Please don't think that I'm siding with the authorities against FG. I'm not taking sides on this issue, any more than I am on the homosexuality issue.

I am trying to describe what the dispute is about by identifying the sides (who) and their positions (what). The aim is to say that Side X takes position Y on issue Z. Like:

  • Falun Gong regarded their assembly as normal, natural and "peaceful" (according to their San Francisco spokesman Philin Z. Blanks)
  • The demonstrators were arrested for the crime of (blank) and held for up to (blank) months with out trial, which is the usual way of dealing with "disorder" and "hooliganism" in China.

Okay, I'm not sure that's what happened, but it's another example of presenting both sides of the issue. FG felt they were just minding their own business, not bothering anyone. China saw them as a threat to public order or something. Is this about right, or what? --Uncle Ed 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Room for a little more empathy with beleaguered government, perhaps. I mean it's like getting out an anaconda and saying, 'She doesn't bite.'
And just how genuine is FLG 'non-violence,' anyway - on a par with their 'apolitical stance,' as evinced above? :D
Etaonsh 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Etaonsh, I like the way you present in clear terms the political debate. Some Falun Gong commentators have said the political situation between Falun Gong and the CCP is a clash between two totalitarian regimes, but the FG practitioners refuse to accept reporting that view. In addition to being a cult leader who has his disciples convinced that only he can offer them a ticket to Falun Gong paradise, Master Li is also a master public relations strategest. The reputation of Master Li and his teachings is defended at all costs. One of the anti Falun Gong editors on this site...Samuel Luo...was even threated with jail time in Spain by a Falun Gong lawyer seeking to suppress his freedom of speech. Samuel was one of three Americans who had prepared an academic panel discussion on the Falun Gong, scheduled at the annual meeting of the International Cultic Studies Association held at the University of Madrid last year.[57] In response to that threat, the organizers cancelled the panel discussion at the last minute. So while Falun Gong practitioners want Americans to support their freedom of religion in China, they are perfectly comfortable suppressing the free speech rights of Americans on Western soil. --Tomananda 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Bear with me here - but if the International Cultic Studies Association felt that this "threat" was entirely unfounded, why didn't they let Samuel Luo speak? I have a reason to believe that a massage therapist from San Francisco without an academic degree is not the correct person to present a scientific analysis on Falun Gong in an "academic panel discussion", but that's only my point of view. Maybe he wasn't invited to speak because he's a real expert of Falun Gong and the Chinese society, but simply because he's against the movement.
Needless to say, these issues would be a lot easier if the line between anti-FLG agit-prop and earnest criticism wasn't so questionable because of the unfortunate human rights situation in China. Besides, all of the three speakers shared an anti-FLG agenda, according to the short summaries, so their point would have been simply to cram Falun Gong in the "cultic" template and prove it to the larger audience. Does that have anything to do with a balanced panel discussion about such a controversial topic? On the other hand, I know that some scholars have criticized Falun Gong in various instances, but nobody has ever threatened them with a lawsuit. I sincerely don't know the specifics of this case. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Re:'I have a reason to believe that a massage therapist from San Francisco without an academic degree is not the correct person to present a scientific analysis on Falun Gong in an "academic panel discussion"'. There seems to be a lot of work for Equalities Commissions, professional bodies and neutral third parties on that outrageously contemptuous and discriminatory dismissal. Etaonsh 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Are Falun Gong's activities consistent with a de facto fascist reaction against the Chinese Government's latter-day attempts to move towards Western values and greater popular freedoms? And like an outward expression of that dark side of the Chinese character behind all the uncomradely activities which keep bobbing up and exciting Human Rights Watch attention? Etaonsh 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
A straw man with a tinfoil hat. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Or, indeed, a tinman with a straw hat? Etaonsh 07:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Tomananda, thanks for bringing up the legal threat in Spain. At this conference there was also a pro-Falun Gong program because the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) strives to provide fair opportunities for both sides of its issues. The programs of this conference were announced six months prior to the conference, but the Falun Gong did not issue the legal threat until ten days before it was held--Falun Gong people did not want to give us time to find a sound response. In his threatening letter the Spanish Falun Gong lawyer stated: “If in this Conference you make statements that can harm the Honor, the good name or the free beliefs of a person or an Association; this is unconstitutional and goes against the Spanish Constitution, because the practice of Falun Gong and its good name may be harmed, which directly affects the Falun Dafa Association of Spain and those who practice this ancient discipline in Spain.” Then he made a more absurd but intimidating accusation. He stated that any criticism about “the practice of Falun Gong is in itself collaborating in the genocide and tortures,” which he believed to be happening in China. The ICSA reluctantly cancelled our program one day before it was held in order to avoid a costly international lawsuit. However, the Falun Gong cult was still not satisfied; it then tried to shut down my website (falungonginfo.org [58]) with another legal threat. Thanks to the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) my free speech has been protected.

--Samuel Luo 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad Ed Poor is here to help out. While I consider myself neutral, I have edited the article too much in the past for others to really consider me neutral about it. Presumably, if I've edited it, I have some opinion. Ed, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't and doesn't. I will be willing to go along with what just such an "outside" mediator proposes. Also, Ed's characterisations above seem accurate. --Fire Star 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to second what Fire Star is saying about Ed Poor's help. Ed, you seem to have just the right "judicial temperament" to do this job and help steer us in a direction that will result in both sides of the Falun Gong debate getting fair and balanced representation. Also, I want to respond to Olaf's comment about Samuel and the conference. Olaf, Samuel is smarter than many academics I know and he is committed to educating the public about the Falun Gong. He was not the only one threatened with jail in Spain: so were the other two presenters and organizers, all of whom have impressive academic credentials. And as Samuel states above, the only reason the conference organizers caved in to such an outrageous legal threat was financial. Over the years the ICSA has bent over backwards to accomodate the Falun Gong at it's conferences by allowing practitioners to present their point of view. Now it's a topic which will not be included in future conferences thanks to an over-zealous Falun Gong lawyer. Thank God (not Li) for Wikipedia! --Tomananda 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Olaf, your statement shows that you are perfectly ok with the Falun Gong suppressing its critic’s free speech. DAVID HSIEH from Asiaweek magazine reported this: "Li Hongzhi's demand that followers "promote the law" and "protect the law" seems to foster intolerance of criticism. Believers encircled media organizations in China 77 times over the past few years (and once in Hong Kong) over what they said was unfair coverage." [59] Violating the rights of its critics was one of two justifications given by the Chinese government in banning the Falun Gong. [60]

--Samuel Luo 08:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed, should we take your heading for this section as a suggestion for a NPOV heading for the article as well? There's been a lot of debate about it, with words like Persecution and Clampdown being prefered by some, while others see those words as POV. CovenantD 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Clampdown" is probably okay, but "persecution" is definitely a conclusion. It implies that a (religious) group is being suppressed for "no good reason". I chose the still more bland phrase "Relations with Communist authorities" as a section heading because it clearly introduces a sub-topic, without giving away the conclusion.
In fact, such a sub-heading would not indicate any conclusion whatsoever. It would simply give contributors a space in which to describe various things that have gone on (relations) between FG and "the authorities".
I know it's hard to stay neutral when you're writing. For some, FG is the epitome of a noble pursuit for justice, moral striving and (by the way) good physical health. For others, its an evil cult which deserves all the harsh treatment it has been getting (and more!).
Let's just quote sources who make these points. --Uncle Ed 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no teaching on intolerance of criticism. But the criticism cannot be groundless. And the article should allow to present the pro-Falun Gong side's rebuttal arguments for those groundless critisim. For example, the criticism on Falun Gong practitioners' suicide is groundless. Since the Falun Gong teachings mention it is a sin to kill or suicide. The homosexuality is bad, in the view of Falun Gong. But Falun Gong is always peaceful and does not hate anyone. Anyway, the article should allow a full report instead of catering for some people's personal spleen gush. Fnhddzs 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
IN YOUR OPINION there is no teaching on intolerance and the critisism on practitioners suicide is groundless. Other people see things from a different perspective. That's Ed's point, that we can't let our personal views interfere with the content of the article. (It's also best to avoid generalizations, such as always and never, because, in life, exceptions happen.) CovenantD 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is in my opinion. Why I cannot say my opinion? Only others can say their opinions? By the way, that's not Ed's opinion. I was responding to Samuel's. Fnhddzs 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed said "For others, its an evil cult which deserves all the harsh treatment it has been getting (and more!)." First, nobody deserves persecution. Even the people sentenced to death penalty. They have human rights. They don't deserve to be raped by the police, they don't deserve to be executed without trial. They don't deserve to be harvested organs when they are alive. ok? Well, I am only speaking to those "others". Not to Ed.

I also see a self-contradition here. If they think someone deserves persecution but they refused to say someone is persecuted. Why they want to persecute but don't take the responsiblity so? A normal war will claim the responsibility clearly. The persecution to Falun Gong practitioners is done by cowards. It is a shame. Fnhddzs 18:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ed was using an example, not stating his personal views.

He and I are trying to work on the article, not preach one way or the other about Falun Gong. CovenantD 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks CovenantD and Ed. I said I did address to Ed. Fnhddzs 19:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I’m not very familiar with Samuel’s incident, but let me just mention something about handling “critics” in China. If you knew that what someone was saying about you was false, but that the consequence of others believing in it would likely be that many of your fundamental rights are stripped from you, wouldn’t you want to do what you can to set them straight? Chinese society is not western society. One day you may be praised, while the next you can be trampled, labeled an “anti-revolutionary”, and maybe killed. The CCP has instilled this kind of fear in its people over the decades. When people start verbal attacking you for things you haven’t done, and police start groundlessly arresting you, it’s a scary thing and it’s normal that you will do what you can to get the truth out. You may call practitioners calmly surrounding TV stations which aired "criticism" and demanding they correct themselves a breach of freedom of speech, but it’s not that simple. There’s also a big difference between criticism and hate propaganda. And they need to be handled differently. Mcconn 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Today I just heart a new case of a University teacher (Assistant Professor) in Tsinghua University is put to labor camp (laogai), just because they found in his home some Falun gong materials. This Professor was awarded many times before for his work. [61] (This is a Chinese link but you may find the award certificates he got from the University, the city and the Department of Education of China from 1997 to 2003). Fnhddzs 19:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please let me say one thing as to the peaceful assembly on April 25, 1999. China's constitution stated that people do have rights to assembly (although the authority usually does not follow the constitution). That assembly did not block traffic [62]. You can see all people are on side walks. The participants even picked up all the cigarette ends and trash papers that were on the ground before they came. Fnhddzs 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Then say that FG argued that their demonstration was "peaceful" on those grounds, and give references. I read something like that in The Epoch Times or a similar source this week. --Uncle Ed 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If practitioners can agree to having both sides of the Falun Gong conroversy presented in this article without deleting critical commentary we will have made great progress. But in response to Fnhddzs's claim above that "there is no teaching on intolerance to critisicm" I offer the following Li Hongzhi quotes:
  • "Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out. It’s because no matter how bad some being in the cosmos are, they are even worse, for what they’re against is the Fa of the cosmos. So when we clarify the truth, we’re eliminating people’s evil thoughts towards Dafa. Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000 in Ann Arbor). [63]
  • "You all know that our Fa is good. It’s the Fa of the universe, who can say that It isn’t good? Even the most wicked individuals oppose It outwardly but admire It inwardly. Why do they oppose It outwardly? They know that if everyone conducts him or herself according to the Fa, it will really be their turn to be eliminated." Falun Dafa Lecture at the First Conference in North America, March 29-30, 1998, New York. [64]
No intolerance for criticism? When the Master says I will be eliminated because I don't agree with his teachings am I to take that as a sign of tolerance? --Tomananda 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
So now you have your rebuttal quote for the article. Which section are you proposing this for, and is there a reference we can access? CovenantD 21:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I got your point, Tomananda. People can oppose a good thing. Why not? The issue is that people have the freedom to oppose it but please don't force others to stop doing it. That's what I got from the quotes. I don't think the quotes are to expect everyone to agree the teachings of Falun Gong or to become Falun Gong practitioners otherwise will be this or that. It is everyone's freedom to choose his/her belief. Fnhddzs 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And how do your comments relate to the article, Fnhddzs? CovenantD 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the first quote mentioned "So when we clarify the truth, we’re eliminating people’s evil thoughts towards Dafa." When we clarify the truth to people, we never require people to become Falun Gong practitioners. So we may differentiate two concepts: "a practitioner" and "no evil thoughts towards Dafa".

I also looked up the Chinese version [65] corresponding to the second quote Falun Buddha Fa, Lecture at the First Conference in North America, (March 29-30, 1998, New York), 为什么有这么多人学呢？大家知道，我们的法好，宇宙的法嘛，谁能说他不好？！就是再坏的人他都心里佩服，嘴上反对。为什么嘴上反对呢？他知道，如果都是这样了，他是真的该淘汰了。所以，至于说你们怎么去做，弘扬这个法那是你们个人行为。大法本身没有什么形式，我们走了一条真正大道无形的路。

"淘汰了" literally means "out of dated" or "fail in a competition". It is translated to "eliminated" here. I think it is ok. But I still do not smell any hate or violence to criticism.

My comments are related to the article in the way that they present another way of understanding the quotes. My comments present my view that the quotes do not mean intolerance of critism. Maybe depending on how you define "critism". Earnest critism or groundless critism. The anti-persecution does not mean letting everyone to become practitioners.

Actually the cosmos characteristics refered in Falun Gong are "truthfulness, benevolence (compassion) and forbearance (endurance)". I guess anyone here would not say those are bad. But no objecting to that does not mean having to be a practitioner. Fnhddzs 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your view is considered original research in the context of Wikipedia, and thus not suitable for inclusion in the article. If you can find a reliable source for your interpretation, then it may be included. CovenantD 23:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Fnddzs: In addition to being considered original research, your conclusions don't follow from the facts. Do you deny that Master Li threatens bad consequences to people who criticize his Dafa? He might say you'll be "weeded out" in one pronouncement and use another term in another. But he clearly does not permit criticism of any sort and for you deny that is troubling for me. As to your statement that no one here would call the FG slogan of "truthfulness, benevolence and forbearance" bad...sorry, but I think it is very bad. In the name of this slogan, a lot of coercive manipulation can take place and the slogan itself really doesn't mean anything. Like so many other slogans used by leaders throughout human history, "truthfullness, benevolence and forebearance" is nothing more than a tool to rally blind support. Underneath those nice-sounding words lurks a philosophy of life which is racist, homophobic, elitist, anti-science, anti-family and ultimately destructive to those who get caught up in it's web. --Tomananda 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think "truthfulness, benevolence and forbearance" is bad?, So you don't wish people to be true, good and forbearance with you? You may have the freedom not to be true, good or have forbearance. But you don't want others to be true, good or have forbearance? Fnhddzs 00:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page
Please think a little harder about what I just said. It's how these abstract ideals are used to control people which is bad, Fnhddzs. If you want to be truthful, why not acknowledge that Li Hongzhi is intolerant of criticism? If you want to be benevolent, why not state that Li Hongzhi is wrong to think of homosexuals as not being human? If you want to be forbearant, why not agree with me that it was wrong for two Falun Gong lawyers to suppress Samuel's freedom of speech by issuing their legal threats? --Tomananda 01:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page

I have discussed several times about why it is not racism nor homophobic. Falun Gong teaches people to be good to anybody, Does allow pre-marriage or ex-marriage sex, Teaches men should take responsibility of his wife, Teaches womean should respect her husband, in my view, it sets a nice standard of a good family. I don't understand how it is anti-family. As to anti-science, that is an old debate between people believing in gods or not. I don't know what is elitist you mean. The Falun Gong does not have any limits on social conditions. It may set some standards for practitioners, but it does not have bias on anybody. In my words, you have the freedom to believe it or not, but please don't demonize it groundlessly so as to prevent others to do it.

I have to be true so I cannot agree with groundless statements. I try to be tolerant so I don't have any bias on anybody. I try to be good so I don't want to hurt anybody. I may not an excellent practitioner currently. I wish and I am trying to do better and better although my personal behavior cannot stand for Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page
  • Fnhddzs, I respect your personal beliefs and views as long as they do not incite hatred. And I believe you are a good person and a good practitioner that is why you are trying your best to defend the Falun Gong. I have a question for you regarding the exchange you are having with Tomananda. When he summarizes Master Li’s statement following Uncle Ed’s formula what will you do? The formula is X says Y about Z. Tomananda’s post: Li says that people who do not appreciate his teachings are the worst of all human beings and will be weeded out.[66] Are you going to delete this statement or add your opinion?

--Samuel Luo 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Elimination and intolerance

I'm intrigued by the translation of the Chinese term (rendered above as "eliminate"). The word as I've most often seen it used in English refers to (1) getting rid of something, so we don't have it any more; and also (2) killing or murdering. With emotions running so high, I suspect that the second meaning may be inferred even if the first meaning was meant. But I do not read or write Chinese, so what can we do?

Perhaps Li meant that homosexuality would be eliminated, in the sense that no one would want to be "that way" in some glorious future day. But some people think he meant that, once FG gets enough power they will execute all homosexuals.

The ambiguity is in the word "eliminate", and I don't think any of us contributors are competent to resolve this ambiguity. (I'm dying of curiosity to know what the Chinese version of this article says about this!)

Why don't we just write about the dispute? Say that one side thinks the "elimination" quote indicates intolerance; and that the other side says "Li didn't mean that". We can explain why each side thinks they're right:

  • Ima Hugh-Mann, of San Franciscans for Dignity & Rights, objects to Falung Gong because of a statement made by its founder, "In the future, homosexuals will be eliminated." Hugh-mann said that Li's statement indicated an inexcusable degree of intolerance and insensitivity.
  • Hy Mind-Dedd, spokesman for Falun Gong's Brooklyn organization, said that Li "loves homosexuals ... he just thinks they need to try something different."

Sorry, but it's one o'clock in the morning where I am, and I couldn't come up with better examples. Are they too silly to be useful? If so, please help me refine them.

Better yet, please look up the exact quotes used by advocates on both sides of this disputed aspect. Good night all! :-) --Uncle Ed 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Uncle Ed, Li uses the Chinese term "淘汰" which can be translated as eliminate, be sifted out; weed out, die out; fall into disuse and obsolete, in damning his critics. But he uses the term “消灭” which translates to annihilate, eliminate; abolish; exterminate; eradicate and wipe out, in his Switzerland teaching for gays. I don’t know why he hates gays so much, but it is scary whenever a self-claimed all-knowing all-powerful master preaching this kind of hatred.

--Samuel Luo 06:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Li's Switzerland speech:

Question: Why is it that homosexuals are considered bad people? Teacher: Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods. You know that homosexuals have found legitimacy in that homosexuality was around back in the culture of ancient Greece. Yes, there was a similar phenomenon in ancient Greek culture. And do you know why ancient Greek culture is no more? Why are the ancient Greeks gone? Because they had degenerated to that extent, and so they were destroyed. When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them. Do you know why wars, epidemics, and natural and man-made disasters happen in this world? They’re precisely because human beings have karma, and those events exist to remove it. No matter how wonderful a time period may be in the future, there will still be wars, epidemics, and natural and man-made disasters on earth. They are a way of eliminating karma for people. Some people who have sinned can have their karma eliminated through the death of the flesh body and suffering, and then they’ll be free of that karma when they reincarnate. Their lives don’t really die and they reincarnate again. But the karma that some people have accrued is too much, in which case the fundamental elements of their existence will be implicated and destroyed. Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic. That’s the issue. That kind of destruction, however, isn’t just about disappearing after they’re annihilated. That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. A person should live in an upright manner, living honorably like a human being. He shouldn’t indulge his demon-nature and do whatever he likes. --Tomananda 07:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Friend,

Cultivators are really not the least concerned about sexual orientation of other people. The only thing they strive to do is cultivate themselves to perfection - eliminating every trace of jealousy, hatred, anger, covetousness and all bad thoughts from their own minds, elevating their own heart-nature by assimilating to the supreme characteristic of the cosmos - Truthfulness-Compassion-Endurance.

If we are to move forward we must refrain from going around in circles, discussing the same things over and over again. The discussion must be pertinent to the edits beig made. Dilip rajeev 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I detect the glimmer of a basis for possible agreement between the two sides in this debate?: on the one hand, Falun Gong members don't want to be persecuted, even where criminal; on the other, homosexuals don't wish to be made subject to public second-guessing re your post-mortal destiny? Etaonsh 07:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though Falun Gong and homosexuality may need to be it's own breakaway article since there's so much on it. CovenantD 16:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals." [67] Please read this quote clearlly. Gods referred here are different with Falun Gong. From the quotes, it is Falun Gong's teachings that stopped the elimination of homosexuals. Fnhddzs 19:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Question: Can homosexuals practice Dafa?

Teacher: Yes, but they have to correct this bad behavior, live nobly and upright like a human being, find themselves, and break out of that dark state of mind. (Applause)

In answering the student’s question just now, because I’m talking to our cultivators about some matters in cultivation, the matters involved are relatively high. Perhaps those who walked in out of the blue or those who’ve just come will find some of these things difficult to understand. Perhaps you’ll mistake us for some kind of religion. I can tell you that we’re not any kind of religion. I’m merely telling people about this Fa. If you want to practice cultivation, I will help you. If you don’t want to learn, I’ll let you be. We don’t have any form, nor do we restrict you in any way—there are no religious rules of any kind. We won’t even take a penny from people. When you come, you may listen as you please. If you want to learn, you may learn. If you don’t want to learn, you may go as you please. " [68] So homosexuals can practice Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Rajeev and 'Protestant' Falun Gong

Dilip rajeev, a Falun Gong practitioner, has, clearly and repeatedly, publicly distanced himself here at Wikipedia from the teachings of 'the Master,' Li Hongzhi, regarding the marginalisation of homosexuals and miscegenation. Perhaps this will now open a new, historic chapter in the development of Falun Gong and its conflict with the government of the People's Republic of China? Etaonsh 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page

I was only contributing an observation. Etaonsh 11:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I say, that is what all cultivation ways , including Falun Gong teach. Kindly go through the teachings of Falun Dafa. 202.138.112.252 12:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Teaching and practice

I hate to keep starting new sections, but there are so many aspects to this deadlock, that I don't see any other way.

On the one hand, Li condemns homosexuality as definitely as any fundamentalist Christian preacher. His talk of karma alone is enough to make the point. If we are wondering what the Falun Gong position is on homosexuality, we can take the answer from the quotes above: Li is against it.

Now comes the matter called (in Christianity) "hate the sin, love the sinner". Generally people respond in either of two main ways when a religion (or other teaching) condemns certain behavior (or a way of life or even an "identity") but professes "nothing but love" for those it condemns:

  • "Oh, they don't condemn me, they're just telling me to give up this particular sin. What lovely people they must be to care for my soul in such a heart-felt way."
  • "They're a bunch of liars and frauds. You can't love someone and hate them at the same time, and condemnation is hate. This sin they tell me to give up is not something I choose to do, it's my God-given nature. I can't change it any more than I could grow a third hand."

Now let's see if we can understand FG in this light. It's a teaching which says homosexuality is bad (or that "homosexuals are bad", not sure if there's a significant distinction there). Yet it says that homosexuals are free to practice FG and benefit from it. There was even something about what might happen if Li hadn't started teaching FG now, i.e., things might be even worse for homosexuals (sounds like a warning to hurry up and change your ways).

Furthermore, practioners say that "cultivating" their character doesn't give them much time to go around pointing the finger of accusation toward the sinners. (Like, "Dude, we don't even bother with that. We just purify our own selves.")

Outsiders are like, "Yeah, but the teachings condemn us."

So here is a genuine dispute: FG condemns homosexuality (and/or homosexuals themselves) on the one hand, while on the other hand they professing only to love them or to ignore them.

Instead of trying to reconcile these points of view, let's describe how different they are and why there is such a wide gap between FG proponents and opponents on this point.

I'm bored this morning, so I will start off, even though what I'm about to write might not make any sense.

Suppose I fall in love with a girl and we get engaged to be married. But she says she won't marry me unless I give up smoking. Now if I recognize nicotine addiction as something evil in my life and always wished I could quit, this would be welcome news. Go on the patch, and get the girl, woo hoo!

How about another example: suppose I've had a life long dream to become a doctor and devote my life to healing tropical diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Upon graduation from high school, my father presents me with an ultimatum. Get an MBA and take over the family business, or he'll cut me off without a cent. Could I still believe that my father loved me, if he did that that to me? "While you live under my roof, you will obey my rules. Otherwise, get out!" What sort of feelings would I experience in my heart while filling out scholarship or loan applications, and looking for a job and a place to live after leaving such a home? How could he do this to me? Even if mom came and said, "We only want what is best for you," would it ease the pain in my heart? I think not: "They don't know me, they don't care about what *I* care about. I can hardly even believe they are human."

Okay. Is this enough drama for a Saturday morning?

More importantly, will it help break the deadlock here?

Can we agree to disagree about the homosexuality issue?

