Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong/Archive 1

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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Controversial Teachings

Samuel, you know that we are talking about creating a stand alone article on the Controversies. Introducing as much as you have here without any discussion is inappropriate. CovenantD 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


The blockquote in the practice section

The block quote the practice section was introduced as it summarizes the purpose of the exercises and the role practice(the exercises) plays in the cultivation system of Falun Gong. Thats central to Falun Gong teaching. Dilip rajeev 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the move?

Why was this article moved from Falun Gong teachings to this new title? I can't find any discussion of this move or whether there was a consensus regarding the move. Ande B 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about splitting the main Falun Gong article has been going on for quite a while (it was over 100k). This is actually one of the less contentious moves. CovenantD 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that the main article was rather long, though quite interesting. I wasn't looking for an argument, just curious. I get rather confused at times about naming conventions & article moves. I look for consistencies and just don't seem to find them when I expect them! Ande B 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see any relation between splitting the main article and renaming the daughter article. What is difference betwen "Teachings of Falun Gong" and "Falun Gong teachings"? How about we rename other articles also if there is a convention? Or people can just do it without reason? Quite puzzled. Fnhddzs 05:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. You'd think someone could point to a WP policy on this. Ande B 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I misunderstood the question. I have no idea why that name change happened. CovenantD 06:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete the images

Thanks. Fnhddzs 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I should have reverted earlier. CovenantD 06:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

the first paragraph says nothing about the teachings, a waste of my time. --Yueyuen 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and support Samuel and Tomananda's ideas for the opening paragraphs. Those by Dilip are more appropriate for the Origin section of the main article. Let's not duplicate information in multiple places. CovenantD 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That should not be construed as support for their version, just the thrust of their version. I'm not expressing an opinion on the wording as it currently stands... yet :-) CovenantD 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with covenant that the other para is redundant if you look at content in other sections.. what is important is the the introduction must atleast tell the reader what Falun Gong is according to the teachings of Falun Gong... the quote perhaps would better fit into the Buddha Fa section... and actually Falun Dafa refers to the system of cultivation not the teachings.. Dilip rajeev 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system." .. That is a central aspect.. if you look at www.falundafa.org you will see that the website says... "All of the content in this site – excepting the founder's writings – represents the ideas and opinions of Falun Dafa practitioners, and should not be taken as representative of Falun Dafa itself.We merely hope to introduce this wonderful practice to you, and we hope you will take some time to explore it for yourself!"... Dilip rajeev 05:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember, you only get to have that in one place on the Falun Gong pages, so choose carefully!  :-) CovenantD 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

I'm inclined to give the practitioners a bit of leeway on content here, just like the critics get leeway on the Controversies page. Let's give Dilip a bit of time to figure out where he thinks the paragraph might fit in better. CovenantD 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Demons

If the two people involved in the revert war don't start talking about it I'm going to ask that the page be locked. CovenantD 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The two articles seem to cover the same basic areas under different names. I don't see why they are separated. CovenantD 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've stricken my comments since they are that of an editor and not a mediator. See below. CovenantD 15:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong

Let's start with the assumption that the Theoretical article should be folded into this one unless a compelling reason not to it presented. Please present your opinion, Merge or Don't merge, based only on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Especically relevant to this are Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:No original research. We'll allow three days for comment. CovenantD 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Don't merge

Reasons to merge

The content of this section should be merged into the teachings section. The word "epistemology" means the study of how we know. In Falun Gong, there is no theory of "how we know" beyond Li's sustained assertions that he holds the only truth, or has discovered things by traveling back in time (like the time he visited Jesus' paradise and found there were no asian people there). The real question that should be asked...but the practitoners will never agree to it....is how does Li know what he claims to know? They believe in him as the holder of the highest cosmic truths, and he speaks of himself as the teacher to the gods of his Dafa. The epistemological equation in Falun Gong is very simple:

  • TRUTH = Whatever is spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi

Or as Li so succinctly put it:

  • Dafa is the Fa (Law) of the cosmos, and Dafa has created all beings in the cosmos. “Using at Will” (June 28, 2000 ) in Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12.
  • I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

