Jump to content

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Vandalism?

Simon I would recommend that you read WP:Vandalism before you justify your reverts with that label, as you did here. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by editing like ASDFG's is a form of vandalism. I will not address your textwalls point by point so stop asking me to. The archives address all points raised by the FLG partizans. No amount of wikilawyering changes the fact that ASDFG is vandalizing this article. It's clear to everybody except you. Perhaps your massive conflict of interest is preventing you from seeing it.Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to mention this, Simonm223, but you yourself "subscribe to a Marxian interpretation of economics" and reside in China part of the time. You also deleted a comment here from someone with a conflicting conflict-of-interest, as it were. And the settled nature of the article edits does not seem obvious to a layman like myself. This deleted source clearly confirms part of the deleted text from Asdfg. Y'all seem to agree on using Benjamin Penny as a source. Meanwhile, the current article strongly implies that the Chinese government made certain claims during the time when Li first published Zhuan Falun, without obviously giving a source. I had to find this myself, and it dates from 1999 rather than 1994. (I disagree with Asdfg if he says that line in the article asserts their POV as fact, and I can't evaluate the Rahn issue now.) If you've addressed all this at length before, would you please point me to the place? Dan (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh look, it's attack #2 of the week on me for being a marxist I can't begin to tell you how much I love that. Dan, for the record, I am actually strongly opposed to many of the practices of the Chinese government. Furthermore, as somebody who has lived there, I can tell you China is not marxist. China is a capitalist authoritarian state. I'm not a big fan of the PRC government and am not editing to make the PRC look good. I am however filled with disgust at how the Falun Gong has manipulated popular perception by playing to western stereotypes of the "evil communists". My work on these pages is mostly to keep them truthful and not let them become yet another echo chamber of the FLG media machine.
The persistent vandalism of ASDFG, who routinely deletes any source that disagrees with him has led me to not always check carefully to see if he has added an allowable source at the same time as all his partisan mass-edits. His MO - drive-by mass reversion mixed with insertion of small quantities of new material - means occasionally, rather than spend hours picking through the dross, reverts of his vandalism will cull stuff that is viable for inclusion. I trust non-partizan editors here to catch those if I miss them and generally don't protest over their re-inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the first note you wrote in parentheses, "that line in the article asserts their POV as fact."--Asdfg12345 08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon, I've always simply asked for discussion about the changes. But you don't discuss things and instead dismiss my concerns and call me names. It leaves me at a bit of a loss.--Asdfg12345 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick note on the Johnson quote

The full quote is this:

"Over the next two years, Ms. Chen became an enthusiastic participant, rising at 4:30 a.m. to exercise for 90 minutes in a small dirt lot with half a dozen other practitioners. After a day running errands for her children and grandchildren, Ms. Chen spent evenings reading the works of Mr. Li, the group's founder, and discussing his ideas with fellow members. Those beliefs incorporate traditional morality – do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive – as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life and separate-but-equal heavens for people of different races."[1] (emphasis added)

This was changed to:

Ian Johnson notes that Falun Gong beliefs "incorporate traditional morality... as well as some idiosyncratic notions, such as the existence of extraterrestrial life" and segregated heavens for people of different races.

You'll notice that the quote stops at "extraterrestrial life." Then the word "segregation" is added, and linked to "racial segregation." I don't know why someone cut the quote short and re-interpreted Johnson's meaning. It's unclear why there should be a need for this character of change. Paraphrasing and so forth is fine, but we should be careful not to inadvertently give a meaning to the quote that the writer did not already provide. Unless Johnson said that he believes Falun Gong teaches racial segregation, then putting it in like this may give a misleading impression to the reader. I won't comment on whether that was deliberate on the part of the editor who made that change. It's highly problematic to adopt this style of editing. Let's put it down to inexperience rather than malice. About other changes to the "controversies section": this is actually a "criticism" section, in the end. It only has negative views. Shall we balance them with positive views, or just leave it? And the other point I wanted to make is that you can't just decide what is a "controversial" teaching and what isn't. That area would be a mile long if we did it that way. A secondary source needs to make that evaluation.--Asdfg12345 02:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see separate but equal. You may have also removed sources without explaining either why the article does not reflect the sources accurately or why we should not use those sources. But I can't look into all this in detail now. Dan (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I can only say that I'm doing my best to explain all my edits and thinking behind them, and citing relevant wikipedia policies or whatever. And if I fail to do that, and someone points it out, then of course I would seek to fix that up. In this case it would be original research to change "separate but equal" to "racial segregation." It's not clear that's what Johnson meant. Editors aren't supposed to make these sorts of interpretations about sources, as far as I understand. I thought we are supposed to let the reader decide. I think it's enough to just quote him. If some reliable source says that Falun Gong promotes real-world racial segregation, rather than Li merely discussing some metaphysical principle, then we can use that. --Asdfg12345 04:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Separate but equal is unambiguous in meaning. It is the exact language of racial segregation in the USA. It is not WP:OR to confirm that lapis lazuli is a blue stone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Why can't you stick with the source? If anyone would like further details for that there is the wikilink, right? Why do you insist so much in changing it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer Wikipedia not to use the language of oppressors in this case. As the racism of Li Hongzhi is as evident either way I use the value-neutral wording instead of the original.Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodness... you're too much, Simon. Whatever the case, those are Johnson's words. There's no need to break the quote and outlink to some other concept. It's misleading to the reader.--Asdfg12345 23:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would go for the shorter text, but keeping the " do good works, speak honestly, never be evasive " to explain what is traditional morality. The stuff about exercicing, running errands, etc, is just fluff. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, the issue was whether the quote should be cut short and the words "separate but equal" changed to "segregate" with the wiki page on "racial segregation" linked. Please respond to whether you think that's appropriate or not. That's really what the dispute was about.--Asdfg12345 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been dead for five days. The point made was that by cutting the quote short, changing the words, and linking to "racial segregation," that this was a kind of source distortion and original research. Simon gave an off-the-wall response. Dan's note was noncommital, or at least explanatory. It's not clear whether he advocates the altered wording, or why. It's simply going to be unworkable if we wait for everybody to agree to something simple like this. This isn't meant to be over the top of me, I'm just trying to deal with this rationally. If there's a good reason why we should change the words of the source and link to racial segregation, I'm waiting to hear it. And if there is, that person can make the change and explain it. --Asdfg12345 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the intro down further

Zhen, shan, ren wording and straw poll

Okay, we've been spinning our wheels for a while here so let's try breaking it down into smaller pieces. According the consensus on the central concepts, the first concept we have to summarize is Zhen, shan, ren (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance). Here's the latest complete suggestion from Samuel. (I'm not including Andre's because he has some incomplete references.)

According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

Can we get a straw poll on just this sentence? CovenantD 14:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be a little clearer that Li posits "Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance" as the "supreme nature of the universe". It could perhaps be done with different punctuation. Anyway, I'm off on holiday for a few days, I'll look in when I get back! --Fire Star 火星 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

From the quotes below, Why Doing Cultivation Exercises Doesn’t Increase Gong

So to put it another way, you have to care about character cultivation, cultivate by the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure—and get rid of those ordinary people’s desires, those character flaws, and those thoughts about doing bad things.

Falun Dafa’s Special Features

So I think you now know how gong comes about: the gong that really decides your level doesn’t in fact come from exercises. It comes from cultivation. It has to do with you cultivating yourself, and how when you improve your character in the midst of ordinary people, and when you assimilate to the universe's nature, then the universe’s nature doesn’t hold you back, and you’re able to rise higher. That’s when your virtue starts evolving into gong, and as your character improves, it goes right up with it. That’s how it works.

Note here xinxing is translated as "character". It seems to me, the cultivation of xinxing is towards the goal of assimilating the universe's nature. Or the xinxing cultivation has to be according to the nature of universe. samuel's version is almost ok to me except I still feel a little bit different with what I feel. Fnhddzs 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, I think that the way Samuel words it allows for different reasons and the ultimate end result without being specific as to reasons. In other words, your interpretation is implicitly in there already. Having said that, if everybody else agrees to this version, would you be able to accept it? CovenantD 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems you English speakers think we have the same meaning, then I am fine. Fnhddzs 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems ok to me. I apologize for not being present these last few days, it has been an incredibly busy week for me. This is the most I can say at the momement. I don't think this situation will last long, so I should be participating more again soon. Good luck! Mcconn 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also okey for me, except one thing: Omido 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 

:Just so we know what we're voting on, this is Samuel's version and I support it:   --Tomananda 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We still need to hear from Dilip, and maybe Olaf, Miborovsky, Kent888 and Cj cawley.

Omido's addition and a straw poll

"According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character) and lets go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance."

I think it is very important that we include that can only cultivate their xinxing by letting go of attachments and desires. One cannot assimilate to the nature of the universe and not letting go of attachments, so it is important that it is included. Master Li has also said that cultivating with attachments is not real cultivation, but one can realize his own attachments during the cultivation and gradually remove them. Omido 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on adding this to Samuel's suggestion. Please state an opinion on both parts. People may agree with the original wording and disagree with the addition or agree to both. CovenantD 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

agree to addition to the original. I will second this addition to Samuel's version by presenting a quote in the very beginning (the third paragraph of the first talk) of Zhuan Falun [1]

I’ll tell you a truth: the whole process of cultivation is a process of constantly getting rid of human attachments.

So in my understanding, removing attachments is the central or the whole thing of xinxing cultivation. This idea is quite much the whole idea of xinxing cultivation. Then Samuel's version would be quite good. Fnhddzs 19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just added a few words. --Samuel Luo 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, does this mean that you agree to the addition? CovenantD 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that we are voting on a sentence to replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of my suggestion here. Am I right?--Samuel Luo 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two related straw polls happening here, but both are just about the second sentence of the 1st paragraph. The first is based on your wording as shown here and the second is an addition proposed by Omido as shown here. I'm guessing that you support your own wording and want to know if you agree to the addition by Omido. CovenantD 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Li when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings in cultivating his/her xinxing (mind nature or character) and letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.
Just so we know what we're voting on, this is Samuel's version and I support it: --Tomananda 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A grammar question. Why no "to"? "followes" --> "follows"Fnhddzs 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I can give you a rule of grammar to cover it. When used next to "assimilate" it's a redundant word. CovenantD 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But why the translators put a "to" there? I believe they have native English speakers too. Fnhddzs 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked up answers.com [2]. There is an example:

To adapt. It was difficult to get the new baby to assimilate to his parents' schedule.

Now I think we have to have this "to" although it is right in grammar either way. Since the meaning in the Falun Gong teachings is to ask practitioners to cultivate their character to adapt to universe's nature, instead of letting the universe's nature adapting to us. I guess I am right this time :) Fnhddzs 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not attached to this at all. It just seems wrong to me. CovenantD 07:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Andre's suggestion for the second sentence

Maybe you can inlcude my version in here too Covenant? the problem of the refferences has been solved by Fnhddzs already.--Andres18 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here you go. I've highlighted the differences and added a comment. CovenantD 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (heart and mind nature or translated as character[3]), they can assimilate to the core principles of --Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance-- which are also referred to as the "cosmic characteristic" [2][3]

Major differences

Samuel's places the authority on Li. Andre's places it on practitioners.
Addition of cosmic characteristic wording.

Comments - I think the first difference is a big one. We should be relying on the words of Li. For that reason alone, I think Samuel's phrasing is better. CovenantD 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments - I think cosmic characteristic is just another translation version of "nature of universe" . Well, the both seem quite close to me. I would add references to Samuel's if his is used. I think Andres' version uses longer sentences and reads better to me. Li also said the "truthfulness, benevolence and forbearance" are guiding principles for practitioners to conduct themselves [4]. This idea is covered in Andres' version. The issue of whether practitioners believe or according to Li is not very important to me. Maybe the two versions could be combined somehow. Anyway, we are almost there. Fnhddzs 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - I think we neednt keep repeating "According to Li Hongzhi".. Its quite clear we are refering to the teachings of Falun Dafa. I think we can write it as "In Falun Dafa, the process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates to Truthfulness (Truth), Compassion and Endurance." Then, we can mention( In the next sentence or in a later paragraph) that "In Falun Dafa, Zen-Shan-Ren is considered the highest manifestation of the Buddha Law or Dharma(Fa) and the fundamental characteristic of the Cosmos." . I suggest these two sentences to introduce cultivation of Zhen-Shan-Ren. Dilip rajeev 10:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we really do. Falundafa isn't a person and therefore can't teach anything. To suggest that it does implies that Wikipedia believes it exists outside of the postulations of Li. A parade example of weasel wording. It should be reported with a small degree of elegant variation so that we aren't always saying exactly the same thing, but the attribution ultimately belongs entirely in Li Hongzhi's lap, I'm afraid. --Fire Star 火星 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev 15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dilip. I agree we make sure clarifying the source of point of view as Fire Star suggested. This article is to report Falun Gong. It is better to say "in" Falun Gong. And with the wording of "it is believed", "is thought of", we do not imply this is wikipedia's thoughts. We have a sentence to say Mr. Li is the Master. Of course everything of the teachings is from Mr. Li. Why we have to repeat this when we refer to teachings? If we put "according to Li", I think people may wonder why to repeat? Is there another possibile author of teachings? Fnhddzs 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say both. The reader needs to understand that the teachings come from Mr. Li, but given this, since the system he teaches is called Falun Dafa, I think it's fine to say "In Falun Dafa it is believed...". Both ways are ok to me and I don't think we should overuse either of them. However, the problem with Andres version is that it says "practitioners believe". Well, practitioners believe it because it is a principle taught by Mr. Li and practitioners believe what Mr. Li says. So In this case it's better to say "According to Li..." or "In Falun Dafa it is taught..." As for Samual's version (with Omido's suggestion), I think it's good, but there's one little thing. Cultivating xinxing includes letting go of attachments and desires. So it would be better to say something like "...in cultivating his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), which includes letting go of attachments and desires,...". But this isn't the only aspect of xinxing, theres also virtue, "enduring", "awakening to things", and "enduring hardship". And this is only "to name a few things". So should we mention more of these things when refering to character? To make this a little clearer I've pasted Mr. Li's explanation of "character" from Lecture 1 of Zhuan Falun. Mcconn 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

ok. I agree with Mcconn. This way would be more accurate. Letting go attachments is not the whole thing of the xinxing cultivation. It is a part of it. I am sorry about my previous interpretation [5]. With this straightened out and keeping in mind not overusing the wording of "according to Li" or "it is believed or thought" in the whole article, then either Andres or Samuel's version would become quite good. Anyway, we are almost there. It is fine to me to address the "Zhen-Shan-Ren" as principles as in Andres's version. It is also fine to me not to mention this as in Samuel's version. Fnhddzs 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A small thing. followes --> follows? Fnhddzs 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to start writing long explanations on "what is character" here we will be straying from the task of writing an introduction, which by definition should be a consise review of why the this topic is notable, and what a reader can expect to find in the the article if he/she reads further. Yes, character "includes a lot of different things," as does Fa-rectification and Li's teachings on consumation. But if we ever expect to complete the introduction section, I hope we can focus more on writing just one sentece at a time, with the end goal of having, let's say, 3-4 paragraphs worth of "introduction." --Tomananda 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No no. Mcconn just suggested to add "which includes" Fnhddzs 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested lead by Hiding

Feel free to disregard this, but all the quotes from Li can be addressed in the article, a lead should not be so specific. Would people be happy with these three paragraphs?

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; 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 (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and moral teachings. According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

Add Paragraph Here about Salvation and Fa-rectification. We already agreed on these topics, but have not agreed on the wording. --Tomananda 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

The exact number of Falun Gong practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million practitioners was quoted in a New York Times article published April 27, 1999. According to the article, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government. According to a statement posted on November 1, 1999 the membership estimated by Beijing was 2.1 million. A main Falun Gong website states a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including 70 million in China.

