Talk:Falun Gong/Archive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

1 Proposing a structure for this article
2 If anyone is interested, you can discuss FG articles on a private MediationWiki
3 A response to ArekExcelsior
4 edit request
5 Criticism Section
6 Some details on the main page

Proposing a structure for this article

Subsection title added by: HappyInGeneral 09:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for leaping into a very controversial page with substantial editing, and perhaps my concerns are as we speak being addressed by arbitration or efforts like Olaf's. However, this version of the Falun Gong article [and, to be clear: I am Buddhist, so I have some initial problems with FG; I'm also anarchist, so while I don't like the CCP and think that their repression of this group is disgusting and onerous, to whatever extent it does occur, I also don't like that many pro-FG people here seem to think that their path is the only way and are cultishly re-imagining some things their "leader" or founder said, instead of a) admitting that maybe Li is fallible and they've accepted onl part of the teaching or b) trying to provide contextual analysis from Li's own writings] seems to be very anti-FG is some key components. For example, the phrase "At the beginning, Li introduced..." seems to be slightly skewed, in that it implies that Li's position has changed, when he certainly would not claim that. (Also: "At age of eight" is not grammatical, a clear sign of a counter-edit to this, which is clearly not a way to proceed). The origins section discusses Li Hongzhi much more than the early movement's struggles and attempts. If there are alleged distinctions in the teaching from era to era, that should have its own page, which descriptions (NEUTRAL ones) similar to describing various eras and schools of Christian belief. "Responses open to interpretation" is a pseudo-neutral phrase that actually isn't: FG members would certainly claim the responses are consistent. There's also an oblique member to classic signs of cultishness unqualified with a source or with back-and-forth.

Primarily, I think that the main problem is that the article describes very little of the doctrine in the main article (yes, I understand nuances are externally linked). This becomes a problem because a good portion of the page becomes preoccupied with the CCP v. FG discussions and a myriad of other scandals and controversies. Yes, FG is known to some degree for this alone, but I'm sure both anti-FG and pro-FG people can admit that much would be gained from having the data about what it does neutrally described in a way that is neither a script for FG followers nor a caricature.

The research on health benefits, meanwhile, as some people here have noted, is quite awful. Pages on the benefits of acupuncture, chiropracty, etc. with infinitely more data (and much better mainstream science terminology and description) are filled with controversy. The data here to be remotely fair should be noted a) with at least some recognition that Buddhists, etc. would argue that FG is not the only religion to capture these benefits and b) that the scientific evidence here is tentative at best.

The ethics section is clearly apologia: Why only mention what Li has said about CRITICISM? Surely, FG practitioners might have more to say about vegetarianism, murder, sexual assault, etc. That section is both not informative, so it actually contributes to the ANTI-FG side of the debate, and deeply biased.

Under the Epoch Times area, I think "political slant" is too harsh. "Editorial focus" may be more neutral.

Is there some neutral descriptor everyone can agree upon for what FG is? It seems like they claim, like Tai Chi and Yoga, a physical and a spiritual component, and that they have taught many its components w/o relation to the broader spiritual corpus (arguably deceptively).

Also: In general, while I approve of Tomanada's general stance, the Fa-rectification discussion he is simply wrong about. The term should be presented as most practitioners seem to be discussing it. Even Tomanada admits that Forbearance, etc. are the STATED principles. A discussion under the belief section or maybe just a paranthetical comment here would THEN be inserted. It'd be like beginning a conversation about the Apocalypse by noting people's philosophical criticisms of it.

I think the vital pattern to avoid, and I hope people can summon some courage to do this, is to create an article that doesn't read schizophrenically. Neutrality shouldn't be about "He said, she said", especially when one sentence turns from positive to negative then back again without any explanation or qualification. It makes it sickening to read. I agree with the folks who have noted that incomplete and even maybe quite biased works would be necessary before reaching anything remotely resembling consensus. I would personally begin with a page that describes FG and its practice reasonably as a FG practitioner might describe in a friendly coffee-table style setting, then introduce some of the criticisms, depth and discussion. That is certainly the way other spiritual/religious groups have been treated on WP. ArekExcelsior 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, your time on these pages would be appreciated. Perhaps we should start a Talk:Falun_Gong/Basic Structure page, to present, discuss and agree upon it?. --HappyInGeneral 09:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if starting another page or sub-section might help people find a way to discuss a) the page's layout and b) how exactly to proceed from a content format with editing, that may be quite helpful. I'm not heavily involved with FG, and even would lean slightly their direction because I am of a highly libertarian bent and, for example, find Samuel Luo's justifications of the CCP's atrocities and banning of them to be statist and disgusting, but I might throw in my two cents here and there. What I really think would be helpful would be if neutral or VERY slightly pro-FG people began the page basically from scratch, going through every section and writing a just basic informatively-toned piece (i.e. "Li Hongzhi exhorts Falun Gong practitioners to do X", "Li Hongzhi has claimed to be the source of the Fa but has demanded his followers adhere to free speech", etc., with LOTS of descriptions about beliefs, canon, etc. and maybe if this is possible discussing internal interpretations of the works held by some followers), etc., THEN throwing in some critical pieces. CERTAINLY the fact that Falun Gong has been referenced as a cult must be included. The fact that this criticism extends to Li Hongzhi potentially lying about his past and exaggerating his achievements, uncritical acceptance by some followers, etc. MUST be included. Some description of the FP/CCP antagonism MUST occur, and it will NOT come across the way pro-FG people would ideally put it, as it's quite clear to me that the group is at least ambiguous about their feelings about the CCP. Tomanada-style discussion of the Master's quotes must occur, but WITHOUT giving the authoritative declaration that it is a) FG dogma to follow the Master (since there has been some contention here about that very score) and b) that the Master's quotes inherently lean one way or the other (while I am convinced by Tomanada, people with far less ambiguity in their life, such as Hitler, have had massively complex dogmas - just try to get consensus among WW2 historians about the Nazi party's feelings about Christianity).

The Fa-rectification MUST be discussed as honestly as possible, and without the "Asdfg" type saying that it's just impossible for ordinary mortals to understand. Yes, people outside any religious group are unlikely to get the symbolism; Li Hongzhi himself has appropriated "karma", "Buddha nature", etc. to mean things MUCH different from Buddhist texts, and even Buddhism itself among practitioners, cultures and sects disagree as to some finer points of contention (such as the proper master-teacher relationship, exactly where souls may come from, what the reincarnation experience means and what the Bardo is like, etc. etc. etc.), but that has not stopped Wikipedia from having extensive articles on those topics. Honestly, what are you FG folks afraid of? If you honestly believe that your religion is indeed the obvious way for people to ascend in an upcoming cataclysmic era, you should have no fear describing the exact way this works: Christian advocates certainly have no fear discussing the Apocalypse. Now, to be fair to pro-FG people, I think what they were objecting to was Tomanada perhaps running a bit far with some quotes. But the solution to "bad" speech (or, in this case, incomplete speech) is not no speech, it's a balanced approach. The Fa-rectification might deserve its own page, with full description of the Master's predictions and discussions (ALL of them, with a note that the fact that a previously "averted Apocalypse" didn't occur made many even more skeptical of the religion), discussion about various interpretations, etc. ArekExcelsior 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very good, I hope more people will be involved. I see that Armed Blowfish is interested in getting this up and working, so should we wait until he is proposing where to start out this?

I mean the first thing which probably we should agree upon is the structure, pages and their subsections, then go into detail about what information in general should contain each subsection, then agree on the introduction of each pages, then start working on each subsection and where problem occurs discuss on the talk page.

The safest way is to do all this off the main page and place in the main page only stuff that we agree upon, however my current problem with this is that the main pages right now is very unbalanced.

So perhaps we should start with a clean up. Propose things to delete, delete them and then work our way to the complete article just as I described above.

This is a technical point of view on how I think we could proceed, basically this way enables us to work on these pages even if they are the whole time protected. Please let me know what you think. --HappyInGeneral 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if we create a new section to just address that in particular and that's linked for my convenience, I'll drop by and throw in my two cents. (Interestingly: I applaud both the pro-FG and anti-FG folks for surprising me by not immediately responding with attacks). ArekExcelsior 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arek, thanks for contributing. In the Wikipedian spirit, it is always great to see more constructive editors.

However, I note with concern that you say only 'neutral' and 'slightly pro-FG' editors should be editing. This would mean you support an 'elite' group of editors justifying their version of this article. This, naturally, totally contravenes the Wikipedian spirit. I agree that this means that efficiency and accuracy is probably sacrificed; however, we must take into account the reason Wikipedia was created in the first place - everyone's opinion is equal. This is why we are 'forced' to be more tolerant of the people who have stronger POVs - just something we have to accept on Wiki (and even some who plead ignorance despite wilfully disregarding Wikipedia policies is also something that is chronic and Wiki has done little to address, esp. by unregistered users).

I note with curiosity how your concerns are being 'addressed' by Olaf, yet you claim that you support Tomananda's stance. This appears to be a contradiction, as the former has been very critical of all aspects of the latter's arguments, and vice versa. Although you note with concern the 'cultish' nature of FG, you assume all their accusations against the Chinese Government are automatically true. Naturally I am not defending the Chinese Government here, but to make a balanced approach on a controversial subject, it is better to assume nearly nothing are 'facts', and make both sides' cases equally forcefully, and let the reader decide. We are on Wikipedia, after all. It is impossible to provide contrasting data in a 'neutral' way; the best way forward is thus to let both sides have their say. Note, though, that there is no Chinese Government official on Wikipedia to defend the Chinese Government view.

In the spirit of 'balanced' I note that you only cite a biased section of being 'clearly' anti-FG whereas the pro-FG opinions merely require 'improvement', and are just 'dubious' but not 'clearly pro-FG'. This would suggest that your anti-Chinese Government feelings are stronger than your anti-FG feelings. Moreover, 'editorial focus' for the Epoch Times also includes non-political views and is probably insufficiently accurate. However, I'll leave this last point for debate later on the E.T.'s talk page.

Bear in mind, also, that the current locked down version of the page is NOT what was last agreed upon. It was there merely to stop edit wars between the two sides. All sides have also already engaged in section-specific and content-specific discussions, e.g. the Introduction. These probably give you a better idea of what positive progress has been achieved so far. As such, whilst your ideas have a positive intention, they are not necessarily 'new', if you get my drift.

So, please don't be offended when I say your proposals don't really add all that much to what has been tried before, ArekExcelsior, because your intentions and proposals do have a constructive, forward-thinking ring to it. However, putting it into practice is where the tricky part comes in. I'm sure you'll have noticed that everything is temporarily being put on 'hold' with the current ArbCom case going on. However, once that is over, hopefully ArbCom will issue a few guidelines as to how editors should proceed with FG-related entries. And although this suggestion will be time-consuming, if you really want to weigh in seriously on the arguments on FG-related pages, please read the archives of discussions. Read both pro- and anti-FG sources, websites etc. in detail, and if possible, removing your personal opinions before reading it. Because without understanding both sides' perspectives, whatever you propose will be unacceptably biased to one side. I'm not saying this won't still be the case once you recognize each side's arguments; what I'm suggesting is that if you want to be a serious contributor then you have to do the groundwork.

Anyway, welcome to the world of a controversial set of entries! Hope what I just said hasn't put you off already, because that would be a shame. Persistence is the key. But to start off with, I'm wary of your suggestion to exclude certain editors. It's efficient, but it contravenes the reason why Wiki was set up in the first place. Jsw663 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Jsw663, please let me know what you think about the following:

The safest way is to do all this off the main page and place in the main page only stuff that we agree upon, however my current problem with this is that the main pages right now is very unbalanced.

So perhaps we should start with a clean up. Propose things to delete, delete them and then work our way to the complete article just as I described above.

Also perhaps we should consider going forward with the mediation proposed by Armedblowfish. --HappyInGeneral 12:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, HiG, you put me in a bit of a fix because what you are suggesting is exactly what my 8 rules propose to do! I also noticed you took advantage of this regarding the Li Hongzhi page where after a month or so nobody else replied so you had your proposal edit 'approved'. The fix arises because once an admin approves of one proposed edit, is their any rationale not to approve of another? Maybe a more positive way forward for this to work would be to briefly unlock that page - but then there will be edit wars.

This is why I've been very quiet outside ArbCom recently as I've preferred to put all these edits, etc. on hold until we receive further instructions from ArbCom. However, you've jumped the gun a bit and had one of your edits already approved. In the spirit of good faith, perhaps you can ask JS to temporarily retract your proposal? The thing is, it is good to put your view forward, and if that is where it ends I have no objections so far. But if you are doing it at the expense of the other sides and it has made them very unhappy then it is not a very 'positive' step towards constructive editing, as it erodes any good faith between the different parties.

And just a brief comment on the structure / Arek's proposals. Again, not necessarily a bad proposal, but it would be better if we waited for ArbCom's instructions. After all, we are only 'normal' editors and it is better to seek counsel from the more experienced. Jsw663 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't assume that ALL of FG's allegations are true. Undoubtedly some, maybe many, are fabrications. In fact, if you noticed, I adhered STRICTLY to what the CHINESE government is saying: Their rationale is that there's a public health reason to stop FSG, I think that's crap (it'd be akin to banning Christian Scientists) AND patently illegal (human rights laws would call the declaration of a religious group, whether "cult" or not, especially one with as many followers as FG, illegal a violation of essential human rights, particularly for as lame of excuses as the Chinese gov't is turning out). Any torture, abuse, etc. would be on top of that. But yes, the CCP's record combined with some compelling testimony says that it just has to be true that SOMETHING is going on. Note, though, that this is my opinion: The ENCYCLOPEDIA should note the CCP's stance and justification, reply with my sort of civil libertarian argument, then discuss FG's allegations of broader mistreatment, then CCP or neutral skeptic reply.

JSW, people can be in different camps in different areas. I've noticed Tomanada's content and attempt to take on FG by quoting the Master, and the case he makes is compelling. I have only been reading Olaf's attempts at creating some kind of editing coherence, which Tomanada has not been so involved with.

About an "elite group of editors": Wrong, JSW. I was saying the article should BEGIN from neutral editors' POV. If this article were any less contentious, I would agree that the identity of people involved would be irrelevant, but we are not dealing with an ideal situation: I think everyone here is at least accused of having poisoned the well, which means we have to not proceed from a state of innocence. After a very fair, neutral article in the vein of, say, an article about Xianity is done, THEN we can get back to the sniping war... but the base needs to be like that. If extreme editors WANT to get involved, fine, but in fact conflict of interest and other editing advice on WP says pretty clearly that they should VOLUNTARILY bow out. My concern was not efficiency whatsoever: Extreme voices belong and have a right to be heard. My concern was the validity of the article. In my view, the corruption of the article came when an incomplete piece about a religious and spiritual group/practice began to feature criticisms of said group to perhaps too large of an extent, which then gave fuel to pro-FG arguments and led to the back-and-forths. The way I can see to avoid this is to get a very literal description of WHAT FG SAYS. After that's done, then we can talk about the whys, wherefores, hows, finer points of dogma, controversies, criticisms, disagreements, etc, WITHIN the scope of a religious article. Note that I am saying that FG deserves the same treatment at least as, say, Rastafarianism or Taoism: Noting that people think that it should be described as a cult and the discussion there is necessary, but NOT what Wikipedia should classify it as.

Of course it is probably ludicrously difficult to make a totally neutral article: Some sort of unevenness will be present. But the current article is leaps and bounds outside of that very narrow exception to pure neutrality. The article should speak like one voice, describing everyone's substantiatable opinions charitably and fairly with equal presentation time and authority, as an ideal. It is CERTAINLY possible with reasonable editors to get to a model that is not schizophrenic but is simply an even-handed assessment, maybe with a bit of bumpiness.

I actually didn't expect any edit to be done, at all. Like I've said, I don't intend to be involved here to a substantial degree (I'll sacrifice SOME time, but I just wanted to try to introduce a new voice and see if that might cause people to shift camps some and be willing to concede some points strategically). I noted what I saw and expected that to be handled through successive iteration. I'm noting for everyone involved structurally how editors should proceed: If anyone wants to adopt that, that's their get-out, and I hope THEY express their agreement and explain why here so that others can discuss and respond. Go ahead and rescind any edits made by my advice, as the article nears completion I may become more insistent.

The only reason I did chime in, JSW, was because I DID read both sides, including Samuel Luo's piece. The opinions I'm expressing here are informed by that data. But my opinions are irrelevant, and in fact if I were completely unaware that should under WP rules be fine: All I'd need to do would be to see what the ensuing clashes came down to and note that those clashes should be represented in the article.

I know that my solutions aren't silver bullets, JSW, but I also know that sometimes a voice of reason can at least get people TALKING. "The devil is in the details", so to speak, but I went beyond sheer methodology and went slightly towards content compromises, which is where the discussion needs to center: Exact agreement on what content will be included.

My anti-CCP feelings are stronger than anti-FG feelings simply because of power and influence, not really quality. If FG were to start, say, butchering CCP followers and engaging in acts of wanton terrorism, my opinions would reverse mighty-quick. But it depends on the area, JSW: FG's cultishness (from what I've interacted) REALLY turns me off. I noted initially a lot of problems with FG, particular on points of doctrine.

Like I said, maybe my concerns are being addressed already. ArbCom obviously needs to get done first. But it's key that some notion of the structure be agreed upon here as well.

(Above reply written by Arek Excelsior)

My reply to A.E.'s -

Glad to meet another effective debator, Arek. I just have a few bones to pick with ya.

1. CCP reason for banning FG - I think the first and foremost isn't a health problem, but rather, the issue of social harmony, stability and national security. Now, I appreciate as a civil libertarian your princniples or beliefs run contrary to a more authoritarian system of government like the CCP's. But to place a civil libertarian argument of something like 'authoritarianism is disgusting' is highly inapplicable, and is a POV. The reason I personally feel that FG and CCP opinions should have priority over others' opinions is because they are the two main parties - much like the 'defendant' and 'prosecutor' in a legal case. Any opinion offered by NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (that adopts a more radical civil libertarian argument, I think) can only come as third-party, and can only count as 'commentary/opinion'. I am also especially wary of third-party opinions supporting either side, as they can be abused to support one over the other (and let people, as you mention in your reply to Sam, to pre-determine whether they support/oppose FG before they even know what FG as a group claims to represent!). Therefore, 3rd party opinions may have its own section, but cannot be placed, IMHO, on equal terms as CCP's + FG's.

2. Introduction / 'neutral' editors - have you even read the debates that went on among all the camps regarding the Introductory paragraphs? They were largely agreed upon, and had a few relatively minor issues left to iron out. To have 'neutral editors' (which I don't think exist for this topic) re-write something will be causing even more trouble. It also IS a form of elitism, as you pre-determine any pro- or anti-FG editors as incapable of writing in a NPOV fashion. In essence, our opinions differ only in one aspect - I prefer debating before reaching a version; you prefer reaching a version before debating. As such, I am not truly 100% against your opinion; rather, I am saying it will be fruitless as one side or another will accuse it of being biased and revert it. This has driven away many 'neutral' editors before, and I don't want to see it happen again. As such, please read the Introduction section that was more or less agreed upon by the two extreme camps, that is NOT on the main Wiki article now (the link is near the top of this talk page). It has progressed more than you think.

3. Silver bullets / voice of reason / talking - I worry that you see your own opinion as a 'voice of reason' (as if to imply nobody else's was), and to think that there was no debate until you started it. The point is, all sides involved have engaged in fruitless debates for so long now that each knows what the other will say already, and have simply put the arguments on hold while the ArbCom case is being arbitrated.

Conclusion - I'll let Sam tell you how the FG does harm its own practitioners, justifying almost any action under a shocking amount of mind control. But please remember your civil libertarian stance isn't the 'right' stance nor is it the 'better' stance on Wiki - it is your own opinion. So, whilst your efforts at reconciliation + making a constructive and better article are appreciated, one must remember to keep one's own views at bay. Jsw663 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

           My reply to A.E.'s -

           Glad to meet another effective debator, Arek. I just have a few bones to pick with ya.

"1. CCP reason for banning FG - I think the first and foremost isn't a health problem, but rather, the issue of social harmony, stability and national security. Now, I appreciate as a civil libertarian your princniples or beliefs run contrary to a more authoritarian system of government like the CCP's. But to place a civil libertarian argument of something like 'authoritarianism is disgusting' is highly inapplicable, and is a POV."

I think that sounds more like Luo's points. The "social harmony, stability and national security" are all empty slogans every tyrant uses.

"The reason I personally feel that FG and CCP opinions should have priority over others' opinions is because they are the two main parties - much like the 'defendant' and 'prosecutor' in a legal case. Any opinion offered by NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (that adopts a more radical civil libertarian argument, I think) can only come as third-party, and can only count as 'commentary/opinion'. I am also especially wary of third-party opinions supporting either side, as they can be abused to support one over the other (and let people, as you mention in your reply to Sam, to pre-determine whether they support/oppose FG before they even know what FG as a group claims to represent!). Therefore, 3rd party opinions may have its own section, but cannot be placed, IMHO, on equal terms as CCP's + FG's."

I absolutely disagree, both generally and specifically for FG. After all, it was agreed upon here that one primary reason people would come to research FG would be because they heard about it through Western media. Putting sources that Westerners would empathize with and discussing how the crisis has played out in groups like HRW would be fulfilling a key part of making the article noteworthy. (I'd concur with your impression of Amnesty being more about torture and HRW perhaps more radically CL, by the by).

Second, since outside verification and Western attention has been used by Falun Gong practitioners themselves, your own arguments would seem to describe why they have to be put into a Wikipedia article: HRW, Amnesty, etc. are sources for FG and FG supporters around the world.

Third, the way this debate is playing out is having ramifications as far as, say, US-China relations, and external opinion represents a good portion of the planets' response, which would be a pretty massively important viewpoint to take into account.

What I think you may be trying to do is try to keep outside sources from just overwhelming the direct combatants' description of the realities, which I think is vital, but if the CCP/FG viewpoints end up being larger than external views, it shouldn't be by much, IMHO.

Now, you do make a good point that outside sources can be used dishonestly, but that's not Wikipedia's concern. At most, that's HRW's and Amnesty's concern. Wikipedia only has a duty to describe neutrally the human knowledge around a topic. What happens because of that is beyond its proper scope. There is an intrinsic way to defeat this anyways: In the "third party" or "human rights organizations' response" or what not sections, include CCP and FG responses to the sources and reports. CCP denials should be given plenty of weight, since the FG responses will usually be support and approval.

" 2. Introduction / 'neutral' editors - have you even read the debates that went on among all the camps regarding the Introductory paragraphs? They were largely agreed upon, and had a few relatively minor issues left to iron out. To have 'neutral editors' (which I don't think exist for this topic) re-write something will be causing even more trouble. It also IS a form of elitism, as you pre-determine any pro- or anti-FG editors as incapable of writing in a NPOV fashion. In essence, our opinions differ only in one aspect - I prefer debating before reaching a version; you prefer reaching a version before debating. As such, I am not truly 100% against your opinion; rather, I am saying it will be fruitless as one side or another will accuse it of being biased and revert it. This has driven away many 'neutral' editors before, and I don't want to see it happen again. As such, please read the Introduction section that was more or less agreed upon by the two extreme camps, that is NOT on the main Wiki article now (the link is near the top of this talk page). It has progressed more than you think."

If the intro is done, that's fine. All I know is that the intro I read, and again this is why I originally prefaced all this by saying that this was only based on the locked page which is not the final draft, and the selection and coverage of the article had those problems. I also wish everyone here would not repeatedly try to blow my arguments and proposals to clearly ludicrous intents: Nowhere did I say anything remotely like the strawmen you described. I mentioned "slightly pro-FG" for a reason: Since it does seem no one involved in the debate is neutral now (even if they were before), choosing for as close to the middle but erring on the side of FG seemed to be the best way to proceed. What I have seen is that FG practitioners are up on the dogma and anti-FG people are up on the controversies. A simple division of labor to get the first up THEN the second up was all I was recommending. Nor was I declaring these to be ironclad ways to proceed irrespective of evidence. It does seem reasonable, however, to assume, especially given the pattern this article has taken (and I HAVE read probably 60% of the text on this Talk page), that both due to lack of information/consciousness and due to inevitable personal bias setting in, that pro-FG people will even when being reasonable lean towards a favorable account and anti-FG people will lean towards a critical account. Having each focus on areas where that slight directional bias is okay would seem to be simply logical. I was just noting the patterns and seeing what might be done to abort them. If you deny that those patterns exist or that they are relevant anymore or that this is a bad solution, reply with those arguments alone, but please don't continue taking the proposal itself out of context. If the article is farther along than I thought, then I'll adjust my advice. I'm just wondering if people here agree with making sure to have a totally accurate FG description before building up criticism sections, and with some of my content notes.

" 3. Silver bullets / voice of reason / talking - I worry that you see your own opinion as a 'voice of reason' (as if to imply nobody else's was), and to think that there was no debate until you started it. The point is, all sides involved have engaged in fruitless debates for so long now that each knows what the other will say already, and have simply put the arguments on hold while the ArbCom case is being arbitrated."

Well, apparently not so totally on hold, considering that my voice (which could just as well not have been replied to) could have been just let be at recommendations. But frankly, while everyone here clearly are passionate and informed, it's pretty obvious at a glance that at least in content I do bring a new voice to the DEBATE (I haven't seen people arguing for FG's human rights while noting that the organization may not be perfect). I'm not a monster of egotism: Reasonable people can BECOME unreasonable when getting into arguments (I can see how quickly it can happen with me and Sam replying to each other already), and then external voices can be quite helpful. People get stakes in the debate, which is why I've tried to remain uninvolved as possible. What I was trying to do, since the ArbCom will NOT be the end-all of the article (unless my understanding of ArbCom is drastically inaccurate), was facilitate agreement at least on a possible methodology and on possible contentious points of... content. Maybe this is just because of ArbCom, but I have yet to see no replies on this score, yet quite a bit about my own personal feelings on the issue.

"Conclusion - I'll let Sam tell you how the FG does harm its own practitioners, justifying almost any action under a shocking amount of mind control. But please remember your civil libertarian stance isn't the 'right' stance nor is it the 'better' stance on Wiki - it is your own opinion. So, whilst your efforts at reconciliation + making a constructive and better article are appreciated, one must remember to keep one's own views at bay."

Of course it is, one can be an effective Wiki contributor and be an outright fascist (indeed, it might make one a BETTER Wikipedia contributor since I'm sure fascist/Nazi Party viewpoints are underrepresented on Wikipedia, maybe more than is deserved). I was trying to return to the key point of this being, y'know, a Wikipedia article at the end of each of my points - I hope that wasn't lost in the fray. Keeping both Sam's criticisms, which while I find baseless are a) notable in that he is apparently somewhat well-known in anti-FG schools of thought and is citing people who clearly are noteworthy and b) contribute to the NPOV of this article, is vital, but one thing that was underrepresented both in the Talk debate and therefore in the following article was a description of the various ways human right and civil libertarians feel. A "shocking amount of mind control" could also describe the effective American media system of indoctrination, or perhaps Jesus camps in America, or the CCP's own behavior and actions. Saying cults are bad doesn't justify using the government to oppress them, obviously: There's an argumentative leap that Sam doesn't make and in fact implicitly undercuts by seeming to refuse to concede any CCP wrongdoing. One has to be willing to give the CCP or any other government broad discretion to determine what mind control is and to stop people's expressed choices. I can't see a lot of good things that come from that, but the gulags alone show the bad. Unless Falun Gong practitioners MAKE people stay in their seat with guns, they're not guilty of COERCION. They might be guilty of fraud, say in their misrepresentation of themselves to Western audiences (which would be a difficult but maybe not insurmountable case to make) or in terms of their medical claims, and there may be narrow legal grounds to attack them ON THAT GROUND ALONE. Note that this is the difference between banning an entire religion and attacking particular bad behaviors. It'd be as if the courts that have issued rulings against Scientology just threw their hands up and said "Let's just ban them from existing". ArekExcelsior 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Very lengthy reply there Arek. But before I start mine, please don't forget to sign your post (usually a bot helps me do it if I forget, but they seem to have overlooked this page with regards to your replies!). I'm going to split your above reply into points.

1a. The social harmony, stability, national security stuff isn't just what "Luo says" but rather what is said direct from the CCP (via its mouthpiece, the Xinhua News Agency). Whether you think this is only said by tyrants or not again is your own opinion. But if you think the CCP opinion should be aired in prominence then we simply must put down what they say, much like we must put down what Li Hongzhi says about FG. We don't have to agree with them; we just have to say what they claim / accuse.

1b. I also agree that most people who come on Wikipedia to learn about FG would have come via Western media exposure. This is why it is more important to stress what FG + CCP themselves say directly rather than interpreting on behalf of them, or giving little commentaries or pieces of opinion like "only tyrants would say that" (yes, I know you are only doing so here on the talk page, but still!). The troublesome thing is that Amnesty + HRW mostly support their pro-FG case with FG sources rather than 'neutral' or 'independently verifiable' ones, so whilst their opinion may be third-party, it is definitely not neutral or truly independent. Other sources such as the KM report suffer from its methodology and how all of the accusations are implications based on a collection of random pieces of information, which is far, far too vague to establish as fact by any means.

1c. External opinions vary, so if we are to put all of them down or give them more or less equal weight to FG's and CCP's opinions, then that is belittling both concerned parties' case, and also saying that external parties with their partial knowledge in the subject are the best judges of what is really going on. That would seem flawed in my opinion - after all this is not like a crime or rape trial where DNA can effectively settle a decision. The accusations of criminal acts all stem from unverifiable claims, which is why it is impossible to say either camp is actually correct for sure as a fact. Anyway this point will be discussed at greater length later once the ArbCom case is over.

2a. I know it's unreasonable to expect you as a newcomer to have read the entire talk page archive + this current one that is not archived. However, it's impossible to get a good picture without doing so, as what is not archived on this current page only represents a fraction of the wider picture. Sorry to have the state the obvious, but I thought I could give advice without having to read the whole thing first myself initially - I'm sure both sides will testify to that too.

2b. 'Totally accurate description' - Maybe you should rephrase that to "as accurate a description as possible from existing sources". I think the best way is to leave the FG case to the FG people and the CCP case to the CCP people, but there is a problem - there are NO CCP people on Wikipedia!!! (or at least none of them have identified themselves as one) So to combat the latter problem, I've tried to directly access Chinese embassy websites + newspaper statements to get their view by directly quoting them, without added 'commentary'. Naturally, by doing so, it will mean that the pro-FG case is infinitely longer than the pro-CCP one. This would lead to obvious bias on the FG entry - so do you have any suggestions?

3a. Like I said before, your opinion is highly welcomed and I did say at the start of my reply it was refreshing to talk to a newcomer. But please forgive me if you find my words too harsh; it's just that I try to put everything under scrutiny, just as I expect my own words here to be subject to it. So whilst some questions may appear testing, rest assured, they are only to ensure that there are no gaps or cause for further argument (as much as humanly possible!) in the future.

3b. ArbCom / content. This is also a problem. ArbCom traditionally refuses to judge on a content dispute, and leaves that to mediators. But to have no ArbCom guidelines is equally useless for a constructive way forward. This is why I've asked them to give guidelines regarding EDITORIAL BEHAVIOR - this way we can preserve the sanctity of the two camps + non-acidic atmosphere.

Conc: Once again I don't totally disagree with most of the reply, but note with concern about your opinion. Quite frankly, the FG and the CCP can make their case as strongly as they want to; as you said, we should only report it with as little commentary and interpretation as possible. However, why add that bit at the end about "banning the FG for existing" (you didn't say this, but it's your implication I guess?) since this is clearly not the case? The CCP actually did allow the FG to exist for a while if you look back into the early few years of the existence of FG in China. Anyway, glad to get your input, but as trite as it may sound, your opinion can be aired as much as you want here, but we must try our best to keep it out when writing about the FG article. This goes back to point 1c. - what the majority of Americans, say, think about FG is quite irrelevant. After all, what they know is only what they see and hear, and that is clearly not the full picture. To sum up my approach - take as non-involved a stance as possible. I think you agree with this but I dare not say so for sure. Jsw663 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Very lengthy reply there Arek. But before I start mine, please don't forget to sign your post (usually a bot helps me do it if I forget, but they seem to have overlooked this page with regards to your replies!). I'm going to split your above reply into points.

" 1a. The social harmony, stability, national security stuff isn't just what "Luo says" but rather what is said direct from the CCP (via its mouthpiece, the Xinhua News Agency). Whether you think this is only said by tyrants or not again is your own opinion. But if you think the CCP opinion should be aired in prominence then we simply must put down what they say, much like we must put down what Li Hongzhi says about FG. We don't have to agree with them; we just have to say what they claim / accuse."

I agree, and never denied otherwise: The motives they offer, as well as motives critics impute to them, must be noted, with a cross-section of back-and-forth arguments within reason. I'm just trying to undermine the claim being made then note that it does belong in the article, I again apologize if my dual-track approach here isn't clear.

" 1b. I also agree that most people who come on Wikipedia to learn about FG would have come via Western media exposure. This is why it is more important to stress what FG + CCP themselves say directly rather than interpreting on behalf of them, or giving little commentaries or pieces of opinion like "only tyrants would say that" (yes, I know you are only doing so here on the talk page, but still!). The troublesome thing is that Amnesty + HRW mostly support their pro-FG case with FG sources rather than 'neutral' or 'independently verifiable' ones, so whilst their opinion may be third-party, it is definitely not neutral or truly independent. Other sources such as the KM report suffer from its methodology and how all of the accusations are implications based on a collection of random pieces of information, which is far, far too vague to establish as fact by any means."

That seems to be your opinion, JSW. AI and HRW would certainly deny that (though the allegation should be mentioned), and like most human rights groups they do try to get people on the ground to confirm allegations. Their position is certainly bolstered by the fact that the laws explicitly mention long prison sentences and execution, and my perception is that the methodology used is probably the same as pretty reasonable surveys done by, say, Lancet.

" 1c. External opinions vary, so if we are to put all of them down or give them more or less equal weight to FG's and CCP's opinions, then that is belittling both concerned parties' case, and also saying that external parties with their partial knowledge in the subject are the best judges of what is really going on."

