Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

3rd Party Intervention

What we truly need, although contrary to major Wikipedia principles, is a third party to look into the issue of Falun Gong that has very little to no prior knowledge. This suggestion, being the only solution left in editing this article, is incredibly idealistic in and of itself. Debating about Falun Gong is currently more controversial than debate about the existence of Jesus. People on both sides will never reach a consensus, and as new back-up evidence continues to surface for both sides in this issue, it is really impossble to ever complete this article in any of our sentient lifetimes. Colipon+(T) 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd Paragraph

The NY Times figure has disappeared one more time. I am reverting it to the version Covenant introduced. And deleting Samuel's personal website from the references section. Dilip rajeev 18:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources

I'm going to start revamping the References list based on the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I also want to add a short list of Wikipedia articles for people to read at the top of the this talk page. It would include stuff like Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. CovenantD 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. try to work together with you all. Fnhddzs 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the instability of the article, there isn't much point in formatting them because they'll just get reverted and then you'll have to do it again. Waste of time really. Edit wars are easier with inline links. Skinnyweed 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Cawley v. Malin}} Cawley v. Malin - New York State Supreme Court, U.S.A. A divorce case filed on the grounds of fraud, adultery and mental cruelty as a result of espionage for the Falun Gong against the Chinese Government. www.courts.state.ny.us [1]

  • Note - the court system does not permit hyperlinks directly.

You can search on court case reference number 24648/2003 I can fax you copies of the court documents if you insist. Also, Rick Ross has been retained as an expert witness. Likewise, I can fax you a copy of the fee agreement.

Dear Falun Gong members:

You can remove this section; however, you can not remove THE TRUTH.

Sincerely Chris Cawley

Plea to pro-Falun Gong editors

User pages of several non-Falun Gong practioner editors, as well as this main article page, have been hit again by apparently pro-Falun Gong vandal(s) today. A few days ago there was a similar incident, user pages and this talk page as well as the main article were all hit.

It goes without saying that vandalism is counterproductive for Wikipedia. As such, in the (hopefully unlikely) scenario that you might know who carried out or was behind these attacks, other editors and I hope you would advise them to stop their vandalism. Thank you. -- Миборовский 05:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

this user Redzsuckz has also vandalized the article. It was created earlier today. --Samuel Luo 08:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was blocked indefinitely. We can revert any change he makes without breaking a sweat, so he ends up wasting much more manhours than we will. Though it would be good if we didn't have to, which is where vandal-hunting bots come in handy... :D -- Миборовский 09:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, that vandal really reflects badly upon you FLG folks. Zhen Shan Ren? Heh. Look, we'd really appreciate a page without vandals. So please, if you can do anything to stop it, please do. -- Миборовский 09:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add junks on the article

[2]

Fnhddzs 05:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been removed. Now, if there wasn't that annoyingly (but harmlessly) persistent vandal this would probably not have stayed there as long as it did. ;) -- Миборовский 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with the Edits

Covenant.. Lets carry on with the job of scrutinizing material on the main page and cleaning up the article.

We have reached consensus on the 3rd paragraph of intro. It is hoped that nobody would change it.

The first and second paragraphs of the intro

The second paragraph said Falun Gong was banned for "illegal activities".. somebody again deleted the "alleged" word. I have deleted the phrase which is completely non-factual and and an unnecessary extrapolation. Dilip rajeev 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant.. I think we must carry on the discussion of the first two paragraphs..

A few suggestions:

  1. Have a section on talk page for keeping paragraphs on which a consensus has been reached. That way a lot of arguments can be saved
  2. Set deadlines for discussing each paragraph on talk page.

Dilip rajeev 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. I think I want to move the 3rd paragraph discussion into /Archive 10. I'll put a placeholder in so they can be integrated as we finish other paragraphs.
  2. Already suggested one for midnight (UTC) for the second paragraph.

- CovenantD 16:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi biography

Could somebody please explain why "In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in Chinese Zhuan Falun from 1995 to 1999..." is still there? As I know, this biography was not a official Falun Gong material, also...this has no verifiable source, does it? If it does, I would like to see it. I am a Falun Gong practitioner and still have not even seen any bipgraphy. /Omido 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should ask... I've just finished setting up the references for the Intro and Origins sections and the biography was one of them. You can follow the inline link or you can go down to the References section and find a full reference and link there. Hope that helps! CovenantD 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a biography, not an autobiography. Also it is funny about the date from 1995 to 1999. I don't think that is right. It existed as of 1994. And it was removed since 1996.

"The Chinese version of this biography can be found in Li Hongzhi, Zhuan falun (Turning the Wheel of the Law) (Beijing: Zhongguo guangbao dianshi chubanshe, 1994) ... but has not been published in that book since 1996." Fnhddzs 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido has a point there. The biography certainly appeared in a version of Zhuan Falun by a publisher in China. But thats something a publisher chose to add as an appendix and the material was written by some journalist. It really isnt of much relevance to the article.

Dilip rajeev 20:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it be removed from the origins part. It is not teachings. not related to Falun gong practice. not related to the article. It is not in press any more. It is out of dated. It is odd to put there. This paragraphy was not there before. Not a consensus to put it up. The article is in a warped shape, with an odd "origins" and lengthy "ethics". Fnhddzs 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I added more contents in the Origins. Everything was from the same biography. Fnhddzs 20:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew when I looked at this one that it was going to be trouble...
Omido, I've given you the reference.
Fnhddzs, so what if it's a biography rather than an autobiography? That's not enough reason to rule it out. And, where did you get that quote you use? It could be important. Also, just because something is out of print is not reason to exclude it. A version of the paragraph was in place when the page was frozen, as seen here [3].
Dilip, if it appeared in published copies of Zhuan Falun for multiple years, that tends to indicate that it's not a publishing mistake. Again, the fact that it was written by somebody else is not enough reason to rule it out.
I think we should leave it in place for now and give Tomananda or whoever added it a chance to respond. We've only heard from one side so far.

- CovenantD 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a biography and Li Hongzhi has not officialy recognized it. Further, of what relevance is a biography written by a journalist in an article of Falun Gong. Should it be taking up a major part of the page? An article on Christianity wont carry pages of criticism on Christianity... A page saying "Criticism of Christianity".. in itself is a POV if it takes up a huge portion of the article .. Anybody( with a strong POV + ulterior motives) can pull two sentences out of The Bible, put them out of context and say "elitism" and "intolerance".. and then get two books from the market to "substantiate" his claim. Dilip rajeev 21:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized biographies are still valid sources.
I'll grant that some of this may be more appropriate for Li's article than this one.
To use an example that's been cited here before Scientology has a criticism article and a pretty extensive summary right in the main article.
But that's starting to get into structure, and this section of the talk page is about Li's biography so I'll stop. CovenantD 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the stuff in the same biography, then do not use it at all. Fnhddzs 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? CovenantD 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You suggest removing the text I added from the biography. I think we cannot hide information if the biography is used. Either do not use it or keep full information. Fnhddzs 22:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy with non-Falun Gong related political activities recently and have not been able to keep up with all these postings. Even though I was not the editor who added the paragraph about Li's authorized biography in the Origins section, I feel strongly it belongs there. Here's why:

  • Early writings about the biographies of historical figures are definitely relevant to a report on their "origins"...in fact, these writings are likely to be more relevant than material that comes later, since over time leaders and organizations tend to re-invent themselves and modify their messages.
  • The existing biographical records about Jesus were written by contemporaries after his death. The "gospels"...Mathew, Mark, Luke and John...were all written decades after his death, and the gnostic bible material was written a century or more after the gospels. These sources do not agree on historcial points, but nevertheless they are key historical documents for the life of Jesus. And religious scholars (eg: Karen Armstrong) generally give the most biographical weight to earliest writings for obvious reasons.
  • The fact that Li had this early biography deleted from subsequent editions of Zhuan Falun is, of itself, relevant to his biography and needs to appear in Wikipedia.
  • Although the Zhuan Falun version of the biography was partially based on an earlier version written by a journalist, it is by no means the same document. As Penny points out, there are significant differences between the longer earlier version and the edited (and changed) Zhuan Falun version.
  • Penny has used the term "authorized" to describe the Zhuan Falun biography and for good reason. Practitioners may be reluctant to acknowledge the degree of control Li Hongzhi exerts over his publiclations, but that control is easily proven by many of Li's own statements. Here's a good example from Li's 1996 writing called "Awakening" in the Essential for Further Development:
Disciples must remember: All Falun Dafa texts are the Fa that I have taught, and they are revised and edited personally by me. From now on, no one may take excerpts from the tape recordings of my lectures on the Fa, or compile them into written materials.
  • Notice that Li sid that he revises and edits all Falun Dafa texts. Since the Zhuan Falun is Falun Gong's most important text, and the master said in 1996 that he reviews and edits the content of these books, how can anyone question the "authenticity" of that biography? The fact that the biogrpahy no longer is authorized by Li does not diminish it's relevance. In fact, I think it becomes more relevant precisely because Li had it pulled from subsequent editions of Zhuan Falun.

Finally, as Covenant points out, even unaothorized biographies can be used as sources for people's lives --Tomananda 22:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That Bio was not written by people outside of the Falun Gong but the Falun Dafa Reseach Society chaired by Li. Also this Bio was written under Li’s authorization, he is the only one who knows his many masters and training. It was published in Zhuan Falun from 1994 to 1999 and provided info about the origin of the Falun Gong and Li’s wisdom and supernatural power. Falun Gong practitioners are again trying to conceal the truth. You guys are abunch of liers --Yueyuen 01:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, it wasnt written by the research society but by a journalist. None of the sources say the research society wrote it.[4]. Using the biography, is alright with me but just pointing out. Dilip rajeev 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yueyuen, NO personal attacks! We get enough of that from anonymous vandals, we don't need it from each other. CovenantD 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. Let's use the biography. Please do NOT delete my edits! They are all from the same biography. Fnhddzs 04:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins v History

As I said, please do NOT delete the edits fromt the same biography! Why you want to hide information ? Fnhddzs 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I told you to take it to the correct article, History of Falun Gong. Origins deals with how it came into being. History is what happens after it's begining. That's not my opinion, that's the definition. CovenantD 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care much the structure. I care exercising the same standard. If you put them in the history. Put them ALL. Otherwise, keep them ALL. Thanks. Fnhddzs 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Exactly, it is about how it came into being. It fits beautifully in the Origins. The age 4 or 8 stories have less relation with Falun Gong's origins.Fnhddzs 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've read the first English translation of Zhuan Falun which has Mr. Li's biography. According to the related discussion, there are apparently two versions. I'm not sure if the one I read is the same as the one we're using. If it is, then I have no quams with using this information responsibly. If it's included as a section of the book, then it's acknowledged by Mr. Li. Mcconn 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Article structure

Now that we've had some success on finding agreement on a paragraph of the intro, do you think we should look at the structure of the article again? Many of the daughter articles have been created and editing is going on in them, but we should decide which ones are good and which ones need to be renamed or combined or split. I think it's time, if not now then when we finish the second paragraph. CovenantD 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's important to look at the other articles too, but I recommend we at least try to finalize what we have agreed to in the introduction section while the topics are fresh in everyones' mind. Could you just post below what you conisider to be the approved text, or did you do that above and maybe I missed it. Also, I'd like to finish the second paragraph first --Tomananda 22:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The only one we've agreed on is the 3rd paragraph and that's already in the article. The discussion for the 1st and the 2nd are somewhere above this. I can refactor so that they're at the bottom again if people want. CovenantD 22:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if you could sort of put it all together so we can see where we're at, that would help at least me and probably others as well. --Tomananda 05:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Luo Gan

So Luo was He's cousin, but now he is the brother-in-law? What gives? This connection is awkwardly inserted into the text as if to say, "look, He's related to Luo, so they must all be operating similar agendas." He Zuoxiu is a pseudoscience critic, Luo is a politician. If you read He's works, he also criticizes traditional Chinese medicine, whose organizations are supported and sometimes funded by the Chinese government. They are not operating on the same agenda, and He's criticism has nothing to do with the wider campaign against Falun Gong. Stop asserting that it does. Colipon+(Talk) 09:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, every single one of those sources exhibit a serious bias, or is simply not reliable. Take the first one, a university student's paper. This is in no way a primary or secondary source to prove familial relationships - not to mention, of course, that it's written in poor English. And then, of course, Porter, who cites Falun Gong website clearwisdom.net throughout his book. Finally we have the National Review, an anti-China U.S. conservative publication. Need I say more?

Now, let's assume that in fact, He Zuoxiu is married to one of Luo Gan's sisters. So what? He's involvement with Falun Gong notably preceded Luo's by some two or three years. He criticized Falun Gong from an academic perspective, noting the damage it has caused to practitioners. He felt particularly sympathetic to his students who practiced Gong long before the state ever cared to become involved. Luo, on the other hand, was commissioned by the state to crack down on Falun Gong in June 1999. Unless there is a reliable source to indicate that there is a relationship between two with solid evidence, then stating a familial relationship with the intention to paint a misleading picture is unacceptable. Colipon+(Talk) 15:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I see it you made up your mind :), but consider if scholars consider it worth mentioning then perhaps they think it is relevant. What you or me thinks is WP:OR right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if they are related, through blood or marriage, it merits nothing more than a line in their respective wiki-biographies. These power elites are all related in some way to each other. A good example is the Soong sisters. Maybe more like the intermarried royal families of Europe... Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if I don't find a reasonable source (Porter doesn't count, for example, since his expertise are on the ethnographic side not on Chinese politics) drawing attention to this connection, then we won't have it in the article. --Asdfg12345 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Asdfg12345 has decided to place it anyways into the article and then edit war to keep it[7] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK? Or maybe it should have been taken to the NPOV noticeboard since that was claimed? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Edit warring to keep it? That wasn't my intention... and the Beijing Television thing was deleted as well. If I randomly deleted relevant information that I didn't like, I'd expect Ohconfucius restore it as well--and I wouldn't say he was edit warring. The Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection appears in a number of sources. The one quoted here also makes a wider point: that's not a coincidence. Since this is sourced, and it doesn't take up much space, can someone please explain what the problem is with it? I would understand if there is no source, but we can't just delete relevant, sourced stuff because we don't like it. Also, Colipon is going too far by asking for an extra level of proof from the source that they are related. As wiki editors we don't do that level of sussing things out; not that a third party source would even be able to obtain the marriage certificates and proof of identity etc. Since it's appeared in various sources, and the one quoted makes an explicit link between He's article and Luo's position, why should it be deleted? Thanks.--Asdfg12345 23:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons were given above, and you already acknowledged the problem in your own comment. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's always best to look at both sides and to point out the correct approach, let me quote again: "So you are saying that removing sourced information is somehow OK? Or maybe it should have been taken to the NPOV noticeboard since that was claimed?". Even WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can go both ways. What do you think? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not going to fall into those games. The reasons were already explained above. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

update: I'm confused by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing. We're just discussing the usefulness of including this Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing, right? Let's have a look what the sources actually say, rather than dismissing or arguing things based on personal taste. I'm going to do a few other things then I will paste them. It could be in 36 hours, or it could be in 1hr. I think the former, because it's the day before Christmas and I think I have to get festive pretty soon.--Asdfg12345 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, we were at the part where you agreed that you didn't have a reliable source for how the connection had any importance at all, and how you were going to search for a reliable source before re-adding the text. Hint: you are now supposed to get a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some references to the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection in reliable sources:

An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman

"In 1999, the Public Security Bureau estimated that Falun Gong had attracted 70 million practitioners, 5 million more people than belonged to the Communist party itself. It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs."

Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by Ownby; I can justify this source further if need be)

"He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have."

Zhao Yuezhi mentions it opaquely

A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders, which caused the shift in the state's position.

A number of Falun Gong sources also mention the connection.

The disputed sentence was: "He Zuoxiu was brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security."

So as far as I can tell this has several references. Why shouldn't it be included? We can take this to an RS or NPOV board, too.--Asdfg12345 14:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't you already presented these sources in this section? You were told to get new ones, not to repeat again the old ones.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how these are not reliable sources, then? I saw what Colipon said, but I didn't understand how what he said was germane to whether or not the sources were suitable for wikipedia--his remarks mostly seemed an expression of personal opinion. Maybe it would help if I could understand how those objections fit into wikipedia policies. As far as I understand, these are reliable sources on the subject--are they not? If you believe these are not reliable sources, it would be good to know why--an anthropologist, a journalist and published author, and then an established academic. Yep, so I think that's the stumbling block. I think it's clear that they're reliable sources, simply because they are all published, referenced among the other sources on this topic, etc. Prima facie they meet the standard for reliable sources, as far as I understand. So I'd be interested in any argument that could be mounted to discount them. Is that the issue? Thanks.--Asdfg12345 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Colipon and Ohconfucius already explained the problems with those sources, and why the information should not appear here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you advancing the same arguments? Why don't you put your objections in your own words? I am just not sure who or what I'm supposed to be speaking to. Colipon believes the sources are biased, but this has nothing to do with WP:RS. That argument doesn't make any sense. Every source has a point of view. This is basic stuff. They appear, prima facie, to be reliable sources, and in the absence of any meaningful dispute (saying "they're biased!" is not a meaningful dispute), then we should take them as reliable. Ohconfucius says that it's not relevant that they are related. This doesn't make sense either, in my view. The fact that they appear in this material makes it relevant; it's relevant because a number of sources make the argument that the noose was tightening on Falun Gong before the persecution, and one of the reasons they cite for this is the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu connection. So the two arguments that "the sources are not reliable" and "it's not relevant anyway" (which is what Colipon and Ohconfucius's arguments boil down to) need further substantiation. I don't understand the real objection, to be honest.--Asdfg12345 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I am not sure if Falun Gong is attempting to prove "persecution" by enlisting conspiracy theories of a set-up by two people within the hierarchy of the CCP? There are already those who seek to personalise the issue to Jiang Zemin's feeling threatened by the power of FLG or feeling personally inadequate against Li Hongzhi's charisma, so let's take this one step further and exploit the fact that two players are married to sisters to once again strengthen the conspiracy theories... Although I have many issues with how the Government of China treats its citizens, I feel it doesn't have to 'prove' anything in this connection. They made a law against FLG and other "heretical groups" and they are carrying it out through a crackdown. The two people happen to be related by marriage – big xxxxxxx deal! None of the sources cite that He and Luo did what they did BECAUSE they were related – all the mentions were en passant – so how can this possibly be relevant? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I don't know what you are talking about. What you wrote doesn't seem to be a response to what I wrote. There are several sources pointing out the He Zuoxiu/Luo Gan connection; there are also some sources (like Gutmann's) suggesting that the pressure on Falun Gong had been building for a while. This is related to that. I don't understand the grounds for excluding this from the article. The He/Luo thing is just one point. It's sourced. It has several sources. I don't get why it's being turned into something else, when it's just sourced info? I don't get all the meta-argumentation. If the sources are reliable, it should be okay to have a small note on this, then, right? What's the problem? --Asdfg12345 08:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gutmann and Porter directly talk about the significance of the connection. I'm not seeking to add something irrelevant. They point it out, then discus its wider relevance in what unfolded. Where is the coatrack there? It's a coatrack when you include unrelated info to make a point, right? But in this case the sources are directly saying it. You can see them above. Why are we dancing in circles over this? Perhaps putting it in direct quotes would eliminate this complaint. got to walk out the door right now though. --Asdfg12345 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this still hasn't been addressed, only vague referrals to objections that made no sense to begin with and do not seem to be defended now. What is happening here? There were two points related to this: identifying the role of Beijing Television in the Chinese media landscape, and secondly identifying He Zuoxiu as brother-in-law of Luo Gan, and noting the significance that Gutmann attaches to this. Both (or, all three) of these points are sourced. The sources are above. It simply hasn't been explained why this sourced information does not belong in the article, despite a lot of arm waving and "who cares!" type remarks. The question is simple: why should this information, from reliable sources, which adds context to several points in the text and takes up very few words, be excluded?--Asdfg12345 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Got to go now, but I just saw Enric's remark on the AE. It says: "The rest of the section is Asdfg12345 failing to acknowledge that he needs a secondary source that makes the connection that he wants to put into the article." This is simply untrue. Just look at the sources I quoted: "It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs." (Gutmann). "He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have." (Porter). "A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders..." (Zhao). So, I made it very clear. I don't understand the claim that I provided no sources to back up what I was saying. I provided three. No response was provided except a referall to earlier, unsubstantiated dismissals. I hope this is clear.--Asdfg12345 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to the intro

We're still trying to finalize wording on the three paragraphs of the intro. I'm linking to the relevant parts of this talk page - please add your comments there. Let's get this done folks. CovenantD 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

agree, let's only make changes after reaching agreement here. To show my good faith, I am adding the NY Times figure to the third paragraph. I am sure pro-FG editors woud not have problem with this. --Samuel Luo 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make major edits to the intro

2nd paragraph of intro

Dilip's suggestion

On July 20, 1999 the People's republic of China began a Nation-wide Supression of Falun Gong. This has been considered a major Human-rights violation world-over. Dilip rajeev 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The following verion provides more info:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.--Samuel Luo 19:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, your version is a bit skimpy and could be seen as POV because of that.

Samuel, isn't this the version currently in place?

- CovenantD 19:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I want to get settled ASAP is including the word alleged in front of illegal activities. Can we get a show of hands? CovenantD 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, we don't know the CCP's true intentions for the suppression. I think it's actually much more complicated than that. So we should say something like "the Chinese government claims...". So unless this change is made I don't support. Mcconn 18:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless there are further reports of the trials of those who were arrested at least in the Tianjin Incident, I support the usage o the word. --Yenchin 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I support introducing the word "alleged" ASAP. But, in my opinion using the word "illegal" unnecessary...The reader is completely unaware what these alleged illegal activity is. And we also need to mention that the supression is considered a major violation of Human Rights, world over. Dilip rajeev 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reposting my above comment (altered version) so that it doesn't get missed. We don't know the CCP's true intentions for the suppression. I think it's actually much more complicated than that. So rather than simply say that it was suppressed for "alleged illegal activities" we should say something like "the Chinese government claims... alleged illegal activities". So unless this change is made I don't support. Mcconn 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the April 25, 1999 is an appeal, instead of a protest. Here is an article from clearwisdom.net (a Falun Gong practitioners' website)[8]

Over the past several years, the Mainland police have spread lies on many occasions that "so many people went to protest, any country would suppress them." Many people have been misled by the media, and believed that Falun Gong practitioners' April 25 "besieging Zhongnanhai" lead to later suppression. In fact, firstly, "April 25" was not besieging the government, but a peaceful appeal, completely conforming to the law and reason. Secondly, Falun Gong practitioners' appeal was peaceful and out of their kindness, it was their trust to the government but not opposing the government. The third point, on the day of "April 25," with direct concern from Premier of State Council, Falun Gong practitioners and Appeals Office leaders had a meeting. They reached a common understanding and reasonably resolved the violent arrest of dozens of innocent Falun Gong practitioners in Tianjin.

Fnhddzs 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn's suggestion

I was just about to make this change in the main page since nobody has responded to mine and Fnhddzs' posts, but I changed my mind and decided it to post it here first. If no one responds after a few hours then I'll consider it ok and put it into the main page.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999'. The government claims that it initiated the suppression in reponse to Falun Gong's alleged illegal activities.' Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

What do you think? (actually do we have source that verifies this claim?)Mcconn 18:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's suggestion

  • There is no consensus in adding "alleged" to this paragraph but I am not going to take it out yet. I propose using the following to replace the existing version. Finishing this paragraph by mentioning the group’s popularity introduces the next paragraph.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. [9] The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[10]

The use of "illegal activites" must be avoided. We also need to mention that the supression has been considered a major human-rights violation. The reader doesnt know what the "alleged illegal activity" is. Dilip rajeev 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to accept Samuel's new wording since it simply reports both POV's and even provides links for people to get more information. We don't need any more than this in the introduction, but can introduce much more in the crack-down section. (By the way, I don't think we ever agreed to the change in title for that page from Crackdown to Persecution.) --Tomananda 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We didn't. In fact, I believe we were at the point where several people felt it was inherently POV. (I've been waiting for somebody to bring it up...) CovenantD 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but can people at least to agree to one editing principle, which is that when there seems to be irreconcilable differences of opinion on how to report something, that we should try to agree to a "two sentence" strategy such as shown above? One sentence would succintly report one position (with a link) and the other would report the counter position (also with a link.) Unless I am missing something here, that approach should work well. If we agree to the approach in general, then we just need to agree if the wording for each sentence is reasonable and verifiable, such as Samuel has suggested above. --Tomananda 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Samuel's new wording is good to me except the use of "illegal activites". Definitely not acceptable on that. Fnhddzs 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things.

  1. The date of the first reference is 22 July, 1999, not 20 July.
  2. In the last sentence, President should be capitalized.
  3. Dilip may be right in saying that the "activities" could be expanded on in a completely NPOV manner, by using the wording from the announcement. Thus the second sentence becomes,
The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities Research Society of Falun Dafa for not been registered according to law, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability.[11]
- CovenantD 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding why CCP persecutes Falun Gong, it seems to me that Master Li[12] said "why the malevolent CCP wants to persecute Falun Gong" was addressed in "Nine Commentaries on the X Party". So we may refer to these two articles We Are Not “Getting Political”by Master Li and On the Collusion of Jiang Zemin and the Chinese Communist Party to Persecute Falun Gong in "Nine Commentaries". Fnhddzs 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, folks. How about the 2nd paragraph? I don't agree with the current version. it is not a protest in Zhongnan hai. It was an appeal. Fnhddzs 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddz, Samuel had asked you a question just a few posts above. If you answer that, we may have a version that both side agree on. CovenantD 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CovenantD. Is the question about using "peaceful activities"? it seems good to me. The Research Society of Falun Dafa quitted from Qiqong Research Association long time before 1999. That was not an issue. Before April 25, 1999, many practitioners in Tianjin were arrested and Tianjin's upper level administration is Beijing since Tianjin does not belong to a province. So in the normal channel, the next step is to go to Beijing to appeal. Everything was legal. The Appeal office is quite close to Zhongnanhai. Practitioners in the beginning just scattered on the side streets. Policemen said why not you folks circled around the wall of the Zhongnanhai? It seemed a trick. Finally Premier Zhu Rongji happened to see practitioners and promised to release the practitioners in Tianjin. Then everything was all right. Then the Xinhua agency published an artile restating China's policy to Qiqong: three-no policy. (No stick-beating, no debation, no report 不打棍子、不争论、不报导). sorry that is just my direct translation. However, things changed later when Jiang, Zemin knew this. On July 22, 1999, a statement was released funnily by China Ministry of Civil Affairs (中国民政部)[13] stating that Falun Gong illegal.

Anyway, on April 25, the appeal was peaceful and fruitful. Things changed later and had nothing to do with that appeal although the later government lies said that justified the ban. Fnhddzs 23:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Master Li's talk [http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_88.htm Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Philadelphia, U.S.A. November 30, 2002] The true reason seems as below:

So what was the goal of this evil persecution? Was it to protect the regime? Not at all, really. Saying that Falun Gong poses a threat to China’s regime is just a huge lie that’s spread by the evil. A lot of people have asked me, and a lot of people have asked my disciples this too: what’s the true reason for this persecution? Just a buffoon’s jealousy. Since it has power it’s able do something like this. That might sound pretty ridiculous, or maybe hard to believe—how could something like this happen to mankind, right? But it really has happened. This persecution has happened, as absurd as it may be, due to that buffoon being driven by its twisted jealousy. That’s exactly the reason. That’s the real cause we see here in human society.

Fnhddzs 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear all: I am still waiting on a solution on this paragraph. It is not in a right shape! Fnhddzs 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph:

  • Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. [14] The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[15]

I support this version. It introduces the ban and and includes claims from both sides. --Samuel Luo 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilip's 2nd suggestion

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999, which has been considered a major Human-Rights violation world-over[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners appealed peacefully close to Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

Hi, Folks: Please look at this version. There is no consensus on the current version. It cannot stay there forever. Can we set a deadline? Fnhddzs 06:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a deadline. I'd say no more than 5 days, so by midnight (UTC) Wednesday? CovenantD 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:-D .. i agree to the deadline too..
  • Support. I agree to the version above but I believe that mentioning that this has been considered a major Human-Rights violation, world-over is quite central to the article. I am not sure how to phrase the sentence.Dilip rajeev 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a change. I would add more citations. I would agree that the deadline of Midnight Wednesday. How about others? Anyway we need a deadline. Fnhddzs 18:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulling it all together

It looks like everybody agrees on the opening line - "Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999." That's a good begining. It seems the way to go now is to find out what we don't want.
We have three versions to consider. Each of them contain something the others don't. So let's ask this question; is there anything in any of those versions that I don't want in there? Cause what I'm thinking is, if nobody has strong feelings about keeping something out we could just put it all in. There's nothing that seems to contradict, it just emphasizes different aspects. I want to hear from each of you. CovenantD 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Samuel's version plus a sentence or slight mentioning of the 4.25 incident (Mconn's or Dilip's) would be fine. I see no reasoning in using "persecution" to justify the omitting of "alleged illegal". The purpose of the article is to lay out all the facts. --Yenchin 13:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts of persecution cannot be omitted. Fnhddzs 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As well as the facts of China claiming FLG to be illegal. What's the relevance between these two? Appeal to pity fallacy. --Yenchin 20:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Fnhddzs only said "facts of persecution cannot be ommited." Dilip rajeev 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The question is what NOT to include. Let's answer that first then address each one in turn otherwise we'll get bogged down. To make it easier, I'm going to reproduce the differences here. CovenantD 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Differences to consider

Mcconn: The government claims that it initiated the suppression in reponse to Falun Gong's alleged illegal activities.
Samuel: The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities.
Dilip: (the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression...,) which has been considered a major Human-Rights violation world-over.