Someone would have to stick the characters my system hasn't got in, instead of the question marks. Anyway have a think on that, feel free to ignore it but do try and work out what your lead should do with regards guidance at WP:LEAD. Don't try and cram too much detail into it, we want people to read the whole article. :) Hiding Talk 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, Hiding, we've already reached consensus on the last two paragraphs of the lead section. We've kind of been working backwards, from the easiest bits to the more difficult. Also so you know, we've also discussed what should be in the first paragraph or two here. You couldn't know that unless you dug through the last few archives and scoured this entire page so I thought I'd mention it. CovenantD 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the central concepts discussion, I just felt the discussion on the first paragraph was getting bogged down on the usage of quotes, and I don't see that the quotes should necessarily be in the lead. A lead should be a brief overview, and if you start using one set of quotes then people might want another set of quotes to balance, and those arguments and balancing are best made in the article itself. Hiding Talk 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding We (anti-FG-editors) do not want to place Li's quotes here but simply mention FG’s core belief--salvation and Fa-rectification--and provide links to the body of the article where these terms are explained in greater detail. However practitioner-editors insisted on including Li quotes for reasons they have not fully explained. --Samuel Luo 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

About the right mostly, except the "moral" teachings --> "spiritual" teachings (I don't mind continuing our previous sentence by sentence vote and I will read more about what is a lead section and rethink) and I am going to propose a poll on using the name persecution. I feel very uncomfortable if we cheat ourselves that is not persecution, per the new source confirming organ harvesting on live Falun Gong practitioners even TODAY. Fnhddzs 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Update on consensus for the lead

Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

We have consensus on the above. We have two suggestions for addition to this, seen below in bold text.
I'm calling a 24 hour straw poll before we move on to the next sentence on Fa-rectification.
Even if you have expressed an opinion on this before, please do so again so we have a clear idea of consensus.

I am sorry I don't agree with the above. Falun Gong refers to both teachings and exercises. Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll #1

Please support or oppose with at most one or two sentences explaining your reason.

Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and spiritual teachings.

How about "and spiritual teachings centered on moral improvement". It's more accurate and flows better into the next sentence. Mcconn 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Flun Gong is about exercises. --Samuel Luo 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Falun Gong (fah-luhn gong) – “Law Wheel Qigong.” Both the names Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are used to describe this practice. But not vice versa. --Yenchin 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Falun Gong refers to both teachings and exercises, as what is called mind and body cultivation system. Otherwise, just a body cultivation system if following your thought? Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

i support Mcconns version.Falun Gong is also about spiritual teachings and moral improvement, please remember that if you are going to state something like "Falun gong is just about excercises", then you have to back it up, or else i dont think it can be considered a valid disagreement. Also, I dont think using the term Falun Gong or Falun Dafa will affect the neutrality of the article.--Andres18 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We need more input. Another 24 hours. CovenantD 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the version above, but I have a suggestion. The discussion on whether the terms "Falun Gong" and "Falun Dafa" refer to the same thing was already quite lengthy. Did we get nowhere in that discussion? I had thought that we had all basically reached consensus that although the terms literal meanings are different, they in fact refer to the same thing in use. To me this is undeniable and I don’t know why anyone would bother denying it, as no one is to gain either way. The paragraph confuses this by saying "Falun Gong refers to...", which almost suggests that "Falun Dafa doesn’t refer to..." The term "refers to" is the problem. I think if we instead use "includes" there won’t be such a problem. So this is what I'm suggesting:

"Falun Gong includes five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and spiritual teachings centered on moral improvement". Mcconn 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with this suggestion too, its much more accurate.--Andres18 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We are trying for a quick description of Falungong. I agree with the original description we are voting on above. I don't agree with the pro-FLG addition. Trying to load the description with "moral improvement" - a very subjective claim that only devotees are likely to agree with, especially in light of Li's racist public statements - is blatant advertising. --Fire Star 火星 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is my suggestion a "pro-Falun Gong" version? Previously, non-Falun Gong practitioner editors were suggesting "moral teachings" rather than "spiritual teachings". Later, a practitioner suggested "spiritual teachings" instead. Doesn't my version try to incorperate both? In addition, since the following sentence talks about the focus of the practice, ie. cultivating xinxing, which is certainly a pursuit of moral improvement, it flows better and makes it clearer to add "centered on moral improvement" to the previous sentence. Other than this I just tried to clarify the use of the term "Falun Gong". You seem ever more accusing these days Five Star. 61.229.233.44 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you are Mcconn who didn't log in. The addendum is pro-FLG because it is an attempt to imply early on that Li's teachings are morally sound. Later on, we can say Li or others claim them to be moral, but there isn't universal agreement as to whether they are. The same with FLG jargon like "cultivation" and "rectification", etc. Claims, not established fact, that should be qualified as such. My position has been constant since I started editing here. It is symptomatic of an ongoing pattern that has been with this article since day one. Li and FLG practitioners commonly say one thing while acting another. They say they aren't political, yet the suppression started as a result of their huge political protests in China. They say they aren't a religion, yet they address entirely religious subjects using religious language to the point that Li declares himself the only and universal saviour for all mankind throughout eternity. The capper is that Li has ordered his followers to deliberately obscure his "higher level" teachings to the public. FLG practitioners several times in the course of these discussions have accused non-practitioners of not being qualified to edit the article but I wholeheartedly disagree. I am sure that I can see right through the sleight of word that seemingly comes from the top, and I won't allow this article to slowly thereby become advertising for Li and FLG. And that is a declaratory statement based on a pattern of evidence. --Fire Star 火星 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright FireStar, then, what do you think about just "spiritual teachings" like it was initially proposed? is this the one you are agreeing to in your previous post?. If so, i can agree to it and think its a neutral way of defining this other aspect of falun gong. I think using "spiritual teachings" doesnt imply these are for moral improvement neither does it imply the contrary. If any of us, the editor practitioners, have done anything wrong then we apologize, but keep in mind we are not the only ones who have made mistakes during this process.--Andres18 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after three days of a badly formed straw poll (my fault) it's clear we don't have consenus on adding anything to the above. CovenantD 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not entirely my fault. Too many suggestions when I specifically asked for only support or oppose statements. CovenantD 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll #2

Please support or oppose with at most one or two sentences explaining your reason.

According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), which includes letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

Discussion
How about "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires,". We don't want to create the impression that this is the only aspect of xinxing, but it's fine to mention it provided we make this clear. Mcconn 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested this earlier:

According to Li when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings in cultivating his/her xinxing (mind nature or character) and letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

I will only agree to adding this "letting go of attachments and desires," when the bolded text is added. --Samuel Luo 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "Stricly following the teachings" sounds odd to me. I do not think I strictly follow the teachings even now and it is not required for practitioners although I think it is a goal to aim at. Cultivation is step by step. Fnhddzs 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with condition. With emphasis on the exclusiveness as Samuel pointed out. No matter what you do, in the end, it's up to the "Falundafa shih zheng fa". --Yenchin 07:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with version #2 with the addition suggested by Samuel as well. Shall we call it a consensus? --Tomananda 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Samuel's latest addition, but I agree with the earlier straw poll 2 and mconn's addition. Omido 09:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support with Mcconn's addition. Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support with Mcconn's addition Xinxing is not only about letting go of attatchments, that is just a part of xinxing, there is also truthfulness benevolence forbearance, virtue, innate quality and so on. Perhaps letting go of attatchments can verify how assimilated you are to these principles but it doesnt constitute the entirety of xinxing. Well now, since we dont want such a long explanation then Mcconn's suggestion is just perfect.I disagree with samuel's suggestion because following the falun gong teachings, which is basically assimilating to these principles, which is also called "cultivating" is a gradual process, so strictness varies depending on how long you have practiced, the experiences you go through during this process and it also depends on your understanding of these teachings. If anyone could strictly follow falun gong teachings then there would be no cultivation.--Andres18 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, obviously this one needs more discussion and the straw poll was premature. CovenantD 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we discuss changing the term "suppression" to "persecution"

Thanks. "Persecution" is a widely used term. These are some citations in English, not considering other languages (such as European):[6] U.N. Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his Mission to China from November 20 to December 2, 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6), March 10, 2006.REPORT INTO ALLEGATIONS OF ORGAN HARVESTING OF FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS IN CHINA [7][8] [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] [19] ...began its bloody persecution ... The Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong followers is allegedly run by the notorious Office 6-10 [20] Fnhddzs 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest we remove mentioning what is reason for the ban. It is not a fact with consensus. The reason is quite debatable. We'd better avoid that in the introduction if the introduction is focused on facts. Fnhddzs 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding. We have a whole page entitled "Suppression" and that's where the details belong. --Tomananda 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Hiding that avoiding both persecution and suppression in the lead. But I would say the suppression page title should be changed to "persecution". Fnhddzs 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hiding, wikipedia should provide the facts--what CCP and the FG say about the ban. Suppression is not neutral term how about Chinese government Vs Falun Gong? --Samuel Luo 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We'd remove the ban reasons in the lead. They are details and debatable. If you'd insist on putting reasons in the introduction, we'd put these quotes of what Master Li say in 1999 as below. Some Thoughts of Mine June 2, 1999

Actually, I know perfectly well why some people are bent on opposing Falun Gong. Just as reported by the media, there are too many people practicing Falun Gong. One hundred million people is indeed no small number.

Oh give me a break! Falun Gong's claim of having one hundred million practitioners is one of its biggest lies. Here in California, the FG has to rely on busing hundreds of practitioners from city to city to have a decent showing at parades and protests. On July 4th, practitioners were bused from northern California to Los Angeles to march in a parade. The entire Bay area is estimated to have fewer than 1,000 practitioners. --Tomananda 07:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I am just presenting a quote on a view from Master Li in 1999 why some people oppose Falun Gong. It is not a place to discuss how many practitioners here. Everybody has a way of estimation.Fnhddzs 16:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Also Master Li mentioned the main body of practitioners is in China. Fnhddzs 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, everything you just said is POV. Speak about the article, not your own personal opinions. Omido 10:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding to Fnhddzs's ludicrous boast of there being 100 million practitioners world wide with actual information about what the numbers are like in California, the biggest state in the US. In order to muster about 140 practitioners for a San Francisco Board of Suprevisors meeting earlier this year, the FG had to bus in about 80% of those folk from out of the city. This figure is not my POV, it came directly from one of the Supervisors who actually took a count. --Tomananda 22:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont think this contributes in anyway to the making of the article, please dont spend your time in vain attacking other editors. For those who might have a doubt, according to google ludicrous: absurd;incongruous;inviting ridicule. Even though you are entitled to disagree, please respect other people's statements--Andres18 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fine with me if you would use a title Chinese government vs. Falun Gong. To me, that is a better title than "suppression". But I disagree wikipedia help to cover up the persecution facts if wikipedia is dedicated to report things. I suggest "persecution" must be mentioned. "persecution" cannot be replaced with the term "suppression". "persecution" is facts here, not a POV. Fnhddzs 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course persecution is facts. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners are tortured and detained every day, are you going to try to cover that up? People have to know the truths, they have to know about every evil act the Chinese Government have done against Falun Gong practitioners, tortures, organ havesting from live practitioners, killings, raping and many other evil horrific things. This is facts, there are so many witnesses and independent researchers in the west that have stepped forward and spoken about these things. I also have two independent books that are speaking about the persecution of Falun Gong, which I will use in the article to clarify the truth about the persecution. Omido 10:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Millions of FG practitioners are tortured and detained every day? Is there no limit to the unsubstantiated claims you're willing to make to promote Falun Gong? Master Li is quoted as once having said: "I have to exaggerate, or else no one would believe me." (Would you like the citation..I think I can find it fairly quickly.) --Tomananda 22:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean million, that was wrong. I meant alot of practitioners are being tortured and detained every day. Also, please show me the citation that you mentioned. We practitioners know that sometimes you say something without understanding what you are saying. Omido 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for correcting yourself on the numbers. I used the word exaggeration because that is exactly what the FG does in an effort to get support. I've always said in discussion that I have sympathy for Falun Gong practitioners who are mistreated in any way while being detained in China. But mistreatment and even torture, if done by corrupt individuals at the local level does not equate to a government policy in favor of torture, nor does it justify words like "genocide" which are also used in FG propopaganda. Take, for example, the first report you cite above...the March, 2006 Commission on Human Rights report. In that report I learned the following:
  • "Since 2000, the Special Rappporteur and his predecessors have reported 314 cases of alleged torture to the government of China involving over 1,160 individuals.
  • Of those alleged victims, 66% were deemed to be FG practitioners. That means over a 5 year period the Rapporteur reported a total of 765 alleged victims, or 154 per year. So rather than speaking of "millions" of alleged victims, the word "hundreds" is more like it.
  • The Special Rapporteur welcomed "the willingness of the government to acknowledge the pervasiveness of torture in the criminal justice system and the various efforts undertaken in recent years at the central and provencial levels to combat torture and ill-treatment."
  • He also acknowledged that "these measures have contributed to a steady decline of torture practices over recent years." --Tomananda 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please find the citation if you could. Please do not slander. Fnhddzs 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "China Vs Falun Gong" version. But i also think "persecution" should be used if there are that many refferences which use such a term. Toamananda, im sorry but that is surely another of your personal understandings of another of Master Li's quotes. Please Look at the references that we are presenting and give us a justified reason of why the term "persecution" should not be used.--Andres18 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will track down that Li Hongzhi quote and report it here. --Tomananda 18:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Noah Porter reported the Li quote in his Master's Thesis (p.72), but doubts its reliability because it comes from the Chinese Embassy in Denmark. The quote relates to the question of why Li changed (fabricated?) his birthday to make it coincide with Sakymuni's. Here's the quote:
'When Li's acquaintances asked him why he made up his life story, Li answered, "No one would believe me if I do not exaggerate a little bit.'" Porter obtained the quote from: [21] I am not proposing that we add this to the ariticle, but nevertheless find it very interesting. For me, it provides one plausible, though ironic, explanation for Li's grandiose statements. --Tomananda 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the quote. Now I am not worried. It is not Li's words. It is just a cliche from Chinese Embassy. Unfortunately it cannot support your POV.Fnhddzs 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
When Li's acquaintances asked him why he made up his life story, Li answered, "No one would believe me if I do not exaggerate a little bit.'" Ah please...for all we know they could have just made it up, is there a name and last name of an acquaintance from Mr Li confirming it? no, is there enough evidence to back that up? no. Its completely unsubstantal. Besides, you are contradicting yourself, arent people suppossed to think you are lying if you exaggerate?. Why dont we focus on what we have to do? pleeeeasse lets center on the real objective of this subsection, we are waiting for the critics opinion on the use of the term persecution.--Andres18 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