Can we mention Li's teaching about homosexuals and homosexuality in the article along with cultivators' "no big deal" claim while also reporting the objections which opponents raise to the teaching (i.e., that it's hateful) and so forth? --Uncle Ed 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

1. If 'any fundamentalist Christian preacher' condemns homosexuality, as you suggest, that seems to exclude the biblically reported Jesus. 2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the main complaint re FLG teachings on homosexuality is their openness to global misinterpretation and the absence of 'Let him who is without sin throw the first stone' type disclaimers. Etaonsh 13:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the distinction Uncle Ed makes about teachings versus practice. Recall that in our previous arguments about the sexual orientation section some practitioners, especially Dilip and Mcconn, seemed unwilling to accept my reporting of Li's teachings as they were, folowed by a short summary of criticism from Deng and Fang. In response to that I kept saying, OK, write your own additional edits to present the counter POV. Uncle Ed seems to be saying the same thing: each side should permit the other to report X states Y about Z. Concerning FG and homosexuality, we've already created one side of that debate in a section called Falun Gong and sexual orientation. [69] It's a short summary of Li's teachings which also reports the views of two FG critics. What's needed, then, is for Dilip or Mcconn or some other pro-FG editor to accept what has already been written, but go on to write content of your own. And in order to make it clear that we are presenting two perspectives on the same topic, the one section should go into a page called Controversy and criticism of Falun Gong and the other into the main page, with both sections being cross-linked. That's the approach we have been working towards, but for the most part there hasn't been a committment from the pro-FG editors to allow the other side's content to remain. I've asked this question several times before: will the practitioner editors on this site accept content which is critical of Falun Gong....meaning not vandalize it...while at the same time writing additional content to reflect their POV? With the one exception of Olaf, I have yet to hear an affirmation of this principle from the others. --Tomananda 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ok to have topics such as "Falun Gong and Homosexuality". In that we can report what the Falun Gong teachings address. But please do not just pick up one or two phrases. please give a full quote when the meaning would be altered without a full quote. And we can report how and why people are not happy or confused or misunderstanding or angry or to give labels of what what. And we can report how and why Falun Gong practitioners think the labels are not right or think that is a misunderstanding or not true or whatever. Then the readers can decide on their own. Just my personal thoughts. Anyway, bear with me. I wish everyone be blessed by writing this article earnestly. Thanks. Fnhddzs 19:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Your response is not adequate. Sure, it's ok to have topics such as Falun Gong and homosexuality. That is not the question I posed. From your response, I assume if the article were un-frozen at this point you would start deleting critical content which you do not agree with, or totally re-write it to make it sound more in keeping with your POV. You in fact were one of those editors during the revert wars that did just that.
Again, I ask the question: are you willing to let stand text which is critical of the Falun Gong without rewriting it to your own liking? There's a perfect model of this approach already: see the section Is Falun Gong a cult?[70]In that section, notice that the beginning paragraphs summarize the views of cult experts who believe that Falun Gong is a cult, then there are several paragraphs at the end which summarize the views of academics who don't think FG is a cult. Picture the exisiting section on homosexuality having a title change to indicate it is about criticial views on Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality, with another section being written with a different POV (which presumably you and other practitioners would write.) That is the approach I am once again proposing. Can you accept that as a compromise or not?--Tomananda 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Teaching summary

Ed, can you unlock the page long enough to put in place the summary for the Teachings of Falun Gong section, replacing the text that's there now, and then lock it up again?

The foundation of Falun Gong are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that the "Buddha Law", in its highest manifestation, can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'Truthfulness (or Truth), Benevolence (or Compassion), and Forbearance (or Endurance)'. These are also believed to be the characteristics of the universe. Through adherence to these principles, Falun Dafa is practiced by improving one’s xinxing (心性, heart nature) within daily life. Selfishness, fame, anger, jealousy, and all other mentalities at odds with the characteristics of the universe must be gradually relinquished while maintaining an ordinary life in society. In Falun Gong practice this is called cultivation. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍. Falun Gong also includes cultivation of one's body through slow-moving exercises and meditation. It is emphasized that only through repeated study and application of the teachings of Falun Gong can a person acquire a good understanding of their content.

That looks like it's word for word the same as another, unlocked Wikipedia article called something like Teachings of Falun Gong. I see need for such a long paragraph to be in both articles. --Uncle Ed 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This summary, written by Mcconn, has been available for comment since the 27th of April and was posted prominently on the talk page twice. Nobody has made suggestions for improvement, so I'm hoping that signals agreement. I think it's time that something changed to show progress. Of course, if anybody objects, now is the time to let it be known :) CovenantD 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can edit the article without unlocking it. If no one objects to the above proposal, I will be happy to do so. --Fire Star 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
How about add one word: "Falun Buddha Fa also includes cultivation of the body."[71] Fnhddzs 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
A humble disclaimer, to the effect e.g., that Falun Gong practitioners don't necessarily claim to have always fulfilled the ideals of 'Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍' would be most welcome, also. Etaonsh 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Source for that claim, please. CovenantD 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
?(!). Etaonsh 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to make a statement like "Falun Gong practitioners don't necessarily claim to have always fulfilled the ideals" then you should be able to provide a source for that statement. I'm gonna challlenge everybody to prove No Original Research, so please don't take it personally. CovenantD 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I found this summary inadequate. No where it mentions Master Li and it does not truly represent what the teachings are really about. I would like to have the following statement added. The Falun Dafa teachings are founded by Master Li. According to Li, the Falun Dafa bears the responsibility and power of saving humankind. Li states in Zhuan Falun: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious.” [72]

--Samuel Luo 00:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be hard to really summarize the Teachings. Since it seems we have to do so for the sake of the article. Why don't we say please read the books yourselves. We'd better try not to paraphrase it too much. Fnhddzs 01:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It is hard for any practitioner to summarize Li's teachings so why not just post your Master's statement? It nicely states the purpose of the Dafa.

--Samuel Luo 01:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement doesn't summarize the teachings which are what the summary is about.

Okay, we have two people who find this summary inadequate or unacceptable. Ed's seems to be the stronger objection, because it duplicates info already available at the Teachings article and because it's too long. Mcconn, would you like to try rewriting it based on that input? Would somebody else care to try to write a summary? CovenantD 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ed, some of it is word for word, some isn't. Whether or not it's word for word I believe that it summarizes the core of Falun Dafa's teachings. Of course there are other aspects to the teachings and various claims made by Mr. Li, but I figured the summary should try to just give the essence. Whether it's newer lectures or an older lectures, the bottom line always comes down to cultivating your heart. "Clarifying the facts" has become very important in recent years, as others have pointed out, but it doesn't mean anything more than good blessings if you don't cultivate yourself at the same time. To paraphrase Mr. Li, "If your not cultivating, then forget about anything else." Samuel suggested to mention mention Mr. Li in the summary, but that he is already mentioned as the teacher of the practice in the introduction of the article, so I feel that it's kind of unecessary. Thus I pretty much stand by what I wrote. Perhaps Fnhddz's suggestion about cultivating the body could be incorperated. Rather than repaste the whole thing, I inserted the added comment and altered a couple things, marking in bold. Mcconn 17:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pushing forward, we might be close to an agreement on this section. Mcconn has incorporated some of the suggestions and responded to others. Ed, Samuel, since he didn't make alterations based on your comments, would you like to respond? (One possibility for Ed's concern is altering the Teachings article itself to remove some of the redundancy if we don't do it here. Just a thought....) CovenantD 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of Falun Gong articles

Some topics are too big for a single article. For instance, Evolution is divided into more than 8 dozen pages!

Don't worry, FG won't get anywhere near 100 pages, but it might be good to list all the FG-related articles and begin to think about how they can be better organized.

Often, when article development reaches deadlock, the best thing to do is to extract the most heavily-disputed part into a separate article. Sometimes this branch (called a "fork" by opponents of the extraction process) can be re-integrated into the original article, but usually not.

The first time I did this was with Augusto Pinochet a couple of years ago. It took a couple of extractions to get it right, and the key point turned out to be the degree of American (USA) involvement in the Chile coup of 1973. Supririsingly, after the dust settled new contributors (who had not wanted to get involved in the edit war) came in and helped polish up the new series. I say series, because it turned out that the disputed issue wasn't as small as everyone hoped. Chilean politics was simply too big for just 2 or 3 articles.

Hint: create an article called Falun Gong and homosexuality with a short statement of dispute (like this). --Uncle Ed 01:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya know Ed, it's really gratifying to see somebody from the Mediation crew saying essentially the same thing I've stated from the beginning - break it up into pieces. CovenantD
I never claimed to have any good ideas of my own, but I do pride myself on recognizing the value of ideas which others come up with! My hourly rate of pay as a softwared developer tripled after I read Martin Fowler's Refactoring and I'm proud to espouse his idea's but equally glad to give credit where credit is due. :-) --Uncle Ed 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is that there really isn't enough content to justify an entire page on Falun Gong and homosexuality at this point. Not even close. Although there's been a lot of discussion on this topic, the section that has already been written (by me) basically presents the "FG is homophobic" POV with one paragraph of critical commentary at the end. The practitioner editors have yet to write a section that presents the alternative POV. Instead, they have deleted the critical commentary. And if you read the discussion above, you'll see that Fnhddzs has yet to state that he is willing to honor the existence of critical content without setting about to re-write it in an apologetic way. The only section in which there's been this kind of equal-time balance coming from editors with different POV's has been the Is Falung Gong a cult? section. It's a model for future sections, but will we ever get buy-in from the practitioners? We'll see. --Tomananda 02:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Who knows who big it will turn out to be? Anyway, it's not the size of the page that matters but the intensity of the dispute.
If splitting off a section into a separate page enables us to un-protect the main article, wouldn't this be a good thing? --Uncle Ed 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Uncle Ed: It would be unreasoble to un-protect the main page without also having the critical page ready to go, because then very quickly the article would be reverted to a promotional piece on the Falun Gong. We must have both sides...meaning both pages...available at the same time so that readers can decide for themselves what the truth is.--Tomananda 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm thinking of starting the process now, based on previous discussions and agreements. First will be Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong. I'm just going to make a short article saying construction is in process and direct people to the talk page to discuss the contents. Onto the talk page I will copy the entirety of section 5 from this article as a starting point for discussion. Is that okay with people? CovenantD 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Having a real text in a trail place should help people visualize what we have been talking about in the abstract above. Covenant, while you're at it, please also copy all of section 8 onto the criticism page as well. --Tomananda 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. Fnhddzs 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very good. I will post the material I've been accumulating on the new talk page there, as well (I've managed to get some work done today) --Fire Star 火星 05:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's started and here's the link to Talk:Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong. I've broken it down by sections created a separate Suggestions for edits subheading for each section. I'd advise that any new sections follow the same format. Hope it helps. If it grows too large we can always split it up again. CovenantD 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong and homosexuality (article title)

Looking back through the discussions, it seems that there might be agreement to have a breakaway article called Falun Gong and homosexuality that would encompass all perspectives on the topic. I'd like to poll people on whether this is in fact the direction we want to go, with the understanding that article content will be respected and discussed prior to editing. CovenantD 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not at this point. There is not sufficient content to warrent a separate page. --Tomananda 17:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Teachings and Excercises

I notice that much of the current Teachings article is taken up with the excercises, while there's some parts of the Teachings section that don't appear in the Teachings article. One idea that occurs is to move the Excercises to a separate page and devote the Teachings article to, well, the various teachings. I know somebody mentioned it earlier but it didn't get much response.

Rational: As with most of my suggestions for page splitting, it comes down to size. Right now the Teaching article is at 32k. Adding more to it, which will happen when the section here is reduced to a summary, will push it over that 32k size. If the excercises are separated out, a logical move, that allows more room for the actual teachings of Falun Gong not already there, such as Demons and Enlightenment (maybe even Cultivation of mind and body which seems, to me, like a teaching or belief). CovenantD 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with your here and I have made that point previously. There is clearly enough content on the exercises to warrent a separate page. --Tomananda 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
See? I knew somebody mentioned it earlier ;) CovenantD 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chinese language mistranslations?

I am deeply puzzled by some of the mistranslations of Chinese terms used in this article. I don't know whether to attribute the changes in meanings to some kind of radical reworking of the Chinese language from within this group, to hazy explanations by Chinese teachers with poor English speaking to English speakers with poor or no Chinese, or just to the current crop of writers working on this article.

Is the following an accurate quotation? Or is it hate bait created by some anti-falungong critic?

When it flies, the Master also becomes the pilot or navigator with the disciple as the passenger. In order to complete this process, one has only to submit to the sole authority.

Maybe when I find it in the article again I will be able to determine whether it has been properly cited.

Back to my main point, is it workable to try to elucidate the language problems?P0M 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let us know your conclusions on whether it's accurate. CovenantD 20:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote you refer to was not of Master Li, but rather of critics and it was accurately quoted. It represented an analogy..a way critics Deng and Fang characterized the unique cultivation methods of Falun Gong (in contrast to traditional Qi Gong). But if you look above, you'll see I've already removed that block quote and replaced with something else. There's no need to debate it, as it was not essential for the point being made in this section.--Tomananda 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote is indispensible - let's fly with Deng and Fang! Etaonsh 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Indispensable? You think it's indispensable because it portraits Falun Gong in a heh-heh look-how-silly-they-are manner? Anybody could invent word plays or pejorative metaphors to undervalue the object of their antipathies, but that doesn't make it right for those who feel that such interpretations are slanderous. You could, for example, say that the Eternal Jew is like a stooped little Gollum who clutches to his dear treasure with reedy fingers, if you wanted to criticize the (hypothetical) Jewish supremacy in the banking system. If you were really anti-semitic, you could even try to insert such indoctrination into your "scientific" study - just look at the social studies conducted in the Nazi Germany during the 1930's. But these typologies do not surface from the primary material: they are derogatory caricatures sketched by biased and scornful researchers. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me be more specific about what I mean. (1)善 shàn. This word has had one very clear meaning all the way through the written records, at least those that go beyond the oracle bone texts. That meaning is "good." One can talk about "good and evil," being "good at", etc. It doesn't mean benevolent. The class of benevolent activities is a subset of the class of good things. (2)功 gōng is even more problematical. I was so uncertain about what was going on in the article that I had to Google the romanized name of the group to come up with 法輪功. To me, the surface meaning of that collection of Chinese characters would be "the spiritual work of/involved in (turning) the Wheel of the Dharma." The "gong" character is the same one as in "gongfu" where those two sounds mean the (results of) long term application of serious, disciplined work on some art or skill. One says, e.g., "In respect of landscape painting, his level of gongfu excels all others." That means somebody has taken whatever talent s/he was given and has refined and polished and practiced it to the point that it seems like the inborn ability of some spider to weave the most beautiful spiral web. This kind of "gong" is part of the tradition of people like Gurdieff and Ospensky. One doesn't just sit at the master's feet and take notes. One "watches one's machine," does the exercises, etc. If one is a Sufi, one doesn't just recite the prayers, one dances the way of the school. If one is a serious karateka one does not "play karate" and one does not just "spar to see who can kick who's butt." Instead, one uses sparring as the laboratory for losing one's self, losing one's ego.
I rather doubt that these are the only two terms in need of some kind of clarification, they're just the ones that stuck in my mind. P0M 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I just had another look. If the Chinese is not being properly translated then the mistranslations may deepen the impression that the movement is poorly grounded. The following passage is quoted a couple of times in the article:

Falun Gong practitioners believe that through the gradual improvement of their xinxing they develop 功, gōng, which they use to mean "cultivation energy" (this is an unconventional use of the word, which in Mandarin Chinese means "merit" or "achievement" and by extension is part of compound terms describing a disciplined regimen. In Zhuan Falun, Li states: “Cultivation practice depends upon an individual himself while the transformation of gong is up to the master. The master gives you the gong that develops your gong, which will be at work. It can transform the substance of de outside of your body into gong.”,/blockquote>

The idea that "de" is "substance" or (at another point in the article) "matter," is strange if the character for de is 德. That word has an extremely long history in Chinese philosophy. The earliest use in a vaguely philosophic way occurs in the Analects of Confucius where it means the capabilities of a fine horse that could run an endurance race to top all endurance races (300 Chinese miles in one gallop if I remember correctly). In the Dao De Jing it means "power." (Waley translates the book title as "The Way and Its Power." It is, according to some, what we de (a cognate,得, acquire ) from the Dao. If the Dao is the continuum that makes up what we ordinarily call the Universe, then whatever one gets from the Dao would be as much "material" as is any other randomly selected portion of that continuum, so the translation of de as "stuff," "substance," "matter" would have some grounding. Of course that means that anything "spiritual" is also (as a part of the same continuum) "stuff."

There is another term, 功能 göng néng, that may have some bearing on this discussion. The gongneng of some machine, electronic instrument, etc., is its capability, i.e., its capability to get a certain job done. The gongneng of a mercury thermometer is to measure temperatures in a certin range, etc.

I get a very negative impression of Falungong from the information presented in this article. If the article is accurate in respect to those elements that make me (and possibly lots of other people) feel scornful, then so be it. If, however, the article is inaccurate in its representations of the movement, then it does a disservice to the organization and to our readers. Has anyone gone back to the Chinese documents that discuss these main points? P0M 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick: You seem to have discovered by yourself something critics of Falun Gong have comented on which is that Li often gives unique meanings to tradtional Chinese terms. In case you haven't already read it, please read the section called "Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong" here:[73]
Many editors have been working on this content for close to two months and I am not aware of any significant translation problems. However, you should know that we almost always use the Falun Gong's own translation for key religious or Qi Gong terms. For example, the word De is translated as virtue, but Li states it is a white substance which accumulates around one's body. And the word Gong, when used by Li, means something entirely different from what traditional Qi Gong masters mean by the term. I hope this helps. --Tomananda 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Li borrows terms from Chinese and Buddhist traditions in developing the Falun Gong belief system. The meaning of these terms such as德(De) and Karma are altered. In the case of 德(De), it is still translated to virtue or moral but it is no longer a character or concept but a white substance. Li states in Zhuan Falun: “De is a white substance and not, as we believed in the past, something spiritual or ideological—it absolutely has a kind of material existence.[74]

真(Zhen)Truthfulness, 善(Shan )Benevolence and 忍(Ren )Forbearance are also substance according to Li. Further more, Li teaches that ordinary people—non Falun Gong practitioners—can not detect their existence. Zhuan Falun: “An everyday person cannot detect the existence of this characteristic, Zhen-Shan-Ren, in the universe, because everyday people are all on the same level. When you rise above the level of everyday people (joining the Falun Gong), you will be able to detect it.”[75] I feel more than scornful about the Falun Gong teachings. --Samuel Luo 04:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear all: The translations of Falun Gong books have all been done by Falun Gong practitioners. It may have some shortcomings, but it should be very responsible and reliable. Some words in Falun Gong teachings have background specially for Falun Dafa cultivation practice and some were created by Master Li. These could not be easily mastered by non-practitioners or even practitioners without enough background knowledge. The English translations have three versions so far. I believe the best work has been tried. Fnhddzs 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to find quotes from Master Li or wish to tell some quotes are from Master Li, you could go to www.falundafa.org. There is a search function available. All teachings are free to read and download. I suggest you read one article in one piece instead of picking one or two phrases. Fnhddzs 05:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Patrick. You are right. The 善 could be translated as "be good" as it is shown in the third version translation. but the 功 does not have translation problems. 功 has multiple meanings in Chinese. Here it can be translated as energy. 功夫gongfu also has multiple meanings in Chinese. 功能(gong neng) in Falun Gong teachings mostly mean some skills but may not bear the energy in high level(功力) corresponding to good heart nature (心性 xin xing). Some people pursue 功能 for showing off or making money or whatever while ignoring to improve heart nature. That is not a right way to do cultivation. Falun Gong cultivates both mind and body. With the heart nature increasing, the body will be transformed and replaced by high energy matter. So that 功energy is really a part of what is talked about. Besides that, energy may include other matters corresponding with good heart nature. It is different with the 功gong in 功夫gongfu in martial arts novels or the meaning of efforts or etc. Above are my personal understanding. Feel free to ask questions and I will see if I could help. But the best way is to read the originals. Thanks. Fnhddzs 05:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, I just want to point out that the article has been badly vandalized. The quotes you pointed out have nothing to do with what Falun Dafa teaches. All the teachings of Falun Gong are available for free download on www.falundafa.org. I dont speak Chinese but as for karma and virtue ( which are just words used to represent what Buddism calls Bad Karma and Good Karma. The Lectures make it very clear that the term "de" is being used to represent what Buddhism calls Good Karma.) For Instance the word "karma" in Hindi, Sanskrit or Malayalam only means "action" .. but schools of cultivation be it Buddhism, Gnosticism or the Hindu Scriptures all say Karma is a form of matter, with physical existance, created through action... just my understanding... I think it would be better to understand it by going through the teachings of Falun Dafa first hand.. Dilip rajeev 08:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For my entire adult life, I have been a member of a church whose founder is Oriental and whose teachings are not easy to translate into English. I've tried studying the founder's language and have laboriously attempted to translate a paragraph or so; it's astonishing how much can get lost in translation.
Fortunately my church publishes "official" translations. This makes it easier for Western scholars (presumably objective) to study its teachings. It also makes it harder for journalists and partisans to "get dirt" on it by producing their own translations.
Another factor is redundancy. If the master addresses the same topic dozens of time, eventually his position will come through the translation barrier.
I suggest that we Wikipedians contributing to the English Wikipedia rely on the translated texts provided by FG sources. But if there are significant differences of interpretation on key points, then can't we ask for help from Chinese Wikipedians?
Anyway, we have enough issues on the table to deal with already. First, we all need to "agree to disagree" about FG. We must team up around the goal of describing each disputed aspect as fairly and as thoroughly as possible.
I don't care how long it takes. I don't care how soon we can unprotect the article. I don't care how many sub-articles, sidebars, or separate "section" pages we have to make.
If Falun Gong is too complex for a single article, then we cannot make a single article. And how will we know whether it's too complex a topic or not, until we describe each of its aspects? And how can we describe each aspect when the main article is protected due to edit wars?
Excuse me for expressing my impatience, but if any of us here are sincerely willing to abide by NPOV then he must give up any notion of "proving that FG is good" (or bad). You guys better start "writing for the enemy", or I'm just going to give up and let you stew in your own juice.
I mean it. Don't take advantage of my nice and calm, accommodating attitude. Get back to work! No, start doing the work you were orginally supposed to do: describe each side of every disputed aspect fairly and accurately, using citations from primary sources. Otherwise, this should go to arbitaration so the POV-pushers can be banned from editing the article. --Uncle Ed 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Uncle Ed: You are correct. There are some editors who don't seem able to accept seeing any critical POV in this article. The critical section which is now being discussed on the talk page concerns how Falun Gong is different from other Qi Gong practices. So far there hasn't been any serious attempt to write additional commentary citing the views of other critics. Instead, Dilip says the opinions of Deng and Fang don't count (I guess because they are just acaemics, not Qi Gong intstructors) and he would prefer just reporting Li's own words. I would like to resume working on this article in a cooperative way. --Tomananda 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
We should incorporate the best sources we can find. If Deng and Fang are the best available in early May 2006, then we should put them in until we find a better source. The point is not to finish the article and then leave it alone forever. We need to make it a little better this month. Next month, even better than that!
If there is a dispute about how Falun and Qi differ (or are similar), than that dispute needs to be mentioned. One side says they are the same, another side says they are different. Just name the two sides, to start off. Then give their reasons.
If one side says that it's right, because the other side doesn't know what it's talking about than that should be part of our description of the side's point of view. Consider Global warming. Proponents of the theory say that the GW hypotheses is true (well, duh, otherwise they wouldn't be proponents ;-) But they also say that opponents are wrong because major scientific journals generally (or nearly always) refuse to publish contrary views: "if it doesn't pass peer review, it's not science". So the proponents are really making two points: (1) GW theory is true; and (2) our opponents' ideas can be dismissed because peer review rejected them.
Sounds like some FG advocates are saying (1) We are right about our interpretation of Falun Gong; and (2) our opponents don't know what they're talking about because they are just academics, not instructors. See the parallel? --Uncle Ed 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not necessarily what FG advocates are saying. I don't need to comment on whether qigong instructors generally have more to say about Falun Gong than academics. The problem with Deng and Fang is that they're more committed to defaming Falun Gong than providing a balanced, scientific analysis on the phenomenon. As I see it, they're part of the political campaign to legitimize the persecution: they wholeheartedly support the crackdown, and they don't mention a word about the anti-FLG violence and human rights breaches in China, not even to make their study seem a little bit more neutral. There are better and more scientific analyses available. I quote Porter (2003), whose study on Falun Gong in the United States is, in my view, among the most proficient:
It is almost perverse that critics like Deng and Fang (2000) raise quite a fuss about how practitioners are encouraged to frequently read Zhuan Falun and how Li Hongzhi has definitional power within the culture of Falun Gong, and thus claim this is a violation of “personal integrity” (p. 2, 23), yet they can remain quiet about a regime who beats, kills, rapes, and humiliates people. Not allowing people to choose their own worldview under penalty of inhumane torture, possibly even death, seems the much greater violation of personal integrity in my opinion.
However, I, for one, am not against the inclusion of Deng and Fang's opinions into the article. We just need to find a suitable place for them and maybe provide quotes from other academics to balance their spleen. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The FLG - qigong dichotomy mostly comes from Li Hongzhi himself. FLG was originally (early '90s) promoted by the Chinese govt. as a new form of qigong. I've even got a few old Chinese govt. sponsored wushu magazines that have articles promoting FLG. I'll have to see if I can find them. For our purposes though, it is Li who makes the distinction that what he teaches is superior to any other form of qigong, as it somehow is, according to him, the only practise in existence that can burn off your karma and save your soul from the degradation of this world. This is a regular theme of many of his lectures, and finding the citations will be very easy (I already gave some to CovenantD). I wouldn't put these claims of Li in the controversy article, though, I'd put them in as a feature of the teachings article. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of qigong schools, and due to their traditional Confucian reticence designed to avoid provoking other schools to revenge (many of them are martial arts schools), I'd be surprised if we find any critical statements about FLG specifically from any of them. It is unusual for a qigong school to make such claims, it is more usual for a religious sect to do so. --Fire Star 火星 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Fire Star, have you seen the new Talk:Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong page? CovenantD 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong teaching page

CovenantD, thanks for all your efforts, but I must remind you that we also need to discuss the Flaun Gong teachings page. It might work better that pro-Falun Gong editors refrain from editing the Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong page and Anti-Falun Gong editors stay away from the Falun Gong teachings page. I believe this makes the writing easier and cross links can be added to direct people to the other side. --Samuel Luo 04:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel. Falun Gong is what it is. The Falun Gong teachings themselves are actually not editable by anybody. You are welcomed to join the paraphrase editing. However, Pro-editors cannot stay away from controversies part, since it should be allowed to present both sides. We can report "X1 says Y says Z", we should also report "X2 says Y did not say Z". Fnhddzs 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs seems to agrees that the Falun gong teaching page should also be discussed here. --Samuel Luo 05:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It can be discussed. I mean, let's have three parts. 1)report the teachings itself. 2)report the critism and controversaries from con side. 3)report the replies of the critism or controversaries from pro side. Just my personal suggestion. Fnhddzs 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editors must be responsible and ensure the accuracy of content that goes in to the controversies page. It is not who edits it that matters but factual accuracy. I dont think we will have much trouble on deciding the facutal accuracy given that all teachings of Falun Dafa are available online. Dilip rajeev 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, you totally miss the point. "Facts" include the opinions of critics on the Falun Gong and that's what you have not shown any willingness to accept. In our discussions I have repeatedly asked for a committment on the part of practitioners to accept critical commentary. We now have a lot of the critical commentary placed on the other talk page. We are still working on the first section: Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong. You've posted many long paragraphs of Master Li's teachings, but that's not an appropriate addition to a section on criticism. It may be that at this point you don't have any legimate content to add to that section, and that's ok. Just let it stand for now and we can go on to the next section. --Tomananda 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

=> more one of duplication, then? Etaonsh 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Etaonsh, once again your comments seem designed more to instigate and prolong differences than make any useful attempt to help with the article. I'm going to ask you once more to make positive contributions and refrain from taunting. CovenantD 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pulling some ideas together to find a way forward

I have participated in debates on controversial subjects since I joined Wikipedia, and I've never enjoyed them. My experience has led me to some ideas about how articles should be handled.