Then again, outside opinions are also forming a good part of the parties' case here, and pretending that people outside of the two contending groups don't matter also marginalizes a lot of relevant stakeholders. That's why I agree that FG/CCP should come FIRST and be heavily quoted, but external comments (especially from reputable human rights groups and studies that the FG themselves use) should be noted, as well as describing the furor in the West since that is what people come to the page for. There's a happy balance in there.

" That would seem flawed in my opinion - after all this is not like a crime or rape trial where DNA can effectively settle a decision. The accusations of criminal acts all stem from unverifiable claims, which is why it is impossible to say either camp is actually correct for sure as a fact. Anyway this point will be discussed at greater length later once the ArbCom case is over."

Which is why all allegations should be aired, even third party ones.

" 2a. I know it's unreasonable to expect you as a newcomer to have read the entire talk page archive + this current one that is not archived. However, it's impossible to get a good picture without doing so, as what is not archived on this current page only represents a fraction of the wider picture. Sorry to have the state the obvious, but I thought I could give advice without having to read the whole thing first myself initially - I'm sure both sides will testify to that too."

I have read a lot, that is why I posted at all. If I'm missing nuances, I'm sure I can be informed. So far I'm seeing that I have a pretty good grasp of what was being said.

" 2b. 'Totally accurate description' - Maybe you should rephrase that to "as accurate a description as possible from existing sources". I think the best way is to leave the FG case to the FG people and the CCP case to the CCP people, but there is a problem - there are NO CCP people on Wikipedia!!! (or at least none of them have identified themselves as one) So to combat the latter problem, I've tried to directly access Chinese embassy websites + newspaper statements to get their view by directly quoting them, without added 'commentary'. Naturally, by doing so, it will mean that the pro-FG case is infinitely longer than the pro-CCP one. This would lead to obvious bias on the FG entry - so do you have any suggestions?"

Right, I'm describing the ideal as far as 'totally accurate'. That was talking about the dogma/teachings: I think we can trust the FG to describe that pretty well.

On the bias issue: That's a rather difficult one. One is that direct quotes from the embassy, newspapers and so on will by necessity run somewhat longer than summaries, so that may balance the favor a bit. Another to note is that I'm sure that there are publically available articles that try to rebut FG claims, but what I'm afraid of as I think you are too is basically the "Well, the CCP just denies everything" problem. I think the case can be bolstered by arguments like Sam's that the actions are within the laws, describing justifications for the laws, describing the movement he argues has erupted of converted FG people, etc. We may just have to bite the bullet and have people try to as charitably as possible add to the direct quotes about the CCP and just rely on each other to beat back any possible hint of implied criticism. Going into detail with each separate allegation could bolster the article heavily.

" 3a. Like I said before, your opinion is highly welcomed and I did say at the start of my reply it was refreshing to talk to a newcomer. But please forgive me if you find my words too harsh; it's just that I try to put everything under scrutiny, just as I expect my own words here to be subject to it. So whilst some questions may appear testing, rest assured, they are only to ensure that there are no gaps or cause for further argument (as much as humanly possible!) in the future."

No problem. As you can see, I have a penchant for stridency and Socratic interrogation as well :) .

" 3b. ArbCom / content. This is also a problem. ArbCom traditionally refuses to judge on a content dispute, and leaves that to mediators. But to have no ArbCom guidelines is equally useless for a constructive way forward. This is why I've asked them to give guidelines regarding EDITORIAL BEHAVIOR - this way we can preserve the sanctity of the two camps + non-acidic atmosphere."

Sounds fair enough. I think that as we discuss we'll find that agreements here echo at least part of the ArbCom's final decision as well as start to buckle down on content.

" Conc: Once again I don't totally disagree with most of the reply, but note with concern about your opinion. Quite frankly, the FG and the CCP can make their case as strongly as they want to; as you said, we should only report it with as little commentary and interpretation as possible. However, why add that bit at the end about "banning the FG for existing" (you didn't say this, but it's your implication I guess?) since this is clearly not the case? The CCP actually did allow the FG to exist for a while if you look back into the early few years of the existence of FG in China. Anyway, glad to get your input, but as trite as it may sound, your opinion can be aired as much as you want here, but we must try our best to keep it out when writing about the FG article. This goes back to point 1c. - what the majority of Americans, say, think about FG is quite irrelevant. After all, what they know is only what they see and hear, and that is clearly not the full picture. To sum up my approach - take as non-involved a stance as possible. I think you agree with this but I dare not say so for sure."

And during the early years of the Nazis Jews were allowed to exist with escalating harassment, yet few serious individuals doubt the Nazis' intent to destroy them. The fact that the Chinese government let a political non-entity most of them probably never heard of clearly doesn't disprove, well, much of all, especially that NOW the Chinese are at least suppressing if not persecuting the FG.

Who's to say it isn't the full picture? I agree it isn't, but it may be, or it may be incomplete but still right. It's important to note various groups' impression of the FG (of course insofar as it can be substantiated, which probably is very little here). I think most people can agree that the majority of Western coverage has been overwhelmingly pro-FG, which seems to be relevant for a number of reasons I mentioned, especially in making an article that many people will find valuable and informative for what brought them to the site.

That having been said: Yes, I think this is important to note. The article really does need to give a full context. Ideally, someone who reads the article should walk away from it feeling informed about a) what Falun Gong says, b) a sense of what the movement argues is occuring, c) a sense of why the CCP may have proceeded the way it did (trying to make that seem as reasonable as possible), and d) what the furor in the West is about. ArekExcelsior 07:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, you can discuss FG articles on a private MediationWiki

I still do not feel it is possible to continue mediation during the Arbitration, but since some of you are trying to build a consensus, I would like to offer the private MediationWiki as an option. If it is possible to continue the mediation after the Arbitration, I would like to continue there anyway. If you'd like an account on the MediationWiki, please send me an email, with "Falun Gong" somewhere in the subject. If for some reason you would like a username other than the one you use here, be sure to note that. If email is a problem for you, let me know on my talk page an we'll work something out. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Cross-posting elsewhere

OK, very good, let's continue the mediation, but why on Media southportbeekeepers.co.uk? Any reason for that? Less downtime perhaps? --HappyInGeneral 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The main idea is to keep mediation "safe", that is prevent it from being used as evidence anywhere. Actually, mediation is not permissible evidence anyway, but it is time-consuming to check to see if anyone accidentally used evidence from mediation, and there is always the risk that I will miss something or an arbitrator will see it first. You can also read WP:M#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F, although I do not believe most of the reasons listed there are relevant to this mediation.

By keeping mediation safe, it might make it a bit easier to actually reach a consensus.

I do not think holding mediation and arbitration simultaneously is likely to work out. However, I noticed that you all have still been trying to build a consensus on certain things, and I hoped this would help. If you all do not like the idea, you can of course continue as you are.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out WP:M#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F, now I understand what you mean. I also sent you an email for requesting an account and with an initial proposal on how should we start to work on this pages. Hopefully this will help. --HappyInGeneral 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not fully understand the advantages/disadvantages, but so far I do not think private mediation will benefit this project, so I would like to gently express my opposition to the proposal. Blowfish, we all appreciate the personal time and effort you are putting into helping us work all these things out. Let's see how the ArbCom results. I think as long as we can just get editors to moderate their behaviour and try to follow the rules a bit more--something not so hard in the first place--then there should not be any problems. That was the whole point behind this ArbCom case in the first place, as far as I understand. This project will go nowhere unless there is a big refocus of our attention and energy into productive editing that accords with wikipedia policies.--Asdfg12345 12:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. : ) At the moment, I can't think of anything I can do to address your concerns. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents - Good proposal; wrong time. This is an excellent idea, but is not suitable at this stage as we must clear the ArbCom hurdle first, and then there will be a massive debate initially about how to move forward. Maybe after that we can have 'private debates' instead. Jsw663 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. : ) The MedCom agrees that mediation during arbitration is a probably bad idea. However, since people have still be trying to reach consensus on the talk pages, I felt I should at least offer some form of help. Thanks for your opinion, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A response to ArekExcelsior

ArekExcelsior, I agree with all of your criticism regarding the dreadfulness of this article and appreciate many of the suggestions you made. I find your idea that editors with a strong feeling towards the Falun Gong, (all Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors and anti-Falun-Gong-editors like me) should voluntarily bow out particularly insightful. This article should really be written by neutral editors in order to main its neutrality. All pro and anti-Falun Gong editors can participate on the talk page by providing information. I believe this approach is the only one that will ultimately resolve the edit conflicts, thank you for suggesting it.

There are a few of your statements I find disturbing. You said: “What I really think would be helpful would be if neutral or VERY slightly pro-FG people began the page basically from scratch.” What is wrong with keeping this article strictly neutral? Whenever there is favoritism there will also be conflict. I agree with you that “the article describes very little of the doctrine in the main article,” but I disagree with this assessment “a good portion of the page becomes preoccupied with the CCP v. FG discussions.” This assessment is ill founded since there is no material on the main article that fits the description.

Your statements regarding the ban show that you do not have a clue why the Falun Gong was banned in China and that is why you call me disgusting for supporting it. Even cultists should have their human rights, right? I spoke against the Falun Gong in 1999, before its ban, but I only felt comfortable supporting the ban after I studied and understood the UN’s human rights covenants.

The legitimacy of the Falun Gong ban can be very easy to understand when we examine it under the guide line of the UN’s human rights covenants. According to the UN freedom is not absolute! The “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” both call for the protection of religious freedom. However, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations of such freedom under certain circumstances. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” [1]

Did the Falun Gong threaten public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others? An affirmative answer to this question will mean that the ban is in accord with international human rights standards. In my research I gave the Falun Gong the benefit of the doubt by only making my judgment based on information found from non-CCP sources. My findings are available on my website and this material shows the Falun Gong did threaten public order, health, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Unfortunately, American politicians and media have totally ignored the Falun Gong’s wrong doings due to their bias against the CCP. Anyone who draws his/her conclusion without looking into the arguments of both sides is biased. Arek, you said you have read my material but your statements about me and the ban suggest otherwise. I challenge you to dispute the evidence presented on my website, [2] if you fail to do so you owe me an apology.

The evidence I gathered mostly from Falun Gong sources suggests that banning this group has saved China and even the world from a catastrophic epidemic. In 2003 the incurable and highly contagious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) contaminated thousands and killed hundreds in China in weeks. It also contaminated and killed some in western countries like Canada. The only hope for survival was early detection and the only way to prevent a catastrophic epidemic was to quarantine the sick. While this disease was ravaging many lives, the leader of the Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, told his followers in a conference in New York that the outbreak was simply “heaven punishing people.” He said:

“You must have seen the epidemic that’s come along in China now, right? Hasn’t a huge epidemic arrived? To put it in human terms, it’s Heaven punishing people. What it’s targeting, we Dafa disciples know full well: it’s targeting those who don’t deserve to be saved,… This is the first round of cleansing… People find it scary, but in fact, the truly horrible thing hasn’t begun yet. This isn’t the real, big cleansing when the Fa starts to rectify the human world. It’ll be even more horrifying when that big cleansing arrives, and it’ll target the entire world… Wait and see, this is going to be an eventful year. A lot is going to happen.” [3]

Li’s statement leaves little to the imagination: a catastrophic SARS pandemic is good, victims of SARS are evil and deserve to die, Falun Gong practitioners—the only people who are truly righteous people—will be saved.

While Li was excited about the possible mass die-off, one of his faithful followers, Dr. Lili Feng, an associate professor from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, assured her fellow practitioners that they have the power to resist and contain SARS. Dr. Feng’s recommendations on how to contain the epidemic was published in a Falun Gong website on June 02, 2003:

If the total of over 100 million initial Falun Gong practitioners in China had been allowed to keep up the practice of Falun Gong, they would have formed a gigantic, protective layer for Chinese society. They can protect more than just themselves. Why? If over 100 million Falun Gong practitioners had been allowed to practice Falun Gong, they would have been able to resist the SARS virus, stop the SARS virus from being transmitted through them, and form a large immunity shield, which could protect more vulnerable people in China. This is the saddest thing for me and brings me to something I must emphasize. What I want to say is this: persecuting Falun Gong is the most evil and foolish act. While this plague prevails over China, what we need most are those people with resistance to the SARS virus. [4]

What is more likely: the millions of Falun Gong practitioners who believe they can resist SARS would form a gigantic, protective layer or they would spread the deadly disease to every corner in China or even the world?

If the Falun Gong had not been banned the kind of pandemic like the one that killed a quarter of Europe’s population (about 25 million) from 1347 to 1350 could have happened to China in 2003. The Falun Gong was 2.1 million strong by the CCP estimate, how many more millions would have been recruited from 1999- to 2003? If it was not banned the Falun Gong would surely have had many more millions of members and some of them would surely be infected by SARS and these fanatics would have caused a catastrophic pandemic—because they would not seek medical treatment when they are sick.

Falun Gong’s threat to public health is just one of the valid and verifiable justifications provided by the Chinese government. People who condemn the ban as a human rights violation do so because they fail to recognize the threats of the Falun Gong. They fail to do so because they have not spend the time and energy to understand the issues. Blind to the harms of the Falun Gong cult they also fail to see that the freedom of all practitioners is suppressed by their master who forbids his followers from exploring any other exercises and religious beliefs. One may argue that these practitioners have made their own choice to follow this guy. But, just as in all cults, these practitioners are deceptively recruited and brainwashed into submitting themselves to a leader who demands absolute obedience. Nine hundred plus followers of Jim Jones drank cyanide-laced drinks voluntarily, but they did not commit suicide, they were murdered!

The ban of the Falun Gong has freed the great majority of practitioners and saved their families. Over the years I have read many touching and insightful testimonials from ex-practitioners. Many of them had fought the Chinese government before realizing the Falun Gong was a fraud. They now live normal lives free from manipulation and exploitation from a cult leader. They can now practice any exercises and study all of the religions available. They are now free from worrying about the divine retribution that Li has threatened. They are all very thankful of the Chinese government for helping them to leave this cult and many of them have actually volunteered to help the government in the work of educating and extricating practitioners. As a matter of a fact, ex-practitioners are the most effective exit counselors in helping the government to free stubborn practitioners.

Are these ex-practitioners being brainwashed or forced by the Chinese government? Cult members all believe their group is the most loving and righteous, but once they realize the truth they often turn strongly against the cult. Steven Hassan’s case is a good example; he gave up his education and money to join the Unification Church. His parents tried to help him but he fought hard against them. When he finally woke up to the facts, he became the most active in fighting the Unification Church and eventually became one of the most famous cult experts in the US.

It is disgusting to suppress freedom, but there is nothing wrong in liberating people from manipulation and exploitation. It certainly is lawful to ban a group that threatens public health, order and human rights. You might think that supporting the Falun Gong helps the practitioners, but the sad fact is this: all support given to this cult only strengthens the grip Li has on his followers. Because my parents are both hardcore practitioners, I have given this issue a lot of thought; practitioners can only be free when society stops supporting this cult. --Samuel Luo 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Sam, this is NOT a discussion forum for FG or anti-FG people. It is an encyclopedia article, period. Your own opinions are very strong and, therefore, very tendentious. Some of your arguments I concur with, some I don't. I'll be replying only to show you that a reasonable article should include multiple viewpoints.

"There are a few of your statements I find disturbing. You said: “What I really think would be helpful would be if neutral or VERY slightly pro-FG people began the page basically from scratch.” What is wrong with keeping this article strictly neutral? Whenever there is favoritism there will also be conflict." I would love for this article to be strictly neutral. Problem is, "neutral" is up for interpretation like everything else. So a methodology needs to happen to compensate for the inevitable trends we've already fought unsuccessfully here. The ONLY way the pro-FG people are going to feel they have an informative article that is at least tolerable is if the article is completely accurate and in-depth about the dogma (note that I called it dogma, which might indicate that my opinion is very close to yours). Note what the pro-FGers have done here, say in response to Tomanada's Fa-rectification arguments: They have said that the Master's comments were being taken out of context. Fine. So give them 110% of the context. This is also, coincidentally ;) , the right way to write any religious article: Describe completely the ethical, religious, spiritual, etc. mores and bans of the group as if it were nice light coffee (or tea) table conversation, accurately and so that anyone who comes can get a notable, neutral, substantiated account of the religion and learn. That's what Wikipedia is about: Learning, education, spreading public knowledge. It's NOT about getting our viewpoints infiltrated into society. Then, once one has a completely informative tome on the religion, one can include controversies, points of discussion, etc. Sam, you practiced this incredibly well in your own article: You introduced Falun Gong, at length, BEFORE you went into your very powerful criticism. I'm just saying apply the same methodology, and it's clear to me that anti-FG people are going to intrinsically, not out of bad faith but just based on their research, write an article that focuses on criticism (which is, again coincidentally, EXACTLY the article that is currently locked).

"I agree with you that “the article describes very little of the doctrine in the main article,” but I disagree with this assessment “a good portion of the page becomes preoccupied with the CCP v. FG discussions.” This assessment is ill founded since there is no material on the main article that fits the description." I guess that an article called "Suppression of the Falun Gong" has nothing to do with the CCP. I should clarify my terms, though: It seems that "CCP" has become short-hand here for anti-FG. So let me be specific. Anti-FG criticisms, say about homophobia. get a good 30% of the article, I'd estimate. This is a problem because the reader sees criticism and is referred to external pages for what the article is really about, the FG's beliefs. This is backwards. The article should include a good overview of FG beliefs, THEN delve into the politics and critiques.

"Your statements regarding the ban show that you do not have a clue why the Falun Gong was banned in China and that is why you call me disgusting for supporting it. Even cultists should have their human rights, right? I spoke against the Falun Gong in 1999, before its ban, but I only felt comfortable supporting the ban after I studied and understood the UN’s human rights covenants." This would be oh-so-terribly convincing, Sam, if I or civil libertarians believed that the UN Human Rights Covenants were anything but a horribly flawed compromise designed to at least put a slight semblance of humanity into tyrannical regimes (and, notably, into US-backed regimes) without threatening UN membership. If the UN Human Rights Covenants (and, BTW, that's not the only human rights treaty by far, so a legal argument based on them alone is fatally flawed) say that this oppression is okay or legal, that speaks a lot about them but nothing about the CCP's justifications. Your argument here indicates not that I don't have a clue, but rather that you are not paying attention to the content of my arguments. I made quite clear that China's actions being illegal under international human rights laws are a very peripheral concern to me: The main problem is that they're totalitarian and wrong.

"The legitimacy of the Falun Gong ban can be very easy to understand when we examine it under the guide line of the UN’s human rights covenants. According to the UN freedom is not absolute! The “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” both call for the protection of religious freedom. However, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations of such freedom under certain circumstances. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” So let's analyze that, Sam. First of all, has the CCP ever made an argument that Falun Gong is INTRINSICALLY an anti-health religion? Sure, it may contain some parts, but then ban those parts, like have been done with Scientology and their psychiatric claims. Second, can the ban truly be argued as an EFFECTIVE law designed only to protect health? Third, how is this ban REMOTELY necessary? Your argument has been that if more Chinese converted to FG there might be some kind of future epidemic because they would refuse medical treatment. No believer in human rights, anywhere, would accept this chain of reasoning, which postulates FUTURE events as a reason to oppress people NOW. If you were convinced of the legitimacy of banning of an ENTIRE RELIGION by one sentence in one human rights tome, you were not a committted civil libertarian in the first place, and your implied claim here otherwise reeks of dishonesty, IMHO.

Of course freedom has limits, Sam. A reasonable interpretation is that rights exist only insofar as those rights don't trample on others' rights. Please, Sam, give me one right that Falun Gong's membership have trampled on.

One of the justifications the Chinese gov't has used, BTW, Sam, is that the "People" have spoken out against Falun Gong (http://www.china-embassy.ch/eng/ztnr/xjflg/t138877.htm). Mind publically stating that you believe that the CCP speaks for the people of China and so they can make this claim uncontroversially? Another is that FG is going to destroy the CCP. But free speech laws in America allow people to state publically intentions to overthrow the government: Only ACTION is illegal, not speech itself. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170112000 describes the persecution , including being sent to labor camps. Sam, even if the UN Covenant says that it's okay to put into place laws for vague goals such as "public health", laws like Geneva UNEQUIVOCALLY prevent anywhere near the actions the Chinese have claimed to have done, let alone what they likely have done. http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/11/09/china1959.htm describes another human rights' organization stringent criticism and also notes that laws for being part of a "cult" organization include long prison sentences and death. THAT is not public health or security law, Sam. That is persecution. Period. Especially since many people were NOT part of the Falun Gong organization per se. Also note that the Chinese Constitution itself says that freedom of belief is guaranteed, which would also make all this illegal. Again, all I'm trying to say in this forum is that there is excellent evidence that China's action is illegal and against established international human rights practices, and (far more importantly) totally illegitimate even if narrowly legal.

So you give me a... different example about one guy from a totally unrelated alleged cult to prove that these ex-practitioners weren't brainwashed? This is evasion, not evidence, and I think it shows your true credentials. Of course everyone thinks their cult is great, Sam. Even the CCP's followers. The irony of both the CCP and the FG attacks on each other, like most human situations, is that the hypocrisy would be transparent if they just looked in the mirror.

Just one thing you need to remember: For your argument to work, you have to accept allowing the Chinese government, and by extension any government, not only the right to oppress the Falun Gong, but ALSO to be able to determine FOR THEMSELVES when any religious group should be stopped. Heck, why stop at religion? Scientists do have their own belief structure that leads them to, say, recommend some things that some governments may not like, say challenging the Bible's notion of creation. Well, lop off their heads! I'm trying not to be sarcastic or strident here, but it seems to me that your elementary misunderstanding of basic belief in freedom is throwing you so far off course here. If you allow the Falun Gong to be oppressed, you better be darn sure that the same reasoning couldn't be used to come after you, or me. I would say with certainty that you cannot make that claim. This is why societies insist on basic human rights: Aside from the fact that it's the right thing to do, it prevents everyone from sniping at each other and using the state to get further at the cost of everyone else. And the fact that I can make all these arguments alone shows that the Wikipedia should include these arguments.

I've read your site, Sam. Your argument is terrible. One of your pieces of "evidence" is that Li in the past used medical intervention. EVEN if he couldn't claim that he doesn't believe in medical intervention NOW, which is a completely legitimate argument and alone defeats this (since people have the right to change their minds), it still would ONLY prove what Li himself has said: Regular medical intervention works, it just does so on a superficial and not "spiritual" level. You have made no claim that I can see, certainly none with any evidence, that FG has ever FORCED people at gunpoint, or with any other reasonable claim of force or coercion, to join their organization. You may not like their internal structure, and neither do I, but people have the RIGHT to join cults, even internally totalitarian ones. They also have the right to get sick AND resist medical treatment: It's called Informed Consent. AND they have that right even if they're being deluded by a spiritual group. If you want to get more specific rather than showing me a long and not necessarily relevant article, I'll take you on piece by piece, but note that this whole sub-argument could only prove that the Chinese government has a reasonable claim at punishing SOME FG practitioners for bad behavior, NOT for banning the faith OR at torture, labor camps, etc. Even if Amnesty, HRW, and pretty much every other neutral human rights group on the planet (and, BTW, Sam, before you allege that Amnesty/HRW are American puppet groups, you should read their criticisms of the US government) are wrong by a factor of ten, China is still in gross violation of human rights laws.

Everyone else just doesn't understand it. Again, Sam: Even if YOU think they were brainwashed, they had the right to choose to be brainwashed. Once you allow a government to say that people can't be in their right mind because they're in a group, you open the floodgates. I think Republicans are heavily brainwashed by FOX: Let's throw them all into psychiatric camps.

Sounds about as monstrous as, I dunno, justifying the invasion of Tibet, or religious figures here blaming 9/11 on homosexuals. Too bad I don't justify imprisoning those people either.

More importantly: What does it matter? By your logic, we should cram the strongest antibiotics down everyone's throat the moment they get sick: Man, it sure would suck if they spread diseases. Yes, sometimes stupid people (again, sorry that I'm using blunt language, but I think it's vital here) do stupid things and other people get sick from it. Your justification would be infinitely more compelling for forcing people to wash their hands when getting out of the bathroom at pain of death, or shooting people who overuse antibiotics to make livestock meatier because they're breeding superbugs. When you justify those things, we can talk.

I'm not saying I like the Falun Gong, Sam. I think you might be being quite excessive, but I see where you're coming from. Li's behavior is scary. What happened at Jonestown was a tragedy. Cults are scary. But I'm going to CONVINCE people not to join cults. I'm not going to fight brainwashing and tyranny with brainwashing and tyranny. The only people who win that fight, Sam, is tyrants. Further, I have talked to FG practitioners here, Sam, and it seems to me that either hate or prejudice is making you see the forest but not the trees. Some people have quite positive experiences with FG and can remain quite rational. Sure you want to rob them of their faith? Have a little compassion, if you would. Anyways, to return to the thrust of what's going on here: Your arguments may resonate with some people who would like the government to stop the FG. (I note that you really don't bother suggesting that, hey, maybe the CCP is going about it the wrong way, which you could at least concede since it seems pretty obvious). If there could be some reasonable way to do that without torture, without prison terms, without executions, then yes, maybe a lot of people in China and around the world would be okay with it. I wouldn't. Both viewpoints need to be there.

"The ban of the Falun Gong has freed the great majority of practitioners and saved their families." Got a source on that one? (I doubt it: It'd be virtually impossible for you to ever quantify that statement, given how rigged it is). Saved their families from WHAT? Medicine YOU think is bad? I suppose the fact that they are still living in a militaristic society (with the largest corporation being the military) with minuscule basic civil rights is of no concern to you. If a government ban could save them, Sam, it could easily have been done by other means first. Further, all the evidence I've seen shows that this is pretty much false, since now they have international notoriety (and this coverage, BTW, Sam, is hugely positive, possibly rightly because they ARE the oppressed group here) and are converting Westerners right and left. Anyways, this is not a justification, Sam: If the American government could ban Republicanism and successfully get most people not to be Republicans, I would view that as mostly a good thing for humanity, but I would still oppose it tooth and nail, not least because any government that can do that without the people withdrawing their consent can do anything and can come after me next, and also because people's beliefs are none of my business.

"It is disgusting to suppress freedom, but there is nothing wrong in liberating people from manipulation and exploitation." And you want a TOTALITARIAN government, let alone ANY government, to do that for us? Since when has any state in the history of mankind "liberated" anyone from anything? Practically every tyrant in the history of man has offered your "But..." as a reason to justify what they're doing: We ignore the rhetoric and concentrate on the oppression. What the CCP wants is NOT the liberation of the Falun Gong, but the substitution of its own ideology. My problem with you isn't that you don't like the FG, it's that you somehow think that it's okay to oppress them, and somehow that bashing the Falun Gong proves the CCP is better, or even better by enough of a margin to discuss ANYTHING. Further, please tell me how banning the religion has done ANYTHING to stop it. Falun Gong may be stronger now than ever: Because the CCP has given them an enemy, any anti-Communist hysteria can be used by the FG. The FG now has Western supporters they NEVER would have had if they had remained a smallish Qi Gong movement. China didn't go in, assassinate Li Hongzhi and describe why his teachings were "false". They just said people couldn't practice it. They haven't tried to liberate ANYONE. What you can do is use good speech, not beat up bad speech. Anyways, this is all moot because the article can include both your justification viewpoint and my libertarian viewpoint.

"Many of them had fought the Chinese government before realizing the Falun Gong was a fraud. They now live normal lives free from manipulation and exploitation from a cult leader. They can now practice any exercises and study all of the religions available. They are now free from worrying about the divine retribution that Li has threatened. They are all very thankful of the Chinese government for helping them to leave this cult and many of them have actually volunteered to help the government in the work of educating and extricating practitioners. As a matter of a fact, ex-practitioners are the most effective exit counselors in helping the government to free stubborn practitioners." You're joking, right? You read like a CCP propaganda piece! You don't have any sources, and I bet if you did they would be Chinese government sources, which I would attribute the same weight to as Bush declaring that the Iraqis love America (i.e. none). I'm amazed that in all your time studying cults you missed so many things so drastically, Sam. People have to CHOOSE to turn away from cults, AND cultish behavior. Something in their hearts and minds makes them need that particular clear world vision. The CCP's domination is a perfect way for them to renounce their old idiocy and turn to a new form of... idiocy and tyranny. Might you be willing to admit in public that, while some (maybe even more than 60%) of converted FG people are thankful, maybe not all of them are, and maybe not all of them should be? What we keep coming back to, Sam, is that you beat up the FG with your arguments, but you don't even CONSIDER that the CCP might be just as bad, indeed worse. THAT'S where I think you become a propaganda artist.

"It is lawful to ban a group that threatens public health..." By your logic, it would be lawful to ban Christian scientists. Your argument that FG threatens public health is that FG teaches things that YOU think are false and have no medical validity. But even if one buys that there can be NO medical benefit from Qi Gong, and as Popper would point out the only way we'll know is if humanity is given a chance either to finally prove it or disprove it (which requires free speech and not suppression of people we don't like), that does NOT justify banning the entire group OR preventing the free actions of individuals. You may not like this fact, Sam, but human beings have a right to refuse medical treatment for ANY reason, and to be convinced by ANY person they like, and those rights are encoded in human rights treaties that apply to China. Period. At best, what the Chinese government could do is issue a warning against FG and prevent FG from making any MEDICAL claims that are not supported by empirical evidence demonstrated in a court of law. The problem with THAT, Samuel, is that FG DOES contain Qi Gong practice, and the Chinese government has repeatedly publically funded research for Qi Gong, acupuncture, etc. that operate on similar principles, so them doing that would be completely disingenuous and part of a suppression campaign. I have to be very candid here, Sam: Your notion is to beat up people who you don't like, or rather to get the state to do that for you as a proxy. You can have as much distaste for FG as you would want, which is your inalienable human right. You can even convince as many people as possible to get away from FG: Beat bad speech with good speech. But don't shut people up because you don't agree with them. Anyways, your opinion in the article that international human rights laws would justify this should be there, either before or after allegations that China's behavior is illegal either domestically or internationally. My arguments here are also relevant and come from the Western response to most CCP abuses.

Now, I must admit that I could see some justification for some sort of anti-FG action: Namely, that FG is an institution like a state, and does have some public responsibilities. I'm not sure how that plays out here, but religious institutions do not have absolute freedom, as you rightly put it.

"Because my parents are both hardcore practitioners, I have given this issue a lot of thought; practitioners can only be free when society stops supporting this cult" Call me crazy, but like a lot of people, maybe you're confusing your problem with your PARENTS with your problem with a group? (No offense, and I'm not trying to personally attack you, but your rhetoric is so strong, so hyperbolic, and so totally unfounded by anything remotely resembling argument that it sounds like there's something else going on). Anyways, what we can do is note your exceedingly extreme viewpoint as part of a gradation of opinion that alleges that FG tyrannizes its viewers. ArekExcelsior 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd response to ArekExcelsior

Arek, thanks for the lengthy reply, however, your preachy tone, wrong assessments and false arguments made the reading far from satisfying. As a matter of a fact, your strident rambling again shows how clueless you are about the issues. I will show you the flaws in your argument with a few examples before providing more evidence on the ban. My response to your personal attack-like comments will be at the end.

Arek, you lecture us on how to write articles, but you have no clue about the problem that prevents these articles from being written properly. You said: “The ONLY way the pro-FG people are going to feel they have an informative article that is at least tolerable is if the article is completely accurate and in-depth about the dogma.” Surely you are not aware that pro-FG people (mainly FG practitioners) have not been reporting FG teachings “accurate and in-depth.” These people are here to spin the public by presenting the FG as just a healthy exercise group that also promotes truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. For more than three years, before Tomanada and I started editing the FG article, Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors had been able to conceal their core teachings.

Arek, you ability to make things up stuns me. You said: “If you were convinced of the legitimacy of banning of an ENTIRE RELIGION by one sentence in one human rights tome, you were not a committted civil libertarian in the first place.” Who says I am a libertarian? I value order and equality over freedom. You also stated that: “Your argument has been that if more Chinese converted to FG there might be some kind of future epidemic because they would refuse medical treatment. No believer in human rights, anywhere, would accept this chain of reasoning, which postulates FUTURE events as a reason to oppress people NOW.” With statements on my website clearly stating that the ban was a response to the actions of the Falun Gong before the ban, how could you so blatantly miss represent my argument?

Your dispute of one of the pieces of evidence on my site is flat out wrong and dishonest. You said “I've read your site, Sam. Your argument is terrible. One of your pieces of ‘evidence’ is that Li in the past used medical intervention. EVEN if he couldn't claim that he doesn't believe in medical intervention NOW, which is a completely legitimate argument and alone defeats this (since people have the right to change their minds).” This statement shows that you did read the material on my site but you read it with a biased mind. Your bias prevented you from reading one statement of Li in which he claims to have never been sick. This evidence is not used to justify the ban, but simply intended to show the kind of deception practitioners are exposed to. How could you take one part of this evidence to justify calling my argument terrible? You can do better than that, can’t you? You even generated an excuse for Li; I am sure he will not thank you though.

Do you know why Li lied? Li came out in 1992 claiming to have the super natural ability to heal the sick and he has taught that illnesses is the result of one’s sin. Admitting that he has also suffered illnesses and received medical treatment would suggest that he does not have the power to heal; worse, it would also suggest that he is a sinner. Arek, your bias also appears to have prevented you from finishing reading the evidence I presented on my site. You said: “Of course freedom has limits, Sam. A reasonable interpretation is that rights exist only insofar as those rights don't trample on others' rights. Please, Sam, give me one right that Falun Gong's membership have trampled on.” Such material is already presented on my site which you claim to have read.

For argument sake I am going to briefly introduce it here. From 1996 to 1999, despite the many positive reports it received, the Falun Gong aggressively and routinely suppressed its critics’ free speech. One example, on May 27, 1998—twelve days after the China Central TV, the largest network in China, had aired positive coverage of the group—the local Beijing TV station broadcast a critical report of the group. More than a thousand practitioners besieged the station for days until the TV station fired the 24-year-old reporter involved. A favorable report was broadcast about the group a few days later.