We've already discussed the use of the terms "persecution" and "suppression". You can go here to refer to the discussion. I stand by using the term "persecution". "Persecution" is not inherentely POV, although some people may use it that way. What's happening in China is absolutely a persecution, and the term has been widley used by people from all sides to describe it. "Suppression" does not carry the same meaning. Whether or not you like Falun Gong you still have to own up to the fact that it is being persecuted in China. I think we should use this word in the title and the introduction. The article will then give context to the word. "China vs Falun Gong" is not accurate. That term almost implies that they are two forces engaged in some kind of battle with each other. This is not true as practitioners are merely doing what they can to counter and stop the persecution against them. They beat, torture, and kill us, but we don't lay a finger on them. We just want them to stop and want people to understand what they are doing. It's totally different from an "X vs Y" battle. Mcconn 09:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now that you mentioned it Mcconn, i think you are absolutely right about the term China vs Falun Gong. We are not fighting against the Chinese government, we dont care about politics, its the persecution we are trying to stop. So, i agree with the term "persecution" being used.--Andres18 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andres and Mcconn. It can't be called "China vs Falun Gong". It is CCP that is torturing and killing Falun Gong practitioners. Falun Gong practitiotners have never answered back with any violence, they just clarify the truth about the persecution to the people in the world. Omido 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres and Omido: Li Hongzhi continually calls for the use of the Nine Commentaries to slowly eliminate the Chinse Communist Party through attrition. The Epoch Times reports how many millions of Chines people have supposedly quit the CCP because of the FG's campaign, and Li himself, in a recent poem posted on your website talks about the CCP fading due to the promotion of the Nine Commentaries. And just recently a FG practitioner gained entry to the White House lawn using her Epoch Times press pass to heckle and harrass Chinese President Hu. Given these facts, how can you say with a straight face "we are not fighting against the Chinese govenment"? --Tomananda 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone in civic world should shout at the CCP's evil. What if your friends' organs are in danger of being butchered? Stop the beast! Fnhddzs 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda: that is your personal opinion and i respect it. We ,Falun Gong practitioners, think the Nine commentaries are just exposing the evil deeds of the communst party, if they are fading its because of what they did, not what we do. But we are not here to give our personal opinion about this matter. So lets focus on making the article, if you think persecution shouldnt be used then give us a justifiable reason (backed up) of why it shouldnt be used. We have many testimonies and refferences that state this persecution is really happenning, can you prove it is not a persecution? if you can then post it so we can talk about it and move on. What the Epoch times reporter did does not represent in any way the actions of Falun Gong, if she went and did it then its her problem, that doesnt mean Falun Gong or Mr Li wanted this to happen in any way. As you may know, Falun Gong cannot take responsability for what all people who claim to be practitoners do.--Andres18 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? Master Li is not responsible for what an Epoch Times reporter does, even though he said the Epoch Times was created by his Dafa disciples for validating the Fa? And Master Li is not pushing the Nine Commentaries as a device for getting rid of the CCP by attrition even though he repeatedly reminds his followers about how it is to be used? Sorry for being incredulous, but the constant denials of FG practitioners that you are not pursuing a political agenda become tiresome after a while. The last time I checked, the goal of eliminating a governing political party through propaganda is considered "political." Anyone who has read Master Li's speeches knows that his goal is the elimination of the CCP. Sure, Master Li says it will be the gods who will eliminate the "wicked" and "evil" CCP, just as he says the gods will eliminate practicing homosexuals. But then again, Li also says he is teaching the gods his Fa, so that makes Li the king of the gods, doesn't it? And therein lies his responsibility. --Tomananda 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind this is not a falun gong discussion forum, and all this talk is not relevant to the subsection. Thats your POV, We also have our own POV of the matter, dont regard what you think as absolute. Im not going to spend one more second talking to you about falun gong, we have our opinion and you have yours. If our position on the matter becomes tiresome for you then id appreciate it if you could be more a little more tolerant towards other people's opinions. We are here trying to discuss wether the term persecution should be used or not, if you disagree then give us your motives so we can talk about it.--Andres18 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is fighting the chinese government. Falun Gong practitioners are compassionatly exposing the wicked party's evil crimes. The only thing the Nine Commentaries are doing is to help people to see the true and wicked nature of the CCP. Actually, Master Li himself have said that Falun Gong will never be against the government, not now and not in the future, he also said that Gods will eliminate CCP. Why do practitioners spread the Nine Commentaries? Because CCP has been killing people for the last 160 years, they brainwash people and they use propaganda and lies as tools for maintaining the power, the chinese people should know this. This is in fact the purpose of the Nine Commentaries, to see the true nature of CCP. Omido 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When the Dafa disciples who run the Epoch Times report on how many millions of Chinese people have quit the evil and wicked CCP, that is not "fighting the Chinese government"? And when practitioners lobby congresspeople and local politicians to get them to pass resolutions to condemn the Chinese Government, that is not "fighting" the Chinese Government? And when Falun Gong practioners based in Taiwan illegally jam the main TV transmissions that the Chinese Govenment sends to it's people, that is not fighting the Chinese Goverment? As I have said all along, the mendacity of the Falun Gong truly amazes me. --Tomananda 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
We would really appreciate it if you could stop attacking us, mEndacity literally means "Falsehood", this is an attack, i also think you should stop continuously breaking the forum rules, its not healthy towards the making of the article. Please answer to our simple request (do you agree or not with the term persecution and if you dont then give us a considerable reason so we can dialogue about it) so that we can move on.--Andres18 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not attacking anyone personally, but I am responding to the postings made by practitioners above which contain some pretty outrageous claims. I notice that instead of responding to the substance of what I said above, all you do is accuse me of attacking editors. Anyway, I will take a page from Omido and just say: No one is attacking you, I am only compassionately exposing what I consider to be erroneous claims made by the practitioners. --Tomananda 05:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You did respond to our claims which you consider outrageous, but your answer was an attack to falun gong practitioners. I think you are completely entitled to state that you disagree with our claims, but i dont think the way you are doing it is the most appropriate one. Im not going to respond to your claims because thats not what im here to do and its not what this subsection is about. I say again i think you should stop behaving like this. Im sorry if i sound rude but if you want to initiate once again a never ending argument about who is right and wrong (like on, perhaps each and every subsection on this talk page so far) and contininue posting ironic remarks trying to ridiculize us, trying to make everybody think you are right and we are wrong then i think perhaps there might be somewhere else you can do it, instead of doing it here and disturbing the edit process. Dont get me wrong, i dont mind at all you are against falun gong or anything, in fact, im glad there are non falun gong editors here so we can make a neutral article but i think this kind of behaviour is seriously delaying the edit process, im sure we all want to finish this article some day right?--Andres18 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.
I agree that CCP is different with China government. CCP hijacks the Chinese government. So I think Chinese government has to quit the CCP. Falun gong is not against any government. But everyone in civic world should expose the CCP's evil and ask CCP to stop persecution. Fnhddzs 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC) There is no consensus even in Chinese authorities and there was no legal procedures in terms of starting and conducting the persecution. Fnhddzs 02:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Some Chinese former officials has quitted the CCP since they cannot endorse the persecution any more. Fnhddzs 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, note that not covering up the persecution facts is just as it is, as just a normal wikipedia article. In my understanding: We, Falun Gong, do not appreciate the persecution at all to gain any support. Without persecution, Falun Gong will still save people well. Fnhddzs 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to the title "persecution" because that is truly a POV...it assumes that there is a deliberate government effort to persecute practitioiners in China. I can accept the word "suppression" because it correctly describes the ban and has the right legal connotations. I can also accept something like: "Conflict between the Chinese government and the Falun Gong" --Tomananda 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Suppression" is better than "persecution". Suppression is the usual word used to describe what the CCP is doing to the movement. I'm not averse to having "persecution" in the article, but as a quote in reporting claims made by groups reporting the CCP's activities. --Fire Star 火星 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FireStar that we can use the term persecution reported as claims made from practitioners, because anti falun gong editors think there is a ban but there is no persecution right? so the persecution, wether it is truly happening or not, is our point of view. If the CCPCH wants to call it supression then lets atribute that term to their claims. The idea is to leave the reader with a doubt, not expose that there is a persecution going on or say nothing is happening at all. I think its ok to say "Conflict between Chinese government and the Falun Gong" too, to me it sounds neutral and it doesnt imply that any of the parties is attacking the other.--Andres18 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a deliberate effort from the CCP regime. Policemen got promoted, got prize if they caught Falun Gong practitoners and converted them. Your neighbors got prize if they call police to report Falun Gong practitioners. If you walk on the street, you may be kidnapped to the labor camp just because they recognized you are a Falun Gong practitioner. It is the CCP Jiang who deliberately wanted to eradicate Falun Gong in three or whatever months (citation needed). However, Falun Gong never have conflicts with the Chinese government since we are taught (citation later) Falun Gong does not have enemies and CCP is different with the government. Seven years passed, what you see from Falun Gong practitioners are always peaceful activities: The beautiful galas, the beautiful parades, the peaceful and mostly quiet protests calling for awareness. When I think of the practitioners on the rim of death (to be butchered any time) and those who already lost their lives from persecution, contrasting to the beautiful performance in galas or parades, I cannot agree more on Falun Gong's broad tolerance. Fnhddzs 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fnhddzs: Let me get this straight. You seem to be agreeing with me that the Falun Gong overtly seeks the elimination of the Chinese Communist Party and has been "fighting" the CCP through a variety of tactics, but you claim that these actions are not attacks against the Chinese Government itself, but rather the Chinese Communist party. Is that a fair summary of your position? --Tomananda 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, personally I think that the CCP will be eliminated by Gods, because they have killed more than 80 million chinese people the last 57 years. They are the worst and most evil government that has ever existed. I believe in karma, that means that "Good is rewarded, and evil meets retribution". That is why exposing the CCP crimes and clarify the truth about the persecution of Falun Gong is actually saving people. Falun Gong practitioners have no political ambition, the goal of cultivation is to reach beyond the human world, not to stay here and get wordly satiscation/wealth/power. This is why Falun Gong is not political, it is just completely upright. Master Li said (not quote): "During the Dharma-Ending period, where is there a land of purity? I dare to say that our Falun Gong is a land of purify, I dare to say that" Omido 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope this argument can stop now, if you can read the sign bellow, then im sure there is no need to continue this. Omido, saying things like "CCP will be eliminated by gods because they killed millions of chinese people" will just heat up the argument much more, i think you know that. Ive come to understand that If we dislike POV comments from non practitioner editors then we should stop posting POV posts ourselves too (that includes me too of course) unless they are useful for the creation of the article. We both know where we stand, we are practitioners, they are anti falun gong, i dont think we should keep debating about who is right and wrong on this, its a waste of time, whatever you claim, they wont believe it, whatever they claim we wont believe it either. They are here to make sure the article doesnt turn into a falun gong advertisement and we are here to make sure it doesnt become an attack to falun gong. Lets all be productive and spend our time here posting what we have to post or else we will never get this article done.--Andres18 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. But the thing is that Tomananda is trying to implement his understanding (which is wrong) into the article by taking a quote out of context and misrepresent it. If the practitioners doesn't agree with him, he changes the sentence a bit and then he introduces it again, and if people does not agree with him again he starts accusation about how the practitioners are hiding the teachings. This is absoloutly unacceptable. Omido 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Omido, I have been trying to stay out of this conversation, and now you make this charge against me? And Andres claims I am the one who attacks other editors? You do hide the truth of your higher teachings as witness the last four months of tedious edit discussions and endless reverts. If it were not for the edits done by non-practionters, this article wouldn't cover such basic Falun Gong concepts as salvation and fa-rectification at all. When I began editing, there was no mention that Li and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of "Fa-rectification." There was no mention that the Dafa (Li's great law) is judging all people and weeding out those who are not worthy. Nor did the article mention that on the top of the list of those who are deemed "unworthy" of salvation by cult leader Li are those who in their minds do not think the Dafa is good.
Well, I don't think the Dafa is good. I think it is a bunch of bull spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi in order to fool people into blindly following him as their god and savior. Li demands total obedience from his disciples in pursuit of his personal agenda, and then threatens to withdraw his protection for those who do not do his bidding. Right now Li demands that his relatively small, but highly media-savy army of followers do everything they can to expose the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party, with the goal of destroying it. That political goal has been made into a non-negotiable requirement for salvation by Li. If you don't do this, you will loose your only chance at salvation. Andres: before you write another sanctimonious critique of me for allegedly "attacking" the Falun Gong practitioner/editors please reflect on the fact that it is Li whom I attack, not the practitioners. Li is responsible for having created this terrible bind the practitioners are in. It is Li who should be held accoutable for his actions. The practitoners are themselves victims of this manipulative cult leader who somehow continues to evade all accountability for his actions.

--Tomananda 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Tomanda, we've heard it before. I recommend anyone anyone who's passing through to take Tomanda's comments with a grain of salt. He has a huge bias and continually twists facts to support his pov. Tomanda I appreciate your great compassion towards me as a victim. You know, it's really terrible living life by trying to better myself by living up to high moral standards and through caring less about desires and attachments. The fact that I try to be kind towards whoever I come into contact with and do my best at whatever I do is likewise aweful. And my poor family... even though I'm the only practitioner, no one really fights anymore, and everyone seems more harmonious. Now my life is also plagued with a terrible wish to help people like myself in China who have been stripped all human rights and become human meat. And through this I've also become aware and concerned with other similarly meaningless human rights attrocities. Oh lament! How could I allow my life to be ruined like this? A sense of fulfillment, peace, faith,... Tomanda, I'm so glad you're here to help me and others like me who have ended up in this sorry state. Mcconn 07:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I encourage all readers of these posts to make up their own minds about who is twisting the facts. As long as practitioners characterize direct quotes from the Master as "degrading" and my POV, we will never get at the truth. For years practitioners have avoided being honest about the core teachings when talking to "ordinary people" by claiming that whatever quotes are offered from Master Li are misinterpretted and "taken out of context." If you can provide context which contradicts Li's obvious teachings on his and the Dafa's unique role in saving people, or his teachings about the Dafa judging people who are not worthy, then please do so. So far no practioners have been able to refute my clear reporting of Li's teachings, because really, how can you? So instead the practitoners issue blanket dismissals and personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a word for this...it's called "apologetics"...and boy is it tiresome. As to your being kind, that's great. So am I. But I also think it's important to be truthful, even about your core beliefs. --Tomananda 07:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If the FG is really about helping people to be morally up right, why would American cult experts (not us) call it a mind control cult? One characteristic of cults is being deceptive. The purpose of being a practitioner is not about treating your neighbors better and giving up desires but becoming gods in Falun Gong heaven, isn’t it? When will you practitioners start telling the truth? --Samuel Luo 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you really believe these things yourself or if you are making them up. All I know is that in the end, when the truth reveal itself, you will regret yourself, but by then, it will be too late. I recommend that from now on, you don't make any POV comments about Falun Gong and Master Li, just concentrate on the article. I won't let other people be brainwashed by your understanding of Falun Gong. Omido 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Omido, im a Falun Gong practitioner and im telling you to stop this please, you know saying something like this is going to fire up another argument about falun gong and these kind of arguments are the ones that give the wrong image from practitioners to other people. Please remember, tolerance.--Andres18 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently neither the CCP or FLG practitioners tolerate dissent. Warning others not to voice their opinions and then saying opinionated things like "...when the truth reveal itself, you will regret yourself, but by then, it will be too late." is a bit contradictory, I hope you see. If Tomananda isn't to be allowed an opinion, then neither should you. Fortunately, at Wikipedia, things are arranged otherwise. --Fire Star 火星 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand Tomananda has an opinion and i respect it. I just think the opinions should concern the subsection, so they can be useful. The same goes for FG editors. If we dont concentrate on making this article and instead we keep arguing about who is right and wrong over and over i dont think we'll finish any time soon. Ill rearrange things bellow to go back into topic.--Andres18 11:47, 13 July 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.
The CCP has not even been around for 160 years. Cj cawley 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Agreement on This subsection

Alright, lets get things right to finish work on this subsection and move on.

Ill give you my opinion based on the ideas i have seen around here, then please everyone tell me if you agree or not and what you want to change. (remember it must be Neutral)

The Terms i see more neutral for the title are:

"China and Falun Gong" or "Conflict between China and Falun Gong"

And terms like "supression" and "persecution" should be atributed to each of the parties claims respectively.