--Tomananda 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to meet the Wiki criterion of content forking. I don't think it is for reasons of having different POV's, but rather when Dilip created this separate page he perhaps thought that by using words like "theoretical" and "epistemological" in the title a separate page would be justified because it is somehow at a different (deeper) level. But that is not the case. The section called "theoretical background" basically compares Falun Dafa with other Qigong systems, tries to show how it is different, and then concludes that it is not a religion. This section lacks internal cohesivness and seems to try to do too many different things. It, and the sections that follow, belong in the Teachings page. --Tomananda 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons not to merge

This article covers the teachings the primary sources are the main reference. The Epistemological studies see ( Epistemology ) discusses the viewpoints on the teachings, comparison with other systems, etc. The material going under the two titles being quite different. 202.83.33.58 07:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Olaf says a word

Instead of waiting for an official mediator, Samuel Luo and some other editors are again fomenting a crackbrained revert war by introducing slanderous interpretations of the teachings. When will you ever learn? ---Olaf Stephanos 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Quoting directly from Li is alanderous? When will you guys stop concealing the true teachings? --Samuel Luo 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: the version you are promoting is dishonest because it conceals some of the most important teachings. I just did a search for the words "Fa-rectification" and nothing came up in your version. I also did a search on the word "salvation" and only found it once..burried in an over-long Li block quote (two entire paragrpahs no less!) I assume you want some wording changes in the version I just reverted to, and that's ok with me. But we must have a starting point which includes all the important teachings. To exlude something as basic as Fa-rectification and Li's role in offering salvation to mankind is unacceptable. --Tomananda 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is "concealing" anything. All the teachings are available for free download. You attributing senseless interpretations to things is what I am against.

220.226.15.209 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not concealing anything? Li calls all of you Fa-rectification Dafa disciples and that means your salvation (consumation) depends on the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party. It is no longer enough for any of you to just stay home and read Li's sacred books, you have to stick it to the Chinese government in order to reach consumation and become gods. Li states that over and over again every time he makes a speech. Yet you continue to deny this most basic of teachings under all maner of pretexts. To say that this material is available for free download does not justify your suppression of this material in this Falun Gong article. The blatant dishonesty of the Falun Gong absolutely boggles my mind. --Tomananda 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys. all teachings are in public. What I see are no more than what are posted on the falundafa.org website. But some of you tried to interpret the teachings, instead of reporting. That is not appropriate. Fnhddzs 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I emphasized the first part of the sentence - "Instead of waiting for an official mediator" - to make it as eye-catching as possible. Once again, it didn't help. And you keep on avoiding my important points, like you've been doing before. That's one of the reasons we need a mediator. By now you should know the standards of writing an encyclopedia article, something you've been repeatedly demanding from practitioners. While we all want to have a balanced article, we don't buy your expedient quotes with snide comments. It's clear we cannot get forward without a third party, so why can't you wait? This page is included in the formal mediation request. Gentlemen, why do you have to pour in your stuff now?
By the way, I am not 220.226.15.209. I suggest everybody signs their posts. ---Olaf Stephanos 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no intent of the FLG side trying to say "but this whole big straightfoward unaltered quote doesn't mean this because...etc!". If the FLG side thinks the teachings are public, and uses this to justify the laughable reverts, I'd suggest a deletion of this article. --Yenchin 09:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Content regarding the Fa-Rectification and the CCP will be included in due time and it will be done contextually and responsibly. However, trying to do this now is jumping the gun. I suggest that if you have an idea for the page right now you can write it down and save it till we have a mediator. I agree that the page isn't good right now, but it's not a disaster either, so it can wait. Just wait a little longer, I'm sure we've all got ideas for it. I know I do. Mcconn 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the current version

"Instead of waiting for an official mediator, Samuel Luo and some other editors are again fomenting a crackbrained revert war by introducing slanderous interpretations of the teachings. When will you ever learn? ---Olaf Stephanos 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"