First, Wikipedia is not a "consumer report" organization; Wikipedia does not promise to evaluate which car is the best buy, which therapy for hay fever packs the biggest bang for the buck. Readers may want to know what to choose, but the job we need to do is to describe accurately the "products" available for selection. Any evaluative information should be secondary and probably in another article or articles, e.g., "Consumer and government safety authorities give their evaluations of the 2007 Oldsmobile."

In the early days of prion research, the scientific community really flamed the discoverer (who later won a Nobel prize for his work). It would have been easy to find attacks against the conclusions of the research in those early days. It was difficult to find a clear and unsensational discussion of the discoverer's evidence, analysis, and theoretical conclusions. But that information was exactly when the layman readers most needed to know.

Acupuncture is another good model to examine as a way to plan for this article. The average reader may come to such an article to try to assess likely therapeutic outcomes. "I have tachycardia. Is acupuncture the best treatment for my condition?" But that's a little like saying, "I have a need to carry up to a thousand pounds up high grade slopes that have no roads. Is a gasoline driven vehicle a good choice?" The question betrays lack of knowledge about both the many kinds of gasoline driven vehicles available, and about the condition of any individual vehicle that the person might buy. Similarly, evaluating acupuncture as a treatment requires adequate knowledge of what that modality of treatment actually involves -- not primarily in terms of the instruments used, but in terms of the theory and practice of their use.

So a basic article on "chakra," "Monty Roberts," "acupuncture," "komodo dragons," etc., should not be about how adherents and/or detractors evaluate them, but on an objective description of the theory, the practice, the methodologies and the theoreticalreasons given in support of them, the biological and/or psychological characteristics, etc.

I can see a need for two different kinds of Fa Lun Gong articles. The first article might be "The theory of Fa Lun Gong," and the second might be "The Fal Lun Gong movement and its history." Once those jobs are done we could look at whether we need a third article on "Critiques and Evaluations of Fa Lun Gong." (Some of the critiques would likely comme up in the process of describing the conflicts between FLG and the CCP. P0M 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I direct your attention to Talk:Falun_Gong#A_simpler.2C_.27simpler.27_outline_here:, Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_Falun_Gong_articles, and Talk:Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong, where these suggestions have been made, discussed and partially implemented. CovenantD 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I could quibble with one word that may suggest a certain POV, but it makes sense to me. Too bad I'm grading final exams for the duration. I should read the intervening and prior discussion to see why things seem to be stuck. But I know these things happen. I think that you and I agree about how the article should be structured, so there must be other discussants who want to things in some other way. Let me use acupuncture as an example to try to address the issue of inserting "It's right!" and "It's wrong!" arguments. In the case of acupuncture, the people who want to follow a NPOV approach are content to say something like this: "Here is a way of doing medicine that is as different from Western medicine as quantum mechanics is different from classical physics. The quantum mechanics theory is complex and drove even the physicists a bit crazy. Same goes for acupuncture, so just relax for a while and try to 'think in other categories'." The other people wanted to put in lots of "The greatest authorities say not only that it does not work, but that it cannot work, and that you should not waste your money on it. Besides you'll get stuck with septic needles." (I think I'm probably drawing on lots of discussions outside of the Wikipedia universe when I make my summary, but I think you get the idea.) People ignore that fact that acupuncture is a fascinating study in how non-Western thought systems can be constructed. They feel a need to evaluate the system to protect the public. Fair enough, western medicine and techniques need evaluation, and Chinese techniques should receive an evaluation too. But that can come later, after readers know what theory says should happen.
So, to the people who oppose FLG I would say, just put "the real thing" out there for people to examine. Explain the differences in use of terminology so that the unsuspecting do not imagine that somebody has gotten the vocabulary totally turned about. But then just let people have a look at it. And to the people who support FLG I would say, just make sure that the article does not say that FLG claims what it in fact does not claim, or vice-versa. If a bumblebee can fly, it can fly--regardless of what any physicists have to say about it. The same goes for Icarus. P0M 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Easier said than done, POM! If you read through some of the discussion on the other page you'll see that there is an intransigence on the part of some Falun Gong practitioners to accepting critical content on anything. Rather than discussing how best to present both sides of a issue (the approach encouraged by moderator Uncle Ed), we get endless challenges to the critical content itself. It doesn't seem to matter what the subject area is. Right now we're discussing the "Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong." That topic shouldn't be that promblematic you'd think, but it is! We've discussed more controversial aspects of the teachings, such as Li Honghzi's teachings on homosexuality. Again, rather than accepting the inclusion of critical commentary, we get into a debate about the critical commentary itself...even if it's Li's own words! With the notable exeption of practitioner Olaf (who knows how to add appropriate edits reflecting the pro-FG POV), I have yet to see people posting usable edits to rebut the material in the Controversy and criticism page. Recently one practitioner dug into Li's writings to post 3 big paragraphs of direct Li quotes to counter something he didn't like, but this kind of text dumping won't work for this Wikipedia article.
Even though I appreciate discussions of structure, we have an even more fundamental problem we have to deal with. Let's focus on that problem first, then get back to the structure.--Tomananda 05:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Regarding the issue of qi gong vs. fa lun gong, is it necessary to say anything about traditional qi gong in the main article? P0M 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I believe that's going to be covered in the Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong article. You're welcome to join us over there for that discussion also.
And I agree that there's some POV problems in the outline I proposed what seems like weeks ago. I was hoping to have those resolved days ago, but it seems to be going much slower than anticipated. CovenantD 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A correlative problem

After thinking about what the difference might be between "working on your qi" and "working on your fa lun," I had a look at the qi gong article and the qi article. I wrote my dissertation on the conceptual system in Chinese philosophy in which qi holds a major part, and I found it extremely difficult to get from the Western standpoint where I started to a different system that doesn't have a Greek idea of hyle (matter), forms, and all that kind of thing, and a system of thought that doesn't know anything about the terms we use in modern physics like "matter," and "energy." I spent three years in Taiwan working with people like Qian Mu, Tang Jun-yi, Mou Zong-san, and Yan Ling-feng getting straight on all of these ideas. So I look at the article on qi with some degree of trepidation. It's not obviously wrong, but it's like the way a bemused classical physicist would try to deal with (make sense of) quantum mechanics and special relativity.

The same general problem exists in regard to the qi gong article. I started my martial arts training in Taiwan in 1962 with one teacher who taught a breathing method as almost the first part of everything, and later I picked up the habits of my second teacher who walked around doing breathing exercises without saying a word to anyone about what he was doing. I've always used what I've learned and picked up, and for me (and my teachers) it's been a very practical thing. Do this. Don't do that. And very little theory was mentioned (even though my first teacher was an acupuncturist). Again, the problem with talking about this stuff in English is that we don't have peripheral differences of opinions (e.g., about whether we should be innoculating people with live polio virus serums or killed preparations) but about the very most fundamental categories of existence.

One of the mysteries of ideology is that influential people like Mao Zedong could claim to be materialists and yet talk about things like "spiritual atomic bombs." But the truth is that for the ancient Chinese there was no "matter vs. spirit" dichotomy. In Arabic philosophy there was, and perhaps still is, a view of the soul that is very much like the Chinese idea that we might translate as "soul" -- Both groups understand the soul as a tenuous fluid, not a liquid, that inhabits the heart and may be seen exiting the body at the moment of death. To a culture that has grown out of a Hellenized version of Judaic philosophical categories, the idea of a "material" soul doesn't make much sense. Plato's idea of an indivisible and imperishable "thing" that is one's soul is much more congenial to our way of talking and thinking about things.

Another comparison that may turn out to be extremely important is between falun gong and religious Daoism. Religious Daoism is a movement that has been involved in several large-scale popular movements from Han dynasty times on down. The closest it comes to the Daoism of Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi is that it reinterprets those texts in context of its own beliefs. In many ways Religious Daoism is closely related to the pietistic versions of Buddhism because it has created parallel institutions and religious figures of its own. It's going to be very difficult to write 32k articles that can do justice to any of these topics. P0M 05:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you study what Falun Gong really says about these things. It's not that different from traditional Chinese philosophy. Mind and matter are the same. Gong is the method that cultivates energy, but also a special type of "cultivation energy" generated by practicing a genuine method and assimilating to the nature of the universe. Universe is composed entirely of matter but has simultaneously its characteristic, Zhen-Shan-Ren, which is the Buddha Dharma, manifested at different levels in different ways. Higher particles constitute lower ones, and higher beings' bodies are composed of more microcosmic matter, whereas human flesh eyes simply create an illusory sketch of the visible world. ---Olaf Stephanos

有人想：你谈到的心性问题，这是意识形态中的东西，是人的思想境界方面的事情，它和我们炼的功不是一回事。怎么不是一回事？在我们思想界历来就存在着物质是第一性的，还是精神是第一性的问题，老在议论、争论这个问题。其实我告诉大家，物质和精神是一性的。在搞人体科学研究当中，现在科学家认为，人的大脑发出的思维就是物质。那么它是物质存在的东西，它不就是人的精神中的东西吗？它不就是一性的吗？就象我讲的宇宙，有它的物质存在，同时有它的特性存在。宇宙中真、善、忍的特性，常人感觉不到他的存在，因为常人整个都在这一个层次面上。你超出常人这个层次时，就能体察出来。怎么体察出来？宇宙中任何物质，包括弥漫在整个宇宙当中的所有物质都是灵体，都是有思想的，都是宇宙法在不同层次中的存在形态。它不让你升华上来，你想提高，就是提高不上来，它就是不让你上来。为什么不让你上来呢？因为你的心性没有提高上来。每一层次都有不同的标准，要想提高层次，你必须放弃你的不好的思想和倒出你的脏东西，同化那一层次的标准要求，这样你才能上的来。

你的心性提高上来，你的身体就会发生一个大的变化；你的心性提高上来，你身体上的物质保证会出现变化。什么变化呢？你追求执著的那些不好的东西，你会扔掉。举个例子说，一个瓶子里装满了脏东西，把它的盖拧的很紧，扔到水里，它也要一沉到底。你把里面的脏东西倒出去，倒的越多，它会浮起来越高；完全倒出去，它就完全浮上来了。我们在修炼过程中，就是要去掉人身上存在的各种不好的东西，才能使你升华上来，这个宇宙的特性就起这样一种作用。你不修炼你的心性，你的道德水准不提高上来，坏的思想，坏的物质不去掉，他就不让你升华上来，你说它怎么不是一性的呢？咱们说句笑话，如果有人在常人中七情六欲都有，就让他升上去当佛，大家想一想可能吗？他说不定一看那个大菩萨这么漂亮，他生了邪念了。因为妒嫉心不去会跟佛搞起矛盾来，能允许这种事情存在吗？那么怎么办？你必须在常人中把各种不好的思想全部去掉，你才能提高上来。

Some people may think: "The xinxing issue you mentioned is something ideological and a matter of one’s realm of thoughts. It has nothing to do with the gong we cultivate." Why isn’t it the same issue? Throughout history, the issue of whether matter determines mind or vice versa has been constantly discussed and debated in the world of philosophy. In fact, let me tell everyone that matter and mind are one thing. In scientific research of the human body, today’s scientists hold that a thought generated by the human brain is a substance. If it is something of material existence, isn’t it something of the human mind as well? Aren’t they the same thing? Just like the universe that I have described, it does not only have its material existence, but also, at the same time, it has its characteristic. An everyday person cannot detect the existence of this characteristic, Zhen-Shan-Ren, in the universe, because everyday people are all on the same level. When you rise above the level of everyday people, you will be able to detect it. How do you detect it? All matter in the universe, including all substances that permeate the universe, are living beings with thinking minds, and all of them are forms of existence of the universe’s Fa at different levels. They do not let you ascend. Though you want to ascend, you cannot. They just do not let you move up. Why don’t they let you move up? It is because your xinxing has not improved. There are different criteria for every level. If you want to reach a higher level, you must abandon your ill thoughts and clean out your filthy things in order to assimilate to the requirements of the standard at that level. Only by doing so can you ascend.

Once you upgrade your xinxing, your body will undergo a great change. Upon xinxing improvement, the matter in your body is guaranteed to transform. What kind of changes will take place? You will give up those bad things that you are attached to. For example, if a bottle filled with dirty things is sealed tightly and thrown into water, it will sink all the way to the bottom. You pour out some of its dirty contents. The more you empty the bottle, the higher it will float in the water. If it is emptied entirely, it will float on the surface completely. In the course of our cultivation practice, you must clean out various bad things in your body so that you can move up. This characteristic of the universe exactly plays this role. If you do not cultivate your xinxing or upgrade your moral standard, or if your ill thoughts and bad substances have not been removed, it will not let you ascend. How can you say that they aren’t the same thing? Let me tell a joke. If a person, with all kinds of human sentiment and desire among everyday people, is allowed to ascend and become a Buddha — think about it — is this possible? He may have a wicked thought upon finding a Bodhisattva so beautiful. This person may start a conflict with a Buddha because his jealousy has not been eliminated. How can these things be allowed to take place? What should be done about it, then? You must eliminate all ill thoughts among everyday people — only then can you move up.

I am not sure why you think that my reading a series of current-day assertions regarding a certain interpretation of metaphysical (or however you want to catagorize them) topics would improve my understanding of the difficulties of discussing the original concepts in English for an English-speaking audience. P0M 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Olaf, we have read what Li teaches, and to be told that we can't understand it on our own without agreeing with Li (a central tenet of Li's teaching) isn't convincing, and is even a little insulting. That Li Hongzhi teaches that only he can lead someone to enlightenment, that his system of qigong is far superior to any other and that without him we are all lost for eternity, is quite different from traditional Chinese philosophy. He uses the same terms, but he means something very different, "gong" or "Buddha school" being two examples. Both Catholics and Protestants use the Last Supper in their teachings about Jesus, yet one uses it as a point of departure for their sacraments and one doesn't. Same scripture, different audience, hence different meanings derived from the symbols. Another example of this disingenuity is where FLG promoters say FLG isn't a religion, yet Li uses "traditional" and overtly religious and supernatural language all the time: "gods", "demons", "buddhas" etc. So which is it? I'm not saying this to slam FLG or start another digressive round of paragraphs, but rather to end them. Shadow-proselytizing us by saying we don't understand and that we should just read the soothingly deep words of the "master" isn't good faith and I'm getting tired of it. We are going to have to agree to disagree and get on with the business of writing the article if we want to avoid mediation. --Fire Star 火星 07:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fire Star. Why would FLG people want to be saying the same things that all the older schools said? Why object when somebody points out that what FLG means by a word and what, e.g., Huainanzi, means by the same hanzi are different? There is no point in defending what does not need to be defended. P0M 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

organs?

the peer-reviewed journal slashdot contains the following sentences at +5 [here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185310&cid=15296079]:

"[...] But the current leadership is, perhaps, a bit less violent in its repression of dissent.

Unless you're Falun Gong. Who make an excellent source of fresh organs for transplantation to the buying public. But, hey, that's just a matter of collecting hard currency by killing and selling the body parts of religious kooks. It's not political like Internet Censorship. *cough!* "

I would like to know whether the organ reference was made up on the spot or actually refers to information/misinformation,etc being spread, and I came to this wikipedia article to find this out, which I think is significant. (ie I wanted to know if the poster was thinking of something or invented an idea on the spot). I find the attributed sentences in the article:

"Allegations of organ harvesting

Since 9 March 2006, the The Epoch Times a newspaper run by the Falun Gong has accused the Chinese government of using part of the China Traditional Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center located in Shenyang City, Liaoning province to detain practitioners for their organs. According to two witnesses interviewed by the The Epoch Times, internal organs of living Falun Gong practitioners have been harvested and sold to the black market, and the bodies have been cremated in the hospital's boiler room. [66] The witnesses make allegations of nobody coming out of the camp alive, as well as six thousand practitioners being held captive at the hospital since 2001, two-thirds of them have died to date. According to these sources, removed organs include hearts, kidneys, livers and cornea."

to be a highly appropriate answer to my question (ie was the poster making something up on the spot, or referring to something "out there"), and regardless of the truthfulness of the allegations (since the sentences are, significantly, attributed). I commend the contributors to this article for their neutrality and high encyclopedic standards.

Are we going to cite the Epoch Times as evidence? Most inappropriate. That publication is a strong, anti-communist newspaper and hardly worth mentioning in a neutral encyclopaedic entry. Next we'll be linking to a Falun Dafa practitioner's blog and fansite. 203.10.77.190

Its a "peer-reviewed" journal. Anybody can write anything and its reviewed by other useres.. Just like a wiki-journal... Epoch Times as a matter of fact is not run run by Falun GOng. Falun Gong has no concept of organization or even membership.

Please note that this is a discussion page. --Samuel Luo 17:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems we have disputes on the organ harvesting issue also. Why don't we discuss it? Fnhddzs 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's not a peer-reviewed journal it's a newspaper. Therefore, "anybody can write anything" but most often it is people with anti-communist leanings that do. It is not run by Falun Gong but heavily sympathetic towards it and editorialises in that direction. The newspaper can be "reviewed" by anyone (including pro-communists) but it truth is, hardly anyone except anti-communist ideologues could be bothered reading it. That is the reality. Falun Gong apologists can play with words all they like. That is all. 203.10.77.190

That's nonsense. Which piece of edits on this article is ever from peer-reviewed journal? If there is, there is few. Fnhddzs 23:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of organ harvesting

On 9 March 2006, allegations were made of a secret death camp at a medical facility -- the China Traditional Medicine Thrombosis Treatment Center at Sujiatun, located in Shenyang City, Liaoning province. According to at least two witnesses interviewed by the The Epoch Times, internal organs of living Falun Gong practitioners have been harvested and sold for transplantation, and then the bodies have been cremated in the hospital's boiler room. [76] The witnesses make allegations of nobody coming out of the camp alive, as well as six thousand practitioners being held captive at the hospital since 2001, two-thirds of them have died to date. According to these sources, removed organs include hearts, kidneys, livers and cornea. The news were quickly covered by some minor media outlets, including the Metro newspaper in Spain and Holland's APS.

On 28 March, over two weeks after the allegations surfaced, the Associated Press reported on the Chinese government's rebuttal. The Foreign Ministry Spokesman Qin Gang stated: "This absurd lie is not worth refuting and no one will buy it." He also urged reporters to go to Shenyang's Sujiatun district to look into the claims. [77][78] However, on the official website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, this was not mentioned at all [79].

On 30 March, Reuters released an article entitled "U.N. envoy looks at Falun Gong torture allegations". According to the report, the United Nations torture investigator Manfred Nowak shall be looking into the Sujiatun case. "I am presently in the process of investigating as far as I can these allegations ... If I come to the conclusion that it is a serious and well-founded allegation, then I will officially submit it to attention of the Chinese government," he told a news briefing. Nowak also stated that he found torture widespread in China when he got to visit the country in late 2005 after a decade of negotiations. Furthermore, Nowak's new report insisted on the Chinese government to abolish its "re-education through labour" system and urged authorities to release all political prisoners and people held for exercising their right to freedom of speech, assembly and religion. China has denied earlier abuse and torture charges made by Nowak and asked the U.N. envoy to "think again." [80]

On 30 March, The Epoch Times claimed that a new informant, identifying himself as a veteran military doctor in Shenyang military zone, has told about a system of similar concentration camps in China. Because the Chinese government has defined Falun Gong practitioners as class enemies, they're officially declared as felons. The informant states: "The reports from outside China about Sujiatun Concentration Camp imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners are true, although some of the details are incorrect." He says that more than 10,000 people were detained in Sujiatun in early 2005, but now the number of detainees is maintained at 600-750. Many detainees have been transferred to other camps, especially after the news on Sujiatun was publicized. The informant also asserts that the hospital in Sujiatun is only one of 36 similar camps all over China. Jilin camp, codenamed 672-S, holds over 120,000 people, not only Falun Gong practitioners. Specially dispatched freight trains can transfer 5,000-7,000 people in one night, and everyone on the trains is handcuffed to specially designed handrails on top of the ceiling, claims the informant. [81] According to this informant, "Sujitatun is merely one of 36 concentration camps for Falun Gong in China" ... "It is useless to enter Sujiatun trying to investigate the concentration camp because it is easy to transfer several thousand people."

On April 1, 2006, The Australian published initial finding from US congressional researcher that the concentration camp allegation is substantially exaggerated.

On April 4, 2006, Falun Gong announced the establishment of the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) on their 'clearwisdom' website [82]. However, as of April 21, 2006, despite Qin Gang's invitation, several members have been denied visas to China according to the clearwisdom.net website [83].

On April 14, 2006, US State Department released a statement [[84] [85] that "found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital", in a tour of the Sujiatun site arranged by the Chinese regime.

On April 20, 2006, the first two witnesses first time went to the public about the Communist concentration camps regardless that their own safety are threatened[86].