As you can see, Mcconn and Samuel's are almost identical. Dilip wants it mentioned that it's considered a human rights violation. Is this statement in dispute? CovenantD 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We can include all three statement. Between samuel's claim and mcconn's alleged I prefer claims. Mcconn's statement does not make sense, would anyone claims to do something for a alleged reason? Dilip's statement can be used to end the paragraph with a little rewrite. The supression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by western human rights groups and politicians. --Kent8888 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
Samuel: The Falun Gong claims the ban a result of president Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity.[
Dilip: Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners appealed peacefully close to Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
----

Again, Mcconn and Dilip's versions are almost identical. Samuel wants it mentioned that jealousy may be a factor. Is any of this disputed? CovenantD 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel's statement comes from a Falun Gong main website. It is the group's official view of the cause of the supression. The protest can be moved to other section. --Kent8888 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur --Yenchin 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks, when can the "illegal activities" be deleted or revised? It is not true. Fnhddzs 05:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As soon as we get enough people to give their comments on the differences. You haven't yet. CovenantD 06:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
ok. Fnhddzs 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) But we cannot wait forever. If nobody comes, we have to admit no other opinions during this timeline. It is not a stone. We have the deadline of this Wed. Fnhddzs 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin v History & Timeline

I see that some of the edit warring was over the name of the section. It seems to have settled down now into the compromise of calling the section "Origins" and linking to an article called "History and timeline." I just want to confirm that this is indeed the agreed upon style. CovenantD 19:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the original style that existed almost from day one and its the only style that makes sense. The material in the origins section is fundamental to an understanding of the Falun Gong. It is actually more important than a mere listing of chronological events, which is what the recently created History and timeline page does. In fact, there never was consensus to creat a separate page called "History and timeline." I don't really object to it, but it's existence cannot be used to justify the suppression of important information about the origins of Falun Gong. If needed, we can simply have a stand-alone section on "Origins" that doesn't link to "History and timeline."....and by the way, did anyone ever re-write the intro to that page?

--Tomananda 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last question, no, but then again there's been no note and no discussion about it, so you're just being facetious.
Actually another editor...I'm pretty sure it was you...did mention that the intro to that page needed to be written, because it is just a copy of the main page intro, not specific to History and timelines, so I was being sincere and goal-oriented rather than facetious. Maybe I should have actually checked the page before posing it as a question, but I didn't. --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was being a bit facetious at that point. It's in the Research into health benefits of Falun Gong article that I mention it, but you are correct in that it applies to many different articles. Now that you bring it up, I might as well go through all of them and root out the inappropriate duplicates. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's your opinion that it's essential to an understanding. Let's be clear on the difference between fact and opinion. An understanding without knowing the origins is possible, it's just a different understanding. And yes, I realize that's just my opinion. ;-)
Yes, it is just my opinion. I think here you are merely objecting to my style of writing which can be didactic at times. I write with confidence, but when it comes to negotiating postitions I am very flexible. --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Objecting to a tanget, maybe. since it doesn't effect it's inclusion or not. Of course info should be included that is relevant, reliable and properly sourced. It's just a matter of where. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm don't care either way, or even a different way, (I haven't even looked at the differences yet) but I want to make sure that this issue is discussed and decided so we don't get into another edit war over it. CovenantD 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree with you more. Anything that prevents another revert war is cool with me! --Tomananda 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So the floor is open to suggestions for the naming of the section or sections, and what companion articles should be linked to which. CovenantD 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin section has been there since the beginning of the article. History and timeline should have its own section. --Samuel Luo 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to write a one sentence summary for the History and Timeline section and link to the separate page. CovenantD 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reativating this thread to prevent another revert war between Fnhdzzs and others.
I think the Origins section should focus on the time before Falun Gong "was introduced to the world" and History and Timeline should focus on the time after it went public. Thoughts? CovenantD 06:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a correct split. Origins means how did it get started, where did the teachings come from and who else was involved in it's creation other than Li (eg: his teachers).--Tomananda 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree to having two such sections. The reason being all we have is some material of questionable authenticity which the publisher removed from Zhuan Falun , on being asked to do so By Li Hongzhi. Biography of Li Hongzhi, belongs to the "Li Hongzhi" article. We can have a paragraph on it and I think it is best merged with History and Timeline. Dilip rajeev 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Origins existed for quite a while before you erased it and created History and Timeline (with no discussion), I'm not inclined to agree with you Dilip. If anything, the History and Timeline should go away. Most of that stuff will be covered in other topics in the article. Origins is a distinct topic. CovenantD 19:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, we cannot hide information from the same biography you folks love dearly. Fnhddzs 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to hide anything, you have introduced major additions without discussion. Plus you're putting your addition in the wrong place. Origins deals with how it came into being. History is what happens after it's begining. That's not my opinion, that's the definition of those words. CovenantD 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It IS about how it came into beings. Falun gong was introduced to the public as a Star Qigong system. Fnhddzs 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) The story about Master's childhood has less relation with Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is highly related. It was introduced by Li. So his background of course is relevant. We're not talking about whether he was called "Xiao Laizi" over here. It's still on topic. --Yenchin 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a wiki article on Li Hongzhi. Theory of relativty was introduced by Einstein so an article on Special Relativity discusses Einstein's childhood?

Dilip rajeev 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If there were aspects of his childhood that were relevant to relativity, yes. I'm not saying that every bit of his life is important to the "Origins" section. But it appears that some aspects, such as his early training, are. Only those parts should be here, probably with a better link to the article on Li. Information should not be reproduced on both pages. CovenantD 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized this discussion is straying (again) from the topic, which is what to put into each section and writing up a summary for History. CovenantD 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Biography or not, I support the split as proposed. Even if LHZ pulled his ideas out of a hat we still need to say how he got the hat. Everything after he "Honged" is Fa is history of the movement. This is not a hard concept to understand. Scientific workers still have to cite who's work they're based on, how they formed their thought, and so on. --Yenchin 20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of the subtitles

I am concerned about the order in which the subtitles appear. The article being on Falun Gong, the Persecution of Falun Gong adn othe section must appear above the "criticism" section. Especially when the persecution is recieving so much attention world-wide. Dilip rajeev 14:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been requested that we finish up the 2nd paragraph of the intro before we look at structure. (In principle, I agree that Criticism should appear further down and be summarized better {Scientology}). CovenantD 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From Hoerth

Because this talk page is semiprotected, a new editor asked me to post this here. I do so without endorsing anything s/he says. CovenantD 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Falun Gong practitioners as well as supporters of the Communist Parties crackdown on Falun Gong, each have there own websites on which they each have allready extensivly stated their point of view. So why is there so much conflict, and discussion and no consent? Because each party wants to see the content of their websites in the wikipedia article. And why is that so important to them even though it allready is on their respective sites? Because they think if they are able to get their stuff in the wikipedia article, people will be more likely to belive them if they see their point of view in an "independent encyclopedia entry". So this is the actuall cause of the entire despute. But I think it's pretty stupid, because there is one very simple way to solve this, and make it less interesting for both parties to vandalize the article. I suggest that the first thing we do is to remind the viewers at the top of the article that everbody can edit wikipedia, and that there is no independent staff or team of experts, and that supporters of Falun Gong as well as supporters of the Communist Party ::are frequently changing the article, and therefore on this subject wikipedia might very likely not be NPOV, and is as credible as something writen with chalk on the sidewalk. (Actually as I understand it Wikipeda being like Chalk on the side walk is basicly the reason why Larry Sanger left it :-) Okay, putting it that way might be putting Wikipedia down a bit, but the comparison is not all that wrong, and many people don't realize this. But most importantly it will end those sensless debattes and endless edit-wars. I am sure that if you don't put something like that in the article, you can continue to debate for another 5 years and still won't be able to get to any consent. So this is my suggesion. --Hoerth 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"

Hoerth: Yet despite what you say there has been some progress over the past 4 months in creating a balanced article. I don't agree with the dichotomy you present between supporters of Falun Gong and supporters of the Chinese government. I am neither.
Li Hongzhi is every bit as totalitatarian as the Chinese government and both want to destroy each other. Having said that, I am really only concerned with presenting the truth of what Li teaches and what his disciples believe, and the harmful aspects of the Falun Gong apart from any political considerations. Because of the practice of Falun Gong western families have been broken up. Husbands and wives have gotten divorces and some practitioners have suffered health consequences because of Li's teaching for practitioners not to seek medical care when they are sick. If it were not for the conflict between Li Hongzhi and the Chinese government, people in the west would have a much better understanding of the Falun Gong.
But because the western media has failed to take a critical look into Falun Gong teachings and practices, the public still thinks about the Falun Gong as just a regular eastern meditation group. That is the PR image Falun Gong promotes of itself...they don't even want to acknowledge that Li Honghzi is a god and savaior who warns that corrupt people, including homosexauls, will be weeded out. So Wikipedia needs to report on more than the politics, the crackdown, and allegations of torture. It needs to also do what the western media has failed to do: give an in-depth report of what the Falun Gong is all about in its own right. --Tomananda 16:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse Tomananda, these things that you just now stated above is entirely your understanding. You say Li Hongzhi is "totalitatarian", but somebody else may say he is a really compassionate man and his Dafa is really good for people. You say you want to present the "truth" of what he teaches, somebody else can say that the "truth" you are holding on to is your own truth, so you are not presenting them the "truth", but you are trying to make others think like you do. You say alot of families have broken up, 100 million practitioners world-wide as well as alot of private people say that Falun Gong has made their family more harmonius and peaceful. You say practitioners have suffered health consequenses, still there are 100 million practitioners that say that they have been miracously cured from all their diseases. Please tell me, do you still think that your own so called "truth", really can be the truth? If your "truth" really is the Truth, then why are 100 million people who THEMSELF practice Falun Gong disagree with you? How can you, as a third party spectator, who only has a very very shallow understanding of this Dafa, represent the Truth? Maybe you say: "But I read all the Falun Gong books, so I know what I am talking about." Then I would say that Dafa or Dharma has different manifestations and different forms of existence on different levels. If you read the books of Falun Gong with negative thoughts and negative intentions, do you really think you can understand the Dharma of Falun Gong? Do you really think you can understand the truth? I recommend, that you once again read the whole book Zhuan Falun with a clear heart and harmonius mind, without any bad thoughts, and after that you can come with your own opinions. /Omido 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this doesn't seem to be about edits to the article. CovenantD 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article edits cannot be separable with understanding what Falun Gong is. Instead, it is essential. Please do not interrupt. Fnhddzs 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "everyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia is quite clear when one is looking up articles over here. Unless there is some new policy there will always be edit discussions/wars on controversal articles.

Omido: Here's a hint for you. Why don't we add a sentence in the "Beliefs and Teachings", as well as on the FLG website links saying that "These should be read in a clear heart and harmonious mind without any bad thoughts to understand. They are the truth." Like the readers are sheep and can't judge for themselves? --Yenchin 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations

Both Samuel and Fnhddzs have now reverted at least 4 times each. I'm requesting that an admin give both of them a short block. CovenantD 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fnhddzs’s material was rejected by Tomanada, Firestar, ConventD and I today, yet he continues to insert his material. I reverted him about 4 times but he reverted us at least 7 times. If we are serious about not allowing anyone adding material without a consensus then I am simply trying to enforce this understanding and therefore should not receive the same treatment as Fnhddzs. --Samuel Luo 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Niether one of you are talking about it except in the edit summaries as you war back and forth. CovenantD 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
24 hours each. All of those involved should already have been aware that 3RR is independent of who's right and who's wrong. -- Миборовский 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant,I think the Origins section fits into the History section.

Further, I think we cant present a partial picture on the mainpage.. I am concerned the biography is presented in a very misleading manner... just keeping a copy of fhndzz's edits on the main page too (temporarily). Dilip rajeev 21:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Convent did the right thing to move that material to history of Falun Gong. Dilip as a respect for others you should refrain from reintroducing that material. --Yueyuen 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

THE WORD ALLEGED SHOULD NOT BE DELETED AND THE PERSON WHO DELETES IT AGAIN SHOULD BE BANNED

The word word alleged has been deleted MANY times now. Despite discussing this on talk page REPEATEDLY a user has been deleting it repeatedly. If this behaviour continues the user should be banned. Dilip rajeev 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to include the word alleged. I think it should be in there, but we're not talking about it enough to justify including it at this point. CovenantD 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing with edits

I would like to have a majority consensus on something. The article is a terrible mess. No user who sees the page is going to take it seriously. Its time the page is cleaned up.

  • No adding/deleting material to the article till the present material is cleaned up though discussion.
  • Set a deadline of five days to reach consensus on summaries for the sub-pages we have now.
  • Decide if the material on the "Origins" section, pulled from a biography is that relevant to an article on Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote / Opinion

That depends on what you mean by "take it seriously". I hope you don't mean "advertise Falungong" by that statement. Discussion is going on, and people are working to keep the article neutral. You are going to have be more specific about what you want. --Fire Star 火星 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What we want are facts, don't we? But if people could not even agree "persecution" is fact[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. I am afraid I can't flatter people's discern ability. Fnhddzs 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) If people intentionally hide facts out of personal emotion, I would say they are not serious. Fnhddzs 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss sub-section summaries here

Discuss biography here

I have never seen any falun gong website present the biography as the "origin" of Falun Gong. Master Li Hongzhi has talked about the origin of Falun Gong in the book Falun Gong. Thats the primary source. A biography of Albert Einstein wouldnt be discussed under the relativity article. Dilip rajeev 21:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Dilip rajeev 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the biography gives out the wrong picture, it is not even something that is a part of Falun Gong. /Omido 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this section of the discussion about the biography. CovenantD 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, I have read it, but it doesn't give a good enough reason to include the biography. All the texts in Falun Gong are available on the website, but not the biography. Why? Because it is not something that is a part of Falun Gong, then how can the biography (which is not a part of Falun Gong) be a part of the Falun Gong wikipedia article? /Omido 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the origins of Falung Gong or Falun Gong itself here? --Yenchin 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Omido, again, a biography need not be in current publication or provided by the topic of discussion to be considered as source material. That is like saying that a movie review could not be included in an article about the movie. Your reason for excluding it is not sufficient. CovenantD 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my edits

I removed the presonal references and left the basic facts of the divorce case. In accordance with the wiki policies, I updated the information to search for the appropriate case reference. BTW, You(FLG) have incoming. It's completely legal and there will be no defense against it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

You have yet to provide evidence of it's notability. Until you do, it's going to be removed every time. Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your personal information or for you to push your personal gripe against Falun Gong. CovenantD 15:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You can send me your fax number I will will send you back the court papers.

Cj cawley 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to know about your personal life, I want to know what makes your personal life notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Has it been the subject of a newpaper article? Has it been reported on TV? What makes it important? You have yet to address that question. CovenantD 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What are these divorce cases? I have not heard of it. /Omido 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was questioned by the State Dept, FBI, etc. for a divorce case? The story was blocked for quite a while with the FLG "activists" trying to shut me up. No such luck on their part.

Cj cawley 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) As for Omido, I filed for divorce from a FLG wife for fraud, adultery & mental cruelty as a result of espionage against the Chinese government. The FLG have been absolutely ruthless in protecting their "good image". My case contradicts them. In the end, it may well bring about their end.

Can you prove anything you say with third party reporting? A single divorce case that has yet to go to hearing is not notable enough. Maybe once there's been a ruling, but not now. Not unless you can SHOW it's been reported elsewhere. Otherwise, it's all original research. CovenantD 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fair. Once again, send me your fax #. I will dump out a book to you. Also, you can troll through the CCP's various websites to view some of the opposing points of view. As usual, the FLG will not allow any of this information to come to light.