Now please post your opinions on this. We'll give it as much time as it needs before we decide. --Andres18 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Avoid both terms in the lead

I've already said this, but I can't seem to find it, but you are getting bogged down in a side issue. Avoid both terms in the lead, and then bring them up in the appropriate section, which should be named something like Chinese government and Falun Gong rather than the POV Suppression of Falun Gong. Persecution is a perfectly appropriate word to use as a description from the POV of practitioners, for cites see:

  • Leading Article: China and the world: Hu and cry
    • The Guardian (London); Apr 22, 2006; p. 34
  • Don't insult China's victims, Mr Mayor
    • Daily Mail (London); Apr 27, 2006; p. 71

Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding: You make a good argument. I support "Chinese Government and Falun Gong" as the page title, with the understanding that this will not impede the pro-Falun Gong editors from making their case about "persecution" within the article itself. This more generic title will allow for other material to be included which may be of interest, but not directly relate to the ban and its implementation. --Tomananda 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It is both neutral and informative, so I support Hiding's lead language proposed above. --Fire Star 火星 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, what do you mean by "Persecution is a perfectly appropriate word to use as a description from the POV of practitioners?" Is that another way of saying that it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article name? I'm not being snarky, I really don't understand what you're trying to say there. CovenantD 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You've got it. People who support the banning of Falun Gong canm legitimately argue it represents a POV. Article names and section headers should be as neutral as possible, with such controversial language discussed within the body of the article, using appropriate citations to base the usages upon. I was attempting to note that the phrase "persecution" can be used within the article, since I thought people were arguing against using the terma at all. Hiding Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I am ok with avoiding both terms in the lead as I said before[22](note it seems that Hiding's post was accidently deleted). But as to the name of subsection, we already presented the reason why we cannot use Chinese government and Falun Gong. That is a POV title which implies that they are two parties comparable. Please see Mcconn's post:

We've already discussed the use of the terms "persecution" and "suppression". You can go here to refer to the discussion. I stand by using the term "persecution". "Persecution" is not inherentely POV, although some people may use it that way. What's happening in China is absolutely a persecution, and the term has been widley used by people from all sides to describe it. "Suppression" does not carry the same meaning. Whether or not you like Falun Gong you still have to own up to the fact that it is being persecuted in China. I think we should use this word in the title and the introduction. The article will then give context to the word. "China vs Falun Gong" is not accurate. That term almost implies that they are two forces engaged in some kind of battle with each other. This is not true as practitioners are merely doing what they can to counter and stop the persecution against them. They beat, torture, and kill us, but we don't lay a finger on them. We just want them to stop and want people to understand what they are doing. It's totally different from an "X vs Y" battle. Mcconn 09:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs 02:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • That argument counters "China vs Falun Gong", not "Chinese government and Falun Gong". I don't understand the rejection of this title because it equates the two parties, because, in the context of the section the two parties are equatable. Hiding Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mccon i get what you are saying but, even though we all know there is a persecution going on, the critics say there is no persecution, that would be their point of view right?. And if we say there is then maybe that could make it our point of view even though its undeniable that its really happenning. I think the idea of making this secton is not saying "there is a persecution" or "there is no persecution" but instead to leave the reader with a doubt. If that happens then it means we exposed both points of view on the matter in a neutral way and the reader will decide wether he thinks if there is a persecution going on or not. What i dont see clearly is what is the critics position, if they say there is no persecution, then according to them, what is going on?. What do they have to say about it? i think its appropriate to know their opinion on this matter so we can make neutral statements about this situation. I also agree with using "Falun Gong and China" or "Conflct between Chna and Falun Gong" as the title and i think we can also use the terms suppression and persecution as what each of the parties claim this situation to be. China government says its a supression, falun gong says its a persecution. I think this should be the idea, does anyone think there should be more discussion on this matter

==requior can we start proposing some writing for this subsection?.--Andres18 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a book called "Investigating the Persecution of Falun Gong" that I will use as a source in this article. This book is a valid source. Omido 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The Falun Gong is banned in China for its violation of laws. It has suppressed the rights of its critics and caused more than a thousand deaths. I believe these justifications provided by the Chinese government partly because my rights as a critic was also suppressed by the Falun Gong and my step-father almost died in following Falun Gong teaching of abandoning medical treatment. The ban of Falun Gong is not a persecution but a just action to free those who have been brainwashed and manipulated by Master Li and save lives. I noticed that all Admins (uncle Ed, Firestar and Hiding) have suggested this neutral title “Chinese government and the Falun Gong,” after this much discussion I believe it is time to change that title and begin working on the article. --Samuel Luo 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still against "Falun Gong and the Chinese government" because that title is broad while the section is actually only about things related to the persecution. It really doesn't describe what the section is about. I realize admins' and other editors' concern for non-POV, but if it's a duck we should call it a duck rather than a foul or feathered animal. If I go and make a big stink on the wiki talk page on "the holocost" and make all kinds of crazy claims about why the holocost never happend, does that mean that the editors involved should then change the page, call it something else, or stick the word "alleged" before every use of the word "holocost"? Of course not. As I said, people from all sides call this a persecution, even most critics, and for most who know anything about it this goes without saying. So should we then not use this term because a couple of anti-Falun Gong editors call it a POV? I don't think so. Tomanda and Samuel, maybe rather than shooting your mouth off about your negative pov of Falun Gong or the persecution, you could instead provide some actual sources that counter the claims of this being a persecution. Mcconn 06:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mcconn, it was neither Samuel nor I who posted the original suggestion that we call the page The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong. My understanding from Hiding's post is that we should strive to be as neutral as possible in page titles. You may recall that I had suggested we have not a page, but a section called "Homophobic teachings of the FG" but that was shot down using the same kind of argument that Hiding has used in his proposal. As I've said before, I'm OK with calling the page "Supression of Falun Gong." Others are not ok with that compromise, though. --Tomananda 07:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Falun Gong did not do anything illegal. The ban of Falun Gong was illegal with no trial, no procedure, nothing. Just an announcement. In the worst inference, even if the worst people do not deserve the persecution such as live organ harvesting, torturing, raping, job expelling, school expelling, the policy of so-called "economically cut off, physically eliminate and give a bad publicity" and the policy of "beating to death counted as suicide, burnt immediately without checking the names". Can we call it a persecution? It would be wikipedia's point of view by not facing this fact. As I said, Falun Gong does not rely on persecution to get support, persecution does not help Falun Gong. It is just a fact whether you like Falun Gong or not. I was thinking "Falun Gong in China" could be ok but it is too vague and hard to organize. Since Falun Gong is present over 80 countries/areas. The persecution is spread to outside China to a limited degree too. The title of "Chinese government and the Falun Gong" is too broad too. Chinese government refer to who? It supported Falun Gong and awarded it before. Its internal officials have disputes on the persecution. There are Chinese government's presence inside China or outside China (embassies). I forsee that the Chinese government will support Falun Gong in the future too. The persecution will be a history. "China and Falun Gong" is also a mixed feeling and too broad. In my view, China, as a part of human society, its orthodox culture is highly praised and treasured by Falun gong if you read the teachings carefully. The main body of practitioners are in China. How could Falun Gong not love China and wish it well? So I think let's just use the title of "persecution of Falun Gong". We don't simply summarize who did the persecution here since it is not easy. We want the facts only. Fnhddzs 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the suppression of FLG by the CCP legal? Is it legitimate? That isn't up to us to decide. It is what it is. We report, not condemn. In yet another FLG associated irony, one can't help being amused that people practicing "tolerance, compassion and forbearance" would embrace condemnation of anyone. --Fire Star 火星 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see this is going to go nowhere fast. The discussion is split into two different sections, people are back to preaching and condemning, and there's no attempt to even deal with the lead section at the moment. I'll check back in a day or two. Meanwhile, maybe somebody could actually pay attention to the article in question, Suppression of Falun Gong. There's a lot of routine maintenance work that needs done there like formatting references, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do it all for you. CovenantD 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm actually talking about the article, differing approaches to editing the article and what is important and unimportant to the differing sides, above. --Fire Star 火星 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a FG editor and i agree with the "China and Falun Gong" title, please rememeber that even though the persecution is happening, both parties have different opinions on the matter. Critics say either there is no persecution or that there is an innoffensive suppression going on. We FG practitioners think its a persecution, since they dont agree then even though it may be true, its still our point of view. Mcconn, if you see a duck and you normally call it like that, it doesnt mean somebody else cant call it otherwise even though its still what it really is. In the article we cant say there is a persecution and we cant say that something isnt happening either. The reader should make up his own mind about it. Ill read the section and propose some edits, please lets center on what we have to do, it seems tiresome to argue so much and going nowhere with this. Im sorry Covenant if we are causing you too much trouble, we'll get on it now. As of right now i dont know how to format refferences, can anyone please lend us a hand?. Thanks to all.--Andres18 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you've learned quite a bit about citing references from your work on the "Controversies" article. Would you be willing to work with Andres18, teaching him/her what you know about it? CovenantD 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Andres, why don't you start by just looking at the existing footnotes and ask questions.--Tomananda 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Andres, Here is a link Wikipedia:Footnotes CovenantD showed me before which might be helpful. Actually it is easier to start by just following the suit of the existing ones. You will pick it up soon. Again, we could report on opinions of persecution. But persecution itself is facts. Even if you are a non-Chinese citizen outside of China, you may also be on a black list so that you could not board on airplanes to other countries. That did happen. Fnhddzs 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Temp page

  • Okay China and Falun Gong is plain wrong. However, can we move past this dispute over persecution and suppression? I'm going to create a temp page and just start from scratch. Write the stuff up, nobody reverts and we discuss as we go. If people start edit warring on the temp page I will most likely delete it. Hiding Talk 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch. I'm standing here attempting to mediate. I'm trying to work out what everyone agrees on, by asking people to add to the temp page what they think everyone agrees on. I would hope people would show good faith in this process. Hiding Talk 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
At the rate it's growing, the references section should be about as long as the article itself :-) CovenantD 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that occurred to me too. Something to add to the to do list for once we get the whole article rewritten. Hiding Talk 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding I am sorry that my response seems a bit strong. I oppose the temp page idea because I am tired of following the argument from both sides. Instead of creating a page for them to "discuss" issues, a formal mediation would save time for all of us. --Kent8888 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I'm not over bothered, although I'm not sure how mediation works without discussing the issues involved, to be perfectly honest, and I'm not sure this should be seen as an us and them issue. It's a question of finding out where we all agree Wikipedia's best interests lie. Wikipedia should be presenting the issues surrounding Falun Gong from a neutral point of view. Whilst we can argue our points, that the important thing to keep in mind. Hiding Talk 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong To Do List

I want to create a To Do List for the Falun Gong-related articles.

Question for an admin - where would be the proper place for this, as a subpage of the talk or the article? Or should it be a subpage of Wikiproject China?

Thank you. I'm going to move the list to the top of the page, just under the archives. CovenantD 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's preview of things to come... CovenantD 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I've been looking at this whole mediation thing and trying to figure out what we haven't been doing within the bounds of that kind of framework. The two biggest things that I see are 1) the powers of the mediator and 2) the role of the participants.

  1. An official mediator has the power to edit others' comments, removing or rewording extraneous comments and personal attacks. This would have been very helpful during the recent straw polls when editors starting throwing in other suggestions and making comments on the motivations and tactics of others. A "real" mediator could have kept things focused much better with this power.
  2. The two sides in a dispute each have a single voice. This can be done easily when there are only two editors involved or by choosing a representative spokesperson to speak for each side.

I'm still willing to be the informal mediator, but I think we've moved beyond the point where progress is possible without these two points. CovenantD 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Give us one more chance please, i think these situations wont repeat themselves. If you see one more editor out of control then ill stand by your decision.--Andres18 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD I believe most editors here really appreciate your help, but as you yourself have realized, we are reaching a point where a formal mediator is needed. --Kent8888 21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that some means of keeping the discussion on track is needed. I haven't seen the self-control required on the part of editors so I guess it will have to be an outside party. So let's find out

Who would agree to be a party to mediation?

Would accept mediation

  1. Accept. --Fire Star 火星 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes --Kent8888 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Accept--Yenchin 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Accept --Yueyuen 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Finally -- Миборовский 03:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Accept Or else we'll never finish the article.--Andres18 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Accept Look forward to turn around. Fnhddzs 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Accept See more detailed post below. --Tomananda 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Decline mediation

I decline on the basis it is a poor suggestion. Whitemanners 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to elucidate? -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

It would be counter-productive for me personally. As a neutral party it would be inappropriate for me to take a side, nor would I wish to give up my right to comment on the goings-on. CovenantD 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I know. Like I said, I've been doing research. Where do you think I got the idea to find out who agrees? CovenantD 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I think it is a fine idea, there is too much of an impasse. --Fire Star 火星 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky, you could have done this at any time. Hell, any of you could have. It will only work if the main participants, like Tomananda, Dilip, Samuel, Omido, etc., sign on. Interesting that none of them have done so yet. CovenantD 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Could I? There would have been 5 people crying out for my blood within the hour. -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL... point to Miborovsky. CovenantD 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Did Ed Poor do the mediation before? Fnhddzs 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't binding mediation. He was attempting to do what CovenantD also is attempting to do. What is now being proposed is that the seemingly intractable dispute will be considered in the light of Wikipedia policy by mediators and perhaps eventually arbitrators whose subsequent decisions about the article will be enforced by administrators. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD official mediator here

Hi all, CovenantD has been playing a role of an informal mediator here and he is interested in continuing this role. I am proposing that we make him an official mediator on the Falun Gong article. His edits have shown his enthusiasm in improving this article, his ability to remain neutral and his willingness in following Wikipedia edit principles. I believe if we recognize him as an official mediator here, meanning giving him the power to make final judgments in conflict, his future contributions would speed up the improvement of this article. ConventD and I have reverted each other a few times, however I recognize his ability to make NPOV contributions. I don’t believe we can get a mediator who would spend the kind of time and energy as ConventD has contributed. I propose that we work with ConventD for now and if it still doesn’t work then we go to formal mediation.

CovenantDcan only work as an official mediator if he has the power to make the final judgment. Would you recognize him as an official mediator here and give him the power to make final judgment? Please vote here.

Accept--Samuel Luo 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept He has shown scrupulous neutrality, I am willing to accept his decisions for the final wordings of disputed passages. --Fire Star 火星 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept I trust him too. --Kent8888 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept I think Covenant has done a good job in mediating already. I vote for us to give him this role officially, but also ask him to keep us on track. Increasingly we are going from one topic to another without ever completing any. Covenant has written a comprehensive "to do" list which is posted above. If we are serious about editing this article, I think we should systematically go through that list, perhaps giving a deadline to complete each item as we go along. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels with debates which never conclude with approved edits. --Tomananda 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

3/4 Accept I have only one concern--what if CovenantD is a practitioner but posing as a neutral editor? You will have my full support when you say master Li is full of Sxxx. Of course you should also say the CCP is full of Sxxx to maintain your neutrality. --Yueyuen 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop. Those are not nice words. Never use them on anyone. Fnhddzs 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on Fnhddzs, you don't want to say the CCP is full of shit? R U a communist? --Yueyuen 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comments striken for provocative nature and no relation to article. CovenantD 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • LOL Neither of those statements would really make me neutral, now would they? I understand your concern, but you'll just have to trust that my past edits have revealed my true nature. If you have much doubt, look at my other contributions and you'll see that Falun Gong is just a side issue for me. My true passion is comic books ;-) CovenantD 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And reverting vandalism. CovenantD 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

True, making those statements do not prove your neutrality, but they make you likeable by both sides. --Yueyuen 03:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to bet the bank that CovenantD is definitely not an FLG practitioner. He doesn't write like one. --Fire Star 火星 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept i trust he will do a good job on this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres18 (talk • contribs)

Accept Although I haven't agreed with all of Covenants edits, I've seen his effort in being neutral. I think that if we're going to have a mediator Covenant would be fine for the job. However, should Covenant begin showing clear signs of pov then he should then loose his position as mediator (I think this goes without saying, but I just want to make sure it's clear). Mcconn 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept Omido 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is starting to look serious.
For the record, I am not a Falun Gong practitioner, I do not know any practitioners, and I have no bias towards or against them. Same for the opponents - I'm not one, no bias for or against, I have had no contact with them other than this wiki, nor do I intend to. As for Mcconn's statement, I of course agree. I have full confidence that if I start to show preferencial treatment for one side or the other that I will be called on it. I'm not perfect, but I'm willing to listen and learn about this process and the issues at hand. CovenantD 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • While waiting for a few more editors to vote, I would like to make one point clear, Wiki mediators are requested when there is an impasse, CovenantD should also wait for us to request his decision. We (editors on both sides) should try to reach an agreement without going to CovenantD, but once his decision is requested and made then all of us who have voted to give him the power of an official editor have to respect that decision. If there is disagreement with CovenantD’s decisions wiki policy and facts backed by evidence should be cited instead of our POV.

Since many editors on both sides have supported him, I propose that CovenantD start exercising his power as an official mediator in 24 hours, in the absence of objection. Since we have agreed to request mediation, his first task should be making a judgment on the disputed paragraphs in the intro and request the article to be unprotected. --Samuel Luo 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept. CovenantD is quite devoted and I believe his good will in editing. But I wonder if a mediator has to be an admin? Fnhddzs 06:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, adminship is not a requirement. Only the trust and goodwill of the involved editors. CovenantD 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

This article has been protected for ages and, despite the discussion above, I cannot find any extant request for mediation. Would it be out of the question to simply unprotect the article and see what happens? --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not out of the question, but perhaps not a good idea either. Every time I've seen this article unprotected without a clear idea on the talk page on what to do next, it's ended up in a revert war in a matter of hours. (The major editors haven't been present for a few days, though, so it might go longer this time.) If you do unprotect it, I'd ask that you do so when you have the time to keep an eye on it. Don't just unprotect then sign off Wikipedia for a couple of days ;-) CovenantD 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not something I've a habit of doing. However I think I'll wait a few more days. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to unprotect. It was protected for the first or second paragraph of the introduction. But now the discussion is quite far astray from that. Fnhddzs 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
But the question is, what are we going to do when the main page is unprotected? Why don't we at least agree to a deadline for completeing the introductory se=ction before unprotecting the main page?