Suggested Edits

Remove the bit about who runs the Washington Times or provide proof. Same for the allegation that Getz is a "noted conspiracy theorist." CovenantD 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss the subject by using the existing article. --Samuel Luo 18:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, the bit about who runs the Epoch Times need to be removed (since it's covered elsewhere), there needs to be reference to the "document from Ministry of Health of Malaysia," and the last sentence of that paragraph needs to either be removed or amended since it makes a conclusion. CovenantD 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the last sentence of the paragraph but this statement “the The Epoch Times a newspaper run by the Falun Gong” must stay. I am not sure this fact is covered elsewhere on the page and as important as it is, it can be repeated. --Samuel Luo 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We practitioners have repeatedly stated our disapproval of talking about "the Falun Gong", because no such thing exists. It implies a wish to view Falun Gong as a centralized organisation like the Church of Scientology, even though such comparisons are deliberately misleading. You wouldn't say "The Green Pastures Magazine is run by the golf", even if a lot of its editors were golf aficionados. However, you can say "The Epoch Times is a newspaper with many Falun Gong practitioners as employees", for instance. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Practitioners refuse to admit that there is a Falun Gong organization but few people believe their denial. Dr. Thomas Lum who does research for the Congressional Research Service Report from the US Department of State reports: “According to some analysts, the movement was well organized before the crackdown in 1999.” [87]

--Samuel Luo 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Olaf's compromise makes sense. It doesn't obscure the issue and it allows people to make their own decision.

If the Epoch Times isn't covered anywhere yet, it should be since it's a source of contention. Is that more appropriate for the section on publications or on the Controversies page? CovenantD 04:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don’t think it makes sense. Olaf’s statement suggests that the Epoch Times is not a Falun Gong paper, my statement in a simple way tells the truth. Falun Gong's control over Epoch Times should be mentioned in all sections necessary.--Samuel Luo 06:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "Falun Gong's control"? Who is controlling? I already told you that there are many Falun Gong practitioners working for the Epoch Times, but not all of the Epoch Times' employees are practitioners. True, without the persecution the paper wouldn't probably exist. But what you think of "Falun Gong" consists of networks of people. They are rather independent, but they all share the same goal: to expose the human rights violations of the Chinese Communist Party. For instance, I am rarely in contact with anybody outside Finland or Sweden. In Finland, we are a group of maybe twenty people who arrange anti-torture exhibitions, design flyers with Photoshop and send them to print, choose articles from the English Clearharmony website and translate them into Finnish, etc., and we pay all the costs with our own money. We all know each other more or less. Everybody's contributing according to his or her own abilities and time. We don't have titles or hierarchies, it's extremely free-form. Nobody's issuing us orders and we have to solve all the problems ourselves. We don't report what we have done. Of course, we keep frequent contact with Finnish and some Swedish practitioners via Internet, and maybe once in a couple of months we meet to study and discuss current matters together. We do it because we feel the persecution of our fellow practitioners in China is a heinous crime, and we won't stop until the persecution is over and the criminals will have been brought in front of the International Criminal Court.
For example, I have met a couple who had a university career in China before their home was ransacked; they were sent to separate labor camps for five years; both the man and the woman were tortured (the woman was missing her lower teeth because a plastic tube was violently rammed into her mouth to force-feed her); and eventually they got a UN refugee status. I know people who have been tortured with electricity. And I live in a little Nordic country that is quite far from the masses of Chinese refugees and immigrants. You know, for us practitioners, the persecution is not just some theoretical and obscure set of things in China. You shouldn't wonder why a lot of people are quite motivated to stop these atrocities.
And it's the same all over the world. If I started talking about wanting to get higher in the "Falun Gong organisation" or something along those lines, everybody would think I'm a little bit funny in the head. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what most of your post has to do with the article - it seems to be more about your experience, second hand accounts, and debate of the Epoch Times. Do you have a specific suggestion for the article beyond that which I've already supported? CovenantD 17:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Olaf, the Epoch Times is created, managed and distributed by Falun Gong practitioners. Is there any non-practitioner working there? I doubt it. Do you see why I disagree with your obscure statement “The Epoch Times is a newspaper with many Falun Gong practitioners as employees?” Falun Gong practitioners controlling this paper is a fact, both words “control” or “run” are appropriate here.

All practitioners make the same claim that there is no Falun Gong organization; this is in itself an evidence of a well organized organization. Why do you practitioners denial of having an organization? It is not a bad thing to have one, but denial is bad. Perhaps you guys are told by your leaders to make such a claim or perhaps you guys do not know the definition of “organization.” For the general public, an organization is defined as “something that has been organized or made into an ordered whole” or “a group of persons organized for a particular purpose.” (source: The American Heritage College dictionary third edition.) Judging from your description of what you and other practitioners do in Finland and applying the definition of organization, you guys do have a Falun Gong organization. This organization might appear different from ordinary organizations, for example, there might not be hierarchies. But note the following statement from Dr. Mrgaret Singer: “For a simple visual portrayal of a cult, imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top, and the followers are all at the bottom.” (Cults in our midst, page 8.) This is why the Falun Gong has a organization different from ordinary organizations. --Samuel Luo 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha. The Epoch Times is a free newspaper. It welcomes anybody to work on volunteer base. I know there are good-hearted non-pracitioners working on it.Fnhddzs 00:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Teachings section summary (Take 4)

Now that I have your attention, I'd like to direct people's attention back to this section on the Teachings summary. I'm going to continue adding comments there to try to keep the discussion in one place. CovenantD 17:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Epoch Times

Is the Epoch Times really a Falun Gong publication? It's own article doesn't say anything about that. TastyCakes 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, the Epoch Times is controlled and run by the Falun Gong and practitioners like to deny this fact. See the following San Francisco Chronicle article. [88] And Arie Ravid’s statement “I was married to Epoch Times director and Falun Gong is behind it.”[89]--Samuel Luo 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That article suggests some reporters and board members of the Epoch times practice Falun Gong, but it hardly proves that it's run by them. "Connections with the group", sure, but run by? Also a lot of the article is railing against the quality of the sound of hope, not epoch times. Why are these allegations not mentioned on the epoch times page? TastyCakes 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Because we haven't gotten there yet...? CovenantD 00:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The epoch times article links to the same page samuel posted above. It also says it is linked to Falun Gong, and is certainly sympathetic towards it, but not run by it. TastyCakes 01:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

At least one thing is for sure. The views of the Epoch Times are not equal as views of Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 01:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to check who is Director of The Epoch Times (if there is) and ask him/her if this Arie Ravid is his ex-wife or her ex-husband? In this Arie Ravid's statement, he/she was married to the Epoch Times director for over six years. But The Epoch Times was built less than six years (he English edition of The Epoch Times launched in September 2003 on the web [90]). So they must have been divorced after 2003. I don't even know who is the director of the epoch times? Is there ever such a title/position? I only heard of Editor-in-Chief and Technology-in-Chief. Anyway, The Epoch Times dares to report news regarding Falun Gong. So it is attacked by CCP since the newspaper tries to break their censorship. Fnhddzs 02:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What she means is that she is married to a man, who has been the director of the Epoch Times for 6 years. The English version is merely a spin-off of the Chinese version, established in 2000. And I would hardly call using propaganda to attack propaganda any form of "breaking censorship".--PatCheng 03:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So is this the time and the place to discuss using Epoch Times as a reference in the article? Because there is so much debate I can see that we're going to have to figure out some consensus on it's use. CovenantD 04:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well for now I'm going to change the line where it says Epoch times is a Falun Gong publication to a publication with alleged Falun Gong links. I think that's warranted? TastyCakes 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, forgot it was locked. TastyCakes 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about using Epoch times as a source, although I think it's the best voice opposition to the CCP has. But it does appear there is not enough evidence to say it is a "Falun Gong publication" as is stated like 10 times in this article as if it is accepted fact. TastyCakes 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • TastyCakes your proposed statement “Epoch Times is a publication with alleged Falun Gong links” is inaccurate. There are many Falun Gong practitioners working in key positions of the Epoch Times. Levi Browde, a corporate director of the English-language edition of the Epoch Times is a New York spokesman for Falun Gong. Arie Ravid’s wife Lijuan Ma (马丽娟) worked as the Bay Area Epoch Times director for more than three years. John Nania editor in chief of Epoch Times is a practitioner. Cindy Gu, Epoch Times communications director is also a Spokeswoman for Canadian Falun Dafa Information Centre. This information shows that the Epoch Times is controlled and run by the Falun Gong.

Even Master Li’s statement reveals that the Epoch Times is controlled by the Falun Gong. He was asked this question in one of his teachings: “It seems that The Epoch Times newspaper has almost stopped carrying the Nine Commentaries. Should the Chinese- and English-language editions of The Epoch Times give weight to, and carry on with, running the Nine Commentaries?” Li’s answer was: “The Epoch Times should take this question seriously. It's no different than with New Tang Dynasty Television, which has broadcast it without letting up and kept at it. The Nine Commentaries is saving people. Just concern yourself with doing this; people won't grow tired of it.” [91] The Nine Commentaries is a series of Epoch Times article attacking the Chinese government and it has been promoted and distributed by Falun Gong practitioners.

The Epoch Times is undeniably a Falun Gong publication; this fact has to be pointed out whenever Epoch Times articles are cited. --Samuel Luo 07:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a funny definition of proof. Epoch times has Falun Gong members in it. How do you prove "undeniably" that it is controlled by it? I'm not saying you're wrong. But I don't think it can be treated as established fact here. I doubt you would be able to insert it as "fact" into the epoch times article without a huge argument, and I think that's a pretty good test of whether it should be here. TastyCakes 17:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • TastyCakes are you a Falun Gong practitioner? No one can convince you that the world is round if you don’t want to, but for the general public when practitioners hold key positions in Epoch Times which spread Falun Gong messages, we call the Epoch Times a Falun Gong publication. I use the word “undeniably” because practitioners like to deny this fact. Frankly, I don’t understand the rationalization behind all these denials: the Epoch Times has no connection with the Falun Gong and Falun Gong is not an organization. It seems to me that telling the truth is the last thing practitioners want. --Samuel Luo 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not. I know very little about Falun Gong beyond what I've read on Wikipedia and Epoch times I've only browsed through when I was bored (and it had nothing related to Falun Gong in it). Like I said before, the CCP may have a case for calling the epoch times nothing but a mouth piece for falun gong, but it hardly seems a waterproof fact. I agree that they certainly seem biased towards falun gong, and that at least should be mentioned in this article. But saying they are one and the same strikes of pov, at least at this point in time. TastyCakes 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • With Bush in the white house we say the Republicans are running the white house, with many practitioners holding key positions in Epoch Times we say the Falun Gong is running the Epoch Times. I notice that you again avoided this important fact. Since you yourself admit that you know “very little about Falun Gong,” perhaps you should learn more about it before making any conclusion here. --Samuel Luo 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I suppose you should be the one to insert "facts" into this article as you seem very open minded about the issue? This is why Wikipedia pisses the hell out of me. Go ahead, make the article read like it was written by the propaganda wing of the CCP. Apparently noone else cares enough to want to challenge it. TastyCakes 21:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Olaf came up with the best way to approach this in the edits section just above this one. His suggestion was to phrase it, “The Epoch Times is a newspaper with many Falun Gong practitioners as employees." We can amend employees to say editors or executives or whatever else can be definitively proven. That provides readers with the knowledge that the Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong in some way without drawing conclusions that are disputed. Anything more that needs to be said can be done in a separate section (I suggest Major Publications.) CovenantD 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. TastyCakes 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging from info provided here the Epoch Times does seem to have a significant connection with Falun Gong. I can understand why samuel calls this newspaper a Falun Gong publicatoin, it is what most people whould say. “The Epoch Times is a newspaper with many Falun Gong practitioners as employees" statement is descriptive, though, it sounds really awkward.--70.132.16.251 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Now I see why we are disagreeing. I spend time and energy researching information in order to make an informed conclusion. But you believe that because the CCP--an authoritarian regime--proclaims the Epoch Times a Falun Gong publication no one is allowed to repeat the same claim here. --Samuel Luo 04:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No I believe that claim shouldn't be stated as fact, when it is disputed. TastyCakes 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

While doing some more research, I found a quote by Li that seems to indicate that the Epoch Times was founded by Falun Gong practitioners for the express purpose of promoting Falun Gong. "On top of that, the media you're running was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa, so of course this is an especially good thing." This is part of an answer he gives when asked about the Epoch Times.[92] Kinda changes my perspective, although I haven't figured out how to incorporate this revelation into the article. CovenantD 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it very suspect that this article would draw a more solid conclusion about what the epoch times is than the epoch times article itself. But if I'm totally off base here, and it really is an undisputed Falun Gong publication, fine. TastyCakes 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm just conveying what has been said in other media. If Li has said that Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa," it seems pretty conclusive no matter what the Epoch Times article here on WP says. Obviously at some point that article will have to be looked at. But not today (hopefully). CovenantD 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
TastyCakes: If this article is successful, it will present many facts about Falun Gong practices and teachings which are not easily accesible anywhere else. It's in the nature of cults to have an internal reality among the group, and a more benign external image for the general public. In this case, Falun Gong's "internal reality" is not really kept secret...anyone can read through hundreds of pages of Li's lectures and teachings on their own website...but few people, including Western reporters, have the patience to do all that work. So instead, the Falun Gong promotes a public image of itself which is deceptive, yet accepted as the complete truth by Western media and many politicians. What Covenant has just discovered is a perfect example of this phenomenon. While practitioners swear up and down that the Epoch Times is not a mouthpiece for the Falun Gong, their own Master...who is viewed as their God and savior...says otherwise. How can we not believe the Master? --Tomananda 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good job CovenantD. Let’s use “established by” instead of run. --Samuel Luo 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It was based on references you provided, Samuel. To be honest, the first couple hadn't convinced me. One was a SF Chronicle report that indicated practitioners were employed there and the second was nothing more than a letter to the editor. It wasn't until I read the one on the clearwisdom site that reported Li's words that I saw evidence to support your position. I still want to read responses from practitioners before making up my mind on what I think is appropriate for the article. CovenantD 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that statement but I did. --Samuel Luo 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Sorry I have been busy. As I said, The Epoch Times is oriented to the whole society. Not as Falun Gong teachings are oriented to disciples only. The views of The Epoch Times are not equal as views of the Falun Gong teachings. The Epoch Times has Falun Gong practitioners help on it, but it also has other people provide help. The Epoch Times is supported by Falun Gong since I don't see other media(especially Chinese) dares to report news on Falun Gong. But it is definitely not a Falun Gong publications. Its views cover all kinds of views more than Falun Gong teachings. I myself does not even read The Epoch Times much. I don't know why people are arguing on this and confused on this. Fnhddzs 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is confused. In the spirit of cooperating with practitioner editors, we are trying to find the best words to use as a short attribute for the the Epoch Times. Perhaps without realizing it, you have just made a suggestion: The "Epoch Times, a newspaper supported by Falun Gong practitioners, ...." Using Li's own words, we would say "The Epoch Times, a newspaper established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa". Which is better?--Tomananda 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am amazed that with such facts prsented here practitioners are still arguing and trying to spin people. Since Li is the leader we realy should use his words .--Samuel Luo 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we can say the newspaper is to help on "saving sentient beings". But that is no contradict to what I had said. It is not a Falun Gong publication. Its views are not views of Falun Gong. I don't think it is for validating Fa. Disciples can validate the Fa by their individual behaviours. The birth of the Epoch Times is to counter the serious censorship [93] and to expose the news regarding Falun Gong that was not covered in other media since CCP not only threatens China also threatens the world by muffling the world's mouth. An Open Letter to Our Colleagues in the Media When Wang Wenyi interviewed with CNN, the CNN anchor especially told her in advance not to mention the organ harvesting. In the interview, the anchor carefully diverted her topic away from organ harvesting. Friends, organ harvesting is not new to people to be executed in China. [94] Falun Gong practitioners got the treatment with no exception. If we are numb to this, the next victims could be ourselves or our friends/family. Don't you know patients' marrow are stolen in Shenyang's hospital? [95] The patients are neither Falun Gong practitoiners nor to be executed. When we gave such moral declination and bad deeds permission to anybody, we gave permission to apply to ourselves in the ultimate run. Together, let's save our world. Fnhddzs 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Epoch Times is a shameless propaganda news service, who claims to counter "censorship" by spewing conspiracy theories and counter-propaganda about the CCP. It often publishes articles relating to "natural phenomenons" in China, "predicting" the fall of the CCP, as well as Jiang Zemin's supposed death in 2003. It's campaigns to smear the CCP is not followed at all in the media, such as it's campaigns to "sue" Jiang Zemin. It claims to support democracy, yet intolerant of criticism, censoring posts in their online forums [96] and blanking pages on Wikipedia [97]. The so-called FLG death camp is in fact a Malaysian joint venture sponsored by the Malaysian government [98]. I'm not going to "save" the world with a group of cultists.--PatCheng 05:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Only Way To Keep it Fair

It's quite obvious that a lot of the discussion above is concerning including "analysis" of Li's teachings. There is no way this could not be POV. I think it is only fair if Firestar or Tomanda want to place "analysis" of these "controversies," at the very least, Olaf and his friends should be able to put an analysis up that counters it. To do otherwise would be shameless.

I honestly think the average person is smart enough to think for themselves. When they read that someone is trying to link FLG's use of the swastika to Nazism they will realize it is laughable. The same goes for someone's attempt to call a group fascistic when they even cite facts wrong, like one of the editors has. They will also see that the people who take issue with FLG all have personal motives-- PRC supporters, die hard leftists, martial artists and qigong teachers who want to make more money and obtain more students, et al. All of these editors are obviously(in my calculation) trying to slander a group of religious people because of personal interests and because a group doesn't fit the mold they want it to. It is so POV. Get over it! It all becomes so laughable if people had the time to see your edits on other subjects. However, it is one thing for the editors to be silly and another to attack a group of people who are being persecuted by the same government that defies the Vatican. Attacking and slandering a group of people is wrong. Yet have no fear Mr. Olaf, people will surely realize how laughable it all is.

Editors, don't join the Catholic Church. You will corrupt it, and I don't want you by my side. Anyways, the Pope helped to destroy your godless communism. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgharavi (talk • contribs).

  • I see, your idea of “keep it fair” is calling editors who try to reveal the Falun Gong’s true teachings to the pubic as “PRC supporters, die hard leftists, martial artists and qigong teachers who want to make more money.” Hah Hah, please let us know which church you are in. --Samuel Luo 20:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
They already did - the writer is Catholic and credits the Pope with the downfall of communism. Frankly, I don't think this person is worth another response until they offer something to improve the article, not just vague attacks. CovenantD 21:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Pgharavi is a practitioner posing as a Catholic. My suspicion comes from this statement “martial artists and qigong teachers who want to make more money and obtain more students.” A Catholic might have strong objection towards communism but I doubt that he or she would make such accusation.--Samuel Luo 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
To User:Pgharavi, if your Catholic Church allows you to read Bibles now, check out the following verses:
  1. Acts 2:42-45
  2. Acts 4:32-37
  3. Matt 19:16-24
-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected now for several weeks, which is more than long enough for people to calm down and discuss proposed changes. I have only skimmed the above discussion, but it looks like a number of specific requested edits have started to pile up. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of keeping editing open whenever possible, I've unprotected the page. Editors who are planning to make substantive changes are admonished take the above discussion into account. -- Beland 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why has this article been protected since 25 April? That's simply ridiculously long. What's the big deal about this anyway? Skinnyweed 01:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Falun Gong is going to explode into a super edit war once people get their hands on it. Skinnyweed 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you just answered your own question. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Article length

This article is currently an amazing 107k in length. I don't know if any consensus has been reached above about how to fix this, but I hope this page can be trimmed down to a more reasonable size. There seems to be a lot of material which is duplicative of Falun Gong teachings. That section of this article could be made a lot shorter by summarizing. This would help readers unfamiliar with the movement get a quick overview of their beliefs, without having to wade through an enormous amount of text - without removing the longer explanation, which would be available in the subarticle. Thanks, Beland 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, what do you think people have been trying to do? Figure out how to sit on their thumbs? CovenantD 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Beland: You seem to have missed that there's a start-up Criticism and controversy page with it's own discussion. [99]
The goal of the editors is to split the article, with a lot of the Critisism and controversy to appear in a separate page (with only brief summary in the main article). We also intended to create break-out pages for the teachings (to cover in more depth) and even the practices. The problem has been lack of serious participation from the pro-Falun Gong editors (who are practitioners and don't want to see any criticism of their group in Wikipedia.) So it's been a stale mate, and the plan was to request formal mediation to get us past this hurtle. I'm not sure un-freezing the article at this point makes any sense. We had sort of agreed to some edits for some of the criticism sections, and I have moved those more recent versions over to the main page. But in the absence of formal mediation, I am concerned that the unfreezing of this article will provoke another rervert war. --Tomananda 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Beland Tomanada and I have asked pro-Falun Gong editors to respect Wikipedia editing rules, but so far none have responded. un-freezing the page now leads to another revert war, in my opinion. --Samuel Luo 07:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How about breaking up Falun Gong into several smaller articles? Then use the {{main}} template to link to the subarticles. --Uncle Ed 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made a start doing just that. I think there needs to be a separate page for Government crackdown, and the Teachings page could be expanded even further with some of the content from the main article, while also creating a page for the practices. The practitioners should take the lead on that.--Tomananda 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Wholesale vandalism of article just done by Dilip Rajeev

Wholesale vandalism of article just done by Dilip Rajeev, a Falun Gong practitioner. He is turning the article into a Falun Gong propaganda. Below is a list of his edits:

Deleted entire sections:

Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong
Deleted all cross links on main page to the new Criticism and controversies page
Critics and controversial teachings
Li as a savior or supernatural entity
April 2006 state visit protests
Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
Theory of healing

Rewrote entire sections:

Intro,
Origin,
Falun Gong and sexual orientation
Is Falun Gong a cult?
The Teachings of Falun Dafa

Deleted major critical parts of:

Falun Gong and sexual orientation
Ethics
Theoretical background

Dilip Rajeev’s vandalism was one of the causes of last revert war and he is doing it again. He has failed to respond to the recent postings on two discussion pages [100] [101] and he has not justified any of his edit changes in the discussion page. He is violating every edit rule of Wikipedia and to prevent him from starting another revert war he should be barred from editing this page! To see Dilip’s version click here [102]--Samuel Luo 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

These contributions were not what I would call vandalism (which I think of as more like graffiti), though they seem to have tilted the article in a non-neutral way, and also destroyed information from previous contributors. Since the changes have already been reverted, and the changes are disputed, I will invite Dilip to the talk page here in the event that he would like to reintroduce them, and we can discuss as needed. -- Beland 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Beland, regardless of what you call Dilip's edits, they had the effect of removing large amounts of previously discussed edits. Some of the content Dilip has removed has been intact for many weeks and been the subject of much discussion. To site just one dramatic example: the section on Falun Gong and sexual orientation. In that section, he replaced all of the material from Li's Switzerland speech (in which gays are told they will suffer a parcticularly slow and painful process of elimination because their bad karma is so great). He deleted that material and replaced it with a very long block quote from Li which is much more innoucuous. And while he was add it, he deleted an entire section on Critics and controversy (consisting of 4 sub topics) from the main page. To me that is vandalism.
I'm all in favor of discussing changes and if you will check the discussion page for the Criticism and controversy talk page, you will see that I've actually made changes which Dilip, Covenant and other editors have requested. [103] Meanwhile, Dilip has refused to participate as a cooperative player in the discussions we have had. There has been a serious effort to reach compromise, while also shortening the main article by splitting it, and Dilip has worked against that effort repeatedly. I agree with Samuel that he should be banned from editing for awhile. Alternatively, we should seek formal mediation. --71.198.77.89 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)--Tomananda 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Beland I find it very hard to believe that you would call Dilip Rajeev’s edit graffiti other than vandalism. “Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia” as defined by Wikipedia. [104] Dilip Rajeev’s outrageous edit, unmistakably fits this definition. --Samuel Luo 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it is vandalism, yet. Continued, unexplained removals against consensus is necessary qualify for vandalism, IMO. He may be getting there, and what he does may have the effect of vandalism, however I believe that D. does intend to improve the article. His seemingly unflagging enthusiasm for FLG leads him in a very different direction, though, and one that doesn't recognise any criticism of FLG as being valid, apparently. Keep an eye on the article, because a clear violation of 3RR is necessary for anyone to be immediately blocked in a case like this. --Fire Star 火星 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Olaf returns

Hi, everybody:

The "real world" has kept me incredibly busy during the last couple of weeks, and I haven't had time to even visit Wikipedia. I will try to sort things out and answer some open questions this weekend.

Apparently the article is now unlocked. That's interesting.

Dilip decided to nominate me for an admin while I was away. I thank you for the confidence, but I think my contributions and edits are not currently at the level of an admin - and I couldn't do anything to this article anyway, if that's what you had in mind, because I'm one of the editors.