Cj cawley 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note - Who appointed you God to determine what is right & wrong. Typical egomanic. You should join the cult. You would have a grand old time.
Oh yea, :)

Cj cawley 21:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cj, you also need to familiarize your self with the Wikipedia policy about no personal attacks. CovenantD 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, I don't understand, you divorced your wife because she practiced Falun Gong? What is it related to espionage for the Chinese Communist Party? /Omido 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes. It was for mental cruelty as a result of espionage AGAINST the Chinese Government. After all, we do have laws here reguarding "foreign agent" status. Basically, my wife went on a "fact finding" mission in China where she acted as in interpreter for a foreign reporter. This is illegal there. She was going to take my son with her, but I was able to stop that. She did have other help on her trip. Cj cawley 21:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"cj cawley",

The case has been stalled in court for the past several years. The ex even went so far as to get a divorce in Mexico to avoid a trial here. This also failed. Cj cawley 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked for third party reporting, not a book that you wrote. Check out this bit on sources for why it's not acceptable. In fact, you should read the entire page, then try again. CovenantD 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, these things that happend to you are private matters, why are you bringing them up here? /Omido 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, I am sorry about your story. But I would like to point out that spies hurt Falun Gong a lot. Some people pretend they are Falun Gong practitioners. You could see Master Li's recent article on spies. Eliminating the Evil Also the dirty things you mentioned are all opposite to the principle of Falun Gong. Falun Gong teaches not to have ex-marriage relationship. Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe May 1998

You may have a wife or a husband. This is the normal way of life for human beings. But you are committing a sin if you have sexual activity with someone who isn’t your husband or your wife. The gods in every upright religion of the East and West have emphasized this point strongly. When normalizing how humans should be, they discussed this very seriously.

Teaching the Fa at the Eastern U.S. Fa Conference March 1999

For you to live as husband and wife is fine, but if you aren’t husband and wife and have sexual relations, then you are doing the filthiest thing. That is something gods absolutely cannot accept—not a single god would accept it. So be very sure to pay attention to this. A person’s course of cultivation is that cultivator’s history. Innumerable, immeasurable, countless gods are watching Dafa disciples’ every thought and every act. As cultivators who are determined to reach Consummation, why can’t you pass this test? I’ll stop here for today.

But practitioners may had mistakes. Just like Havard University students may got 'Fail' in a coursework. That is possible. Individual practitioners could not denote Falun Gong. Anyway I hope you could understand and wish you good luck. Fnhddzs 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Fnddzs, this is not the place to be preaching Falun Gong. Let's keep this focused on the article. CovenantD 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should be focused on the article. But I believe my efforts are helping towards this direction. Since I believe such communications could help Mr. Cawley, all of us and the article. I have never wished to persuade other's belief. Fnhddzs 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you really understand. I come as your potential doom. As for the ex, she used to work directly for Gail Rachlin, serves as a reporter for the epoch times & currently is in your marching band. If that's not the defintion of a cultivator, then I don't know what is. Any one who is a two time adulterer(as in, two times with two different husbands), pro-abortionist(likewise 2x), etc. hardly qualifies as a "cultivator" of anything but evil. I am going to chalk both Fnhddzs & CovenantD as sockbots. I am working on one of my own. This way, it will be easier to keep up with the updates. I would call you by your name(s); however, I don't who what they are. Oh yea, I revert my edits. Since they are facts. Cj cawley 07:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not she is not a practitioner. I say if your claims are true (spies or adultery), that was not taught by Falun Gong (and to the opposite), that is her own mistake. With correcting mistakes, one still can continue practicing Falun Gong. Master gives chances to everybody no matter how bad s/he was. Fnhddzs 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said last time, give me a fax # & I will send you the court papers. They don't exist on the net. Cj cawley 07:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, you are right about the personal attacks, my apologies. As for the court case, it will be similar to the ones currently faced by the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. It may very well crack the FLG wide open. I don't know what the reaction from the Chinese Government is going to be. The FLG have done a good job at keeping negative things out of the papers. Cj cawley 07:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And when your case does hit the papers, as you seem certain it will, then you can include it as relevant and notable. Until then, I'm afraid it just doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. CovenantD 07:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Court papers are a matter of public record. If that is not the definition of truth, then I don't know what is. As for the case, the FLG will have to settle and they know it. The amount of damage that will probably result will cripple their organization in China & abroad. To put it bluntly, it would not surprise me if the Chinese capitally punished people. As for the value to the press, the FLG would loose face.

Cj cawley 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, while I'm sorry for what happened to you, I'm sort of confused on what point do you want to make, what parts of FLG do you want to address, what significance is this case to FLG? There are articles of trials on Wikipedia. But these trials address to various significant issues, such as Evolution vs. Creation, the Separation of Church and State, and so on. So back to the question, what does this case stand for and how is it relevant to FLG? --Yenchin 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, there are other cases where the divorce case ended up in the public venue. There was recently a case where, I believe it was the CEO, of Ernest & Young went to divorce court. As a result of the divorce court, they had to evaluate how much E&Y was worth. Likewise, the Jack Welsh(GE) case ended up in public. He had to disclose what his retirement package was & give some of it back. In my case, I filed for divorce on the grounds of fraud, adulerty and MENTAL CRUELTY AS A RESULT OF ESPIONAGE AGAINST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FLG. In the case of the ex, she went on a fact finding mission for a U.S. congressman working with an Aussie reporter. A U.S. Dept. of State official helped her burn the documents in the U.S. embassy in Beijing prior to her being arrested by the secret police. The only reason why the Chinese Government believed my story was because they had the arrest record, etc.

According to the ex, she told them "everything". Cj cawley 08:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. At the time, the ex-wife was working directly for Gail Rachlin. She's the head of marketing for the cult. This is one of the few cases that link directly back to someone who is "in a position of authority" for the FLG. The FLG are past master's of the "They is not us" when things go bad and "we is them" when things are perceived as going good.

The Dr. who was arrested for protesting the Bush/Hu visit is another example. She was able to get in with an Epoch times id. Notice how quickly the "newspaper" distanced themselves from her. It would not surprise me if they are shut down after this. Likewise, my ex has a reporter's id. Cj cawley 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. You are comparing Dr. with your ex. Note that Dr. Wang does not do anything constituting a crime[33]. The reporter who muffled her mouth should be charged. Fnhddzs 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, Is there one part that you are protesting or the whole thing?

Cj cawley 08:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a personal observation, in the FLG's search for "enlightenment", there are those who end up destroying everything around them. They become so obsessed that they loose sight & perspective. My case is one good example. There are others in many "religions", etc. You can reference the Jeff Warrens case. The key is obtaining "critical mass". Enough people need to get up & complain before something is done. The alternative? Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Waco TX.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cj cawley 08:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, I disagree with you. I don't know where you have gotten your understanding from, but it is wrong. In Falun Gong one has to be compassionate and balance their relationship with the envoirement and live a normal life. I could give you a bunch of other reasons, but this is not the place for it. Here we are discussing the article, not individual opinions on Falun Gong, so you should stop doing that. Thank You /Omido 08:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another one who does not use their name. As for my understanding,

I got it from the ex.

As for the article, would you include pieces about the Catholic Church's recent sex scandal's? I would. This case falls into a similar vein. It exposes the "dark side" of the cult.

Cj cawley 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cawley, please correct me if I'm wrong. From what I gather your case is still in the court. I'd suggest you to cool down and focus your efforts on the case. Eventually the judge will make a decision and the significance of the case will be revealed in a more formal way. I'd also suggest you to take a look at the list of case law lists in Wikipedia and see if there are examples you can use for the article. Or maybe see if you can get the press on a investigative report of your situation. --Yenchin 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin, In the interestes of fairness & "case law", most of the FLG cases should also be removed. At least, one case was thrown out of court. What proof did they offer? I gave a website that had the case scheduled. I saw no such information for the pro FLG references. As for your advice, thanks. I am working on it. Cj cawley 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend,

Falun Gong requires practitioners to always consider others before doing things.. and always be compassionate and understanding to others.. not to mention one's own family members. Say I ignore all that and dont treat my family members well.. then, isnt the mistake mine.. The teachings repeatedly point out one must be kind and understanding to all..

"So everything that you do, be it your balancing well your family relationships while you live among ordinary people, balancing well your relationships in society, how you perform at your workplace, how you conduct yourself in society, etc., none of these are things you can just go through the motions on. All of these are part of your cultivation format, and are serious matters."

Dilip rajeev 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with the article? The issue is the notability of the new editor's contributions, not their theological import according to FLG's dogma. Trying to convert new editors to FLG isn't pertinent to this discussion. --Fire Star 火星 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Fire Star.

Dilip, I am making a simple claim. I am divorcing my ex-wife BECAUSE OF HER FLG ACTIVITIES. The court papers will bear the case out. My son is an even better example. If the Catholic Church has acknowledged the activities of pedofile priests, why can't you acknowledge the existance of a "bad" FLG member? I will leave the rest of them out of it for now. As for the divorce, it is a matter of fact, truth, etc. I can provide you whatever information you require. Just expect it to be ignored by the FLG. They are REALLY GOOD AT THAT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj cawley (talk • contribs)

aha. What do you refer to as falun gong activities? Individual behaviors of a Falun Gong practitioner especially when s/he made mistakes are not FLG activities although I did not say she cannot be a practitioner after correcting mistakes (If your claims are true). If you really divorce just because of her belief, then that's your personal flavor. Fnhddzs 17:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to end this conversation. It's taking up too much room, too much time and too much attention that should be focused on the second paragraph. Back to work, folks! :D CovenantD 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, hold everyone to the same standard. I am putting my court case back in & taking their "torture" claims out. If I have to provide a reference, then the FLG does too. I gave you mine where's theirs.
CoventD You are alos held to the 3RR rule. I provided 3rd party information & offered more. You kept putting the pro FLG info back without any supporting citations. Sorry, I put mine back once again. Also, I will report you to the admins.
The article has most references provided. If there is a place you need reference, we will try to fix it. but your (cj.) edits are not conforming to wiki article's policy. 1) not notable to put on encyclopedia. 2) not verifiable (death claims are not verifiable.) 3) contents (your personal story) are not related to the article. We have a lot of personal stories about how Falun Gong are benefical (for example, my stomachache is gone, my car flies to the ditch but no harm happens to either car or me, an old pracitioner could cook for her family again while she was ever paralized before cultivation) that could be put if yours could. Fnhddzs 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Final draft proposal for the 2nd paragraph

This incorporates information from all (Dilip, Mcconn, Samuel, Kent8888) suggestions, reworded so they flow together. I even consulted a professional editor on the wording and grammar. I decided to include in my draft everything because it all seems relevant to the "international controversy." What do you think? Remember, we have less than 18 hours to reach consensus. CovenantD 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. No problem with it. I agree that "Concerns were triggered..." needs to either be reworded or removed unless someone can provide evidence for these so-called "Concerns". --Yenchin 05:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Then ask for a source. CovenantD 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject. I find this version without neutrality. Too much material from pro-FG editors is inserted and the one sentence that intends to introduce the Chinese government’s claims in order to provide a balance in the paragraph has been removed. Please consider including this sentence “The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities.” Also I agree with kent8888 that this sentence—“Concerns were triggered when 10,000 practitioners protested near Zhongnanhai, the compound of China's top leaders, on April 25 of that year”—can be moved to a more appropriate section. Finally, the word “western” should be added to the last sentence. Human rights groups and politicians that have supported the Falun Gong are from the west. --Samuel Luo 06:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. A ton of support has come from Taiwan. Mcconn 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The "one sentence" you refer to was incorporated into the first, "when it banned Falun Gong for its alleged illegal activities." The professional editor I consulted said that "claims to have... for it's alleged" is unclear and redundant from a grammar perspective. I felt the "concerns" sentence was important because it explains WHY the Chinese gov't initiated the crackdown. (It does need some supporting sources though.) I don't know exactly who the human rights groups are or where they are from, which is why I phrased it the way I did. CovenantD 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By combining the first two sentences you limited the weight of the government’s claim and you pushed that further by excluding the link to the government’s statement. I am not saying that I support the government, what I want is balance. You said that your version included input from everybody but you left out Kent888’s “western.” Why the Chinese government was concerned about the FG is a big subject that warrants it own section, that sentence suits that section better. --Samuel Luo 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is the revised text:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999, when it banned Falun Gong for its illegal activities. Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by many western human rights groups and politicians.

  • Support This shorter version is balanced and reads better.--Yueyuen 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I like the shorter version as well. --Tomananda 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This version truely includes everything. --Samuel Luo 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject I want the word "alleged" infront of "illegal activities". Omido 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject Same reason as Omid. Plus, support has also come from the East. I prefer the first version, while changing "protest" to "appeal". Mcconn 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject why we need to talk about persecution reasons in the introduction. Also I disagree not including alleged (the word claims does not work in this context) and disagree that only western considers it is a violation. Does United Nation only represents western countries? If you think "short" is good. I would like an even shorter sentence. "Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999." Fnhddzs 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Taiwanese government is a strong FG supprter, it gives the FG money and material. And from what we read on the news we all known how corrupt the Taiwanese government is. --Samuel Luo 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody be able to support the second version if it included alleged illegal activities? CovenantD 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Omido 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No.

Support is not limited to the west. That will have to be removed. Regarding the April 25 appeal, I have no problems with its inclusion and I don't think that I damages the readability. The only reason I could see for not including it is that it may be too complicated to be summarized in the intro paragraph, otherwise it is very relevant to why the persecution began. Mcconn 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everybody be able to support the second version if it included alleged illegal activities and omitted the word western? CovenantD 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We are here to present the facts, that means to present what Beijing and FG have claimed and done. No one should manipulate the words to suit his or her own personal view which often if not always lead to edit wars. I believe a simple structure like “A says B about C” works better here. Please take a look of this revised version. --Kent8888 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, "alleged" should not be included. --Samuel Luo 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose a terse statement, short and sweet and with the virtue of accuracy: "when it banned Falun Gong for its activities" or even "when it outlawed Falun Gong" or "declared Falun Gong to be illegal". We shouldn't get bogged down in the legitimacy of the CCP's actions, one way or the other, just report what they did. --Fire Star 火星 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Version to vote on

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group’s popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation mainly by western human rights groups and politicians.