The face off between the Chinese government and the Falun Gong was provoked by the Falun Gong’s attack against a small magazine company. On April 11, 1999, the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in Tianjin City published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong written by Zuoxiu He, a theoretical physicist. Starting on April 19, Falun Gong practitioners besieged the magazine’s office demanding apology and retraction of the issues. By April 23rd, with nearly 10,000 practitioners encircling its office and harassing its staff, the company called in the police. At 5 pm that afternoon, the chief of police ordered the practitioners who held the protest without a permit to leave the premises of the magazine. At 8 pm that evening four hundred policemen had to force an evacuation and reportedly forty-five practitioners who refused to obey the order were arrested. Falun Gong practitioners protested to the Tianjin city government the next day and when their demands were not met, they organized the famous Zhongnanhai, Beijing protest, directly putting pressure on the central government.

Falun Gong’s suppression of free speech continued from April to July, 1999 right before it was banned. In one instance, on July 7, 1999, five hundred plus practitioners besieged China Central TV station trying to prevent a program critical of the group from airing. The Falun Gong presented a letter addressed to the station head which was laced with veiled threats of civil unrest: “Should CCTV broadcast this program, its image will be seriously smeared. It may even set off a chain of social reactions that could cause and aggravate social conflicts.” Adding to this tone of militancy, the letter threatened that “hundreds of millions of Falun Gong practitioners around the world will not tolerate such things happening.” The Falun Gong even demanded the government to step in to suppress freedom of the press: “Since this program will jeopardize the social stability in China and bring benefits only to the very few with ulterior motives at the expense of the good people at large, we Falun Gong practitioners sincerely hope that the governments at each level will prevent the airing of this slanderous program.” This ultimatum is still available online in English here. The fact that the Falun Gong suppressed the rights of others and threatened social unrest fits the condition described in the UN human rights covenants which makes its ban legal.

Arek, do you consider the Falun Gong’s harassment against its critics trampling on human rights?

Arek, you claim that this ban violates China’s own Constitution which protects religious freedom, but you have conveniently left something out here. The first half of Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution protects religious freedom but the second half of it limits this freedom. It states: “No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.” The Chinese Constitution emphasizes protecting public health and order; the ban is perfectly legal in China. Religions like Christian Science and cults like Falun Gong that preach abandonment of medical treatment enjoy legal protection in the US. But in China where there is no such tradition (no traditional Chinese religion has ever preached that) this kind of practice is seen as dangerous and unlawful. The Chinese have the right to govern their country according to their tradition and law, provided that it does not violate the UN human rights Covenants. Do you have any right to demand the Chinese adapt to American values? Why stop at China, why not demand the whole world to adapt to American values?

Arek, I can give you another example where the Falun Gong has trampled on the rights of others personally. In 2005 three Americans, a professor from Harvard, a cult exit counselor and I, were scheduled to give a presentation in a conference hosted by the International Cultic Studies Association in Madrid, Spain. The Falun Gong, now a powerful group, threatened lawsuits against the Association and us, its argument being that any criticism towards the Falun Gong equals support for what they called “the genocide” in China. We would not have lost the case, but this lawsuit in Spain would have had a ruinous effect on our finances. Under such pressure the organizer canceled our presentation. But there were more threats against me. After I came back from Spain, the Falun Gong threatened me with another lawsuit concerning my website. It was the ACLU that protected my free speech. The Falun Gong has no tolerance for criticism.

Arek, continued debating with you about the justifications for the ban seems useless. You don’t seem to be able to put together an objective argument to dispute mine. Your judgment appears to be clouded by your intense aversion towards the Chinese government. You claim to champion human rights but you appear to have a conflicting opinion towards the UN human rights Covenants out of convenience. You complained about the CCP violating international human rights laws yet you put down the UN human rights Covenants when they are being used to evaluate the Falun Gong ban. You said “that's not the only human rights treaty by far, so a legal argument based on them alone is fatally flawed.” Well, the UN human rights Covenants are considered international human rights laws. Name any human rights treaty that are as widely accepted and remotely important as these Covenants. You speak on behalf of the rights of Falun Gong practitioners, but you really have no clue about the manipulation and harm they are subject to. Have you seen any people being deceptively recruited into the Falun Gong and brainwashed into believing Li’s dogma? I have. My parents were told that the Falun Gong is just about healthy exercises, but nine months into meditation they started to see Li as the God. Have you ever seen any Falun Gong practitioners suffering illnesses unnecessarily in person? I have. My step-father has suffered painful gout attacks since 2000, despite the fact that we have medical insurance he refused seeking medical help. He had to be taken to the emergence room one evening in August, 2005. Have you talked to a husband who had to divorce his practitioner wife because the Falun Gong is all she cared about? I have. Have you tried to comfort a teenager saying that his practitioner mother really loves him, even though she puts the Falun Gong before him? I have.

Your interchangeable use of religion and cult in referring to the Falun Gong shows that you have no clue about the differences between cults and religions. Your comparing the Falun Gong to the Christian Science suggests that you have no clue about the difference between these two groups. One distinct difference between Christian Science and the Falun Gong is that the first is honest about its belief regarding not seeking medial help but the latter is dishonest about it, perhaps, for the benefit of recruitment. This difference is one of the criteria that makes the Christian Science a religion and the Falun Gong a cult. You said “people have the RIGHT to join cults,” but have you heard of anyone who voluntarily joins a cult? People join a religion, a self-help group, an exercise group, etc. They are being deceived into cults. Why do you think Li keeps his life secret and the group promotes itself as an exercise?

Now I am going to respond to your personal attack-like comments. You said the following:

“it seems to me that your elementary misunderstanding of basic belief in freedom is throwing you so far off course here… it seems to me that either hate or prejudice is making you see the forest but not the trees… Have a little compassion… You read like a CCP propaganda piece!... What we keep coming back to, Sam, is that you beat up the FG with your arguments, but you don't even CONSIDER that the CCP might be just as bad, indeed worse. THAT'S where I think you become a propaganda artist … Sam: Your notion is to beat up people who you don't like, or rather to get the state to do that for you as a proxy… maybe you're confusing your problem with your PARENTS with your problem with a group.”

Arek, these insults say a lot about you. I bet you like to put down anyone who agrees with the Chinese government on anything and call him an apologist for the Chinese government. By any reasonable standards, you have to show that I defend the Chinese government regardless of what it does. While we disagree on many issues, I hope we can agree to respect each other.

In ending this reply to you I want to say that the ban and its enforcement are two separate issues. As I have stated on my site, I support the ban but I do not support any abuse of practitioners. The problem with reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is that they have not considered the justifications provided by the Chinese government and the source of their material is the Falun Gong. Anyone who does not look into the arguments on both sides of a dispute is biased.--Samuel Luo 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Samuel, you said:

From 1996 to 1999, despite the many positive reports it received, the Falun Gong aggressively and routinely suppressed its critics’ free speech.

Can you please describe what you mean when you say aggressive? Beating, gun-point, shouting, these come into my mind when I read aggressive.

By April 23rd, with nearly 10,000 practitioners encircling its office and harassing its staff, the company called in the police.

Again what do you mean by harassing? Simply being present and wanting to talk? Do you have any pictures or video's from this site? I mean if one wants to ban by arrest and torture a group of many million people based on this, it should be documented right? There are some video's available here[6] [7] [8], I'm sure you saw these, quote, it says and shows that practitioners where peaceful, rational and legal. Can you point out perhaps some other video's from the same event that present your version of the story? --HappyInGeneral 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

HiG, you should know better than to continue a FG discussion like we did - take this elsewhere, please. THIS IS NOT A FG DISCUSSION FORUM. Jsw663 07:38, 28 March 2007 (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.
A panel has been recently set up to discuss the content of the article as opposed to just debate in a prove-disprove cycle. You may contribute to this discussion at /Introduction
The discussions on sections of Origin and History are found at /History

Why are you adressing this issue to me? How about comparing length and POV pushing of my edit with Sam's. Do you think that is not OK to ask for proof? --HappyInGeneral 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll give the same response as I did when you asked me why there was no point of you giving a reply to my critical evaluation of the K/M report. This is not a FG discussion forum; we can always debate this on ICQ as much as you want; this debate is merely a "Is FG valid?" debate and has nothing to do with improving actual FG content. It will end up a ridiculously long and moot argument like the one you and I had on that so-called mediation page; this doesn't help Wikipedia. What you want Sam to reply to is nothing more than pure FG discussion. Jsw663 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You just said: "I'll give the same response as I did when you asked me why there was no point of you giving a reply to my critical evaluation of the K/M report. " - and yet you are still refering to your K/M report evaluation. Is this fair? Basically you used my silence as consent? Anyway next time you do that, I'll ask you make it point by point, you can copy from the archive and I'll answer you point by point. Anyway if you note how much I'm clogging this page, then you'll notice that it's really negligible, compared to the rest. Why are you trying to make me shut up?

You just said: "This is not a FG discussion forum; we can always debate this on ICQ as much as you want; this debate is merely a "Is FG valid?" debate and has nothing to do with improving actual FG content. " - so why are you replying with this kind of critic only when I'm saying something? As I pointed out Samuel started it[9], and you know full well that once he started he will not stop.

You just said: "It will end up a ridiculously long and moot argument like the one you and I had on that so-called mediation page; this doesn't help Wikipedia." - to this I agree, but this way at least both opinion are presented, otherwise: "Silence is consent!". Actually the best thing is to mention that this is not a debate forum about Falun Gong to the person who start's it.

You just said: "What you want Sam to reply to is nothing more than pure FG discussion" Actually I want to compare the sources, I wanted to ask him to back up his claims just as I did. But then again he did not back up his claims, and you find that actually my request of asking for sources to be backed up is somehow wrong on wikipedia. --HappyInGeneral 08:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First point, I really cannot see how you trying to dispute Sam's evidence will suddenly make everything clear up as previous challenges you've made have been the same few constantly, and have been shown on the ArbCom pages. What is the point of asking the same questions if you know you are going to get the same answers, and if you know you are going to make the same counter-rebuttals? It is a waste of Wiki space. But if you insist it's important, go ahead. The chances either you or Sam will change your opinion is zero anyway.

Second point, this is why I am displeased with both Sam and Arek for starting this conversation and wished they could take it out of Wikipedia, and onto, say, an Instant Messenger, e-mail, or some other form of non-Wiki communication. I see no need to make another mediation case as there is already an ArbCom case already; I see no need to mention it in the ArbCom case as well since they do not make decisions based on content, AND to get a decision from them takes absolutely ages. By then, the discussion, in all likelihood, will have stopped.

Third point, I strongly disagree with the 'silence is consent' statement. Freedom of speech is highly tolerated on Wikipedia, except when it breaks its rules, and FG discussion is not allowed. I personally wish there was stricter enforcement of Wiki rules on controversial subjects on this, but as you know, I also want (per my ArbCom statement) greater tolerance regarding users' actions. This is why although I condemn it, for reasons above and here, I haven't taken any concrete action. The fourth point you mentioned is answered by my first point above. Jsw663 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam, it really does not behoove you, nor does it say much about civility, to come into arguments stating that your opponents are not informed.

"Arek, in one of your preachy and wrong assessments, you said: “I'll be replying only to show you that a reasonable article should include multiple viewpoints.” Which one of these FG related articles, except for the criticism one, does not have multiple viewpoints? You lecture us on how to write articles, but you have no clue about the problem that prevents these articles from being written properly. You said: “The ONLY way the pro-FG people are going to feel they have an informative article that is at least tolerable is if the article is completely accurate and in-depth about the dogma.” Surely you are not aware that pro-FG people (mainly FG practitioners) have not been reporting FG teachings “accurate and in-depth.” These people are here to spin the public by presenting the FG as just a healthy exercise group that also promotes truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. For more than three years, before Tomanada and I started editing the FG article, Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors had been able to conceal their core teachings."

Actually, from what I've seen, a lot of people here wanted to have extensive data on the Fa-rectification, and wanted to include more on the ethics sections, and were even accused of hypocrisy by Tomanada because they wanted to share the dogma in a way that Tomanada claimed was premature in their religion! What you and Tomanada did was NOT simply discuss "core teachings" but actually take some sentences, maybe five pages in total from what I've seen, which reflect poorly upon the religion. Yes, those five sentences and their controversy need to be there, but FG people rightly replied that there's much more in the extended speeches, writings, tapes, dialogue among practitioners, etc. Even the Fa-rectification borrows a lot of controversy from other discussions familiar to Buddhism and Christianity: Does intelligent design of the universe, or karma, mean that people who suffer deserve it? Buddhists and Christians have replies to that assumption, as do the FG, replies that are reasonable enough to deserve being placed in the article. Everyone on all sides has suspicion of everyone's motives: Moderating the rhetoric and focusing on writing a compromise piece will be key.

"Arek, you ability to make things up stuns me. You said: “If you were convinced of the legitimacy of banning of an ENTIRE RELIGION by one sentence in one human rights tome, you were not a committted civil libertarian in the first place.” Who says I am a libertarian?"

You did, by implying that you also did not want to eliminate even a cult until you read the UN Human Rights Covenants. If you're a statist, go ahead and argue from a statist platform, just note that I will categorically oppose you, and I will do so NOT based on ignorance as you continue to imply but rather based on radically different values and preferences. In line with this, FG folk claim to be libertarian or pro-freedom, but your criticisms of them can be used at least as some evidence that this is an exaggeration of their credentials.

"You also stated that: “Your argument has been that if more Chinese converted to FG there might be some kind of future epidemic because they would refuse medical treatment. No believer in human rights, anywhere, would accept this chain of reasoning, which postulates FUTURE events as a reason to oppress people NOW.” With statements on my website clearly stating that the ban was a response to the actions of the Falun Gong before the ban, how could you so blatantly miss represent my argument? "

WHICH actions? Sam, you are now willfully misrepresenting (or are just not keeping track, I hope it's the latter) the positions, which you are able to do by not quoting me in block form. That was a response to your implied argument that, since the FG would not be able to shield China from SARS but might help spread the epidemic, it was justified under health reasoning . Your argument that their behavior before the ban was the reason for the ban is pretty tendentious speculation, especially since I've offered some pretty compelling evidence to doubt the CCP's motives (by noting, for example, that they're not shooting people in the head for not washing their hands). You also continue to refer me to your site, which requires me to wade through pages and pages of argumentation for a topic that I have admitted I am not an expert on. If you want to make particular arguments in this forum, make the arguments in a condensed manner and include some links to particular pieces of evidence, if you would. One of your claims, made on http://exposingthefalungong.org/fgban01.html , is that the FG were accused of being responsible for 1404 people dying. But I undermined your argument here by pointing out that people have the right to refuse medical care for religious or privately ethical reasons, and that this refusal underscores everything from Christian Science to anti-abortion movements to DNR requests. Your justification is both illegal and monstrous, and anyways begs the question: Since when did the Chinese government start to care about its people? You noted that, yes, once a villain, always a villain, but then you move on to take CCP claims without any rebuttal or skepticism about their motives. If the CCP is perfectly willing to, say, mismanage a famine that kills 30 million people, or execute people for tax fraud and embezzlement, or execute people for protesting, what makes one think that they suddenly are so concerned about people refusing medical care?

You next argue that, "[Amnesty] argues that the government failed to “demonstrate any direct connection between the alleged deaths and Falun Gong leaders,” nor “has the government presented evidence that the defendants had full knowledge that the philosophy they were promoting might cause deaths.”3 That seems a little disingenuous on the part of AI to make this charge. It is like letting a con man off because his victims didn't realize they would be losing money. In fact, throughout its report, AI never once refers to the actual teachings and pratices of the Falun Gong, especially the practice of refusing medical treatment." But a more egregious example of assuming the conclusion I can't find. AI's argument here is that a) FG leaders did not directly order this behavior so they cannot be directly blamed and b) that Li Hongzhi and other FG leaders may have believed that their behavior could save people. You also intrinsically are not making any claim as to LIVES FG may have saved, which would seem to matter in the balance. Also note that it still doesn't matter, because it MIGHT be okay to imprison, say, Li Hongzhi and the leadership, but NOT to ban the religion per se. I offered you the Scientology example, an example you did not rebut (and I know this because I Ctrl-Fed through the article - last reference is mine to it).

"Arek, your dispute of one of the pieces of evidence on my site is flat out wrong. You said “I've read your site, Sam. Your argument is terrible. One of your pieces of ‘evidence’ is that Li in the past used medical intervention. EVEN if he couldn't claim that he doesn't believe in medical intervention NOW, which is a completely legitimate argument and alone defeats this (since people have the right to change their minds).” Your statement shows that you did read the material on my site but you read it with a biased mind. Your bias prevented you from reading one statement of Li in which he claims to have never been sick."

So he's an alleged liar. Yes, I read that. But that DOESN'T mean, like I noted and which you DIDN'T reply to, that he still couldn't claim rightly that maybe in the past he DID use medical intervention (admitting the lie but NOT the responsibility) and has changed his position, NOR did it reply to my claim that he COULD deny using it in the past AND claim EXACTLY what you quote him as saying: That medical care is valuable but superficial. Throwing bias around is great if you actually bother answering arguments. Since you're not quoting me in context, this is impossible.

"This evidence was not used to justify the ban, but simply intended to show the kind of deception practitioners are exposed to. Why did he lie? Li came out in 1992 claiming to have super natural ability to heal the sick and he has taught that illnesses is the result of one’s sin. Admitting that he has also suffered illnesses and received medical treatment would suggest that he does not have the power to heal, worse, it also suggests that he is a sinner. I have been waiting to see how you are going to take my argument apart, your bias and cluelessness disappoint me greatly."

Yes, I read that, and his spiritual resume is laughable. I would be expecting a public demonstration of such powers as teleportation. But this argument you just made is highly disingenuous. First you claim that you did not use this as a point to justify the ban (which is false: anyone who reads the page will see that one of your points of evidence to justify a response to AI's argument is his past medical history), then you IMMEDIATELY use it to justify the ban. The fact that he got sick in the past doesn't prove that he doesn't have healing powers anymore than the fact that Jesus died on the cross proves he didn't revive the dead. Gurus often claim to lie, and maybe even sometimes legitimately, in order to teach broader lessons, and Li could either claim to be embroidering for a reason OR could claim that he intended to get sick. Anyways, the fact that he's a liar liar pants on fire DOES NOT prove that he had any direct authority or involvement in the death of his followers. You could prove Li Hongzhi is the Antichrist himself, all it would MAYBE mean would be to imprison or execute HIM. Not people who have done nothing illegal or wrong.

Li has said that illness is because of sin, which I agree is garbage, but he also says that medical care clearly works to deal with symptoms. Further, this claim is only slightly different from most Qi Gong or acupuncturist or Chinese medicine claims that people's spiritual burdens form part of their sickness pattern, such that Western medicine can eliminate an acute ailment but Chinese and Eastern medicine is better at handling chronic ailments. Since I pointed out that the Chinese government funds hospitals and universities that teach THESE principles, it is HYPOCRISY for them to bash Falun Gong, since many Westerners would claim that normal Tai Chi or acupuncture is just as useless and teaching it is tantamount to teaching people to refuse medical care. One of those arguments you decided just proves bias or ignorance, I guess.

Also, why are you creating a new section every time? I don't know if this is an intent, but it a) pretty much requires me to rebut when ALL of this is moot because this is NOT AN FG DISCUSSION BOARD and b) makes it much harder for a reader to keep track of the arguments. I will hope that your reasons here are good faith ones.

"Arek, your bias also appears to have prevented you from finishing reading the evidence I presented on my site. You said: “Of course freedom has limits, Sam. A reasonable interpretation is that rights exist only insofar as those rights don't trample on others' rights. Please, Sam, give me one right that Falun Gong's membership have trampled on.” Such material is already presented on my site which you claim to have read."

Yeah, I replied to some of your awful claims [again: not trying to be uncivil, but it's not that I disagree with your evidence or your characterization of FG, I disagree with what you think that MEANS more broadly, which is where you simply refuse to discuss], particularly your argument that cult members should be saved by the paternalistic arm of the state. Since you don't reply to my responses, and don't give me specific arguments (instead making me do your work for you), I think I can disregard this. The fact that you're shying away from something that could take a SENTENCE to describe makes me not believe your arguments. Literally, if you said that Falun Gong has had an organizational practice of forcing people to stay in meetings with guns, and had reasonable evidence for it, I would be inches away from an FG ban myself. ~~You ducked a perfect opportunity to make your claim in a concise way, but yet went on to write a very long response.~~ Upon reading more, I see that Sam does try to engage this, not quite in the way I hoped.

"For argument sake I am going to briefly introduce it here. From 1996 to 1999, despite the many positive reports it received, the Falun Gong aggressively and routinely suppressed its critics’ free speech. One example, on May 27, 1998—twelve days after the China Central TV, the largest network in China, had aired positive coverage of the group—the local Beijing TV station broadcast a critical report of the group. More than a thousand practitioners besieged the station for days until the TV station fired the 24-year-old reporter involved. A favorable report was broadcast about the group a few days later."

Happy-in-General's reply is a good one: "Besieged?" Is this remotely neutral? What FG would say is that they protested. Guess what: That is their right. People have the right to say that they are above criticism, or that people are wrong about criticism. They have the right to threaten not to watch a program until someone is removed. It's called a "boycott", Sam. Now, of course, I find such behavior odious, and I doubt FG apologia will sway me on this score. But it is NO reason to fight fire with fire, Sam. Again: Two wrongs, especially one WAY BIGGER wrong, don't make a right. Honestly: You are saying that since some people picketed a news station, an entire religion of millions should be prevented from existing? That is easily among the most ludicrous excuses for tyranny I've ever heard. Unless FG used physical force, broke REASONABLE (not CCP "reasonable") laws regarding time, manner and place of protest, or otherwise crossed the line from loudly expressing their (yes, quite non-libertarian) view, they did not do anything illegal or deserving government sanction. Nazis who preach the downfall of every civil right known to man AND the murder of billions deserve that free speech protection too, Sam, and the only alternative is "free speech for those we like", which is EXACTLY what FG, Stalin and Hitler support.

"The face off between the Chinese government and the Falun Gong was provoked by the Falun Gong’s attack against a small magazine company. On April 11, 1999, the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in Tianjin City published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong written by Zuoxiu He, a theoretical physicist. Starting on April 19, Falun Gong practitioners besieged the magazine’s office demanding apology and retraction of the issues. By April 23rd, with nearly 10,000 practitioners encircling its office and harassing its staff, the company called in the police. At 5 pm that afternoon, the chief of police ordered the practitioners who held the protest without a permit to leave the premises of the magazine. At 8 pm that evening four hundred policemen had to force an evacuation and reportedly forty-five practitioners who refused to obey the order were arrested. Falun Gong practitioners protested to the Tianjin city government the next day and when their demands were not met, they organized the famous Zhongnanhai, Beijing protest, directly putting pressure on the central government."

That's odd, I see that the April 11, 1999 protest was a protest to demand recognition as a religion, and I have a Reuters source to boot: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/falun_012.htm . So far, you haven't given me footnotes, just your own description of the events. But let's say that your description of events is correct. That means that those PEOPLE should face reasonable charges, such as fines and perhaps some minor jail time, for harassment. By your logic, abortion clinic bombings should justify the banning of Southern Baptism in America.

"Your interchangeable use of religion and cult in referring to the Falun Gong shows that you have no clue about the differences between cults and religions. Your comparing the Falun Gong to the Christian Science suggests that you have no clue about the difference between these two groups. The biggest difference between Christian Science and the Falun Gong is that the first is honest about its belief regarding not seeking medial help but the latter is dishonest about it for the benefit of recruitment. This difference is one of the criteria that makes the Christian Science a religion and the Falun Gong a cult. Your argument that banning the Falun Gong is like banning Christian Scientist is false in many ways, the Falun Gong was not banned for its threat to public health alone. "

Or maybe because I find the usage of the term "cult" to be pejorative, subjective, almost always self-serving and based on arbitrary lines. I actually provided argumentation and will do so here that, while FG does contain CULTISH behavior, its sheer size is beginning to make it impossible to be a cult. Figures demanding total obedience don't alone make a totalitarian organization: At some point, the practical ability of people to monitor the dogma becomes quite limited, and the religion begins to transform into something more legitimate. Further, most religions start out as cults. Again, you impugn my knowledge when maybe I might know something but disagree with you. In fact, many of my friends and family are involved with cult-like spiritual groups, so I know just as much as you do about it and made reference to this knowledge repeatedly.

I've noted my problem with FG dishonesty repeatedly. I even admitted that there may be a narrow ground for fraud IN THE SAME VEIN AS SCIENTOLOGY, an argument that was never rebutted. But how can it be so secret if you know it and Wikipedia knows it and it's referenced in the religions' tomes? Many mystery religions don't tell people requirements for moving onto the next level. People do get suckered into going to the next level. Still doesn't justify underming people's own choice, however misinformed YOU may find it.

"Falun Gong’s suppression of free speech continued from April to July, 1999 right before it was banned. On July 7, 1999, five hundred plus practitioners besieged China Central TV station trying to prevent a program critical of the group from airing. The Falun Gong presented a letter addressed to the station head which was laced with veiled threats of civil unrest: “Should CCTV broadcast this program, its image will be seriously smeared. It may even set off a chain of social reactions that could cause and aggravate social conflicts.” Adding to this tone of militancy, the letter threatened that “hundreds of millions of Falun Gong practitioners around the world will not tolerate such things happening.” This ultimatum is still available online in English here. The fact that the Falun Gong suppressed the rights of others and threatened social unrest fits the condition described in the UN human rights covenants which makes its ban legal."

Was this the FG itself, representing every practitioner? Should every practitioner suffer for, say, 600 people's decisions? The first sentence at worst implies a campaign of smearing, which is within FG rights, and the second is an incredibly veiled and unspecific threat which would probably not even hold water in court as a threat of action. Far more serious threats, for example made by Nazis to "mud people", are legal. Hoo, boy, how dare they say that they won't "tolerate" something! Seriously, just replace "Falun Gong" with any group you can think of and see if you'd justify the CCP's response. I am willing to bet you a decent sum of money that you will find that you would not say that.

The UN Convention very clearly is saying, for example, that a religious group can't justify murder based on its pretexts. It does not EVER say, and I publically challenge you to quote a single line that it does, that a group can be suppressed, persecuted or banned because of any actions that the organization (in this case only arguably did) in the past or present. It only allows the banning of specific actions by specific people, NOT of groups. That's the whole point, as well as of the Chinese Constitution.

You also note that the health issue isn't the only reason the FG was banned, but if it's crap, then it should stop being used as a justification, and if the CCP is willing to continue using it as a justification when it is in fact blatant garbage, it calls their motives into question.

"You speak on behalf of the rights of Falun Gong practitioners, but you really have no clue about the manipulation and harm they are subject to. Have you seen any people being deceptively recruited into the Falun Gong? I have. My parents were told that the Falun Gong is just about healthy exercises, but nine months into their practice they started to see Li as the God. Have you ever seen any Falun Gong practitioners suffering illnesses unnecessarily in person? I have. My step-father has suffered painful gout attacks since 2000, despite the fact that we have medical insurance he refused seeking medical help. He had to be taken to the emergence room one evening in August, 2005. Have you talked to a husband who had to divorce his practitioner wife because the Falun Gong is all she cared about? I have, more than once. Have you tried to comfort a teenager saying that his practitioner mother really loves him, even though she puts the Falun Gong before him? I have, more than once."

Sure sucks, just like how people I know were sucked into a fun dynamic by a community and were repelled by a teacher who said and did scary and horrible things. People have the right to make mistakes, Sam, and if you prevent them from doing even catastrophically stupid things they will never learn. It seems that you want a world where everyone can be safe at every moment and always have the "right" choice available to them. Too bad that it's impossible, and trying to achieve it is what makes tyrants win. Again: It seems your personal problems are eclipsing your reason and tolerance, and I hope you can see past them. And not everyone's experience with FG is bad: Because YOURS are, you want to project your opinion about the world onto people who have had good experiences. Maybe if you dropped the attacks for one moment and listened to what people said and why they joined, you might be a more effective and less divisive figure?

"Arek, I can give you another example where the Falun Gong has trampled on the rights of others personally. In 2005 three Americans, a professor from Harvard, a cult exit counselor and I, were scheduled to give a presentation in a conference hosted by the International Cultic Studies Association in Madrid, Spain. The Falun Gong, now a powerful group, threatened lawsuits against the Association and us, its argument being that any criticism towards the Falun Gong equals support for what they called “the genocide” in China. We all knew that there is no way that we can lose the case, but it was also very clear that this lawsuit in Spain would have a ruinous effect on our finances. Under such pressure the organizer canceled our presentation. But there were more threats against me. After I came back from Spain, the Falun Gong threatened me with another lawsuit concerning my website. It was the ACLU that protected my free speech. The Falun Gong has no tolerance for criticism."

So because they did lawsuits against you, the CCP should go beyond lawsuits and shut them down? Sounds like Scientology's fabled litigiousness: Scientology shouldn't be destroyed either. I applaud the ACLU for defending you and will publically state my utter contempt for the FG's behavior in this instance (and in many others): Ask them what they think about the FG ban.

You make some more intriguing implied concessions here (and please, of course you always have the right to return to an argument, but it seems that some major stuff got dropped here). First of all, you are admitting that the FG was in 2005 NOW a powerful group. This is a BLATANT contradiction with your claim that the ban is working! If they are stronger now than in 1999, doesn't that seem to indicate that the ban is either counterproductive or useless? I mean, come on, if you can't reject the ban based on the premise that it's wrong, at least reject it based on the notion that it isn't DOING anything and is actually fueling interest in FG! This contradiction is in line with your quite suspicious apparent refusal (and again, I hope this was simply an omission) to continue to describe the wonders of the CCP's indoctrination programs to "save" people from the FG.

"Arek, continued debating with you about the justifications for the ban seem useless. You don’t seem to be able to put together a objective argument to dispute my argument and your judgment appears to be clouded by your intense aversion towards the Chinese government. The most troubling of your statements is that you appear to have a conflicting opinion towards the UN human rights Covenants. You complained about the CCP violating international human rights laws yet you put down the UN human rights Covenants when they are being used to evaluate the Falun Gong ban. You said “that's not the only human rights treaty by far, so a legal argument based on them alone is fatally flawed.” Well, the UN human rights Covenants are considered of international human rights laws. Name any human rights treaty that are as widely accepted and remotely important as these Covenants. "

I've made numerous direct references and multiple independent arguments with descriptors like "a)" and "first". You haven't engaged them as such. This sounds like empty triumphalism. My aversion to the Chinese government is only barely greater than my aversion to what the FG seems to be doing. It's just that I can recognize when one bad guy is bigger.

Nice one: Claiming that I'm hypocritical because I attacked the UNHCR while noting that the CCP was still violating it. Too bad this isn't a contradiction. In fact, my relation to international law is quite complex and in a Chomskyan vein: I think international law is woefully flawed but at least constrains states and begins to put into place nascent ideals I would like to see hit full force. But even if I had nothing but contempt for international human rights law, it still wouldn't disprove my argument that the CCP was violating it. I am simultaneously walking and chewing gum: Declaring the CCP's actions both, INDEPENDENTLY, illegal (under a very conservative interpretation, BTW) and tyrannical.

I did name some: Geneva, for example. Or how about this list here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ . Or how about the Chinese Constitution itself, a provision of which defends religious freedom, an argument that received no rebuttal.

"You said “people have the RIGHT to join cults,” but have you heard of anyone who voluntarily joins a cult? People join a religion, a self-help group, an exercise group, etc. They are being deceived into cults. Why do you think Li keeps his life secret and the group promotes itself as an exercise?"

Apparently, our definitions of voluntary differ. MINE, taken from Wiktionary, is: " 1. Done, given, or acting of one's own free will.

  2. Working or done without payment." Yours would read: "Done, given or acting of one's own free will except when Samuel Luo has determined that this behavior is done based on inaccurate or misleading information".

Again, I'm trying to keep too much sarcasm from being in here, but first of all, not everyone agrees that what FG does is deception, and second it doesn't matter because people who did what they did based on a lie still did it VOLUNTARILY. They may have been defrauded, but nonetheless it WAS their choice. Your position would then be that any time anyone makes a bad decision based on a lie they should be prevented from believing in the organization that did it. I hope I don't need to say why this is ludicrous, egregious and the foundation for a tyranny. This is why libertarian say to beat bad speech with good speech. Inform people. Don't bash their heads in.

"Anyway, in ending this reply to you I want to say that while I support the ban I do not support any abuse of practitioners. Banning the group and the treatment of practitioners are two separate issues to me. My concern about the reported human right abuses that practitioners suffer is stated on my site, but you might have conveniently missed it."

Very odd that your concessions of this abuse doesn't lead you to question CCP motives except for a footnote-like comment that "Once a villain, always a villain", question whether or not they have the credibility to pursue any action as the FG, or begin any discussion by noting that torture and imprisonment trump harassment and cultish behavior any day. In the spirit of conciliation and a nice cup of tea, I will applaud you for admitting that the CCP's torture and abuse is okay. What I have a problem with is that you don't extend that same skepticism to their descriptions of events, legal system, etc. ArekExcelsior 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(To anyone confused: Sam responded on my talk page, I reply here).

I'll first note that if anyone confuses my stridency for personal attacks, I apologize. Everyone here should feel welcome to note and to argue for their beliefs, conclusions and principles. Since I seem to be evoking discussion, not silence, hopefully my comments are not so far beyond the pale that people are just refusing to talk, but that is a low bar. I want to make clear: I'm sure everyone editing here are wonderful people, and my comments come from a school of logic that attacks the argument and not the man. I am responding to the argumentative entities Samuel Luo et al, NOT to the people involved. That having been said...

"Arek, I made changes to my reply to you before noticing your response. Most of these changes are stylistic, I toned down my criticism against you. Two important changes are: 1) my response to your Christian Science argument and 2) my response to your personal attack-like comments. The passages of these changes are displayed below for your convenience. I also added this passage regarding Falun Gong suppression of critics—-The Falun Gong even demanded the government to step in to suppress freedom of the press: “Since this program will jeopardize the social stability in China and bring benefits only to the very few with ulterior motives at the expense of the good people at large, we Falun Gong practitioners sincerely hope that the governments at each level will prevent the airing of this slanderous program.”"