I'll get back to you soon. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! I've been in the same boat, auto problems and work have conspired to keep me away as well for any but the most cursory visits (such as this one) for the last week and a half. --Fire Star 火星 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Olaf: Please read the postings above concerning the edits Dilip did yesterday. You are a level headed and reasonable editor, but Dilip is not and I am afraid that once again we are on the verge of a major revert war which, once again, has been initiated by the over-zealousness of just one editor: Dilip. As one of the administrators who happens to be a practitioner, you have evidenced restraint and cooperation throughout this editing process. So has Fire Star, who is also an administrator. More recently another administrator has intervened named Beland..who was the one who unfroze the page. My question to all of you guys is this: isn't there some point at which we have to admit this isn't working and go ahead with requesting formal mediation? I don't have the years of experience some of you have with Wikipedia policies, but from what I have read in the disupte resolution section, that seems like the obvious next step. Your thoughts?--Tomananda 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
A quick note, anyone may request mediation, it doesn't have to be an old timer. The mediators will look things over and decide. Go for it! --Fire Star 火星 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Linking and linking to daughter articles

Don't use external link function for Wikipedia articles. Use the main tag to link daugher articles. Skinnyweed 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but will the {{main}} template work with references to a section of an article? Maybe we should split off Falun Gong and homosexuality since it's one of the biggest (and clearest!) hot button issues. --Uncle Ed 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the links are to subsections within the Criticism page or the Teachings page. Will that work if I just use the internal link function? I'd be happy to go back and make the changes. Concerning the homosexuality thing, the only reason I don't think we need a page is that even though there's a lot of debate, there is not really that much content. There's much more content, for example, on the Government crackdown and that doesn't have it's own page yet.--Tomananda 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can make links to sections of another article with internal linking. I've already done a few to criticisms. Skinnyweed 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Skinnyweed now I know how to do it. --Tomananda 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I request ALL editors to please compare the two versions

Before I restored an earler version the introduction said "Falun Gong is the Biggest cult in China". The version just prior to my restoration. All images, including the animated Gif, details of the persectuion had all been deleted. I restored an earlier version and some users accuse me of "vandalism". All these were content agreed upon, earlier by the editors. What I restored is a version of the page before it was severly vandalized. Please compare the two versions of the page - the one I "vandalized" with the one I restored. Thankyou. Dilip rajeev 12:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As for Li Hongzhi's speech in switzerland, the earler version didnt carry the quote. I am introducing the quote into the article. Dilip rajeev 12:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why some editors insist on introducing things that are non-existand ridiculous imagiantion like "business" aspects of falun gong. And the wall street thing which has been discussed over and over again and repeatedly pointed out to be non-factual in the talk page. Dilip rajeev 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: Your series of edits deleted all 4 subsections of the Critics and controversy section,all links to the Teachings page and the Critisism and controversy page and made massive changes in other sections as well. I did not delete your pictures, someone else did during the revert war you seem bent on having. I'm ok with restoring some of those pictures in the main page so long as they don't duplicate pictures which appear in the Teachings page. Fire Star has just deleted the sentence you object to about cults in the introduction. Please, let's stop these silly revert wars, use the combined version we now have and build from there and return to the practice of discussing significant changes in this discussion page.--Tomananda 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think if each editor could follow the rules, we won't have any problems. Currently I think it is hard to say who does vandalism. What people usually does when they think others did vandalism is, they did another vandalism by changing mass contents of what was agreed on. If we base on time sequence, we should check carefully which version came first. If we base on what we agreed on, we should check carefully who violated the rules first time without being complained in time. It is not fair to say any mass change as vandalism. I think we should strive to carefully include edits from all. By the way, what was the version we agreed on? I need to double check if I agree to it. Fnhddzs 18:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, except for the deleted pictures on the main page, you will see that the "combined" version includes all of the previous content, except that some of the main page postings have been reduced to a summary, with links to either the Teachings page or the Criticism and controversies page. In other words, there has not been any deletion of content, but there has been re-arrangment of where parts of sections reside. That's the whole idea of splitting the article. As I mentioned, the net effect of this has been to shorten the main page by 12 Kb.--Tomananda 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of length in main article

The current "combined" version of the main article is 79 Kb, down from the previous 91 Kb. I am wondering if there is a consensus to shorten it further. Previously I suggested that there could be a separate page for the Government crackdown section because that seems to be the next biggest section in terms of length. I don't have any experience on this issue, but I read that the Wikipedia standard is about 32 Kb for each article. Any thoughts on this? --Tomananda 18:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind shortening if the derivative articles are ready. Fnhddzs 18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we'd want the derivative article to be created first. But is there agreement to create a separate page for this? If not, then it's a non-issue and we may want to look for other ways to reduce the main page content further. If there is agreement, then maybe someone could go ahead and create the page and start populating it at this point. --Tomananda 19:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that we need only keep an outline of the article on the main page. as agreed before. Dilip rajeev 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a short summary of each section is needed on the main page. Sometimes that has to be written from scratch. But once that is done, the article will be much more readable. If there's agreement to do this, can someone help by creating the new page? --Tomananda 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tiananmen Square Self Immolation Incident

A supplement of my edits:

Bandaging burn wounds is an option [105], [106] -Yenchin 19:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


This section was so poorly written. Not only it does not tell people when did this incident take place, how many was involved etc, it starts with a unsourced POV. [107] It says: “The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001, when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners, among them a 13-year-old girl Liu Siying, doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square.

This article needs to be rewrittened with factual information to answer the following questions: Who was involved? When and how did it happen? What did the CCP, CNN and Falun Gong say about it? --Yueyuen 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we want a more detailed description, splitting it off would probably be better. --Yenchin 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The new version not only should report statements from Beijing, the Falun Gong and news agencies but most importantly the statements from the survivors. Currently this section is not big enough to justify a page on its own but if it gets bigger then... --Samuel Luo 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What the survivors say may not say the truth. A lot of money was found and taken away from Liu, chunling's home after the incident [108]. They may be bought to do this. But they were cheated. Since they have to be killed to muffle their mouth. We need an article for clarifying this. The treatment of mass burning cannot wrap tightly. Siying 's burning area is up to 40%. Fnhddzs 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Four out of five of them said they were practitioners, and you are picking on the one who did not make a statement because she died instantly. I don’t believe this lady set herself and her daughter on fire for money or anything else. --Yueyuen 00:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the videos and pictures that they are wearing protective clothing. Please look at the body language of the policemen too. Dilip rajeev 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No it is speculation from FLG that the heavy trenchcoat is protective clothing. (Totally neglecting the fact that it was January in Beijing.) The so called "body language" again is a mere claim. --Yenchin 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the Minghui Net article is hearsay from a hearsay. So much for "proof". --Yenchin 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal Article

Hi everyone. I was away for a week and couldn't access internet, so I couldn't even look at the page. Now I'm back :)

There are a couple of things I want to say about the Wall Stree Journal reference:

What Li made from his students was more than what he disclosed. According to a Wall Street Journal report “American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader,” on November 1, 1999, Li purchased a house in New York for $293,500 in 1998 shortly after immigrating to the US. Li and his wife each earned less than $500 a year in China.

The first sentence is incredibly POV, unecessary, and draws a conclusion without ample facts.

The article says the Mr. Li's wife bought the house, not him: "in June 1998 his wife bought a residence in a quiet Queens neighborhood for $293,500, according to Queens County records."

They each earned $500 before 1992, not before immigrating: "until Mr. Li left to begin his spiritual teaching in 1992, he and his wife each earned less than $500 a year at a state-owned grain company in northeastern China's Jilin province."

I have made changes based on this. Mcconn 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The first sentence is not "a conclusion without ample facts" or POV, it relates to Li's claims of not making any real money in the section. The article says the two houses are registered under his wife's name, a common practice of corrupt officials when leaving China. (the second half is my words) --Samuel Luo 20:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You can believe what you want, that's totally your right, but it's still your POV. You're drawing conclusions. The facts don't point directly to your assumption and you may be wrong. I don't know any inside info about the house, but perhaps other practitioners, like Mr. Pang, contributed to the cost and also share the house. Perhaps Mr. Li's wife's income increased some time after 1992. Who knows? Not me. Neither do you. So let the facts speak for themselves. As for the "gift house", why are you still mentioning that in this context when it's clear that Mr. Li had nothing to do with its purchase? Mcconn 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I'd have to start a new section.... Okay, guys, let's figure out what the dispute is about. Is one side saying that "Li NEVER profited from Falun Gong" while another side is saying "Li made so much from FG that he now lives in an expensive house in Queens?"
Also, it would be nice to have a web link to the WSJ article. --Uncle Ed 17:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
CESNUR will have to do for now:
  • Nor does Li seem to have milked its enthusiasts. The worst financial scandals critics have uncovered are that between 1992 and 1994 in China he collected modest fees for treating patients. And, according to the Wall Street Journal, he purchased a house in New York for $293,500 in 1998 shortly after immigrating to the US, and acquired another for $580,000 in New Jersey in 1999. Hardly big bucks. And Falun Gong has no church buildings, rented spaces, priests or administrators. Other indications are of benign intent and Li has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize. [109]

Numbers

I've just reincoperated the NY Times content about the number of Falun Gong practitioners. This has been discussed before and I believe that consensus was that it should be included. If you oppose its inclusion please state your reasons here rather than simply deleting it. Mcconn 17:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the NY Times qualifies as a notable source. The report has a place in the article. --Fire Star 火星 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NY Times is of course a notable source, but its report contradicts the government’s claim. When a secondary source (NY Times) differs from the original source (Chinese government) we should directly cite the figure of the government. --Samuel Luo 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've pasted below what was already said by myself and Fire Star:
The CCP has motives to downplay the numbers, and has never been hesitant on lying if by doing so it may help achieve some goal. These newspaper articles, on the other hand, are from reputed sources that are, at least in this particular circumstance, without motives. The numbers they quote are from before the persecution officially started (i.e. before the CCP had as much a reason to lie about them), while the CCP provided the 2.1 million figure after it started. So they are not necessarily contradictory. I think it's also important to say that because there's no membership in Falun Gong it's impossible to quote exact figures. Mcconn 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that saying we don't really know doesn't need a source. How can we source a negative? We aren't asserting anything other than that the estimates from whatever source are just estimates, asserting that we can't accurately assert anything in this case. The estimates should be given with sources and the caveat that they are estimates, but having the statement that the actual number of adherents is unknown in the article presents no problem for me. --Fire Star 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thus, I'm reinsertining the content again.Mcconn 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the CCP would provide a smaller number of Faun Gong membership to downplay its influence, I agree. But do you agree that the Falun Gong also has an interest to exaggerate its membership? The group claims to have 100 million worldwide with 70 million in China that puts the membership outside of China in 30 million. Where are they? The government has never estimated the Falun Gong in China at 70 million. The NY Times got that number from someone (very likely a practitioner) in the State Sports Administration. All media, including NY Times’ later reports, have used the 2.1 million figure provided by the government and we should do the same here.--Samuel Luo 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Falun Gong practitioners or Mr. Li don't have motives to over estimate the numbers, but I don't think it's an issue here. It's your assumption that the NY Times quotes come from a Falun Gong source, not fact. The fact is that they say that it was the number given by the State Sports Administration at that time. I already explained why quoting this is different from quoting later references to Chinese government quotes. You can't just continue to delete information from reputable sources because you don't like it or don't believe it. I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up. Would some else like to comment on this at this time? Mcconn 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: "This figure was not provided by the Chinese government but someone working in the China State Sports Administration." Actually, this organization is a government organization (any large organization in China is). So the statement above doesn't really make sense. In fact, I was just going over the articles now and in neither of the articles does it state that this organization is their source. Both state that the Chinese government is their source. Why do we say that the figures come from the State Sports Administration? Mcconn 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to create another section

I want to avoid another edit conflict, and this is a bit of a tangent:

  • Paul Vallely and Clifford Coonan, writing in the UK Independent on April 22, 2006, cited a Wall Street Journal article saying ...

That's how I would deal with the second-hand or third-hand source issue. Since we can't quote WSJ directly (at the moment), let's allow the Independent to quote them for us. Okay? --Uncle Ed 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we quote it directly? Please see my edit. Mcconn 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if that's the best we can do. I followed your "non-web" quote with a "cached-web" quote. No hard feelings? --Uncle Ed 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to quote it directly. It seems that the article says Master Li Hongzhi didnt accept the house. Dilip rajeev 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal Gift House Article

It’s clear in the article that the house was a gift to Mr Li Hongzhi which he refused to accept. This is clarified by the practitioner who bought the house in this letter (Please see: http://cw83913.zhufa.org/emh/articles/1999/11/3/10767.html ). None of this information reflects any financial or business aspects of Falun Gong. The fact is the wall street journal article says Master Li Hongzhi didnt accept the house, only that the heading was misleading.

To put it the way it is currently presented is blatanlty non-factual. Hence, I am removing it from the article. Further, the tiltle "Financial and business aspects" has never been agreed upon by any editor and is something completely fictional. Infact the title was single-handedly introduced by an editor when the pages were vandalized.

Infact this material has already been discussed several times int he talk section.

Dilip rajeev 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Letter to Wall Street Journal

Dear Editor,

I am the main character in the story "American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader" (Nov. 1, A41, A46) who tried to give a house to Master Li Hongzhi as gift. After I read your story I felt very uncomfortable. I think the way that the article tells the story, from the Title, the subtitle, to the language it uses, is inappropriate, because it tries to implicate something that is not true. I'd like to make some clarification from the facts I know about.

The simple fact is that Master Li refused to accept the house as a gift, which could be found by a careful reader from your story. But the Title and subtitle seem to try to lead readers to the opposite way that Master Li has accepted the house as gift, so that I think this is very misleading. The house returned under my name on Aug. 4, and there would be some delay for the change to be reflected on the county's computer record, which seems to be a common sense. I think you could have better ways to verify this information instead of making it unclear or sounded suspicious in your story.

I am a grateful student of Falun Dafa and Master Li because the practice of Falun Dafa has brought to me great benefit of physical health and spiritual enlightenment. I have always try to give some financial contribution to Falun Dafa and try to let more people to know it and get benefit from it as well. But I didn't have much chance because Falun Dafa doesn't accept donation. Actually Master Li has made it clear that no Falun Dafa practitioners could use it to make money by any means to prevent it from corruption. The precious teaching of Falun Dafa is only to teach people to be a good person, to get healthier, and to even get enlightenment.

In 1998, there was a Falun Dafa Cultivation experience sharing conference held in New York City and a lot of people were expected to come. So I rented a conference hall in Javitz center for the conference. It's not like what is said in your story that I have "helped Mr. Li before" by doing this. This was a conference that was held by our practitioners and that was also open to public free of charge. Master Li was only invited as a speaker to give us lectures and answer practitioner's questions. And you can also see that this is how all the Falun Dafa activities are organized: You can never charge or collect money for any Falun Dafa activities, which is why all the Falun Dafa activities, from teaching seminar, workshop, to large conference like this, are all free of charge, and that's why most of the seminars and group practices are held at free public places or at home. As an individual, if you have the ability and are willing to do something to help other people, you can do it voluntarily. If it is not because of your story, there will be few people knowing that I paid for that conference hall, and actually bringing this to public is against my will.

In your story you mentioned the charge from Chinese government that "Mr. Li earned millions of dollars from lecture fees and the sale of his books and videotapes in China." First, I must point out that there is nothing wrong if Master Li has ever earned money from lecture fees and book sales. Second, even though I don't know how much money Master Li has earned but I do see how much money Master Li did not earn. And you might be surprised to know how Master Li "made" his money. The series of lectures he gave in China starting in 1992 ended in 1994, and after then he has not earned any money from his many oversea lectures. The price of the nine to ten day lectures in China was RMB50 (less than $10) for new students and RMB25 for old students. More than 60% of the fees went to local Qigong organizations who were also responsible for the income tax and Master Li only took less than 40% lecture fees that included his and a few staff members traveling cost and students material cost. The negotiation he often needed to make with the local Qigong organization was not to raise the price to make more money but to lower the price to reduce student's cost. And the low price he set has sometime made the local Qigong organization didn't want to have the lectures because of the small profit. Is this the way to make money?

As to the books and video tapes, Falun Dafa books have been translated to many languages by volunteers, and all the books , including the real format audios and videos, are free for reading, listening, watching, and downloading without even filling a questionnaire on Internet websites that are also run by volunteers (www.falundafa.org). I have never seen any author or publisher doing business like this, and would anyone think this is the way of making money? Don't even mention how many pirate Falun Dafa books and tapes found in China where the copyright law is still fighting its way through; and if you just want to know about Falun Dafa and don't have Internet access, all the practitioners will be more than willing to loan you a copy instead of you having to buy one first. If Master Li still could earn money from sale his books and tapes in this kind of situation, I can only say that there are just too many people who love the book so much and still want to have hardcopies of their own.

But we practitioners all know that Master Li is not coming out for money. With so many grateful students around the world, he could easily be one of the richest people in the world. But he never pursued in this direction. He doesn't want his student to show their gratefulness to him either, but hope more people could understand his teachings to be a better, healthier person and get enlightened finally. He kept a modest and plain living. But, as I understand, he doesn't even want people to be influenced by his lifestyle, so he has always kept a low profile. Because based on Falun Dafa's teaching, no matter who we are, black or white, and what position we are, rich or poor, we all could be good people according to "Truthfulness, benevolence, and forbearance", the universal principal Master Li taught us. The more you know Master Li and his teaching, the more could you feel his kindness and noble intention to give Falun Dafa this most precious teaching to all the people who are willing to learn to improve themselves.

This May, I found Master Li's apartment at Flushing was quite noisy due to the planes to and from La Guardia Airport, so I bought a house for Master Li and his family as a gift hoping he and his family could have a better living condition in this quiet and safe neighborhood. But he did not accept when he came back from his trip. I felt sorry if this has disturbed Master Li's private life because it has been mentioned in your story in an inappropriate way. But I think the fact will clearly speak itself.

When so many Falun Dafa practitioners are tortured by Chinese government and are facing unjust persecutions, at least we can give people objective reports on Falun Dafa without any bias rather than having the same tone as Chinese State run propaganda machine. Especially I think it is the easiest thing in the world to get information about Faun Dafa because of its openness, while all the books are freely available, all the practice and activities are open to public for free, and all the practitioners are willing to tell you everything you want to ask.

Finally, since you are a leading financial newspaper and I am a businessman, I'd like to point out one more thing about the crackdown of Falun Dafa in China: It has not only shown its huge retrogress in human rights and political reformation, but has also hurt China's productivity and stability. It will hurt itself economically if it is not stopped soon.

Yours truly,

John Sun


Fnhddzs: Please discuss changes on this page

Fnhddzs: Just when it appears we are making progress and possibly reaching some compromises in the edits, you come along and do a whole series of deletions in the main article. You delete, among other things, a quote from Maria Chang stating that it is not needed. Please tell me, since when don't we need to quote from critics if we are reporting their POV's? My particular style of editing is very succinct. Unlike the incredibly long and unreadable block quotes you and other practitioners like to post from your Master's teachinhgs, I am very minimal in what I use. So when you make an absurd comment like: the quote isn't needed, I have to laugh. Rather than working contructively with the other editors, you are deleting material without justification or discussion. Please, let's try to cooperate. --Tomananda 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The article is too long. I just found the critics are just repeating the words in the main article. I add links to the main article but shorten them to have less details. Fnhddzs 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • You are actually making the article longer. Take the organ harvesting section for example you expanded it from 610 to 760 words by adding repeated caiims from Epoch Times.--Samuel Luo 23:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If the organ harvesting has its own article, I am happy to remove the details here. Fnhddzs 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Split it up further, perhaps into "government crackdown" as that is, after all, the big draw of it. Skinnyweed 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I see it is currently in the "crackdown" part. Fnhddzs 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see the detail of Falun Gong teachings are very thin here since it has its own article. Fnhddzs 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Please cooperate here. There are two remaining sections in the criticism page which haven't been summarized yet, and I am now doing that. But by far the biggest section in the main article that has not been summarized in any way is the section on Government crackdown. Skinnyweed has brought this up, and so did I awhile ago. When you claim you are trying to reduce the size of article, but don't work to split off the Government crackdown section, I have to question you motives. --Tomananda 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda. ok. really, feel free to add the two sections of criticism. But please do not just copy and paste. What do you mean by Government crackdown part? I did not understand Skinnyweed means that. I am willing to split off if its has its own article. Fnhddzs 23:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I did edits step by step. I did not do mass edits. Please edit step by step if you have diagreements. Fnhddzs 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be doing any significant re-writes in the name of splitting more articles (for example, your deletion of the Maria Chang quote.) If you want to work on reducing overall length, then why not creat a new Government crackdown page and get that started?--Tomananda 23:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A bottom line is that Maria Chang's quotes are sitting on the critism article. I think it belongs to details not warranted to put on this mother article. I don't want to delete Maria Chang's quotes. Please understand. ok. if everyones agrees, I am happy to create a crackdown article. Fnhddzs 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Let's come a name for it. Government Crackdown of Falun Gong? Remember that Persecution of Falun Gong was redirected to this article. Fnhddzs 23:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Oh. just checked it is not redirected now. Hmm. Maybe we can link to that article. Fnhddzs 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like there's a direction to take, especially if there's already a page for this content.Concerning the Maria Chang quote, I do think it is needed on the home page...or else, I will summarize in my words. But without it, there is not enough of a hook to get the reader to click on the corresponding criticism page. Concerning your other edits, can you agree to do them one at a time to allow discussion? --Tomananda 00:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: By "one at a time" I don't mean section by section, but rather spaced over time.--Tomananda 00:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I already shortened the organ harvesting part. Feel free to summarize it. Well, nobody called me to discuss when they do edits. Maybe I should alert you somehow before I do any edits you possibly don't like? How about a phone call? That will be real-time alert. However, I did not see anybody offered that to anybody. Fnhddzs 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But, next time I think I would like take this into consideration. I would like to wait for you guys. My free time is not always under my control, though. I will try. Fnhddzs 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you edit it back. please do it step by step. That was the way I tried to follow. Fnhddzs 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Luo. Please stop mass reverting. Please talk here instead of the article comments. I did not delete the contents. Instead, I prevent the redundancy. They are copied from the derived page. I shortened the details. Please add a summary instead. Thanks. Fnhddzs 01:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, the critism quotes are sitting on the cristism articles

Don't worry. I just try to delete the redundancy. Sorry about confusion. I really think quotes are too much details. Honestly, some quotes are interesting. If you find some quotes are not on the critism article. please feel free to add them on the critism article. What I happened to find are they were copied exactly the same. But I may be careless. I have no intention to simply delete them! Thanks for understanding! Fnhddzs 01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I already followed Tomananda's suggestion to split the organ harvesting part and remove details. I am cooperating. Please cooperate, Samuel Luo. Fnhddzs 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to same the contents of the critism article to be put on this article, please delete the critism article. Fnhddzs 01:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel. We finally go back to peace! Congratulations to us! Thanks! Fnhddzs 02:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Splitting the article

I am spliting the article, and moving data to relevant daughter pages. Kindly help with edits. Dilip rajeev 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the material into the relevant subsections. Please help improve the child pages and and the intros. Dilip rajeev 17:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Peace proposal

How about we let this little summary rest in peace for a day or two. It really invites the reader to click on the link above it to see more!

Then we can focus on the various contvoversies themselves, which is the whole point of having spinoff articles.

Just consider it for an hour, even. Please. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed: Give me a break! The most recent edits have had the effect of obscuring the criticism, while at the same time promoting the Falun Gong with pictures and articles such as "Falun Gong awards and recognitions". How can anyone possibly justify this arrangment? We have pretty pictures of the Falun Gong and whole main page section on its Awards and honors, but if you want to know about Li's homophobia, racism, claims to being a god, turning practitioners into gods, etc., you just get a summary blurb. There's no way these changes are justified. It's a matter of creating equal weight in the editing on the main page...something I understand to be a Wikipedia policy. Unless there is agreement to restore the criticism summary on the main page, as it was, this is a prelude to yet another revert war. It never ends. --Tomananda 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Okay, you have definitely shown good faith. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
But let me tell you it's not easy taking a large topic and arranging it so that all its nice and nasty aspects are covered fairly. Two years ago, with Augusto Pinochet, it was like "herding cats" but we finally found the right arrangement. Please be patient and don't give up! --Uncle Ed 02:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits of Falun Gong practitioners are despicable

Once again you (Dilip rajeev and Fnhddzs ) are turning this page into a promotional piece for the Falun Gong. The massive rewrite you did without any consensus removed much verifiable, critical information and removed the summaries of the criticism sections which in effect turned this page from a more balanced piece [110] for which both pro and con editors had their say to an propaganda for the Falun Gong. [111]


I urge you guys to respect the work of other editors and stop editing this page like its your property. --Samuel Luo 21:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I have edited the title Samuel wrote. Samuel, I hope you would use better language on the talk page. Dilip rajeev 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


What is wrong with The article looking clean ?..if we are to keep half the stuff there and half the stuff outside.. what we have is just a big mess... an edit there has toreflect on the main page.. To be noted that none of the material has been deleted... only moved to appropriate sub-sections.