--Tomananda 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let’s give us one more week to work out the dispute regarding the first paragraph in the introduction. --Samuel Luo 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Fnhddzs went ahead and requested unprotection which was declined because, in the words of the admin, "The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved." So that's that until we come to some agreement. CovenantD 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You know my concern is why we did not keep the discussion on the introduction? I remember we had a good discussion. I forgot when we began the straw polls before the discussion is finalized. Then we suddenly jumped to request a mediation. Then nobody remembered to discuss the introduction more. Can we think of a way not floating with anybody's random proposal and stay concentrated? Fnhddzs 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that selecting a mediator will help that process. I'm gonna start striking out comments that are personal in nature (see below for some examples) and not related to the task at hand. That should prevent side-issues from overtaking the real work. CovenantD 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sub-section for criticism and contreversies

We have been waiting for more than one month for Tomananda to change the sub-sections in the critcism and contreversies, still he did not do that. ConvenantD, we should change the sub-sections for the critism and conterversies section, don't you agree? Omido 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article on Critism and Controversies, I think that enough time has passed that other people can start suggesting improvements to it on it's talk page. If you're referring to the subsections in this article, well, nobody could make changes for the last three weeks. CovenantD 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Omido why don't you respond to the polls above? And after that we should solve the dispute of the 1st paragraph of intro first, so the page can be unprotected. --Kent8888 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not correct, Omido. As agreed, I was in the proces of re-writing the summary of the Criticism and controversies page when that all changed. Covenant removed the links that had appeared on the main page to the subsections of the criticism page, while a new introduction I had just written and posted on the main page (also as agreed) was deleted because of a complaint from Samuel about changes in general on the main page. Shortly thereafter the main page was frozen, so no other changes would be possible. If you're talking about the Criticism page itself, I think we should complete our existing tasks first, which includes finishing the introduction paragraphs first. By jumping around, we are not completing anything. --Tomananda 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda, no we will not wait anymore. The sub-sections for the critism and conterversies has to be changed. The critism and contreversies have five sections:
   * 5.1 Differences between Falun Gong 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

These sections have to be put into one section, we have waited for this for a very very long time no and still no results, I hope we can begin with this as soon as possible. As I see it, this is the most important thing right now because it is really unfair and wrong to have the critism section be like this. Omido 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to come up with more convincing arguments than "because it is really unfair and wrong" if you are looking for agreement by consensus to your demands. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is out of balance in the Table of Contents, but disagree with Omido's solution for correcting it. The better way is to work on the daughter articles and have those changes reflected here, which will probably result in some sub-headings being added. The first place to start is in the Teachings article.
Since it looks like we're headed toward s more formal mediation, I'm going to make a bold suggestion and test the mediation agreement. For this article, we focus on finishing the lead. While that is happening, we also turn out attention to the Teachings of Falun Gong article. Once we finish the lead section for this article, we turn our attention to the Criticism and Controversies section of the main article. That way we're always working on two separate topics at all times. More than that and I agree with Tomananda that we'll lose cohesion.
To that end, I'm going to leave a comment on the Teachings article talk page to get the ball rolling there.
Omido, I want to assure you that I'm not dismissing your concerns. We will deal with the portions that you find troubling, but I believe that working on the Teaching article will bring a better balance without gutting other sections. CovenantD 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a fine plan. Let's go for it. --Tomananda 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Omido: I am offended by your threatening tone and suggestion that I have not done something I was supposed to do. The main page has been frozen for weeks while we quible about how to present Master Li's basic teachings about the Dafa judging all people, weeding out the unworthy, and Li offering salvation, etc. When you say "we will not wait anymore" that amounts to a threat. Are you preparing for yet another revert war? And as to the specifics, if "we" as editors want there to be balance on the main page, it doesn't make sense for there to be multiple links to multiple Falun Gong pages, but only one link to the entire Criticism and controversies page. Covenant long ago deleted all the sub-section links in the main article pointing to the subsections on the criticism page, so I really don't see what has provoked your tantrum.
More importantly, your tone and agressiveness are not in keeping with your stated values of "tolerance and forebearance." And as a Wikipedia editor, you are demonstrating an outrageous lack of cooperation. We are supposed to be working together, not issuing vailed threats and accusations.

--Tomananda 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I don't quite know what you are talking about, but I believe you guys' good will. Don't you want to let the article move on? Fnhddzs 06:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took it as a threat, personally I think you are overreacting, but if you really took it as a threat I apologize, I can assure you that it really wasn't my intention. I just wanted you to understand that it is very important, because it is really out of balance in the table of content. Omido 07:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Let me ask you guys a question real fast. Why would it be inappropriate for someone who practices Falun Gong to edit the Falun Gong article as long as he completely applies the wikipedia standards?

Maybe some of you are saying that this would be okay. Then may I do it? I think you would not let me do it, and would revert my change. Because right now the article makes it appear as though a major part of Falun Gong may be to spread material indicating the doom of the world, discriminating homosexuals, showing off the awards and recognition of Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi (which according to the article may simply be used to mislead people), and promoting Li Hongzhi as a savior, and Falun Gong practitioners as "Gods".

My article would mention all of these things, but it would also explain why those things might not at all be a major aspect of Falun Gong, are not being spread by Falun Gong practitioners, and are being mentioned in an encyclopedia entry only because since the beginning of the persecution (or "suppression" or whatever,) related quotes from mister Li's works have been taken out of context so as to make the mass murders (this fact does not seem to be debated) of Falun Gong followers by the Chinese Communist party seem justified.

My article might also try to explain the original context of the disputed quotes, so as to avoid missunderstanding.

But because I would do that, I think most of you would not agree with my article. Am I right?

--Hoerth 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoerth: Your comments above so unfairly characterize the Criticism and controversies section that I feel I must respond. A strong POV appears in what you say, and perhaps you haven't even considered to what extent. Here's a partial list:

1. Li's teachings condemn homosexuality as one of the greatest karma-producing activities he has ever talked about. He has taught that homosexuals might suffer elimination through a particularly slow and painful process unless they (presumably) give up their "bad" and "post-natally formed" behavior. These are facts, not my opinion, and the bulk of Li's teachings are accurately summarized on the Criticism page. If you look carefully at that page, you will also see that a stub article was created in which FG practitioners were invited to add whatever edits they deemed appropriate to provide a "different" context. I actually initialized that stub in order to be balanced and to date no practitoner has added anything. When we get to that section, I invite you to add some edit material, but not to delete the summary of the essential teachings which must be reported in Wikipedia.

2. You mischaracterize the homosexuality edit in a big way. Although Li's teachings are summarized, there is no claim that Falun Gong practitioners themselves "discriminate" against homosexuals. One of the tricks that Falun Gong practitioners engage in when defending their master's teachings on homosexuality is to say "Ah, but we don't discriminate against homosexuals." Well guess what, even though you don't discriminate against homosexuals, Li's teachings about homosexuality...which in his parochial mind "does not meet the standard of being human"...are nevertheless controversial and extremely disturbing for many people. What's more, a strong argument can be made that the kind of spritual/moral condemnation that Li uses to address homosexuality is not representative of mainland Chinese culture. In a very real sense, Li's teachings create a level of homophobia that is new to the Chinese. I ask you for a moment to read Samuel's letter to the editor about his mother's attitude towards homosexuality. Sadly, there is one Chinese-born Falun Gong practitioner who takes Li at his word. With her indoctrination into the Falun Gong, she now believes that natural disasters are already weeding out "evil" people, including homosexuals. How many other practitioners think as she does, but just don't talk about it? I'll add the link here for you to consider. [23]

3. You say your article would claim that Li's role as savior and his offer to turn practitioners into gods are not major parts of Falun Gong teachings. Well, I would like to know how you can "prove" that given the preponderance of these teachings. You might try to represent the views of practitioners, but unless you can point to some objective study, you will be engaging in original research. What's more, I have personally spoken to enough FG practitioners to know that they really do consider Li a God (or Buddha) who is offering salvation, and the Dafa as a force which is (or will be) judging all people (even me) and weed out the unworthy. By way of "proof" you can go back into these discussion pages where you'll find multiple postings made by Dilip and Omido which prove that point. Most recently, Omido has warned me of bad consequences for stating I do not think Li's Dafa is good. If you say these teachings are not a major part of Falun Gong, then your statement is refuted by the public postings of Falun Gong practitioners themselves. At best, you can only suggest that not all practitioners agree what is most essential, but then again wouldn't that be original reseach?

4. Your final statement is totally without basis in fact. Let me repeat it here:

"...the critical(edits) have been taken out of context so as to make the mass murders (this fact does not seem to be debated) of Falun Gong followers by the Chinese Communist party seem justified."

Where, in the world, do you get this idea? Do you really think that because Falun Gong practitioners may be (or are if you prefer) persecuted in China, Wikipedia should not report the teachings of Master Li which are considered harmful or controversial? Did you know that last year at an ICSA conference in Madrid, Spain a Falun Gong lawyer argued that any criticism of the Falun Gong would constitute aiding and abetting what he said was the crime of "genocide" and based on that claim he would seek the arrest of the conference presenters and organizers? Is that the logic you are using here? If you are, than the American Civil Liberties Union and fair minded people who live in the United States will have to differ with you. And if you are not making that claim, how can you in good conscience object to the reporting of controversial teachings of the Li Hongzhi, together with reasonable summaries of the opinions of many academics? --Tomananda 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda moot at the moment because the article is protected - nobody can edit it. We need to resolve the lead section before it should be unlocked. Would you care to help with that process? CovenantD 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure... but since I was not involved in the article or in the discussion you would have to explain to me what exactly it is that is disputed. I will try to represent Falun Gong practitioners point of view as best as I can... Rigth know MY problem is that I believe the article to not be within wikipedia's NPOV policy because of the issue I just talked about. This is basicly the only major problem that I see. I actually talked with Larry Sanger about the problems on the Falun Gong entry, and he told me the following: "...My advice to you is to remind the participants of the neutrality policy and what it absolutely requires; keep the discussion on that, and think and write clearly about what it requires."

--Hoerth 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What caught my eye in your proposal was this bit: "but it would also explain why those things might not at all be a major aspect of Falun Gong" Why wouldn't that be original research in aid of pro-FLG apologetics on your part? --Fire Star 火星 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As it says one can avoid doing original research by relying on quotes. I could of course also DO original research, put it on a Falun Gong website, and link it. Besides the article right now draws A LOT of conclusions without giving precise reference to the material on which the conclusion is based. I would of course NOT do it this way. But why do you believe I would, even before I have written anything? Is it because I am a Falun Gong practitioner? --Hoerth 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that I believed you would. I asked why the explanations you were proposing would be different than apologetics, precisely. Your actual answer to that question (not the diversionary bit about the other side's problems with the article) was logical and promising, because if you can find quotes by Li prioritizing his supernatural and moral doctrines into sets of major or minor teachings (I haven't been able to find any) that would be great. I agree that there is a lot of both pro and anti POV associated with these articles and that it should go. I will say here, explicitly rather than implicitly, that I personally discount the explanations of FLG practitioners somewhat because Li has ordered them in the past to obscure features of his teachings to the greater public. That being said, if a practitioner provides verifiable quotes and other citations, I wouldn't continue to say their value is diminished by their provenance. So, notwithstanding the implications you've drawn from my earlier question, for now you get the benefit of my doubt. --Fire Star 火星 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that there's plenty of distrust to go around. In a way that's an asset because it means that no unsupported claims should be able to make it into the article. CovenantD 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question that started this section, no, it's not inappropriate for someone who practices Falun Gong to edit the Falun Gong article as long as he completely applies the wikipedia standards. But hopefully you already knew that. It's the adherence to the Wikipolicies that matters. CovenantD 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the editing part, but it is also Wikipedia policy that a mediator must not have a personal stake in the subject matter she/he is mediating. In other words, to be a mediator for the Falun Gong article, neither a practitioner nor a critic of Falun Gong could be chosen. That policy I think is explicity stated somewhere and so if you are a practitioner, you need to disclose that fact now. I still respect your proven ability to adopt a neutral stance, but since we're talking about you as the official mediator, based on Wiki standards, you cannot yourself be a practitioner. I assume you are not (since comic books are your thing), but you do need to disclose this now before we go down this path. --Tomananda 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed this in the appropriate section of this talk page. CovenantD 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oooops! Yes you did, sorry I missed it. --Tomananda 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

going back to intro

CovenantD Time is up and you are now the official mediator here. Are you ready to finalize the wording in the intro? --Samuel Luo 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, if time is up, it seems to be a great time to answer my Question. --Hoerth 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, above. CovenantD 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I'm ready to start looking at the bits that have been thoroughly discussed above and have a decision in a day or so :-) Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to take a look at the merge proposal over at the Teachings article? CovenantD 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I rather leave those pages created and written by practitioners alone. I am afraid that if I interfere they would leave more personal attacks on my talk page. Thanks for helping, looking forward to your mediation. --Samuel Luo 04:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If Samuel won't follow this discussion and critique the merge proposal, I will. At this point there are many FG practioner editors involved in this discussion. There must be some balance. --Tomananda 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ATTN: Hey is this the right place to post? Anyways, why do you site refrences at the bottom of the Falun Gong Wiki page that are obviously and provably false and irresponsible. The articles by James Randi and Rick ROss can easily proven to be nonsense and slanderous. One example that is easy topoint out, is that James Randi states suicide is a part of Falun Dafa teachings. That's slanderous and BS, totally BS. The James Randi and RIck Ross sites need to be taken off Wikipedia immediately!

James Randi says nothing about suicide being a part of FG teachings, as a matter of a fact the word “suicide” is not on his insightful article. Who is being slanderous and BS here?
I don’t know whether suicide is a part of FG teaching, but according to the reports of human rights groups many practitioners have committed suicide. And the FG leadership has said nothing about it. The most deadly mass suicide took place in June, 2001 when ten plus female practitioners hung themselves from bunk beds with ropes make of bed sheets in Wanjia labor camp outside Harbin city in Heilongjiang Province, reported by a rights group. [24]
The Chinese authorities believe the Falun Gong leadership having a hand in the suicide. “Those organizations [Falun Gong organizations] are using all possible channels to pass on the so-called `instructions' to the practitioners in the reform camp in order to make them believe that going to heaven after their death is the highest level of practicing,” Lan Jingli, director of the Heilongjiang government's judicial bureau told the AP. “The mass suicide of June 20 could also be caused through this way.” [25]
The FG itself has reported many suicidal attempts. 140 practitioners once went on a mass hunger strike while in the Da-Guang detention center.[26]
It is very clear that many practitioners have committed suicide and the FG leadership is doing nothing to stop it. One can reasonably assume that suicide is encouraged by the FG leadership. --Samuel Luo 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Everything past the first sentence is out of order, Samuel. It has nothing to do with discussing the reference. The last paragraph is nothing more than your POV, complete with weasel words. CovenantD 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the rest of paragraphs are not discussing the reference. But my last sentence is not “weasel words” but an argument supported by facts and reasons. --Samuel Luo 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a big lie and propaganda that suicide is a part of the FLG teachings. Master Li has himself stated that suicide is a sin. I don't believe that FLG practitioners would do suicide, why would they do opposite against Master Li? Master Li has clearly stated that suicide is a sin. Omido 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the link that sparked this and nowhere does it use the word suicide or anything equivalent. Unless somebody has made that assertion in or for the article this is off topic. CovenantD 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Rendering my decision

I went with a minimalist approach to these two sentences. Yenchin and Samuel's objection about the difference between Dafa and Gong are addressed in the first sentence (not shown here) where the two are used interchangably. Fire Star had compelling arguments on why moral improvement should be addressed in the body of the article. Mcconn's suggestion, "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires" and Samuel's suggestion, "when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings," are implied by the cultivation line and can be expanded on in the main article or the Teachings article. CovenantD 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have more to cover “salvation” and “Fa-rectification” that both sides have agreed to include in the intro, right? --Samuel Luo 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I'm still reviewing those for the best possible course of action. My feeling at this point is that more input will be needed, but I'll let you know. CovenantD 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable to me. --Fire Star 火星 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its perfect so far, Covenant, if you could post your suggestion of the part of the intro that talks about "Fa Rectification" then it would be great because this way we could guide ourselves better to provide more neutral suggestions on these topics.--Andres18 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the discussions to date. CovenantD 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Since my request to unprotect the page and insert these edits has been denied, would one of the monitoring admins mind placing these two sentences in the first paragraph? They should replace all but the first and last sentence in that lead paragraph. CovenantD 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I will do it. I want to make it crystal clear that I am only editing according to the request(s) of our mediator by consensus, CovenantD. --Fire Star 火星 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a Chinese I can tell you that these terms Falun Gong and Falun Dafa refer to very different things. Also, please provide links in the lead paragraph for these terms. --Mr.He 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Wiktionary links? --Fire Star 火星 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean links to Falun Gong article where these terms are defined, like this one [27]. --Mr.He 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for investigation: Samuel/ Yueyuen

I refuse to contribute to this article until this matter is resolved. I am sick and tired of the neglect on the part of the "anti- FLG" editors when "perceived" pro FLG editors try to make contributions. In other words, I beg you to address this issue properly. Thank you all. Whitemanners 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or some other administrator page. This is not the proper place for such requests. Please stop clogging the page with this. CovenantD 23:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question

Hi, I just dropped by because I was curious about the Falun Gong (I read a headline in the Epoch Times, who I didn't know until now are an FG newspaper, about FG practicioners being the subject of live organ harvest and it made me curious about what was going on). I found this page a little unsatisfying. Here are some questions I have that the page didn't quite answer, or answered incompletely:

Is Falun Gong a meditative practice, like t'ai chi? A practice that can also be a religion, like Yoga? A religion that happens to have formalized meditation forms in it?