So the FG asked for a violation of free speech, that means THEIR freedoms should be violated? When does revenge and repudiation stop? If it was wrong for the CCP to stop FG criticism, it was just as, indeed more wrong, for them to stop the FG, Sam. Maybe my ethics here are too deontological, I don't know, but it just seems to me that none of these are justifications. Further, that comment is one that is far less odious than the CCP's comments about the FG, and alleges slander, which would be a serious legal matter. Honestly, Sam: Do you believe that the CCP truly banned the FG to preserve freedom of speech?!

"1) The Chinese Constitution emphasizes protecting public health and order; the ban is perfectly legal in China. Religions like Christian Science and cults like Falun Gong that preach abandonment of medical treatment enjoy legal protection in the US. But in China where there is no such tradition (no traditional Chinese religion has ever preached that) this kind of practice is seen as dangerous and unlawful. The Chinese have the right to govern their country according to their tradition and law, provided that it does not violate the UN human rights Covenants. Do you have any right to demand the Chinese adapt to American values? Why stop at China, why not demand the whole world to adapt to American values?"

I'm asking the whole world to adapt to reasonable standards of civil liberty, none of which are particularly American (check out, just to pick some at random, Jesus' harsh attacks upon hierarchy, authority and socioeconomic inequality, or the Taoists' long-standing rivalry against any kind of authority). Plenty of dissidents in China concur. Further, this is not a response. You are a) simply stating that the ban's intent is to preserve public health and order, which would seem to be relevant to determining the constitutional nature of the law; b) not citing anything in the Constitution; c) not responding to my distinctions between at least arguably reasonable public health laws such as demanding e-meters have disclaimers and banning religions; d) not responding to the specific citation of a religious freedom law in the Constitution.

Your argument that no Chinese religion has ever not advocated medical care is silly when you take into account that what we're debating is EXACTLY the notion of medical care. Buddhists claim meditation is healing: Many Western scientists disagree. Traditional medicine uses acupuncture, herbs, etc., many of which are alleged to be merely placebos and worse possibly harmful. Qi Gong itself is riddled with scientific disputes. I am arguing that Falun Gong fits within that set of practices which has some scientific backing (the study linked on the main page is one) but is highly contentious. Remember that traditional medicine would often exhort people to take a tea rather than an antibiotic, something that even a good portion of Chinese now (according to all sorts of polls and studies describing the declining popularity and influence of traditional Chinese medicine) would think is tantamount to asking people to refuse medical care. To put it another way: Li does NOT tell his followers not to get medical care. He doesn't even say medical care is ineffective. It seems that the religion is ambiguous on this matter, like Christianity regarding God's relationship to healing, thanks in no small part (I concur) to Li's powermongering and apparent lies, which leads many to refuse medical treatment, probably with at least the tacit approval if not explicit directive of higher ups. What Li DOES say is that what he gives is BETTER medical care. His followers believe that's true.

To cut to the core of this argument (perhaps because I did not explicate it enough you viewed it as a driveby and did not respond to it): A strictly scientific view would probably necessitate banning not only FG but Qi Gong, etc. Since the Chinese government has supported research into ki science, traditional medicine, etc., as well as public and private hospitals, this is sheer hypocrisy on their part. Further, how many people in China still languish without medicine? (To be absolutely fair: This is not really the CCP's fault. In fact, China has a pretty good medical system, as Amartya Sen and Dreze note). So we see a few problems. A) Falun Gong is not sufficiently distinct from any other medicine accepted in China that is controversial according to at least Western science, and as I mentioned quite a lot of Chinese too, to make its banning justified. I imagine many have died because they went to an acupuncturist instead of an MD: Heck, probably orders of magnitude more. B) Because the science is so debatable right now, any governmental approval of any different treatment option and banning of another is very dangerous.

Even more, I could note, say, many Jains (who have some influence in China) and some Buddhists say it's wrong to kill bacterial organisms and refuse treatment; Taoists were famous for experimental medication given to advance immortality treatments; etc. etc. I wouldn't say so easily that no religion in China has ever said, for example, that sometimes it's time just to give up.

"2) Now I am going to respond to your personal attack-like comments. You said the following:

Actually, as noted above, I think that India in a lot of respects is worse, and that a lot of the hysteria over Chinese civil rights violations is wholly hypocritical given what goes on in America's backyard (or, heck, even what goes on in CHINA) that no one seems to mind. The Sen comparison above, for example, notes that while the famine cost something around 30 million lives, India's refusal to adopt an analog to Mao's health care programs killed around 112 million. But they ARE bad guys, like most states: See Taiwan, Tibet, etc. I did make quite a few arguments, Sam, to show that YOUR positions (not YOU in particular, I hope, and subsequent clarification has made me have more respect for your position), do border on apologia. For example, the almost mastubatory delights you took in describing how the CCP's ban on Falun Gong has saved millions of people and returned them to normal, happy lives, which really DOES sound like it comes directly from a CCP propaganda tract and which you proceeded to show no source for and not even continue to argue. It's just that I see a number of things that you are doing which sound authoritarian and extreme and are very off-putting. Particularly, the repeated justifications you use for state intervention seem to show, and remember you have alleged that I am uninformed so this one is fair game, a lack of empathy for basic belief in freedom and tolerance of differences. I will admit that in arguments I can become very quick to judge and perhaps a bit hotheaded, and also try to state things bluntly. I hope that you do not confuse this for disrespect. I also do feel, and I don't know you any more than you know me but I do see the patterns and have a good instinct for this, that you have a lot of hate or unresolved issues that may be clouding your judgment.

I'm not your enemy here. To be clear: Your exposure of the Falun Gong show a lot of very ugly trends, and trying to keep them from whitewashing the bad is quite heroic. But it crosses the line when you in turn whitewash the CCP fence. I'm just trying to show that both sides have a lot of blood on their hands. This will not endear me to many parties, but it also is the way to get people to acknowledge failings.

Also, replying to a newly edited comment: "Arek, do you consider the Falun Gong’s harassment against its critics trampling on human rights?"

I sure do. But it is NOT trampling on a specific groups' rights. There's a difference. One can say and propose things that would, if adopted, undermine human rights. Heck, I think that's exactly what you're doing. But you, and the FG, have an indisputable right to say it. That is different from, for example, using a gun to coerce someone to do something, or even blackmail, or fraud. Where that crosses the line is primarily in the realm of action. There's some libertarian debate on this score, but very little that would say that someone who advocates that free speech be taken away have theirs taken away. Rights are deontological: Though they can be balanced vis-a-vis each other with pragmatic conderns taking into account, it's not okay to violate one ever, no matter if the other person did it first, or in this case said that they'd like to do it.

So I will again issue an apology for stridency and hope that you will in kind perhaps tone down the rhetoric. I will also, as I noted before, in the spirit of a nice cup of tea applaud you for taking the first step in some ways and perhaps backing off from some more divisive arguments, though I must admit I still sense hostility in your post here, such as accusations that I'm making things up. ArekExcelsior 07:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

JSW663: Again why are you putting this sign here? Why is it that you did not place this sign where the whole thing was started, more precisely here: [10]. I told you this quote before: 'Silence gives consent!' [11]. I hope that you agree that there are different opinions and I hope that you can respect that. Also please note that if you don't want a discussion forum here, the best thing that you can do is to not start one. --HappyInGeneral 10:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

HIG: I think it's apropos to periodically remind ourselves what the stakes are here. We are not trying to discuss FG or convince others of our point of view, except insofar as that contributes to making a reasonable argument. JSW isn't saying Sam's or my opinions are wrong or shouldn't be expressed, but rather that we need to remember the fora in which we are doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

OK, this is your opinion for the moment, however please keep on eye on the pattern and see for yourself what that picture reveals to you ... --HappyInGeneral 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HiG, once again we have seen by your actions what you want on Wikipedia - total, pro-FG bias. That simply cannot be substantiated on any level on Wikipedia, which is not a FG propaganda site. I said FG discussion should stop because it is clogging up the talk pages with discussion that will not have much of an effect on actual content required for the main Wiki entry. However, I have not taken action to stop it either because a) not enough broader support, as the 3rd party camp seems to have vanished with the ArbCom case going on, b) this may affect understanding of the FG and thus future editing behavior. After all, this isn't a straight anti- vs. pro-FG debate; this is a 3rd party v. anti-FG debate. So HiG, when you make deliberately general statements that are supposed to give the average reader suspicions and inferences such as the one above, i.e. somehow I'm supposed to be some radical anti-FG loony, then all that does is reinforce your own tremendous bias. Many pro-FGers here have toned down their rhetoric and watched their own actions; for that, I do appreciate it. However, you have not only never toned it down, you have tried every means to force your POV through. So before you talk about opinion, picture or 'good faith', I suggest you mind your own actions first. I only wonder WHY you are ignoring Wikipedian rules and doing this concerted campaign - Li Hongzhi's image/personality? - I certainly hope (and think) Li Hongzhi did not 'command' you to do this (otherwise, he must be the most powerful mind-controller ever known)! Jsw663 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a right out personal attack. Anyway it's interesting how you did not care to answer the following, quoting myself from above:

"JSW663: Again why are you putting this sign here? Why is it that you did not place this sign where the whole thing was started, more precisely here: [12]. I told you this quote before: 'Silence gives consent!' [13]. I hope that you agree that there are different opinions and I hope that you can respect that. Also please note that if you don't want a discussion forum here, the best thing that you can do is to not start one."

--HappyInGeneral 08:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the answer was obvious. I wanted to stem a full-blown FG discussion before it got beyond controllability. But if a more senior Wikipedian (eg administrator) isn't going to enforce such a rule, I won't take steps either. In effect, I am trying to make sure the pro-FGers won't look like the ones responsible for breaking the FG discussion rule, but if you insist on violating it like Sam, then go ahead - it all depends whether you can control yourself or not. It won't count positively on your record though, I can assure you.

Moreover, did I start a discussion forum? When I first arrived at this case via the unresolvable mediation case (not the last one taken up by Armedblowfish, but one before, where I didn't want to be mediator but got interested in the arguments) yes, I admit I was at fault since I did get lured into FG discussions. This is why I've tried to be understanding of the Sam-Arek one, since Arek is a newcomer, and he needs the groundwork. On the other hand, this discussion should be kept out of Wikipedia's discussion page. So you can see the dilemma.

Regarding the statements you thought was a 'personal attack', I have struck them out now, deliberately. Were my comments a personal attack? Yes and no - yes if you were sensitive to what I said and assumed the worst of its meaning; no if you recognized the sarcasm in it and knew that I was just mocking your earlier statements which were deeply offensive to me. So why did I make them in the first place? Because I was trying to mirror what you did for me - imply that I was some kind of anti-FG extremist, intolerant of others' opinions, and part of some Chinese government conspiracy. I thought we were past that stage, and yet you still make such outrageous comments and complain about how others are "gagging" you in not allowing you to exercise your freedom of speech when all I was trying to do was to prevent chaos on this discussion page by flooding it with arguments.

:) nice response. Still please, next time when you try to: "prevent chaos on this discussion page by flooding it with arguments", which by itself is a good thing, please start with the person who actually started it, even if he is Sam. --HappyInGeneral 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Arek started the debate, but I don't want to blame him because he is new to the area and unlike most editors, is actually trying to learn more about the subject. If this should lead to a future constructive editor on Wiki, then the Wiki policies need to be applied not strictly, even if it is obvious that such FG discussion should NOT occur on Wiki's discussion page. Jsw663 10:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3rd response to ArekExcelsior

I am giving each round of discussion a subtitle much like chapters in a book; hope it is ok with you. I am going to quote your words then place my response below it.

You said: “Your argument that their behavior before the ban was the reason for the ban is pretty tendentious speculation, especially since I've offered some pretty compelling evidence to doubt the CCP's motives (by noting, for example, that they're not shooting people in the head for not washing their hands).”

You are refusing to acknowledge the evidence provided on my site. As for your “compelling evidence” it only gives me a laugh, thanks for the amusement, though. I wish I could move all my evidence to this page but unless others give me permission you will have to click on this link.

You said: “You did, by implying that you also did not want to eliminate even a cult until you read the UN Human Rights Covenants.”

Your assumption is way off the mark. To judge my hesitation of supporting the ban without full acknowledgment of UN human rights Covenant as my way of implying I’m a libertarian is as ludicrous as judging a woman who gives you a glimpse as wanting to sleep with you.”

You said: “One of your claims, made on http://exposingthefalungong.org/fgban01.html , is that the FG were accused of being responsible for 1404 people dying. But I undermined your argument here by pointing out that people have the right to refuse medical care for religious or privately ethical reasons, and that this refusal underscores everything from Christian Science to anti-abortion movements to DNR requests. Your justification is both illegal and monstrous, and anyways begs the question: Since when did the Chinese government start to care about its people?”

Your strongest argument has been that since Christian Science is perfectly legal in the US, the Falun Gong ban in China is illegal. As an American citizen I too respect American laws and values. I do not disagree with the western principle that people have the freedom to join cults and abandon medical treatment. However, I also must point out that this ban in China is not illegal according to Chinese laws and UN human rights Covenant. China is a sovereign nation and it has the right to handle its own internal affairs according to its laws and values provided that its actions, in this case the ban of Falun Gong, do not violate the UN human rights Covenants. Your argument is based not on International law but American values. You have not given a direct answer to my question: do you believe that because Christian Science is legal in the US therefore the Falun Gong in China can not be banned?

The Chinese government is not a democracy and it does violate the rights of Chinese citizens at times, but to say that it does not care about its people is as ridiculous as saying that the people in this government are not human. Let me just give you an example from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Chinese cars have a mileage standards above 35 miles per galloon while the American standard is below 25 miles. The Chinese government signed the Kyoto Treaty but the US has not. China in this one area has higher environmental standards than the US and I must say that it does suggest that the Chinese government does care about its people, even the world. I am aware of the human rights violations of this government but I also acknowledge the good it has done. I don’t see things in a black and white terms. Arek, your absolutist point of view shows your strong bias which diminishes your creditability. Absolutists and extremists simply can not be trusted.

In an earlier reply you said: “One of your pieces of "evidence" is that Li in the past used medical intervention. EVEN if he couldn't claim that he doesn't believe in medical intervention NOW, which is a completely legitimate argument and alone defeats this (since people have the right to change their minds), it still would ONLY prove what Li himself has said: Regular medical intervention works, it just does so on a superficial and not "spiritual" level.”

So you are defending this con man. I did not care to respond because it comes from you not Li. It is much more likely that Li has been receiving medical care in secret, he surely wouldn’t tell you. Li has said that medical treatment works on the superficial level for ordinary people not his disciples. You don’t want to misrepresent his great teachings and surely you don’t want to be a apologist for him.

You said: “Happy-in-General's reply is a good one: "Besieged?" Is this remotely neutral? What FG would say is that they protested. Guess what: That is their right. People have the right to say that they are above criticism, or that people are wrong about criticism. They have the right to threaten not to watch a program until someone is removed. It's called a ‘boycott.’”

The Falun Gong held 77 protests against media outlets before April 25th and 307 more in the following three months before the ban. These protests were held without permits which made them illegal. People do have the right to protest but they do not have the right to suppress other’s rights and violate the law. Arek, I am not sure if you are doing this intentionally to try to trick me and others, the practitioners were not threatening to “boycott” the show, they were threatening civil unrest unless the TV station agreed to stop broadcasting the show.

You said: “You are saying that since some people picketed a news station, an entire religion of millions should be prevented from existing? That is easily among the most ludicrous excuses for tyranny I've ever heard. Unless FG used physical force, broke REASONABLE (not CCP "reasonable") laws regarding time, manner and place of protest, or otherwise crossed the line from loudly expressing their (yes, quite non-libertarian) view, they did not do anything illegal or deserving government sanction.”

Arek, they did violate the law. Falun Gong people in China before the ban had demonstrated no interest in following any civil laws. These people had no right to demand what the press can write and can not write, period. If they had protested by writing letters or threatening lawsuits against the media that would have been perfectly ok. Holding a protest without a permit is a jail time offense in China and the US. Demonstrations are common and popular in the United States; however people who protest without a permit can be charged with disorderly conduct or even trespassing. In Pennsylvania the birth place of the constitution, for example, the maximum incarceration and fine for disorderly conduct is one year and $2,500, while resisting arrest is a second degree misdemeanor punishable with two years incarceration and $5,000 fine.

You said: “That's odd, I see that the April 11, 1999 protest was a protest to demand recognition as a religion, and I have a Reuters source to boot: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/falun_012.htm.”

Arek, I said: “On April 11, 1999, the Science and Technology for Youth magazine in Tianjin City published an article containing negative remarks about the Falun Gong.” There was two big protests involving many thousands of practitioners, the first one, from April 19th to 23rd, was against a magazine company and in the one on April 25th against the central government the group demanded recognition, the release of practitioners arrested in the earlier illegal protest and the government’s suppression of negative coverage on the group.

You said: “I actually provided argumentation and will do so here that, while FG does contain CULTISH behavior, its sheer size is beginning to make it impossible to be a cult.”

Your own definition of cults is quite innovative and libertarian. This definition comes from the professionals: “Cult: a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control include but are not limited to: isolation from former friends and family, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.” http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/cultqa1.htm

You said: “You also note that the health issue isn't the only reason the FG was banned, but if it's crap, then it should stop being used as a justification, and if the CCP is willing to continue using it as a justification when it is in fact blatant garbage, it calls their motives into question.”

My clarifying that the health issue isn’t the only reason for the ban makes the health issue crap? I know you want to attack the Chinese government, but when you do it with a blatant false argument it turns into an attack on your integrity.

You said: “The UN Convention very clearly is saying, for example, that a religious group can't justify murder based on its pretexts. It does not EVER say, and I publically challenge you to quote a single line that it does, that a group can be suppressed, persecuted or banned because of any actions that the organization (in this case only arguably did) in the past or present.”

You have not responded to my challenge yet. I don’t have to respond to your false argument here.

You said: “you are admitting that the FG was in 2005 NOW a powerful group. This is a BLATANT contradiction with your claim that the ban is working! If they are stronger now than in 1999, doesn't that seem to indicate that the ban is either counterproductive or useless?”

I am to be blamed for not making myself clear. I meant to say that the Falun Gong cult has become a powerful group in the West, thanks to our politicians and media who have failed to report on the group’s cultish nature. But in China the Falun Gong is close to gone. I can provide you with articles from China but you will discredit them as propaganda, even though you have no authority in making that judgment.

Arek, we actually have something in common, I too do not believe the ban was a good approach. I would handle the Falun Gong this way, expose Li with the media and arrest any practitioners that hold protests illegally. In time when people learn about Li’s lies the group would die down. The Falun Gong might not totally disappear with this approach, but the ban can not be accomplish that goal either. Although I don’t believe in the ban, I still have to say this ban does not violate UN human rights Covenants and Chinese laws which makes it legal. And so far you have not disputed my evidence and argument.

As you have noticed I do not support any abuse of practitioners. In my research I did not find the Chinese government knocking down the doors of the 2.1 million practitioners, only the leadership and those who protested repeatedly were incarcerated. The Falun Gong has reported every kind of atrocity done on practitioners that one can think of. Although I believe some abuses like beatings have taken place there is no evidence that shows that the kind of atrocities reported by the Falun Gong such as organ harvesting have taken place. As a matter of a fact, there is evidence showing that this cult has made up stories. They sure do have the motivation to do so.

In conclusion I believe our disagreement lies in our different views of the Chinese government and our different levels of respect for the UN human rights Covenants. You have a strong bias against this government and you have openly displayed your disrespect for UN human rights Covenants. I on the other hand acknowledge the bad and good done by the Chinese government and I base my argument on UN human rights Covenants.

Because of your aversion towards the Chinese government, you can not possibly believe this ban was a work of good will. But your opinion does not matter, what matters is the opinion of the Chinese people in China. The great majority of the Chinese in China do support this ban; Li is a proved con man and his Falun Gong is a fraud. The Chinese people’s reasoning is simply that it is a good thing to help someone to get away from fraud and harm. My source comes from articles and books published in China and my interactions with some Chinese when I travel in China, you can challenge my statement, but surely you can not prove it wrong.--Samuel Luo 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am giving each round of discussion a subtitle much like chapters in a book; hope it is ok with you. I am going to quote your words then place my response below it.

I don't think it's a good idea because it keeps placing replies away from the original material. I also note that you continue to selectively quote, though thank you for not using ellipses.

"You said: “Your argument that their behavior before the ban was the reason for the ban is pretty tendentious speculation, especially since I've offered some pretty compelling evidence to doubt the CCP's motives (by noting, for example, that they're not shooting people in the head for not washing their hands).”

All right, fine, even though you have admitted that I clearly have read your site, I will undermine evidence there, again noting by way of protest that I shouldn't have to read your site to make your arguments for you THEN rebut them. If you have this evidence there, since you know your article better than I do, you should bring it up.

I'm going to the banning page since clearly that's the source of the contention here. #1 is an AI quote I defended to no response from you. #2 establishes that a number of people died, a fact I showed is irrelevant (for example since it does not establish a control group or note how many might have been saved, among numerous other examples you don't bother answering). Heading over to Amazon, I see virtually everyone there lambasting Mr. Ji Shi's book as propaganda, also seeing that this is the only book translated into English Ji Shi has produced available on Amazon (another book, maybe by a different author, is available in Mandarin), which would establish the propaganda claim. Google establishes only a few more, all anti-FG pieces in a sensationalistic way. He also claims that FG causes psychiatric disorders (see Asdfg's talk page), which is clearly garbage. New Star Publishers, BTW, is mentioned on the Chinese Embassy webpage: i.e. probably a propaganda mill. #3 is a repeat of the AI article. #4 notes that diabetes needs ongoing medical care: These authors clearly are not saying, and you don't bother quoting them as such, that there is only one KIND of medical care, and since I repeatedly argue that FG is still at its core Qi Gong and since you refuse to rebut my argument that Qi Gong is publically funded, this one goes by the wayside too. #5 is the quote that Li has noted that people who are already ill shouldn't take FG, which while lame does seem to indicate that he may have some caveats (publically stated) about his powers, and in which he claims to have healed people, which you don't disprove (though, yeah, I don't believe it either, but again, up there with Christian Science). You don't quote where he says "enlightenment quality" = no medical care, which is funny because it's the crux of your argument. #6 indicates again that he doesn't want his followers to die... without your commentary biasing it, these quotes seem to be exonerating him. (Not saying the commentary is wrong, but just noting that your piece is so far one book and then your opponents' claims). You also characterize this as a concession that his health care doesn't work, but all he's saying is that when practicing one should try to come back to one's body (he doesn't even MENTION health care: you imply the context, which is dishonest). You claim that normal Qi Gong groups wouldn't need to come up for this excuse, but this is an empty claim and in fact contradicted by, say, Buddhist practitioners dying from improper fasting. #7 implies that Li has changed his opinion, but is again bereft of any context: There is no contradiction, Sam, in saying that people who died came from "such things" (I guess sin or doing exactly what he said not to in #6, I don't know, the quote is abusively short) and that people should come back to their bodies during the exercises. #8 and #9 indicating previous medical treatment seem to come, in all likelihood, from the horribly flawed CCP-backed biography, and from Chinese-run sources (note how few Western sources you have, or even dissident Chinese sources? Sort of a problem), but anyways is part of an argument I undermined to virtually no rebuttal. #10 is a quote from Li coming from a secondary source (how funny that many of your arguments come from secondary sources), a source that itself says that Li's past is elusive and hard to establish (undermining the certainty of #8 and #9, a fact that you don't acknowledge, another dishonest point). This article by Mae M. Cheng also says that FG has 70 million members circa 1999... very interesting given other claims you make. It also cites people undermining the Chinese government's claim and saying quite explicitly that FG and groups like them form a civil society that threatens the CCP, another fact you don't bother citing. #11 establishes something very funny: 225/274 people with cardiovascular illness didn't take treatment... meaning, simply, that 49 people did, or 17% (not quite that ominous 100% loyalty, huh?) Now, this may be abusive math, but you note that the average FG expenditure on health care went down quite a bit (two orders of magnitude or so), but it then seems that 17% of the cardiovascular sufferers and 22% of the endocrine sufferers take treatment (expensive ones), which indicates that those with serious illnesses in FG go to health care at higher rates than those with not so serious illnesses! Further, this doesn't compare such standards to a control group of any kind, so maybe it's just as bad as Qi Gong movements. #16 is your claim that people believed they could cure SARS: Part of a sub-argument that you have since then not bothered continuing.

I really don't have the stomach for much more. I'm seeing abusive citation, undermining of your claims, and frighteningly few studies that establish your opinion. The more I dig, the worse your position seems to be, I'm afraid.

You replied, quoting me: "You said: “You did, by implying that you also did not want to eliminate even a cult until you read the UN Human Rights Covenants.”

So your sole concern was whether or not it was illegal under one law, NOT whether or not its okay or moral to oppress them, which means your initial claim that you were concerned about banning a cult was disingenuous flag waving. You can't have it both ways: Either your reply was disingenuous because it implied that you agreed with me that banning a cult is probably not good, or your later replies are.

You say, replying to me: You said: “One of your claims, made on http://exposingthefalungong.org/fgban01.html , is that the FG were accused of being responsible for 1404 people dying. But I undermined your argument here by pointing out that people have the right to refuse medical care for religious or privately ethical reasons, and that this refusal underscores everything from Christian Science to anti-abortion movements to DNR requests. Your justification is both illegal and monstrous, and anyways begs the question: Since when did the Chinese government start to care about its people?”

I believe that it SHOULDN'T be banned. On a separate matter, reading the Chinese laws, the UN HRC, other laws (which you don't rebut) both domestically and internationally, etc., I also think it is clearly illegal, and cited experts to prove my point (to which you have given me one quote of a very long document, a very ambiguous one given that it's one sentence, then failed to defend your internal link from the quote to the justification despite repeated underminings from several angles). I responded to the claim that my opinion is especially American (it's equally Swedish or Taoist), you did not reply.

"The Chinese government is not a democracy and it does violate the rights of Chinese citizens at times, but to say that it does not care about its people is as ridiculous as saying that the people in this government are not human. Let me just give you an example from Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Chinese cars have a mileage standards above 35 miles per galloon while the American standard is below 25 miles. The Chinese government signed the Kyoto Treaty but the US has not. China in this one area has higher environmental standards than the US and I must say that it does suggest that the Chinese government does care about its people, even the world. I am aware of the human rights violations of this government but I also acknowledge the good it has done. I don’t see things in a black and white terms. Arek, your absolutist point of view shows your strong bias which diminishes your creditability. Absolutists and extremists simply can not be trusted."

So the fact that they insure better... gas mileage... means that they care about their people more? Man, I guess we should ignore the mass human rights abuses. All this proves is that the Chinese are smart enough to see that global warming will harm even the imperial prerogatives and that they have to be efficient given how little oil they get. The Chinese ecological record, BTW, is NOT unblemished, not by a long shot. Pollution is killing China's dolphins, the "river gods": http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2083841.ece . A third of fish species are dead in the yellow river: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/123855.html . Many people go through Chinese dumps looking for parts and are exposed to heavy metal poisoning and chemicals in computers and monitors. Their massive growth is implying massive shifts away from, say, bikes and towards automobiles, with huge increases in pollution. China faces at least ten major ecological problems, including desertification, soil erosion, forest loss, habitat loss, species loss, air pollution, acid rain, overpopulation in some areas and underpopulation in others, uneven distribution of resources and funding, and many tohers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12343694&dopt=Abstract

Absolutists and extremists like, say, someone who has refused to say that a religious group has done no one any good even when getting personal testimony to the contrary? Or the type that refuse to respond to, say, comments about the Chinese famine, Tibet, Taiwan, etc. etc.?

I don't see things in black and white terms either, but I DO see black. The white doesn't get rid of it, no matter how large the white is. To prove that the white exists, you look for anything remotely positive, failing to see that maybe the good and the bad are connected to the same institution, failing to see that the good is also mixed with bad in its very existence. States do some good things, such as secure some degree of social stability, but they DON'T do it out of the goodness of their heart, which we know when they go ahead and undermine social stability for their broader objectives. Their broader objectives are always power, money, expansion, the support of their elites.

Mussolini made the trains run on time. The Nazis revived the German economy. When you support their fascism, again, we can talk.

You said, partially quoting me (and leaving out key context: "In an earlier reply you said: “One of your pieces of "evidence" is that Li in the past used medical intervention. EVEN if he couldn't claim that he doesn't believe in medical intervention NOW, which is a completely legitimate argument and alone defeats this (since people have the right to change their minds), it still would ONLY prove what Li himself has said: Regular medical intervention works, it just does so on a superficial and not "spiritual" level.”

It may indeed be possible, which STILL doesn't disprove his statement. My point is that your argument does NOT establish what it says it does: It may prove that he's a liar or a con man, if the claims can be substantiated (and the details of his life are quite murky as everyone who isn't a true believer agrees) that he did indeed previously accept medical care. But how am I misrepresenting him? You didn't actually provide me a quote to rebut me, you didn't note how I might be mistaking dogma, you just DECLARED I was misstating the facts. Samuel Luo says 'Let there be light!', so to speak. Yes, if he got medical care in secret, he probably wouldn't tell anyone: Heck, he may be dying as we speak, just like Osama on dialysis.

Have a quote for the statement that medical treatment works for ordinary people, not his disciples? Sounds pretty non-sensical: Who in their right mind would say "My movement makes normal medical care not work on you when it DOES work for the unwashed"? Li's smart, he would say (and this is EXACTLY what he does say) that if you choose to get medical care he compliments it with his powers and makes it superior. What he DOES say is that he offers BETTER medical care, medical care that eclipses doctors so why bother going to them anyways? Probably total crap, but NOT the same as what you're claiming he says.

You said, quoting me: You said: “Happy-in-General's reply is a good one: "Besieged?" Is this remotely neutral? What FG would say is that they protested. Guess what: That is their right. People have the right to say that they are above criticism, or that people are wrong about criticism. They have the right to threaten not to watch a program until someone is removed. It's called a ‘boycott.’”

They MAY have IMPLIED civil unrest in a veiled threat format (all they literally said was that the reports would contribute to civil unrest; how prescient that said reports did), which may or may not mean anything and is IN AND OF ITSELF not illegal (or rather, should not be): Only the upcoming civil unrest itself MAY include actions that MIGHT get those individuals and anyone who backed them put into jail. Still no reason to ban the FG itself. Also, since you refuse to cite and the more I research the more I find your claims are tendentious or impossible to support, your rendition of the facts may be false, missing key details or skewed.

"Suppress others rights and violate the law"... an empty statement, indeed. Those individuals and anyone backing them directly (not indirectly such as through moral support) may be guilty of threatening free speech and illegal protest. The CCP may be guilty of torture and labor camps. Doesn't quite stack up, does it?

"Arek, they did violate the law. Falun Gong people in China before the ban had demonstrated no interest in following any civil laws. These people had no right to demand what the press can write and can not write, period. If they had protested by writing letters or threatening lawsuits against the media that would have been perfectly ok. Holding a protest without a permit is a jail time offense in China and the US. Demonstrations are common and popular in the United States; however people who protest without a permit can be charged with disorderly conduct or even trespassing. In Pennsylvania the birth place of the constitution, for example, the maximum incarceration and fine for disorderly conduct is one year and $2,500, while resisting arrest is a second degree misdemeanor punishable with two years incarceration and $5,000 fine."

If a group even repeatedly marches in violation of local laws (and those laws need to be LEGITIMATE - the civil authorities can't declare no time or place to be okay to make the movement go away by fiat), it is not all right to declare it [the group] illegal. Simply every time prosecute those individuals involved who did so. Since appeals courts have been finding many of these arrests illegal or based on false premises and evidence, your claims hold even less water than before: Not every protest involved was or should have been proscribed. Also, you fill your discussions with false premises: The fact that Pennsylvania is the birthplace of the American Constitution doesn't mean anything about its libertarian credentials. Heck, the Constitution was originally a plan to CENTRALIZE: The "Amendments" are called such because they were added after public protest at the power of this new central government. You'd also be surprised at how incredibly rarely those maximum fines are issued: Most offenders get off with a slap on the wrist. It's hardly analogous.

A key problem we keep coming back to, Sam: You bring up something the FG does, I say that it's no excuse to ban a religion. You don't even bother engaging at that level of the debate, which is the debate where no evidence is relevant.

"You said: “That's odd, I see that the April 11, 1999 protest was a protest to demand recognition as a religion, and I have a Reuters source to boot: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/falun_012.htm.”

...April 11th, 1999, is what the article says. It's very clear about the date. 19-25th is NOT mentioned. Reuters also only mentions a march for approval. The rest of those collected news articles also seem to rebut your timeline. Note how I bother to find you sources, you respond with your opinion, which now seems to be contradicting a wire agency.

You say, including my quote: "You said: “I actually provided argumentation and will do so here that, while FG does contain CULTISH behavior, its sheer size is beginning to make it impossible to be a cult.”

"Your own definition of cults is quite innovative and libertarian. This definition comes from the professionals: “Cult: a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control include but are not limited to: isolation from former friends and family, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.” http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult/cultqa1.htm

Well, let's see. Christians exhibit a great devotion to Jesus and God. Many of their leaders use unethically manipulative tactics. Born agains often isolate themselves from friend and family and have powerful pressures to conform and proselytize, and it's certainly arguable (given anything from abortion to stem cell research to the Crusades) that Christians harm themselves or the community. Mind explaining how Christianity isn't a cult?

"My clarifying that the health issue isn’t the only reason for the ban makes the health issue crap? I know you want to attack the Chinese government, but when you do it with a blatant false argument it turns into an attack on your integrity."

No, you see, if you believe the health issue is an issue at all, you need to be able to defend it. If it has zero value, or even negative value, then it's a non-issue. Your position, and you have yet to explain this but I know you will say it, is that the Chinese government has many calculations that add up to more than the sum of its parts. My position is that many forms of zero or less than zero don't add up to more than zero. What you attempted to do by saying "It's not the only issue" is to make a false concession: That is, the fact that it's not the only issue doesn't make my arguments that it's actually wrong for it to even be an issue false. Further, if the Chinese government isn't picking one or another justification but in fact many at once, it seems to be a) increasingly ludicrous and contradictory, simply a grab bag of justifications with the hope that one will stick and b) would undermine its legal position.