I think there was consensus to break the article into daughter pages leaving only summaries on the main page.. kindly go through the talk pages... Please dont engage in needless revert wars.. there are other things we need to focus on. Dilip rajeev 21:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, You are the one who is provoking a revert war. It was never agreed to reduce the entire Cricitism and contovesy section, with all its sub-sections--some of which originally were postioned as a separate main page article -- to just one blurb on the main page. In fact, the oppososite is true: we had summarized the individual sections of the Controversy page in the main page and added links to that correspoding section. Various editors even made changes in those summaries. Then you come along and delete all that work under the pretext of having gotten consensus agreement. You have a long history of mis-representing your edits that goes way back in the discussion pages. I know you have a passion for Falun Gong and think it is all good. Many do not agree with that assessment. You and the other practitioners must respect the work of editors who are opposed to the Falun Gong. I have repeatedly shown restraint by not deleting your content. Yet you do it all the time, and then lie about the justification. Please explain how you can claim to live by the motto: "truthfullness, compassion and forebearance" and so blatantly disregard those virtues as an editor. --Tomananda 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Saw this on www.faluninfo.net:UK's Sky News takes camera undercover inside Chinese hospitals where nurses and doctors confirm readily-available organs are taken from "prisoners" and that the hospital's abundance of "donors" is due to its close connections with Chinese security forces. link to video Dilip rajeev 21:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


None of the material has been deleted

None of the material has been delted.. only moved to appropriate daughter pages. It would be impossible to proceed with edits if we are to have material both here and there.. Dilip rajeev 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Everbody is out of control AGAIN

Okay, people, that's enough. Revert wars are starting again and people aren't communicating on the talk page. "Communicate" doesn't mean announce you're making a change, it means discussing it, with feedback, before making a change. If this goes on for even another hour I'm going to request full protection again. CovenantD 22:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will protect the page again if revert wars are not stopped immediately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Protected. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Everybody look at the page NOW!

Each subsections of the critism part has appeared twice!!!! Why I cannot delete them! OK. nobody should delete them until everybody take a look how ugly it is! Fnhddzs 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to apologies for making a mistake. Subsections of the Criticism and Controversies section were duplicated somehow when I reverted the page to the more balanced version. However as I pointed out above Dilip rajeev and Fnhddzs did deleted all subsections in the criticism section leaving only two short sentences.[112] Let’s talk here before making changes. --Samuel Luo 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation by Dilip

Would somebody report dilip for this? I would, but I can never get the format for the complaint right. If you compare his last three edits to his previous edits, you'll see that he's just reverting to whatever was in place the last time. CovenantD 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version is very neat and much more organized. I had a headache to go back to the old long one. Fnhddzs 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't report. He did a nice job Fnhddzs 23:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Style doesn't exclude one from a 3RR violation. I'm looking over everybody's edits for the same policy violation. You're all warned. CovenantD 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev has been warned and his next violation will result in a block. I've looked over Samuel Luo's edits, he's at 2 of 3. I've not had a chance to check the others. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you, then, since you're more experienced at spotting these and have the power of an admin. Thanks CovenantD 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I reverted as I felt it would be impossible for constructive edits to continue if people keep a long messy article on the main page and then keep endlessly arguing over it. As Ed pointed out we need to isolate things and scrutinize them. It is possible only if we have the article neatly sectioned into sub-pages.

Anyway, I apologize for violating the 3RR. Dilip rajeev 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, no contents were simply removed. They have their new homes. Fnhddzs 23:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I sincerely request the editors to make sure that the main page is not taken back to the sphagetti version which would again result in the cycle starting all over again. Some editors are not seeing this as an enyclopaedia article but something pro vs anti... I also request moderators to make sure that users dont resort to sockpuppeting ( i hv reasons for concern on this issue) kindly monitor the edits. Dilip rajeev 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Since this is a highly controversial issue, I believe there should be an equal amount of information from pro and anti FG editors. And repeatedly pro-FG editors have manipulated this page making it a FG piece. --Yueyuen 23:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of neutrality is based on facts. It is important that we have to be factual. We cannot lie to ourselves. If our family got killed, we cannot say that they are not killed to achieve the so-called "neutrality". We have to be factual. That is the true neutrality in my eyes. Fnhddzs 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a FG piece. We get an adequate-weighted, organized article. I guess we could fatten it a bit. I don't know how to check the size. Fnhddzs 23:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • By deleting and rmoving critical centent you did make it a FG piece. You did the same thing two days ago.--Yueyuen 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTHING were deleted. Fnhddzs 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No big changes should be allowed without discussion here

To avoid revert wars, I believe big changes such as moving and deleting sections or massive rewrites should be discussed here first. Anyone amking big changes without discussing it here first his edits should be reverted. what do you say? --Samuel Luo 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL I just clicked "edit this page" to say the same thing. I'm willing to accept any edit that is backed up by verifiable sources and discussed here first. Anything else is not in keeping with the spirit of good faith, which I think we worked hard to achieve when the page was protected. I don't want to see that break down. CovenantD 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it already has, so it's back to protection I'm afraid. Peruse this talk page for all your editing needs. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Luo is Yueyuen

How could Yueyuen asks me to look at my mailbox there is a message from Samuel Luo? Samuel Luo, you are funny. However, it is not decent. You are cheating. Fnhddzs 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins, I request you check Yueyuen's IP. Fnhddzs 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody other than Samuel Luo and CovenantD talked with me recently before Yueyuen's comments. I don't understand why Yueyuen watches my mailbox for me. He ask me to watch and then he sent a message to me.

It should be simple to check IPs. Dear Admin, let me know the results. If the IPs are different. They may belong to a same LAN. This Yueyuen is very suspicious. It looks like not a mainland Chinese spelled name, though. But definitely a Chinese name. Fnhddzs 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1) You're making your request in the wrong place. 2) People look at users talk pages all the time. 3) The fact that somebody knows people have a problem with your discussionless edits is pretty thin evidence of sockpuppetry. CovenantD 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why we argue on this before investigation. This person started his contribution from 23:50, 20 May 2006 [113] . I believe he is suspicious. CovenantD, I have my reason to suspect this person. If this is not a right place, please show me a right place. I just request a IP check (assuming this person does not have two IPs). I suspect it coincides with one of editors other than Yueyuen. Fnhddzs 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is Yueyuen, I am not Samuel and my IP adress is shown below since I am not log in. Fnhddzs when I asked you to check your mail box I was refering to CovenantD’s following message to you.

STOP REMOVING SECTIONS FROM FALUN GONG!!!! Your wholesale removal of sections from the article WITHOUT DISCUSSION is pure vandalism. If you feel they are redundant, bring it up on the talk page FIRST! I am sick of this and will report ANYBODY who continues this childish behaviour. CovenantD 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Because you're not even talking about the massive changes you're making - that's not operating in good faith. CovenantD 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show some respect for other editors by discussing the changes you want to make before making them, thanks --Samuel Luo 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I also looked into Dilip rajeev’s mail box and found the following message. As many editors have complained, both of you guys have edited the article without any consideration of others.

Dilip rajeev I've asked that you be reported for reverting 3 times today back to your previous edit. CovenantD 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev As you have no recorded 3RR violation prior to this, you will not be blocked. If you do not heed this warning you will be. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)--70.132.7.120 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I know Yueyuen is Samuel Luo's friend and "whenever he is in a revert war he calls me up for help." So Yueyuen is Samuel's friend other than Tomamanda. Tom, do you know this new friend? Fnhddzs 02:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The end of another revert war!

Just returned from an appointment to find the page frozen. It's good the page is frozen, but freezing the page is only a temporary solution. Falun Gong practitioners Dilip Rajeev and Fnddzs were the most active in destroying the previous balance on the home page, but it was Dilip, especially, who began the attack and constantly lied about his justifications. One only needs to look at the 18:07 May 24th edit of the main done by Dilip to see how blatantly unbalanced it was. [114] New pro-Falun Gong sections had been inserted as stand-alone articles (eg: "Research into health benefits" and "Falun Gong awards and recognitions") while the title and summary of virtually every critical sub-section had been deleted. What remained of the previous article was just a short puff piece on the Falun Gong. And so many lies were given in the edit summaries it boggles my mind.

It's clear to me that some (I am not saying all) Falun Gong practitioners simply cannot accept balanced reporting in the Falun Gong article. We have been working for more than 2 months trying to reach editing compromises and every time we seem to be making progress, the results of our work is subverted. I think this last go-around is particularly telling. If the edits of Dilip and Fnhddzs had remained, the main page would have been reduced to a promotional piece for the Falun Gong...not even the pretence of balance.

Again, I suggest we seek formal mediation. I know I can request mediation just on my own, but I would like there to be support from at least a few other editors before taking that big step. Does anyone agree with me that it's time to request official mediation from the mediation committee? --Tomananda 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think nothing were removed in the new one. You can find their new homes. The old one was too messy and too long. Fnhddzs 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No. it is not a promotional piece for the Falun Gong. Just try to be neat, factual. We can improve the new one. It sets a good start by virtue of splitted pages. I tried to shorten the awards part. However, I found it did not have other places to go. Fnhddzs 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Please put a Protected mark on the page

State clearly that is protected. Thanks Fnhddzs 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Any admin could help? I think forgetting a protected mark is not a netiquette. Fnhddzs 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please

I had been constantly requesting other editors to help with the outlines.Its alright with me even if the awards section is DELETED. What is important is that we keep the material in approproiate subsections so that we can work on them. We can only go forward if the material is isolated into daughter pages. I request editors to get the article split with intro paras to each section on the main page..

I requested you to write a commentary para for the critical section. I hadnt deleted anything. Ed also requested that the new version be allowed to stay and then you turn around and label me a "vandal". Some even resorted to sockpuppetting (the last edit by "yueyuen") to get the material out... I really dont understand.. Dilip rajeev 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop the lies

Fnhddzs (and Dilip): Your edits were not about making the main page clean. You and Dilip clearly intended to leave have left only pro-FG stuff on the main page with your series of edits. Included in those pro-Falun Gong edits was a new section called "Research into health benefits". What an outrageous piece of self-promotion that is! Clearly aimed at It will have the effect of recruiting new members to your cult (which encourages practitioners to not seek traditional medical help when they are sick), the touted 99.1% cure rate FG is a classic example of the snake oil salesman coming to town. And all those lovely pro-FG pictures, all from the Falun Gong PR shop, presumably. It's all about the branding, right? And then there's the Awards and recognitions section (another lovely illustration) and it goes on and on.

When you and Dilip were finished with your editing, what was left on the critical side? Just a link to the entire Criticism and controversies page! Of all your changes, that was by far the most outrageous, since the summaries for the sub-sections and the links to those sub-sections had already been written and discussed. You could have at least left that section standing...but no, why should you? If you can get a 99.1% cure rate practicing Falun Gong why not try for a 99.1% rate of pro-Falun Gong propaganda in Wikipedia?

You and Dilip lie about editing all the time, but I guess it doesn't count as lies if it's all done in the service of Master Li and his agenda, right? Several editors have criticized your editing and asked you to play by the rules, but each time your respond with weasel words. Please try to be honest about your intentions next time. --Tomananda 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: For all the fair-minded editors out there, please take a moment to scan through the Fnhddzs/Dilip version I am referring to above: [115] Do you think it is a fair and balanced main page article as these two practitioners keep pretending? --Tomananda 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The crossed out phrases are not personal attacks. They are comments on the editing behavior and motitives of Dilip and can be fully substantiated. I didn't just make up the comment about doing edits which are "clearly aimed at recruiting new members." That observation is based on a personal e-mail Dilip sent to me some time ago. He complained to me that if we allow negative comomentary to remain in the Wikipedia article, that would prevent new people from being saved by Li's Dafa. In other words, don't let the truth interfere with our goals. And concerning the lies used in edit summaries, they speak for themselves, I can easily provide a long list. --Tomananda 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip's Reply

I am only asking you to be honest with your edits. I request you to show atleast a trace of honour and stop resorting to every cheap trick to get editors on your side - every intelligent person can see through it. Everything from the titles you use for your posts make that conspicuous. What I want is a factual article here. None of those things you added in the crictical commentary section are sourced, neither do the so called sources meet wiki standards. (Now, before you make a new allegation let me point out that I havent deleted any of the stuff.)

Those are just personal opinions.

I can take a million personal opinions, from MDs and PhDs to Researchers and put it in the article. For instance, prominent Cancer researcher says..

"As a Cancer researcher and a practitioner of an ancient mind-body practice (Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong), I have observed the total recovery of practitioners from complex diseases such as cancer. " -Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar, Cancer Researcher.

I have never tried to include such stuff in the article, neither will I do so in the future. What I have included are results from thorough research, and material from solid sources. And when the facts make the article factual. You dont like it. NPOV is not making the article look good or bad, it is about making the article factual. How could facts make up a POV? Wether you like them or not facts are facts. I invite all editors to go through the pervious version of the article[116]

Dilip rajeev 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No lies

  • What was done was very constructive. Since pages are ready to split (thanks to all contributors on the sub pages). I am sorry that there may have been a notice in advance but was not. But actually we carefully moved all contents to new places to make sure the contents were not simply deleted. In the beginning, I noticed you added a cross link in controversies to "Research into health benefits". I thought you were not opposed to it too much. I just think it is a good start to work on the new clean page.
How can you keep a straight face when saying this? We had already split the Criticism and controversies page and we had already written short summaries for each of it's subsections for the main article. You know that is the case. How can you still speak in such weasel words?--Tomananda 04:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop personal attack. I said we have to put back the subsections for all if you insist on putting back subsections. We could think about it though. Fnhddzs 06:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I actuallyed increased the contents of the critism if people could carefully check it.
    • Indeed, I do think there is a mass change and I saw Dilip had apologized on that. However, I do think nothing were removed simply. I also tried to shorten the "awards" however it does not have an article to go and I did shorten "research into health benefits" since it does have an article. I support Dilip's constructive change as a good start because:
  1. I think we have a clean, organized page to start. Although I do think it is improvable. I think this was our common hope to get it shortened, splitted. So I think it is not necessary to alarm in advance although it is a mass change.
  2. Nothing was simply deleted. We have tried to make them have new homes to go. For those left on the main article. It is not finalized. It could be there just because no sub pages for them yet.
  3. I did not see you to complain at the beginning moment of the change. (You (Tomananda) added a cross link.) So I thought the change is roughly acceptable by critical side.
  4. It is constructive by virtue of the sub pages. Thanks for all hard work of editors who created and implemented the sub pages (Samuel, Dilip etc.)
  5. I have a good faith to make it better. For example, I tried to shorten the contents of "awards" but it does not have another place to go. maybe we could create one. Or maybe we could combine it with critism to get a new article. I increased the critism article and wrote a summary for it since there was. Fnhddzs 04:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC) I also removed some images. Fnhddzs 04:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. I really have a headache to see the old long and messy one. That made me to be for the new one since there was nothing lost and due to above reasons. As Dilip said, he agrees to delete the "awards" part. We can see his good faith. Fnhddzs 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Now I come to think why Dilip had to apologize. We should applaud for this move direction which we had a consensus on. Even if it is not embraceable for the whole part, it is a nice move. Especially Dilip said he agrees to delete the "awards" or cut the "health" part. Fnhddzs 06:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You're still not responding to the basic point, which is that what remained on the main page was blatantly pro-Falun Gong. There must be a balance ON THE MAIN PAGE. The way to do that is to allow the sub-sections of the Criticism and controversies page to remain with brief summaries on the main page, with corresponding links. That is what we had before the revert war. It is unacceptable to delete the subsections of the criticism page from the main article, since without them there cannot be fair balance.--Tomananda 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It is ok to me to give the critism a fatter paragraph. But if we have subsections, we have to put subsections back on all other parts. What if moving the "awards" to somewhere else, say in the critism article? I think that will leave the article more neutral. Also we may shorten "health" part further Since it has an article. Fnhddzs 04:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs and Dilip rajeev are one

Fnhddzs and Dilip rajeev can be registered by the same person. These two users share identical editing style and pattern and they always reinforce each other in revert wars.--Samuel Luo 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel. Only foolish people would believe you. You could be charged for slandering. My English is much poorer than Dilip. I speak Chinese, but Dilip does not. Dilip is in India. I am not. Fnhddzs 04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, Dilip's and your cries of sockpuppetry are no less foolish than this. Samuel Luo: This isn't about payback. They did something exceedingly ridiculous, I don't think you want to repeat it. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I am just throwing in ideas and it is possible. Plus the page is frozen and it is too early to go to bed, so why not initiate some conversation with my fellow wikipedians. :)--Samuel Luo 04:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well how about initiating some constructive conversation instead? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Plenty of constructive suggestions have been provided by you, convent, Tomanada, myself and others, but all of them have been ignored by these two users. Do you have any constructive suggestions that have not been discussed? I don’t. --Samuel Luo 04:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you were constructive by contributing on the critism sub page. I see other editors constructive by creating other subpages which enables the nice layout of the new article. Thanks to their hard work. Indeed. They are diligent people. Fnhddzs 04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they are the same person. Their writing style is so different, that I'm not even going to issue a checkuser requeste.
But this does not mean that because they are two people that they "get two votes". A consensus must be formed, not a majority vote taken. Not even an 80% majority vote.
There is a principle here, which requires volunteer contributors to this encyclopedia to describe both sides of every dispute fairly. This principle is not subject to vote.
Now I suggest we stop the bickering, name-calling and personal attacks and get back to figuring out (1) what each dispute is about and (2) how to describe each dispute fairly.
How about the way I have been working on the John Sun residence purchase thing? Are we all agreed at least that has been described fairly? Tomananda, are you okay with it? Samuel?
I don't think we can vote on anything really big at this point, until we can agree on at least one small point. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Constructive topic

I have stated all my reasons in my reply to Tomananda. Anybody could bring up more points on the new page? So we could discuss? For example, what if deleting the awards part as Dilip already said [117]? Fnhddzs 04:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: Stop this lying. There must be balance on the home page and that means each subtopic within the Criticism and controversies page must be listed on the home page with a brief summary and a link. That was how it was before you and Dilip started tampering with the home page. I have made this statement several times above and you have not responded. Instead, you keep changing the subject to something else, like how long your FG awards section is. When do you start showing respect for your fellow editors who have critical views of the Falun Gong? Here's a hint: start thinking in terms of balance. Again, the word is balance. In Wikispeak, it is sometimes referred to as equal weight. We cannot have a home page which is 99.1% pro-Falun Gong and which reads like a commercial. There must be balance. Got it?????--Tomananda 06:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you remember we had a very long article which we all agree to shorten? I think it is very constructive to get that one splitted up. It is our old idea, isn't it? Why people so fuss about it. I don't think Dilip even need to apologize for it. Since it was an idea of consensus. We should applaud for this move. Fnhddzs 06:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you not ignore Dilip's proposal that we can DELETE the "award" part? Fnhddzs 06:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your proposal. I said we have to put all subsections back. Fnhddzs 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see your resonse to this. But even if you agree to restoring the subsections, it's Dilip who has done the wholesale editing (as you yourself stated above) so unless and until we get Dilip's consent to respect this material and let it remain on the home page, there is little point in taking this conversation further. As to the proposal to delete the awards section, I don't particularly care one way or the other. I have said repeatedly there needs to be an attempt to have overall balance on the home page. If there's room to restore all the subsection summaries to the main page (plus we need to add one for the newly created Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics), then I don't have a problem with keeping the awards section in tact where it is (as long as it includes a link to it's companion piece called Debatable significance of FG awards and recognitions).

The only way this is going to work is for Dilip to agree to respect the existence of critical text on the home page (as well as other pages) and the principle of giving equal weight.--Tomananda 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Fnhddzs, I found your posting above and you didn't say you are ok with restoring the subsection summaries and links. Rather, you said "I am ok with making the Criticism page summary fatter." That is not acceptable. In order to have a chance at being balanced, we need each Criticism sub-section to appear on the home page with a link and a short summary. That's exactly how it was before this latest revert war..brought to us by Dilip as usual...began.--Tomananda 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Make myself clearer. If you put back subsections, we need to put back other's subsections. Fnhddzs 06:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the new one [118] again. How about this. For each paragraph other than controversies we have a paragraph of controversies (like the last summary we have) while leaving the details on the main critism article. This way we don't need to list subsections while having a more balanced text. Fnhddzs 07:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So you retract your earlier statement that: "I said we have to put all subsections back"? In any case, there is clearly enough room for these subsection titles and summaries to appear on the main page and I have no intention of letting them disappear. It is the only way we can have some kind of balance on the home page. Since it's a matter of balance, I can't say yes or no to your putting back in summaries of sub-sections, because it has to do with the overall content. For example, I notice that you or Dilip added a rather long piece on the miraculous disease curing claims of Falun Gong (99.1% cure rate) and surely all that is not needed on the home page. What's more, the 32 Kb standard is not an absolute, it is a guidline. --Tomananda 09:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong being a system if Qi Gong, research into its health benefits ( I didnt do the research anyway), I think, is important. Was there a single unsourced line in my material? I even requested you to edit the intro peices and make them better.. Dilip rajeev 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we don't need to put that detail on the main page. For me, I don't care it very much. I got to start to practice Falun Gong not for curing illness. But its effect of improving health (by virtue of mind and body "double" cultivation) is just amazing. I am ok to remove that phrase on the main article. Just leave a link to the research health article and a summary detail-free. Fnhddzs 14:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC) I need to say that: although I think it is a detail, it is NPOV. It is a fact. Although facts could speak for themselves, facts are never POV. Fnhddzs 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you speak about "balance". What you are trying to say is that it HAS to be negative things about Falun Gong, or it is unacceptable. You understanding is very very low. Why? Because the purpose of the Falun Gong article on this wikipedia website is to give people the truths about Falun Gong. Not to write negative things along with the truth. As I see it, the pro Falun Gong people only write things that come from the truth, while you and other anti-FLG editors only attack FLG with lies and your own thinking. How dare you do such things? What kind of thinking are you relying on? Also, the 99.1 % cure rate WILL stay there whether you want it or not. I, and all other pro-FLG people wont allow anti-FLG people to write negative things just becuase their feelings are hurt or because their way of thinking and observing life is different then the way Falun Xiulian Dafa speaks about life. That is the main issue. /Omido

I think we need to clarify what is balance. Balance, in my understanding, is to allow different point of views. However, facts are NOT point of views. The wiki policy says that the edits have to be factual, verifiable. Facts may support a POV, but facts themselves are NOT. We cannot delete facts in the name of NPOV. We cannot forge something from nothing in the name of balance. Fnhddzs 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I really agree with this statement and hope the other editors will think it through rationally. Balance isn't about having one cup of criticism for one cup of everything else.Mcconn 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor Poll

Kindly express here your opinion regarding wether it would be better to have a neatly split version or something like we already have. Please dont use more than a paragrpah. Dilip rajeev 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the structure of the Dilip's article is better. It looks a lot better and thus is more readable. The structure takes it down to the basics and has break-off pages for everything else. Of course the content can be improved upon. Tomanda, by lengthening the criticism subsection the page will be fairly balanced. I think a lot of the content was very basic facts and the fundamentals of what the reader should know about Falun Dafa. Just because some information isn't criticising it doesn't mean that the information is thus promoting it. Mcconn 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I did and do support, appreciate and applaud the efforts Dilip and/or other editors have made in the sub pages to make this new look based on our old consensus possible. Fnhddzs 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I also feel we need split the article. For several reasons- one being making the article look neat and information easily accessible. Another being that if we have the material on two pages we are going to find it really hard to keep track of the changes or to isolate disputed material and scrutinize them.