What does it mean to be an FG practicioner? Are there FG "churches" where people meet to practice/discuss? Do people sign up somehow, or enroll as FG practicioners? What about it is so compelling that people would sign up for it over, say, Qigong practice (especially considering the persecution aspect)? I would love to see a picture of the physical practice, if is photographable.

If there aren't churches or formal enrollment, how does the Chinese government identify FG practicioners? And why is the Chinese government so upset about the practice?

I see that the page is gargantuan already, but I suspect most people unfamiliar with FG would share my curiosities and want to know that stuff more than they'd want to know about FG ethics, origins, epistemologies, etc. I see that there are troubles with the page, so I apologize if I'm adding to the problems; I just thought I'd let you know what an uninvolved person was interested in. Good luck with your editing! Katsam 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't requesting that someone explain to me the answer to these questions, I just wanted to explain what I would like, as a reader, to see on the Falun Gong page. (Although it was nice for people to try and explain it to me personally as well.) Katsam 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

(Response from Andres moved to Katsam's talk page. It was nice of you to answer, but it doesn't relate to editing the page. Move back if you disagree. CovenantD 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Oh ok, sorry about that covenant!--Andres18 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was off for a while. I took the kid to the zoo three times in one week & was a little shot between that & court. Now then, where are we? It looks like we need to restart. I see lots of things flying back an forth; however, very little about the actual content. Cj cawley 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some substantial progress; a mediator has been chosen by most of the editors. Could you review those sections and indicate your support or lack thereof? CovenantD 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Research into Health Benefits?

my question is, where is the research by Quan Zhen Li and Richard Johnson? i can't find such research at any place. sorry, i'm not use to wiki's discussion page, and i can't remember my account name.

--69.231.130.102 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find them at PubMed (which is the place to search for most medical research). Go to this address : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and type in "Falun Gong" as your search term. The first citation that comes up is a study by those two authors.

I went into some academic databases and downloaded it: I don't speak Doctor, so I'm not going to try and crack it (it's 38 fun-filled pages about "gene expression," but if you like to read that kind of stuff and have an email address I'd be happy to send the .pdf along.

Another article that would be useful to read if anyone really wanted to create the article "Health and the Falun Gong" would be this one: FALUNGONG: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINESE NOTIONS OF HEALING. By: Gale, Deborah Dysart; Gorman-Yao, W.M.. Journal of Cultural Diversity, Winter2003, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p124-127, 4p; (AN 12164405) Katsam 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed this article has one interesting researcher. Lili Feng, M.D. , a Falungong memeber who just died a while ago due to cancer. I believe in academic articles, if a name is at the bottom of the list then that person is the lead researcher.
Can you provide verification of Lili Feng's death? It doesn't appear on any of the websites.--Tomananda 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
hmm, i only have some Chinese articles, but yes, she died a month ago due to pancreatic cancer. She was a core member of FLG, you still can find her name all over FLG's website. she talked about SARS, bird flue, cancer, immunity, the "third eye" and melatonin etc in behalf of FLG. There's no news from FLG media about her death because her death didn't do any good for FLG's image. She also had a painful death,it was really nasty. A core member had cancer, and the master didn't/couldn't help her . just think about it.
oh and they hardly report any of their core member's death unless it happened in china. A few months ago, Li Guodong, a core member of FLG who i believe is a lead editor in FLG's TV station( New Tang Dynasty)'s news center died due to liver cancer. They didn't report that either.--69.231.112.138 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is very interesting. When things happen to FG practitioners which don't reflect well on FG's image, one way Li and the practitioners handle that is to claim that person wasn't really a practitioner anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to hear some high-sounding words from Li himself about how Lili Feng wasn't really doing what she needed to do in cultivation. It's always the fault of the practitioners, never the fault of the Master or his teachings. So practitioners are sacrificed for the greater good...which is a pristine reputation for the Dafa. Would you be able to provide any sources in Chinese for Lili Feng's death? If so, please post them here. Also, is there any FG practitioner who can verify the accuracy of these reported deaths? Or will you just remain silent? --Tomananda 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
if you are asking for news articles from news papers or magazines, i can not provide them since her death is not significant enough for mainstream media.
but here's an article in chinese http://www.kaiwind.com/swss/200607/t3669.htm
this website is a private website which has tons of information on FLG from anti-FLG POV. they also have some videos of master Li from chinese television stations.
interview with Margaret Thaler Singer, author of Cult in Our Midst: http://www.kaiwind.com/media/vodinfo.jsp?ProgramID=6495&ChannelID=5&CatalogNumber=SPDB18
they also have five videos from China contain footages of master li.
Chinese/English transcrpits + videos:
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t3771.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t3846.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t3929.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t4015.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t4101.htm
I read the English transcrpit for the first video, i can assure you, they did an excellent job of translating it.
I'm still not sure about wiki's rules on discussions. so, please forgive me if i posted too much stuff not related to the editing of this FLG page.
--69.231.119.242 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Kaiwind article cited its news source from "foreign internet users", which is a dead end. I've checked the Baylor College of Medicine website and although Dr. Feng isn't listed in the faculty, one could still fish her page via Google. I couldn't find any other related news from the college. Frankly speaking I think this is irrelevant to the article unless we have a confirmed source and then we can try fitting it in anything related to "health benefits". --Yenchin 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
here's FLG's official website's response: http://www.minghui.ca/mh/articles/2006/7/15/133056.html --69.231.119.242 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
well, here's my suggestion, at least point out that it was a FLG practitioner who did the research on how FLG benefits people's health.
btw, i just remembered my account name, i was the one who posted with IP address in this section. --Weaponofmd 05:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A falungong researcher published a paper about falungong. this is pretty fishy to me.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.29;jsessionid=nE3JM4Ub1bL5hzZ7EY?cookieSet=1&journalCode=acm

anyway, good luck with this FLG page. --69.231.159.68 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortening of "criticism" section on main-page and Re-rrangement of subsections

It is hoped that the criticism sub-section on the main page be shortened as soon as possible. I request the admins helping to edit the page to kindly make sure that it is done at the earliest. Also Samuel Luo's Personal webpage deosnt belong to the references section. Kindly remove the same from the references.

Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The sections Falun Gong outside China and the section on the persectution of Falun Gong, in my opinion, must come above thse section on "criticism". Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. I was wondering what had happened to you. Would you care to comment on the above discussions that you missed in your absence? CovenantD 14:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf's observations

First of all, hello everybody. I've found it hard to return as an active contributor, because the article is locked and the whole process has turned incredibly complex and somewhat frustrating. It seems that a lot of the editors are still here and the action stations have basically remained unchanged. Pro- and anti-FLG editors still argue over the same questions, and I don't know how much you've really progressed.

I'd like to state my comments on some issues that have surfaced here. One of them is the allegation of "obscuring" Falun Gong's teachings, as well as the differences in our points of view regarding this matter. Editors who strongly criticize Falun Gong tend to argue that their point is valid because they've directly quoted Master Li and that they haven't changed the essential content of his words. At least, this is what they say, right? When Falun Gong practitioners or other pro-FLG editors have stated that they feel a certain description is inadequate or even misleading, accusations of obscuring the teachings have surfaced, and many people have even claimed that Master Li specifically tells his students to hide his words from the public eye.

Sorry, Olaf, but Li does just that and has done so on many occassions. Since what Master Li says to his disciples directly effects their conception of what they can (and can't) do in order to reach salvation (or "consumation" if you prefer), his directives matter a great deal. When you state "many people have even claimed that Master Li specifically tells his students to hide his words from the public eye" you are either not being honest, or are extremeley ill-informed of the Master's teachings. Master Li does specifically tell his students to hide his words fromt he public eye.--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that such interpretations are quite extreme.

Olaf, these are NOT interpretations that FG critics make up out of the clear blue sky but rather accurately reported statements. It is Master Li who goes to extremes, not his critics.--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We have not sufficiently addressed the fundamental moot point here: how do we construct a narrative of Falun Gong when the available information out there is a lot more complicated and multifaceted than we can summarize in an encyclopedia article.

Olaf, I think you are confusing an encyclopedia article with the PR spin that Falun Gong is used to creating. Enclopedia articles are not "story lines." They are attempts to objectively report on a subject using the exisiting sources, including the views of critics, and by their very nature they do not conform to a particular "story line." --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of pages of information, lectures, articles and other sources written about Falun Gong. A good editor is able to discern the essential questions while at the same time addressing all parties' concerns. Because everybody has his or her subjective POV, we tend to emphasize certain issues while downplaying others. You all know this. However, if we are to contribute to this article while paying attention and respect to what others are saying, we should strive to understand more sincerely why they're concerned about certain issues. We don't have to think that "he's a cult apologetic who doesn't want to admit that he has a hidden agenda" or "his only objective is to denigrate Falun Gong because he is evil".

Essential questions? Are you claiming that the salvation that Li offers to all sentient beings is not "essential" for an understanding of Falun Gong? And when one talks about "salvation" one needs to talk about salvation from what. In this case, Li has a well-defined theory of moral corruption and a cosmological/ethical theory of judgment (being done by his Dafa) and the results of this judgment (Fa-rectification and the elimnation of unworthy beings, so that the universe can return to it's orginal state.)--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of a text is not formed out of individual words or sentences only. Instead, as I mentioned above, we're constructing a narrative or a "storyline". A good article has a red thread running throughout, and all the chapters are in a reasonable relation to each other. A lot of meanings can be transmitted through what is implied by certain selections. For example, why do we choose to include in the second chapter (Origins) some relatively unimportant trivia from Li's biography instead of providing a good, comprehensive background for the qigong phenomenon and Falun Gong's cultural position in the Chinese context? As I see it, these selections have been chosen to implicitly undermine Master Li's credibility as a whole. Mind you, I am not saying that we can't mention them in the article, but when we're explaining Falun Gong to people who have no clue about the basic axioms and research, such trivia is highly misleading unless we have first provided an ontological and epistemological background for these supernatural postulations.

Before the article was split in parts, I wrote the chapter that is now classified under "Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong".

You did, but actually very little writing on that page addresses the epistomolgocical theory of Li Hongzhi. As I pointed out in previous discussion, epistemology means the study of how humans know what they know. In Li's case, he knows what he knows because he claims supernatural or divine powers which cannot be questioned. For example, Li has stated that there are no oriental people in Jesus' paradise. How does he know this? Well, he has visited Jesus' paradise and we are expected to accept what he says based on his authority alone. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was to make an essential point: we cannot write a third-party article on Falun Gong without anchoring the phenomenon into its historical and cultural context. This is the basic flaw of many studies, and it is especially prominent outside the scientific community (such as fervent "anti-cultists"). But the fact is that fabulous motives are deeply rooted in the Chinese tradition, even if they're considered fables, myths or feudal superstition. These stories seem quite extraordinary and fantastical to anyone who clings to modernist thinking. Of course, we know that qigong has been researched in China already for a few decades. During the 1990s, Falun Gong became the paragon of a burgeoning supernaturalist paradigm in the Chinese qigong community. The quotation from Journal of Asian Studies 58 clearly elucidates that we're talking about a discoursive struggle between two qigong paradigms. Therefore, we are obliged to explain this background, because most readers of Wikipedia are entirely unfamiliar with these problematics. This is why I feel that the chapter about the origins of Falun Gong has deteriorated.

Learning something new always starts from the basics and proceeds further as the fundamentals of a certain mode of thinking have been grasped. Some people don't want to acknowledge that this holds true for Falun Gong as well, even though the entire educational system is based on this approach. Not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday anti-persecution activities has, in my opinion, at least two major reasons: the first one is that practitioners want to build a consensus against human rights atrocities in China, even among people who hold different beliefs. Falun Gong as a cultivation method is available to whoever wants to practice it, but as practitioners we don't want to impose our worldview on others by coercion or "evangelism". The second one is that the Western scientific method is by far the most dominant framework for observing and conceptualizing reality, and many people strongly believe in its exclusiveness and superiority. A system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized, especially by people who have been influenced by positivist philosophy. I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues (i.e. condemning torture, organ harvesting, brainwashing, slave labor, etc.) and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence.

I've also noted that some editors always select their sources based on their personal beliefs, even when two sides of the story are easily available. One instance is Samuel Luo making allegations of a mass suicide in the Wanjia labor camp, even though we have read from various sources that the Chinese government counts deaths resulting from torture as suicides, and we know that the deceased practitioners were under surveillance 24 hours a day. In addition, using terminology such as "Falun Gong leadership" is directly related to this "expositional" discourse - rather anti-scientific in itself. Because some editors are intentionally striving to create a narrative that portrays Falun Gong as a cult, they try to make Falun Gong seem more similar to the popular stereotype of a cultic group, which includes a hierarchical top-down leadership, financial exploitation, hidden agenda, and so on. When practitioners read this, they feel that such portrayals are totally derogatory.

I think it is extremely far-fetched to say that Falun Gong operates like a cult when studies (like Noah Porter's) point out that Falun Gong is more like a network of voluntary practitioners.

Olaf: Other academics disagree with your POV here and most definitely see dangerous cultish aspects in the Falun Gong. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is notable disagreement even among the so-called anti-cult organizations of different countries about what Falun Gong really is. "Le mouvement spirituel Falun Gong est-il une secte dangereuse? A ce jour, les groupements antisectes et les pouvoirs publics se montrent plutôt circonspects, quand ils ne sont pas clairement favorables au mouvement de Li Hongzhi. Ainsi l’Union nationale [française] des associations de défense des familles et de l’individu (UNADFI) estime que l’on ne peut qualifier Falun Gong de secte que dans le sens le plus anodin du mot, à savoir de «dissidence»." [28] ("Is the spiritual movement Falun Gong a dangerous cult? These days the anti-cultist groups and public authorities are first and foremost presenting their views circumspectly, when they are not clearly favorable towards the movement of Li Hongzhi. Therefore UNADFI estimates that Falun Gong cannot be qualified as a cult except in the most harmless sense of the word, namely «dissidence»") In other words, what Samuel Luo and Tomananda have stated about the consistent position of such organizations is untrue.

Sorry, Olaf, but you are grossly mis-characterizing what the edit on "Is Falun Gong a cult?" says. You and I worked on that many months ago and you have already contributed several paragraphs. What's more, my writing does not claim a consisent point of view. Instead, it states up front that there is no agreement among the acadmics of what constitutes a cult or brainwashing. So please don't mis-represent that material. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Another issue I've seen frequently brought up is Falun Gong practitioners' relation to their critics. Samuel Luo keeps reminding us that a letter from a lawyer led to the cancellation of a planned anti-cult seminar in Madrid. Of course, I understand his concerns, because it was exactly he who was scheduled to speak there about Falun Gong. Based on all that I've read, he's not exactly nonpartisan, and many of his allegations are rather obstinate. I think his presentation would have been considered pro-persecution by anybody sitting in the audience.