“Alleged” is not included because the word “claim” has the same effect. “Western” is needed here because the group mainly receive support from the west. --Kent8888 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. It was proposed some time ago and is about as neutral as we are ever going to get. By having two statements, each one reprsenting the POV of one side or the other, Wikipedia itself remains neutral, but also suggests where the controversy lies so that readers will be inspired to read further. Can we take a stray poll on this version? --Tomananda 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The relation between Falun gong and China government should not be put on the introduction. If we really want to report facts, we should also report the facts when China government awarded Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The word claim is in another sentence. "western" is not needed. Are Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan western? Fnhddzs 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, all these governments are supportive to Falun Gong. Japanese goverment asked China to release a Falun Gong practitioner who is wife of a Japan citizen. Korea is even better. Hong Kong 500,000 citizens protested the 23 article law which was proposed for limiting Falun Gong. Fnhddzs 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I'm skeptical on how much support Taiwan gives to FLG. I've been in Taiwan for 5 years after 1999 and I hardly saw strong support from the government or people. Followers spam discussion boards with activities and most of the ones mentioned are saying that they hold a demonstration at some local area and "a lot of people understand the truth". Big deal. Vice President Annette Lu has attended some activites but there isn't much voice from her. President Chen Shui-Bian at best only replied at his website saying that China should let people investigate the organ harvesting. The KMT isn't better, Mayor Ma Ying-Jeou at best only said that China must tolerate FLG. The Pan-Blue and Pan-Green are busy fighting each other. FLG issues have no place in this Taiwanese political fundie fest. FLG members tried to ask some people in the Legislative Yuan to discuss issues, they recieved nothing but empty promises (and FLG still posted news on the website, so much for "Truth"). As for human rights groups, I have yet to see any group strongly voicing about FLG issues. In Taiwan FLG is just another excercise group holding activities to be ignored and with people who spam or troll the discussion boards. --Yenchin 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the number of practitioners in Taiwan increases a lot after 1999. According to VOA [34], it increases from several hundreds to an estimated 300,000. According to BBSChinese.com[35], it increases to 5,160,000 as of Dec, 4, 2000. According to http://www.cna.com.tw/[36], it increases to 400,000 as of Dec, 24, 2005. I personally know a Professor in Tai Da (Taiwan University?) is a practitioner. Not to mention the others I don't personally know. Zhang, Qingxi; Ming, Juzheng and so on. As to government, what kind of support you think can be called support? Falun Gong does not ask money. "empty" promises or spiritual support are good, I personally think. Fnhddzs 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the word "alleged". I'm leaning to not including it. FLG followers didn't care to appeal the case through court. Deal with it. --Yenchin 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire western v eastern is going to sink this if we're not careful.
Yenchin, your perceptions of Taiwanese support cannot be included because it's "original research." Which version are you talking about with the word "alleged?" It's not in the version just above your comment, so I have no idea which one you mean. CovenantD 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I'm aware, I was trying to point out that there isn't much proof on this so-called "Taiwan supports FLG" but I went into rant mode. As for "alleged" I missed the new version when I was posting. --Yenchin 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reformated slightly to make the versions easier to find. CovenantD 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The word western is used by practitioner-editors in “Falun Gong outside China” section. The first sentence in the summary says “The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue.” I did not persisted in including the word “however” in the 3rd paragraph even thought it fits there. I hope practitioner-editors can show some compromise. --Samuel Luo 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. But it is new to introduction and has a different meaning to me. I forgot who use western. I deleted it. As to human rights, when I was in Hong Kong in 2000, my friends told me they know there are no human rights in mainland China. They told me some appalling things on the torture/sexual abuse to Falun Gong practitioners which I had not even heard of from minghui(clearwisdom) website at that time. They said they were ready to rescue me any time if I went back to mainland. Anyway my point is that Hong Kong people know clearly what are human rights. Fnhddzs 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yenchin does this mean that you support the last version the one without "alleged"? FG claims to have about three hundred thousand members in Taiwan is that true?--Samuel Luo 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I support the one labeled "NPOV Version to vote on".
As for the members I really have no idea since I always consider their numbers as inflated. According to this website: [37], there are 957 FLG sites in the Taiwan area (including Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu). If there is really 300,000 members that means nearly 300 people per site. Which is quite unlikely. I sometimes do some morning excercise and I've never seen any individual group able gather so much people, including FLG. For an index, most FLG protests held in Taipei at best gather around 10,000. If we assume these FLG members are all from Taipei (which is unlikely). Then a 10,000/2,000,000 ratio at best gives us a number of roughly 100,000 members (That is, using 20,000,000 as the total population). --Yenchin 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well if they can pull a 5 million number (1/4 Taiwan population) in one year[38] there's a lot of faith to leap. --Yenchin 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, you can't say they are lying just because Yenshin thinks that 300,000 is a incorrect number. Nobody can say exactly how many practitioners there is, because there are no member lists or membership etc etc. One can only estimate. Personally, I would not be surprised if there were atleast 300,000 practitioners in Taiwan. Omido 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is straying, becoming kind of useless and isn't going to do much for the article. That said, however, I feel obliged to give my two cents. I've been living in Taiwan for about a year now. I rarely go out to the park to do exercises and I know that there are lots of others who don't either. The number of practice sites changes and I'm sure that there are lots that aren't accounted for. I think I heard that the number of practitioners was based on book sales (I'm not sure how it's calculated). It's an estimate based on what we know. I don't know how much concrete action has been done by the gov in terms of support (I'll try to find out), but I do know that for almost every major activity that practitioners hold anywhere on the island at least one member of government will attend to support (and there are a lot of activities). This is a whole lot of support if you asked me. Mcconn 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
And let's not forget to differenciate between Governments and politicians. One is officlal, the other is individual. CovenantD 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick answer to some points:

  • [39][40][41]. If the legislators promise to make a statement for FLG, and during the meeting session they don't even care to discuss it and do nothing about it. That's an empty promise. But according to FLG criteria that's support? Is this another "light years" fiasco?
  • Numbers. Steve Hassan [42]has asked about the numbers in North America, and (suprise!) look at the response. Back to Taiwan. 5.16 million growth in 1.5 year means 10,000 per day. Not to mention that Taiwan has a population of 20 million so that means 1/4th. Yet in China, the best FLG could bring up is 1/10th of the population. And even if we take the 5 million and 300,000 numbers for granted that actually means a decline of tenfold. So much for Taiwan supporting FLG "spiritually" huh?

--Yenchin 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the 5 million number before. This is the first time. Where are you getting this from? Whenever I discuss this with practitioners, and from what I've read in Falun Dafa publications, it's always either 300,000 (or 200,000) or between 200,000 (or 300,000, not sure) and 500,000. Mcconn 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Persecution section

Finally after careful checking, I found what I mainly disagreed are the new edits in the persecution section summary. I suggest putting the new edits in the history article. Since the new edits tried to describe many details before the persecution. Fnhddzs 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CawleySockBot01 is responding. You provided not citations for anything. They are removed in accordance with the "accepted rules". I reinserted my edits about the Chinese Publications. Unlike you, I will provide the references; however, the material is currently being used for the court case. Cj cawley 07:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, the Persecution summary that I placed is nothing more than a paraphrase of the one of the paragraphs of the intro to the Persecution article. CovenantD 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
All right. Leave it for now. I will look at it further. Fnhddzs 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Health Claims

CawleySockBot02 responding. You need to have a CONTROL GROUP for the survey. Either that, or we go down the Joe Pescipo route of "I'm from Jersey. You from Jersey?" line of reasoning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ cawley (talk • contribs)

You're mistaking a research study with a survey. CovenantD 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

???

CawleySocjBot03 responding. You need to include the publications provided by the Chinese in response to the shutdown of the cult. I will work with Sam to put up the summaries of the people who died PRIOR TO THE CULT BEING BANNED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ cawley (talk • contribs)

I'm interested to know how you decided you were going to work with "Sam" when you two haven't even exchanged talk page messages. Seems like you're assuming quite a bit. CovenantD 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cawley, Falun Gong is not a cult, it is a cultivation practice within the Buddha-School, that is to say, it is the Mighty Buddha-Fa. I would appreciate it if you would stop calling it a cult. Also, what exactly do you mean with people who died? Do you mean the Communist Party's propaganda about 1,400 people dying because they did not take their medicine? Thank You /Omido 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD Attempting to act as a meditor with these nuts is useless. Please pick a side. It will make you life much easier. You have held me to one standard and the FLG CULT to another.
Omido This is a free country & a free net. You(plural) really have a hard time when people disagree with you. It's the same basic argument that I had with the ex-wife. She failed to see where her freedom ended and others began.

IT'S A CULT....IT'S A CULT.....IT'S A CULT..... Cj cawley 01:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.
CovenantD They cited a 3rd party website where the cases have not been accepted by the court. I gave you the court website where it is scheduled. I don't mind being fair, just hold everyone to the same standard. Clearly, you are not. Having personal experience with these nuts, their perception of reality is lacking.
A divorce case is not a trial of Falun Gong. It is non-notable. This has been explained to you by many people. The survey you keep removing is cited and relevant. It is not for us to judge the survey, but merely present the survey and the source and let the reader decide. Stop vandalizing the page. CovenantD 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of intro is updated

With no one objecting and the passing of deadline, I updated this paragraph. You can still change it if you don't like it, just don't beat me up or post nasty messages on my talk page. :-) --Kent8888 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the 1st paragraph discussion to the bottom to make it easier to find and archiving old stuff. CovenantD 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

talk page protected?

what happened with talk page? Who are established users? I could not type in sections. Fnhddzs 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) All right. seems I can type in this new section. But I could not respond to old sections. I disagree the new vote on the second paragraph. The deadline was for the old vote. Therefore I have made changes. Fnhddzs 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to add citations, please follow the new format that is being used - it adds to proper line to the References section at the bottom. I'll correct the two new ones you've added here, but you're responsible for the ones in the Criticism and controversies article. CovenantD 06:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the text (which we all consensed to) refers to the Falun Gong website so I've restored the reference that you deleted. I'm really disappointed that you've aleady made changes to the only paragraph that everybody agreed on. CovenantD 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by everybody? Fnhddzs 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Only Tomananda, Samuel Luo, Yenchin and Yueyuen. I did not even know about the new vote. Fnhddzs 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
CovenantD, ok, maybe I did not understand your question. Which reference you mean? When I saw it, it was in a bad shape. It said something like "Cite error 4; Invalid call; no input specified"[43]. So I added two links. Now I see you recovered the clearwisdom one. I am ok with that. Please do not misunderstand me. Thanks. Fnhddzs 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's a misunderstanding then. You caught it at a moment when I was formatting the references. This new citation style is a bit more difficult to master :-) Nevermind. CovenantD 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
good job on the new reference style. I need to pick it up. Fnhddzs 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This should help - Wikipedia:Footnotes CovenantD 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs you are obviously watching these pages. Why didn't you voice your objection earlier? --Samuel Luo 07:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I am sorry the vote was very late. I was busy last evening. I did not notice it until I logged in midnight. Fnhddzs 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Somebody moved my writings (should not discuss the relation with China in introduction) in earlier time after the vote. But I wrote that earlier. When I found the vote, it was posted to the article. I did not respond immediately since I noticed Kent8888 said we CAN revise it. Fnhddzs 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone will reject it. But seriously, is it so intolerable? --Kent8888 07:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More Cj cawley

Please leave some of the FLG claims in. I can use them AGAINST THEM in the court case. We are going to ask the wife to levitate, see through walls, etc. When my kid was little, he asked me how reindeer's fly. Being the smart kid that he is, I explained to him that the reindeer "farts" sooo much that he literally lifts off like a rocket. This only worked until he was about 5. I used the same explanation when his Mom told him that she could levitate, but only in the bathroom.

As for citations, I am working on getting some from China. I contacted the People's Daily for some information.

Where are the guidelines for "deadlines"? I have never heard of it. Cawleybot100 responding Cj cawley 10:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FLG never claims every practitioner can fly or see through walls. Supernormal abilities are mostly locked and NOT pursued. Fnhddzs 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've decided that it's a waste of my time to respond to bots. Let me know when a real person shows up and maybe I'll answer his or her questions. CovenantD 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How did this person get let into our semi-protected talk page? I thought only established editors can edit this page. Cawley seems to be providing only vandalism and distractions. Mcconn 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Established users" mean accounts more than 4 days (or is it one week) old. It is to protect the page from vandals like the pro-FLG guy. -- Миборовский 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you would allow anti-FLG guy? You seem not impartial. Fnhddzs 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think Mirobrovsky would allow anybody who's being abusive and disruptive the way pro-FLG Vandal is. I don't know if you've seen it, but s/he hits user pages, this talk page and personal talk pages of people who are not FLG practitioners with really nasty personal attacks. Never any practitioners, but even neutral people like me are subject to hir venom. CovenantD 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deaths attributed to Falun Gong

The section stays in. Relevant material will be provided from various Chinese publications. I will scan the book in detailing the deaths of hundreds of people ACCEPT CawleySockBot01

That's great. Since we have consensus, it stays in. In accordance with the wiki policies, references will be provided.

cj cawley I am giving you one last chance to discuss constructively. Otherwise I will block you. -- Миборовский 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to revert my court case once again. You asked why it was significant to the FLG cult. Well, "Master" Li was served with a subpoena to appear in court as a witness. I can send you copies of the documents if you like. Cj cawley 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD Why don't you READ WHAT IS WRITTEN BEFORE DELETING IT? Cj cawley 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I did. It's the same unencyclopedic thing that you've added day after day after day, only to have it removed by others. Your attitude is working against you here. CovenantD 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the FLG cases, they cited ONE in the article. Also, it had no relevant information. There were no court records, schedules, documents, etc. In many cases, the court dismissed the case. Cj cawley 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a news report, the same thing I've been asking you for since day one. The same kind of documentation you seem unable to provide. CovenantD 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CoventD A news report is valid? From the FLG newpaper? Seems like circular logic to me. It is that because I said it is.

Like I said, some sources DO NOT EXIST ON THE NET. This does not invalidate them. Join the real world like the rest of us. If you shoot me an e-mail, fax, etc., then I will be more than happy to send them to you.

Citing one case with no references hardly counts up to 60+. That's a joke in the reporting world. Take a look at the NY Times scandal a year or so ago. The guy fabricated his stories.

I revert my changes. 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not all resources exist on the internet. That doesn't excuse your inability to provide them. At this point you are being more disruptive than anything else and I'm asking Mirobrovsky to block you.
Do not delete sections without discussion. Do not add new sections without discussion. I'm sure that if you want to run Falun Gong into the ground that some editors here will be willing to help you craft your arguments. I'm here to provide a neutral voice in trying to craft a good article. Get over your anger at your wife long enough to get some perspective and stop trying to use this as a soapbox. CovenantD 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How to add a new section

(Since a new editor doesn't quite get it, I thought I'd provide an example for them to use)

Proposed text-

The Chinese government has published several books providing detailed information on the hundreds of people who died directly or indirectly as a result of following the Falun Gong "principles". Assuming that both sides are true, then

falun Gong has caused around 3,000 deaths.