"You said: “The UN Convention very clearly is saying, for example, that a religious group can't justify murder based on its pretexts. It does not EVER say, and I publically challenge you to quote a single line that it does, that a group can be suppressed, persecuted or banned because of any actions that the organization (in this case only arguably did) in the past or present.”

You have not responded to my challenge yet. I don’t have to respond to your false argument here. "

Sorry, didn't see a challenge except to read your site (and you admitted I probably did), I have repeatedly taken issue with your characterization of the law, but it's a bit unfair to say that I won't take a challenge then not do so, especially since most of your challenges are for me to read quite a bit of non-cogent material to suss out your argument and sources for you, which I think is your responsibility. I tried to respond to your challenge as well as I could, this is simply a flat out refusal with a driveby opinion.

"I am to be blamed for not making myself clear. I meant to say that the Falun Gong cult has become a powerful group in the West, thanks to our politicians and media who have failed to report on the group’s cultish nature. But in China the Falun Gong is close to gone. I can provide you with articles from China but you will discredit them as propaganda, even though you have no authority in making that judgment."

ANY articles would be nice. If they clearly read like propaganda, I will give them little weight, but it would be better than nothing. If you choose sources that are neutral or maybe even slightly pro-FG, that would seem to seal the deal. I would note, though, that given how many people continue to note the FG's plight in China, that they may simply have gone underground in the most favorable of interpretations. But at the most, what the ban may have done is move this cultish group to the West where it eventually can probably reestablish itself in China. I like your later tack that the ban probably was stupid [not being sarcastic here: I honestly do applaud you for conceding some things].

"Arek, we actually have something in common, I too do not believe the ban was a good approach. I would handle the Falun Gong this way, expose Li with the media and arrest any practitioners that hold protests illegally. In time when people learn about Li’s lies the group would die down. The Falun Gong might not totally disappear with this approach, but the ban can not be accomplish that goal either. Although I don’t believe in the ban, I still have to say this ban does not violate UN human rights Covenants and Chinese laws which makes it legal. And so far you have not disputed my evidence and argument."

Then we do have an agreement. And I would probably be the first person out there with you making sure that any harassment, propaganda, etc. was undermined and cultivating an atmosphere where people can share religious ideas among many groups, in a manner so famously and humanly pioneered in China as the notion of (paraphrasing) "One Way, Many Paths". Now, given that many people continue to believe Scientology, Xianity, even Buddhism with many bumps along the path, I doubt that it would die down, but I believe that the worse elements would be bred out slowly. My problem is that you seem to defend a ban you admit in, essentially, footnotes to be at least useless, among its other debits. Shouldn't your first statement on the ban be "This is stupid, it may be legal but it just doesn't work"? Our problems would have been infinitely less divisive if those were the first words out of your mouth. I've read enough of your writing to wonder if this is your actual opinion or if you are altering it after the fact to deal with being trounced, but I will say that for whatever reason, moderation and strategic concession (on both sides) is laudable, and if your opinion is being changed authentically or always was like this and perhaps my critiques might cause you to stress different things (as I, in a similar vein, clearly should have stressed earlier some of my more back-and-forth opinions on China: for example, I note later on here that a world ruled by China might be more civilized), then excellent. Only time will tell: For now, I will assume good faith.

I haven't disputed your evidence that the ban is illegal?! How does a) arguing that it's illegal under the Chinese Constitution due to the mandates there to respect religious practice; b) rebutting your interpretation of the law by noting the difference between a pre facto existing ban on, say, murder or marijuana use that would prevent a religion from allowing its practitioners to kill people, and a POST FACTO ban on the RELIGION ITSELF, the latter of which the UNHCR clearly does NOT allow; and c) noting many other treaties not undermine your interpretation of the law? Further, I hope you would agree that any law that actually increases the bad behavior in question probably would be illegal since it does not actually stop public health abuses or prevent against public security, and at least should be revoked under massive stupidity (which you did admit, much to your credit).

"As you have noticed I do not support any abuse of practitioners. In my research I did not find the Chinese government knocking down the doors of the 2.1 million practitioners, only the leadership and those who protested repeatedly were incarcerated. The Falun Gong has reported every kind of atrocity done on practitioners that one can think of. Although I believe some abuses like beatings have taken place there is no evidence that shows that the kind of atrocities reported by the Falun Gong such as organ harvesting have taken place. As a matter of a fact, there is evidence showing that this cult has made up stories. They sure do have the motivation to do so."

Which still isn't okay, but do you completely disregard AI, HRW's, etc. claims of labor prison camps? Western investigators discovering human rights abuses? The fact that the LAWS THEMSELVES mandate long prison sentences and even execution for teaching FG or other "cult" teachings (which, of course, the CCP can unilaterally determine at their discretion as to what is a cult), distributing video tapes, etc.? The taped footage of Wang Xia's obvious abuse? The fact that EVEN A CHINESE APPEAL COURT reversed the government's convictions for "public obstruction"? (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng for the latter few claims , I've linked to others previously). I find it interesting that, despite me trying to give you more than enough opportunities to do so here, you refuse to take the time I do (which is in my role as a layman on this matter), you refer me to your site or refuse to offer citations at all.

How odd that you think that the FG has reason to make up stories to get a ban stopped or get public support, but don't seem to think (please, clarify if you do in fact take this position) that the CCP has no reason to lie even though lying would prevent them from UN and treaty-based reprimands and a PR coup for some of their key enemies.

"In conclusion I believe our disagreement lies in our different views of the Chinese government and our different levels of respect for the UN human rights Covenants. You have a strong bias against this government and you have openly displayed your disrespect for UN human rights Covenants. I on the other hand acknowledge the bad and good done by the Chinese government and I base my argument on UN human rights Covenants.""

That's a very simplistic way of phrasing it. Actually, I think YOU are showing contempt for the UN Human Rights Covenants by interpeting them to justify banning a religion from being practiced, which could not be further from its intent or the Chinese Constitutions' intent or other human rights treaties' intents. Please quote me as saying that I have disrespect for the UNHRC. My actual opinion as stated was that they were flawed but better than nothing. I also openly acknowledged bad and good from the Chinese government, and think rather that you are an apologist for tyranny, caring not whom the tyrant is.

"Because of your aversion towards the Chinese government, you can not possibly believe this ban was a work of good will. But your opinion does not matter, what matters is the opinion of the Chinese people in China. The great majority of the Chinese in China do support this ban; Li is a proved con man and his Falun Gong is a fraud. The Chinese people’s reasoning is simply that it is a good thing to help someone to get away from fraud and harm. My source comes from articles and books published in China and my interactions with some Chinese when I travel in China, you can challenge my statement, but surely you can not prove it wrong."--Samuel Luo 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a poll on that one, Sam? If you claim to speak for the Chinese people per se, you MIGHT want to have some kind of data. Of course, given that it is still an authoritarian country with heavy propaganda, one might reject those opinions as based on both intimidation and misinformation (just like how an arguable majority here in America thought Saddam was a threat based on jingoism and propaganda), I'm not sure how valid that (so far hypothetical) poll could be.

Further, I'm not opposed to the CHINESE government, I'm opposed to governments period. Majority-supported domination is not okay. "Good will", even if it is believable (and it simply isn't because a) states don't have "good will" and b) the Chinese government has more than discredited itself in this and other cases), does not justify oppressive tactics. These are, sorry to say it again, absolute truisms among those concerned with freedom. Actually, and again I apologize for not saying this earlier: I have publically stated before that a Chinese empire would be superior to an American one because China has traditionally only held onto its territories it perceives as legitimately its and has otherwise used trade and development to establish rule, much better than the Americo-European pattern of death and devastation! China is very complex, with very many positive things. My criticism of America is very strident too, as well as Europe, etc. (Being an anarchist doesn't get you many friends ;) ). I could note, for example, that the Western furor over FG is pretty hypocritical given its support for, say, the suppression of the Kurds in Turkey, or of the East Timorese, or... (pick and choose, it's a long list).

It sure is a good thing to get someone away from fraud and harm. It isn't a good thing to do so with cops, bans of printing presses, suppression of speech, beatings, torture, labor camps, etc. You may say that this is exaggerated, but even one instance is too much. You may say that you support the ban but not the abuse, but a) the ban isn't okay either (since it includes the cops, the banning of the material, the laws, etc.) and b) the ban leads inevitably to the abuse. It also isn't good to project YOUR opinion of what fraud and harm is onto everyone else and deny them the chance to learn their own lessons and make their own misakes. You are not everyone's father, nor is the CCP. Remember Niemoller: First they came for the Communists, then the Social Democrats. Let the state take the guys you don't like, next thing they'll take is you. It's not even that hard to establish: You justify taking away civil liberties from people because they justify taking civil liberties away. Ergo, you should be imprisoned, and so should the person who imprisoned you, and... so on ad infinitum.

I'm not here to prove it wrong, Sam. First of all, since this is a WP debate and NOT an FG discussion forum, I'm just showing that my opinion is feasible and supported. Second, it is YOUR burden to justify oppression, not mine to defend it. Since you are basically saying that I can't read your cites or even see if they exist, not to mention adding original research to the mix (and this is actually okay since you appear to be credentialed on this topic, but nonetheless, as an interlocutor it means I can't call you on your own perceptions), I think I can show that I have more than met my burden. ArekExcelsior 11:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

4th response

Arek, creating subsections for discussion of this size makes it much easier for people to locate the beginning and end of each exchange. I truly hope I can move the content of my site to this talk page, but while it would be easier for you I might get into trouble for pov pushing. All I can do to ease your burden is to create a few more links for you to click, sorry for the inconvenience.

You said: “...April 11th, 1999, is what the article says. It's very clear about the date. 19-25th is NOT mentioned. Reuters also only mentions a march for approval. The rest of those collected news articles also seem to rebut your timeline. Note how I bother to find you sources, you respond with your opinion, which now seems to be contradicting a wire agency.

I read the material http://www.cesnur.org/testi/falun_012.htm one more time carefully, April 11th, 1999 is not mentioned in any Reuters articles.

You claim to have refuted my "terrible" evidence, let’s examine your rebuttal.

You said: “Heading over to Amazon, I see virtually everyone there lambasting Mr. Ji Shi's book as propaganda, also seeing that this is the only book translated into English Ji Shi has produced available on Amazon (another book, maybe by a different author, is available in Mandarin), which would establish the propaganda claim.”

You are saying that I used Mr. Ji Shi’s book to validate the Chinese government’s claim, but this is a misrepresentation of my position. I did not treat the material in Mr. Ji Shi’s book as evidence to valid the Chinese government’s claims, as a matter of a fact I treated this material as the Chinese government’s claim. In other words, it is being treated as “propaganda,” except that I later proved with material from Falun Gong sources and third party sources that Mr. Ji Shi’s claim against the Falun Gong on the medical issue is valid.

You said: “#11 establishes something very funny: 225/274 people with cardiovascular illness didn't take treatment... meaning, simply, that 49 people did, or 17% (not quite that ominous 100% loyalty, huh?) Now, this may be abusive math, but you note that the average FG expenditure on health care went down quite a bit (two orders of magnitude or so), but it then seems that 17% of the cardiovascular sufferers and 22% of the endocrine sufferers take treatment (expensive ones), which indicates that those with serious illnesses in FG go to health care at higher rates than those with not so serious illnesses! Further, this doesn't compare such standards to a control group of any kind, so maybe it's just as bad as Qi Gong movements.”

You are saying that this material shows some practitioners did seek medical help. The fact is that this material indicates how patients upon joining the Falun Gong gave up their needed medical treatment for Li’s spiritual healing which he himself did not believe in when he was ill. This health survey done by the Falun Gong itself in Beijing in 1998 shows that 418 out of 584 practitioners stopped their medical treatment and many of these patients had serious and life threatening illnesses. These practitioners (69.2% of them were fifty and older) were not poor people who could not afford treatments; they had received medical care before they were indoctrinated in the Falun Gong. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/6/13/11431.html

Your put down of the whole Qi Gong movement here contradicts your position earlier when you claimed that the Falun Gong is a form of Qi Gong and therefore is a good thing. Your flip flop is a sign of disingenuous.

You said: “Have a quote for the statement that medical treatment works for ordinary people, not his disciples? Sounds pretty non-sensical: Who in their right mind would say "My movement makes normal medical care not work on you when it DOES work for the unwashed"?”

I am going to give you two quotes from Li. In the first one he enlightened his followers by defining the cause of illnesses and the proper treatment. In the second one he unmistakably states that medicine is only for everyday people not his enlightened followers.

Quote one: everyday people have no way of knowing the actual truth about the cause of the sickness, and they are thus lost in delusion without being enlightened. Once ill, the person takes medicine or seeks various kinds of treatments, which in effect press the sickness back into the body again. This way, instead of paying for the sickness-karma from his wrongdoing in the previous life, he does some additional bad things in this life and hurts others; this brings about new sickness-karma and leads to different kinds of sicknesses. Nevertheless, he again takes medicine or uses various treatments to press the sickness back into his body…. For us cultivators, other than the karma Master has eliminated, we still have to pay a portion ourselves. You will thus feel physically uncomfortable, as if you were suffering from sickness…. So your body must be cleansed from the very center. Were karma to be pushed out all at once, however, you wouldn’t be able to take it, as it would endanger your life. Only a piece or two can be pushed out every once in a while, allowing you to overcome it and pay for your karma through suffering. But this is only that little bit left for you yourself to endure after I have eliminated karma for you. This will continue until your cultivation reaches the highest form of In-Triple-World-Law (i.e., the Pure-White Body), when all of your karma will have been pushed out…. Sickness-karma isn’t something that can be casually eliminated for an everyday person; this is absolutely impossible for a non-practitioner, who must rely on medical treatment. http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz30.htm

Quote two: When an everyday person gets sick he definitely needs medical treatment, but how do we cultivators deal with it? Aren’t we purifying your body? Like the annual rings of a tree, there is karma at the very core, and at every layer, life after life, of your body. When you practice cultivation, I keep pushing this karma outward from the center; I push, and push, and push, and push until I completely push the karma out for you. And not all of this can go through the surface of our bodies. You wouldn’t be able to bear it if all of it were to go through the surface of your body. Only a portion of it comes out through the surface. But you still feel that you’re suddenly getting sick, you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine. Then you can go ahead and take medicine, as we’ve never said that everyday people can’t take medicine. We only say that your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par and that you didn’t pass this test well. We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that. But I’m teaching you the principles of the Fa. You want to let out this karma, yet you take medicine and press it back in—how are we supposed to cleanse your body? http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm#_Toc511984049

Li revealed a “heaven secret” to his followers and then he claimed to be the only one on earth who has the divine power to cure illnesses, doesn’t it sound like a scheme? The Falun gong is different from Christian Science in a big way, Christian Scientists believe God provides healing but in the Falun Gong Li is the God. As you have read, Li received medical treatment himself when sick. Many practitioners fell victim to Li’s trap, 1,404 died and many more (including my parents) suffered unnecessarily. Li is a murderer.

You said: “ANY articles would be nice. If they clearly read like propaganda, I will give them little weight, but it would be better than nothing. If you choose sources that are neutral or maybe even slightly pro-FG, that would seem to seal the deal.”

There are many media reports in China citing public support for the ban, here is one from Chinese religious leaders. http://www.mingjing.org.cn/e-falun/opinions/opinions141.htm The following one tops all others in my opinion. In the first two months of 2001, the Chinese anti-cult association collected one and a half million signatures for the ban nation wide. These signatures were later presented in Geneva on March 23rd, 2001 to show the public support. http://news.sohu.com/40/16/news144411640.shtml. You can use online translation, I read news like this mainly in Chinese. I can also give you an example from S.F. Last year there was a showdown between the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the Falun Gong. The cult wanted to participate in the Chinese new years parade but the Chinese Chamber of Commerce (organizer) said no. The issue was taken to S.F board of supervisor, in the public hearing the Chinese Chamber of Commerce provided about thirty-five hundred signatures it collected from the Chinese community in four days supporting its position. The number of signatures collected in such a short time was pretty impressive, to me it suggests that the great majority of the Chinese here do not support the Falun Gong. I admit that these signatures are not about the ban, but….

This is an article about Teng Chunyan, the first US citizen incarcerated in China for protesting the ban. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200111/21/eng20011121_85012.shtml Her case was famous; when she was arrested, the Falun Gong reported egregious abuses against her. This article shows her appreciation for the Chinese government for helping her to leave the Falun Gong. Sounds like a propaganda right, but she has not refuted her statements upon returning to the US.

You said: “So your sole concern was whether or not it was illegal under one law, NOT whether or not it’s okay or moral to oppress them, which means your initial claim that you were concerned about banning a cult was disingenuous flag waving. You can't have it both ways: Either your reply was disingenuous because it implied that you agreed with me that banning a cult is probably not good, or your later replies are.”

The First Amendment of the US Constitution that protects our free speech is just a short statement. An action based on one law makes it legal. The ban is not seen as immoral or oppression in China where it takes place. This does not mean that the Chinese have a different level of moral standards from us; they simply recognize the threats of the Falun Gong which are unknown to most Americans and in China banning groups of this sort is acceptable. The Falun Gong is not a religion but a fraud. A respectable religion provides a purpose of life, a compassionate community and so on. A fraud swindles people out of money and property. The Falun Gong is not a form of Qi Gong exercises. Qi Gong helps people to be fit and credits the result to the hard work of the practitioners. The Falun Gong credits all benefits to the divine intervention of Li who claims to have cured his followers and protected them by planting a wheel in their lower abdomen and a shield over their bodies. Anyone can fall victim to frauds and cults, to the Chinese it is a good idea that the society reaches out to help the victims and punishes the perpetrators especially when the abuses become fatal.

Moral is a subjective term. In the US, roast beef is a treat but in India it is highly immoral and a crime to kill a cow. Here in the US any support for gay rights and abortion rights is considered immoral by the religious right, while gays and women’s rights activists can respond with the same accusation. People who support the Falun Gong ban can also call you immoral for defending a fraud that puts so many in harm’s way.

I am not trying to have it both ways; I said I would not support banning a cult in the US because such action violates the US laws and values. But I support this ban in China (even though I don’t think it was a good move) out of respect for and understanding the Chinese, their laws and values.

You said: “Further, I'm not opposed to the CHINESE government; I'm opposed to governments period.”

This is your bias; don’t think that your ideology is better than those who disagree with you.

Like I said, I do not support any abuses in the enforcement of the ban. These abuses, however bad they might be do not negate the validity of the ban. It just means that those perpetrators have to be punished. I have read AI and Human Right Watch reports; I will take them seriously when they stop relying on the Falun Gong for their information. --Samuel Luo 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"You said: “...April 11th, 1999, is what the article says. It's very clear about the date. 19-25th is NOT mentioned. Reuters also only mentions a march for approval. The rest of those collected news articles also seem to rebut your timeline. Note how I bother to find you sources, you respond with your opinion, which now seems to be contradicting a wire agency.

I read the material http://www.cesnur.org/testi/falun_012.htm one more time carefully, April 11th, 1999 is not mentioned in any Reuters articles."

I apologize: I confused Nov 11 with April 11. However, the Reuters article does establish claims of labor camps. I will just note that the description of what happened on April 11 varies.

"You said: “Heading over to Amazon, I see virtually everyone there lambasting Mr. Ji Shi's book as propaganda, also seeing that this is the only book translated into English Ji Shi has produced available on Amazon (another book, maybe by a different author, is available in Mandarin), which would establish the propaganda claim.”

So it in and of itself is willful propaganda, but you give a citation of a book instead of just noting some CCP functionary, then establish it with... a diabetes doctor saying that diabetes must be cured? Propaganda carries no weight, Sam, yet you use it constantly to support your position, sometimes exclusively.

Now you're just BEGGING notes that you're being abusive. Clearly, #11 was probably preceded by #10, #9, etc. (which it was), but you're only responding to it on context.

"You are saying that this material shows some practitioners did seek medical help. The fact is that this material indicates how patients upon joining the Falun Gong gave up their needed medical treatment for Li’s spiritual healing which he himself did not believe in when he was ill."

No, it supports both those claims simultaneously. The world is not black and white: Evidence can be used many ways, which is why it is hard to justify positions like yours, and why your evidence is so spotty.

"This health survey done by the Falun Gong itself in Beijing in 1998 shows that 418 out of 584 practitioners stopped their medical treatment and many of these patients had serious and life threatening illnesses. These practitioners (69.2% of them were fifty and older) were not poor people who could not afford treatments; they had received medical care before they were indoctrinated in the Falun Gong. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/6/13/11431.html"

That's a ton of assumptions you made there, let's break some down. The fact that people can, on occasion, buy a bottle of Motrin does not mean they can cure their diabetes or cancer: In fact, no one can. QED. Since you can't break down which of these people could afford real treatments or which ones were on death's door and for whom medical care wouldn't have worked anyways, which is what AI said in footnotes to no rebuttal, this argument immediately disappears. But note that, again, 166 CONTINUED medical treatment. This is hardly monolithic ceasing of medical care, which supports my view that FG is not as anti-medicine as you think, which in turn supports my view that one can't blame them directly for the deaths of their practitioners, and NONE of this justifies a ban on the entire group, for the last, unrebutted time.

"Your put down of the whole Qi Gong movement here contradicts your position earlier when you claimed that the Falun Gong is a form of Qi Gong and therefore is a good thing.

Your flip flop is a sign of disingenuous."

Mind making actual quotes, or just end a paragraph with a sentence fragment? I personally think Qi Gong, acupuncture, etc. can be valid, if only to calm people down (at the very least), but my point is that they are no more scientifically valid, or scarcely more, than FG, so it's hypocritical for China to ban X but not Y when both are in the same category.

"You said: “Have a quote for the statement that medical treatment works for ordinary people, not his disciples? Sounds pretty non-sensical: Who in their right mind would say "My movement makes normal medical care not work on you when it DOES work for the unwashed"?”

He unmistakably says the opposite of what you say in these quotes.

"Quote one: everyday people have no way of knowing the actual truth about the cause of the sickness, and they are thus lost in delusion without being enlightened. Once ill, the person takes medicine or seeks various kinds of treatments, which in effect press the sickness back into the body again. This way, instead of paying for the sickness-karma from his wrongdoing in the previous life, he does some additional bad things in this life and hurts others; this brings about new sickness-karma and leads to different kinds of sicknesses. Nevertheless, he again takes medicine or uses various treatments to press the sickness back into his body…. For us cultivators, other than the karma Master has eliminated, we still have to pay a portion ourselves. You will thus feel physically uncomfortable, as if you were suffering from sickness…. So your body must be cleansed from the very center. Were karma to be pushed out all at once, however, you wouldn’t be able to take it, as it would endanger your life. Only a piece or two can be pushed out every once in a while, allowing you to overcome it and pay for your karma through suffering. But this is only that little bit left for you yourself to endure after I have eliminated karma for you. This will continue until your cultivation reaches the highest form of In-Triple-World-Law (i.e., the Pure-White Body), when all of your karma will have been pushed out…. Sickness-karma isn’t something that can be casually eliminated for an everyday person; this is absolutely impossible for a non-practitioner, who must rely on medical treatment. http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz30.htm"

Thank you for handing me the argument on a silver platter. That last quote indicates that sickness "karma", or negative ki to use an analogy (and one that proves my point that he's no different from a doctor prescribing a shen balancer or an acupuncturist, which are equally medically undermined - just ask your diabetes doctor you quote to make an argument for you what he thinks about Qi Gong practice), CAN be flushed by medical care, and poor non-practitioners only have option X: Medical care. FG are blessed: They have X AND Y.

"Quote two: When an everyday person gets sick he definitely needs medical treatment, but how do we cultivators deal with it? Aren’t we purifying your body? Like the annual rings of a tree, there is karma at the very core, and at every layer, life after life, of your body. When you practice cultivation, I keep pushing this karma outward from the center; I push, and push, and push, and push until I completely push the karma out for you. And not all of this can go through the surface of our bodies. You wouldn’t be able to bear it if all of it were to go through the surface of your body. Only a portion of it comes out through the surface. But you still feel that you’re suddenly getting sick, you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine. Then you can go ahead and take medicine, as we’ve never said that everyday people can’t take medicine. We only say that your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par and that you didn’t pass this test well. We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that. But I’m teaching you the principles of the Fa. You want to let out this karma, yet you take medicine and press it back in—how are we supposed to cleanse your body? http://falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm#_Toc511984049"

Sounds pretty crazy. But note how he HIMSELF SAYS that you can take medicine AND cultivate. You just lost the argument with your quote.

"Li revealed a “heaven secret” to his followers and then he claimed to be the only one on earth who has the divine power to cure illnesses, doesn’t it sound like a scheme? The Falun gong is different from Christian Science in a big way, Christian Scientists believe God provides healing but in the Falun Gong Li is the God. As you have read, Li received medical treatment himself when sick. Many practitioners fell victim to Li’s trap, 1,404 died and many more (including my parents) suffered unnecessarily. Li is a murderer."

That's not a difference, Sam. I don't think EITHER are true and I think both religions condemn their practitioners to die. (I will admit Christian Scientists are at least slightly more honest about it: They recognize that God may not help and therefore it'd be his will to die... but FG members could say the same thing, and in fact have: That those people's time had just come). Just think for a second, Sam: What would an atheist say about both? An atheist would say neither the Christian God or the Falun Gong one exist, so both should be banned for preventing medical care. Your opinion is no different, stop pretending it is. I don't say to ban either one of them. Sure, it sounds like a scheme. But it's not an illegal one. People have the right to listen to bad advice, especially in a religious context. He may be a murderer, but no legitimate court of law would be able to convict him on it. You continue to make the same claims verbatim but don't respond to anything I say, such as the fact that the 1,404 statistic requires you to ignore that there's no control group, is direct CCP propaganda and for all we know is false, etc. etc.

You also continue to show absolute ignorance for the actual dynamics of cults. One thing that happens with cult leaders, Sam, is that they begin to believe their own hype. With Koresh, Jonestown, etc. it becomes very hard to see where they still knew the con they went into and where they didn't. You also continue to not rebut my claim: That, MAYBE, Li could be convicted of fraud and involvement in the deaths of innocent people, but that would NOT ban the FG! I say this over and over to absolutely no rebuttal.

"There are many media reports in China citing public support for the ban, here is one from Chinese religious leaders. http://www.mingjing.org.cn/e-falun/opinions/opinions141.htm The following one tops all others in my opinion. In the first two months of 2001, the Chinese anti-cult association collected one and a half million signatures for the ban nation wide. These signatures were later presented in Geneva on March 23rd, 2001 to show the public support. http://news.sohu.com/40/16/news144411640.shtml."

One and a half million signatures? Wow! In a country of a billion people, that means that 15 people out of every 1000 actually give a crap enough to sign a piece of paper against a group that their totalitarian government is already oppressing, so that signing that piece of paper also happens to make one concur with the constant stream of propaganda one is getting! At least 2 million people would of course counter-sign that signature, all the FG members, and possibly up to 100 million would sign it. Sort of trumps your little survey, doesn't it?

Here's another example of selective, abusive quoting: This is a small part of a quote that is NOT what occured in the last round of debates. In the last round of debates, I asked for POLLS. You can't give me one. Only an actual, FAIR poll about anti-FG opinion in China would actually establish anything. What you gave me here is a link about a few religious leaders taken at random, who we don't know the credentials of (if they're major or minor, supported by their community) of organizations actually being oppressed by the Chinese too (like the Muslims - mind asking the Mongolian Muslism and Sufis what they think of the central government, without any CCP guns around to prompt their answers?), who therefore have a good reason to comply with CCP opinion (not to mention that Muslims and Christians have just the SLIGHEST tendency to not like other religions). BTW, this is an article without any ACTUAL QUOTES (except for the words "wise decision") from those being interviewed, taken from "China Daily", a PRC-controlled publication. Your evidence oscillates from non-cogent and abusively cited to being straight propaganda organs.

The other link comes from the China YOUTH Daily! Wow, an OFFSHOOT of a propaganda organ for KIDS! I again apologize for sarcasm, but Sam, you throw propaganda at me and expect this to substitute for research. Meanwhile, FG sources similarly claim millions and millions of signatures supporting them.

"You can use online translation, I read news like this mainly in Chinese. I can also give you an example from S.F. Last year there was a showdown between the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the Falun Gong. The cult wanted to participate in the Chinese new years parade but the Chinese Chamber of Commerce (organizer) said no. The issue was taken to S.F board of supervisor, in the public hearing the Chinese Chamber of Commerce provided about thirty-five hundred signatures it collected from the Chinese community in four days supporting its position. The number of signatures collected in such a short time was pretty impressive, to me it suggests that the great majority of the Chinese here do not support the Falun Gong. I admit that these signatures are not about the ban, but…"

Just admit in a footnote that it's irrelevant, right? I've actually read about that one, Sam, and again, you're trying to pull a fast one. The reason why the community was so adamant against them showing up was that the FG refused to keep the march apolitical and would have ruined everyone's good time by broadcasting their agenda at a time that would have been absolutely wrong to do so. Very dick move on FG's part, but NOT a support of CCP agendas. After all, many of those people who signed that signature would be either descended from or themselves refugees and immigrants AWAY from the wonderful mainland. Might be informative to ask them if they think the Falun Gong are probably being tortured. A lot of Chinese don't like the FG, but they're also not too keen on the CCP. THAT is a reasonable position too, the one I hold.

"This is an article about Teng Chunyan, the first US citizen incarcerated in China for protesting the ban. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200111/21/eng20011121_85012.shtml Her case was famous; when she was arrested, the Falun Gong reported egregious abuses against her. This article shows her appreciation for the Chinese government for helping her to leave the Falun Gong. Sounds like a propaganda right, but she has not refuted her statements upon returning to the US."

Again: One person, when you have just admitted that people who turn away from cults often become cults of the new thing that "saved them" (see David Horowitz's conversion from Leninism to radical conservativism). Could both claims be right, Sam? Yes. Torture broke her mind, she recanted, publically stated that she loves the CCP, and is now dealing with the trauma. Maybe that's true, maybe that's not, we can't know because, again, you use ANOTHER PROPAGANDA ORGAN TO ESTABLISH IT. I don't even know if she exists, Sam, she could easily be made up.

You say, quoting me: "You said: “So your sole concern was whether or not it was illegal under one law, NOT whether or not it’s okay or moral to oppress them, which means your initial claim that you were concerned about banning a cult was disingenuous flag waving. You can't have it both ways: Either your reply was disingenuous because it implied that you agreed with me that banning a cult is probably not good, or your later replies are.”

"The First Amendment of the US Constitution that protects our free speech is just a short statement. An action based on one law makes it legal."

Which is why there are court cases that clearly give context to that, and since the 1960s in America that means pretty much exactly the interpretation of freedom of speech I've used here. Further, the First Amendment also mentions freedom of the press (which China routinely violates), freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances. Here YOU are showing ignorance about Constitutional law.

"The ban is not seen as immoral or oppression in China where it takes place."

Except for the Falun Gong, dissidents in China, etc. Why are they wrong but not the supposed majority? Have any polls that show that the Chinese people are united against the FG? Maybe it's the minority in government: Why are THEY right? This is why we create human rights.

"This does not mean that the Chinese have a different level of moral standards from us; they simply recognize the threats of the Falun Gong which are unknown to most Americans and in China banning groups of this sort is acceptable."

Do they? You have tried over and over to convince me of the FG's evil, and I've given you examples you don't even bother denying are identical or even worse. I refuse to justify the CCP ban not because I'm deluded about the FG, though I do deny your most ridiculous claims, but because I'm informed about the CCP, informed about states, and I believe in basic freedom, and I'm humble enough to know that I might be wrong about the FG and so the risk of oppressing them is too much to bear. THAT is what makes you an idealogue: You are sure. But I agree, it's not the "Chinese" that have the moral cowardice I am critiquing, just like it's not "Americans" that kill Iraqis: It's the elites and those who serve them.

"The Falun Gong is not a religion but a fraud. A respectable religion provides a purpose of life, a compassionate community and so on. A fraud swindles people out of money and property. The Falun Gong is not a form of Qi Gong exercises."

Got any evidence for those claims? Or just empty, hate-filled rhetoric? Atheists would argue that the Catholic Church is a fraud too, because it makes people believe in something false. Why would the CCP be so overwhelmingly popular, Sam, if they DIDN'T establish a purpose (however false to you or perhaps me), a compassionate community, etc.? Testimony HERE in Wikipedia has established that they in fact do that. But anyways, you can't ban a fraudulent "belief" or organization, you can only ban specific practices. Just like you can't ban the Nazis even when their stated goal is much worse than fraud: Genocide.

"Qi Gong helps people to be fit and credits the result to the hard work of the practitioners. The Falun Gong credits all benefits to the divine intervention of Li who claims to have cured his followers and protected them by planting a wheel in their lower abdomen and a shield over their bodies."

No, Qi Gong tells you that an unverifiable energy force called "chi" goes through all living things and is spewed by dragons along lines of energy that you can dowse along that goes in regular 60 year cycles interlinking with the Chinese zodiac, and further that through regular forces one can form various shapes, such as a ball, of this ki. The whole Superman shpiel Li does comes STRAIGHT from Qi Gong practitioners, some of whom imply that you could become a Dragon Ball Z warrior if you just had enough ki and ki control. I'm not as uneducated about China as you think, Sam: Chi, ki, qi, etc. are fascinating concepts, but they are NOT scientifically beyond reproach, not even close, and are filled with a simply incomprehensibly large mythology (ditto for prana) that you only accept as valid because it's been around long enough to become "culture". Now, practicing Tai Chi or Qi Gong or even Buddhist meditation does usually help one calm down and get a certain type of work out, but so does jogging.

You seem so possessed by hate that you can't see when I'm actually criticizing Falun Gong. I'm saying that the wheel stuff is probably crap: Falun Gong still teaches Qi Gong exercises, so unless you think there's only one way to do Qi Gong it still will be, guess what, Qi Gong. This isn't a response, anyways, to my position that FG is close enough to Qi Gong that it can't be banned while, say, acupuncture is supported, since neither are beyond scientific reproach.

"Anyone can fall victim to frauds and cults, to the Chinese it is a good idea that the society reaches out to help the victims and punishes the perpetrators especially when the abuses become fatal."