It was not just Samuel who was scheduled to speak, but also a distinguished professor from Harvard and others...all of whom were equally intimidated and bullied by the Falun Gong lawyer. The point in bringing up that very unfair threat is that the Falun Gong does not practice what it preaches. On the one hand it seeks sympathy and support from Americans based on civil liberties claims of free speech and freedom of religion. But when it comes to the free speech of its critics, the FG has a long history of intimidating and even harassing its critics. It did this in China (long before the ban) and it has contintued to do this in the West by using legal threats. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning of July 2006 a Milan court adjudicated that European Chinese Newspaper was guilty of slander and propaganda against Falun Gong practitioners and imposed a hefty fine as a punishment. [29] Therefore, we do have a test case illustrating that hate propaganda against Falun Gong practitioners does exist, it's not tolerable, and "criticism" does not equate to discrimination. For example, we have seen Samuel Luo profess that Falun Gong has a "leadership" telling "members" to commit a mass suicide. Maybe it's just mutter on his part - I don't know if he really believes that - but such comments have no place in an international seminar while aggravated state terrorism is taking place against prisoners of conscience. And this is just one isolated example.

On the other hand, I would advice Falun Gong practitioners to understand Samuel Luo and Tomananda. In addition to other things, they're deeply concerned about Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality. Our axioms are different - they look at the whole issue from an entirely different point of view. While practitioners believe that there is a divine standard of conduct for man and that a human being is the cosmic "underdog" who either pays his karma through suffering or accumulates more of it by getting attached to various sentiments, not everybody believes this way. A lot of people feel that they should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Some think that good and evil are relative or covenanted. Some are deeply spiritual, but their metaphysical assumptions are different. Maybe Samuel Luo and Tomananda have suffered discrimination themselves; maybe they have worked all their lives to improve the status of homosexuals in society. Just as I said, we have different starting points, and thus we accept different conclusions.

Olaf, you are now bordering on personal attacks agaist me and Samuel. We should limit our discussion to the edits, not what you consider the motivations are of the editors who do not agree with Master Li's teachings.--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing is that we can coexist peacefully, and we can allow the existence of different rationalities. It's not up to the practitioners - or Falun Gong's critics - to decide how the universe really is. We can be wrong, right, or neither, and I think there are a lot of things we can agree upon after we've cooled down a little bit, such as protecting the human rights of each and every person regardless of his or her personal beliefs or orientation. Ultimately, isn't that what Tomananda and Samuel Luo also want? It's just that our peer groups are different, and sometimes we've turned a blind eye on the other party's concerns. I suggest that we all take a step back, try to drop the baggage we've accumulated during these overlong debates and relax. Maybe we could also try to tone down our language, avoid going into extremes and sincerely open our hearts to build bridges instead of burning them down. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia isn't a place to "allow the existence of different rationalities", it is a place to objectively report their existence. Neither are we in the business of "protecting the human rights of each and every person", as there are wildly differing opinions as to what that even means. In the long run this article is going to objectvely report opinions as opinions; pro, con and other, that demonstrably exist in the public domain. As long as I am around it is not going to be sympathetic to FLG, the CCP or any other party or religion. Whether that is going to be an easy process or a hard one is up to the ability of our editors to work through the arguments presented. Faith based arguments for apologetics are less convincing than simple reports of what people, including Li, have said and are saying out there. --Fire Star 火星 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, we're not here to discuss about falun gong, we've been over this a million times.--200.35.221.67 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes let's discuss the writing of the article instead. Olaf, it would be greatly apreciated if you could stop posting this kind of provocative and long messages. Why don't you post it on samuel and tomonanda's talk page instead? --Mr.He 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha, a Provocative message? why dont you read the messages from the critic editors just down below?. Quoting Samuel Luo "the kind of miraculous healing power of the Falun Gong and Li that all practitioners claim to be true is just a lie. You guys are lying to yourself and the public." This is provocative. Maybe i should quote someone else, lets see.....Oh Tomananda "More lies: Fnhddzs says..." so not only are the editor critics defaming falun gong and provoking other editors in a place they shouldnt be doing it, they are also saying other editors are liars too, hows that?.--Andres18 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least they are talking and providing information about the Falun Gong which is the subject here whereas Mr. Olaf talks about the motivation of Samuel and Tomanada. see my point? --Mr.He 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Olaf, I too find that editing the Falun Gong article frustrating. And your post just added to that frustration. It is frustrating that often times practitioners respond to negative reports of their group with unfounded personal attacks. Since the links to the articles reporting the suicide incident in Wanjia camp were provided, here your personal attacks against me can only be interpreted as a blatant disregard of the truth.
  • I am posting the whole article here for everyone to see, so they would know that this Wanjia camp suicide incident was not made up by me as you have implied. --Samuel Luo 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong Deaths Set Off Dispute on Suicide Report

New York Times/July 4, 2001 By Craig S. Smith

Shanghai -- At least 10 followers of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement were reported on Tuesday to have died at a labor camp in northeast China last month, either in a group suicide or from torture. The Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said 10 women killed themselves to protest their treatment at the Wanjia labor camp outside Harbin in Heilongjiang Province. A government spokesman in Beijing said early today that 14 followers had committed suicide at the camp. Another 11 attempted suicide but were stopped by camp guards, he said. [30]

Li's statements to practitioners about concealing the higher truths

In the above post, Olaf outrageously accuses Falun Gong criitics of "claiming" that Master Li specifically tells his students to conceal his higher teachings. Claiming??? Here's what Li actually says:

In Zhuan Falun (the FG Bible):
  • "It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people."
And in a recent speech in San Francisco, Li was quite clear on what he demands from his disciples:
  • So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things. Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (November 5, 2005) [31]

Olaf: rather than trying to paint a picture of Falun Gong critics being "extreme" why don't you, just for once, address the extreme demands that Li has placed on his disciples as a condition for their salvation. Yes, Olaf, Li DOES "specifically tell his students to hide his words from the public eye." Sure, you can quibble about my use of the word "conceal"...but really, what other interpretation can you give to words like "not allowed to casually disclose" or "absolutely must not speak at too high a level." Your entire post above is a diversionary tactic to the editing task we have and is rather offensive because you are questioning the motives of some of the editors. My motive is to tell the truth about the Falun Gong...something that the world has never gotten from the Falun Gong itself. --Tomananda 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole chapter from Zhuan Falun (beginning of third lecture):
  • Does everyone know what I’m doing? I treat all practitioners, including those who are able to truly practice cultivation through self-study, as my disciples. In teaching cultivation at high levels, it will not work if I do not treat you this way. Otherwise, it is the same as being irresponsible and causing trouble. We have given you so many things and let you know so many principles that should not be known by everyday people. Besides providing you with many other things, I have taught you this Dafa. Among some other issues involved, your body has been purified. Accordingly, it is simply unacceptable for me to not treat you as disciples. Casually disclosing so many heavenly secrets to everyday people is not allowed. But there is one point to be made. Now, times have changed. We do not practice the ritual of kowtowing or bowing. That kind of formality serves little use, and it performs like a religion. We do not practice it. What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping Teacher if once you step out the door, you still continue to conduct yourself as usual and do whatever you want, competing and fighting for your fame and self-interest among everyday people? You may also damage the reputation of Falun Dafa under my banner!
In my text above I said that individual words or sentences do not constitute the meaning of a text, but it is a question of their relation to the whole. Here we can see that Li is talking about accepting practitioners as disciples, which is basically what a master does. I have understood this chapter quite differently from you. After all, Zhuan Falun has been published, and it was one of the most popular books in China during the 1990s. I don't think everybody who read it started practicing Falun Gong. In my opinion, Master Li is saying that these things have been known in certain circles for quite some time now, but revealing them to people requires somebody who's taking the responsibility for dealing with related issues. In fact, my understanding is that he's referring to people in the audience when he's talking about "everyday people" in this passage. Not revealing these things casually is the key word. It's also good to remember that Zhuan Falun is mostly transcribed material from Master's lecture series, and the context of his words matters greatly.
As for talking about high-level cultivation and gods when clarifying the truth about the persecution, I expounded on that above. Maybe you can give your comments. What other quotations are you referring to? Also, I'd appreciate that my text would be left intact and replies were written below it; it's a lot easier to follow lengthy conversations this way. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, You have not really responded to my point which, simply stated, is that Li asks his disciples not to talk to ordinary people at the higher levels. Quoting the entire paragraph from Zhuan Falun really doesn't contradict that message. In fact, the context Li himself gives to the quote has to do with the belief that by practicing FG your body is purified. If I were going to expand the quote, here's what I would report:

  • Among some other issues involved, your body has been purified. Accordingly, it is simply unacceptable for me to not treat you as disciples. Casually disclosing so many heavenly secrets to everyday people is not allowed.

In other words, Li gives one specific example of the kind of higher level truths that should not casually be disclosed to everyday people. Please notice that right after that, Li changes the topic to one of kowtowing to the Master.

More importanly, Li very precisely issued a similar directive in San Francisco late last year. His words are clear and to the point: "So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high a level." He goes on to say that practitioners should talk about the persecution and the evil party. He then finishes his statement by saying "And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things." Are you denying that Li has said that, or are you trying to say that by some kind of contextual analysis we can come up with some alternative meaning for these words? Really, I don't see how you can deny Li's obvious meaning which is that you guys should only talk about the persecution and the evil CCP and that's it. So when FG practitioners edit in Wikipedia, that's all you want to talk about. And then when a critic of FG tries to insert well-sourced content about Li's teachings (other than his political objective to destroy the CCP) we get constant diversionary tactics. It is so incredibly tiresome and I don't think any objective reader of these posts could come to any conclusion other than the obvious: Master Li does not want his practitioners to talk to ordinary people about his higher teachings. The fact that you try to deny something so obvious suggests to me that you cannot be trusted to honestly report some aspects of Falun Gong teachings. --Tomananda 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Li also say at one point that non-Chinese weren't intelligent enough to understand his teachings? I read that in one of his lectures a while back. I'll see if I can find it again... --Fire Star 火星 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's made several comments about white people not being able to understand his teachings. Here's one quote for starters:
People of the white race have a different way of thinking from people of the yellow race, like us, so you should take their special traits into consideration. Don't baffle them by using the very complicated ways of thinking and language. That would make them think: "this is too difficult." Falun Dafa Lecture at the First Conference in North America (New York, March 29-30, 1998) p.14.--Tomananda 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, You have your POV and he has his POV, none of them are necessary in the creation of the article. We appreciate your help on the creation of the article but please lets concentrate on doing that instead of this.--200.35.221.67 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And who is this anyonomous poster who uses the imperial "we"? All these posts you object to are in response to Olaf's post. Olaf is a practitioner who lives in Finland and has not been very active on this site for a long time. Some months ago he and I worked together on the edit called "Is Falun Gong a cult?" but after that he ceased to make any major edit contributions. Now he has done one which seems to personalize the issues at hand, and in reponse he is receiving appropriate feed back. It would be nice if you could identify yourself. --Tomananda 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, to my mind, Li's teachings on who he believes should be taught (or even told about) what, not to mention his opinions on how the relative intelligence of different races impacts his teaching methods, is vitally important to a thorough article on FLG. --Fire Star 火星 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Master Li Hongzhi just pointed out that chinese qi gong terminology may at first sound a bit confusing to someone who is not familiar with it. I am from India so I dont have a cultural background that will help me understand gong, energy mechanisms etc as easily as someone who would have grown up in the traditional Chinese Culture would... its just a cultural Gap.. please dont attribute such connotations to it.. it doesnt suggest to me, even remotely, any meaning like what some editors are trying to attribute to it..

and in response to the claim that practitioner "hide" teachings I urge everbody here to go through all the teachings of Falun Dafa, especially the 9 day Lecture videos which forms the central teaching.

Complete List of teachings of Falun Dafa
Li Hongzhi's 9-day Lecture in Guangzhou, China
Zhuan Falun(Translation by North American Practitioners)
Falun Gong
Exercise Instruction Videos
Essentials for Further Advancement
Other Speeches and Writings of Li Hongzhi

When a Tibetan Buddhist tells others about the persecution they are facing they dont talk about the teachings of Tibetan Tantrism.. that, ofcourse, wont help people understand... they re not "hiding" their teachings! Many upright faiths are being persecuted under the CCP regime..the Panchen Lama has been locked up in prison from age 9.. and a lot of lies are being inveneted by the regime to justify the killing of innocent people..

All Falun Dafa teachings are available for free download on the webite www.falundafa.org . There is no concept of membership or anything of that sort.. one neednt even meet with another pracitioner to learn and practice falun Gong.. all exercise videos and instructions and all lectures are available online, free of charge..

I feel sad that I have to talk about things unrelated to the edits. But let me point out that I am doing this in response to a few allegations which I consider extremely far-fetched. I consider it of great importance that that things be clarified so the editors will have a good understanding of what they are working on. In my opinion it is very important that everybody helping edit the pages go through the teachings of Falun Dafa first-hand... so that that the verity of the claims made by various editors may be objectively judged.

Just take a look at how an editor puts a statement completely out of context. The editor picks out the bolded statement and claims practitioner "hide" teachings. Kindly see the context...

Oh give me a break. You (whoever you are) are repeating the same argument that I already responded to above. Lies, lies and more lies. If you are not concealing the higher teachings of Falun Gong, you and the countless other Falun Gong practitioners who log on to this site would be able to describe in simple terms what salvation, the Dafa judging all sentient beings, and Fa-rectification mean to them. You of course can't do this because you are trapped in a deceptive game created by Li Hongzhi. --Tomananda 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Does everyone know what I’m doing? I treat all practitioners, including those who are able to truly practice cultivation through self-study, as my disciples. In teaching cultivation at high levels, it will not work if I do not treat you this way. Otherwise, it is the same as being irresponsible and causing trouble. We have given you so many things and let you know so many principles that should not be known by everyday people. Besides providing you with many other things, I have taught you this Dafa. Among some other issues involved, your body has been purified. Accordingly, it is simply unacceptable for me to not treat you as disciples. Casually disclosing so many heavenly secrets to everyday people is not allowed. But there is one point to be made. Now, times have changed. We do not practice the ritual of kowtowing or bowing. That kind of formality serves little use, and it performs like a religion. We do not practice it. What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping Teacher if once you step out the door, you still continue to conduct yourself as usual and do whatever you want, competing and fighting for your fame and self-interest among everyday people? You may also damage the reputation of Falun Dafa under my banner!" -Zhuan Falun( http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new.html ), Chapter 3

That's right: it's all about protecting the reputation of Li Hongzhi and his Dafa. That's what it has always been about, plus keeping him in power and feeding his monstrous ego-needs which, in the end, actually indicate a lack of self esteem. This guy, living the good life in a protected US environment, has caused so much suffering. And yet he continues not to be held accountable by the Western media. Some day this will change. --Tomananda 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

220.226.17.127 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Its Andres, i forgot to log in, i just thought it would be great if we could go one step at a time and concentrate on what we are doing now with covenant so we can move on faster. Im not objecting to anything so please dont speak for me, i believe the criticism and controversies to be a flawed non neutral subsection, and im not doing anything about it right now because we are suppossed to focus on the "Fa rectification" part on the intro. We havent even started the edits on the introduction on the article and we are already jumping on to other sections.i thought perhaps you guys would be kind enough to do the same for now. If Olaf did edits without consensus then i agree these edits should be reverted and his ideas should be well kept until we reach that part of our work.--Andres18 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yet another practitioner weighs in voicing concern about the Criticism section. And the beat goes on. --Tomananda 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, im concerned you wanting to make things your own way and specially on the criticism subsection on the main page. Its suppossed to be neutral and approved in consensus. I think you should stop the irony, its just trying to provoke the other editors. And i thought you were actually a reasonable person...--Andres18 05:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to be reasonable when faced with an endless barage of diversionary tactics from practitoners desparately trying to uphold the reputation of their Master in order to reach consumation. You are wrong about the criticism page in two ways: 1) it was created through a consensus process some time ago. and 2) By definition, a criticism page is not neutral. It is meant to report the criticism or controversies that surround a subject. For a model of this, please check out the Criticism page for scientology. --Tomananda 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok, i dont mind about the criticism page, i was talking about the criticism subsection on the main page. The whole main page is suppossed to be neutral but there are all these allegations posted there and i dont think its the right place for them to be. Im sorry, i know editing this page is kind of frustrating sometimes but its also frustrating for us too, and we also have our opinions, critics and views on how you do your work but adding logs to the fire doesnt do much good i think.--Andres18 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are enough notable criticisms to report (and I think there are) then there is no reason to shorten their section other than some people must think it makes FLG look bad. The criticisms can be introduced in a general way on the main article page and then detailed on the daughter article. For criticisms to stay in the articles, they won't be allegations Wikipedia is making, but reports of criticism others have made. Just like many other popular movements, FLG in general and Li Hongzhi in particular are in for a lot. --Fire Star 火星 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Key Falun Gong member dying of her illness