Dilip rajeev 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we set up some index box such as the Scientology article? An index like that I think would certainly help the readers to find on their interest. As for the main article itself, the focus would be a summary of the facts. Details of the summaries of course could be more discussed but I think it would be better to do something like: summarize what FLG says, then summarize the different view. Again I point to the Scientology article, which I think they're quite neutral in presenting a controversal religion/movement. --Yenchin 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems index box is a good idea. Thanks to Yenchin. Fnhddzs 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to summarize any views at all, why are you anti-FLG people trying to force negative things into the article? You want to force other people to think like you do, you can't do that..I will expose your, Tomanada and Samuel's attempts to sabotage. /Omido

You hardly paint yourself as unbiased with statements like that. I suggest you read a bit about how Wikipedia works before you attempt to enter this discussion, especially the bits about NPOV, civility, and personal attacks. CovenantD 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am new. Omido is new. I just find CovenantD is also not senior ( at least a new ID starting 13 April 2006, but I appreciate your previous help on my edits). In terms of what are personal attacks, I have to point out that nobody spotted personal attacks I received when somebody said bad words (idiot, wiesel words etc.) on me. I mentioned this to say that we are all not super in terms of mastering wiki policies. In addition, I don't think Omido attacked anybody if you tended to imply that. I think we need to think about the issue of mixing facts and POV. We cannot pursue balance on the base of lies. Fnhddzs 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Like the way people listed are accused of "forcing negative things" and "sabatoge"? On what basis that we "can't do that"? Do I need to point out that ad hominem is a logic fallacy? --Yenchin 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought sabotage is like vandalism. But maybe my English understanding is not accurate. But we need to be serious. Otherwise we may really sin. I think "forcing negative things" is about forging things based on personal thing and lies. For example, we should not call the biochemist, owner of www.xys.org as a critics and cite his article on that website according to wiki policy. Fnhddzs 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Several people have been warned about the tone of their edits, either here or on their personal talk pages. I speak up when it gets too volatile or when a newbie who hasn't even learned how to sign their comments inserts themselves. If I tried to call everybody on their incivility the talk page would be twice as long as it is now. I'd rather focus on the article, but will wait until the accusations stop flying about and I see some desire to actually work on content. CovenantD 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong point of view

The above posts reveal the twisted logic of some pro-Falun Gong practitioners. In essence you define "facts" as statements which support the Falun Gong and anything else is a POV. Using this logic, the unsubstantiated claims of a 99.1% cure rate of Falun Gong count as "basic facts," but the opinions of any critics...even Li's own statements themselves...count as POV if they contradict the carefully constructed image of the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong lies continually to achieve it's agenda of the downfall of the "evil and wicked" Chinese Communist Party. It pretends to be a benign spiritual group based on Buddhism, yet teaches things that would make Sakyamuni blush. It pretends not to be political, yet fabricates stories about systematic genocide in China to gain world sympathy. It pretends not to control it's newspaper the Epoch Times, yet Master Li says the paper was founded by his disciples to validate his teachings. It lies about the Master's teachings on "sickness karma" which put practitoners' health at risk...even children...when they do not seek medical attention. It harrasses it's critics and threatens to put American citizens in jail in a foreign country for speaking out about the Falun Gong. It defames all other traditional religions and makes racist pronouncements about Jesus' paradise (no yellow people there) and the problem that the mixing of races has caused. And now, when some of these facts are introduced into Wikipedia there is a revert war to delete, or at least obscure, these unpleasant facts from the public domain. --Tomananda 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary of your point of view, Tomananda. Now we know exactly where you stand, in 250 well chosen words.
I'm not being sarcastic, I am quite serious. You have cleared the air superbly.
Now, to work: We need to source every one of these claims!
  1. Who says that FG seeks the downfall of the CCP? Was it something you read in The Epoch Times? I read several issues, and I've never seen a more anti-Communist screed anywhere. (Documenting this point will be like shooting fish in a barrel.)
  2. Who says its version of Buddhism contradicts Sakyamuni?
  3. When did they ever claim not to be political?
  4. Who says their genocide charegs are fabrications? (Only China, or is there another source? If it's only China, that's okay, just make sure we list all the sources.)
You get the idea, right? --Uncle Ed 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
All the above is sourced, but the sourced material is contstantly being attacked, deleted or buried in a series of edits by Falun Gong practitioners.
  • 1. Who says the FG seeks the downfall of the CCP? Li Hongzhi and the Epoch Times, which actually publishes a count of how many people it claims have left the CCP. I think it's now up to 10 million.
  • 2. Who says FG's version of Buddhism contradicts Sakyamuni? Actually, many commentators say this, some of whom are already quoted in the Criticism section which the practitioners seek to bury. In addition to Deng and Fang I would refer you to Benjamin Penny's recent article entitled "The Falun Gong, Buddhism and 'Buddhist qigong'"
  • 3. When did they claim to not be politcal? Actually, Li claims this all the time in his speeches.
  • 4. Who says the genocide charges are fabricated? Well, let's start with the 6,000 alleged victims of an organ harvesting scheme at the Sujitan hospital. The managers of that hospital are quoted as saying it could not happen there..they don't have room for 6,000 patients, they don't have facilities for doing organ transplants, they don't even have a basement as alleged by the FG. That article is already sourced. Plus the US State department report that there is no evidence of an organ transplant scheme at that facility. That report is also sourced.

In any case, Ed Poor, this is not about sourcing material. There is no problem in finding sources for these various POV's and you know it. The problem is much deeper as evidenced by the recent revert war. The Falun Gong practitioners, or at least those who are now posting on this site, delete completely sourced negative material all the time. The most recent revert war has been about what will appear on the main page. As the posts above indicate, Dilip and Fndhzs will not agree to even having a fair balance there. They refuse to play by Wikipedia rules because the bottom line for these practitioners is to obey Master Li so that they can go to Falun Gong paradise some day. And in order to be eligible, the Master requires that they do everything they can to undermine the CCP, because that is plainly his political agenda.

Please note: I am not taking sides between Falun Gong and the CCP. In my view, both organizations are totalitarian in nature and use propoganda to further their political agenda. But here in the US, the Falun Gong has done real harm to American families and it's that problem which I am most concerned about.--Tomananda 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. I can agree with all that. Let's continue on the basis you outline.
Please alert me to any future instance of a Wikipedian (FG or even non-FG, I don't care) deletely "completely sourced" material in a way which tilts the balance of the article. That is, which distorts it so that it is no longer neutral.
And please alert me to any violation of Wikipedia rules by D. or F. or anyone else.
I will personally undo any deletion which I believe violates NPOV. And if I need to go get help, I will.
But bear in mind that NPOV doesn't mean getting to the bottom of any issue. Balance on FG may be like balance on Dennis Hastert. Breaking news says he both is and is not under FBI investigation. We can't say which one is right; we can only report both sides of the factual dispute. --Uncle Ed 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The stuff was not deleted, but relocated since the sub pages are ready to use. Nothing was simply deleted. Fnhddzs 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the summaries were of course deleted, as were the sub-chapter headings, resulting in a 99.1% pro-Falun Gong main page.

It is obvious that Tomananda has something personal against Falun Gong. His constant attempts to make up lies and his so called "facts" are a joke. It is quite obvious, that Tomananda's intention is not to offer people the truth, but to force people to think that Falun Gong is what HE thinks it is, something bad. Tomananda, who cares what you think? Your thoughts are just your thoughts, stop coming with lies and your so called "critics say" comments. I can make up a name called Xiu and call him my critic, right? Who cares what these so called "critics" say? Why are you always refering to your critics? Doesn't this wikipedia article exist so that people can have their own understanding and not listen to so called "critics" or other people? From now on you will stop to use your "critics say" quotes, alright?

  • 1. "Who says the FG seeks the downfall of the CCP? Li Hongzhi and the Epoch Times, which actually publishes a count of how many people it claims have left the CCP. I think it's now up to 10 million. "

This is a complete lie, Li Hongzhi has many times stated that Falun Dafa has no enemies, and that Falun Dafa practitioners have to handle everything with compassion. The only thing Falun Gong practitioners do is to expose the evil crimes of the Chinese Communist Party and it's history of killing.

  • 2. "Who says FG's version of Buddhism contradicts Sakyamuni? Actually, many commentators say this, some of whom are already quoted in the Criticism section which the practitioners seek to bury. In addition to Deng and Fang I would refer you to Benjamin Penny's recent article entitled "The Falun Gong, Buddhism and 'Buddhist qigong'""

Now you refer to your so called commentators again, who are these so called commentators, who cares about personal opinions? The practitioners of Falun Gong doesn't try to delete any sorced material as you have stated, rather they try to delete unsorced material, personal opinions of your so called "critics" and lies that are made by people like you. Also Falun Gong has nothing to do with Buddhism, this has been stated MANY times by the founder of Falun Gong. Maybe Falun Gong has the same terms as buddhism, such as karma etc. But the meaning is completely different because they are different cultivation practices.


  • 4. Who says the genocide charges are fabricated? Well, let's start with the 6,000 alleged victims of an organ harvesting scheme at the Sujitan hospital. The managers of that hospital are quoted as saying it could not happen there..they don't have room for 6,000 patients, they don't have facilities for doing organ transplants, they don't even have a basement as alleged by the FG. That article is already sourced. Plus the US State department report that there is no evidence of an organ transplant scheme at that facility. That report is also sourced."

"... yet fabricates stories about systematic genocide in China to gain world sympathy."

Let us see. In China the waiting time for a organ is two weeks, in other countries it is 2 years. Since the persecution and killings of innocent FLG practitioners started in 1999, the organ transplant business has gone up with 3000 % in China. Also, many witnesses and former docters has stepped forward and verified these horrible crimes and admitted. Also, when independend investigators called hospitals in China, they openly admitted the organs are from live Falun Gong practitioners. Also one more thing, it took ALONG time for the CCP to answer when the world accused it for these crimes. Why did it take so long time to answer? Because they removed all the edvidence during this time.

Admins, try to see what he is trying to do. It is very easy to see that he has something personal against Falun Gong, and tries to trick people to generate negative thoughts against Falun Gong. This Tomanada thinks that whatever isn't negative is advertising for Falun Gong, so he tries to come up with lies, this is not permitted..and I can't accept this behaviour. Omido 07:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, friends, we can not think anything unnegative as an advertisement for Falun Gong. Based on this, the new page is very balanced and factual. It just hurt some people's personal feeling since it is not negative enough for them. Fnhddzs 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious editors, we have to be serious on this article. We cannot sin on this based on our personal emotion. Fnhddzs 22:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

xys.org is owned by Fang. It is a personal website. It can publish whatever he wanted. Fang, a biochemist, is not a critics that Wikipedia could cite. Fnhddzs 22:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR Rule

Ed: You ask to be alerted when D. or F. or anyone else vilates Wikipedia policy. Were you aware that Dilip did just violate the 3 Revert maximimun rule while he was editing? One of our most neutral and competant editors, Covenant, actually did a posting here asking that Dilip receive a sanction for that violation. The response came from Mirobovsky, who said he should just get away with a warning this time. I guess I agree with Mirobovsky that we should show kindness to other editors. What are your thoughts on this?--Tomananda 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Saw that, decided to let M. handle it. Dilip hasn't really become a Wikipedian yet, I consider him a newbie. He doesn't even have a user page yet. Kindness to other editors is the only way I know to get them to learn our ways. If I thought he should simply be booted out, I would have "taken steps". I used to be sort of a sheriff around here and got a lot of people kicked out (or made them leave). Now I'm more of a farmer, placidly planting seeds. --Uncle Ed 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Many editors on this page edits Falun Gong-related articles almost exclusively. (And don't put much stock in making user pages.) I would say that most of them would have gotten acquainted with the basic policies since this page has been a battlefield for a long long time. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel violated 3RR rule before. We all have tolerance on this. Strictly, Dilip did not violate since it was our consensus to shorten the article. He did a lot of contributions on the subpages to make the split possible. Hard work. Fnhddzs 22:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not our consensus to allow Dilip to remove all the previously discussed sub-section summaries with thier links. How can you possibly make this claim with a straight face?--Tomananda 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If Samuel Luo violated 3RR it was never reported (or a notice never put on his user page). You should come up with some evidence. Also, 3RR applies to all revert wars. "Consensus" (whose?) or "contributions" (by whose measure?) does not exempt anyone from 3RR. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is relocation. Not removal. Maybe we can say subsections are removed from the mainpage as all other sections. In that sense, yes, removal happened. But I put a summary for that section. Also we mentioned many times, the page can be improved! It is not a stone. Dilip already proposed to even delete the "awards" part from the main page. And he asked people to edit it. Fnhddzs 22:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To put an end to all these claims of removal/deletion/relocation, please supply a few corresponding edits on the relevant pages for everyone. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fnhddzs, we both violated the 3RR starting at this time 22:47, on 22 May 2006, remember? We reverted each other at least five times, so don’t just point your finger at others. Your edits violated the basic Wikipedia principles. I hope you can talk to others before removing and deleting contents that you didn’t write. --Samuel Luo 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I did not point finger on you. I remember at that time we got through it and go back to peace without being helped by others. Right? So, I did not refer to that time. I know myself violated the 3RR in April just after I started editing. I got warning from Tawker and CovenantD. Fnhddzs 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Samuel, I apologize if you feel that I point finger on you. I tried to say we have tolerance on such things especially when we are new. I appreciate the community's tolerance on me. Fnhddzs 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I helped formulate the 3RR back in the "old days". Unless it has changed since then, it states that reverting four times to your preferred version is a violation. Within any 24 hour period, that is.
What to do about it is not so clear. I like to start with a friendly reminder of the the rule, in case the contributor never heard of it, or forgot it, or just got caught up in the heat of the moment. After that, perhaps a formal Admin Warning. But we have Miborovsky for that. I don't feel I can both "edit" and "warn" at the same time, any more than I can both "edit" and "mediate" as Tomananda pointed out a while back. --Uncle Ed 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope to make ourselves clear that we did not intend to remove things. I thought we all want to split the page when they were ready to move to new pages. But it is true if you say that we removed stuff from the main article. I think that could be where our confusion lies. In the beginning, I am ok with either version. you could see that I worked on both. Then I think I like the new one better. Also Dilips called for editing on that. I found people did not cry but trying to change that. The real disagreement happens on the subsections of the critism section. Dilip said all sections do not have subsections. I seconded that. After the page is locked, Dilip said the "award" part could be removed and put on other pages. I think that is good faith. Fnhddzs 00:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was the fact that so much was being done without discussion that bothered people. IF the individual changes had been agreed upon before the moves started it probably would not have been interpreted as blanking. CovenantD 14:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. I agreed that I did not even put enough text in my edit comments after I decided to use the short version. But I think some people do not object to the short one. What they really object to is that sub-sections are taken away so they feel the version is not negative enough on the surface. Yes, I agree some other people are bothered with mass change without a new discussion. or without a confirming discussion. Fnhddzs 15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is about having an honest and complete summary of topics on the Falun Gong main page, not about being negative. The changes which Dilip initiated had the effect of obsuring topics such as:

  • Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong
  • Li as savior or supernatural entitity
  • Fa-rectification: Li's version of the apocalypse?

Not to mention three sections which had been moved to the criticism section by editors other than me:

  • Falun Gong and sexual orientation
  • Is Falun Gong a cult?
  • Ethics (retitled to Allegations of elitism and intolerance in Falun Gong ethics)

And then in their place he added new topics such as:

  • Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • Research into health benefits
  • Theoretical and epistemological studies

These edits had the effect of drastically changing the structure of the main page, promoting certain topics to the main page and moving others (or their summaries) to sister pages. We had spent many weeks arguing about the content of the Criticism page and had already agreed to short abreviatioins of it's subsections to appear on the main page. That was the existing structure before this latest revert war.

So I say again to Dilip and other editors: will you be able to respect this structure in the future? Or if you feel the structure needs to be changed, do you agree to post a discussion about proposed changes in structure on the Discussion page? It seems to me that is the basic dispute we have before us. Can we get get agreement on these issues now? If not, we will have another another unproductive revert war when the page is open.--Tomananda 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Covenant. Significant changes like this should be discussed first, but I also understand why one wouldn't do this. Sometimes it's hard to have others see your vision through only discussion. It's much easier to just show everyone. Also, if it's only discussion maybe people will be preoccupied with the main page and not take it seriously. It would be nice if we could create it first and then show everyone, "Here, look at this? What do you think?" Is there a way to do this (ie create a page for other editors to view), but without having it saved as the main page? Mcconn 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The main issue is that the new page removed all the individual criticism summaries and left room for just one main summary. Is that right? It seems to mainly be a question of what is "balance" and whether or not the new structure can accomodate this. Am I right? Tomanda also mentioned Dilip adding in other sections onto the page, but I think Dilip stated that these don't really fall into other categories and have thus no where else to go if we are to include them (perhaps we can figure something out). Much of this has been discussed above, but there appears to be no consensus yet. Some editors still haven't commented on the specific issue. So would the editors who haven't stated their opinions please share? If this is the only "big" problem with the page then it shouldn't take too much more discussion to have it sorted out. One more thought: If we can agree to ditch the individual teachings and criticism summaries in favor of single summary paragraphs for each sister page, which I support, perhaps we can then center our discussion on what a simpler main page should (or shouldn't) contain.Mcconn 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Mcconn, we can't agree to eliminate all the individual summaries and just summarize the whole Criticism page. If we go in that direction, I will insist on putting back some of the most important articles which other editors have moved to the Criticism page back to the main page, as they had been (eg: Ethics or Falun Gong and sexual orientation). There is enough room on the main page to have short summaries of the sub-articles and it was based on that assumption that I and other editors alllowed articles to be moved to the critisicm page in the first place. If there cannot be agreement on the basics of a structure which will provide for balance, I will go ahead on my own and request mediation. But first, I would like to hear from some of the other editors, especially Fire Star, Olaf and Covenant, on this issue. --Tomananda 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Critical links listed above ( external links) official Falun gong sites, very odd

I have no association with FG either pro or anti , but find the critical sites listed on top of pro sites very odd ( in external links ) why is this ? since the article is about FG it is normal to list direct websites first ( don't you think ?)--Scribe5 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the order should be switched. CovenantD 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fork at Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong

This article appears to be a content fork of the main article, and I haven't seen any consensus basis for its creation. Just letting everyone here know it exists. Night Gyr 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the new version [119] . Since it is used as the new home of several sections of the long version. it has similar contents with the long version. Fnhddzs 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the article factual

NPOV is not making the article look good or bad. Neither has it got anything to do with "pro" or "anti" stuff. It is about making the article factual.

Every bit of material I had included in my edits were well sourced and from thorough research conducted by reputed researchers.How could facts make up a POV? Whether someone likes them or not facts are facts. I invite all editors to go through the pervious version of the article[120]

Dilip: There has not been a challenge to the content of your recent additions, the challenge is to where you put them, and what you deleted at the same time. Please stop trying to change the subject.--Tomananda 18:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I have never included stuff from personal websites or the viewpoint of some reporter.

Dilip rajeev 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: Your last series of edits had the effect of drastically changing the structure of the main page and had nothing to do with being "factual". The issue of sources was covered in great depth in the Criticism talk page. I have summarized what you did above in the 3RR section and have asked you, and other editors, a question. Please read it and respond.--Tomananda 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you speak about balance. That means that along with the truth (what you call advertisement), there should be your own negative opinions and negative opinions from private websites or your so called "critics" that you are making up. Please tell me how this is factual. Thank you Omido 18:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat I didnt delete anything. I share the opinion with atleast 4 other editors, that the material needs to be isolated to the specific pages and carefully scrutinized. There is A LOT of POV, unsourced material and even completely made up material in the present article. By isolating the material into appropriate talk pages , we can effortlessly scrutinize the material. I think it is urgent that we keep the material isolated into sub-pages. And we will have an index box too. To provide easy access to all subsections. Dilip rajeev 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: We had all this material on the Criticism page and spent close to 4 weeks discussing issues of sources, etc. Although you often did not participate in the discussion, certain conclusions were reached on sources (see Covenant's proposed standard for inclusion of sources and the subesequent discussion to refresh your memory.) It's rather outrageous that at this stage you would make this argument to defend your deletions on the main page. Back when you were sending me personal e-mails asking that I give up my sinful homosexual behavior, you stated you were concerned that my words would prevent people from having the opportunity to cultivate the Dafa. As a Wikipedia editor is it possible for you to be objective enough to play by the Wikipedia rules, which means allow sourced material to remain in an ariticle even if, in your opinion, it might have the effect of turning away a new Falun Gong recruit? That to me is the basic question. As a true believer in Li Hongzhi as savior, and the idea that practitioners during this Fa-rectification period must dedicate themselves to saving all sentient beings, can you put aside those convictions long enough to allow diverergent POV's to remain in this article? Or will you continue to provoke revert wars by doing a series of sneaky edits to conceal things which might work against Falun Gong's recruitment efforts? --Tomananda 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, now I am going to be honest with you. The goal of Falun Gong practitioners is not to "recruit" anybody, as you call it. So what is the goal? To clarify the truth about Falun Gong. What does this mean? It means to not let people like you who get their feelings or own notions hurt to spread lies and negative things. /Omido 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What is balance

Somebody said we don't want a puff piece of Falun Gong. But why we have to be "thirsty" to get puff pieces of so-called critism? Falun Gong teachings (I only refer to those written by Master Li) have a lot of articles[121][122]. Only the main book has nine chapters[123]. Why we have to assume that there have to have the equal size of critism stuff especially from personal website from a biochemist? In this sense, it is already inbalanced to the opposite way. I mean, we have already tried to minimize the Falun Gong teachings on the article. Why we cannot try to mimize the puff pieces of "critism"? What is in our mind? Where is the fairness? How balance is balance? Why those individual summaries cannot be deleted? If you put them back, why we not list summaries of all nine chapters of Zhuan Falun? Fnhddzs 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could probably list summaries of all the subsections in the Main article if that made sense. Balance does not mean that there has to be a 50/50 balance in the material, but it does mean that the critical articles need to be sumarized in the main article. That can easily be done without going over any space limit, so this whole argument is a diversionary tactic that Dilip has created to bury the material he doesn't like. He's done it before, and now we're doing it again. --Tomananda 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't we already bury the material you don't like also? I like the Falun gong teachings. But I am ok to leave only one summary on the main article. I didn't accuse that people bury the material they don't like. Fnhddzs 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall we get back to structure?

I'd like to archive this talk page again and start the discussion on what should be here and what should be in subarticles, based on the current article. Basically give us all a chance to start again, leaving behind the accusations and FOCUS ON THE ARTICLES. This means assuming good faith and talking about changes BEFORE they are implemented. We have a couple of admins that can make agreed upon changes without removing the protection, thus avoiding the edit wars until it's ALL in place and has consensus. Feedback? CovenantD 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. It's certainly worth a try. --Tomananda 19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: However, we also need to agree to what subarticles will be summarized on the main page. It's not just about what artiles appear in their entirety on the main page, although that, too, is an issue.--Tomananda 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The current topics of "factualness" and/or what is balance are exactly to help about the structure. We could not avoid these. Fnhddzs 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We have already spent weeks on the structure. Editing on the main page is redundant when we have sub-pages. Covenants suggestion is useful provided we do that on the sub-pages. The current main-page is nowhere near factual. I suggest we need to work on the sub-pages. The article is a collection of sub-pages now. We can also work on the main page summaries for the sub-pages.Dilip rajeev 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I like the eidea of having the admins to edit the article for us. Dilip’s discontent towards the existing article suggests his willingness to provoke another revert war. --Samuel Luo 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh. really, we have Admins to write for us. Many people are discontent on the current one. It is too long. Fnhddzs 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I however can't agree anything with you. Why? Because you really believe that anything that isn't negative about Falun Gong is advertisement, so your goal is to put in negative things. Things that you don't believe in, things that goes against your thinking, and things that you can't understand is all you use to judge Falun Gong. You have formed your way of seeing things and you can't see anything beyond that. You are absoloutly sure that Falun Gong is what you call it, a "cult" and that it is bad. If someone tells you: "No Falun Gong is not a cult, it's a Qigong cultivation practice for mind and body that has benefited more than 100 million people in more than 80 countries and it is really good!". Would you believe him and try to understand him? No you wouldn't, because you are locked into your own thinking. As I see it, you are full of negative intentions. What intentions? Intentions of just putting in negative things in the article. While Falun Gong practitioners intentions is to show people what Falun Gong really is, the truth. I hope that admins can see what you are up to as clearly as I can, and not allow you to edit the Falun Gong article anymore. Falun Gong practitioners goal is not to "recruit" people to Falun Gong, as you call it. Why should practitioners care if others practice Falun Gong or not? The goal of practitioners is to expose the propaganda, lies and attacks on Falun Gong by the CCP, those lies which you are following and recruting. Those so called "facts" that you use to attack Falun Gong is actually only some things you have copied from the book, critisizing and twisting it, making it look like Falun Gong is what you want it to look like. /Omido 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Second! yes, editors should seek facts, not to instill personal understanding to the public. Fnhddzs 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, a new practitioner (Omido, you are a practitioner, right?) attacking Falun Gong critics for their POV. If this were China in the early 1990's, you no doubt would be one of the thousands of practitioners who staged disruptive and illegal sit-in demonstrations at media outlets to force them to retract their negative coverage. At that time some people were even fired from their jobs for reporting opinions you didn't agree with. Well guess what, Omido, we have free speech in this country and Wikipedia articles can and must report divergent critical opinions on controversial topics. Sorry. --Tomananda 20:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I found Tomananda is presenting his POV. The information I got is: The April 25, 1999 appeal is legal. Chinese premier Zhu,Rongji talked to the practitioners on that day. The outlaw to Falun Gong is illegal, contradicting China's constitution. Free speech does not endorse lies/slander. Fnhddzs 21:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) We report facts, not personal ideology. Fnhddzs 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see from the comments by Samuel and the newbie Omido (and now Tomananda) that we're not ready to put away accusations and assumptions of bad faith yet. Keep going folks, get it out of your system. I'll be waiting... CovenantD 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, I support what you are trying to do, but just felt I had to respond to Omido's attack above. The problem here is that some editors (even pro-Falun Gong editors) are willing to work together and reach compromise, while others are not. A case in point: if you check the Talk Criticism page, you'll see that Mcconn had asked for a more elaborate reporting of Li's Switizerland speech under the topic: A special punishment for homosexuals? To answer his concerns, I went ahead and did a significant re-write to include the material he wanted for the sake of greater context. Although I preferred the earlier version, I accepted the need for change to respect his view. Repeatedly I have made these kinds of changes in the Criticism and controversies section. But now what Dilip and Fnhddzs are essentially doing is resisting making progress on the structure issue based on sweeping complaints about the content. As you know, we have already discussed all this content and the issues of POV and appropriate sources. It's really a question of cooperation. I'm willing to do my part. Starting now, I will restrain from responding to any more attacks from practitioners, regardless of how outreageous they are.Let's proceed with the structure debate. Maybe if you go ahead and start the new discussion page that will help! --Tomananda 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is: in my understanding, the utmost spirits of wiki article is about NPOV and Verifiability. The edits are not about compromising with each other among editors. We have to follow the wiki article's spirit. All sources must be reliable. However, fact is not POV. Of course, we are willing to absorb all edits as long as they are factual. Cooperation does not equal to forcing personal emotion and lies in. Wiki article is not about asking for lies/personal emotion in the name of cooperation. Fnhddzs 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I so totally understand your frustration, Tomananda, and thank you for offering to restrain your desire to respond. It's gonna be tough and I expect the occasional lapse. Everybody, myself included, has at one time or another posted something here that was better left unsaid.
To pull out one example that seems to bother you, I think the best way to view dilip's recent contributions is to give the benefit of the doubt, assume that he was trying to implement was he perceived to be consensus, and hope that in the future changes will be agreed upon before they are made and not just announced as they happen. There are cultural and language differences that are sometimes difficult to navigate. Of course I'm not emotionally attached to the topic so it's sometimes easier for me to be objective, in my own unique way :) CovenantD 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote was not a attack, why would I want to attack you? My intention was to show the admins what intentions you have, which is to put negative things into the article, not to put the truth into the article. Omido 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In wiki policy Consensus_vs._other_policies "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus." In wiki policy Assume_good_faith, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, it only means that one should not ascribe said action to malice. Automatically accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith regardless of their motivation is failing to assume good faith in itself."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnhddzs (talk • contribs).