I agree, as what is on the page now is an erroneous and slanderous interpretation and should be corrected. The concept of cultivation practice and the words 'Zhen-Shan-Ren' - which is the most central part of the teachings - are not mentioned until halfway down. I think it is fine to include a section on sickness karma, the depravity of mankind, even aliens if you like, but as it stands now it is very far from being an encyclopedic reporting of the teachings of Falun Gong. For example, the introduction seeks to make a split between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa in some way? That doesn't exist and I have only ever seen that on Samuel's website. It is one thing, one teaching, and there is no 'two main components' like that. I think I have read Samuel saying that the words 'gong' and 'Dafa' have very different meanings. Yes, but they are just two different words that have been used to describe the same teaching. Also, the word 'the' before Falun Gong or Falun Dafa should be removed. I have requested unprotection. My plan is to:

. Remove the obvious bias in the tone and wording of the sections Falun Dafa, Sickness Karma, Depravity of today's people. . Change the order of those sections to more closely correspond with the teachings . Introduce in the beginning that Falun Dafa is cultivation practice based on Zhen-Shan-Ren

They are the main changes that should be made, maybe there are plenty more. 'Depravity of today's people' is actually also a biased use of words. Master Li has discussed the situation of mankind today in the context of the whole universe drifting from the Fa - it is not as it is portrayed on the page now. Like I say, if you just write it down without any of your own ideas, then it can stand for itself and people can make their own assessment. Some sections about Fa-rectification etc. can also be added. --Asdfg12345 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Yueyen, and the reverting between two versions

Yueyen, the version you want to use is a really inaccurate portrayal of the teachings of Falun Dafa. Perhaps some of the aspects from that version could be used in this one. The subheadings of the other version really do not constitute the essence of what Falun Dafa teaches. I think that you want that version because it reflects negatively, rather than because it actually portrays the teachings. I think it would be reasonable to put in a section corresponding to "Depravity of todays people", though discussing those issues in greater context and attempting to discuss the scope of what Falun Dafa is talking about in this regard - the whole universe having deviated from Zhen-Shan-Ren. Even so, those things are a minor part of the teachings of Falun Dafa. If it were to be used, I think the article would have to be quite long to justify it, and include sections on other, different aspects of the teachings. There are some pages on wikipedia that are very long - like the one on Buddhism. If this article was to become quite long, it would make sense to expand and put in all these parts that are not the main focus of the teachings - that would make sense. As you want it now, it is inaccurate, selective, POV and bordering on slanderous. We can work on making quite a long article, as I think that would be a good idea, and then things like what Master Li has said about homosexuality, "depravity of today's people", and so on could all be included. I request that you do not revert this version. I do not have time right now, but I will copy in parts from the other version as a beginning to creating a longer article. Then over the weeks to come I can put it more subsections to talk about other aspects of the teachings. Let me know what you think about this proposal. It would not be good to revert constantly, and the version you want, to become something that actually explains what Falun Dafa is, would have to change too much that its not worth keeping as a base. --Asdfg12345 12:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Yueyen I think it would be best to address the issues I raised in the above post. I do not want to keep reverting back and forth. The things you have written for wanting to revert to the other version do not make sense to me. Perhaps I misunderstand, though. To be honest, I am confused by your message. "Your depiction of Li’s teachings is not accurate. To avoid POV, we should just quote his words here." The other version has now got the Falun emblem included, and it consists almost entirely of direct quotes from Master Li. The version you want to put up contains far less direct quoting and it seems like whoever wrote it had a clear idea of how they wanted to depict the teachings, then they found put some quotes in between their commentary, rather than simply reporting the teachings. The sections "Falun Dafa", "Sickness Karma" and "Depravity of todays people" are all to a greater or lesser degree inaccurate in reporting what Master Li has actually taught, and contain all sorts of obviously negative commentary. The best way to present the teachings would be to almost solely quote from Master Li. In this note I am explaining what I see is mistaken with the version you are advocating, mostly in reference to those three sections. Please respond to what I have said. --Asdfg12345 14:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