According to this article below Lili Feng was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer Cancer in 2003. She could have saved herself by receiving medical help but instead she bet her life on the divine healing power of her Master. In March this year her condition deteriorated significantly but she was not sent to the hospital until June 20. She died two days later. Practitioners, what do guys make of her death? --Samuel Luo 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

胰腺癌是一种凶险的疾病，晚期发现者的五年存活率只有百分之五。但有时候更凶险的是精神上的疾病－－－２００３年末封莉莉偶然发现自己患上胰腺癌，因为发现的早，她是有机会治愈的，但她拒绝任何治疗，她坚信她练了四年的***可以帮助她彻底摆脱身体里这个危险的敌人。事实证明她错了，和很多可悲的***信徒一样，她用她的死证明她自己错了。可以肯定地说，如果她在发现之初就积极进行治疗，她至少不会死得这么早这么痛苦。６月２０日，在多个**徒持续＂发正念＂无效的情况下，垂危的封莉莉终于被送进医院，两天之后死去。[32]

Sidenote for this article. It came from Miss Tanxi (嘆息) from hardkingdom.com's freshrain discussion board. Tanxi herself admits it is hearsay. So it's basically a dead end. --Yenchin 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here is Lili Feng's most famous speech about the healing powers of Falun Gong. Believe it or not, she claimed that Falun Gong can protect China from SARS in 2003. Read just the last paragraph if you don't have time for this kind of nonsens. [33] --Samuel Luo 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


She was a core member of FLG, you still can find her name all over FLG's website. she talked about SARS, bird flue, cancer, immunity, the "third eye" and melatonin etc in behalf of FLG. There's no news from FLG media about her death because her death didn't do any good for FLG's image. She also had a painful death,it was really nasty. A core member had cancer, and the master didn't/couldn't help her . just think about it. oh and they hardly report any of their core member's death unless it happened in china. A few months ago, Li Guodong, a core member of FLG who i believe is a lead editor in FLG's TV station( New Tang Dynasty)'s news center died due to liver cancer. They didn't report that either.--69.231.112.138 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Falun Gong is not aimed at curing illnesses. Once you believe you have illness, then you should go to doctors. But it is true that many practitioners gained health benefits. I am sorry about the news though. As said in the news, what is worse is the illness on spirit. By the way, I don't think early discovery of cancer would increase the chance of survival. People in Europe usually did not discover their cancer early but it is reported that they tend to live longer than the contrasts in U.S. Fnhddzs 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the minghui website reported that some practitioners died recently in response to the news on xinhua. There is nothing to hide. But minghui is not to report anything happening on this world. I am curious who wrote the news on Lili. It seems a person knowing her very very well (such as her special birthday in Chinese calendar, the detailed status etc.). Such a person writing such articles is kind of suspicious. Fnhddzs 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

More lies: Fnhddzs says "once you believe you have illness, then you should go to the doctors." Well, once you believe you have illness that means you are no longer a Falun Gong practitioner because as Li says, if you believe in the disease-curing effects of Falun Gong, why would you take medicine? More importantly, Li teaches Falun Gong practitioners not to think of illness as illness in the medical sense. All illness is the opportunity of getting rid of karma, which should be welcomed because once you've gotten rid of all your karma (which requires the direct help of Master Li to remove every last bit of it) then you can aspire to consumation. The goal of practice is, in fact, consumation, although you practitioners seldom talk about it. Another lie. But getting back to Lili Feng: she spent so much of her professional life praising and trying to prove the disease curing benefits of Falun Gong. Now that she has died of pancreatic cancer, shouldn't the Falun Gong honor her in some way? Shouldn't there be some kind of testimonial on the clearwisdom website? Shouldn't the great Li himself write a poem honoring her life and death, all in a good cause? She died on June 22nd, so there has been enough time to recognize her. Why hasn't this happened? Why does the Falon Gong not honor its own heroes? --Tomananda 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If Lili had sought medical help in 2003 she might have lasted much longer. She also would not had had suffered that much pain. But the bigger picture is this-- the kind of miraculous healing power of the Falun Gong and Li that all practitioners claim to be true is just a lie. You guys are lying to yourself and the public.

The fact that the Falun Gong has not published any thing to honor Lili who has contributed greatly to the group shows two things: 1) the cover up; 2) the cold-heartedness of the group. --Samuel Luo 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Samuel. I don't know Lili personally. Neither do you. I don't know why Lili did not seek medical help. And how she went to hospital to examine her health (otherwise how could she find the diagnosis?) But if she did not seek medical help, I suppose she should practice Falun Gong diligently. But did she? I appreciate that she did a lot of social activities and conducted research on other practitioners. But did she really have time to do the practice and read the book? As far as I know, I am afraid she was too busy to do it. My local fellow practitioner saw her when she came to our city last fall for a speech. According to this practitioner, she looked quite tired with a bad face color. And she told this practitioner she has some some illness. And when asked if there is time guaranteed for her Fa-study and practice, she said it is hard when she is busy. Well, it seems at least she admitted she had illness according to the diagnosis. That is not a thought based on practitioner's understanding. Having said that, I regret her passing away as I regret on anybody's passing away. However, such cases are nothing fancy to our article. And nothing fancy to practitioners' cultivation if your post is trying to picking some bones. Fnhddzs 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. You are saying that if she had diligently practiced the Falun Gong and studied Li’s books she would not had had the cancer. So it is all her fault. Even though she devoted all of her time to promote the Falun Gong she does not deserve the health benefits that are guaranteed by the Master, right? One quick question Fnhddzs, how much exercises and studies does a practitioner have to do in order to have his or her health guaranteed? --Samuel Luo 06:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but attacking Falun Gong doesnt help in any way to the creation of the article, Falun Gong practitioner editors will not answer to your post because its not what they are here to do and i believe this kind of post is not what you are here to do either. Just think about it, what is your purpose with this post saying we are liars and so on? do you want to initiate another heated argument about falun gong?. Please dont be offended but i think you should stop making these type of posts because they dont belong here and it delays the editing process. I think the mediator should erase this topic right away. Its even funny that then you complain about us not behaving properly in the talk page.--Andres18 05:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite off the track of the topic. Besides, it is quite original research. By the way, I have never thought minghui is a newspaper that has to track each practitioner's life details. Birth, Aging, Illness and Death are not related to cultivation that much. Minghui's purpose is to help to stop the persecution, help to share cultivation experience. Fnhddzs 05:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don’t you guys talk to Olaf. I have not felt this excited about editing here for a long time. --Samuel Luo 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Honoring the Life and Death of Dr. Lili Feng

I strongly believe that we should honor the life of Dr. Lili Feng by acknowledging that she has died of pancreatic cancer. In FG terms, she suffered a very painful illness and apparently did what Master Li asks of all his true practitioners: not to take medicine, because sickness is really not sickness, but rather the opportunity to get rid of karma. Dr. Feng worked tirelessly to promote the teachings of Li Hongzhi, especially on sickness karma and the idea that metabolism is fundamentally changed in the body of a true practitioner. In this Wikipedia article, there was an entire page written which featured the work of Dr. Feng under the title "health claims." However, Dr. Feng's death has apparantly not been ackowledged and honored in the Clearwisdom website. I think this is an outrageous oversight. Although I don't read Chinese, there was a posting about Dr. Feng's recent death at: [34] I believe there needs to be a suitable recognition of Dr. Feng in the Clearwisdom site for people who only read English to see. --Tomananda 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Falun Gong doctrine, she must had an enormous among of sin or karma whatever the FG calls it. The question that matters the most now is that is she given a place in the Falun Gong heaven? --Yueyuen 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, you are not responsible in your wording. I understand that you may not understand me. But what do you mean by cruelty? Just based on the story written by somebody? Does Falun Gong ever guaranttee it can cure illness? No. It is not the purpose of Falun Gong. So many people died in hospitals, are doctors cruel? Falun gong ask practitioners not to seek self-benefit, to put down attachments, not to pursue .... Those may be hard to explain if you are not experiencing it. Well, I am sorry I could not honor Dr. Feng in her funeral since it is quite far. My heart is with her spirit. Peace. But minghui is not a place to track each practitioner's life stories. Fnhddzs 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fnhsszs: You are missing the point. Dr. Lili Feng, a practitioner who did so much to promote Falun Gong based on health claims, has died of cancer. The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership is that it will probably not acknowledge and honor Dr. Lili Feng's great contribution because the leadership is more concerned about it's reputation than it is in honoring a FG hero who has passed away. I, for one, have a big problem with that and I would guess many practitioners would have a problem with that as well. As long as a practitioner satisfies Master Li's requirements, and works to promote the good name of his Dafa, everything is ok. But the momement something happens which may appear to discredit the FG, such as Lili Feng's death, then the FG leadership disowns that person as if she never existed. Isn't there something wrong with that? --Tomananda 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Since my time is limited, I only write briefly now. If without Falun Gong, Dr. Feng may have passed away earlier. According to her colleagues who have all the diagnosis X-rays of her, her status(energetic, making research breakthrough etc.) had been amazing to them. Actually they mentioned some surgery. This is no ground for Samuel's allegations. As the critism article write, the five year surviving chance of such cancer is 5%. We are not clear when this cancer started to develop, it may be quite earlier. If it started in 2001, then Dr. Feng belongs to the 5%. She is blessed. Both her husband and son are practitioners. They know more details. We know she is blessed. What kind of honor you are requesting us to give Dr. Feng. How could you say we denied her existence?Fnhddzs 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be a memorial type posting in honor of her life and reporting her death on Clearwisdom and other websites. My understanding is that she died about a month ago, so this should be done right away. I looked for such a posting and couldn't find it. The editor who first reported her death in discussion commented that Falun Gong always reports the deaths of practitioners in China, but typically doesn't for practitioners who die in the West. That shouldn't be the case, don't you agree? --Tomananda 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Speculation and unencyclopaedic. WP:NOT a memorial to alleged cult victims. --Sumple (Talk) 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me. Of course this would be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Instead, I am saying that the FG should post a memorial on their website. --Tomananda 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership

In the West, practitioners are perceived as heroic and admirable for daring to demand human rights from an authoritarian government. However, these heroes are really compelled by fear or baited by the spell their Master casts. Li’s scolding of those who have failed to break away from their family (Li calls it break away from humanness) attachment reveals all:

Some of the people [practitioners]…have had their lives extended through the Fa; some of them have received all kinds of benefits, such as good health, harmony in the family, indirect benefits to their relatives and friends, a reduction of their karma, and even Master’s bearing things for them… Despite this, when Dafa is about to consummate you, you are unable to step forward from humanness, and when the evil persecutes Dafa you are unable to stand up to validate Dafa. These people who only want to take from Dafa and not give for Dafa are, in the eyes of Gods, the worst beings. Moreover, this Fa is what’s fundamental in the cosmos, so those people who are still unable to step forward today will be weeded out after this tribulation is over.”[35]

Reaching consummation is the goal of Falun Gong cultivation; practitioners are taught that they will become gods or Buddhas living in heaven. Li’s statement reveals a circumstance that the West does not see: these practitioners were not driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell.

Olaf, what upsets me the most is the cruelty of the Falun Gong leadership toward practitioners. Li and his close associates who form the leadership have never expressed any sympathy and compassion towards practitioners in pain. In stead Li regularly scold his followers for not doing enough for him and his Dafa.

Giving up the Falun Gong under any circumstance is a sin, a disgrace according to Li: “Some students haven’t been able to endure amidst the agony of the persecution, and have done what a Dafa disciple absolutely should not and cannot do. That is a disgrace to Dafa.” He followed it up by explaining why willing to die for the Falun Gong benefits practitioners themselves:

If your righteous thoughts are truly strong, if you're able to put aside the thought of life and death, and if you're solid and unshakable like diamond, then those evil beings [Chinese authorities] won't dare to touch you, because they know that other than killing you any type of persecution will be useless. The evil will have no choice but to leave you alone. If in this scenario the evil still persecutes you, then Master will show no leniency. Master has countless Law Bodies, and on top of this, there are countless righteous Gods helping me do things, and they will directly eliminate the evil, too. Didn't I tell you before that each of you Dafa disciples has eight types of Heavenly Law-Guardians protecting you? It's all because you haven't done well enough that all these Gods are being restrained by the old cosmos’s Fa-principles and can’t do anything, despite their really wanting to help.[36]

So, when practitioners suffer they should blame themselves for not being worthy of the Master’s divine protection. Safety, not consummation is guaranteed here but only when one is willing to give up his or her life. Apparently, Li has thought of every angel to convince followers to “willingly” die for him.

Olaf, do you now see why I am angry at the inhumanly-cruel Falun Gong cult. --Samuel Luo 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Craig S. Smith from the New York Times noticed the lack of concern for the well being of practitioners from their Master. He reported “Mr. Li's cryptic exhortations to followers on the Falun Gong Web site have grown increasingly strident, chastising those people who cannot endure torture or even death in defense of his cosmology, which holds that Falun Gong is engaged in a struggle with evil beings for the redemption or destruction of the universe. "Even if a dafa cultivator truly casts off his human skin during the persecution, what awaits him is still consummation," Mr. Li wrote a few days after the labor camp deaths. Dafa means great law or dharma, and refers to Falun Gong, which can be translated as Law Wheel Practice. Consummation is an apparently transcendent event that is the goal of all followers. "Any fear is itself a barrier that prevents you from reaching consummation," Mr. Li wrote.” [37]--Samuel Luo 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Again??? Fine, you re angry at falun gong, this is not the place to be posting about it. I hope all this threads will be eliminated by the mediator.--Andres18 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not here? It is all about the Falun Gong. This topic deserves a section on the suppression of Falun Gong page. --Samuel Luo 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but this is not a Falun Gong discussion Talk Page and this kind of post will just create another heated argument between practitioners and critics. Why dont you keep it as a material for discussion when we reach the editing of this subsection? if a section for discussion on this topic is opened by covenant id be more than glad to answer to these allegations--Andres18 06:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres18 In this case why don't you keep your fancy answers. --Yueyuen 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good postings Samuel and Tomanada!!! And yes, this material should be included in the page about the ban, except that we have not agreed to the title of that page yet.--Yueyuen 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, focus on discussion of issues pertaining to editing the FLG articles.

Fancy and out-right absurd allegations. Not really worth replying to. Is anybody moderating this? If yes kindly make sure that people dont turn this into a page for such absurdities. Christians were persecuted to death for their upright faith so were many Buddhists and Gnostics. Were those upright cultivators who were persecuted driven by fear??The Panchen Lama has been locked up from age 9.. According to your reasoning he still doesnt give up his faith because he was "brainwahed" by Gautama Buddha.. It is the kind of courage only the fewest have. Cultivators dont put down their righteous faith when people try to scare them. 220.226.10.89 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would the compassionate Buddha have told his followers that at all costs they must protect his reputation and the good name of his teachings? Would the compassionate Buddha have allowed a great munk leader to go un-noticed when she died because her death from natural causes was considered invonvenient for his media image? In fact, would the compassionate Buddha have been so attached to his own ego that he would threaten his followers if they plagiarized his writings or thought badly of his "great law"? Sorry, but your comparisons are absurd on the face of it. Li Hongzhi lives comfortably in the US and has a formidable PR operation (including media maven Gail Rachlin) behind him. His primary objective is the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party. He claims that is not a political objective, but of course it is. He lies and exploits his followers. If Li Hongzhi has an ounce of decency left in him, he will issue a dignified memorial for his loyal servant Dr. Lili Feng and have it published on all the various websites that he controls through his followers. Absent that, I cannot respect your leader, but I do have great compassion for all the Falun Gong practitioners who have been duped into supporting Li, thinking that he is their ticket to salvation.--Tomananda 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, why dont you add discussing this material in the "To Do" List and when the time comes to speak about this and if the mediator allows it then we'll discuss about it.--Andres18 13:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ian Johnson, A Deadly Exercise, The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2000
  2. ^ Li, Hongzhi (Draft Translation Edition Feb. 2003, North America) One Standard Alone Determines if Someone is Good or Bad: Whether He is Able to be True, Good, and Endure from Zhuan Falun-The First Talk, Falundafa.org, retrieved July 5, 2006
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference DaYuanManFa_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_13&oldid=1278581938"