Again, let's clarify: The Chinese GOVERNMENT, not the people per se (I haven't noted you quoting Ban Ban Yao, baker in a distant mountain town, about his philosophy about frauds and Falun Gong), SAY that they want to protect people from frauds, while they turn around and deprive human rights, torture their people, ban political parties, prevent outside journalists and investigators from seeing if their extravagant claims and denials are true, and throw more and more money into a burgeoning military edifice to lionize their leaders. Forgive my skepticism. "Helping" the victims means torture, labor camps, death in police interrogation rooms, and psychiatric reprogramming and "reeducation", as the CCP itself partially admits. "Punishing" the perpetrators means ineptly trying to get Li extradited while watching FG's popularity in all sorts of new orbits grow and watching the world fall over themselves in adulation for this poor oppressed exercise group.

You talk in these blatant generalizations, which is great because they're impossible to challenge. I can say that the FG aren't frauds, you can say they are, it becomes an 8 year old's argument. But in these very Wikipedia pages, we see people who enjoy their contact with FG. You have yet to answer my question: Are you really willing to take that away from them? Moreover: Are you really willing to prevent everyone in the world from ever encountering a mistake or getting a boo boo, encountering frauds and cults, and so prevent them from making their own choices because YOU think they're wrong? It's a paternalistic fantasy, and it ends in death camps, genocide, and the destruction of the world.

"Moral is a subjective term. In the US, roast beef is a treat but in India it is highly immoral and a crime to kill a cow. Here in the US any support for gay rights and abortion rights is considered immoral by the religious right, while gays and women’s rights activists can respond with the same accusation. People who support the Falun Gong ban can also call you immoral for defending a fraud that puts so many in harm’s way."

Very true. However, murder, torture and abuse are disliked in India, China, and in pretty much any moral tome known to mankind. I'm not arguing from any particular religious standpoint, nor am I saying anything especially controversial. But anyways, if you simply refuse to enter into the moral debate, why even bother? Everything's subjective, so Falun Gong's actions are okay! If you want to argue your principles, either defend them or just say that you know what's right according to your own moral compass! Don't give me this subjective morality out. If you want to convince people, you should do so based on their moral system. Otherwise, you can surely admit that different people will have different perspectives with equal information, which is why this article will be both pro-and-anti-FG.

"I am not trying to have it both ways; I said I would not support banning a cult in the US because such action violates the US laws and values."

Which it clearly does, and a UN law doesn't establish US laws or values, but this was a caveat you never provided. If you want to talk about US laws or values, have you ever looked into the history of free speech protection in this country? Since the 1960s, it has been agreed that ONLY directly criminal speech (such as yelling "Shoot!" at your accomplice with a loaded weapon) is bannable by law. Anything else, no matter how repugnant, immoral or even illegal others find it, is all right until it encroaches into action. No reasonable person can evaluate the Chinese government's actions as okay from that perspective.

"But I support this ban in China (even though I don’t think it was a good move) out of respect for and understanding the Chinese, their laws and values."

This is why I object to the sections: You can easily alter what you said in the past and make it hard to catch you. Your initial statement is, verbatim, whole paragraph: "Your statements regarding the ban show that you do not have a clue why the Falun Gong was banned in China and that is why you call me disgusting for supporting it. Even cultists should have their human rights, right? I spoke against the Falun Gong in 1999, before its ban, but I only felt comfortable supporting the ban after I studied and understood the UN’s human rights covenants." That says NOTHING about the US system. It says NOTHING about Chinese philosophy or cultural perspectives. It says that you altered a quite meaningful and valid libertarian stance ONLY after you read one treaty. Your statements since then have been disingenuously struggling away from that core point. Maybe you misspoke, I don't know, but I can see three distinct accountings of what you meant, so forgive my skepticism.

You said, quoting me: "You said: “Further, I'm not opposed to the CHINESE government; I'm opposed to governments period.”

This is your bias; don’t think that your ideology is better than those who disagree with you.

You're right, but if you're not going to engage me on my level and philosophy (let's not call it "bias", since I gave you the benefit of the doubt that your explicitly statist, arguably fascist, undertones were part of a distinct philosophy and did not call it "bias" until it encroached upon your objectivity), then you can give up on convincing me otherwise, and you can surely admit that someone with my "bias" or whatever (towards freedom and away from domination) will reject CCP claims quite finally. I really doubt we'll move much further in Wikipedia-approved formats when discussing anarchism or statism philosophically directly, so if you want to have that discussion we'd need to take it away from here.

I gave you the time of going through more than ten of your citations, which meant I had to find your site and do your work for you, but you're just going to give a kneejerk reply that AI and HRW reply on FG sources?! I've already preempted that argument, if you were to actually read carefully (I can't see how you could have missed this otherwise since I've mentioned it a few times), that AI, HRW, etc. try to get people onto the ground, use International Red Cross data, etc. to compliment direct victim testimony, for the very reason that apologists of all stripes will deny the victims' testimony and instead blindly trust government denials. Let's see the repeated arguments I've made to bolster AI's position that you've conceded: The fact that the law itself mandates ludicrous sentences such as the death penalty for crimes ranging from distributing tapes to teaching the dogma, the fact that the Chinese government admits obviously bad conduct... Then let's go to AI's sources. For example: The Chinese Constitution allows the right to petition the government directly for grievances, which would allow the suppressed march at Zhongnanhai (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170112000, cite #5). Then there's the fact that Interpol refused to help Li Hongzhi get extradited (cite #6), so we have a fairly neutral police organization refusing to work with the Chinese government.

Cite #7 expands the AI's argument that you only rebutted in single sentence form that the 1,404 people statistic is garbage: They note that, for example, the book does not note chances of survival if they had gone to a hospital or even whether THEY COULD ACTUALLY AFFORD MEDICAL CARE. Remember, Sam, that the FG recruits disproportionately among the old and poor, people who current medical care have not been able to save. Your cite that diabetes requires constant care is NOT relevant because it is not the original doctor's testimony: It seems quite likely that at least several hundred of those 1,404 were beyond any medical help, and FG at least provided them a community of friends among whom to die.

The end of that article notes that a Falun Gong covert conference to try to get Western journalists into China to see what was happening was disrupted by the CCP, with reporters put under police surveillance and forced to sign "admissions of wrongdoing". Not only is this horrendously illegitimate suppression of press sources, it also makes the CCP's hands seem very dirty from the start: What are they hiding? One of the reason Falun Gong sources are relied upon, Sam, is that the CCP is preventing anyone else from figuring out what's happening! The FG are ASKING for Western verification. Odd that you assume the FG are the liars.

Even the Chinese government, in this case Li Bing, deputy head of the information office of the State Council, admitted publically that three Falun Gong practitioners died in police custody. In America, Sam, an admission of that score would cause a massive surge of protest and accusations of torture and police brutality, which would only be quelled by an independent investigation. Why do you hold the CCP to such low standards, Sam?

Further, the CCP is also targeting Guo Gong, Cibei Gong, and Zhong Gong. They do so by calling them "heretical organizations". That phrase is TEXTUALLY, by its very nature, contrary to the Chinese Constitution and the UNHRC.

Then let's look at this HRW article. http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/china-99/china-update.htm . They point out that the period from 98-99 was NOT just an FG crackdown but a crackdown on all sorts of organizations, which would undermine your claims that FG are uniquely bad and therefore should particularly be targeted. All those groups that are targeted are clearly ones that Beijing views as threats to their authority. Organizations that are targeted right alongside the FG include the Chinese Democracy Party. Virtually all of these organizations make allegations of torture. The constants among these differing groups? Their allegations of torture and abuse with request for Western intervention and observation, CCP denials while refusing to even allow open door discussions about their human rights policies, all groups viewed as dangers to CCP rule. Not quite the benign little crackdown on bad guys, hmm? The article goes onto note imprisonment of Protestants, Catholics, etc., both Western and Chinese. I await your next expose of the Catholic Church as a secret society that should be classified as a cult. At least 111 people have been publically admitted to be arrested, with no names, details or places of arrest, and clearly with no public trial. Charges there include such horrible monstrosities as using the Internet to argue for Falun Gong's health benefits! I bet a few potential Wikipedia contributors are in jail for that crime, Sam. Want to explain that? In another account, we know of 35,000 Falun Gong members arrested (most, supposedly, released after "reeducation")! 50 have been sent to a psychiatric hospital. Any one of these actions are egregious violations of basic human rights.

Then there's a report in the Psychiatric Times noting, among others, the Chinese government quashing an investigation they agreed to by psychiatrists to determine whether or not FG members in psychiatric prisons were insane and could be legitimate patients: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p041157.html .

I could easily do more research, but Chinese government admissions alone seem to make my case that there's something very nasty going on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't want to intervene in this monumental discussion, which I find grossly excessive and inappropriate for the Wikipedian discussion page, but I should make a point in reply to Arek's last paragraph above this - this is why I think it's necessary, when creating the main Wiki entry for Falun Gong, why we should not interfere with personal commentary about what the Chinese government + Falun Gong accuse each other of. There is simply too much we do not know about what is really going on, so it is best not to draw premature conclusions on something we don't know the full picture of, and not just on Wikipedia! Both sides accuse each other of false sources and creative pictures which are untrue. I suggest as one who is neither a Chinese government official nor a Falun Gong practitioner, to simply say both sides 'allege' the other of doing something, rather than passing judgment on whether something the FG or CCP says is actually true or not. (Exception = when it is actually verifiable beyond reasonable doubt, but how many points about this topic can be the case? Hardly any at all!) Anyway, if you don't like this non-involved approach, then you are free to take another one - after all, this is only what I suggest, not what you must do. Jsw663 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably is, but I really wanted to show that there is substantial debate even among Western viewers on this score, complex debate. I'd hope that, if possible, the final article showcases at least some of the debate Sam and I had (I don't mean quoting directly, but in terms of the topics brought up, except for the really untopical stuff of course that makes sense in argumentation but not for the page).

Unfortunately, a page that doesn't present, even if only from well-cited sources, the allegations of both parties, as fairly presented as possible, will be far from a complete piece on the topic. Here NPOV and notability seem to be clashing. By your logic, any page on scientific topics ranging from astronomy to biology should be deleted because we are almost entirely certain we will be incorrect. Almost all human data is mercurial to some extent, and based on the best information available. Wikipedia is obligated to present whatever picture it can find, incomplete or otherwise. This is why Wikipedia is perpetually editable: If a piece of the puzzle is left out, whether due to incompetence, malice or simple lack of information, anyone with information can put the piece in.

However, I do concur that for now information should be presented only as allegations, however strongly backed. Both FG sources and Western sources should be available for the allegations of abuse (I personally think allegations of abuse against other groups should be mentioned to give the case some prima facia plausibility, with quick but complete reference to CCP denials, but this may be too far out of bounds - thoughts?), with CCP press releases, articles and available research available to rebut those allegations. I don't see any real 'smoking guns' that would make the CCP's case obviously false: The only thing I personally would note is to cite what the CCP has admitted doing and then noting the debate as to whether those ADMITTED actions, not seriously denied by any party, are legitimate. ArekExcelsior 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting debate, one question for ArekExcelsior, you said to Sam: “So it in and of itself is willful propaganda, but you give a citation of a book instead of just noting some CCP functionary, then establish it with... a diabetes doctor saying that diabetes must be cured?” Where did Sam quote a diabetes doctor saying that diabetes must be cured? I can not find such a statement on his site. --Mr.He 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. He: Sam's #4 cite in the section on the suppression and his justification for it. "#4 notes that diabetes needs ongoing medical care: These authors clearly are not saying, and you don't bother quoting them as such, that there is only one KIND of medical care, and since I repeatedly argue that FG is still at its core Qi Gong and since you refuse to rebut my argument that Qi Gong is publically funded, this one goes by the wayside too." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

final response

Arek, this is my final reply so it is a bit long.

You said: I apologize: I confused Nov 11 with April 11. However, the Reuters article does establish claims of labor camps. I will just note that the description of what happened on April 11 varies."

Apology accepted, but what dispute on the event of April 11? It was the day that a small magazine company in Tanjian city published an article that made negative remarks about the Falun Gong. There is no dispute. This statement suggests that you are pretending to know something.

You said: “So it in and of itself is willful propaganda, but you give a citation of a book instead of just noting some CCP functionary, then establish it with... a diabetes doctor saying that diabetes must be cured? Propaganda carries no weight, Sam, yet you use it constantly to support your position, sometimes exclusively.”

Here you are misrepresenting my position. I paraphrased Ji Shi’s material which echoes the Chinese government’s stance like this: “Master Li and his Falun Gong were charged by the Chinese government with endangering the physical and mental health of Falun Gong practitioners as well as public health. They were held responsible for the deaths of 1,404 practitioners in the period between May, 1992 and July, 1999. Of these deaths, 1,218 died as a result of refusing needed medical treatment, 37 died while practicing the exercises, 109 committed suicide and 40 died of unidentified causes.” Ji Shi’s book was presented as a gift to President Clinton from the then Chinese president Jiang and it is available in English on Amazon which is why I quoted it.

I then introduced my research by questioning the Chinese government’s claims: “Did those 1,404 people really die from following Master Li’s teachings? Is there any evidence that Li was aware of the dire consequences of refusing medical treatment yet continued to promote it? The information demanded by Amnesty International gives us a frame work for an inquiry of Chinese government’s charge. If we can confirm a direct link between these deaths and Falun Gong teachings; if we can show that Li was aware of the grave danger of abandoning medical treatment, yet still promoted it, then the government's concern is justified and its charge is valid.”

You did not stop at misrepresenting my position but went on to twist my words. Where on my site did I ever quote a doctor saying that diabetes must be cured? What I said in quoting Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment was this: “As is generally recognized, diabetes is a chronic illness which requires ongoing medical care in order to ‘reduce the risk of long-term complications.’” You misrepresenting my position and deliberately accusing me of saying something stupid shows your dishonesty.

In the last response to you I said: "This health survey done by the Falun Gong itself in Beijing in 1998 shows that 418 out of 584 practitioners stopped their medical treatment and many of these patients had serious and life threatening illnesses. These practitioners (69.2% of them were fifty and older) were not poor people who could not afford treatments; they had received medical care before they were indoctrinated in the Falun Gong. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/6/13/11431.html" In your reply you said: “That's a ton of assumptions you made there, let's break some down. The fact that people can, on occasion, buy a bottle of Motrin does not mean they can cure their diabetes or cancer: In fact, no one can. QED. Since you can't break down which of these people could afford real treatments or which ones were on death's door and for whom medical care wouldn't have worked anyways, which is what AI said in footnotes to no rebuttal, this argument immediately disappears. But note that, again, 166 CONTINUED medical treatment. This is hardly monolithic ceasing of medical care, which supports my view that FG is not as anti-medicine as you think which in turn supports my view that one can't blame them directly for the deaths of their practitioners, and NONE of this justifies a ban on the entire group, for the last, unrebutted time.”

The great majority (69.2%) of these practitioners were fifty plus, a generation that still enjoys the state sponsored medical care which covers their medical expanses. In other words they were not poor people who can not afford treatment. Some of these patients would die of their illnesses sooner or later, but if they had continued receiving medical care they would have lived longer in less pain. Still some of them can be cured with medical treatment. In any case, it is both a fraud and a crime in China for Li to brainwash them into abandoning needed medical help and instead rely on his supernatural healing which he can not use to cure his own illnesses.

Li gives his followers a false hope by claiming to have the power to cure any illnesses. Illnesses reported to have been cured in this survey include incurable terminal cancer and Parkinson’s disease. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/6/13/11431.html Li has been doing it to swindle money out of these people. Li and his close associates are responsible for the premature and unnecessary deaths of many practitioners in China before the ban and those who continue to suffer even this day.

You claim that because some practitioners in this survey did not give up medical help shows that the Falun Gong is not anti-medicine is laughable. It is like saying because the terrorists who hit the twin towers in New York did not kill everyone in those buildings therefore they should not be treated as terrorists. The fact that some practitioners did not give up their medical treatment only suggests that 1) they might have been new recruits and 2) Li’s brainwashing did not work effectively on everyone.

You said: “I personally think Qi Gong, acupuncture, etc. can be valid, if only to calm people down (at the very least), but my point is that they are no more scientifically valid, or scarcely more, than FG, so it's hypocritical for China to ban X but not Y when both are in the same category.”

Is your false comparison a result of your ignorance or just a strategic move for this debate? In case you really have no clue of what Qi Gong and acupuncture are and why they are completely different from the Falun Gong, I will give you a quick introduction. Qi Gong is a form of Chinese traditional exercise which usually involves slow bodily movement and deep breath; it is respected in China the same way Yoga is respected in India, an effective exercise to improve health. Acupuncture is a form of Chinese medicine which goes back more than a thousand years, it is believed to have an effect on improving health and curing some illness. Masters of Qi Gong exercises and acupuncturists do not teach people to abandon medical treatment and rely on their exercises and treatment exclusively. They also do not claim to have supernatural power to heal.

I find your placing the Falun Gong in the same light as Qi Gong and acupuncture here very odd. You had previously condemned the Falun Gong as bad as the Chinese government in one of your earlier replies: “I'm just trying to show that both sides (Falun Gong and the Chinese government) have a lot of blood on their hands.” I believe your recent change of position to be a strategic move for this debate. You know my argument is based on Falun Gong’s threats to public health and order, so to undermine that argument it appears you are now trying to make the Falun Gong cult look as positive as possible.

In your request I quoted Li to show how he has twisted the causes of illnesses in order to make the claim that he is the only one who can provide cure. To Li’s quote # one you said: “That last quote indicates that sickness "karma", or negative ki to use an analogy (and one that proves my point that he's no different from a doctor prescribing a shen balancer or an acupuncturist, which are equally medically undermined - just ask your diabetes doctor you quote to make an argument for you what he thinks about Qi Gong practice), CAN be flushed by medical care, and poor non-practitioners only have option X: Medical care. FG are blessed: They have X AND Y.”

Such a response shows that you have no interest (or capability) in understanding Li’s words. How could you say that Falun Gong practitioners can have X (medical care) and Y (Li’s intervention)? Li is clearly saying that X is for non-practitioners and that practitioners should rely on Y exclusively. Again you are trying to whitewash the cultish nature of the Falun gong for the sake of this debate.

To Li’s quote # two you said: “Sounds pretty crazy. But note how he HIMSELF SAYS that you can take medicine AND cultivate. You just lost the argument with your quote.”

Li did not say that a true cultivator can take medicine and cultivate. He clearly states that a true cultivator must not take medical treatment when sick and many testimonials of practitioners published on Falun Gong sites have shown that they did give up needed treatment, including young children like this eight year old girl http://www.clearwisdom.net/eng/story/0799/cathy_ashfield.html. Li has no concern for the well being and safety of anyone; all he wants is money and power. I know you do not believe in the legitimacy of the ban but I can not understand how you can continue downplaying the harmfulness of Li’s behavior. You sound like you have become an apologist for Li and his cult.

You said: “Just think for a second, Sam: What would an atheist say about both? An atheist would say neither the Christian God or the Falun Gong one exist, so both should be banned for preventing medical care. …You also continue to not rebut my claim: That, MAYBE, Li could be convicted of fraud and involvement in the deaths of innocent people, but that would NOT ban the FG!”

I don’t care what atheists would say. What I know is that Christianity is legal in China and I would never compare the God Christians worship to Li who is worshiped by the Falun Gong. Such a comparison is a insult to Christians. Furthermore it is your belief, based on your American values, that a group can not be banned no matter what. The UN human rights Covenants clearly allow governments to take action against an entity (a person or a group) that threatens public health, order and the rights of others, etc. The Chinese Constitution, as I have quoted, stipulates that a religion that threatens public health and order is illegal. Your beliefs and the American values are not universal; I provided this argument which you did not rebut.

You said: “One and a half million signatures? Wow! In a country of a billion people, that means that 15 people out of every 1000 actually give a crap enough to sign a piece of paper against a group that their totalitarian government is already oppressing, so that signing that piece of paper also happens to make one concur with the constant stream of propaganda one is getting! At least 2 million people would of course counter-sign that signature, all the FG members, and possibly up to 100 million would sign it. Sort of trumps your little survey, doesn't it?

There are 76 million Communist party members in China; the government could easily produce 76 million signatures to support the ban. The fact that one and a half million Chinese people care enough to sign this petition shows the support for the ban. By comparison, polls in the US show that 60% of the population oppose the Iraq war, but how many signature has the anti-war movement generated? Last March the anti-war demonstrations in the US turned out less than one hundred thousand protesters nationwide. In light of this comparison that one and a half million signatures seems like a sign of wide support.

You said: “Here's another example of selective, abusive quoting: This is a small part of a quote that is NOT what occurred in the last round of debates. In the last round of debates, I asked for POLLS. You can't give me one.

Arek, this is what you said: “ANY articles would be nice. If they clearly read like propaganda, I will give them little weight, but it would be better than nothing.” You were asking for articles not polls.

You said: “The other link comes from the China YOUTH Daily! Wow, an OFFSHOOT of a propaganda organ for KIDS! I again apologize for sarcasm, but Sam, you throw propaganda at me and expect this to substitute for research. Meanwhile, FG sources similarly claim millions and millions of signatures supporting them.”

You are treating everything that supports the Chinese government’s position as propaganda. You are pulling a fast one here by claiming that FG has also claimed to have millions and millions of signatures supporting them. Can you give me an article to support your claim?

You said: “Just admit in a footnote that it's irrelevant, right? I've actually read about that one, Sam, and again, you're trying to pull a fast one. The reason why the community was so adamant against them showing up was that the FG refused to keep the march apolitical and would have ruined everyone's good time by broadcasting their agenda at a time that would have been absolutely wrong to do so. Very dick move on FG's part, but NOT a support of CCP agendas.”

Arek, you are again misrepresenting my position here. I clearly stated in my reply that “these signatures are not about the ban,” yet you feel comfortable accusing me of pulling a fast one. You are losing what little bit of respect I have left for you.

In responding to this statement of mine "The First Amendment of the US Constitution that protects our free speech is just a short statement. An action based on one law makes it legal." You said “the First Amendment also mentions freedom of the press (which China routinely violates), freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for grievances. Here YOU are showing ignorance about Constitutional law.”

Arek, you are so mean-spirited. The fact that I only pointed out that free speech is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution can not be reasonably interpreted as my unawareness of its protection for other rights.

To my statement “The ban is not seen as immoral or oppression in China where it takes place." You said: “Except for the Falun Gong, dissidents in China, etc. Why are they wrong but not the supposed majority? Have any polls that show that the Chinese people are united against the FG? Maybe it's the minority in government: Why are THEY right? This is why we create human rights.”

Dissidents in China supporting the Falun Gong? I don’t see the Falun Gong getting support from reputable Chinese dissidents who reside in the US. I remember reading articles that these Chinese dissidents who are being outcast from China distance themselves from the Falun Gong. These dissidents would not support the ban, I am sure, but they have not voiced their support for the Falun Gong either. In addition, I hear Chinese people in and out of China complain about the Cultural Revolution and the suppression of student movement in 1989. I read articles in Chinese media here in San Francisco calling on the Chinese government to redress the victims of the student movement. But in the case of the Falun Gong, I have heard almost no complaints from non FG practitioners and there is no material in Chinese newspapers, except FG’s mouth piece the Epoch Times, supporting the Falun Gong. As a matter of fact opinion from the Chinese media has been negative towards this cult. The Singtao Daily, the largest Chinese newspaper in the US has published articles exposing the cultish nature of the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong filed a lawsuit to try to silence the Singtao Daily but lost the case. Chinese are not used to polls yet which is kind of unfortunate for this debate. In substitution I can provide many articles citing public support for the ban; but I doubt that you can provide much articles (Chinese or Western), independent from the FG’s own media, citing public support for the Falun Gong in China.

To the Teng Chunyan example I provided you said: Again: One person, when you have just admitted that people who turn away from cults often become cults of the new thing that "saved them" (see David Horowitz's conversion from Leninism to radical conservativism). Could both claims be right, Sam? Yes. Torture broke her mind; she recanted, publically stated that she loves the CCP, and is now dealing with the trauma. Maybe that's true, maybe that's not, we can't know because, again, you use ANOTHER PROPAGANDA ORGAN TO ESTABLISH IT. I don't even know if she exists, Sam, she could easily be made up.”

Arek, it looks like misrepresenting my position has become a tactic for you. I have never said that people who turn away from cults often become members of the cults of the new thing that “saved them.” Also, your claim that torture broke her mind is baseless. Ms. Teng herself has said that she was never tortured and she has not retracted her statement upon returning to the US. If you don’t believe she really exists why don’t you Google her?

To my statement "The Falun Gong is not a religion but a fraud. A respectable religion provides a purpose of life, a compassionate community and so on. A fraud swindles people out of money and property. The Falun Gong is not a form of Qi Gong exercises." You said “Got any evidence for those claims? Or just empty, hate-filled rhetoric? Atheists would argue that the Catholic Church is a fraud too, because it makes people believe in something false.”

Arek, the Falun Gong is called a cult even by American cult experts, calling it a fraud is hardly hate-filled rhetoric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong#Is_Falun_Gong_a_cult.3F Again, your comparing the Catholic Church to the Falun Gong only shows your ignorance of cults and your disrespect for religion.

You said: “But anyways, you can't ban a fraudulent "belief" or organization, you can only ban specific practices. Just like you can't ban the Nazis even when their stated goal is much worse than fraud: Genocide.”

Arek, you made a similar statement earlier: “Nazis who preach the downfall of every civil right known to man AND the murder of billions deserve that free speech protection too.” Your apparent belief in the absolute right to freedom of speech is intrinsically American. It is true that in the US Nazis’s hate speech and Nazis groups are legal. But neither you nor the US government have any right to impose this values onto other countries. Doing so violates the rights of other countries.

International human rights laws permit the banning of hate speech and groups. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the most respected human rights document which the US has signed and ratified. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates: “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” In other words the level of free speech you believe in is beyond what international human rights law would allow. Many western democratic countries like Sweden, Canada, Spain and Germany have hate speech laws criminalizing Nazis-like hate speech. Groups have also been banned in western democratic countries; France has an anti-cult law and Nazis groups (the very example you are using) have been banned in Germany. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/925009.stm

In my opinion, the fact that Nazis enjoy legal protection in the US (want to know why racism is a bigger problem in the US?) violates international laws. But I respect American values and I believe Americans should rightfully choose what suits them best. Being consistent in my respect for self-determination, I do not believe Americans have the right to impose their human rights values onto others. I hope these examples expand your understanding of international human rights laws.

In our debate over the legitimacy of the ban you have made your argument solely on an American perspective and I have made mine based on international laws such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I am going to quote this Covenant and the Chinese Constitution again. Article 18 of the Covenant stipulates: “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” This law clearly permits governments to take action. Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution states: “No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.” The Falun Gong which threatened public health, order and the rights of others was banned legally.

Here I am going to respond to one of your earlier statements which was not about the ban but the enforcement of the ban. you said: “Sam, even if the UN Covenant says that it's okay to put into place laws for vague goals such as "public health", laws like Geneva UNEQUIVOCALLY prevent anywhere near the actions the Chinese have claimed to have done, let alone what they likely have done.”

First of all, let me repeat what I have said all along—I do not condone any abuse of anyone. The Chinese government while banning this cult has the responsibility to protect Falun Gong practitioners from abuses such as torture and to bring the perpetrators to justice. I also stand firm in my position that whatever abuses might have occurred in the enforcement of the ban do not negate the legitimacy of the ban. For example, the inhuman torture of detainees by the U.S. military personnel in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo prison in Cuba and other secret detention facilities in Europe do not negate the legitimacy of fighting terrorism.

In your earlier statement, by paraphrasing a HRW report, you also said: “http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/11/09/china1959.htm describes another human rights' organization stringent criticism and also notes that laws for being part of a "cult" organization include long prison sentences and death. THAT is not public health or security law, Sam. That is persecution.”

I am aware of the condemnation of the ban from AI, HRW and American politicians. As I said before anyone who does not look into the arguments of both parties in a dispute is biased. These human rights organizations have never given the Chinese government’s justifications a fair look. I can say this because both the AI and HRW have never looked into the teachings and practices of the Falun Gong critically. I believe their stance also comes from the American perspective.

You misrepresented the findings of the HRW report. The HRW report states: “The Court added ‘those who set up and make use of cult organizations’ to other articles (of the Criminal Law) dealing with intentional murder or injury, sexual exploitation and rape, fraud, splitting the country, or overthrowing the socialist system. The ‘interpretations’ also laid out the characteristics of a cult organization. Article 300 mandates a minimum sentence of seven years for ‘especially serious’ or otherwise grave acts. In all other categories, penalties run as high as life imprisonment or death.” The HRW report makes it clear that only serious crimes, rape, intentional murder, etc, are punishable with a life sentence and death. So far, only one practitioner has been convicted to life imprisonment for organizing the Tiananmen self-immolation incident which killed two.

Further more the HRW report makes it clear that the Chinese government does not see ordinary Falun Gong practitioners as criminals. It states: “The authorities, in carrying out the crackdown, seem to be carefully distinguishing between organizers and ordinary Falun Gong followers. In a November 5 circular, the People's Supreme Court admonished the courts to make a sharp distinction between ‘criminal elements’ and cult leaders who should be treated harshly and common Falun Gong practitioners who should be extricated from cults, educated, then reintegrated into the social fabric.” This statement verifies what I have said all along, the ban was targeted at the Falun Gong leadership not ordinary members who have been seen as victims. As reported by the HRW only about 111 Falun Gong leaders were arrested.

You continued to twist the facts to make the Chinese government’s action look egregious. In referring to the same HRW report you made this incomplete statement in an earlier reply: “The fact that the LAWS THEMSELVES mandate long prison sentences and even execution for teaching FG or other ‘cult’ teachings (which, of course, the CCP can unilaterally determine at their discretion as to what is a cult), distributing video tapes, etc.”

This is an extension of the kind of misleading statement I just clarified in the above paragraph. There is no Chinese law calling for “long prison sentences and even execution” for “teaching FG or other "cult" teachings.” I can understand why you want to put the Chinese government in the worst light possible, but what you are doing here can only be called a cheap shot.

Your knowledge about the Chinese culture and history is impressive, I admit; I was intending to have an interesting cross cultural dialogue with you. You are an intelligent person, but your writing style, personal attacks and dishonesty are all very disappointing. Your writing is like a disorganized stream of consciousness which makes it hard to follow. Your combativeness and arrogance beams through your sarcastic comments, showing your inability to appreciate the opinions of others and to respect your opponent. But what really has depleted my respect for you is your consistence in misrepresenting my positions.

Despite your apparent ignorance on international human rights laws, the Falun Gong and peripheral issues like Qi Gong and acupuncture, I toned down my voice in my 3rd response and focused my attention to the issues in my 4th response. Unfortunately, somehow you feel comfortable continue to make unwarranted remarks against my integrity. You call me a hateful person in almost every one of your replies.

I notice that you have no respect for anyone or anything other than libertarians and libertarianism. You bashed editors on the both sides here, characterized UN Human Rights Covenants as horribly flawed, called Christianity a cult, put down republicans as brainwashed people and oppose all governments. You come across as a preachy absolutist. Libertarians like you are not liberals; I have never liked the anti-government libertarian philosophy. Take the government out of the equation and the power void can only be filled by business man, cult leaders like Li and religious preachers. Governments can never be perfect but I would never trade abuse with disaster.

I generally see American politicians and opinion makers who totally reject whatever comes out of China that is positive about the Chinese government as propagandists and would call anyone who agrees with this simplistic view naïve. I apply the same criticism on Chinese who totally reject negative remarks on China. The US government is democratic, while the Chinese government is a one-party dictatorship. However there is no reason for the Chinese to believe that the American government and human rights groups or any American who holds an absolutist negative point of view against the Chinese government cares about the Chinese.

China and its people had suffered more than a century of egregious foreign aggression from 1840 to 1949 at the hands of Western democratic countries like Britain and the US. The British government forced China to open its markets for opium trade while plundering China of its natural resources. The US government and businessmen had abused China and its people the same way but to a lesser degree. It was the CCP that finally united the Chinese to fight off all foreign aggression. For that accomplishment the CCP has won its place in the Chinese history.

Although many Western countries had acted in the role of abusers, interestingly since 1949 these countries have condemned the CCP for abusing its citizens, as if they really cared about the well beings and rights of the Chinese. Despite the fact that minorities like the Chinese Americans and blacks were discriminated in the US, the US government and the media have been champions in promoting this propaganda. Arek, the anti-Chinese government sentiment you echo often amuses me, people like you are so full of themselves (or ignorant) that they actually believe they know the Chinese government better than the Chinese. What has the West ever done to help the Chinese? And what have guys like you ever done to improve the lives of the Chinese?

I am not saying that the Chinese government has not violated the rights of its people. Admittedly, Beijing still exercises a significant degree of control in areas like free speech and, as the Chinese are aware, some local government agencies can be abusive. For every example of a human rights violation in China that an American can provide, a Chinese can probably provide ten more. China only abandoned its feudal system in 1911, and the concept of human rights is not an inherent part of the Chinese culture, as a matter of a fact it challenges some of the country’s traditions. As of 2007 the People’s Republic of China is only fifty-eight years old and human rights development has only been a goal for the last two decades.

Since adopting the new Constitution in 1982 the Chinese government has developed laws protecting the human rights of its citizens based on international standards. Over the years twenty-one UN human rights conventions have been signed and ratified. In 2004, China amended its constitution to include formal guarantees of human rights. The Washington Post called it “Laying down a new marker in the nation’s swift march away from the doctrinaire Communism of its founders.” (source: Edward Cody, “China Amends Constitution to Guarantee Human Rights,” Washington Post, March 14, 2004.)

Human rights development takes time. It takes time to educate the public and civil servants to respect human rights and abide by human rights laws, as evidenced by the lengthy history of human rights development in the United States. Despite the “all men are created equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence, blacks were en-slaved for another ninety years and then discriminated against for another century. American women were not given voting rights until one hundred fifty years after the Declaration of Independence. Today’s Chinese do not enjoy the human rights that Americans have, but there really is no ground for believing that China—a country that only came to know about human rights in the 80’s—can instantly establish the same level of rights that the Americans now have. The Chinese government has made concrete human rights improvements in the past decades and the Chinese are looking forward to the future.