Agreed, Fnhddzs. Omido, you are assuming bad faith. Unless you are a sockpuppet, you don't have the experience with Tomananda to even begin to guess his intentions. Unless you cease immediately, I will start the Request for Comment process on your contributions to this talk page. CovenantD 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No. He did not assume bad faith. Assuming good faith is not to "require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. " Fnhddzs 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • CovenantD. We don't assume editors have to have enough long time to get the evidence. Although Omido is new, he can get the evidence that Tomananda's bad intention. Fnhddzs 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't bite new comers! Fnhddzs 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
See? Even I write things that might be better left unwritten. However, when Omido contributes things like "It means to not let people like you (referring to Tomananda) who get their feelings or own notions hurt to spread lies and negative things," that is assuming bad faith. Tomananda is a bit... zealous in his perspective, but I see no compelling evidence of bad faith. Or at least no more than anybody else here. CovenantD 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You did not see evidence. Omido saw it. It's ok people diverge. But please refrain threatening newcomers by stuff like "Request for Comment process". Excuse me, I assume it is something threatening. Maybe it is mild. Fnhddzs 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda's Response

As I said above, I am going to cease responding to personal attacks or allegations about my bad intentions while editing. Instead, I will let my editing speak for itself. What I will do, however, is respond to all the talk above about the importance of being fact-based in our edits. Here's a short list of facts I just compiled:

  • Many published authors consider the Falun Gong to be a maniuplative cult;
  • Li Hongzhi's teachings condemn homosexuals and homosexuality;
  • Li's teachings on homosexuality are offensive to many people, including Western politicians;
  • Li Hongzhi has assumed the role of a god and savior;
Savior-yes. God-no. You will not find any quotes of Mr. Li claiming himself a God or Buddha. Mcconn 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Li claims to have visited the paradise of Jesus (and found no yellow people there);
"visited" is your word. He just said that he saw it. I know lots of people who can see places without going there. :-) Mcconn 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Li claims that mixed race people have caused a big problem because the gods don't know which (segregated) paradise they belong to.
  • Li claims that the other religions can no longer save people, only he can.
  • Li claims to heal illnesses and encourages his followers not to seek medical care when they are sick.
  • Li claims to have prevented several cosmic explosions and right now is preventing the explosition of the universe by keeping up with it.
  • Li has stated that the newspaper the Epoch Times was established by his Dafa disciples for the purpose of validating his teachings.
  • Li teaches that his Dafa will judge all beings and that during this period of Fa-rectification corrupt people will be weeded out.
  • Li teaches his followers to defend and protect the Dafa as a condition for their own salvation.
  • Li instructs his followers not to talk about his teachings "at too high a level"
Yes, this is referring to when talking to people without any knowledge of Falun Dafa, and means that we should generally stick to the basics as the rest, which departs too far from what is considered normal in society, is too difficult to be understood correctly without the background and understanding of the more basic teachings.Mcconn 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Li's stated reasons for holding back this information are either because:
1)ordinary people, and especially white people, wouldn't understand Or;
2)even if they did understand, the teachings might frighten them

How many of these facts are you willing to report?--Tomananda 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of what you present are your POV, not facts.

  • What do you mean by maniuplative cult? What are the many? I remember you said Falun Gong manipulated politicians. However, Falun Gong does not have money. How to manipulate? Many countries like U.S., the representives are elected by residents. Would residents expressing their voices be called manipulating?
It's not about money. Read the sections on Is Falun Gong a cult and Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions to answer your questions. Note that the opinions reported there are not mine, but others, including some named US representatives and San Francisco supervisors. So stop claiming I am reporting my own POV when in fact I am abiding by Wikipdedia policy by reporting the stated opinions of others. --Tomananda 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Falun Gong teachings are for audiences of practitioners. Practitioners have to be a good person first. Teacher Li said something like "if you don’t believe them, just take them to be stories." Explaining the Fa for Falun Dafa Assistants in Changchun You don't have to worry about anything if you are not a practitioner. Jesus said humans have sin. Can you say Jesus has hatred on humans?
I am not claiming that practitioners hate people, but I am insisting that Wikipedia accurately report the true teachings of the Master. Society has a right to know this stuff and make up it's own mind. --Tomananda 23:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so you agree with me that the Epoch Times is not a neutral newspaper. In fact, it's purpose is not to report the news but rather to promote Falun Gong teachings. George Bush: are you listening? That lady who disrupted your White House ceremony the other day was not a professional reporter, she was an agent of Li Hongzhi sent to save sentient beings! So why did your press department give her a press pass? --Tomananda 23:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a newspaper no matter what purpose it has. Newspaper of course report the news. If the news are not neutral, note that here is not China, it could be corrected. Fnhddzs 00:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No. it is not for promoting Falun gong teachings. It is a newspaper oriented to the whole audiences. Fnhddzs 00:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How could you infer a newspaper for saving sentient beings have to be non-professional? By saving sentient beings, I mean, it presents facts important to people but that may not be reported by other media. Fnhddzs 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by agent? At that time, she is a professional reporter. Why one person cannot have multiple career roles? Of course, she risks her reporter reputation. But that is not a crime. Fnhddzs 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Since when do professional reporters shout out insults to world leaders on the White House lawn when they have been given a press pass to report the news? How can you possibly call that professional? And how can you possibly suggest that a newspaper can have as it purpose the saving of sentient beings and still be considered a serious source of news? You must be kidding me here. Are there any professional journalists reading this who care to comment?--Tomananda 00:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not a writer or editor of ET, but am in close contact with those who are. Truth is the first principle of Zhen Shan Ren, and, believe it or not, practitioners take this really seriously. A lot of work goes into making sure the reports are factual and high quality. Although the paper was created with a purpose, it is guided by Truth. Some articles are very opinionated, but nothing is ever falsified. Example of other media like this: The Christian Science Moniter was created by Christians for religious purposes, but has gained reputation as a legit media which accords to journalistic standards. Mcconn 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No people are perfect (Asian, white, practitioners, ordinary). All people are on the same level. In my understanding, practitioners are just willing to practice this way, no matter who they were, no matter what bad deeds they had done. How could you infer that about ordinary people/white people?
  • of course, at too high a level may cause you or me could not understand it or believe it. but that is not a problem. Fnhddzs 22:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you claim that "Li claims to heal illnesses"? Did you ever read the book carefully? Falun Gong does not aim to heal illness. In my words: Illnesses are from karma. If you don't want to pay off karma, don't want to cultivate and become a good people, healing illness is equal to allow that you don't have to pay off your debts you owed others.
You've got to be kidding me! How much more dishonest about this stuff can you get? Right in the Zhuan Falun..a book which I'm sure you've read many times...Li says:
"Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at the exercise sites will have my Fashen (law bodies) to cure their illnesses." (p.125, 2nd edition)
Do you need me to post more Li quotes about his disease curing abilities? --Tomananda 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me put this way. Falun Gong does not aim to cure illness. But Master can purify a genuine practitioners' body by removing his/her karma. In that sense, illnesses are cured. But illness curing is just a by-product. Not the goal. As to who is genuine practitioner, that is up to the heart only. Only gods know. Fnhddzs 00:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Mixed race people can return to their devine origin if they wish. Fnhddzs 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well how nice that Li has figured out a way to judge mixed-race people as being the work of aliens, but at the same time making special arrangments for them to still find salvation. It's rather like his stance on homosexuals: as long as you give up your dirty, demonic practices everying will be ok and you can still find salvation. The problem here is that Li is extremely small-minded in his view of ethics. It's ok for you to believe what he says, but it is not ok for you to unreasonably deny this infomration to Wikipedia users.--Tomananda 00:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Holding back information? All teachings are free online. How did you get the information if they are held back? Fnhddzs 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, this is the ultimate retort! You claim never to conceal anything because everything is on-line. But then when an editor like me puts in a Li Hongzhi quote which doesn't make the Falun Gong look good, a revert war is proked. Yes, everthing is on-line and I have read it as well as you, I believe. It's because I am so familiar with Li's teachings that I can stand up to your misrepresentations about them time and again. Your audacity is remarkable in this regard. Even when there are multiple Li quotes saying he cures illnesses, you initially deny it (as you do below). --Tomananda 00:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you claim "Li encourages his followers not to seek medical care when they are sick?" Teacher Li said the principle. It is up to individuals to decide. who cares if people take medicine or not.

Teaching the Fa and Answering Questions in Yanji 1997

Question: Can a person take medicine? Teacher: Someone asked me if it’s true that a person can’t take medicine once he cultivates Falun Dafa. I don’t care if you take medicine: here I only require that practitioners act according to the standards for practitioners. If you aren’t able to do that and you don’t act according to this xinxing standard, and later you have a problem because you didn’t take medicine, you would say that Li Hongzhi didn’t allow you to take medicine. Think about it, everyone: If you can’t regard yourself as a practitioner and you have a problem, then if you don’t take medicine, of course it will be dangerous. It’s just like that for an ordinary person. Our students shouldn’t use it as a condition or rule for new students to join the practice. Let him enlighten to it himself, but you may give him hints.

Fnhddzs 22:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Yes, Li allows people, even practitioners, to take medicine. But when a practitioner does take medication, she is not living up to Li's teaching of Sickness karma. I know you know this and I know you know that many practitioners have done posts on the Clearwisdom website telling their proud stories of how they have overcome the urge to seek treatment whent they are sick. Some of those practitioners have even been children! So why are you trying to conceal this most basic of teachings in the Falun Gong? Here are some Li quoutes to support the fact:

"When an ordinary person gets ill, if he doesn't go to a hospital, or doesn't take any medicine, that wouldn't be in conformity witht he principles of ordinary people and the principles of this world...However, as a cultivator, you cannot regard youirself as just an ordinary person. To put it more seriously, you are no longer a human being." Falun Dafa Lecture (1997) NYC
"Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you beleived in it, why would you take mediation" Falun Gong, revised edition. --Tomananda 23:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What nonsense you mean? It makes much sense. sickness karma is just one karma of many karmas. If you failed to resolve this karma by resorting to medicine, you just stumbled in this specific term. You still have chance. You know that Li allows people even practitioners to take medince. The word "encourage" means more than what the teachings are. We don't want to conceal the teachings. You just cannot infer something according to your understanding. Why not just put all the quotes and let readers to decide. Fnhddzs 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You amaze me. Li says what he says, and if you don't like the verb "encourages" then why don't you suggest an alternative word? Just go back and read the two quotes I provided. Clearly Li associates cultivation practice with not taking medicine, so to the extent that he enourages his practitioners to cultivate he must also encourage them not to take medicine. In fact, your post above actually confirms what I am saying. In Wikipedia speak, you are engaging in apologetics. By attempting to obscure the teachings, you are not really being honest and that bothers many people. --Tomananda 23:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
What Li say has context and permit people time to think about it and make decision of their own. He never said he "encourage" practitioners not to take medicine. We could present the full teachings on the relation between taking medicine and karma. But we cannot infer. We need to present the teachings in its original full text and context, not just one or two phrases. Why you assume not inferring is to obsure the teachings? You try to obsure the teachings by making infererence. Fnhddzs 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this statement clear enough for you:
"Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you beleived in it, why would you take mediation" Falun Gong, revised edition.
I am not inferring anything. It's you who are being evasive about this issue. There are countless testimionials on the Falun Gong website from practitioners reporting that they have done what the Master teaches and even though they have been sick, they have resisted the temptation to take medicine. All that is in accordance with Li's teachings on sickness karma. For you to pretend otherwise is truly astounding to me. --Tomananda 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't care "apologetics". I am not interested in defending anything for the sake of defending. I am not a lawyer hired by someone. My time is limited. what I do is to make sure things reasonable, NPOV, verifiable as a volunteer. Fnhddzs 00:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, good. Let's agree to stop this needless debate then and get on with the task of editing. Is it time for Covenant to make that new talk page yet? --Tomananda 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL Just waiting for the two of you to finish your debate ;) CovenantD 00:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling that we might have to examine each and every source to determine it's validity. I hope that everybody is willing to do so with an open mind and not have attachments that go beyond logic and Wiki guidelines. CovenantD 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs if what you mean by making sure things reasonable, NPOV and verifiable is editing the article to this [124], it is unacceptable. Good job Tomananda , I admire your passion, persistence and precision. --Samuel Luo 00:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Li forbid suicide?

Falun gong practitioenrs claim that their master forbids suicide hence those self-immolators on Tiananmen square are not members of the Falun Gong. I have not seen Li denounces suicide, have you? please provide a quote if you do. --Samuel Luo 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well with my experience in debate people usually cite a quote from LHZ's lecture in Sydney [125], which I post here:

  • Question: The third question is the issue of killing as mentioned in the book. Killing a life is a very big sin. If a person commits suicide, does it count as a sin or not?
  • Master: It counts as a sin. Now, this human society is no longer good, and all kinds of strange and bizarre things have appeared. They talk about the so-called euthanasia and give injections to let people die. Everyone knows it. Why do they give an injection to let a person die? They think that he is suffering. However, we think that his suffering is eliminating karma. When he is reincarnated in the next life, he will have a light body without karma, and he will have a great fortune awaiting him. While he is amidst the pain and is eliminating karma, he is certainly not having an easy time. If you do not let him eliminate his karma and kill him, isn't that murder? If he is gone, carrying the karma, in the next life he will have to repay the karma. So, which would you say is right? Committing suicide has another sin. This is because a person's life is pre-arranged. You have disrupted the sequence of the god’s entire layout. Through the obligations you carry out to society, between people there is this kind of interrelationship. If the person dies, won't this entire sequence disrupt the god’s arrangement then? If you disrupt it, he will not let you go. Therefore, committing suicide is sinful.

However, this begs the question on how people in other locations (such as, Beijing, China) without the internet could access such speeches. Also strictly saying something is "sinful" doesn't really equate to forbidding it. --Yenchin 01:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, claiming that Li denounces suicide therefore those who set themselves on fire on Tiananmen Square are not Falun Gong members is like the Church saying because its doctrine condemns molestation therefore no child molesters are members of the Church. --Samuel Luo 02:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Those bad guys did not follow what Jesus told them. So in my words of paraphrasing of what Master Li mentioned, some people working in Church are just taking that as a job, not a true disciple. Also in my words, Falun Gong does not judge whether you are a disciple by formality. only by looking at your mind/heart. There is no formality of becoming a Falun gong practitioner.

[126]

Would knee down and kowtowing stand for worshipping your master? We do not practise such a formality. Many of our practitioners think: if I kowtow, burn incense, and worship the Buddha with a sincere heart, my cultivation energy will grow. I would say that is ridiculous. Genuine cultivation depends upon oneself. It does not help at all to seek anything else. You do not have to worship the Buddha, nor burn incense. As long as you cultivate genuinely according to the standard of a practitioner, the Buddha will be very pleased when he sees you. If you always do wrong deeds away from home, he will feel disgusted to look at you although you worship and kowtow to him. Is this not the truth? Genuine cultivation depends upon the person himself. What is the use of your kowtowing to and worshipping the master today, if you do whatever you want to do upon stepping out of the door? We do not practise such a formality at all, or else you could possibly damage my reputation.

128.104.193.123 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • So can those who set themselves afire be bad practitioners who did not follow what Li told them? Filling Energy into the Top of the Head? That sounds like brainwashing to me. --Samuel Luo 03:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see logic on saying the people who commit suicide are not followers. A person not obeying church teaching doesn't change the fact that he was a member of the church. And no one openly expelled him before whatever crime he committed. What FLG apologetics are doing is that they use "not following LHZ" to judge that the self-immolators are FLG or not. Unless one can prove that all FLG followers strictly know and follow every teaching of LHZ, this is an obvious no true Scotsman fallacy. --Yenchin 04:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions

( I've moved these paragarphs from an earlier section as I felt the discussion doesnt go under that title) This discussion goes under the criticism page and I feel its time we scrutnized material in the criticism page. I request all editors seriously interested in working on a factual article to go through all the teachings of Falun Dafa. The central teachings are these nine lectures the MP3s (English) of which are available here onMr. Li Hongzhi's 9-day Lecture in Guangzhou, China.. You can listen to them on your IPod when you ge time. The videos of the same are available here on Mr. Li Hongzhi's 9-day Lecture in Guangzhou, China. Going through all the teachings will take only a few hours but it will help resolve disputes a lot.

Actually, Dilip, the nine lectures in Zhuan Falun are not sufficient to get an idea of Li's teachings. One needs to read the Essentials I and II, as well as most of the speeches. It is imperative that one read Li's most recent speeches, because they reflect his increasing focus on practitioners validating his Dafa publicly and standing up to what he calls the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party. When Zhuan Falun was written, the focus was on individual consumation, but that all changed when the Falun Gong was banned in 1999. Since then, Li has increasingly spoken in apocalyptic tones, while strictly requiring his disciples to publicly engage in a PR campaign to destroy the CCP. If you're a practitioner, you can no longer just stay at home and do the exercises in order to reach consumation, you have to be a political activist. Yes, I know you and Li don't acknowledge the political nature of the Falun Gong, but what else can we call it when the leader's stated objective is the overthrow of a sovereign foreign goverment? If that isn't political, I don't know what is. --Tomananda 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, in my understanding. quitting the party does not mean to overthrow the government. Exposing the CCP's story is for helping ending the persecution. Falun gong would never take the political power. I could find you quotes later. Fnhddzs 04:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Having a political objective does not require that you, yourself, have political ambitions. Li's objective is to destroy the Chinese Communist Party by attrition. As I said before, if that isn't a political objective I don't know what is. --Tomananda 04:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Something I pointed out earlier... Most of the things you added in the crictical commentary section arent sourced, neither do the so called sources meet wiki standards. (Now, before you make a new allegation let me point out that I havent deleted any of the stuff.)

That's simply not true, Dilip. I am meticulous about sources. If there's a quote that I introduced which isn't sourced, it's probably because we've had so much cutting and pasting in our endless debates...but I will locate any missing sources and put them in. Meanwhile, I have to point out that you have proposed many different Li quotes in the discussion without sources. In fact, when Covenant and I were discussing the section called Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong, he and I both proposed that one of your Li quotes be added to provide more balance (ironically, to support your POV). You never resonded, but here's the relevant segment from that discussion:
Concerning Dilip's Master Li quote, I assume you mean the first one he presented, not the three paragraphs that came after it. If that's the quote you mean, I'm ok with it being added as well. There needs to be some transition written, along the lines of: It should be pointed out, however, that when discussing the issue of Falun Gong's assingment of different meanings to traditional Qi Gong terms Master Li has stated:
"Some students were once lay Buddhists and have a very deep impression of the terms in Buddhist scriptures. When they find that I use words identical to those in Buddhism, they think that their meanings are the same as in Buddhism. In fact, they do not denote exactly the same meanings. Some terms in the Buddhism of the Han region are Chinese vocabulary, and they are not exclusively terms from Buddhism."
Actually, there are several other questions we asked you in the Talk Criticism page which you never responded to. As we proceed in this new direction, I am hoping you become more cooperative when it comes to responding to questions. Also, please notice in the above example I even suggested a transtition sentence for you to use, but you never responded. --Tomananda 03:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Most are just personal opinions from people with no expertise in the fiels. I can take a million personal opinions, from MDs and PhDs to Researchers and put it in the article. For instance, prominent Cancer researcher says..

"As a Cancer researcher and a practitioner of an ancient mind-body practice (Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong), I have observed the total recovery of practitioners from complex diseases such as cancer. " -Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar, Cancer Researcher.

I have never tried to include such stuff in the article, neither will I do so in the future. What I have included are results from thorough research, and material from solid sources. I believe wikipedia gives me the right to require similar quality standard from other editors. Dilip rajeev 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinions of people who have no expertise in the field? Are you trying to disqualify the writings of people like Stephen Hassan, Patsy Rahn, Deng and Fang, Maria Chang, Dr. Margaret Singer and the like? I know you don't like their quotes because because they have said critical things about the Falun Gong, but that is no justification for not using their statements. Covenant had proposed a standard for sources which is broad enough to allow the inclusion of material that is needed in this article on both sides of the debate. Before you make any grand claims about sources, I suggest you go back and read the standard proposed by Covenant and think about how his proposed standard would relate to your own material. --Tomananda 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I must point out that DR. Tongwen Wang is also a diehard Falun Gong practitioner. Her fanaticism broke her family and destroyed her career. It is a very sad story, I know her ex-husband. --Samuel Luo 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I noticed a statement on minghui.ca by her regarding the sad story. She said it is because she did not do well (did not follow the teachings well) in some aspects. I could find it for you guys. I don't know if there is an English version. I am sorry about the sad story though. Fnhddzs 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Here is the quote of her statement on July 10, 2003. [127] Sorry it is in Chinese only. Maybe only Samuel could read it. 严正声明 由于在过去的两年中忙于做讲真相的事而不注意真修，在欢喜心的带动下，说了狂言，对大法不够严肃。在讲清真相中，我没有牢记师父的话，由欢喜心和对情的执著带动下讲得太高。被邪魔抓了把柄。魔难来时，主意识不强，有怕心，在魔难的痛苦中神智不清下被魔钻了放任了的空子，说了、做了对大法、对自己不负责的话和事，给大法带来不应有的损失，使家人对大法误解。我在痛苦的煎熬中反思，在此严正声明我过去说的、做的，一切对不起师父、对不起大法的言行全部作废。从此以后，正念正行，弥补给大法带来的损失。谢师父无比慈悲，给我从新走正的机会。王彤文 2003年7月10日 Briefly, she said she said something not serious, not responsible so that her family had a misunderstanding. Fnhddzs 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Dilip: If you are suggesting we take a hard line on this issue (see previous discussion in the Criticism talk page)there's a great deal of Falun Gong material that will have to be thrown out. That includes the health benefits claims of both Lili Feng and the more recent material you just introduced in your new section called: Health benefits survey. In that section,you rely on self-reported patient data in surveys done by the Falun Gong and reported on a Falun Gong website. --Tomananda 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure the one you are quoting is DR. Tongwen Wang. --Samuel Luo 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


I had a feeling that we might have to examine each and every source to determine it's validity. I hope that everybody is willing to do so with an open mind and not have attachments that go beyond logic and Wiki guidelines. CovenantD 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There already was an extensive debate about sources in the Cricism talk page as you know, Covenant, since you proposed a standard which many editors agreed with. I don't mind revisting this discussion, but feel we should agree on the structure issue first. --Tomananda 02:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Statements on the FAlun gong teaching page and the crackdown of Falun gong page should also be examined. Also someone changed the title of the "crackdown of Falun gong" page to "persecutionof Falun Gong." Can someone change that back? --Samuel Luo 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is as I see it, that mr.Tomananda takes quotes directly from FLG teachings and judge them with his own mindset. Ex: When it says "your illness will be directly cured by me", he judges it with his own mindset, saying this or that. If you are going to do something like that, why not take the thousands of eye witnss accounts from clearwisdom.net from people who got cured from illnesses like cancer? Omido 04:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not one of these thousands of miraculously cured patients is verified. --Samuel Luo 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/l/Talk%7EFalun_Gong_Archive8_7ba7.html"