China Anti-Cult Association Condemns Falun Gong's Inhumanity [44] Falun Gong Fanatic Murders Uncle [45] Falun Gong Devastates Believers' Lives: Spanish Media [46] Falun Gong Crime Widely Condemned [47] Falun Gong Cult Outlawed [48]

Comments Well, besides the formatting problems, there's a severe lack of information here. Simply providing a list of article titles and links is insufficient. Also, all of these links are to the same source. If there's evidence to support this, I'd like to see more than one source used. "People's Daily" is not exactly known for quality reporting. CovenantD 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD You asked for references, I gave them to you, you threatened to report me, etc. Give it up already. This talk section is clearly partial in both directions. You should not remove references just because you don't like them. Also, you should not include references that aren't. Lastly, a lot of my material exists OFF THE NET. I repeatedly offered to send it to you; however, you wish to remain anonymous. When I get a chance, I WILL REVERT MY EDITS. Also, I WILL ASK THAT YOU BE BLOCKED. Cj cawley 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

References should be available for review without having to disclose personal information to you. If it isn't then it doesn't meet the qualifications for sources. CovenantD 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided a host of published sources from the web, yet they were removed. I am reposting them. Also, I will work on getting the offline material scanned in. Cj cawley 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sources do not support your claim of 3000. Fnhddzs 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What part of 3rd party source do you not understand? Simply give us the name of the book, journal, newspaper, or whatever it is and let us find it for ourselves. Why do you keep resisting this? CovenantD 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, RESEARCH is NOT THE SAME AS SURVEY. You can't put a SURVEY under a RESEARCH category. It's basic English.Cj cawley 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Then suggest that the name of the section be changed. Do not simply blank information you disagree with. That is not consensus and it will be reverted every time. CovenantD 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is research and journal publication [49][50]. Fnhddzs 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs has been blocked for violating 3RR again

I notice that Fnhddzs has been blocked for violating 3RR and since then he revered twice with his Ip address and again with a new use name. Can someone block his Ip address? --Yueyuen 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yueyuen, we should be a bit tolerant with the 3RR rule, different people have different understandings, so conflicts and misstakes will happen. Let us be compassionate and forgiving to each other so that we can reach a good agreement on the article. I spoke with Fnhddzs and told him to be less nervous and eager, and to listen more and speak less. Also, I apologize for any inconvinience that we may have caused you. :) /Omido 10:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been VERY tolerant with my block. Fnhddzs has been warned and blocked before for 3RR. This time, I warned him no less than 2 times not to use an anon IP address to make further reverts. He did so anyway. Omido, please take your "be compassionate and forgiving" to the vandal that was vandalising this page and our user pages. -- Миборовский 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
ok. Miborovsky. Since your words were posted days ago at the beginning of the confusion or when you were angry or whatever. It is ok. Please see my talk page. I could not reply here when I was blocked. I won't address this more here. All right, let it pass and go back to work. Thanks. Fnhddzs 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing sub-sections in the main page

Right now, the subsection is like this:

  • 5 Criticism and Controversies
  • 5.1 Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs
  • 5.2 Li as a savior or supernatural entity
  • 5.3 Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?
  • 5.4 Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
  • 5.5 Falun Gong and sexual orientation

I think, it should be just "Criticism and Controversies". In my opinion, it is taking up too much space. /Omido 11:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(I did some slight fomatting on your message - it was showing up in really tiny print in a box.)
I've communicated with Tomananda about this very thing. He indicated that he would work on combining some of the subheadings. I know that he's spent quite a bit of time working on the companion article, so I suggest that we give him another day or two to recover and get to this one. CovenantD 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the model Covenant recommended and the one I plan to develop is the Scientology article which has a rather long summary of Crititicism and controversies, with four different sub-sections! Compared to the Scientology main page, the Falun Gong main page is absolutely enemic. There is not a problem of space here, and I suspect the only reason Omido says the subsection links should not appear on the main page is to obscure them. There are also many short summaries of pro-Falun Gong articles with links appearing on the main page, and I don't hear anyone suggesting they be eliminated to "save space." As suggested by Covenant, my plan is to write a whole new intoduction for the Criticism page which will take me quite a few days, as I will introduce some new material. After that is done, I will propose a re-ordering and some consolidation of the Criticism articles in keeping with the new inrotroduction. The goal is wind up with a main page edit that is readable, similar to what we see in Scientology. It needs to be pointed out that the text on the main page of Scientology is not just a repeat of the lead paragraphs of the from the auxialiary articles, but rather independent material. If we follow this approach throughout the Falun Gong article, that means the pro-Falun Gong editors will need to work on writing new edits for the main page summaries as well. Agreed? --Tomananda 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You also see that in the Scientology model, the Teachings section has some subheadings. I think that's appropriate and balanced. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that each summary needs to be just that, a summary of what's in the daughter article and not just a repeat of the first paragraph. I tried to do something like that with History and Timeline (it's still a work in progress). I was planning on introducing the idea section by section. :-) CovenantD 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you seem to suspect alot of things, I think it is not right to suspect things, because it can slow things down. If you wonder something, then ask me, there is no idea in suspecting things. The reason for me wanting to change the sub-sections of critism and controversies is because they are taking up too much space. This article is about Falun Dafa, what Falun Dafa is about and how it developed. This article is not about what individual critics think of Falun Dafa. Right now, it seems as there are more critics on the main page than actual information about Falun Gong, that is why I think it should be more "compressed". Also, I would appreciate it if you could stop comparing Falun Dafa to Scientology because it is not at all the same things. /Omido 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not comparing Falun Gong and Scietology, we're comparing the articles - structure, layout, summaries, subsections and daughter articles. Tomananda, I understand your suspicions but since I share Omido's views about the layout (and raised them with you) I think you might be off base here. CovenantD 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, they need to be cleaned up. I've started but it needs the attention of people who have added the links. Many of them need to be moved to daughter articles (I've isolated many that should go into Persecution), some of them need to have better descriptions, and some of them need to go away. Please read this style guide for what should and should not be done with them. CovenantD 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

protect the page

Fnhddzs was blocked yesterday, yet he reverted again by using a public computer. [51] But more importantly he said he has asked friends (other practitioners) to help, presumably, with his reverts. This is what he said: “I had called for friends to join and they came for help. Hehe. It seems it is kind of late but that is what happened.” [52] To avoid a major revert war, I suggest that the article be protected now. Edits can be made after discussion here.

I believe those nasty emails were from Fnhddzs using that public computer. --Samuel Luo 07:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected. No new editors will be able to make changes for the first four days they are registered. CovenantD 14:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Samuel. Why you worry so much? Hehe. But I promise without my friends' help, I will also do well. What nasty emails you said? You confuse me again. Please give references instead of doing personal attacks here. Fnhddzs 00:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

About second paragraph in Intro.

You could only edit when others agree with you too. My edits of "deeming it to be illegal" are the words from the reference. I think it works best. I already gave reasons on not putting "western". Why you insist on instilling something unnecessary? Fnhddzs 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to draw attention to this one. Fnhddzs has asked about changing some wording in the 2nd paragraph since he didn't get a chance to see that last proposal before it went up. We owe him the courtesy of an answer. CovenantD 22:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I request to revise the second paragraph. Please discuss. Thanks. Fnhddzs 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no point in changing it. --Yenchin 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, you should remove "personal jealousy". There are absolutely no references to it anywhere it's POV. Cj cawley 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Directly from the source material: "Jiang ordered the persecution out of personal jealousy, and a sense that he could not totally control the people's hearts and minds." That's pretty clear and it's in the source. CovenantD 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Show me one statement from the CCP that say that.

Cj cawley 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the damn reference for yourself. It's right in the article. CovenantD 13:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I did 2) Some enlightened people who consider demon seed a compliment. I revert my edits. Cj cawley 17:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reading skills need some improvement then; you're missing the qualifier at the beginning of the sentence, "The Falun Gong claims," which is what the source proves.
This just proves to me once and for all that you're conduct, your very presence here, is counterproductive. I will no longer dignify your comments or your edits with a response other that to revert inappropriate content. CovenantD 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We should also talk about the 3rd paragraph; it went up before I had a chance to discuss adding the wrod "however." When a secondary source publishes something that contradicts the original source's claim "however" is needed. --Samuel Luo 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD There is an old saying: "English is the language of liars & thieves." . A "claim" without proof is invalid & misleading like a bad salesman. Cj cawley 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please shorten the Critism Section Summary

Critism Summary is Too Long. The critism section has already listed all the subsection as an existing favor already given to this section ONLY. However, it is still expanding. The super long summary is not reasonable. Fnhddzs 00:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the Criticism section is not too long. And what's this about a "favor"? Just to remind you, Covenant did ask all of us to begin re-writing all of our summaries so that they wouldn't just be a repeat of the lead paragraph that appears in the auxiailiary article. That's what I have begun to do. --Tomananda 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the ONLY section which keeps subsection on the main page. It is a favor. Thanks for reminder. I did not know that. But the daughter article does not have that same content anyway. So I moved to that main article. Nothing deleted yet. Fnhddzs 01:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)'
Covenant's request was for all of us to make the main page read more like the Scientology page, and that's what I am trying to do. The Scientology page does have subsections for Criticism, but the goal is to get all the summaries to read more smoothly. Therefore, I was planning on re-arranging some of the criticism sections, re-writing the summaries and, where possible, consolidate. Tha main article will be a bit longer, but should read better when we are done. The "pro-Falun Gong" sections need to be re-written in the same light. I don't want to be the only editor who is going down this path. --Tomananda 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Each section here should be a summary of what's found in the daughter article, if there is one. In some cases, like the Teachings, I expect that will lead to the creation of some subsections. In Criticism, I hope to see some consolidation. Eventually I want to see some of them moved around a bit, too. But that's way down the road at the pace we're going. CovenantD 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. I understand. Feel free to move around. Maybe we will add subsections in teachings or other subsections. Fnhddzs 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticm page is too long, and it shows too much. That has too change, because it's like you are forcing people to read the criticism. That is not acceptable, just as we are not forcing people to read other things. People should choose what they want to read. /Omido 10:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Omido, but that's got to be one of the silliest reasons I've seen. If the Criticism section and article are more comprehensive, it's because Tomananda has focused his attention on them. (I am still waiting to see the consolidation of subsections and removal of duplicitive links, but I have faith that it will happen soon.) There has not been that kind of attention from the practioners for the other sections despite my repeated comments that they need new summaries. Perhaps you could work on them. As Fnhddzs has realized, this would bring more balance to the article. CovenantD 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant, was that it is not neccesary so have the sub-sections like that. /Omido 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that is something with which I agree. :-) CovenantD 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just so everyone understands, I am going to tackle the Criticism page first, so please don't expect to see major changes on the main page. There are many subsections within the Criticism page that are not summarized on the main page and some of them are just stubs. My intent is to consolidate and re-order sections within the Criticism page first. For example, I don't think it makes sense to have the Homosexuality article appear on the top of the Critisism page, since the summary on the main page assumes a different order (more chronological). Plus sections like "Li as savior or supernatural entitity" and "Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explositions" can be consolidated. This will take some time (at least a week), so please bear with me. Also, some additional writing will be needed on the Criticism page to cover the "early criticism" material, etc. I expect to be able to do some consolidation there as well (eg: combining it with "Differeneces between Falun Gong, Buddhism, Qigong and other beliefs." Also, this will require changing some of the subsection titles to be more generic. --Tomananda 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Subsections

I'd like to get rid of the links in subsections that lead to subsections in daughter articles. I think that one link from the section to the daughter article is enough. It's a bit... overkill right now. CovenantD 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep the article short subsections of daughter pages created by pro FG editors should be removed from the main page. Pro FG editors have created seven daughter pages while critical FG editors have created only one. The subsections of the criticism page provide a balance appearing on the main page. --Samuel Luo 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that all 7 daughter articles are going to survive. I've been reviewing them and some are very iffy in terms of NPOV, references, balance and duplication. Also, I still need to understand the difference between Teachings and Theoretical and Epistemological Studies as well as how Persecution is different from Outside of China. I'll have answers by the end of the week or I'm putting them up for merger. CovenantD 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't a difference. On the current "teachings" page all they have is ethics (no reporting on Dafa judging, Li saving and the Fa-rectification. They could easily combine Teachings with Theoretical and Epistemological Studies. The same is true for "perscution"..but even that title is POV..and "Outside of China". --Tomananda 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, each article needs to be balanced. We can't look at the sum total of articles for that - each and every one needs to meet the standards of Wikipedia, independent of each other. CovenantD 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, basic factual information about Falun Gong is not "pro-FLG" things. It is actual information about Falun Gong, and this article is about Falun Gong, right? /Omido 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, I agree with what you are pointing out here, there are so much redundancy on those seven pro FG pages. I refrained from touching them (deleting some of their content) only because I don’t want to provoke any revert war. It will be best if there are only one page for each side and one summary for each page appearing on the main page. --Samuel Luo 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Omido, it's about Falun Gong. Samuel, I think there will end up being about 5 daughter articles, based on the amount of distinct material available. Each one will have to be balanced, so there won't automatically be PRO and CON articles aside from the Teachings and Controversies which are inherently POV in their premise. We will still balance those in terms of content, taking care not to give undue weight to any one side. CovenantD 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder which sections belong to pro? Which for con? And which are facts? Fnhddzs 20:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

currently pro and con editors have their own pages because they just simply can not work together. I agree that no POV shoud be allowed, thereofre conclusions have to be backed by creditble material. The new subsection summaries under Beliefs and teachings section were added without any discussion and consensus for that reason I am removing them again. --Samuel Luo 20:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're using a different standard for different sections. If you weren't, you'd have demanded that Tomananda's additions to the Criticism section be removed as well. There was no more discussion about that content than there was about the stuff in Teachings. You can't have it both ways, Samuel. So which is it going to be? They both go, or they both stay and we discuss them? 'Cause I'll pull Tomananda's stuff quicker than you can blink if you insist on this. CovenantD 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The current setting of the article has been there for a long time now. When pro FG editors created more pages (and summaries for each of them) we simply added some subsection summaries of the criticism page to balance it out. It’s been fair to both sides. I don’t like your tone. Yes, you might be fast but don’t forget you don’t have any authority on this page and you are not even a Wiki mediator. Pro and Con editors should have an equal opportunity to express their point of view. --Samuel Luo 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New Teachings summary subsections

The foundation of Falun Dafa are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that what it calls the "Buddha Law" can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'truthfulness, benevolence (or compassion), and forbearance'. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍.

The teachings and priciples of Falun Gong are captured in two main books written by Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong ( Law Wheel Qi Gong) and Zhuan Falun (Turning the Law Wheel). Falun Gong is an introductory book that discusses qigong, introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises. Zhuan Falun is the core text of Falun Dafa practice.[7]

Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance

Falun Gong teaches simultaneous cultivation of Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance. The process of cultivation is said to be one in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Zhen, Shan, Ren ( Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance).[citation needed]

Central to Falun Gong is the traditional concept of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) in which the practitioner constantly strives to improve his “xinxing” (mind-nature) by gradually letting go of attachments such as selfishness, hatred, jealousy, greed and all bad thoughts.[citation needed]

Practice

The term practice refers to the exercises. Falun Gong is a mind and body double cultivation system, while emphasizing cultivating mind nature first and cultivating body at the same time. There are five sets of exercises including one set of sitting meditation.

Comments

Tomananda's version

Dafa and the the true nature of the universe

Falun Gong teaches simultaneous cultivation of Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance. The process of cultivation is said to be one in which the practitioner constantly assimilates to the nature of the Universe - Zhen, Shan, Ren ( Truthfulness, Compassion, Endurance).[citation needed]

Li Hongzhi teaches that his Dafa “great law" created all beings in the cosmos and is currently judging mankind. [1] It is weeding out "the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world" in a process called "Fa-rectification." [2] Claiming to be the only one who is offering salvation to mankind,[3] Li promises to turn his disciples into gods if they follow the moral requirements of his Dafa and expose what he considers to be the evil regime in China. [4] ,[5]

Note: I replaced the second paragraph, which didn't add anything that wasn't already covered in the first paragraph, with the higher teachings and changed the title.

Here's the original second paragraph for comparison:

Central to Falun Gong is the traditional concept of "cultivation practice" (xiulian) in which the practitioner constantly strives to improve his “xinxing” (mind-nature) by gradually letting go of attachments such as selfishness, hatred, jealousy, greed and all bad thoughts.[citation needed]

Notice that all it is talking about is ethics and could just as well appear in the ethics section. Falun Gong is also about more than ethics. We must report the this in a summary of the teachings. --Tomananda 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Disagree, why you delete the existing one? Fnhddzs 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I reposted it. Fnhddzs 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel removed it. CovenantD 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Tomananda, you can't speak about the Fa-Rectification in a couple of sentences. Master has spoken about the Fa-Rectification in 2200 words, do you think you can speak about it in 20 words? Not a chance. We can make a whole section about the Fa-Rectification, but not like you have done. Totally unacceptable. /Omido 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: Maybe you can't but other editors can and will. Your argument is belied by your actions, because you appear perfectly happy with a 3-4 sentence summary of the the pricinples of the universe (the Falun Gong slogan of "Truth, Benevelolence and Forebearance") but when it comes to the Dafa itself, which is judging all beings, naming the process called Fa-rectification, you say it's too complex. By way of example, here's the Wikipedia introduction for Eistein's Theory of General Relativity:

General relativity was developed by Einstein in the years 1911 - 1915. General relativity is a geometrical theory which postulates that the presence of matter "curves" spacetime, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light). It uses the mathematics of differential geometry and tensors in order to describe gravitation without the use of the force of gravity. This theory considers all observers to be equivalent, not only those moving with uniform speed.

You'll notice it is all of 4 sentences and yet summarizes the key points. As I have said before, if you are not willing to do the writing, I will. But it looks like you and other practitioners will continue to throw up road blocks to stall our progress in the hopes this critical issue will go away. As long as you throw up these road blocks, you are failing to work cooperatively with other editors.

Covenant: at some point we need to get out of this closed system of logic that the practitioner/editors are trapped in. Their arguments are getting more and more ludicrous and irrelevant to any reasonable standard for Wikipedia editng. Do you think it's time for us to seek mediation, or do you have another suggestion on how to proceed? As you can see from the above discussion, there have been numerous attempts at compromise and numerous edit proposals made by 3 different editors. In response to all these attemps, all we get is evasive, sometimes preposterous arguments. I do not blame any of the practitioners for this behavior, since it only reflects Li's ability to manipulate the thinking of his disciples. But still we need to move on. --Tomananda 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is sad that you start accusing and doing your personal attacks as soon as somebody does not agree with you. Convenant, is this the correct behaviour? You have seen Tomananda's logic: "If you don't agree with me you are hiding the teachings or you are ruining the article". You should know Tomananda, that the ordinary human emotions does not affect cultivators of the righteous Fa, so I am not affected or offended by your personal attacks, I just feel sorry for you. Still, I will do what I think is righteous and correct.

You say you have given numerous attempts to compromise, I say you have just given your own way of thinking, now it is our turn to give a suggestion. Omido 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy today, but I'll get to this tonight or tomorrow. CovenantD 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Omido: You are not to blame for anything and I am not attacking you. I do blame Master Li for the predicament he has created, though. --Tomananda 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will create a good Teaching section that includes alot of things like Individual Cultivation and Fa-Rectification and post it. I will be fair and not "conceal" anything, like you (Tomananda) call it. I will quote alot from the speeches of Master Li, so the sources will be good.

If you want to have negative thoughts about Falun Gong, Master Li and Dafa-Disciples, then that is your choice. I can only give you a little advice, which is that Falun Gong is not what you think it is. It does not matter so much if you believe in Falun Gong or not, or if you believe in the words of Master Li or not. But the truth is, alot of people have really benefited from practicing Falun Gong and alot of family's have been more harmonius. Maybe you think that the teachings of Falun Gong is really strange and that you can't understand them. I would say: Let's look at the effects. The people that practices Falun Gong, usually always have a smile on their face and they will never get sad or mad when somebody hurts them, instead they forgive them. They have a compassionate heart and treats everything with the infininate grace of Buddha. Would you say that is bad? Yes, We will report about the true teachings of Falun Gong, but we will not twist the fact's and we will not hold on to our own way of thinking. We will try to see things through each others eyes, and we will understand each other. Without Truthfulness, Without Compassion and without Forbearence, how can one make progress? The cosmic qualities restricts all /Omido 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back. I agree that Tomananda has a habit of not assuming good faith, which I've called him on a few times. On the other hand, I see practitioners constantly trying to convince everybody of the goodness of Falun Gong (see Omido's post above for a classic example) and trying to challenge anything that's not completely positive. Neither is very conducive to getting this article in shape. CovenantD 18:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to get the Teachings of Falun Gong article in shape before we can summarize it here. CovenantD 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant: I see you are proposing a different strategy. I am concerned that in creating new material in the Falun Gong teachings section, we still will not wind up with a summary for the introduction which includes the ideas of salvation for all mankind and the Dafa judging all people. Right now, those ideas are reported on the Criticism page but are left out of all the Teaching and related pages. That's my concern, but I am willing to "assume good faith" as long as this material is summarized clearly at the top of the teaching page. What has been happening all along when we reach this kind of impasse is that the practitioner/editors merely retrieve very long block quotes from the master without making any effort to summarize the material in a concise and readable format. If all we get from this exercise is a seies of long Li quotes, without any attempt to write exposition of those quotes, we will be making this article worse rather than better. Isn't there a Wikipedia standard on this? --Tomananda 19:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm changing the strategy a bit, because I realized after you said something that the daughter article needs to be done before it can realistically be summarized here. The concepts of salvation and judgment need to be included in the Teachings article if they are of such importance. And no, we won't end up with a long series of quotes. That's not a good way to craft an article, and I want these to at least meet "Good Article" standards. CovenantD 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I agree with you that "salvation" should be included in the introduction, just not the way you suggest. It's nothing personal against you, it's just that according to my understanding (because I have been reading Master's articles over and over again), that way of putting things is rather shallow and can easily be misinterpeted. /Omido 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Omido: I wouldn't even use the term "shallow" since that has a negative connotation. A summary, by it's very nature, needs to be general...which means "big idea" words like "salvation" or "judgment" are introduced, with further explanation appearing elsewhere. Keep in mind this is an on-line encylopedia, so every "big word" that is used in the introdcution can be linked to a more detailed section on the Teachings page. --Tomananda 20:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Things from the introduction should definetly be linked to other sections which explains things better, this gives people to have a deeper understanding. But, there are two ways of going from here:

1. The introduction should be more superficial and linked to a section where things are explained more in-depth. 2. Things are in-depth right in the introduction, but this is not good.

We should always try to have a neutral approach when explaining Falun Gong. We should not let personal viewpoints affect the article, I am not pointing fingers at anybody, but Tomananda, you have to think abit about this. You have to admit that sometimes you let your own viewpoints and personal feelins/emotions toward's Falun Gong determine your actions. I think this is not the right approach. If I and other Falun Gong practitioners would use personal emotions and viewpoints, then the article would never be finished. We should handle things well and introduce everything in a neutral way. Anyways Tomananda, don't be offended, I did not mean it in a bad way. Take it is a good way to improve yourself. /Omido 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So who is engaging in personal attacks now? Omido, this has nothing to do with either your POV or my POV, it has to do with our ability, as editors, to write a brief and simple summary statement about the soteriological teachings of Li's Dafa, which is saving all beings at this time. In fact, Li says it is only his Dafa that can save all sentient beings at this time, does he not? None of this is my POV, it is your Masters. If you wish to rephrase my wording, then please do so and offer a counter suggestion. But to merely accuse me of having "personal emotions" (whatever that means) is not responsive to the editing task at hand. --Tomananda 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No Tomananda, he does not say that only his Dafa can save all sentient beings. What he said, was that he is the only one that is openly genuinly teaching the Fa at high levels. This does not mean that only his Dafa can save all sentient beings. He has said that there are monks that do genuine cultivation and that there are still some good Daoist temples (cultivation toward higher levels, saving themselfs). Also, he has given very good examples of people cultivating in mountains in secret, they are also saving themself are they not?

Tomananda, I did not do any personal attacks, I kindly pointed out one of (What I think) your problems. Also, you can't just find a quote that fits your understanding and stick to it (Like the one with "Dafa is judging all sentient beings". There are so many other quotes that describes things differently, and the quote that you are holding on too isn't necessery containing everything that it should contain. /Omido 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Selection of Master Li quotes on Dafa, salvation and his role

What Li has said about salvation and the Dafa:

  • 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
  • If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.317.
  • Our Falun Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha’s School, which has never been made public during during the historical period of this human civilization. However, it was once widely used to provide salvation to mankind during a prehistoric period. I am making it public again in this final period of the Last Havoc. Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.37 (Note that the “it” is Falun Dafa, not the Buddha’s School.)
  • Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

What Li has said about creation and the Dafa:

  • 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.

What Li has said about his control over the Dafa:

  • Dafa (Great Law) has only one master, me, and Dafa Itself doesn’t have any “persons in charge.”

Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A.,December 29,

New Criticism section summary

In the years prior to the ban, Falun Gong’s main critics came from the Chinese religious community and academics whose concerns about the possible harmful effects of Falun Gong teachings were reported in the media. As early as 1995, Li’s teachings “began to come under criticism for being superstition” [6] and by 1996 the Buddhist Association and Buddhist journals were issuing in-depth critiques of Falun Gong. [7]

In order to understand this early criticism, commentators suggest we need to apply a cultural understanding of China’s history.[6] As context for stories about the Falun Gong ban, Western media have often reported China’s history of quasi-religious movements which turned into violent insurrections. [8],[9] Two often-cited examples are the bloody Taiping rebellion of 1845-1864—led by a person claiming to be the “Son of God”-- and the failed Boxer rebellion led by a secret society which announced in 1899 that “ten calamities” would soon occur, followed by salvation. [10]

Patsy Rahn (2002) describes a paradigm of conflict between Chinese sectarian groups and the rulers they often challenge. According to Rahn, the history of this paradigm goes back to the collapse of the Han dynasty: "The pattern of ruling power keeping a watchful eye on sectarian groups, at times threatened by them, at times raising campaigns against them, began as early as the second century and continued throughout the dynastic period, through the Mao era and into the present.”[6] Although Rahn does not ask us to accept non-critically the strategic choices made by the Chinese government, she does state that within this historical paradigm, the “ruthless and radical responses” made by the Chinese Communist Party against the perceived threat of the Falun Gong can be seen “as appropriate, necessary and acceptable.” According to Rahn, the CCP views the conflict with the Falun Gong as one between “the people and their enemies” for several reasons:

  • 1) the government believes Li’s teachings endanger people, mainly due to the teachings regarding medicine;
  • 2) the government believes Li’s teachings were gaining enough adherents across China and specifically within the CCP to be a potential rival ideologically;
  • 3) because Li moved to the US and has, according to the government’s view, linked up with those in the west who wish to see the fall of the CCP.[6]

In the years since the ban, Falun Gong has gotten increased critical attention from cult experts and some academics, while also garnering support from the mainstream media and civil rights groups because of it’s allegations of persecution by the Chinese Communist Party.

Comments

That is fair. I see that you post both material here for discussion. --Samuel Luo 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather we did it while they were up (I want to give leeway to both sides), but if this is the way we have to go... CovenantD 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to their summaries becasue they have seven pages and each page has multiple subsections. Do you see why I object? My main concern is the length of the article. --Samuel Luo 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but let's all refresh our memories about ownership of articles. They don't have seven articles, we have about a dozen or so, including Li Hongzhi and the media ones. Persecution (we've got to look at that name) should present both the evidence for and against. Teachings should have both the easy stuff and the stuff that may look bad. I know you look at some of the other pages. Start asking questions on the talk pages. Start asking for citations and references to back up claims. Start pointing out POV wording. Don't go making sweeping deletions without giving people a chance to justify or change their words. I think doing all of that will achieve the results we want. In a lot of ways, I'm just waiting on you guys to start coming up with summaries and challenging this stuff, here and in the daughter articles. I can only do so much without losing my objectivity. CovenantD 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The summary is well done, but it seems to have an emphasis on the political aspect. Is this for the main article or the daughter? --Yenchin 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not like a summary. too many details. Fnhddzs 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the new Criticism Summary edit to the top of the Criticism page, and moved the Homosexuality section to the end. The content of the summary section and the section that now follows overlaps and I plan to combine them. I will sart working on the consolidating sections in the criticism page shortly. I will write a new summary page after I have finished working on the Criticism page, which is really the only way to approach this task since I need to have the auxialiary article in the right order before I try to summarize it on the main page.--Tomananda 05:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a bad summary in my opinion. It's a bit long though. Perhaps the third paragraph can be shortened. I also hope you realize that even the summary should be balanced, so some points may be inserted to counter some of the claims. Such as the fact that the Buddhist Association, and likely most Buddhist journals, is a CCP organization. Mcconn 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, its too long to be a summary and it needs to be balanced too. Dilip rajeev 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in court with the FLG and CCTV

I will review the info when I have a change. Here's the rick ross article: http://www.cultnews.com/index.php/2006/06/19/falun-gong-leader-served-subpoena-scheduled-to-testify-in-new-york-court-this-week/ Of Course, after court, the FLG may well be a moot point. Let's all chant together kum-bi-ya. Cj cawley 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice reference. Now we can get serious. Once others have looked it over, work on some neutral wording for your suggestion, then post it here so we can comments and improve it before it goes up. Otherwise you'll have the same problem you did before. CovenantD 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If focusing on the case itself it seems to me the article doesn't mention much besides Li getting called to court. I believe more details and issues will show up after this Thursday. Anyway good luck Mr. Cawley. --Yenchin 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. -- Миборовский 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: It is advised that Mr Cawley refrain from editing anything related to his court case (or even better, anything Falun Gong-related) while his case is in progress... to avoid legal entanglements and such. -- Миборовский 03:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky Thanks. I did refer the CCTV to wikipedia. Do not be surprised if you start getting more updates from places in China. As for the ex-wife, the truth will come out one way or another. I don't think that the Chinese government will react favorably to it. There are also a few members of the U.S. government who will be in the same boat. Cj cawley 09:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Subsections

It was agreed to add subsections to sections [53] other than the critism due to its super fat status. But Samuel Luo deleted it without consensus. Fnhddzs 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Please respect your fellow editors. Do not eat your words to fool others around. Fnhddzs 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles that I retreived from the Chinese websites should probably go here. You can add my 2nd book later. Here's a prelude to the intro: In darkest day In blackest night No evil shall escape my sight Let those who worship evil's might Beware the power green lantern's light. - The Green Lantern Cj cawley 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong -> Suppression of Falun Gong

This title has been bothering me since the article was split a month ago. We never consensed to this name. In fact, if you look at /Archive8 you'll see that we were going to call it "Chinese Gov't suppression of Falun Gong" because "Persectution" was seen as inherently POV. I've just reread that archive and there seems to be consensus from both side to use Suppression. As such, I'm going to change it to the more NPOV "Suppression of Falun Gong." CovenantD 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Persecution is true although it starts being tried to be covered up after 2002 or 2001? However, it is a consensus of many governments (U.S., Canada, U.K., Taiwan, Korea, Australia...). And the evidence is not only in mainland China, it already extends to outside China, for example, Dr. Yuan Li got beaten in his own home, car with Falun Gong fliers got burnt, phones got tapped and left messages, etc. The former Chinese diplomat in Australia (Chen, Yonglin)[54] already quitted the CCP and got asylum since he helped to erase the blacklist of practitioners maintained in Chinese Embassy in Australia. The former Chinese mainland 610 (the specialized office for persecuting Falun Gong) policeman (Hao, Fengjun) also escaped from China since he witnessed many persecutions and doesn't want to continue to participate. When he said to others forging a video forcing a practitioner to lie is wrong, he got punished in a closed room. I am sorry if you still think persecution is not a fact. Fnhddzs 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a good change towards the right direction. I remember that when Uncle Ed was here he suggested this Chinese authorities and Falun Gong . Anyway, supression is a lot better than persection. I was going to raise this question after we are done with the 1st paragraph of intro. --Samuel Luo 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, whats happening in China is not a simple "supression". The term "persecution" is used by The HRW, The Amnest International, H. Con Res 188, the EU and The United Nations. Dilip rajeev 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Covenant. I noticed that I was ok to using the word "suppression" on "Archive 7". But you know I am not a native English speaker. I may not be very sensitive to some wording. Now I reemphasize my opinion on using the word "persecution". And it is a consensus word used by many organizations in the world. Fnhddzs 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been doubt expressed about the physical abuse, which is enough to throw the word persecution into a POV assertion of fact. There is no doubt about it being considered illegal, so suppression is factually accurate. CovenantD 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been doubt expressed about the holocaust, too, but it is a fact, regardless of what David Irving and his buddies say. Denying the inhuman nature of CCP's persecution of Falun Gong is screening crimes against humanity. Ample evidence of torture in China's labor camps is substantiated by many non-partisan studies, including Manfred Nowak's UN report from 2005. And like Dilip pointed out, the term "persecution" is used by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and various governmental institutions. In addition, saying that Falun Gong got suppressed because of "illegal" activities requires some kind of reference to what is meant by "illegal" under a Communist dictatorship. Then again, many readers already know that even the students on Tiananmen square got crushed by tanks because they were class enemies engaging in illegal activities... ---Olaf Stephanos 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 - Mcconn's version

Here you go:

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Faaluen Gong; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law"), also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法 輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law"), is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are a set of teachings, often referred to as the Dafa (or Great Law), which focus on moral improvement and salvation through adherence to the principles of Truth, Compassion and Forbearance [55] and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) [56]. In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of Fa-Rectification. Falun Gong is practiced in approximately 80 countries and the teachings have been translated into over 40 languages.

Reject Let's avoid words like central and the first sentence can be shortened by using Tomananda's verion. I agree with ketn8888 that it is best to quote Li directly. --Samuel Luo 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This version is very confusing. It fails to inform the reader about the difference between Falun Dafa and Falun Gong. And if they are the same thing why two names? The last sentence needs citation.--Kent8888 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The concept of Fa-Rectification is too complicated and foreign to be able to summarize in a sentence and have people reasonably understand it, but I understand others’ desire for it’s inclusion in the paragraph. Therefore I have a compromise. I believe that it’s fair to mention it as I did above while adding a link to a subsection where the concept is explained in more depth. This is fair to both sides in my opinion. Given the short length of the teachings summary, it’s inclusion also has some weight, but if more was said about about it I feel the balance would be off. I linked the term to the section on Fa-Rectfication in the criticism section. I see using this link as a temporary solution until we have something more neutral about Fa-Rectification in the teachings page.

I did not include anything about Falun Dafa being the only means to salvation in this period (which is debatable to begin with). Whether or not this is the case I’d like to share something. Theravada Buddhism regards Shakyamuni as the only Buddha who can save people and that only through practicing their way can one gain enlightenment. However, if you look at the wiki page on Theravada [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada) you’ll notice that they don’t mention that in the intro, nor anywhere else on the main page. Then why is this concept mentioned at the beginning of the article on Christianity (ie. about Jesus being the Messiah)? I think it comes down to the fact that Christians put a lot of weight on this. It’s central to their beliefs and they always mention it in their relations with non-Christians and to each other. Unlike Falun Dafa practitioners and Theravada Buddhists, they are very evangelical and put emphasis on this concept of “only Jesus can save you” when trying to convert others or even when trying to encourage one another (i.e. at Church). We don’t have any slogans that say “Master Saves”. We’re not like that. Given that this concept does not play such a major role in Falun Dafa, just as it doesn’t in Theravada (although I did get a few Buddhists, telling me that there is only one Buddha when I was in Sri Lanka), and that it's debatable in the first place, there is no need to give it such weight by mentioning it in the intro.

Ample reason has been given for why the emphasis is in the summary is place on cultivating Zhen Shan Ren, so I’m not going to explain that. Mcconn 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding linking the term "Fa-Rectification" to the criticism section, I've changed my mind. In the next few days I'll produce a "Fa-Rectification" section in the teachings page. I believe that it will be ready before the final vote on the first paragraph is done, so I'm removing the link to the criticism section that is there now. Mcconn 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"www.therewillbealink.com"? I love it CovenantD 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Fa-Rectification used in any other context than Falun Gong? CovenantD 19:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a borrowed Buddhism term (sad-dharma) which originally means "true/correct law". --Yenchin 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've often felt that practitioners are very evangelical in their dealings with others. How many times has a practitioner urged a non-practitioner to just try Falun Gong? Or presented an argument that has nothing to do with editing, but is touting the goodness of Falun Gong? Too often to count... CovenantD 19:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Amen to that. --Fire Star 火星 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
touting the goodness of Falun Gong. Seriously, I have not met any rational FLG-practicing Wiki editors.
But my POV aside, "Fa" is the Buddhist concept. "Fa-Rectification" is a neologism. --Sumple (Talk) 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
法 is not only used to translate the Sanskrit word dharma, but it is used in Chinese commonly for "law" or "principle(s)" as in quan fa (Japanese kenpo) "fist principles", one of many generic terms for "martial arts". --Fire Star 火星 07:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Some vandal, no doubt a Falun Gong practitioner, has just posted a bunch of homophobic ranting on my talk page. I sent a request to Miborovsky to handle this. --Tomananda 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If possible, I would like to be notified the next time anyone vandalizes your page with anti-homosexual or "pro-Falun Gong" messages. If they are actually a practitioner I can talk to them. I don't know what kind of messages these were, but I can assure you that any Falun Gong practitioner engaged in actual anti-homosexual ranting is totally off the boat. However, I highly doubt that any irrational vandalism is the work of an actual Falun Gong practitioner. Thanks, Mcconn 17:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just took a look at what was said and I can totally guarantee you that whoever wrote that is not a practitioner. It's completely nuts. That behavior is the complete opposite of the behavior that comes from Falun Dafa cultivation. Mcconn 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, why avoid words like central? There is a central concept to Falun Gong, which is assmilitation to Zhen-Shan-Ren to attain the Dao. Convenant, he was just clarifying the facts to you. Falun Gong practitioners knows the Falun Gong teachings better then anybody else because they study them every single day, not like other people that just glance through it and make a judgement. Therefore, if there is a missunderstanding, the facts have to be clarified. Of course I think that Falun Gong is really really good, but do I tell you it is really really good? No I don't, but I clarify the truh. /Omido 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

samuel's second suggestion

Falun Gong 法輪功 (literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa 法輪大法(literally "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). [57] In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious." [58] In recent years, added emphasis has been placed on the concept of Fa-Rectification.[59]

This is a version that combines material from almost everyone’s suggestion. No practitioner can sufficiently understand the Master’s teachings therefore we must quote Li’s words. --Samuel Luo 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support--Yueyuen 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support--Samuel Luo 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject -- At least the typo still exists (the first line). Delete the end time. That does not exist in the quotes. Falun gong refers to both teachings and exercises. Fnhddzs 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

'Reject -- For reasons Fnhddzs pointed out. Dilip rajeev 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected them. If Falun gong and Falun dafa are the same thing then why two names? --Samuel Luo 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I guess you must have a Chinese name. Fnhddzs 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Also this version used a quote. But I don't think this quote was to "introduce" the Falun Dafa. Fnhddzs 02:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Also did we agree on adding "to the public" before "in 1992"?Fnhddzs 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support. Also, in his lectures, Li has ordered his followers not to talk about the entire system, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that they have been ordered, if not to lie exactly, at least to hide things. So they are necessarily suspect when it comes to describing FLG if they follow Li religiously. We are better off using Li's exact words. --Fire Star 火星 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Although I normally prefer an accurate summary over a direct quote for an introduction, the particular Li quote Samuel has offered is a clear and consise statement from Li himself about "our Falun Dafa." Li's quote seems to cover all the bases: it mentions that the Dafa is one of 84,000 cultivation ways in the Buddha School. I makes the claim that it goes back to pre-history when it provided salvation to humankind. It includes the idea that we are now in a final period of Last Havoc, and that Li himself is now making it public. Given that the practitioners didn't want to have any post-Zhuan Falun quotes, I think this version may be as good as we'll ever get. Also, it mentions the idea of Fa-rectification, but does not define that, allowing for a link to another article (should be the Criticism page) but could also include a second link to a new page to be added to the teachings section. --Tomananda 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an even earlier quote before on "our Falun Dafa"[60] "Our Falun Dafa is based upon the highest standard of the universe, Zhen, Shan, and Ren, all of which we cultivate simultaneously." Fnhddzs 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Fa-rectification cannot be given only one reference there. It should be linked to a section. One reference would not explain well the full meaning of Fa-recification. In my understanding, that Fa rectifies the cosmos and that Fa rectifies the human world are two different phases. Fnhddzs 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support This version uses Li's quote which clearly defines what the Dafa is. --Kent8888 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Support Laying out everything for the readers. --Yenchin 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph of intro is updated

thanks for your support, I have just updated the paragraph in reaching of deadline. --Samuel Luo 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't. It is a consensus vote[61]. Fnhddzs 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We voted to improve the paragraph. You can add material to this version which many are supporting. --Samuel Luo 04:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

REJECT Less than two hours passed between the time that this was proposed and it was put into place. That is not consensus, that is sneaking it in. I'm reverting it back. CovenantD 05:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Now that others have had a chance to weigh in, I can withdraw my opinion.) CovenantD 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see many have supported this version, at the passing of deadline I updated it to reflect that support. As pointed out, people can still make improvment to the paragraph after discussion here. The new version should stay while discusion continues here. --Samuel Luo 05:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No way! I have never seen such shameless people. Fnhddzs 05:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I will report you to vandalism if you insist on cheating. Fnhddzs 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the only version supported by the majority, it therefore should be used. Why don't you start making suggestion to improve it further instead of deletion. Shameless? you guys are the ones who have been making nasty personal attacks, you should point your finger at yourself and your FG friends --Yueyuen 06:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No, according to what we agreed[62], it is consensus vote, NOT a majority vote. Please respect and be honest to yourself and to others. Fnhddzs 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That conversation was about the deadline, you miss understood it. --Samuel Luo 07:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood it, Samuel, if I assume you did not do this intentionally. Otherwise you think CovenantD misunderstood it[63]? Be honest to yourself. Fnhddzs 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Let's wait for others to point out who has miss understood ConventD's words. --Samuel Luo 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Fnhddzs I have accommodated all your complaints, see the following list:

You said: At least the typo still exists (the first line). Delete the end time. That does not exist in the quotes. These changes you requested have been made.

You said: Also did we agree on adding "to the public" before "in 1992"? This request is also honored.

Your only request I have not responded to is this-- “Falun gong refers to both teachings and exercises.” Please make this statement clear in meaning so I can respond to it. You need to have a good reason to reject, wikipedia is not your own website and we are not going to stop improving the article because you are objecting. --Samuel Luo 06:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request that the wiktionary links to the Chinese characters go back in whichever version of the page is finally decided on. They have a way of putting the phraseology Li likes to use into a greater, perhaps even encyclopaedic, context. --Fire Star 火星 07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject.' Dilip rajeev 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's a good idea to let others know so that further suggestions can incorporate those reasons. CovenantD 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject A couple of reasons for me rejecting. 1. It was night time when the deadline was, so me, dilip and mconn were sleeeping, so we could not give our votes. 2. There should be more emphasis on the cultivation of Zhen-Shan-Ren and Xinxing cultivation, after all, Zhuan Falun is all about Xinxing cultivation and assmilitation to Zhen-Shan-Ren.

/Omido 11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a new translation of Zhuan Falun from 2003 which is better, there it says:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the Buddhist system’s 84,000 disciplines. It’s never been passed on to the general public before during this period of civilization, but it did once save people on a large scale in a prehistoric age. Today I’m spreading it again widely during this final period of the kalpa’s end, so it’s just extremely precious."

If we are going to use a quote, we shall use that one. Still, alot more emphasis has to be put on Xinxing cultivation, in Zhuan Falun, everything is about Xinxing cultivation and follow Truth-Compassion-Forbearence at all times. Master Li has said this himself.

"So what is character? Character includes virtue (which is a type of matter), it includes enduring, it includes awakening to things, it includes giving up things—giving up all the desires and all the attachments that are found in an ordinary person—and you also have to endure hardship, to name just a few things. So it includes a lot of different things. You need to improve every aspect of your character, and only when you do that will you really improve. That’s one of the key factors in improving your potency."

Note: In the new translation, Character = Xinxing.

/Omido 11:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reject (naturally) I agree with Omido about the emphasis being on Zhen Shan Ren and xinxing. Also, I hope someone will replace the quote with the newer translation if it is what's going to be there for the time being. Why do some editors have such a hard time coming to terms with the fact the Zhen Shan Ren are the core principles of Falun Dafa? Or that it is about cultivating oneself by assimilating to these princples? I find it hard to assume good faith while some editors completely ignore the most central concepts of Falun Dafa. Honestly, as part of the introduction I don't think the abovementioned quote will do much to help a person's understanding of Falun Dafa. It can give a general idea of the language Mr. Li uses and the way he speaks about Falun Dafa within the teachings, but it provides no understanding of what Falun Dafa is actually about. Including this is skipping a big step. If you honestly think that including this over information about Zhen Shan Ren will be of more help to the reader's understanding of Falun Dafa, then I really suggest you take some more time to read the actual teachings of Falun Dafa and get a better understanding for what it's about. I am all for including this quote later in the article, I think it could be quite good later on, but I'm against including it in the introduction. Excuse me for my irrationality and evangelicness (I was unaware that trying to provide accurate representations of Falun Dafa from my own experience and understanding for the good of the article and the editors involved is evangelical). Mcconn 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hongzhi, Li (July 13, 1999) “Further Comments on Superstitions” in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  2. ^ Hongzhi, Li (July 13, 1999) “The Vows of Gods are Being Fulfilled” in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  3. ^ Hongzhi, Li "Whoever Practices Cultivation will Attain Gong" in Zhuan FalunThird Translation Edition (Updated March, 2000) USA Internet Version retrieved June 14, 2006
  4. ^ Hongzhi, Li (February 15, 2003) Fa-Lecture During the 2003 Lantern Festival at the U.S. West Fa Conference retrieved June 18, 2006
  5. ^ Hongzhi, Li (September 19, 2004) In Fa-Rectification Your Thoughts Have to Be Righteous, Not Human in Essentials II retrieved June 18, 2006
  6. ^ a b c d Rahn, Patsy (2002) “The Chemistry of a Conflict: The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong” in Terrorism and Political Violence, Winter, 2002, Vol 14, No. 4 (London: Frank Cass Publishers) reprinted in Cultic Studies Review, subscription required
  7. ^ Penny, Benjamin, “The Falun Gong, Buddhism and ‘Buddhist qigong’”, Asian Studies Review March 2005, Vol 29, pp.35-46.
  8. ^ Associated Press (July 22, 1999) “Banned sect joins long Chinese history of religious suppression” retrieved June 17, 2006
  9. ^ Engardio, Joel "Spiritual Cultivation" New Times, Los Angeles (March 23-29, 2000) retrieved on June 14, 2006
  10. ^ Chang, Maria Hsia (2004) Falun Gong: The End of Days (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press) ISBN 0-300-10227-5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_10&oldid=1278580612"