I know you are going to challenge me for saying that the great majority of the Chinese support their government, so I am giving you the source now. Surveys done by Westerners have shown that the majority of Chinese are actually pretty happy and satisfied with the way their country is being handled. Richard Layard, a British economist and a leading figure in the new field of Happiness Studies, found in his global research that former Communist countries are most unhappy; but while only 40% of Russians are happy more than 70% of Chinese say that they are happy. (source: Richard Layard, Happiness, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2005) page 32.) And in a fifteen nation survey done in 2006, the Philadelphia-based PEW research center found that most populations are dissatisfied with their national conditions, but China is a notable exception—81% of Chinese say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their country. http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/PAG_report_2006.pdf With the majority of its citizens happy and satisfied, surely the Chinese government is enjoying popular support.

Not only does the Chinese government enjoy majority support in China, it also enjoys a higher approval rating on the international level than the US government. The same survey shows that the people living in the world’s major countries, including US western allies such as Britain, Germany, Spain and France give China a higher favorable rating two digit ahead of the US.

Some informed Americans have spoken out against the kind of China-bashing that you are expressing here. In his article “It’s wrong to demonize China” published on the New York Times, former President Carter praised the positive developments in China and stated that quality of life and human rights of the Chinese have improved enormously during the last two decades.” http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc36.html

Arek, I know you have a tendency of calling anyone who makes positive remarks of the Chinese government an apologist and propaganda artist. That means in addition to putting me in that category you will also have to call the great majority of the Chinese in China, the majority in major countries and President Carter apologists.

Arek, there is no point continuing this debate. As much as I appreciate debates, I really do not appreciate your lack of knowledge on the issues and your lack of respect for so many people. I hope we can agree to disagree and continue to contribute positively to Wiki articles.--Samuel Luo 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My reply.

You said: I apologize: I confused Nov 11 with April 11. However, the Reuters article does establish claims of labor camps. I will just note that the description of what happened on April 11 varies."

"Apology accepted, but what dispute on the event of April 11? It was the day that a small magazine company in Tanjian city published an article that made negative remarks about the Falun Gong. There is no dispute. This statement suggests that you are pretending to know something."

The dispute there, of course, is that FG calls what happened libel.

You say, quoting me: "You said: “So it in and of itself is willful propaganda, but you give a citation of a book instead of just noting some CCP functionary, then establish it with... a diabetes doctor saying that diabetes must be cured? Propaganda carries no weight, Sam, yet you use it constantly to support your position, sometimes exclusively.”

"Here you are misrepresenting my position. I paraphrased Ji Shi’s material which echoes the Chinese government’s stance like this: “Master Li and his Falun Gong were charged by the Chinese government with endangering the physical and mental health of Falun Gong practitioners as well as public health. They were held responsible for the deaths of 1,404 practitioners in the period between May, 1992 and July, 1999. Of these deaths, 1,218 died as a result of refusing needed medical treatment, 37 died while practicing the exercises, 109 committed suicide and 40 died of unidentified causes.” Ji Shi’s book was presented as a gift to President Clinton from the then Chinese president Jiang and it is available in English on Amazon which is why I quoted it."

Except that it's blatant propaganda. The fact that Jiang offered a book of propaganda to Clinton casts aspersions on his motives, nothing more. And it's not the only source of blatant propaganda you use. You don't reply to my counter-rebuttal to your rebuttal of AI (that's a mouthful :) ). I'll say it once more: Citing propaganda gets you nowhere in the debate. Paraphrasing propaganda does not prove to any reasonable person anything.

"I then introduced my research by questioning the Chinese government’s claims: “Did those 1,404 people really die from following Master Li’s teachings? Is there any evidence that Li was aware of the dire consequences of refusing medical treatment yet continued to promote it? The information demanded by Amnesty International gives us a frame work for an inquiry of Chinese government’s charge. If we can confirm a direct link between these deaths and Falun Gong teachings; if we can show that Li was aware of the grave danger of abandoning medical treatment, yet still promoted it, then the government's concern is justified and its charge is valid.”"

To which I replied, to no reply.

"You did not stop at misrepresenting my position but went on to twist my words. Where on my site did I ever quote a doctor saying that diabetes must be cured? What I said in quoting Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment was this: “As is generally recognized, diabetes is a chronic illness which requires ongoing medical care in order to ‘reduce the risk of long-term complications.’” You misrepresenting my position and deliberately accusing me of saying something stupid shows your dishonesty."

That was exactly the cite I noted. I am sorry I cited it as "cured", but if you responded to my actual argument (which is why context is vital) you would have noted that I wasn't saying that you were arguing for a medical cure for diabetes (which doesn't exist and would have been stupid), but rather noted that CMD&T's saying that diabetes should be treated to 'reduce long-term complications' does not establish ANY of your claims. For example: CMD&T doesn't say that you can't treat it with FG, or acupuncture. I note this extensively, alongside many rebuttals to your cites that are not responded to.

You say, quoting me, "In the last response to you I said: "This health survey done by the Falun Gong itself in Beijing in 1998 shows that 418 out of 584 practitioners stopped their medical treatment and many of these patients had serious and life threatening illnesses. These practitioners (69.2% of them were fifty and older) were not poor people who could not afford treatments; they had received medical care before they were indoctrinated in the Falun Gong. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/6/13/11431.html" In your reply you said: “That's a ton of assumptions you made there, let's break some down. The fact that people can, on occasion, buy a bottle of Motrin does not mean they can cure their diabetes or cancer: In fact, no one can. QED. Since you can't break down which of these people could afford real treatments or which ones were on death's door and for whom medical care wouldn't have worked anyways, which is what AI said in footnotes to no rebuttal, this argument immediately disappears. But note that, again, 166 CONTINUED medical treatment. This is hardly monolithic ceasing of medical care, which supports my view that FG is not as anti-medicine as you think which in turn supports my view that one can't blame them directly for the deaths of their practitioners, and NONE of this justifies a ban on the entire group, for the last, unrebutted time.”

"The great majority (69.2%) of these practitioners were fifty plus, a generation that still enjoys the state sponsored medical care which covers their medical expanses. In other words they were not poor people who can not afford treatment. Some of these patients would die of their illnesses sooner or later, but if they had continued receiving medical care they would have lived longer in less pain. Still some of them can be cured with medical treatment. In any case, it is both a fraud and a crime in China for Li to brainwash them into abandoning needed medical help and instead rely on his supernatural healing which he can not use to cure his own illnesses."

But perhaps if they hadn't taken their medication they would have been pushed out of the group that had adopted them as family, which would have been more painful. Tragic, yes, and that group should have let them do both, but also THEIR CHOICE. Further, I'm not sure how much experience you have with, say, chronic cancer sufferers, but the treatment is often worse than the cure in a lot of ways, and it's quite often that they can do nothing. And a lot of those people had been getting treatment for years: Seems like they weren't satisfied with what they were getting. "Brainwash" is an interesting term, since you go on to admit that he's not 100% successful at this, quite unlike the Chinese government's own brainwashing, which would support his claim that he doesn't brainwash. (You have yet to really describe how he does the brainwashing campaigns in this argument, which is another strike against you). I am sorry that I did not note that the Chinese medical system is in fact quite impressive, but the articles I cited noted that not all of these people could afford or would have been helped at all by medication.

"Li gives his followers a false hope by claiming to have the power to cure any illnesses. Illnesses reported to have been cured in this survey include incurable terminal cancer and Parkinson’s disease. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/6/13/11431.html Li has been doing it to swindle money out of these people. Li and his close associates are responsible for the premature and unnecessary deaths of many practitioners in China before the ban and those who continue to suffer even this day."

Sure, and many scientists (see, for example, the House episode "Love Hurts"; yes, I know it's just TV, but if you want I can get James 'the Amazing' Randi or any number of skeptics that basically say the same thing) would say that acupuncturists and chiropractors don't actually look at or do anything medically real (and that's actually a NICE way of putting some of these detractors' comments), and that they are therefore frauds.

"You claim that because some practitioners in this survey did not give up medical help shows that the Falun Gong is not anti-medicine is laughable. It is like saying because the terrorists who hit the twin towers in New York did not kill everyone in those buildings therefore they should not be treated as terrorists. The fact that some practitioners did not give up their medical treatment only suggests that 1) they might have been new recruits and 2) Li’s brainwashing did not work effectively on everyone."

I would submit another analogy. Perhaps the fact that Christian Scientists are anti-medicine does not establish that all Christians are. Your analogy seems to be that, since the terrorists' intent was to terrorize, 100% success is irrelevant, similarly Li's intent is to deprive medical care and so 100% success is irrelevant. But 100% success could ALSO prove Li's own statements that he is NOT medical care and turn what you call a preemptive denial of responsibility into, yes, a very snake-like move, but not an illegal one in any fair court of law. It also might establish that, since Li's authority is NOT absolute, that one key criteria for being a cult disappears. You say they "might" be new recruits, but you have no evidence for that; further, apparently these "new recruits" kept taking medicine for a long time without the group expelling them, which also undermines your thesis.

"Is your false comparison a result of your ignorance or just a strategic move for this debate? In case you really have no clue of what Qi Gong and acupuncture are and why they are completely different from the Falun Gong, I will give you a quick introduction. Qi Gong is a form of Chinese traditional exercise which usually involves slow bodily movement and deep breath; it is respected in China the same way Yoga is respected in India, an effective exercise to improve health. Acupuncture is a form of Chinese medicine which goes back more than a thousand years, it is believed to have an effect on improving health and curing some illness. Masters of Qi Gong exercises and acupuncturists do not teach people to abandon medical treatment and rely on their exercises and treatment exclusively. They also do not claim to have supernatural power to heal."

No, but the foundation of Qi Gong (as well as yoga) are motions, stretches and functionally katas to channel one's "ki". You yourself are being abusive here in not noting what "qi", or "chi", actually is connected to: Feng Shui and geomancy, Taoist immortality treatments, demonic influences and possessions, dragons and the belief that dragon breath fills the cosmos... Qi and chi are heavily steeped in mysticism, different only from Falun Gong in that it's been around for long enough to be "culture" and not nuttiness. To be clear: I think there is tremendous wisdom in these beliefs, and am sure there are spiritual forces beyond our comprehension. But I also believe that Li himself is probably a spiritually quite powerful individual, though deluded and very dangerous. Yoga also has a lot to do with chakra points and meridians and highways of energy, for example (and remember: you're talking to a BUDDHIST on this score, so I'm not ignorant). Further, even if they are just completely amystical practices, their "respect" in China and India has NOT translated to ungarnished scientific respect. Many scientists would say that any benefit from herbal medicine and Chinese teas and elixirs, acupuncture, Yoga, Qi Gong, etc. is ALL a combination of exercise, the placebo effect, and some very basic scientific wisdom and is NOT a substitute for medical care. Why are they wrong but the same evidence is right when applied to Falun Gong? THAT is the hypocrisy and THAT is why the CCP's ban is both illegal and hypocritical.

"I find your placing the Falun Gong in the same light as Qi Gong and acupuncture here very odd. You had previously condemned the Falun Gong as bad as the Chinese government in one of your earlier replies: “I'm just trying to show that both sides (Falun Gong and the Chinese government) have a lot of blood on their hands.” I believe your recent change of position to be a strategic move for this debate. You know my argument is based on Falun Gong’s threats to public health and order, so to undermine that argument it appears you are now trying to make the Falun Gong cult look as positive as possible."

Odd that you respond to this argument only after this point, since it came up at the very beginning. But I'm NOT putting FG in a positive light by saying this! By saying that they're basically Qi Gong disguised with cultish crap, I'm actually lambasting them in a way that a dogmatic FG follower would attack me endlessly for! It seems that in your attempt to demonize the FG you've actually forgotten how crazy they are, ironically. Remember that Li himself would (and has) declare(d) that he is the only way to save people, so that his faith is NOT just Qi Gong. IMHO, when you strip his garbage away, it is just Qi Gong. You have yet to say why is isn't Qi Gong, with the caveat I just described. But even if it weren't, you'd have to prove it is SO OBVIOUSLY different from the others, with so much less medical justification, that while acupuncture's sketchy benefits are acceptable FG isn't. I submit that you can't.

You say: "In your request I quoted Li to show how he has twisted the causes of illnesses in order to make the claim that he is the only one who can provide cure. To Li’s quote # one you said: “That last quote indicates that sickness "karma", or negative ki to use an analogy (and one that proves my point that he's no different from a doctor prescribing a shen balancer or an acupuncturist, which are equally medically undermined - just ask your diabetes doctor you quote to make an argument for you what he thinks about Qi Gong practice), CAN be flushed by medical care, and poor non-practitioners only have option X: Medical care. FG are blessed: They have X AND Y.

I can say that because I read it. And quoted him. And explained his actual position. To which you, basically, said "No it isn't!" You impute apologist motives to me when I say that his position is crap, just not what you're saying. If you wanted to disprove my take, you'd have to get to the nitty gritty of actually replying to my quote and characterization. You seem to prefer insults.

You say, quoting me: To Li’s quote # two you said: “Sounds pretty crazy. But note how he HIMSELF SAYS that you can take medicine AND cultivate. You just lost the argument with your quote.”

There's two ways you could have pursued this one, Sam. First: You could have objected to my particular characterization of THAT QUOTE you gave me, which clearly says that "We have no rule that says you can’t take medicine when you practice cultivation—we don’t have a rigid rule like that." To say it again: There is no rule that FG says you can't take medicine. None. Now, what I do think happened, and here I agree this is tragic and horribly wrong, is that the left hand and the right hand are disagreeing, and so FG members go for the safe route, while Li keeps plausible deniability. Or, second, you could call me an apologist, send me to an unrelated article, and say that it's part of a general practice so that it doesn't matter that the quote defeats your characterization. The first has the merit of sticking to the evidence currently in the debate. The second is a concession masked with irrelevant argumentation that is on the same topic.

You say, quoting me: "You said: “Just think for a second, Sam: What would an atheist say about both? An atheist would say neither the Christian God or the Falun Gong one exist, so both should be banned for preventing medical care. …You also continue to not rebut my claim: That, MAYBE, Li could be convicted of fraud and involvement in the deaths of innocent people, but that would NOT ban the FG!”

"I don’t care what atheists would say. What I know is that Christianity is legal in China and I would never compare the God Christians worship to Li who is worshiped by the Falun Gong. Such a comparison is a insult to Christians. Furthermore it is your belief, based on your American values, that a group can not be banned no matter what. The UN human rights Covenants clearly allow governments to take action against an entity (a person or a group) that threatens public health, order and the rights of others, etc. The Chinese Constitution, as I have quoted, stipulates that a religion that threatens public health and order is illegal. Your beliefs and the American values are not universal; I provided this argument which you did not rebut."

So why is the characterization of atheists irrelevant? Only because of your personal opinion? And why wouldn't you compare the two? Seems to me only because Christianity has been around longer. I have long ago made the group v. action distinction, to no rebuttal. Non-universality is a) irrelevant since you're talking to ME and not to a non-American and b) doubly irrelevant because my contention, and the UN seems to concur with this given that their Rapporteurs are criticizing China (so since the groups that would be judging China are offering it criticism, my argument seems to be won hook, line and sinker), is that the laws don't establish China's persecution campaign as legitimate. For example: There are implied limits as to what you can do to stop people from threatening public health, execution not being one of those. I also note, to no response, that the public health arguments are garbage and therefore undermine the legality of the suppression campaign (since the government is obligated to be consistent in application and enforcement).

Remember the context here. I'm arguing that Christian Scientists claim that, for example, prayer can cure sickness and that people should reject medical care (in some ways stronger than FG positions). You reply that, well, FG isn't a religion but a cult. Is there a cult exception in the Convention? No. So if the Christian Scientists can't be repressed, why can the FG? (And, of course, guess what, the CCP is gunning after both).

You say, quoting me: "You said: “One and a half million signatures? Wow! In a country of a billion people, that means that 15 people out of every 1000 actually give a crap enough to sign a piece of paper against a group that their totalitarian government is already oppressing, so that signing that piece of paper also happens to make one concur with the constant stream of propaganda one is getting! At least 2 million people would of course counter-sign that signature, all the FG members, and possibly up to 100 million would sign it. Sort of trumps your little survey, doesn't it?

"There are 76 million Communist party members in China; the government could easily produce 76 million signatures to support the ban. The fact that one and a half million Chinese people care enough to sign this petition shows the support for the ban. By comparison, polls in the US show that 60% of the population oppose the Iraq war, but how many signature has the anti-war movement generated? Last March the anti-war demonstrations in the US turned out less than one hundred thousand protesters nationwide. In light of this comparison that one and a half million signatures seems like a sign of wide support."

Which is, of course, a sign of the actual reality: 60% are against the war, but not very strongly, with a lot of caveats, etc. My point exactly. Further, you again abusively conflate protesters with signatures. Millions of signatures have been collected for the Iraq War. AND you fail to note what I did: China, being at least three times more massive in population, should be able to field a lot more signatures than that. The FG sources I quote from below provide some pretty compelling argumentation for why these signatures are meaningless, points I echoed to no rebuttal: The influence of propaganda and violence in irreparably tainting those expressed opinions, for example. Do you honestly believe that all of those millions of signatures are made by a fully informed, neutral account with no element of coercion, mob or groupthink, etc.?

"Arek, this is what you said: “ANY articles would be nice. If they clearly read like propaganda, I will give them little weight, but it would be better than nothing.” You were asking for articles not polls."

"Little weight". I did give them little weight; they certainly get you a bit further, though the other thing I did was to undermine the claims you made with the articles in the first place. Meanwhile, you yourself quote me pretty frequently asking for the actual opinions of people in a non-random matter.

"You are treating everything that supports the Chinese government’s position as propaganda. You are pulling a fast one here by claiming that FG has also claimed to have millions and millions of signatures supporting them. Can you give me an article to support your claim?"

...I did. Right after I said that. Maybe it got put somewhere else or something, but I did give you a URL. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2001/3/8/5814.html is another rebuttal to your signature argument. But no, I am not treating EVERYONE who offers support as propaganda. Which is why I noted that the China Daily is a propaganda organ, in the part you didn't cite. http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2007/2/25/83000.html cites 18 million people quitting the Communist Party. http://www.faluninfo.net/displayAnArticle.asp?ID=7098 cites 20,000 signatures for the State Department. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2001/11/11-05-01tdc/11-05-01dnews-1.asp cites 5000 signatures for Penn State alone. And you yourself note their claims that they've converted millions of CCP members.

"Arek, you are again misrepresenting my position here. I clearly stated in my reply that “these signatures are not about the ban,” yet you feel comfortable accusing me of pulling a fast one. You are losing what little bit of respect I have left for you."

Yes, you did say that, but what you DIDN'T say was that it didn't even establish that people don't like the Falun Gong, WHICH IS WHAT YOUR CLAIM WAS.

"Arek, you are so mean-spirited. The fact that I only pointed out that free speech is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution can not be reasonably interpreted as my unawareness of its protection for other rights."

Your initial comment, if I remember correctly, only mentioned freedom of speech, which implies that it's just a blip about freedom of speech; that other data is important because it clearly makes the First Amendment a short but unequivocal defense of expression in all forms. But you aren't responding to the second half: That the short statement is given CONTEXT by court decisions, which is where I note that you're seeming not to discuss Constitutional law fairly.

"Dissidents in China supporting the Falun Gong? I don’t see the Falun Gong getting support from reputable Chinese dissidents who reside in the US. I remember reading articles that these Chinese dissidents who are being outcast from China distance themselves from the Falun Gong. These dissidents would not support the ban, I am sure, but they have not voiced their support for the Falun Gong either. In addition, I hear Chinese people in and out of China complain about the Cultural Revolution and the suppression of student movement in 1989. I read articles in Chinese media here in San Francisco calling on the Chinese government to redress the victims of the student movement. But in the case of the Falun Gong, I have heard almost no complaints from non FG practitioners and there is no material in Chinese newspapers, except FG’s mouth piece the Epoch Times, supporting the Falun Gong. As a matter of fact opinion from the Chinese media has been negative towards this cult. The Singtao Daily, the largest Chinese newspaper in the US has published articles exposing the cultish nature of the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong filed a lawsuit to try to silence the Singtao Daily but lost the case. Chinese are not used to polls yet which is kind of unfortunate for this debate. In substitution I can provide many articles citing public support for the ban; but I doubt that you can provide much articles (Chinese or Western), independent from the FG’s own media, citing public support for the Falun Gong in China."

That's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. It is possible to not like a group and be opposed to their suppression. I'm sorry that you can't provide polls, because unfortunately that's the only way your case will be made. I do believe you that such polls are probably not there to be found: I certainly looked. But we come back to a core problem: Even if Chinese dissidents aren't speaking out, they should be. I'm speaking from my own ethical perspective here, which you're not rebutting. True, you don't have to, but then you can admit that my position is both consistent and different from yours.

But, again, you're not replying to my argument. I'm noting that, say, the Falun Gong have opinions: Why are those opinions wrong? Why is the nation the important point of resolution? China itself is a loose aggregation of lots of cultures: Why is one of those more important than the rest? Etc. etc.

I would note the group Friends of Falun Gong, but they seem to be a pretty poorly disguised FG propaganda group. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2954.html notes that Manfred Nowak, a UN Rapporteur, expressed contempt for China's treatment of FG members (then goes onto the Kilgour/Matas report: I support the validity of their report, but others here clearly disagree). http://chinaview.wordpress.com/tag/people/dissident/ has an article related to FG, organ harvesting, etc. From what I can see, there's a lot of people concerned about the FG's treatment even when they're contemptous about their practice.

"Arek, it looks like misrepresenting my position has become a tactic for you. I have never said that people who turn away from cults often become members of the cults of the new thing that “saved them.” Also, your claim that torture broke her mind is baseless. Ms. Teng herself has said that she was never tortured and she has not retracted her statement upon returning to the US. If you don’t believe she really exists why don’t you Google her?"

No, I said that. I also said that that is certainly possible that Teng does exist. And, ironies of ironies, you mischaracterize my opinion both through selection and omission. I then noted that one person's opinion doesn't prove that anybody's bad: Do you believe that the Republicans MUST be evil because of people who change party affiliations? This got no reply. Now, I gave you a reason why she may not have retracted her opinion... And, by the by, noting that someone who may have been tortured has denied torture doesn't actually prove anything. http://english.people.com.cn/200111/21/eng20011121_85012.shtml itself notes that, hey, when she gave that press conference she was standing in front of a "RE-EDUCATION CENTRE". The fact that you don't believe that that place is basically a brainwashing camp proves more about you than anything you've said in this entire debate.

"To my statement "The Falun Gong is not a religion but a fraud. A respectable religion provides a purpose of life, a compassionate community and so on. A fraud swindles people out of money and property. The Falun Gong is not a form of Qi Gong exercises." You said “Got any evidence for those claims? Or just empty, hate-filled rhetoric? Atheists would argue that the Catholic Church is a fraud too, because it makes people believe in something false.”"

Note that you don't respond to my argument. You cite American cult experts calling Falun Gong a cult: But why are the atheists who might call every religion a cult wrong? In short: What is the difference? When you can cite me a compelling, obvious distinction between the FG and the Catholic Church that justifies FG's suppression, you'll be getting somewhere.

"Arek, the Falun Gong is called a cult even by American cult experts, calling it a fraud is hardly hate-filled rhetoric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong#Is_Falun_Gong_a_cult.3F Again, your comparing the Catholic Church to the Falun Gong only shows your ignorance of cults and your disrespect for religion."

It'd sure be odd for me to be disrespectful to religion given that I'm a Buddhist. Again: I am calling the "cult" label pejorative, which a lot of people actually do (this page itself has had quite neutral people say that they don't like the idea of "cultic studies").

"You said: “But anyways, you can't ban a fraudulent "belief" or organization, you can only ban specific practices. Just like you can't ban the Nazis even when their stated goal is much worse than fraud: Genocide."

And note that what you cite below actually does NOT prevent anything but specific actions: "Propaganda for war" (BTW: why isn't media arguing for the Iraq War propaganda for war? One of the many problems with the UNHCR) and "advocacy of religious... hatred" are argued to be ACTIONS, but groups can come together and pretty much state Nazi principles. There are massive far-right parties in all those countries you reference who advocate openly the abuse of, say, Arab minorities: Remember LePen in France?

"Arek, you made a similar statement earlier: “Nazis who preach the downfall of every civil right known to man AND the murder of billions deserve that free speech protection too.” Your apparent belief in the absolute right to freedom of speech is intrinsically American. It is true that in the US Nazis’s hate speech and Nazis groups are legal. But neither you nor the US government have any right to impose this values onto other countries. Doing so violates the rights of other countries. "

Except that the Nazis surely think that they have the right to speak (you keep forgetting that, in essence, people you or I don't like have rights too) and libertarians the world over have problems with this position (going back to the Taoists again, for example). But I'm not imposing anything. I'm not shooting the CCP party members in the head. I'm expressing my opinion. My opinion is that this is wrong, period.

"International human rights laws permit the banning of hate speech and groups. The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the most respected human rights document which the US has signed and ratified. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates: “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” In other words the level of free speech you believe in is beyond what international human rights law would allow. Many western democratic countries like Sweden, Canada, Spain and Germany have hate speech laws criminalizing Nazis-like hate speech. Groups have also been banned in western democratic countries; France has an anti-cult law and Nazis groups (the very example you are using) have been banned in Germany. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/925009.stm"

Which is onerous and which I reject wholeheartedly, one of the many things I don't like about Europe.

"In my opinion, the fact that Nazis enjoy legal protection in the US (want to know why racism is a bigger problem in the US?) violates international laws. But I respect American values and I believe Americans should rightfully choose what suits them best. Being consistent in my respect for self-determination, I do not believe Americans have the right to impose their human rights values onto others. I hope these examples expand your understanding of international human rights laws."

Allowing Nazis free speech isn't why America has such massive problems with racism. Institutional racism is the reason. Here, you are the one stepping into (from my perspective) an area that you are sorely ignorant in (and, I will admit, being a white guy I'm not gonna be much better). I don't know where you get that the US' free speech rules violate international laws, but if they do then IMHO international law is wrong (and that's not because I'm an American patriot - America has much in it s human rights closet that is horrendous, and that I am personally responsible for in my own contributions and inaction, just as all American citizens are). Now, I do accept principles of self-determination, but do you HONESTLY believe that this is what has happened in China? Did a majority of people have a referendum and public discussion about their society's communal agreements on human rights, with every thought hashed out? Or did the existing power structure force their opinion down everyone's throats? There's a massive difference. Further, what about the Falun Gong's right of self-determination? Do they get one? The sort of bland multiculturalism you're spouting here is actually very noble, but it needs to be balanced in very concrete ways or else it becomes meaningless and, worse, itself oppressive.

Which is it, Sam? Do we respect law or do we respect culture? You seem to be saying both. You could reasonably reply that the two need to be balanced, and I agree. But then don't justify a CCP suppression campaign based on a single sentence in one human rights treaty (which you continue to make central to your case, ignoring all the others I cite).

"In our debate over the legitimacy of the ban you have made your argument solely on an American perspective and I have made mine based on international laws such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I am going to quote this Covenant and the Chinese Constitution again. Article 18 of the Covenant stipulates: “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” This law clearly permits governments to take action. Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution states: “No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.” The Falun Gong which threatened public health, order and the rights of others was banned legally."

I would characterize this as you arguing from a CCP perspective and me actually talking about how the laws themselves are written. You site the same Article 18, not responding to all my various arguments such as the fact that your entire case is built on ONE SENTENCE to pointing out that legal does not mean moral to explaining the distinction between, say, preventing a druid clan from engaging in human sacrifice and banning druidic worship because they engage in human sacrifice. Article 18 DOES permit governments to take action. It does NOT permit them to take ANY action. I'm not going to rehash the arguments here: You clearly won't respond to them, even if you do make another response.

"Here I am going to respond to one of your earlier statements which was not about the ban but the enforcement of the ban. you said: “Sam, even if the UN Covenant says that it's okay to put into place laws for vague goals such as "public health", laws like Geneva UNEQUIVOCALLY prevent anywhere near the actions the Chinese have claimed to have done, let alone what they likely have done."

You don't reply to a key phrase I make: "...the Chinese have claimed to have done". That is, I am saying that even CCP claims themselves establish a case for massive legal action against the government.

"First of all, let me repeat what I have said all along—I do not condone any abuse of anyone. The Chinese government while banning this cult has the responsibility to protect Falun Gong practitioners from abuses such as torture and to bring the perpetrators to justice. I also stand firm in my position that whatever abuses might have occurred in the enforcement of the ban do not negate the legitimacy of the ban. For example, the inhuman torture of detainees by the U.S. military personnel in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo prison in Cuba and other secret detention facilities in Europe do not negate the legitimacy of fighting terrorism."

A responsibility it is abrogating, but this is laughable as the claim of the US government that it's just a few bad apples doing the abuses. The torture and suppression is the plan of the CCP, and every action they have taken has proven this.

"In your earlier statement, by paraphrasing a HRW report, you also said: “http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/11/09/china1959.htm describes another human rights' organization stringent criticism and also notes that laws for being part of a "cult" organization include long prison sentences and death. THAT is not public health or security law, Sam. That is persecution.”

"I am aware of the condemnation of the ban from AI, HRW and American politicians. As I said before anyone who does not look into the arguments of both parties in a dispute is biased. These human rights organizations have never given the Chinese government’s justifications a fair look. I can say this because both the AI and HRW have never looked into the teachings and practices of the Falun Gong critically. I believe their stance also comes from the American perspective."

AI and HRW have looked into both disputing parties' allegations. Because of an array of reasons, ranging from the CCP's own laws to the emptiness of CCP propaganda to the uniformity of FG claims to the similarity of FG claims to the suppression of Christians and other groups to a general pattern of trusting victims of atrocities more than the alleged perpetrators to the fact that the CCP has been preventing any independent investigation or journalism to the reports of the few independent people on the ground, they are trusting the FG more. You have yet to give a single substantive reason to not believe the claims of Falun Gong practitioners themselves. Your response here could easily be quoted, virtually word for word, to defend the US' actions at Guantanamo.

"You misrepresented the findings of the HRW report. The HRW report states: “The Court added ‘those who set up and make use of cult organizations’ to other articles (of the Criminal Law) dealing with intentional murder or injury, sexual exploitation and rape, fraud, splitting the country, or overthrowing the socialist system. The ‘interpretations’ also laid out the characteristics of a cult organization. Article 300 mandates a minimum sentence of seven years for ‘especially serious’ or otherwise grave acts. In all other categories, penalties run as high as life imprisonment or death.” The HRW report makes it clear that only serious crimes, rape, intentional murder, etc, are punishable with a life sentence and death. So far, only one practitioner has been convicted to life imprisonment for organizing the Tiananmen self-immolation incident which killed two."

No, THAT is among the most egregious misrepresentations I have ever seen. Read that carefully: The Court ADDED 'cult organizations' to the status of rape, murder, etc. It did NOT say that only FG rapists and murderers would be executed or given minimums of 7 years in prison, but actually said that trying to establish or "use" the FG or similar organizations is AKIN to rape and murder! They did that so that they could justify the strongest sentences in the Chinese judicial system. Further, they also note a MINIMUM SENTENCE of 7 years. That means that what the law itself declares is that the easiest they could be on someone trying to sell an FG tape is to throw them in jail for 7 years. THAT is persecution.

"Further more the HRW report makes it clear that the Chinese government does not see ordinary Falun Gong practitioners as criminals. It states: “The authorities, in carrying out the crackdown, seem to be carefully distinguishing between organizers and ordinary Falun Gong followers. In a November 5 circular, the People's Supreme Court admonished the courts to make a sharp distinction between ‘criminal elements’ and cult leaders who should be treated harshly and common Falun Gong practitioners who should be extricated from cults, educated, then reintegrated into the social fabric.” This statement verifies what I have said all along, the ban was targeted at the Falun Gong leadership not ordinary members who have been seen as victims. As reported by the HRW only about 111 Falun Gong leaders were arrested."

No, this statement shows that the CCP is smart about their propaganda and TRY to deny that they're oppressing the rank and file. HRW then goes onto say that this is BS.

"You continued to twist the facts to make the Chinese government’s action look egregious. In referring to the same HRW report you made this incomplete statement in an earlier reply: “The fact that the LAWS THEMSELVES mandate long prison sentences and even execution for teaching FG or other ‘cult’ teachings (which, of course, the CCP can unilaterally determine at their discretion as to what is a cult), distributing video tapes, etc."

And the HRW/AI reports establish this both in the texts and in the footnotes. This is also where the reports of psychiatric abuse, labor camps, and phrases like "heretical organization" get their steam. If you have direct rebuttal, I'd like to see it.

"This is an extension of the kind of misleading statement I just clarified in the above paragraph. There is no Chinese law calling for “long prison sentences and even execution” for “teaching FG or other "cult" teachings.” I can understand why you want to put the Chinese government in the worst light possible, but what you are doing here can only be called a cheap shot. "

I cited the articles that established this. If this is false, I wouldn't mind seeing the text of the laws themselves or a counter source (preferably not one in the Chinese government or in Chinese-backed papers), but AI, HRW and many other sources I cited noted this. Anyways, this is an example of too little, too late (IMHO), because I had mentioned this over and over in previous replies.

"Your knowledge about the Chinese culture and history is impressive, I admit; I was intending to have an interesting cross cultural dialogue with you. You are an intelligent person, but your writing style, personal attacks and dishonesty are all very disappointing. Your writing is like a disorganized stream of consciousness which makes it hard to follow. Your combativeness and arrogance beams through your sarcastic comments, showing your inability to appreciate the opinions of others and to respect your opponent. But what really has depleted my respect for you is your consistence in misrepresenting my positions."

I apologize if you feel misrepresented, but unlike you I at least have directly quoted you one on one and given you my sources publically so you could review them without having to go to an external website. I'm sorry if my writing feels stream of consciousness - in most instances, I am trying to write quickly. Perhaps this has contributed to your lack of response, but I have noted that I have stated many arguments repeatedly and you haven't even asked what I meant (I would have gladly clarified).