DIALOGUE PLEASE

I have reshuffled and renamed sections. The problem we all have with what you want on the page, Yueyen, is that we think that it is a major misrepresentation of what Falun Dafa teaches, and that it is a deliberate misrepresentation. What I think is that if Falun Dafa is actually a bad thing, and Master Li has been saying bad things, then all you need to do is to present that without any kind of editorial style or slanderous tendencies. Other practitioners: maybe the best idea would be to revise the sections so they corresponds closer with what Falun Dafa teaches, rather than reverting the version. If we just write it properly there will be nothing Yueyen can complain about or revert - or at the very least, it will be too obvious that he is only intent on vandalism, and I think there are channels for dealing with that. I think the ordering of sections is more how it should be, that is, corresponding closer to the primacy of the teachings. Yueyen: please discuss here about what you think, and whether I have understood you wrongly. I do not want to assume you are just up to no good. It is becoming more difficult to do that though, noticing your edits and the comments you leave. You also have not responded to anything I have written to you. Maybe you have been busy. Feel free to respond and explain your ideas about the direction of the page. --Asdfg12345 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have revised the section formally called "Falun Dafa", now called "Falun Dafa ontology", and I have revised it. Mainly I took out the remarks in between Master Li's quotes, and expanded on the quotes slightly to allow greater context. The other sections may be slightly more difficult and require greater context again. For example, the part about "women's liberation", "sickness" and so on, all need rewording along with greater context - Master Li spoke about yin and yang in terms of male-female relationships, and that our society today no longer really recognises such essential differences between men and women. If the whole paradigm within which he is discussing these things is not explained, and presented in the way it has been, with a snippet of what Master Li has said and the rest editorial, I really think people will have a hard time getting to the bottom of what Master Li has taught. --Asdfg12345 02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you move all your comments to the main page discussion. People are less likely to check this page or take it as seriously. Mcconn 07:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I might post something there if this cannot be resolved. I have revised two sections now, with the section formally titled "depravity of today's people" now called "the universe's deviation from the Fa" still waiting to be sorted out.

Yueyen: if you take a look at the revisions, I think you will find that basically all of the content remains. All the points that were made in the other versions, before I revised them, remain. The difference is that now it is just quoting from Master Li, rather than the editorial style and commentary that was in the other. I apologise if you find that some minor things that were in the other version are not in this version. As it stands now, it is basically a complete outline of what Falun Dafa says about karma, illness, etc. In fact, that paragraph from Lecture One of Zhuan Falun is enough. Everything else serves as elaboration - since it was in the other version I just copied those sections here. If there are going to be problems with length, the essence is expressed quite simply in those few paragraphs from Lecture One. Yueyen, if you think there are some key aspects of the teachings missing in this version, let me know. --Asdfg12345 13:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's Edits

Please read through the current version. Everything that was written mixed in with negative commentary has been removed and what has replaced it is basically direct quotes. That is the way it should remain. All the content that was in the slanderous versions is also in these, it is just that this time there is no commentary. That is a more accurate way to report the teachings. Those sections you want to stick in are just slander and they do not belong on this page.--Asdfg12345 13:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Negative and slanderous comments removed? Who is the judge of that? My edits include direct quotes from Li and paraphrases of those quotes. I challenge you to point out the negative and slanderous content of my edits. --Samuel Luo 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the actual content in those sections is already in two other sections called something like "suffering, sickness and cultivation practice" and "the universe's deviation from the fa". Those consist almost entirely of quotes from Master Li.

I copy below your section called "Sickness Karma" and "Depravity of today's people" with what I consider either slander, negative comments, unnecessary comments, comments that do not make sense, comments that are sarcastic, or comments directed toward the POV you are pushing, italicised. I will also put in brackets some explanations about why I regard those parts that way. At the same time, note that the sections already there are more complete explanations of what Master Li has actually taught on these subjects. Those sections are just what he has taught, and no more. I think that we should let Master Li talk for himself and people can also judge for themselves. Since there is quite a lot of material here, forgive me if I just make general comments and also if I do not address every instance of stuff I see that should not be in the article:

This is ridiculous! Who makes you the judge of what gets to be included in the article? --Samuel Luo 23:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sickness Karma

Claiming that he is the only one who knows the true cause of sickness, master Li has characterized modern medical science as shallow and said that the cause of sickness is “simply beyond the reach of modern medical technology.”[3] [Li did say that] The real cause of sickness is not physical but moral, reveals the master: “Due to karma [sin] resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses.” [4] Li explains that people reincarnate life after life and in each life unavoidably commit wrong deeds and therefore amass sickness karma. This karma then forms layers in the physical body like the annual rings in trees, as a result “the human body is like the annual rings of a tree, whereby each ring contains sickness-karma.” [5] When this sickness karma remains inside the physical body the person is fine but “when it returns to the surface of this physical body the person becomes ill.” [6] Master Li’s explanation is vague and intelligible; it’s intended to explain the causes of sicknesses like cancer or heart attack that are not contagious. [I accept your opinion here, will take this sentence out]

Master Li also reveals ('reveals' is a POV comment) [POV? ( - Point Of View)] a different way that karma causes sicknesses: “The smaller the particles of the karma that exists in other dimensions—the smaller its grain—the more power it has. When it seeps into our dimension, it’s a microorganism, the most microscopic virus.” [7] This simple and transcendental explanation is intended to explain the kind of sickness that one gets by virus infection like influenza and AIDS. [I accept your opinion here, will take this sentence out]

Since the cause of sicknesses is supernatural, the treatment has to be a supernatural as well. Master Li claims that he has just the power: “Your illnesses will be cured directly by me.”[8] [this is what he said repeatedly] Ever since the begining of the Falun Gong Master Li has claimed to have the supernatural power to heal. Master Li’s official biography recalled the miraculous healing he did for his students. [9] First, he used his supernatural power to purify the bodies of his students and rid them of the root cause of their sicknesses. Then he installed a Falun—a turning law wheel—in each student’s abdomen; forever rotating, it cures illnesses. The installation did not require an operation nor did it cause the practitioners any pain, for the Falun is not a physical object; it can not be seen or touched. It is formed by the supernatural energy of the Master, which is the reason why it has the power to heal.(it is not pertinent to the teachings of Falun Gong to include anecdotes about healings Master has done, if you could explain why you think it is, then copying an anecdote straight in might be okay. but I dont see how it is relevant.)

Practitioners who seek medical treatment and take medicine for pain are criticized by the master as everyday people: [Li did say that] (it is actually far more sophisticated than this. the other section addresses the issues associated with cultivation practice and sickness) “you find it terribly uncomfortable and painful, can’t bear it, regard yourself as an everyday person, and go take medicine... your enlightenment quality isn’t up to par.” [10] According to the master it’s ok for everyday people to take medicine, but as a Falun Gong practitioner whose mind has been enlightened and whose body has been purified by the master they should know better.

The master scolds practitioners who constantly fail the test by taking medicine, perhaps out of his concern for them since the consequence of their unwise act is so devastating: [Li did say that]“you feel that you’ve recovered because you took the medicine. But let me tell you that it nonetheless accumulates over there. Life after life human beings are accumulating this stuff. When the accumulation reaches a certain extent, the person becomes incurable and when he dies he’s totally destroyed. He loses his life—forever loses his life. That’s how horrifying it is.” [11] In order to stop his followers from seeking medical help and to persuade them to totally rely on his divine power, master Li reveals the devastating result of taking medicine—an eternal death. [this is a reasonable conclusion given what he said]

Depravity of today’s people

According to Master Li, “The standard of the human race's thinking is already at a level lower than hell.” [12] Li teaches that human beings are corrupt, ignorant, selfish and greedy--“these lives should have been destroyed upon falling to this level.” [13] The corruption of humankind is so great that even the Gods have left us. “People nowadays are indeed degenerate. Gods don’t look after them anymore,” Li teaches. [14]

Women’s liberation is one source of depravity. Li denies that women were oppressed in the old days—to claim that they were is tantamount to judging the ancients with modern people’s degenerate notions. When women start to stand up for their rights, the result is “divorce, fighting, abandoned children, and other social problems,” therefore Li concludes that “the advocacy of “independence” and “self-reliance” for women is wrong.” [15] Mixed raced children are products of ignorant people according to Li. “The races in the world are not allowed to be mixed up,” he has stated, “now, the races are mixed up and it has brought about an extraordinarily serious problem.”[16] Children born of mixed-raced marriages might be “physically and intellectually incomplete”[17] and they do not have a “relationship with the higher levels.” .”[18] Li also teaches that paradises are racially segregated: “Jesus told people not to spread the teaching (Christianity) in the East. I have also found no oriental people in Jesus' paradise.” [19]

Li has condemned people who start new religions: they are “demons who undermine orthodox religions.”[20] Such religions are “evil religions” [21] Li warns, they interfere with people’s faith in orthodox religions.

Li acknowledges that orthodox religions such as Buddhism and Christianity were legitimate, but they are being run by people who have been corrupted: “people in religions brag about themselves and flaunt their credentials to have others believe in them and provide for them. They seek fame and personal gain, even becoming politicians.” [22] Li also teaches that these orthodox religions can no longer save people because “no religion is being looked after by gods, since gods see that humankind is too depraved.”[23]


_______

I will not italicise the Depravity section because I think the whole thing is misrepresentative of what Master Li has taught. Every part of that, to make any sense, needs an explanation. The article would need to be a lot longer to incorporate those explanations, and spending a lot of space explaining such minor aspects of the teachings does not seem to make sense. I put in a sentence mentioning the things like feminism, homosexuality, religions, mixing of the races etc, with links.

Also, the part you want at the beginning which says: Master Li explains the greatness of his teachings this way: “The principles of Falun Dafa can provide guidance for anyone’s cultivation practice...", aside from the obvious POV in the lead-in line, that quote is already in the Falun Dafa teleology Theology section. The other quote you wanted to have up the top, what was wrong with that?

The main thing I would like you to respond to is that I do not understand why there needs to be any kind of commentary between Master's quotes in the first place. Aside from the particular commentary found above being misleading and slanderous, you can see the other two sections where it is just quotes, and they explain fully the aspects that need explanation. What is there is a more complete explanation of the distorted representation found in the sections you are advocating. Please respond to my points. --Asdfg12345 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you see any article on wikipedia that looks like a collection of quotes? This is not the way to write a encyclopedic article. We need to quote Li [a few words] to back our characterization of his teachings. There is nothing in the "Depravity of today’s people" section misleading or slandous which is why you could not point anything out. --Samuel Luo 23:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I did not mean to come across like I was trying to be the judge of these things. I am just telling you my opinion and reasoning with you. This is just my understanding. By now it is obvious to me that you are not interested in reporting the teachings of Falun Gong in an objective way. It seems that your only interest is slandering them. Those sections are just that. I would have italisiced the whole "Depravity" section for slander. Every sentence is some kind of POV, sarcasm or interpretation. Encyclopedias do not read that way. You want to damage Falun Gong and you can do that freely on your own website, but by including all those things you would also be damaging wikipedia. I do not think I need to say much more. Since it has got to this point - you are unwilling to admit that the content you want included is POV, slander, and unencyclopedic - it is fine for me to just revert back and forth.--Asdfg12345 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Are you telling me that the great Dafa(law) can be damaged by me writting something here? I thought the dafa created the universe.
--Samuel Luo 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Locked on the wrong version

This is actually the version that does not conform to wikipedia, and which violates wikipedia policies of at least NPOV and no original research. The page should be locked on the version which does not violate wikipedia policies. If you are reading this and can rectify this situation, please do so.--Asdfg12345 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the user above. The same content was covered in an NPOV manner in the article. The present version picks out semi quotes and adds personal commetnary to it apprently with some motive. Even the ordering of the titeles reflect a strong POV. Before the central books or even the exercies are introduced, the titles go "sickness karma" and "depravity of todays people" which is far from what Falun Gong is. I also wish to point out that the same material was covered in the previous verion of the article. For these reasons I am reverting the article to the previous version. Please point out anything i may have overlooked.

Dilip rajeev 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

These material can not be removed simply because they are part of Falun Gong teachings. --Samuel Luo 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Li, mankind has become so corrupt that the gods no longer take care of human beings. It's quite obvious that the "corruption" or "depravity" of mankind is a central theme in Falun Gong teachings. It is the condition which explains and justifies Li's concept of Fa-rectification. No editor should be deleting entire sections, period. Instead, we should discuss specific edit changes here in discussion. But we also need to work out a larger strategy for working through all the pages of this article, and that will involve the oversight of the new mediator. --Tomananda 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the deleted sections

This is getting a bit tiresome. Those things absolutely have no place on wikipedia. The whole tone is negative, sarcastic, ironic, goes nowhere to actually explaining things, is NPOV, original research, Samuel's own website is not a legitimate source, that information is already presented, deviation of mankind is NOT A MAIN TEACHING (Tomananda: Fa-rectification is because of the deviation of the whole universe, mankind being a part of that, see page) , and so on and so on. I repeat one thing: THAT INFORMATION IS ACTUALLY ALREADY THERE. If you want to add to what is already there, then calmly add to it in a sensible way, observing wikipedia policies. I am going to put a note on the moderators page about this. People will open the page and think it is a joke, the way those sections have been arbitrarily slapped in there. Tomananda, your suggested "modifications" to make those sections conform to wikipedia would amount to rewriting them. Seriously.

Now I propose this: come up with some changes to make them a bit normal, post them here, and we can discuss and work through them. This sort of process has always been observed. Trying to introduce this content the way it is is going too far. In my recent edits on the Li Hongzhi page I wanted to include some positive commentary. That was a lot of effort, since it kept being deleted with some notes. I modified it, it got deleted, modified, deleted. I toned it down enough and changed it until it was acceptable. That is what you should do here. It is your responsibility to write content that conforms to wikipedia, not write whatever you like and expect others to spend a long time trying to make it conform to some basic things like original research as well as having a balanced tone. You can scroll up and see the large amount I have written trying to engage you guys in some process to correct these sections. Also, take a look at the Falun Gong front page. There's a lot there I would like to change, but I have left it until we work through it step-by-step. I would urge you to do the same here. As I mentioned, that information is already covered, so if you actually see some things in relevant sections which do not already explain things in the sections you propose, please bring that up and that content should be added in a neutral way. It is fine to do that, but the sections you are proposing do not belong on wikipedia. It is your responsibility to correct this and make it work, using the existing content. Please try this cooperative approach rather than constant reverting.--Asdfg12345 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Wikipedia is not a game. If the editors who so dearly desire these sections' existance actually take this seriously, they will take the time to work it out over here, rather than simply reverting. I agree that if anyone wants these sections, they will have to be completely rewritten. Mcconn 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The standard for Wikipedia edits is NPOV, no original research and use of sourced material. If you feel that any part of "Depravity of today's people" or "Sickness karma" does not meet those standards, you should point out the offending sentence and suggest a re-write. What is so tiresome is the wholesale blanking of material. --Tomananda 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On the "Righteous Thoughts": Sending righteous thoughts is one of the "3 Things" to do in FLG as directed by LHZ, Li also has lectures and photos on this, Minghui Net directly includes the words "righteous thoughts" in a title for its sections ("Righteous Thoughts and Righteous Deeds in Suffering", 苦難中的正念正行). It is hardly a minor issue, it is hardly something to be neglected, and every single word is a faithful description, directly cited from sites like Minghui Net. Any rewrite it deserves is to lay out more "testimonies" and details. I'm reluctant on guessing the reason for blanking them. --Yenchin 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


PLEASE DON'T PUT THE SECTIONS BACK. THEY DON'T BELONG ON WIKIPEDIA. YOU'RE HARMING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. WITHIN ONE WEEK WE WILL HAVE REDONE THEM (AGAIN) AND ALL OF THEIR CONTENT WILL BE AMPLY COVERED, BUT IT WILL BE COVERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TEACHINGS AND THE BIAS, POV, MISREPRESENTATIONS AND SARCASM WILL ALL BE REMOVED. ONE WEEK. JUST WAIT PLEASE. --Asdfg12345 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above note was quite a while ago and the page was locked the following day so the plan was aborted.

Those two sections are so far out of place here. To your credit Jsw, I would like to express my surprise at your revert. I thought higher of your standards of editing than that. It is hard for me to know where to begin. I will make a few points, but I do not have time to grab parts of the sections and highlight my points one by one. OR, uncited claims and weasel words, no matter on what occasion, including for criticism, do not belong on wikipedia. I am sure you agree. I am sure you also agree that the two sections in question are rife with all those things and other violations.

Secondly, even if there was legitimate criticism in there, it would 1) HAVE to come from a secondary, reputable source or it would constitute original research and, 2) does not belong on this page anyway, but on the criticisms page (which should be changed to the "Third Party Views" page to conform to NPOV)

I actually did not expect that the removal of these two sections would be a genuine issue. It has always been users with vandal type editing behaviour that contested the removal, so I would once again like to express my surprise. It will waste several hours of time that could otherwise have been spent productively on these pages if I am forced to comb the sections and provide examples and back them up by wikipedia policies. I hope that we do not need to engage in that kind of thing. We should know the policies and consciously play by them. The two sections do not, in any sense belong anywhere on wikipedia, and that should be obvious just by reading them. There is a section on sickness karma elsewhere on the page. This is rather deficient since it consists almost solely of Li Hongzhi quotes, but at least it does not so blatantly go against wikipedia policies. Since this section obviously needs to be improved--Jsw, why not paraphrase the key ideas with close reference to the primary text, using quotes as appropriate to convey the key ideas in a neutral way that conforms to the policies and spirit of wikipedia, and in this way productively contribute to the article? Wouldn't that be better than these awful fights about things that any people sincerely editing these articles should right away recognise?--Asdfg12345 19:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The root of the issue that worried me was removing all criticism, once again. A mere link to the 'critical' page(s) is not sufficient; an extended version of criticism of the teachings isn't justified either. So in a way I do agree with you that those sections need to be rewritten, because it is sarcastic and thus can come across as POV. I don't see why criticism would have to come from reputable sources only, because the definition of 'reputable sources' is highly contentious, and many of the anti-FG camp have disputed that everything LHZ said / commented on non-FG topics (e.g. politics of China and the government, or number 'quitting' the CCP) is clearly not reputable or justified.
You should know by now that the teachings, and the criticisms of teachings, are not totally 'neutral'. Moreover, your editing of my suggested compromise on the FG main Wiki entry would suggest, still, some intolerance of criticism. After all, who enjoys criticism? Nevertheless, it's necessary for balance. Returning to the original point, yes, the criticism section needs to be rewritten, but if you can demand pro-FG teachings bias be on the Wiki entry temporarily, why can't you tolerate anti-FG teaching criticism bias on the Wiki entry temporarily too? Isn't this inconsistent? This is why I reverted NOT because it was the ultimate solution, but because it was a work (by other editors, not me) in progress. Jsw663 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If Samuel was the "critic" it would need to be cited to something he has published in a publication that qualified as a reliable source. The guidelines are really clear. Look up that part of the policies and read it please. I can't give you the link now cause I've got to go. Here the teachings should simply be presented in a neutral and dry tone, in the passive voice, directly paraphrasing what is in the books. This is not pro or con, it is just a recounting of the primary sources taking into account its context and due weight to various aspects. All these things can be discussed and decided upon sensibly without difficulty. Check out WP:A and there should be a link to the stuff about reliable sources which you ought to read to know what I mean. Also, if there is some stuff to work on that is below wiki-standards then it should be worked on until it conforms to policies, right? But that is a separate issue really, and we are talking about separate kinds of matters I think. All this can be worked out intelligently. I would like to extend my thanks to you for being very agreeable in your disposition and discussing these things nicely. I welcome a productive and cooperative working relationship, and one that strictly following policies and guidelines, into the future. --201.230.128.175 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Some time ago, I tagged the article {{quotefarm}}. Unfortunately, the huge chunks of block quotes which caused me to tag it are still in the article. So please fellow editors do not be surprised when I will shortly delete the entire mass of block quotes, substitute a {{copyvio}} template in the interim. Shortly thereafter, I will attempt to reinsert concise carefully reconsidered and non-POV text extracted therefrom, paying attention to WP:UNDUE, a policy which certainly does not seem to be at all adhered to here within the group of FG articles. Ohconfucius 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)