"Despite your apparent ignorance on international human rights laws, the Falun Gong and peripheral issues like Qi Gong and acupuncture, I toned down my voice in my 3rd response and focused my attention to the issues in my 4th response. Unfortunately, somehow you feel comfortable continue to make unwarranted remarks against my integrity. You call me a hateful person in almost every one of your replies."

Yes, and I noted the toned down nature and applauded you for it (and I would actually like to have a dialogue with the Sam who wrote those toned down pieces and acknowledged complex reality, because I think we could actually find extensive middle ground), but your comments ARE filled with hateful speech and feeling, even if that's not your intent. For example: Like a lot of people who are very angry, and I'm sorry if this offends you but it comes from almost every word you write (just like you perceive ignorance and self-righteousness from me, which is probably partially misconception and probably has a seed of truth), you seem to skip over comments that are trying to be in a more compassionate vein, or things that lend nuance to your interlocutors' positions (the most obvious example of this is your impression that I am somehow a patriotic US nationalist, which is as far from the truth as imaginable and which I note on my talk page among many other places), and go directly to things that seem more like challenges. I probably should have written fewer comments that seemed like challenges, and I apologize if my stridency turns you off, but you do certainly come off as strident as well. A really egregious example of this is when I did go through many of your citations number by number and challenged them. You only responded to a few at random, but I noted that others who read my responses did find those and questioned me on them.

This is aggravated by some things you do that seem very fishy, Sam. Referring your interlocutors to your website is one such thing: I imagine you just didn't want to repeat arguments, but what it portrays is that you want to make someone who engages with you have to read through page after page of your opinion as a prerequisite to discuss. I am one of the few who will do so, Sam. Most other people will, quite rightly, insist that you make your opinion accessible to them, at least quoting the most relevant passages. Creating new sections for each debate worsened that, because it eliminated a lot of the context of discussion. This was coupled with you not quoting my replies in their entirety. You did begin to use many more sources, but your initial selection was sparse at best. Honestly, Sam: Imagine if you were writing a Wikipedia article (and I know I have a lot of unsourced comments in this as well, but so far you haven't objected to them and most of the unsourced comments are basically agreements). How many cites would you need to put into your replies, and how many did you, and what's the difference between those numbers? Comments like your impression that the majority of Chinese support the FG ban (which you have yet to directly quantify, though I will applaud your attempt to get there indirectly) that you stated quite boldly with no source made that seem much worse.

I know I can come off quite stridently, and it's a habit I need to learn to more fully channel in appropriate ways. I'm sorry if this caused you any distress. But my point is really strengthened by the fact that here you are talking directly to Falun Gong practitioners themselves who are saying how much they feel they have benefitted from FG, and you seem to not care that you would be advocating their religion's erasure from existence by force.

Now, let me note this, and I hope this encourages you to perhaps comment more in a cross-cultural vein, which I would certainly approve of and welcome: Even if you are driven by anger and hatred, you can also be driven by real, positive desires, and you may still be right (if only by accident).

"I notice that you have no respect for anyone or anything other than libertarians and libertarianism. You bashed editors on the both sides here, characterized UN Human Rights Covenants as horribly flawed, called Christianity a cult, put down republicans as brainwashed people and oppose all governments."

How about I see that everyone is flawed? You of course don't bother QUOTING me, so this is a caricature at best and doesn't deserve a response, but I will respond to it. I have actually described myself as ANARCHIST, and actually don't agree with right libertarians (though I respect a lot of their anti-statist commitments). I see that editors on both sides here have stated things that I think are unreasonable and false and have corrected them, which even if I'm wrong isn't a bad thing to do, and think everyone here could agree to note that both sides have a lot of problems. The UNHRC IS horribly flawed, but I also noted that it's better than nothing, to which you have never responded.

I did NOT call Christianity a cult. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of my meaning, which indicates that you have not been responding to my comments as expressed. I was noting that, by the same logic you use to call FG a cult and dismiss them hatefully, Christianity can be considered a cult. If my argument or analogy is correct or at least accurate in some way, then your position is hypocritical. Either support the suppression of Christians (and, whoopsidaisy, looks like that's the CCP is doing at the same time) or reject both. My very point is that the "cult" moniker is meaningless and pejorative in usage.

Same thing for Republicanism. I noted that by your standards they must be brainwashed. My very POINT is that people can be wrong, deluded, misinformed, etc. to some degree and also be right in other areas and so on, and that the only way to check ourselves against attacking speech or thought we don't like is to allow everyone a chance to speak. If they are obviously deluded, then that will be discovered in discussion: Good speech, not no speech. My actual opinion on how much propaganda, how much selfishness, and how much really valid insights Republicans and American conservatives hold are quite complex.

"You come across as a preachy absolutist. Libertarians like you are not liberals; I have never liked the anti-government libertarian philosophy."

A preachy absolutist who is arguing for the rights of people to not be beaten up for their opinions . I feel so awful. Meanwhile, you come across as a preachy absolutist who is driven by hate and intolerance. I hope that your actual position closely represents the more reasonable Sam that I've seen in some of these discussions, who concedes that there may be FG torture and so on.

I don't like liberals and view most liberals in the Democratic vein (note, of course, that we're immediately talking with a horrendously flawed language, which may be why we're having so many difficultes in communication; "liberal" used to MEAN libertarian, and so an Enlightenment liberal includes individuals like Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith) as apologists for statist violence. Note, of course, that you then go onto bash the West, including the actions of its most "liberal" individuals. But, of course, the nice thing about my philosophy is that I believe they have the right to advocate their position loudly, and I will fight to the death for their (and your, and the FG's) right to do so. I am an anarchist and therefore on the radical left, in the vein of Chomsky, Albert, Wise, etc.

"Take the government out of the equation and the power void can only be filled by business man, cult leaders like Li and religious preachers. Governments can never be perfect but I would never trade abuse with disaster."

Governments like the ones you then go onto lambast for death, destruction and warfare en masse. I do agree with you that perhaps democratically responsive regimes are better than businessmen and corporations (which, incidentally, is WHY I am not a right libertarian: I agree with you that they are advocating replacing statism with capitalism, which is no advancement and arguably worse), as well as theocracies. If those are the choices on the table, though, Sam, we should weep for humanity. Because every one of those groups are dangerous and perfectly capable of destroying all life. I happen to believe there are alternatives to traditional states, capitalism, theocracy, etc.

"I generally see American politicians and opinion makers who totally reject whatever comes out of China that is positive about the Chinese government as propagandists and would call anyone who agrees with this simplistic view naïve. I apply the same criticism on Chinese who totally reject negative remarks on China. The US government is democratic, while the Chinese government is a one-party dictatorship. However there is no reason for the Chinese to believe that the American government and human rights groups or any American who holds an absolutist negative point of view against the Chinese government cares about the Chinese."

I agree. But when you are citing ACTUAL PROPAGANDA MILLS, the positive data is totally meaningless. It is true that the Chinese people should probably be very skeptical about a lot of their self-made saviors, just like they should be doubtful (you apparently don't want to or can't muster this combination) of their governments' claims of good will and improvements, especially about the FG apparently. I myself, and my talk page and comments here make that more than clear, have a lot to say about the illusions of democracy in the West. But not all of those people will fail those tests. I cited, for example, HRW and Amnesty, and noted (to no rebuttal) that these same organizations are very critical of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, American domestic prisons, violations of Geneva, etc. etc. etc. It IS possible to see that everyone has blood on their hands and to care about that, Sam.

"China and its people had suffered more than a century of egregious foreign aggression from 1840 to 1949 at the hands of Western democratic countries like Britain and the US. The British government forced China to open its markets for opium trade while plundering China of its natural resources. The US government and businessmen had abused China and its people the same way but to a lesser degree. It was the CCP that finally united the Chinese to fight off all foreign aggression. For that accomplishment the CCP has won its place in the Chinese history."

Joining a list of countries like Vietnam, Romania, Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, virtually all of Latin America, etc. that have been victimized by the US and Europeans. A lot of them didn't turn to dictators or tyrants to run their lives. They tried to turn to democracy, and some did and are succeed(ing). Are you honestly going to say that ONLY the CCP could protect China from the West? That a democracy couldn't do it?

"Although many Western countries had acted in the role of abusers, interestingly since 1949 these countries have condemned the CCP for abusing its citizens, as if they really cared about the well beings and rights of the Chinese. Despite the fact that minorities like the Chinese Americans and blacks were discriminated in the US, the US government and the media have been champions in promoting this propaganda. Arek, the anti-Chinese government sentiment you echo often amuses me, people like you are so full of themselves (or ignorant) that they actually believe they know the Chinese government better than the Chinese. What has the West ever done to help the Chinese? And what have guys like you ever done to improve the lives of the Chinese?"

Hypocrisy on both sides as always, Sam. The CCP attacks the US and the US attacks the CCP, just like the US attacked the Soviet Union and the SU responded in kind. Gulags versus segregation, Afghanistan versus Vietnam... EVERYONE has their hands bloody. That position is really the only consistent one I can see. (I suppose saying everyone is just A-okay and no one is being oppressed would be consistent too, but it'd also be laughably naive). But I in fact DO care and comment on the human rights of Chinese Americans, African Americans, Iraqis, etc., much to apologetics and assaults virtually indistinguishable from yours, down to the accusations of hypocrisy (inverted of course).

What are YOU doing for the Chinese, Sam? Right now, all I can see you doing (and I don't know your other commitments or projects so this may be totally unfair) is assaulting the rights of a particular group. Anyways, I don't think the Chinese people really need my help, I think that without obstacles in their way they can do just fine. The US is probably one of those obstacles, so is the CCP. Both are functionally outside political entities harming the prerogatives of the people of the area called "China".

It'd be fair to note that I may not have the full knowledge a Chinese citizen may have because of living in the country. However, people are also quite immunized against seeing their own flaws, and outside perspectives can be important. You seem to think you know America better than I do, for example (I don't know your personal status as far as current citizenship and personal identification too well, wouldn't mind learning more). Further, I really doubt for some reason you'd say that the German people knew the Nazi government better than you or I and therefore there were no concentration camps. Propaganda and oppression do serve to constrain possible thought, Sam, that's why they're done. But let's say that 99.9% of the Chinese people simply were prostrate in front of the awe of the CCP and just loved everything it did. If the CCP was also, say, murdering people, or declaring war, or doing immoral things, 99.9% of China would be wrong. It is this PRINCIPLED objection that you seem to not understand, in all of these back-and-forths. You yourself go onto note that, hey, the Chinese people also happen to know a lot more human rights violations than I do... Seems that that superior knowledge cuts both ways. I myself have cited more than a few authorities, including China scholars and Chinese themselves, that are discussing how the CCP is becoming politically obsolete, and their FG/Christian/etc. crackdowns are part of their last gasp at trying to remain political viable. My perception is that the Chinese people are slowly by fiat making their government better.

"I am not saying that the Chinese government has not violated the rights of its people. Admittedly, Beijing still exercises a significant degree of control in areas like free speech and, as the Chinese are aware, some local government agencies can be abusive. For every example of a human rights violation in China that an American can provide, a Chinese can probably provide ten more. China only abandoned its feudal system in 1911, and the concept of human rights is not an inherent part of the Chinese culture, as a matter of a fact it challenges some of the country’s traditions. As of 2007 the People’s Republic of China is only fifty-eight years old and human rights development has only been a goal for the last two decades."

That's all you can say? Free speech and local agencies? You do note that we're probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg... Odd that for the Falun Gong, it must be exaggeration, but if we're speaking generally it's probably much worse than Westerners think. Note how you assume unproblematically that if the CCP SAYS it's trying to develop human rights, it must be. Maybe they're doing so only as a propaganda move? Or actually just SAYING they are (which many could argue quite plausibly is the case?) Or, even if it is authentic, maybe it's because the CCP's ability to dominate the society with force is waning?

Again, I find it just amazing that you ignore a quite massive and impressive history of Chinese human rights and libertarian philosophy. The Taoists were almost as aggressively authoritarian as is possible, demanding a virtually non-existent state. I don't think the Chinese people don't understand the notion that people should be treated with a baseline of respect, including tolerance: That is the notion of every moral system known to man. And since China has been exposed to America for quite some time, at least since the 19th century, you'd think they might have picked something up. I don't think it's "China" that's the obstacle, nor ignorance. It's the CCP. All states will fight tooth and nail to hold onto their domineering prerogatives, whether the US or the CCP. This is why we hold them to the highest standard.

"Since adopting the new Constitution in 1982 the Chinese government has developed laws protecting the human rights of its citizens based on international standards. Over the years twenty-one UN human rights conventions have been signed and ratified. In 2004, China amended its constitution to include formal guarantees of human rights. The Washington Post called it “Laying down a new marker in the nation’s swift march away from the doctrinaire Communism of its founders.” (source: Edward Cody, “China Amends Constitution to Guarantee Human Rights,” Washington Post, March 14, 2004.)"

Another thing you need to bear in mind, Sam (and here I think I can quite clearly say you are ignorant): American sources are going to call shifts towards doctrinate CAPITALISM a "march away from the doctrinaire Communism of [China]'s founders". It's even arguable that China was EVER a Communist state: It's much more akin to fascism in many ways. For example: Western outcry has focused on prison labor, which competes with US industry, but not for China's horrendous working conditions for a majority of its workers, which benefits US industry. But those 2004 guarantees don't seem to be stopping it from oppressing its Christian or Falun Gong population using "heretical organization" status to do so, which is as antithetical to human rights as imaginable.

"Human rights development takes time. It takes time to educate the public and civil servants to respect human rights and abide by human rights laws, as evidenced by the lengthy history of human rights development in the United States. Despite the “all men are created equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence, blacks were en-slaved for another ninety years and then discriminated against for another century. American women were not given voting rights until one hundred fifty years after the Declaration of Independence. Today’s Chinese do not enjoy the human rights that Americans have, but there really is no ground for believing that China—a country that only came to know about human rights in the 80’s—can instantly establish the same level of rights that the Americans now have. The Chinese government has made concrete human rights improvements in the past decades and the Chinese are looking forward to the future."

Somewhat true, though I describe my opinion on that above, including noting quite a lot of backslides by the Chinese. But it doesn't JUSTIFY what's happening. And all this talk is very disingenuous when you are yourself justifying assaults on the human rights and dignity of a religious group.

"I know you are going to challenge me for saying that the great majority of the Chinese support their government, so I am giving you the source now. Surveys done by Westerners have shown that the majority of Chinese are actually pretty happy and satisfied with the way their country is being handled. Richard Layard, a British economist and a leading figure in the new field of Happiness Studies, found in his global research that former Communist countries are most unhappy; but while only 40% of Russians are happy more than 70% of Chinese say that they are happy. (source: Richard Layard, Happiness, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2005) page 32.) And in a fifteen nation survey done in 2006, the Philadelphia-based PEW research center found that most populations are dissatisfied with their national conditions, but China is a notable exception—81% of Chinese say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their country. http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/PAG_report_2006.pdf With the majority of its citizens happy and satisfied, surely the Chinese government is enjoying popular support.

Comparing Russia to China, hmm? I guess the Mob-ruled nation which has backslid into a veritable Third World country would be the proper reference point. Now, PEW is a reasonable source, but there are just an uncountable number of points of basic logic you are skipping.

A) Is that support for the government at all meaningfully declared? In a society where dissidents are crushed, jailed, and assaulted, and with powerful propaganda organs, it would be very difficult to form independent thoughts. In America, a good portion of the population thanks to the effect of American media viewed Saddam Hussein as a major threat, more indeed than the amount of Iranians or Israelis who did. Do you believe they're right, Sam?

B) General support for the government, basically a "Do you feel your government is basically taking care of you?" statement, does NOT establish satisfaction or approval on particular policy points. Majorities of Americans expressed approval for Bush, yet in polls they indicated that they wanted things Bush was opposed to: Expanding peace and anti-proliferation treaties, for example. That says a lot about American democracy, but it also says that people can feel patriotic and still express criticism

C) I've mentioned over and over that majority support, even overwhelming, does not justify minority suppression. Hitler was possibly the most popular Chancellor in German history, and at least pluralities if not majorities of Americans either silently acquiesced to or actively supported slavery and Jim Crow. Mind justifying those things for me?

On China being preferred to the US: If you were really responding to my entire points, in context, you would note that I am in fact ONE of those people! Internationally, the US is the bigges threat to world peace. Period. Since you seem to be reading with glasses on that will make me into a dogmatic anti-CCP American jingoist, you may miss that quote, and I really hope you don't, because it might indicate that you're actually not talking to the entity you think you are.

Further, note that this is a comparative statement: Who's better? Picking pretty much the world's superpower pariah for comparison begs a lot of questions (though I understand since I think you were assuming I was a US apologist; I just take the stance that EVERYONE is deeply flawed), but anyways it does NOT say that the world LIKES China. It also doesn't say that the world likes the suppression of the Falun Gong, nor does it prove the world right: Maybe those majorities are statists who are okay with tyranny. Argument by majority, which is what this comes down to, is a fallacy.

Might also wanna note, say, China's pretty well-known repression of its own TENS OF MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDcwOWFlZDViMGIyZjkwNmM2NWI1ZTc5YzkzMDUzZTk= . (To show elementary honesty: The National Review is a conservative American site, so I'd take what they say with a grain of salt... Mind admitting some of your sources might not be 100% trustworthy, Sam?) Think those people like being oppressed and are part of that group that likes China? That 10% of the population? This also puts the lie to your notion that the Falun Gong are being oppressed because they're somehow uniquely bad.

Pew and other sources, BTW, benefit from the fact that it's almost impossible to adequately study China given CCP-based lack of access for independent study and journalism, massive difference from province to province, etc. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDcwOWFlZDViMGIyZjkwNmM2NWI1ZTc5YzkzMDUzZTk= describes, for example, a very complex Chinese love-hate relationship to the US.

"Some informed Americans have spoken out against the kind of China-bashing that you are expressing here. In his article “It’s wrong to demonize China” published on the New York Times, former President Carter praised the positive developments in China and stated that quality of life and human rights of the Chinese have improved enormously during the last two decades.” http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc36.html"

You mean, like mentioning Sen and his partner Dreze in "Hunger and Public Action" and noting how Mao's health reforms would have saved more than a hundred million people in India had they been instituted, which is something I cite as a death toll of capitalism? Or noting that China would be a better imperial ruler of the world than the United States because it would at least not turn to butchery and torment? I can add that the Dalai Lama and some other individuals around him have spread a myth of Tibet as paradise lost to the Chinese, when in fact it was a brutal monarchy with powerful theocratic elements and for many Tibetans China was a liberator. But when you cite President Carter, you expect me to fold like a house of cards, probably because Carter is liberal and you are assuming I am too. However, saying that a government has raised quality of life and human rights is like saying that an architect has started building houses that don't fall down. The government's JOB, even if one believes "governments" as imagined now should exist (I don't), is to do what China failed to do in the period Carter refers to, prior to those previous two decades. Further, Carter IS an apologist, not for China but for statist power in general. He is more likely to defend the prerogatives of states to oppress their people without check. I have as much distaste for the office of the Presidency as for the head of the CCP.

This cite, by the way, is another example of your pattern of quoting people to make much stronger arguments than they make. Carter is a well known human rights advocate and has a lot to say about China. There is a consistent practice in America (and this statement has a lot of myth in it, but it does inform the politics somewhat) of trying to balance contempt for China's human rights with integrating China into the global economy, more of a compromise-based strategy. This is opposed to a hardline strategy. Carter is just noting that China isn't demonic and is improving. He is NOT saying China is hunky-dorey.

I like how people who agree with you are informed even if they don't source anything (yeah, he is Carter and arguably a secondary source himself, but nonetheless) but people who disagree with you are ignorant. Do you believe ANY pro-FG people are informed?

"Arek, I know you have a tendency of calling anyone who makes positive remarks of the Chinese government an apologist and propaganda artist. That means in addition to putting me in that category you will also have to call the great majority of the Chinese in China, the majority in major countries and President Carter apologists."

No, I call people who cite direct propaganda mills without noting that in their attributions (even admitting that, yes, they used a book that is probably sheer propaganda as justification for their position, but they want on to support it) . From my perspective, I see that "China" as an entity is quite diverse, with quite a lot of dissidence, desire for freedom and involvement, even very cool things like cooperative enterprises much like Zanon in Argentina, etc. as well as a lot of bad stuff. You, like most unabashed statists, conflate China the political entity, in this case a totalitarian one (which, however, would probably still be a better agent to be the reigning global empire than the United States, one of those quite uncensored statements I made to no reply or notice from you), with the real China: The people artificially snaked together by an invisible line on a map they didn't create. I have no problem with the real China, just like I have no problem with the real USA. I have major problems with the artificial political institutions that claim to represent them.

Another truism to note: Propaganda may coincidentally be true, but most reasonable people dismiss it because the people speaking it have a vested interest in lying and very little reason to tell the truth, among many other problems with it. And, to be utterly clear: There are reasonable defenses of both "China" as in the context above and even of the CCP. Just not the ones you're offering. Bad defenses I lump in as propaganda, unwitting or witting; reasonable defenses may be true or false, but they're not automatically propaganda.

"Arek, there is no point continuing this debate. As much as I appreciate debates, I really do not appreciate your lack of knowledge on the issues and your lack of respect for so many people. I hope we can agree to disagree and continue to contribute positively to Wiki articles.--Samuel Luo 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)"

I was considering bowing out myself. I don't mind my lack of knowledge on this topic being noted: I am a layman and have never pretended anything otherwise. But Sam, that would seem to be YOUR problem, not mine. If you want to convince people of your viewpoint, your evidence should be clear, accessible, and should be able to compellingly answer criticisms, however uninformed you find them. Further, doing some research on this topic, I see more and more how abusive your citation and argument is, even from a basic social science standpoint. Looking back over the argument, I see innumerable conceded or ignored arguments: There was a whole subsection about the ecology, for example, that I engaged you on, to no response. I don't know who exactly I don't respect, aside from tyrants and abusers. I've actually been the one trying to argue for basic respect for the people in the Falun Gong and tolerance for their viewpoints, you're the one justifying the opposite. I certainly can agree to disagree, and I think my position on how to contribute to Wiki articles in general and this one in particular is quite clear (maybe it got lost in this fray, though :) ). If you have substantive disagreements on THAT score, we can discuss it. ArekExcelsior 05:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}} Please add [[simple:Falun Gong]] to the interwiki. Thanks · Tygrrr^·talk· 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. CMummert · talk 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the criticism summary on the main page is too long. While other sections have at most two subsections on the main page, it has 6, including its intro. It's not as though it is any longer than the other pages either; the teachings and overseas pages are about the same length and with about the same number of subsections, but they are not accorded this special treatment. I suggest that this page's summary be reduced to a single paragraph to fit in with the rest of the page. Mcconn 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be as long as the other sections, I reckon. Probably I think a good way to order this page is to have a section for every branch page, like "teachings", "criticisms", "conflict with the CCP", etc. I think blowfish will only start getting involved again when the arbcom is finished. I would like an article that strongly references the wiki article guide and the stuff about how to make featured articles. I also think eventually that criticisms page will need to change to "third party views", and it will have to hold both positive and negative third party views on Falun Gong. Each point of contention can clearly lay out the pro and con views using neutrally presented reliable sources. It's far from that now. If no one else objected, for now I would suggest culling this section so it is the same size as the others. Please speak up any editors that disagree, or if this is stepping into revert-war territory. I don't have time now to spend on wiki. Since there are probably going to be large changes on several of these pages, maybe the way it will have to be done to avoid a lot of problems is to draw up a kind of plan for how each page should eventually look, a very rough guide, then go from there. --Asdfg12345 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure that it would only be a matter of minutes for someone to make a revert were I to cut down this section right now, why is it that this topic is has been posted here for over 5 days with no response by the people it concerns most? This is important and I want your response. Last time I brought this up, it was ignored in the same way, but I won't let it go this time. Mcconn 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't respond yet because of the pending ArbCom case about how to move forward regarding future edits. To say the criticism section should be as long as each section of the rest of the article promoting FG is yet another example of twisting rules to justify shortening criticisms. I'm not saying the criticism section should be as long as the section as the informative one. But the line between informative and propaganda has been crossed far too many times. This is yet another idea to make sure FG is received in the best possible light whilst sweeping any concerns under the carpet - not exactly the mark of a true 'democratic society' (at least FG is opposing CCP because of curtailing freedoms, but it seems they only want to replace it with an authoritarian system benefiting FG practitioners). Nevertheless, I'm not going to engage in serious discussion about this now with the ArbCom still not having arrived at a decision yet. Insisting on anything now would seem to indicate you wanting to promote something before you are (possibly) placed on revert parole. Why can't you wait? Jsw663 11:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there no harm in starting discussion now. You didn't address the issue in your post, but instead attacked my motivation for this suggestion. The fact that this section is accorded special treatment is the problem. It's simply out of place to be as long as it is. This is the issue. Mcconn 10:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of discussion you'd want with most of the anti-FG camp banned or on parole, and only half the pro-FG camp on parole. It cannot be balanced anymore when anyone accused of being a Chinese Communist Party member is banned, yet editors making these wild allegations only get a slap on the wrist. I already answered you on the issue of length, but did not on content. This is because I do not know enough about FG to form an opinion on content so far, and I'd require time (not something I have an abudance of now). Jsw663 13:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some details on the main page

"religious" teachings? As I said before, this is totally a matter of opinion. It doesn't matter how much you think these teachings are religious, Mr. He or Sam, Falun Gong practitioners don't, and I'm sure they're not the only ones who don't. By insisting on including the term "religious teachings" in the intro, you are in turn insisting on your opinion. This doesn't get any more pov. Spiritual is the safest term to use because it's more broad and no one denys it.

Falun Gong and Falun Dafa... I've already explained this a hundred times to you. While their literal meanings differ, they refer to the same thing in practical use. Falun Dafa practitioners and Falun Gong practitioners refer to the same group of people. When I or any other practitioner says they practice Falun Gong we aren't only referring to the exercises, and when we say Falun Dafa we aren't only refering to the teachings. In practical use they have the same meaning and refer to both the exercises and the teachings. Some media have used the term Falun Gong, and others have used the term Falun Dafa, but they are talking about the same thing. The literal differentiation can be made later on in the article, perhaps in the teachings section, but putting it in the intro only creates confusion.

"The" Falun Gong. Enough of this "the" business. Look everywhere else in the article, do you see a "the" before Falun Gong? No, you don't. Very few media have put a "the" before the term "Falun Gong". It really doesn't make much sense, when you think of it. As most of us here probably know, there is no article like "the" in the Chinese language. So it's use is up to translators. Do people say "the Taichi" or "the Daoism"? No, and it just sounds like a bad translation. I've found that critical articles tend to use this "the" more, perhaps because it makes Falun Gong sound more like a secret society or a cult (at least in my mind it does). Maybe that's why certain people here are insisting on its use. But it doesn't make any sense and it's seldom used, so you should give it up boys. "Supression of Falun Gong" is the name of that page, and it was named a long time ago. When you put a "the" in the link it doesn't work. Are you forcibily trying to restrict people from seeing that page?

I don't know why you insist on these things. Sometimes it seems like you do it just for spite. And sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of 3 year olds. I hope you get it this time. Mcconn 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong teachings are religious. As someone has pointed out Li talks about providing salvation to humankind, if this is not religious I don’t know what is. It is your POV to say it is not but you should not push that POV on this article.

The Falun Gong is an organization. Members of the Falun Gong has also found many sub groups. Why deny being a organization? I don’t see any point in this argument at all.

You are removing critical links in the references. You are not here to help people to understand the truth. You are here to make this page a Falun Gong propaganda. --Pirate101 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You think the teachings are religious, and I don't. Perhaps many people disagree with me, but I know many people disagree with you too. There are lots of different understandings as to what constitutes a religion, and you're criterion may not be the same as others'. It's a matter of opinion, not fact. Wiki can't take a stance on this opinion, so we need to use a neutral word. That's why I chose "spiritual". It has a broader meaning in which "religious" may or may not be included. It's not saying that it is or isn't. How can you possibly suggest that it's me, not you, who is forcing their pov onto the article in regards to this?

Without proof, or something substantial to back them up, your words are meaningless, Pirate. You might as well be saying that Falun Gong is a "cooking movement", that's how much they're worth. Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the names of the spiritual discipline that Falun Gong practitioners adhere to. It's true that practitioners have gotten together and created organizations or associations for specific purposes, but there is no actual organization called Falun Gong. I can say with all certainty that you will only be a disturbance and waste of everyone's time to try to refute this. What I'm saying is fact, plain and simple.

I removed Samual Luo's PERSONAL website, which everyone has known for a loooooooong time does not meet wiki standards. It is a personal website by a self-proclaimed critic with no credentials. I also removed a link to a discussion about Falun Gong by random internet users. There's no way that such a link complies with wiki policy. Stop putting this garbage on the page. Mcconn 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of religion: Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life". The Falun Gong proclaims its teachings the highest & only truth on earth, Li claims to have the divine power to provide humankind salvation and he also claims to trun his followers into gods. If the Falun Gong is not a religion I don’t know what is. You are forcing your POV on this article.

The organization that represents the Falun Gong, registered in the US, is “the Eastern U.S. Buddha’s Study Falun Dafa Association” [14] Since you are a member of this Falun Gong organization I am sure you are aware of this, why continue concealing the facts. You are wasting my time.

Sam’s website is very informative and he has been interviewed by a number of media including San Francisco Chronicle and the KPFA. By Wiki policies, Sam can not add his own website to the article but others can. --Pirate101 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to McConn: Calling FG critics "a bunch of 3 year olds" and describing anti-FG websites as "garbage" does you little credit in light of the current ArbCom case. It is also not exactly a mature response in itself. I suggest you tone your language down, even if you personally feel FG critics are that 'worthless'. Jsw663 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I never called you guys three year olds, I said that I feel like I'm talking to three year olds. Actually, that's not quite right, it's more like 6 year olds. What I mean is that it's very hard to get a point through with some of the people here, even when it's very simple. It often has to be explained a number of times and in different ways to get it acrross. I'm actually a teacher and I find this quite similar to teaching kids sometimes. I'm not referring to everyone either, just a few individuals. Not all of the critical sites are garbage, but I will make no reservations using that word for the two sites I was referring to.

On the issue of these websites, I will try to clarify a little better why they are not acceptable. Pirate said "By Wiki policies, Sam can not add his own website to the article but others can." I've looked for the policy you're referring to but haven't found it. Perhaps you could show us. However, if you look at Self-published sources you may see more clearly why Sam's site is not acceptable no matter who adds it. It says that a self published sources are largely unacceptable, unless produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. Sam certainly does not meet that exception, and with so much opposition to it being there from the start, it really should be removed for good. As for the other site, if you look again at the link you'll discover that blogs are not acceptable sources either. Besides, the link is broken, it goes nowhere.

Religion - Go ahead an produce as many definitions of religion as you want, it won't make a difference. The fact is that this is a matter of dispute, not just with people here, but in academic circles as well. Take a look at Noah Porter's Master's Thesis page 35. You'll notice it sites two academics, one suggesting that Falun Gong is a religion, and the other providing reasons why it isn't. Wiki cannot take a stance on this. That is the main point, but that aside, there are lots of different definitions of religion in the world. There is no fixed definition. Many people would say that teachings without defined rules, ritual, or worship cannot be consitered religious. As I said, "spiritual" is a much broader term that may or may not include religion. It is a neutral word that satisfies both stances.

You said that I'm a member of “the Eastern U.S. Buddha’s Study Falun Dafa Association” [15]. I'm not. I have nothing to do with them. This organization is made up of a few Falun Gong practitioners, and has a number of functions, one of which is to represent Falun Gong practitioners in certain circumstances. Most practitioners act and organize themselves completely independently from this organization. There are also a lot of countries that have practitioners, but no organization. Does that mean they can't do anything? Of course not. Besides, the argument here is about whether we can use the term "the Falun Gong" as the name of an organization or in the name of what practitioners have done or said, and you've provided no support for it. As I said before, you're digging into a bulls horn on this one.

Also I've made clear points about why Falun Gong and Falun Dafa should not be separated in the intro, and they have not been responded to. Why then, was this still reverted? Mcconn 10:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, that is your opinion, anyone who reads Chinese understand that these two terms mean very different things. Also don’t delete Samuel’s website without consensus. --Mr.He 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel's website has been repeatedly removed by BInguyen, a third-party administrator and a member of the ArbCom. Unless you provide some reasons to overrule his decision, the website will not stay. Also, there is no way you can separate the meaning of "Falun Gong" or "Falun Dafa" from how it is understood by people who practice it. On a side note, if you'd learn to present your arguments instead just posting simple two-line utterances like you've always done, you could come across as someone more reasonable. Luckily the articles will be eventually placed on probation. I'm waiting to get started with some real improvements. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: If we can only report the understanding of Falun Gong practitioners in Wikipedia as you suggest..."There is no way you can separate the meaning of 'Falun Gong' or 'Falun Dafa' from how it is undersood by people who practice it."....these articles can never tell the complete story of the Falun Gong. For you to argue this indicates that you think the POV of practitioners should prevail over all other considerations (including the words of Master Li Hongzhi himself.) Your agenda is clear and it comes directly from the Master:

A Dafa disciple who fails to achieve the effect of safeguarding and upholding Dafa has no way of reaching Consumation, because your cultivation is different from that of the past and the future. “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 40

But Wikipedia is not and cannot be a platform for Falun Gong practitioners to "safeguard and uphold" Li's teachings. --Tomananda 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is, because "safeguarding and upholding Dafa" means to make sure that the reports about Dafa are made truthfully and so this is exactly what Wikipedia requires. --HappyInGeneral 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that, mister "determined activist" [16]. I'm talking about a simple definition of these concepts, not about anything you concoct as my agenda. If practitioners view Falun Dafa and Falun Gong as basically the same thing, where do your ideas draw their legitimation? Are we talking about the same thing or not? By the way, how come a native English speaker systematically misspells "Consummation" even when citing a direct quote? ---Olaf Stephanos 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a snide and unnecessary comment, Olaf! Is this discussion about Li's teachings and the practices of Falun Gong, or is it about whether a critic of the Falun Gong has made a spelling or typing mistake in his writing? Your hubris speaks for itself. As to the "determined activist" reference, why do you bring that up? Is it to gloat that an Arbitrator has made that comment? So much for Wikipedia "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks." --Tomananda 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives