Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Falun Gong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Let's Get Back to Editing

Once again we've gotten into a debate which gets us nowhere. Let's return to a discussion of editing isssues. For example, let's work on the introduction statement which we were discussing above. Here is the latest version:

"The PRC government claims it banned the Falun Gong for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, as it views their cult as responsible for causing deaths, morally corrupting its practitioners and threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to the communist government's atheist nature which cannot tolerate the group’s belief system, as well as Jiang Zemin's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement." (footnote) --Tomananda 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping order in our discussions

Sorry, I don't know how else to do this, so I am posting a little procedural comment here. Right now there are different discussions going on related to different sections of the article. Jsw had deleted a posting I did saying we should return to discussing the introduction in the post created above. That's ok with me, but not if it means deleting my posting which was a call to get back to work. There's a chronology to these discussions which must be preserved. but I've encountered a technical problem in re-posting my post. Someone other than me had posted the "This is not a discussion forum" as a separate post, and then I posted the "Let's get back to editing" post. Now they have become merged together as if they were one posting, which they are not. --Tomananda 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I notice now that this post, too, is merged with everything else. We need help from an administrator who understands how to correct this problem!

Actually I deleted that section because it was a complete repost - exactly the same content posted twice. It wasn't because I was trying to prevent any discussion about the intro - after all I am contributing to your section quite amply. Jsw663 11:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood that and value your contributions. We can direct people to the edit discussion above called "balancing the introduction" without deleting this post, which is part of the historical record of the discussion page. That's all. Thanks for all your wise edit contributions.--Tomananda 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Formal mediation

I generally don't post on the article's talk page during formal mediation, but based on a conversation on my talk page, there seems to have been some confusion about this. So, as requested, here's a description of how I intend to mediate this dispute. Assuming no one wants private mediation, I suggest conducting the mediation on the Mediation page, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, as is the custom of the Mediation Committee. However, if you all believe that it would be more helpful if mediation were conducted here, I can mediate here.

As mediation continues, it would be impractical to wait for a response from all of you on every issue before continuing. Besides, some of you may consciously choose to ignore issues you are not interested in. This is cool, but in order to have a balanced discussion, I would really like a response from at least one editor in each group (to oversimplify, pro-FLG and anti-FLG) before proceeding. Depending on how important I feel the issue is, I will probably wait for more responses.

Early on in the mediation, I'll probably ask a number of questions. I hope that these will foster discussion towards consensus by helping discussion proceed in a focused way. At the very least, your answers will help me better understand your issues, which will help as I try to think of suggestions to help you resolve your dispute. Note that any such suggestions are merely suggestions. I don't mean to say that they are correct, but only hope that you will consider their ups and downs and respond to them. I certainly won't issue any binding resolutions.

I don't think civility will be a problem, and I trust all of you to not want to offend your fellow editors. However, I recognise that it is possible to offend without malicious intent, and I may intervene if I suspect a comment may be received negatively. Please do not misconstrue this as an implication that I believe the comment to be "uncivil", which would imply a malicious intent - I certainly do not believe that. I merely hope to make this mediation as emotionally painless as possible for all involved.

Note that any of my approaches to this mediation can be modified in the interests of helping you reach consensus.

Thanks! : )
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's go for the mediation page. --Tomananda 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer this page, as retyping all our viewpoints again is a little tiresome. Jsw663 11:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Research into health benefits section should be deleted

All the reference are from Falun Gong's medium. None from credible independent research. http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/ is epochtimes.com, one of Falun Gong's mouth pieces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.72.19 (talk • contribs)

If there is a link from FLG to the research, it should definitely be mentioned and is naturally suspicious due to conflict of interest. --Fire Star 火星 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The referenced article is from THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, Volume 11, Number 1, 2005, pp. 29–39 -- doesn't matter where the document is hosted.--Pessenger 15:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting the Lead Section

From here on starts the editing process of the Lead Section on the main Falun Gong wiki page. The lead section must be neutral if we are to base ourselves on the Scientology article as suggested. Please take a little time to read the instructions i proposed, it seems kind of complicated at the beggining but actually its pretty easy to work this way. Im including an example so that you can have a better understanding of it. If you allow me, i would like to make two suggestions that would benefit us all:

From now on, during the edit process:

1. Please refrain from Intelectual or Epistemological discussions.

2. Please do not make edits without consensus. Editing without consensus does not guarantee your edit will be kept, and most usually it will be reverted. We are doing all this because we want to organizedly propose the edits to be made before we make them so that we can advance on this process. Please lets all follow this rule, if we dont, we wont be going anywhere. Our goal is that the modifications we are to post, last as long as possible without being reverted. What i mean is, if we all agree, obviously nobody is going to revert the edit and then noone will have to engage on edit wars and so on.

I think this is what we all want. This way we will save a lot of efficient time we can use for editing and upgrading the wiki page. Well, we have chosen to begin the editing process on the Lead Section because it the first element in the To Do list.

I would like to ask everyone included in this process, the people who signed up on the mediation list, to please give us your opinion, every opinion counts and is important for determining the final version of what will be posted on the article. I think it is essential to have a bit of organization while we are editing so that we do not deviate from the task at hand. It would be excellent if we could all use the following model for working:

General procedure:

First we will have the "Actual Version" of the paragraph posted. Usually, at the beggining someone will come up with a "Modified Version" or a "New Version" and propose it to everyone. Then people can "Answer" to it and if they disagree and wish to make changes, then they can post a new "Modified Version" or if its really considered necessary, they can propose another "New Version"

"Answering": "agree or disagree -- Here you can post the reason of why you agree or not, please be as brief and clear as you believe appropriate."*

"Modified Version": It must be proposed highlighting in bold the changes made to the paragraph. Then at the bottom of your modified version, please give us a "Reason" of why you decided to made these changes. You can also "Improve" paragraphs which means upgrading the wording and so on, please also tell us briefly why you decided to make this changes.*

"Reason": The Reason of the changes must be justified which means that in some cases, you may have to include the sourced material from verifiable sources reflecting or highlighting the sentences which validate your edit. If you are just improving the paragraph then a brief explanation of how the new wording fits better is enough.*

"New Version:" A new version requires input from all the mediators on both parties in order to be approved, or at least the opinion from all the active ones and it must be at least 3 on each side. We cant lose all the work we have done so far if the new version isnt approved by a significant majority.*

There will also be an independent section on each subsection to be modified which will be called Q and A Where editors, if they feel the "Answers" or the explanations for modifying new paragraphs arent clear, they can make one question to the editor who has proposed the change or who has written the answer and he will most certainly answer to your question. This way we can avoid discussions on the editing section and have it more organized. Lets limit ourselves to making one clear and concise question and if we have more doubts, then lets just wait until the other editor has answered the one we have just made. We dont want to make this section too long as to become more important than the editing process itself. Please consider that the questions you make should be general so that people with the same doubts as you can go there, read them and obtain their answers. If its speciffic but necessary, it wont be ignored either.

Ok then, im opening a Q and A section in here in case anyone has doubts or useful suggestions to upgrade this procedure.--Andres18 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions and Answers

Ask any questions or useful suggestions in here.--Andres18 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An Important keypoint before starting:

I know everyone knows this, but ill say it again because its important to have it written: Lets all try to keep a "civil environment" We all know sometimes things can get frustrating for both sides, but please do not feel frustrated when somebody proposes an edit, its just a proposal, you can voice your opinion and it is guaranteed they will be heard and considered by the other party. Since we are all aiming for neutrality and reaching consensus, your opinion is most likely to be heard if you express it in a "civil" way.

For further reading on Civility please reffer to: [[1]] * --Andres18 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lead Section

Ok then, this is the Lead Section of the article in its present state:

"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 (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation), and Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings. Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since July 20, 1999, when the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) began a suppression of the movement nationwide, except in the special administrative region of Hong Kong. The PRC government claims to have banned the group for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult responsible for the deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners thereby threatening the overall stability of the country.[3] The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to what it believes to be the communist government's intolerance for other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy that he could not control people's hearts and minds demonstrated by the growing success of the movement [4] The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by a number of (mostly western) human rights groups and politicians.[5]

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 PRC government.[6] However according to a statement posted on November 1, 1999 the membership estimated by Beijing was 2.1 million.[7] A main Falun Gong website states a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including 70 million in mainland China.[4]"

Since it has already been divided into 3 paragraphs, lets start with the first one:

"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 (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation), and Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings. Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]

This is the Actual Version.

Im proposing a Modified Version:

"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 (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation), and a set of spiritual teachings.

The changes i made on this paragraph is that i removed the last line and a half from the paragraph. My Explanation for this is that since we are introducing the system at the beggining of the paragraph, i believe the last line seems a bit out of context. Also, the way it is reported "Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]" sounds like a very brief definition of a complicated process that is better understood if debated later on in the criticism summary. It also sounds a little bit unbalanced to go on the intro which should be treated neutrally. It could be mentioned later on at the introduction if necessary, but it seems to me that it was mentioned to soon in the beggining of the article. Lastly, i changed religious for spiritual. Since The introduction should be neutral, Falun Gong states it is not a religion, thus, i think it is not appropriate to use "religious teachings". By the way, Falun Gong claims that the name Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same, in the tape recordings of The 9 Lectures in Guanzhou, Mr. Li says that what he learned at the time, was called Falun xiulian Dafa, (xiulian means cultivation and practice) so he took these things, reorganized them a little, made them more suitable for popularization and he called them "Falun Gong". So Falun Gong or Falun Dafa mean practically the same thing. I hope to hear from you soon.--Andres18 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Andres18, I disagree with your proposal. The term “religious” suits the Falun Gong better. The Falun Gong talks about sin and virtual, hell and heaven, and offering salvation to humankind which are all religious concepts. The last sentence is needed because it summarizes the core beliefs of the group.--Mr.He 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your position, but Falun Gong strictly states that it is not religious and it has nothing to do with religions. The introduction has to be neutral. Im sure you wouldnt agree if i suggested that the title of the "Suppression of Falun Gong" daughter page be changed to "Persecution Of Falun Gong" . The relation is the same, you may think it suits the Falun Gong better, but thats your point of view and it doesnt constitute a neutral and informative way of defining Falun Gong. I could have chosen to put "moral" teachings, but then it would seem as if Falun Gong beliefs are morally appropriate and i know critics dont agree with this view. Taking neutrality into consideration, i decided to use the term "spiritual". The last line does not summarize the core beliefs of the group, it is just one of our beliefs which are considered controversial by the critics. Im sure you already know the core beliefs of Falun Gong, so i will not repeat them. I am also sure you know it would also take more than one line and a half to summarize these core beliefs and its the reason why a "Beliefs and Teachings" page and summary is being proposed for creation.--Andres18 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Li has repeatedly stated that he is providing salvation to all humankind, and, on top of that, he is going to turn you guys into gods. If that is not religious I don’t know what is.

Christinity is summarrized in the following sentence: “Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life, death, resurrection, and teachings as presented in the New Testament.” If Christinity can be summarized in just one sentence I don’t see why the FG core belief needs more. Your argument is not convincing. --Mr.He 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr. He that the last sentence is needed and it does summarize a core belief of Falun Gong:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]

Li talks about the Fa-rectification constantly in his speeches, and the role of Dafa judging all beings and also providing salvation. These most definitely are core concepts and as far as I'm concerned they must appear in the introduction. As to the label of "religion" I am neutral on that. The FG claims it is not a religion because it doesn't have rituals and churches. That of course is not an accurate definition of what a religion is, but at the same time the practitioners are correct in saying that they don't consider it a religion. So if we want to use alternative language, we could substitute "religion" with "soteriological" which means the study of salvation. And Mr. He, your example from the Christianity article should serve as a good model for this article. There's no reason why we can't summarize the FG core teachings on salvation in a similar way.

By the way, the second sentence in the Christianity section is equally important:

Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the awaited Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore they call him the Christ. --Tomananda 08:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Falun Gong core beliefs can be summarised in three words: Zhen, Shan, Ren. The concept of salvation is Falun Dafa is perhaps slightly different than from Christianity. The concept of salvation we are talking about here is the same as cultivation practice and assimilating to Zhen, Shan, Ren through cultivation practice. Cultivation practice is salvation. So there is no problem stating that in the introduction. How about:

"Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, as well as teachings of universal salvation through cultivation practice, according to Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance."

But I kind of think that is a bit clumsy. The core teachings of Falun Dafa are in Zhuan Falun. This is very clear: Zhen-Shan-Ren is the main teaching as stated in the main teachings of Falun Dafa. If it needs to be put into one sentence it should say just that:

"Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance."

If two sentences are to be used, maybe the next could be: "Falun Dafa also teaches universal salvation, and that the process of cultivation practice is one of universal salvation." --Asdfg12345 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is too early to bring up the Fa rectification matter. If you notice, the Fa Rectification is not talked about in Zhuan Falun which is the book that contains all the core teachings of Falun Gong. We can and will mention the Fa rectification, but on the first paragraph and in one and a half line doesnt really seem appropriate to me. Perhaps we could mention it in any of the other two paragraphs of the introduction. The Fa rectification is not a core teaching of Falun Gong, anyone can practice Falun Gong and reach Consummation without having to know about the Fa rectification because it is only mentioned in some complementary writings. I still think spiritual teachings should be used, i dont see what is wrong with it, seems pretty neutral to me. I took a look at the deffinition of Soteriology, but all i see is that it has been applied to all religions, i dont think it would be appropriate because it may imply Falun Gong is a religion. Ill expand myself and tell you why "religious teachings" is not appropriate, just in case anyone is left with a doubt: I m guessing you all understand that when you say something like this:

"...and Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings."

Wikipedia is actually reporting that Falun Gong is a religion. Im sure you all know that Wikipedia is suppossed to be neutral and report facts as a third party and not appear as, in this case, sided with the critics.--Andres18 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Too early to bring up Fa-rectification? You've got to be kidding! Zhuan Falun is about 12 years old. If you're saying we should only rely on what Falun Gong said about itself using material from 12 years ago, that will exclude all of the propaganda about persecution, genocide, etc. in China. The truth is that Fa-rectification and the role of "Fa-rectification Dafa disiciples" in saving all sentient beings is Li Hongzhi's main message in virtually every speech he makes. A sentence which summarizes this core teaching must appear in the introduction. --Tomananda 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't "a system of mind and body cultivation" a happy compromise between religious and spiritual teachings? I also really don't see the need to elaborate on Falun Gong so early on, Asdfg. It's not like there isn't plenty of space after the 'pre-introduction' (pre-into = the section before the numbered ones) to elaborate on what Falun Gong is about. Jsw663 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence I suggested "Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance." is not really an elaboration, is it? I think it is just a definition. In those other sections we can mention the ideas of salvation through cultivation practice, more about cultivation practice, somethings about that Dafa is free and open, etc., and maybe even briefly mention the concept of Fa-rectification. Also too we might mention that people have been critical of certain aspects of the teachings or Falun Gong's response to the genocide, and so on. But I think the sentence I propose is basically just a simple, clear and quick definition of what Falun Gong is about. --Asdfg12345 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 the Falun Dafa does not teach universal salvation. The universal salvation is offered by Li himself! He has made that very clear. Your argument is what prevents the two sides from working together. And it is a waste of time. --Samuel Luo 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

" ...And it is a waste of time " This is the reason why we need an official mediator, nobody cares about the rules. I'll tell you what, i have two suggestions for you: First, you can read the following wikipedia guideline articles on civility [[2]] assuming good faith [[3]] no personal attacks[[4]] or you can end up getting yourself blocked. Im sure you'll go for the first one since we all care about the editing of the article. One last thing, please dont impose your point of view on other people, you may think Falun Dafa does not teach universal salvation, but we think you dont even know what you are talking about, so as long as we both take each other seriously, respect our positions and work towards neutrality, there is no need to create an environment of uncivility and im sure we will advance steadily in the creation of a good wikipedia article.

Anyways, my opinion is we can mention Fa rectification but it doesnt seem appropriate to mention at the first paragraph, because in the first paragraph of the introduction, we are suppossed to tell the reader what Falun Gong is, not what is Fa rectification which is one of the many other beliefs from Falun Gong, im not saying it is not important, or that it shouldnt go in the introduction, but it is not a core belief in Falun Gong. It is not necessary to believe or understand the Fa rectification process, as long as you cultivate through Zhuan Falun, that is considered enough. Zhuan Falun may be 12 years old, but it is the guide book and, since you have all read all of the speeches from Mr. Li, im sure you may have noticed that he constantly tells his students to read Zhuan Falun while any other material is merely complementary of Zhuan Falun and not necessary to read. This is why i suggest that we mention the core beliefs on the first paragraph and then, if youd like, we can mention Fa rectification on any of the other two paragraphs. If any of you believes Asdfg12345 argument prevents neutrality, then just please be as kind as to give us a justifiable reason and we will listen to it. We cant just not mention the core principles of Truth Benevolence Forbearance and just mention Fa rectification which is only mentioned in complimentary writings. Of course, Fa rectification can be mentioned on the 2nd or 3rd paragraph of the introduction, but on the first one we are supposed to summarize the core teachings. If anyone disagrees with my views, could you please tell me why so i can understand your position better and try to negotiate and reach an agreement?--Andres18 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Andres18 What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I am using personal attack? If you don’t know what a personal attack is this message recently left on my talk page can give you an example. [5] Aren’t you ashamed of the meanness of your fellow practitioners?

What you say here about the Falun Gong can all be dismissed as your POV. You do not represent the Falun Gong organization and you certainly do not speak for your master. You guys already have your sentence--Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation), and Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings—in the intro. It is only fair that we get to choose the content of the nest sentence. --Samuel Luo 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to please explain why the sentence I proposed above should not be used. I will tell you why I think you oppose it. I think that it is because you do not want those words, Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance mentioned. That makes Falun Dafa looks like it is teaching people good things. Let me tell you that despite what you think, that is what Falun Dafa does teach, and all the books say so. We're making these pages simply to report that, so unless you can provide some actual reasons, we will use the sentence.--Asdfg12345 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been asking a question that hasnt been answered, so we will ask it again, please explain why you dont agree to Asdfg12345 proposal. Since you get to choose the content of the next sentence, we get to choose the content of this sentence. If there is no justifiable reason for not using Asdfg12345 proposal, we will use it.--Andres18 05:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Samuel just gave you an explanation. By the way please do not highjack these universally respected terms. From what I have seen here, FG members are neither truthful nor compassionate. --Mr.He 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don’t you answer Samuel’s question? Are you ashamed of your fellow practitioners for being so uncompassionate, intolerant and uncivilized? --Mr.He 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What other practitioners do or say is none of my business and is not to be associated with me or the Falun Gong in general. We are here to represent Falun Gong's position on this edit process, if you deny it, then that would be the same as me saying you are not qualified to be a critic. Follow the rules if you really want to participate in this edit process.--Andres18 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance.

This sentence does not work because it treats Falun gong and Falun Dafa as the same thing.--Samuel Luo 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa and Falun Gong are in fact the same thing. The name Falun Gong was used when Mr. Li first introduced the practice as a Qigong sistem and not as a cultivation practice, because at that time, people didnt know what a cultivation sistem was. He clearly states that what he learned at the time was called Falun xiulian Dafa and he said so in the first lines of his first lessons when teaching his law for the first time in each and every part of China where he lectured. Usually, qigong practices were added the "gong" part in order to avoid using the real names which would be condemned during the cultural revolution, so they were called thisgong, thatgong, thus we have Falun Gong. People just got used to using the generic sufix "gong" added to all qigong practices. When Falun Dafa became more popular, more people came to understand it and realized it was based in xiulian, cultivation and practice, and not just a Qigong sistem, so it became more proper to call it Falun Dafa which is its original name. Im just commenting on material which is already on Zhuan Falun.--Andres18 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed, check archived talks. --71.202.116.33 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you know on what archive it has been discussed, then please post the link, if not, then im guessing there is no problem with discussing it again.--Andres18 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If that was the only issue, and it has been cleared up now, I guess we can use the sentence and move on. If it was not, please provide additional reasons. What is the next sentence or to do?--Asdfg12345 12:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) e

Ok, since we need to move on, lets use Asdfg12345 proposal, discuss the last line of the previous version on the section that Tomananda created further down, and continue with the second paragraph here. If anyone has additional doubts about if Falun Dafa and Falun Gong are the same thing, please open a new section and we can discuss it there more organizedly. And please remember, Wikipedia cannot accept Original Research.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since July 20, 1999, when the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) began a suppression of the movement nationwide, except in the special administrative region of Hong Kong. The PRC government claims to have banned the group for what it considers to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult responsible for the deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners thereby threatening the overall stability of the country.[3] The Falun Gong claims it was banned due to what it believes to be the communist government's intolerance for other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy that he could not control people's hearts and minds demonstrated by the growing success of the movement [4] The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation by a number of (mostly western) human rights groups and politicians.[5]

This is the Actual Version.

Could you post the suggestion you and other FGeditors came up with? Lets let the critics take a look at it and tell us what they think.--Andres18 13:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not supposed to post here. This is what I propose, for this part:

The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's atheism, intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the movement and a sense that he could not control the people's thoughts or the Chinese identity.(footnote)

didn't count the words but they are basically the same length. Also, I also want "suppression" changed to "persecution", as it is commonly referred to in the third party reports I have looked at - UN, Amnesty, etc.., and which it obviously meets the definition of. If need be we can drag out the definitions of these words and argue about which one to use, but I do not think that necessary. "persecution" is midway between "suppression" and "genocide", so I opt for it. A way of lengthening the process would have been for me to propose "genocide", then concede to "persecution" in the haggling, but hopefully going to the middle may shortcut it a bit. If there are objections give some good explanations, and if it looks like it will be a process to decide on this word then we should open up another section and not debate it here. Here we should haggle about this paragraph, and we can haggle about which word to use to describe the genocide in another section. Okay, so make a new section if that's gonna be an issue. --Asdfg12345 01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dont worry, in fact we were waiting for you to post the suggestion you and other Falun Gong editors came up with in order to continue. I completely agree to your suggestion, good work, the paragraph seems very well balanced. There is the anti and pro Falun Gong sides and the facts are very well reported. About using the "persecution" term, others may think it has been discussed before, but i believe we never reached a stable conclusion.

Acording to wikipedia, Suppression means: "Distinct aspects of civil oppression, generally censorship, and non-lethal human rights abuses. "

Well now, that doesnt seem pretty neutral to me, Falun Gong practitioners have repeatedly stated that there are indeed happening lethal-human rights abuses, which includes tortures, labor camps, etc, not just a simple censorship. Using the term genocide would be Pro-Falun Gong. So, persecution is the most neutral definition, and has been also used by third party reports. The term Suppression must then be changed to Persecution.--Andres18 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions and Answers: Lead Section.

Ask any questions or useful suggestions regarding the Lead section in here.--Andres18 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of intro

This paragraph was changed without any discussion, I have reverted it. Let's start with the first paragraph above and work its way down to the rest. --Mr.He 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a topic called "Balancing the Intro" which was created by me on November 15 on this talk page. If you scroll upwards, im sure youll find it. There you will notice all the discussions made between both parties in order to edit that paragraph. Even though no definitive version was reached, there was a discussion related to this changes. Lets try not to make any more changes without the approval from both parties, this way the edits we make wont get reverted or modified back again. Lastly, im considering your statement as a suggestion and included it on the Questions and Answers section to make it all more organized. This way, if anyone feels the same way as you, they can check this section and notice a discussion was made regarding this topic.--Andres18 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that discussion now. It is confusing. You are proposing changes to the first paragraph here, but somehow the 2nd paragraph was already changed, let's work on them in the right order. --Mr.He 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's become confusing. I just reverted something a new editor did thinking she had blanked a paragraph, but hadn't..instead she inserted new language. But this begs the question: shouldn't we ask that the main page be frozen or at least restricted to known editors as we progress? Otherwise we will be discussing things here on the talk page while the baseline edits we assume exist might be changed. --Tomananda 08:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets lock the page for a while until we finish each edit process, then we unlock it, add the material, lock it again and continue with the next editing process. Im guessing it seems people arent that willing to follow the rules lately.--Andres18 14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Selected quotes of Li on Fa-rectification & salvation

Mankind! Awaken! The vows of gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings. Further Comments on Superstitions (July 13, 1999) in Essentials for Further Advancement II.

The purpose of spreading Dafa far and wide is to rectify the Fa in the cosmos, and, at the same time, to have Dafa’s disciples in the human world reach Consummation. (June 28, 2000) Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12

Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out.. Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000 in Ann Arbor), p.1.

Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out. (May 13, 2001) Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 28 [6]

The Fa-rectification moves through the world, the grand manifestation of Gods and Buddhas unfolds, and all of the chaotic world’s unrighted wrongs and karmic relationships are settled with benevolent solutions. The ones who do evil against Dafa go down into the gate of no-life. As for all the others, people’s hearts return to righteousness and they cherish virtue and do good, all the myriad things are renewed, and every single sentient being reveres Dafa’s saving grace. Foretelling the Fa’s Rectification of the Human World December 9, 2001 [7]

Dafa (Great Law) has only one master, me, and Dafa Itself doesn’t have any “persons in charge.” You’re just people in charge amidst this Fa-rectification form and counter-persecution form. Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A., December 29, 2001, p. 8.

No matter how the evil persecutes, what awaits Dafa disciples is still Consummation, and what awaits the evil beings is nothing but eternally paying in Hell for all they have done to interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples. Look at Things with Righteous Thoughts Falun Gong Web Site, March 8, 2002.

No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist. The reason I have come here is to save all sentient beings amidst the Fa-rectification at a time when the colossal firmament of the cosmos is disintegrating. Touring North America Teaching the Fa (March, 2002) [8]

This isn’t the real, big cleansing when the Fa starts to rectify the human world. It’ll be even more horrifying when that big cleansing arrives, and it’ll target the entire world. When the vicious people go crazy they don’t fear anything, but, when the calamity really descends on them they’ll be stunned. Wait and see, this is going to be an eventful year. A lot is going to happen. Teaching and Explaining the Fa at the Metropolitan New York Fa Conference (April 20, 2003)

What is a “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciple”? Have you validated the Fa? . . . Why are Dafa disciples clarifying the truth and saving beings? Because that is Dafa disciples’ duty. That is the kind of being that I, Li Hongzhi, want, and a Dafa disciple is that kind of cultivator. Teaching the Fa at the 2004 International Fa Conference in New York (November 21, 2004) [9]

…the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way. Teaching the Fa in Canada (6/10/2006)

Never has there been something as huge as Fa-rectification, nor has there ever been something that forges such a large group of beings and at such a high Attainment Status. Also, the most crucial thing is that no person has ever succeeded in cultivation; those that did succeed were all subordinate souls. Never in history has a human being become a divine being, so [what we're doing] doesn't fit any format of cultivation of the past. (July 22, 2006) Teaching the Fa at the Fa conference at the US Capital

This is a showdown between good and evil in the universe, and it is a showdown between beings who have been impacted during the Fa-rectification process and who are selfish, who do things for the sake of themselves, and who have become deviant, and the Fa-rectification itself. (July 22, 2006) Teaching the Fa at the Fa conference at the US Capital

NOTE: These are representative quotes from Li Hongzhi about fa-rectification and salvation by the Dafa. They are arranged in chronological order. There are countless more quotes of this kind. I hate to clutter up this discussion page with so much content, but for those who are not familiar with Falun Gong teachings "at the higher levels" this assortment will give you a good introduction. --Tomananda 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

May i ask what is the purpose of this post?. Excuse me to say so but how could you conclude all these miscelaneous quotes are representative quotes from Mr. Li? that is your point of view, and they are representative for your own purposes but not for the purposes of neutrality or working towards the article in a neutral way. This assortment of quotes lets many questions unanswered and this personal note of yours implies a negative connotation out of them. This is another reason why we need an official mediator. Why dont we concentrate on editing the first paragraph of the introduction? Or else we will be stuck in the same task forever. Im saying i dont consider this post necessary because every editor who is willing to work on this article should know about these things, if not, then he/she would be considered a neutral editor should seek information by himself so as to form their own opinions and judge things according to his/her own criteria. I wouldnt mind if you posted in here links to the Fa conferences that speak about Fa rectification so that people with some formed knowledge about Falun Gong could inform themselves and generate their own opinion based on the whole document and not on the quotes suggested by a one-sided editor. Maybe we could open up a section for discussion on the importance of the Fa rectification and on which paragraph is it suggested to be mentioned and so on since it seems to be getting a bit controversial. This way we could keep more order in the page because we wouldnt be taking the space for proposing edits to discuss about where it should be placed and i also think that this is what we both want. But posting all these quotes in here serves no purpose for neutrality or what we are trying to do.--Andres18 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to refute the importance of the above teachings, why don't you just say so? Do you disagree with Master Li that there is a Fa-rectification going on now? That the role of Fa-rectification Dafa disciples is to help save all sentient beings during this process of judgment and that those who are not saved by Li and his Dafa will be "weeded out"? If you disagree with any of this material, or feel that it is not an important...in fact, essential...part of the Falun Dafa, then just say so. On the other hand, if you are not prepared to repudiate these teachings..or at least say they are not consequential...then it is clear they must be reported in the introduction. After all, what could be more important than the knowledge that a "great law" is now judging all sentient beings (this includes humans)and that as a result of this judgment, some will be saved (especially the Falun Gong practitioners) and others will be destroyed? --Tomananda 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What i refuse is to agree to your personal point of view about these teachings. If you so want to inform people about the Fa rectification, give them the links for the conferences of Mr. Li and let them judge for themselves, dont try to convince other people of your personal opinion regarding them. Lets just stop this arguing anyways, its not going to take us anywhere productive. If your intention truly is to inform the reader, lets just substitute this thread by the links to the conferences of Mr. Li that talk about Fa rectification.--Andres18 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me! I ask you what your personal view is about these teachings (Do you believe them? Do you believe they are important?) and your response is to attack me for presenting my own personal point of view? Andres, I think we need to approach this material seriously as editors. Sorry, but I just can't take as serious your proposal that we subsitute a clear statement about the Fa-rectification and salvation with links to conferences that Li has given. I stand by my editing judgment: this material is essential for an understanding of Falun Gong and it must be reported in the introduction. --Tomananda 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You want the Fa rectification in the introduction? Ok, we can have it in the introduction, but i dont think it is appropriate to have it on the first paragraph, it just doesnt seem important enough to me. If you felt it was a personal attack, then im sorry if you felt offended, but i did not intend it to be a personal attack towards you. All i am saying is that if you want to inform people about the Fa rectification, let them look at the whole documents by themselves, not at this selection of quotes. By posting these selection of quotes which you consider essential, i believe you may have missed many important views and matters regarding the Fa rectification that could be useful, if not essential material for reporting when speaking about the Fa rectification and specially when having to deal with neutrality. Then i asked myself, why bother posting so many quotes in here when people can just examine the conference documents by themselves and get all the useful information to be judged by their own criteria?. This is the reason why i dont want to consider this material as essential or important when it could be much more useful to just take a look at these conferences and get the whole picture instead of a tiny piece of land. Im not saying we shouldnt use this quotes, all im saying is that its better to post the links if you want to instruct the people about what is the Fa rectification.

By the way, im talking about posting the links in this post, not directly in the article, certainly some of these quotes can and may be used in the editing of the article, but i see no use in posting them here to inform other people about Fa rectification. You should keep this material though so you can suggest it later on. But for informative purposes, its better to just post the links, this way we can keep neutrality. When reading about a dense concept such as Fa rectification, its hard to get a complete picture by reading quotes, i think its much more appropriate to get to read them in their appropriate context.--Andres18 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda I think the Fa-rectification is fairly important at this time, and it should be mentioned in the introduction. We are both saying that. You know, I see what you are saying. It is not like we are saying "No! the high-level Fa must not be reported!", we're not saying that at all. We are saying to you that the core of Falun Dafa is Zhen-Shan-Ren. Of course, the Fa-rectification should also be mentioned, but putting a sentence like you had earlier saying about Dafa is judging all beings and weeding people out etc., that is not at all adequately or fairly representative of Fa-rectification, and even less is it representative of Falun Dafa. What I think is that we should have another paragraph or two to explain Falun Dafa right below the first one in the introduction. One of them should describe briefly the teachings of Falun Dafa - including stuff about cultivation practice: continually reading the books, cultivating xinxing, salvation, and also Fa-rectification should be touched on here. Maybe a sentence to say that there have been controversial teachings, which Falun Gong claims have often been misunderstood, eg. homosexuality, mixed races, attitude towards modern medicine, etc. etc.. The other should describe briefly the manifestation of Falun Dafa in this dimension. I mean that it should describe that people do the exercises in parks in groups, meet to read the books, that it is all free and open to everyone and there is no money involved, activities are held to inform the public about Dafa and the persecution, etc.. That would be two more short paragraphs to quickly explain Falun Dafa in slightly more depth. I am not sure if more information for the introduction has been proposed, but that is how I would propose putting Fa-rectification into the introduction without any problems. So I really do not have a problem with any of that. What I really think though, is that we should just leave this for now, and get back to the step-by-step process, so we can do one thing, tick it off, then do another. For a long time, I think even a period of many months, there has been no meaningful progress or change in the article. I may be wrong. But if we do not change our approach then it will stay that way. --Asdfg12345 05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since you seem to agree the Fa-rectification is important, don't you think we should report what Master Li says about it? Master Li does not say that the Fa-rectification is about people doing exercises in parks or meeting to read books, because the Fa-rectification itself does not do these things. The Dafa does judge people and the Fa-rectification is the process by which people who are judged worthy are returned to their higher levels, while others are weeded out.

These are key concepts and the Master clearly makes these statements. What's at issue here is this sentence:

"Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]"

As you can tell from the quotes provided, Li really does say these things, so unless you can propose a better sentence which reports the same thing, we should keep this sentence as it is. Since the FG practitioners continue to resist this, I would like to hear from some of the other editors. --Tomananda 06:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We should definetly report what Mr Li says about Fa rectification, but why on the first paragraph which is used for talking about the Core beliefs of Falun Gong? There are two more paragraphs where we can talk about the Fa rectification and we may even have the chance to extend ourselves a little bit more and make it even more neutral. I would preffer that the Fa rectification be mentioned in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph but with a more clear and neutral deffinition. To me, quality matters most than where it should be placed, if we have more space on the 2nd or 3rd paragraph and it looks better there, i see no problem with it. Besides, when saying "his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]" This is not a proper way to define Fa Rectification in a neutral way. Because Fa Rectification is not an apocalypse of some sort, and this has also been said countless of times by Mr. Li, so when you present it like that, with no further explanation, it implies that the Fa rectification is the end of days. Why dont we use the second or third paragraph and make some good space for talking about the Fa rectification? Its not an easy term to define and it may take us more than one line, specially if we are considering neutrality.--Andres18 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fa-rectification and salvation offered by Li and his Dafa are most certainly core teachings in the Falun Gong, how can you possibly say otherwise? It's funny how you have now introduced a term..."apocalypse"...which I haven't even mentioned. As with so many of our debates, you put up a straw dog involving a label (eg: is the Falun Gong "political" by virtue of seeking to destroy the Chines govenment?) which is not even needed for the core meaning. In this particular case, I have proposed extremely "neutral" language which comes directly from Li himself. It is simple, direct and does not rely on any outsider characterizations of the teachings, such as the use of the term "apocalpyse."

You say "Fa-rectification" is not an easy term "to define"...but what you are missing here is that in an introduction for an article, one simply summarizes the key concepts, with the understanding that the detailed defintions will be provided later on in the article...or perhaps even in a daughter page. Let me offer an "introduction" example from another Wikipedia article, Christianity, in which key terms are introduced without attempting to define them:

"Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth and his life, death, resurrection, and teachings as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament."

You'll notice that the terms "resurrection," "Son of God," and "Messiah" are not defined in the introduction, they are simply mentioned. So when it comes to Falun Gong, what could be more direct and simple than this statment:

"Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]"

Frankly, I think the burden should be on you to present an argument as to why that summary should not be used. If you think it does not accurately reflect Li's teachings, please explain why.--Tomananda 20:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fa-rectification should not be used to define what Falun Dafa is, as you are suggesting
Fa-rectification is not only what you have written there - the definition needs to be expanded to make it fair. plus, the issue of salvation is the issue of cultivation practice, and Fa-rectification is a term that encompasses more than just what manifests here.
here is a proposal, and it is only intermediary, and the main purpose of it is quickly to show how Fa-rectification may be more accurately spoken of, though it is not limited to this: "Fa-rectification refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process the attitudes all beings of the old cosmos have towards Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction."

This sentence is only to show a definition that includes more aspects. It is only really to show that actual Fa-rectification should be said alongside judgment etc.. But I think we should work on these things step-by-step. If we jump around we won't get anywhere. I proposed the use of two more paragraphs below the first one, can you tell me what you think? scroll up, it is in my previous post. We could have those two paragraphs, which includes the information about how many people are practicing, then the final paragraph about the persecution. That would make the introduction 4 paragraphs. --Asdfg12345 12:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, ill explain why it does not accurately reflect Li's Teachings: The Dafa is judging all sentient beings, but, what is this Dafa that is judging? The Dafa that judges all sentient beings is the Core principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, the characteristic of the Universe. Naturally, those who are against it, are not good people and those who assimilate to it, are good people. That is what Mr. Li talks about when he says the Dafa is judging all sentient beings and that the attitude of the people towards the Dafa defines their future. We cant expect people to know this, so if we use "His Dafa is judging all sentient beings" it might look as if Falun Dafa is judging all sentient beings. Falun Dafa is merely a cultivation system based on assimilating to this Dafa, to these principles, it is not the characteristic of the universe itself. There is also something which i consider a confusion, the Fa rectification process is a process of Rectifying, not judging, the judgement is established by the caracteristic of the Universe, Truthfulness Benevolence Forbearance. While the Fa rectification is a manifestation of the characteristic of the universe which happens in order to rectify all the levels of the Fa that have deviated from this characteristic. This is the reason why i cannot agree to this sentence:

"Li claims to provide salvation for mankind[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.[2]"

And i propose the following:

"Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfullness Benevolence Forbearance, is the criteria for judging all sentient beings. He claims that the Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind."

I believe that Fa rectification must be mentioned in the introduction, but let it have its own space, if you try to explain it in one line, its not going to work, really. Because introducing so many dense concepts and explaining them so shortly can create confusion for the reader. Falun Dafa has many concepts and definitions that people dont usually hear every day, if we dont do our best to explain them properly, people will get confused. I see you cited Jesus christ's wiki page, but Messiah, resurrection, son of god, etc is usually common knowledge. Fa rectification, the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the Dafa, etc is not common knowledge, if we present it without some background explanation, i think it could very easily generate misunderstandings.

Personally, i believe it also generates misunderstanding to have posted all of the quotes that you have in this section. If you take them out of their context, which is meant for people who already have some certain knowledge about Falun Dafa, when you post them for people to inform themselves about what Fa rectification is, they wont understand them. Its like when you are going to study, if i give you a university class and you are not even at the level of elementary school knowledge, obviously you wont understand anything. There are concepts like Dafa, what is rectification, what is this judgement about, how are people judged meaning: according to what principles?, also who is morally corrupted and degenerated in order to be weeded out and who is not, what are the dregs of humanity, how will the degenerated beings be weeded out, what does "The Fa rectification moves through the world" mean, How come Mr. Li states that it is his Dafa, what does validating the Fa mean, what selfish beings is Mr. Li talking about, etc. People dont know these things. You already have a notion formed in your mind about what you think it might be, but that doesnt mean other people who will also read it may have the same notions or thoughts as you do. Whats so bad about posting the links to the conferences or other books that talk about Falun Gong?. If you want people to inform themselves about what is Fa rectification, there are some other basic concepts that they must know. Since whatever i as a Falun Gong practitioner say or whatever you as a critic say carries our thoughts along with it, instead of us trying to instruct them about what is Fa rectification, lets just give them the material so they can read and form their own criteria. You came to adopt a critical position by reading Mr. Li's material, i decided to practice when i read this material. Other people should be able to decide what position they want to adopt by reading the materials, without any external influence from neither the Falun Gong, nor the Critics. If you think adding the links to the books of falun gong is an advertisement, then i think that posting all of these quotes without providing appropriate background information is defaming Falun Gong, thats how serious it is.--Andres18 14:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My God! I was all set to congratulate you guys for (finally) acknowledging that Fa-rectrification and salvation/judgment by the Dafa are core concepts that belong in the introduction, but then you have to finish with a personal accusation. Oh Lord, how can I possibly "defame the Falung Gong" by directly quoting from your Master? Using legalistic words like "defame" reminds me once again of the bullying tactics the Falun Gong used against its critics in China before it was finally banned. If the Dafa really is the great law of the universe, how can I or any other human possibly "defame" it? And if the Dafa is going to judge my moral worthiness based on the principles of Truthfullness Benevolence Forbearance, how can anyone take seriously your accusation that I can damage the Dafa by judging it, defaming it, or thinking it is not good.

Well guess what, I think of the Dafa as a destructive tool used by Li Hongzhi to manipulate idealistic people into doing his bidding. It is all based on his self-proclaimed authority. Since the Dafa is his, he himself cannot be judged by the Dafa, right? Therefore we can never criticize Li Hongzhi or point out the self-contradictions and harmful aspects in his teachings. While the Dafa judges all sentient beings based on criteria established by Li Hongzhi, those beings themselves are not permitted to question the motives of Li Hongzhi who claims total authority for the Dafa. In cultic studies, they call this way of thinking a closed system of logic. [10] Once you have internalized a closed system of logic, your brain will not permit any challenges based on logic or outside evidence. The Truth is what Li Hongzhi says it is, but one dare not quote him directly in a way which violates our self-conception of ourselves, because if you do you are guilty of defamation. --Tomananda 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont take it as a personal accussation, im merely making a point. I also repeatedly stated that i agreed to have Fa rectification in the introduction but not on the first paragraph because it is not a core teaching of Falun Dafa, keep that in mind please. Once again, wikipedia is not for reporting your personal views on Falun Gong, lets just leave it at that, you can have your quotes in there if you want, i dont want to spend any more time arguing with you and deviating from the editing process. I proposed a change for editing in my previous post why dont you answer to my proposal? tell me what you think, and lets just move forward.--Andres18 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Andres, I wish you wouldn't dismiss my editing based on a vague accusation that I am reporting my personal views on Falun Gong. One of Wikipedia's policies is that we should "assume good faith" in the editing process. Ironically, virtually everything I have proposed for reporting on the Fa-rectification and salvation has come directly from Li Hongzhi quotes, while your assertions seem to come from nowhere. You have stated that Li's teaching about Fa-rectification is not a "core concept" of the Falun Gong. While I do not want to accuse you of pushing your POV in this discussion, I must ask on what basis do you make that claim.

In a prior discusion on this issue, another FG editor argued that the Fa-rectification was only necessary because of the alleged persecution of practitioners in China. If that were true, his argument went, we could consider the entire Fa-rectifciation to be a cosmic adjustment brought about by the evil actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Yet as I am sure you know, Li Hongzhi taught about the Fa-rectification long before the Chinese goverment banned his group in 1999. In fact the term itself appeared as early as January 2, 1995 in a speech he gave to Falun Dafa assitants in Beijing. [11] And in 1997, Li explicitly made reference to the Fa rectifing the cosmos:

What I’ve been imparting are the principles of the entire cosmos. I am teaching something that huge. All of them want to obtain this Fa as well. Since the new cosmos has already been formed, and the Fa is rectifying the cosmos, one can return up there only by assimilating to the Fa of the cosmos. This is what Buddha Sakyamuni systematically arranged for his disciples long ago—he knew about this day. Teaching the Fa in New York City (March 23, 1997)

This quote is particularly interesting because Li says "the new comsos has already been formed," whereas in his later teachings he seems to say that the formation of the new cosmos is a work in process. In any case, you surely must admit that this concept of Fa-rectification goes back to a period of time when Li was still freely teaching the Falun Gong in China.

As to whether the Fa-rectification is worthy of being considered a "core concept" of the Falun Gong, I offer again the following quote from Li made on June 28, 2000:

The purpose of spreading Dafa far and wide is to rectify the Fa in the cosmos, and, at the same time, to have Dafa’s disciples in the human world reach Consummation. (June 28, 2000) Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 12

In this quote, Li clearly associates the spreading of Dafa with the Fa-rectification. Frankly, I find Li's words compelling for the case that Fa-rectification is a core concept of the Falun Gong, one which therefore deserves mention in the first paragraph of the introduction.

Yes, I know you have proposed some revised language above and I take your editing seriously. Please give me a little time to respond to your proposal (I hope to suggest compromise language that meets both our goals), but in the mean time I ask that you re-consider your position about not having the Fa-rectification mentioned in the first paragraph. Of course, it may turn out that after we formulate language that is acceptable to both sides, the length of that edit may demand it's own paragraph, in which case I strongly suggest that we make it the second one. --Tomananda 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok Tomananda, I agree to your suggestion of including the Fa rectification on the lead section. Please dont misunderstand me I was not dismissing your editing at all, i also respect you as an editor. I stated that wikipedia is not for reporting your own personal point of view just because you said things like this:

" Well guess what, I think of the Dafa as a destructive tool used by Li Hongzhi to manipulate idealistic people into doing his bidding. It is all based on his self-proclaimed authority...." and some other things.

Im sure these arent editing proposals, so thats why i said what i said. If you feel any of my assertions come from nowhere, then please let me know which of them you think that look that way and ill provide you with the appropriate quotes that will back them up.

In order to have more organization, i created a new subsection at the "Lead section" thread. It holds the edit proposals that Falun Gong practitioners have made so far. We would all appreciate it if you could give us your opinion on them.--Andres18 00:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Second Paragraph on Fa-rectification and Salvation by the Dafa

Using some of Asdfg's suggested language, and relying exlusively on quotes from Li himself, I am proposing the following to appear as the second paragraph in the introduction:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind^[1] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.^[2] In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” ^[3] In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.” ^[4]

I'm asking all the editors to comment on this new paragraph and make suggestions for changes.--Tomananda 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a new paragraph right?. Ok, give me a day or so and ill answer to your proposal.--Andres18 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question: Where does the above paragraph fit into the one in "Balancing the Intro" (last proposal by Asdfg)?? Jsw663 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, im not really sure because i think the above paragraph is an idea that Tomananda is proposing, and its an additional paragraph. When we discuss and modify it properly, we'll see if it fits. Asdfg came up with some modifications for the paragraph that Tomananda suggested and all the practitioners editors have agreed to it and added a few things. Im waiting for him to post it here.--Andres18 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Note that next time Andres, you can post or modify anything I propose without notifying me. I will make some very short points at the end to explain something:

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

My understanding quickly:

Fa-rectification is that the old cosmos has reached the final stage, of destruction. It would disintegrate without a trace left, and all beings would perish. The new comos would become. Li Hongzhi has, at this final moment, come to save all beings in this cosmos so they can enter the new comos and not perish.
Li Hongzhi has stated continually that the fundamental basis for his coming is mercy
Those who oppose Dafa have destroyed themselves, ignorantly or knowingly, because they are opposing this greatest compassion and mercy that has ever existed; they have opposed their own futures
Li Hongzhi is not arbitrarily selecting those who are "good enough" or "worthy", to be saved. Continually, he has stated that sentient beings decide for themselves how they want to be positioned, I do not think Li Hongzhi himself has too much to do with that

I read Li Hongzhi's books a lot. As I see it, what I said just then is all based on the things in the books. That in my understanding is the basic situation of Fa-rectification. Tomananda, your version does not reflect that. It even introduces new concepts which are a little tangential to the essential issue, such as the old forces and the evil specters. Those things don't need to appear in the introduction as ways to explain Fa-rectification. Plus, it does not address what Fa-rectification is , just that it is some kind of judgement. If there is more I need to say, I can. I feel that I have explained it adequately. Tomananda, perhaps your hatred towards Falun Dafa clouds your editing at times. If there are complaints about the length of this paragraph there are a few things that can be shortened without compromising the key ideas. --Asdfg12345 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Asdfg: I've already proposed a paragraph which is shorter than what you have written above and more to the point. My paragraph relies totally on direct or indirect quotes from Li (so we know it it accurate) whereas your bullet items sound more like a POV statement coming from someone who wants to sugar-coat the essential teaching on Fa-rectification. BTW, Li himself has talked about a being who is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos" so that's why I used the word "worthy" in my paraghraph. Here's the complete Li quote:

Why is it that a being needs to be saved by Dafa and me personally? Or to put it plainly [think about it] what kind of being is worthy of salvation by the Great Law of the cosmos? For a being who is saved, could it just be about personal Consumation? So what kind of being deserves to be a Disciple of Dafa? Would you say those people who hide in their homes and “study the Fa” do? Or those who only want to gain from Dafa but don’t want to give to Dafa? Furthermore, what about those who, while Dafa disciples are being persecuted, don’t want to speak up for Dafa yet still “read the book” at home and try t get things from Dafa—what kind of people are they? You be the judge. from: “My Version of a ‘Stick Wake-up’” (October 11, 2004) http://faluncanada.net/library/english/jw/jw041011_e.html

I'm sorry, Asdfg, but I really think my version is much more accurate and meaninful. We already entertained the idea of having a separate paragraph or even two in the introduction on salvation and Fa-rectification, so I ask that you honor my work as a editor and try to build on it, rather than just jotting down in your own words what your understandings are. Thanks. --Tomananda 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lets not be too quick to judge, since the introduction is neutral, the final version will contain ideas from both Falun Dafa editors and critic editors, so even though you may consider your version is more meaningful, we absolutely cannot neglect Asdfg12345 version, because this version he posted was agreed by all of the practitioner editors working on this process. Being so, this is not his personal point of view on Fa rectification, but it is what the Falun Dafa editors have proposed. Your paragraph may rely directly on personal quotes made by Li Hongzhi, but that doesnt mean you are reflecting his teachings accurately. If we want to report the teachings neutraly, we should also consider the Falun Dafa editors proposition as useful and use it to work on something neutral. If we have come up with this paragraph basing ourselves on quotes from Mr. Li while not using them directly as you have, it is still absolutely valid, and we can provide you with all the appropriate quotes in case you have any doubts about it. Also, since you have asked me before to do this, then i would like to ask you to do it also, please assume good faith, assume the editors working on this proyect are not trying to damage it but to contribute to it, nobody is sugar coating the teachings of Mr. Li Hongzhi, this is our reflection of Mr Li Hongzhi's teachings regarding Fa rectification, and it is what practitioners believe about the Fa rectification. If you dont take our ideas into consideration, then we might just end up reporting one side of the coin.

For example:

The quote you posted above is about Mr. Li calling the Falun Dafa practitioners to spread the Fa and clarify the truth, to let everyone know that we are good people and that we are not hurting anyone. If you only care about your personal cultivation and your own goal of reaching consummation and you do not care about claifying to anyone that what you are doing is something truly good, that you are making an effort to be a better person every day, that you have achieved excelent health conditions and benefits due to cultivation, and that it could benefit all of society if we were all good people who follow principles like Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, then you are being a selfish person, because there are many more people who could also practice Falun Dafa and be benefited just like you. You are fearful of what people may think about you and you are not defending this Dafa that is so good and that has given you so many good things. It is like someone who gives you so many great things and the moment people start talking bad about him, you just stay quiet for fear of what they might say instead of going, talking to them and telling them this person is very good. To be worthy of salvation is simply to be a good person, when you are a good person, wether you practice falun dafa or not, you are already in tune with the characteristic of the universe and you are already worthy of salvation, but you cannot judge yourself with the decayed moral standard of nowadays. The dregs of humanity and the evil and bad people are the ones who hurt others, murder, steal, kill, etc and worse than anything, torture Falun Dafa practitioners, because they are those who torture people who are just trying to be good. What i just said is according to what practicing Falun Dafa has brought for me, all the benefits it has given me and how good it has been for me to practice it. It is my personal experience in this practice and couldnt be expressed more accurately by anyone else who isnt me.

What i just wrote above is my understanding about the quote from Mr. Li that you just posted, and i think if you ask any practitioner about it, he might say something similar to it, but in his own words and understanding. My purpose for posting my understanding on that quote is to have you understand this: im sure your understanding of a quote as a critic is completely different from mine as a practitioner, as you may have noticed while reading my understanding, it is so different that it cannot be described by words. Who is then reporting accurately what Mr. Li Hongzhi has said on this quote you posted?. Who is reporting things more meaningfully and to the point?. Would you say it is something based on your understanding or mine above?. This is why neutrality is needed, we are both looking at the same quote but we both have completely different understandings, they must both be reflected without neglecting the other. Asdfg12345 paragraph will also be included further down so we can all discuss about it.--Andres18 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, may be worth noting, I think every sentence there is basically a direct paraphrase of what Li Hongzhi has said. I can find the relevant words pretty quickly if necessary, so a small digit appears at the top of each sentence to show the source. I am not sure if I need to do that in any case. The quote needs to be sourced, that is from Washington 2003. Can add in the correct referencing format etc. when we finalise things, just now it is to come up with something.--Asdfg12345 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did anyone else find Asdfg's quote "Note that next time Andres, you can post or modify anything I propose without notifying me." a little disturbing? Jsw663 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

hah, don't worry about it. it's just that we might communicate in email and propose different ideas and sentences, and I'm just telling him I don't have any personal feelings about it if I can't get to a computer and he posts the sentence or idea instead of me. Nothing major!--Asdfg12345 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, ill do as you say when necessary. Anyways, does anyone have any opinions on this paragraph?--Andres18 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Im also moving down here the proposals we made so editors will notice them and tell us their opinion.--Andres18 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fa-rectification is that about the old cosmos disentegrating and Li Hongzhi rectifying it to save all beings and have them enter the new cosmos. The things about weeding out come about after this, since those are things that take place during the process of the Fa-rectification, for those who can longer be saved. Tomananda, the quote you put above is directed toward the situation of Dafa disciples and about who is worthy of being a Dafa disciple; I would say it is referring to consummation and salvation for Dafa disciples - not about the general situation for those who will be saved but who do not practice cultivation. The word "salvation" has been used in different senses. Li Hongzhi has also stated that if you read the Fa with pursuit or attachments you will never understand it and you will get nothing from it. You have a deep hatred towards Falun Dafa. What you quoted is not really related to the issue we are trying to address, which is "What is Fa-rectification" - we are trying to find a definition of Fa-rectification. See above post for what I have written on the matter and what Li Hongzhi has said. It will be difficult to discuss the issues meaningfully if you do not respond to the things I wrote based on the words of Li Hongzhi in their proper context. In the end, you can look through the works of Li Hongzhi, and you will find that when the question of "What is Fa-rectification" is addressed, it is basically what I wrote above - salvation, renewal, RECTIFICATION of the old cosmos, etc., PLUS that people are going to be weeded out because of what they have done against this process - so it is a bit like we are standing in broad daylight and you telling me that there is no sun in the sky. Maybe your hatred blinds you. If we can just actually describe these things in an objective way based on what Li Hongzhi has said, it will be fine. I think one of the issues is that the things that Li Hongzhi says actually are good things, he is talking about salvation of all sentient beings, Zhen-Shan-Ren, making everything wonderful, and so on. You do not want to acknowledge that, and you only want to report the things he has said about those who disrupt that process - who have destroyed themselves and who now face horror. Actually, in the end, the truth will be reported. You told me in the last email you sent to me that it is fine for me to believe these things, but that I have no right to prevent people from criticising it. I told you that I had no such intention. It is the same for you. You have all the right to think whatever you like about Dafa, but you do not have any right to misrepresent and obscure the teachings!--Asdfg12345 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the Lead Section

Im posting the edit proposals that have been made so far so that we can work more organizedly:

Proposal for the 1st paragraph:

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 (whose surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, refers to five sets of meditation exercises, and spiritual teachings based on Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance. Mr. Li says that what he calls the cosmic characteristic of the universe, the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, is the criteria for judging all sentient beings. He claims that the Falun Dafa cultivation system is one of the means to provide salvation for mankind. "

Tell us if you agree or not to this paragraph in here or if you would like to modify anything.--Andres18 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I and other editors proposed a separate paragraph on this, which I've recopied here for us to work on. --Tomananda 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for the 2nd paragraph

Proposal from the critics editors

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind^[5] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.^[6] In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” ^[7] In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.” ^[8]

Proposal from Falun Dafa editors

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

Ill be comparing both paragraphs in order to propose modifications so we can reach consensus. I'll answer in a day or so. If you want references from direct quotes made by Mr. Li Hongzhi, give us a little time and we will find all of them.--Andres18 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Andres: Your proposed paragraph is longer and, with the exception of the reference to "Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance," actually says less. The first sentence of the so-called critics paragraph is really more accurate, because it reports that Li claims to provide salvation personally as he himself has stated. Your version makes it sound like beings are being saved by the teachings, rather than Li himself. Also, your version leaves out the idea that the Dafa is judging all beings. By not stating that explicitly, your language obscures the key point that Fa-rectification is about judgment. One more problem in your version: your reference that "all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos" is only part of the story.

Yes, Li has clearly stated that those who do not think the Dafa is good "will be the first weeded out" in the Fa-rectification, but he has also explicitly revealed other categories of beings who will be weeded out. In the so-called critics paragraph, that fact is made clear by using two quotes from Li which are approximately 5 years apart. When he began teaching about Fa-rectification (before the ban in 1999) he only talked about general moral factors of beings who have "degenerated" from their higher selves (like homosexuals.) Not until years later did Li directly link salvation with the requirment that all beings must agree that the CCP and all those who support the CCP represent absolute evil and that the Fa-recfitication itself is a great cosmic battle between the forces of absolute evil (the CCP) and the forces of good (Li and his Dafa). Thus the idea of Fa-rectification has evolved over time (because of historical events in China) and your version does not reflect that.

Your paragraph fails to make the crucial link between between Fa-rectification in general and what Li demands of his "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples" at this time, which is to direct all their energies and "righteous thoughts" toward the destruction of the "evil and wicked" Chinese Communist Party. It's ironic that it takes a non-practitioner like me to point out the most critical aspect of Li's current teaching by showing how Li unequivocally associates the destruction of the CCP with Fa-rectification and the salvation of all sentient beings. I am delighted that after many, many months we are finally talking seriously about these core teachings, but I feel that more must be reported to give a complete and accurate picture. Thanks for your anticipated willingness to work together to remedy these deficiences in the Introduction section --Tomananda 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean Tomananda, but there are some misunderstandings in your paragraph which i would like to clear up for you. Let me tell you, for example:

We truly believe that the teachings, this law, this Dafa are the ones who will bring salvation to ourselves. Mr. Li is bringing us these teachings, so it is a logical deduction that he is providing salvation throughout these teachings. There is just one very point that is missing, when you want to reflect that Mr. Li offers salvation by "himself personally" it looks as if he was actually going to save all Falun Dafa practitioners, so if he were to save us all, where is the issue of cultivation? why practice and cultivate if he is going to save us all?. As practitioners, we play the most important role in the path to our own salvation. Mr. Li does plant mecanisms, cleans the body of his students and does many wonderful things for them, but if your state of mind is not appropriate, then he cannot do anything for you. That is because of this Dafa, Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, called the characteristic of the universe, if you yourself do not change, it restricts you, so this is why the most important thing, that which provides salvation for practitioners, is this Dafa, these principles of higher levels, so if you follow them correctly and assimilate to Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance, then you will be saved. If you do not follow these principles in your cultivation, you will be deviating from this characteristic, and you cannot reach consummation or be saved because you do not meet the standard for it.

This is the reason why we cannot emphasize that Li is providing salvation personally and ignore the most important part which are the teachings, they are the most fundamental part of Falun Dafa and they are the ones who will bring salvation to us.

Another point is:

"The Dafa judges all sentient beings" refers to this characteristic of the universe, Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance. Someone who assimilates to these principles is a good person, someone who doesn’t, is simply not a good person. The issue of whether you have more de (virtue) or more ye (karma) is the way the characteristic of the universe judges all sentient beings. If you have a lot of virtue, you are a good person, if you have a lot of karma, you are a bad person, it’s that simple. If you want to cultivate, you must meet the standard required by this characteristic in order to elevate yourself, that’s what the judgment is about. The Fa rectification process is not a judgment process, it is simply a process of rectifying what is considered evil, or what has been considered as evil because it opposes this Dafa. The Fa rectification process is not a judgment process, its just a process of rectifying, only bad people will be punished, if you are a good person, whether you practice Falun Dafa or not, then what awaits you is a great future. Mr. Li talks about one of the principles of this universe which is formation-stasis-degeneration. We are said to be at the last stage, the one of degeneration, so the Fa rectification is happening to prevent this degeneration and renew all things into a new cosmos which will not contain such principle and be much better than the present one.

Practitioners lined up with the CCP obviously cannot be considered true practitioners unless the quit the CCP and state it publicly. Think about it, how can you be a practitioner and at the same time publicly support an organization that has tortured and killed so many of your fellow practitioners? Not only that, but as a practitioner, where is your heart of compassion? How can you support people who torture and kill other people who are just trying to be good? Then you should show the world that you as a practitioner are not afraid of these bad people and that you, as a person, have some dignity and that you do not support those who torture good people.

Falun Dafa has no enemies, and it is not against the CCP, as you know, on July of 1996, the same month when the persecution began, some days later Mr. Li wrote a declaration addressing the persecution that was taking place, he said:

"..Falun Gong is simply a popular Qigong activity, it does not respond to any organization in particular, and even less to a political motive... We have never been involved in anti-government activities, we are not against the government now and we will not be against it in the future. They may mistreat us, but we do not mistreat anybody or treat anyone as our enemies."

The "Evil" forces is not the CCP, its those who are controlling the people of the CCP, as Mr. Li has said in Zhuan Falun, the body and the mind of a human being are like a hat and a suit, they become in anyone who wears them. What Mr. Li refers to as the "Evil" Forces are simply higher beings of the old cosmos that have degenerated and are causing interference against this Fa Rectification process. Of course, the CCP is letting itself being led by these forces, so in consequence they are indeed evil and wicked. In fact, they were all predestined to be there. Anyone who tortures and kills people who just want to be good and follow the principles of Truthfulness-Benevolence-Forbearance is truly evil, that is undeniable.

There are several aspects that the critics paragraph, and I call it critics paragraph because it was made by the critics, reflects which do not appropriately define the Fa rectification and other important concepts of Falun Dafa teachings, in fact, it generates many misunderstandings because not everyone has a background knowledge about what is Falun Dafa. If we are going to define something, I suggest we be as clear as possible. The reason why conferences and other documents should not be read before Falun Gong or Zhuan Falun is because there are many concepts and definitions that could confuse the reader if he does not know about them. If you start an advanced math class without knowing how to add numbers or multiply them, you won’t understand anything.

Mr. Li has said that our duty as Falun Dafa practitioners in the Fa rectification period is to do the "three things" well. These are: Cultivating and practicing, clarifying the truth, and sending righteous thoughts. As you may know, the first time Mr. Li introduced the sending of righteous thoughts, he did not point out that they should be directed at the CCP in any way. The purpose of sending the righteous thoughts is not to "eliminate" the CCP but the evil beings and negative elements trying to interfere with the Fa rectification. This includes anywhere and any place, they are now being concentrated in eliminating the negative elements and evil beings who control human beings into persecuting Falun Dafa practitioners in mainland China, but that’s it, they are not meant to hurt any human being, in fact, they are meant to help them and to stop those negative elements which control them and lead them into doing this terrible things. I can give you the link to the conference where Mr. Li first introduced the sending of righteous thoughts in case you want to read it yourself.

I’m also thankful for your willingness in working on this proyect Tomananda. If the length of our paragraph worries you, we can shorten it up, or change some things, but we cannot reflect these misunderstandings of your paragraph in the final paragraph, the teachings should be reported properly. I also would like to make one point very clear, I’ve heard the critics say many times that we are "hiding" or "obscuring" the teachings of Falun Dafa. If I had to hide or obscure any of my understandings on the Falun Dafa teachings, I wouldn’t practice Falun Dafa, and "hiding" them is already not following "Truthfulness" so that is against our own philosophy as practitioners. So I don’t want to hear again anyone saying that we are obscuring or hiding our teachings, as practitioner editors we are explaining our views and clearing up misunderstandings in order to do a good job reporting the teachings of Falun Dafa. There are many criticisms being made against Falun Dafa because people have greatly misunderstood some of the teachings, I believe that one of our duties as Falun Dafa editors is to clear up these misunderstandings so that all of us editors can work together in order to provide a truly accurate definition of these terms. I'll come up with something in the following days, its been very busy lately so i havent been able to work in here too often.--Andres18 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything's subject to interpretation, Andres18. I'm on this project to ensure a bias will not exist. You can talk about "truly accurate definitions" of FG that you claim are misrepresented by critics, then you seek to distort any alternative opinion, including amending non-FG views about FG. To view FG practitioners as the guardians and only possible 'true' interpretants of its teachings reminds one of what happened to even major religions like Christianity. Many people think they have the "true" interpretation yet unless Li Hongzhi's quotes are directly quoted and in sufficient context, they probably aren't exactly the same. This is why it is ridiculous when you claim that Tomananda, by quoting Li Hongzhi before directly, was somehow 'misrepresenting' Li's views. We should all work to a compromise by leaving out the emotion talk (e.g. "I believe that one of our duties as F DF editors...") that is clearly playing on people's or ex-believers' sympathies, tantamount to propaganda really, and present the hard, cold evidence as it is, and let the reader decide. May I remind you that we are supposed to be Wikipedian editors first and foremost - encyclopedic ones - not opinionated ones defending any cause, be it political, spiritual, religious, etc. Some of your contributions have been valuable but since Asdfg's "scolding" you seem to have lost your capacity for moderate / relatively more independent opinion and instead are 'falling in line' with the more hardcore pro-FG factions on this board.

To sum up my paragraph: Less empty talk, more concrete action. I read the many FG teachings on this board with interest, but this is to remind you to stick to editing the article rather than veering off once again into empty emotion appeal. Jsw663 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then, ill try to come up with something neutral. In the mean time, do you have any suggestions?.--Andres18 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for the 3rd paragraph:

The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)

Tell us if you agree or not to this paragraph in here or if you would like to modify anything.--Andres18 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a slight edit to the PRC view, near the end. The paragraph should now look like -

The PRC government banned the Falun Gong for what it claimed to be illegal and seditious activities, calling the Falun Gong an evil cult which is responsible for causing deaths and morally corrupting its practitioners, thereby threatening the overall harmony of Chinese society and social stability of the country (footnote). Falun Gong claims that these accusations are lies and that the persecution is due to the CCP's official atheist nature, its intolerance of other beliefs, as well as Jiang's personal jealousy over the growing success of the discipline and a sense that he could not control the people's hearts and minds.(footnote)

Let me know what you all think, especially if there's any opposition to it. Jsw663 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your change tends to balance things towards the critical side a bit more, why not leave it as it is?. I think "social stability" is enough. The purpose of the article is to talk a bit about the situation from both sides, with this addition it just seems more of an enumeration of the CCP's accussations against Falun Dafa instead of a neutral report of the situation. I'm sorry but i dont agree to your modification, thanks for the input though.--Andres18 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the previous edit had favoured the Falun Gong view in length and I was trying to redress that. Note that I have not even passed a comment on the pro-FG view precisely because you wouldn't want people who you perceive as unchangeable skeptics / critics to 'distort' or 'reinterpret' your view. Now from what I read above your only objection is that it doesn't give FG the slight original advantage it once had what I'm proposing is to ensure that the viewpoints are evently represented. This is why I can't agree to a groundless objection but thanks for showing your views as having taken a savage lurch to the more extreme views of the pro-FG camp since Asdfg's "warning" earlier. Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never warned you. If it is supposed to be representing the CCP find where the CCP uses that word. It is fine if we just report things. It would be easy to add in certain emotive words to embellish and enhance each position, and we might even end up with a piece of lovely poetry, but I think since it is meant to be an encyclopedia we're better off keeping it neutral. What is happening is a Genocide, so of course it is not going to sound so good for the people who are slaughtering innocents, is it? That's just how it is. It's a lot harder for the women who have their vagina's smashed in with electric battons than it is for you.--Asdfg12345 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, we have requested the change of the term Suppression for Persecution. Our reason for this change is the following:

Acording to wikipedia, Suppression means: "Distinct aspects of civil oppression, generally censorship, and non-lethal human rights abuses. "

This is not a neutral way to define the persecution. Falun Gong practitioners have repeatedly stated that there are indeed happening lethal-human rights abuses, which includes tortures, labor camps, etc, not just a simple censorship. Using the term genocide would be Pro-Falun Gong. So, persecution is the most neutral definition, and has been also used by third party reports. The term Suppression must then be changed to Persecution.--Andres18 03:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On this paragraph, the CCP (after researching a bit into it) has never ever stated that it killed, murdered or raped any FG practitioners, nor did it say it was responsible for anything like that, not even organ harvesting. The CCP in fact has issued many denials to this effect. Since this is a controversial issue, I strongly oppose presenting just one side's views or allegations as represented by the word 'persecution'. Suppression would be denied by the CCP as well, but it is a compromise - maybe slightly biased in the favor of FG - between the extremes of not having done anything at all against FGers versus total persecution of FG practitioners. Jsw663 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, exactly because the CCP denies that it is torturing and killing practitioners, and because Falun Dafa practitioners indeed state that they are being tortured and killed, if you use the term Supression, you are balancing it completely in favor of the critical side, because a Supression is just a simple and safe censorship. It seems a bit unfair to report the facts as if nothing is happening when there is countless of evidence that practitioners are being tortured and killed. I could show you many pictures of the people that have been killed and the brutal wounds some practitioners have had due to the beatings and tortures of the CCP, i dont think its fair to them or to anyone to call it a Supression. Now persecution has been used in third party reports and it seems very appropriate to me, because this word does not directly imply mass killing, organ harvesting, torturing and murder that the Falun Dafa practitioners are experiencing. If we were to find a word to describe all that, it would be genocide, but that would be too pro falun gong. As editors, we must report things clearly, i cannot agree to use the term suppression and make wikipedia report this as if nothing is happening and people are just being prohibited to practice without any consecuences. We are using the term persecution in order to report that Falun Dafa practice is banned and that the practitioners are being sanctioned by the government for practicing. This is precisely what is happening, If there were no consecuences, many people would still be seen practicing Falun Dafa in China, because not every one thinks the same so many people could just not believe what the CCP says about Falun Dafa and go practice somewhere in China, but if this isnt happening it is because they are being sanctioned for it.--Andres18 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'some third-party reports' that have described the Chinese government's actions as 'persecution' have only been human rights organizations or US government ones. They aren't exactly representative of the "third-party" POV. I objected on a point of definition yet you reply or attempted to rebutt on a point of opinion. Unless you are objecting on a point of more objective criteria like definition like you initially proposed, your comments are noted but hold little water in the purely encyclopedic community. Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well...Human rights organizations and US government are not Falun Dafa, and they are not criticizing it either. So i think they are considered third party organizations right?. I see you investigated and the Chinese government denies everything of what is happening, but then i have a few doubts, since you made some research, i hope you can answer them for me so that i could understand more clearly your point of view regarding the use of the term Supression. Does the chinese government claim something similar as that they spread lots of anti falun gong propaganda and everyone just believed it, went home and stopped practicing?. How can there be an advantage for us in using the term persecution? and does the chinese government denies that it has legally banned Falun Gong? also, to you, what is representative of a third-party POV? Since you made some research, perhaps you could tell me a bit about this.--Andres18 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 'little girl doing Falun Gong' picture in the beginning pasted in by Asdfg but objected to by several editors:

Why does a little girl doing FG have to be put in the beginning of the article? Is it to elicit sympathy for the movement? I don't see what's wrong with the picutres on the Teachings of Falun Gong page where a male in traditional clothing seems to be demonstrating quite well. Or is the little girl picture supposed to show how ruthlessly the FG practitioners brainwash others, including their own children, to the movement? Nevertheless, I object on the grounds that the little girl picture seems to be nothing more than a PR stunt to elicit sympathy and provoke 'good' feelings about FG. This is distinctly unencyclopedic. If you disagree or are Asdfg, please say why here instead of engaging in an edit war on the main page. Jsw663 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep a cool head and assume good faith, we are not here to speak ill of Falun Dafa. I respect you and your position as an editor, i also hope you respect mine. I agree with you posting this issue here for discussion, and i disagree with changes being made without previous consultation on this talk page. To me, it is indiferent whether the little girl picture is posted or not in the wikipedia article. Sometimes, the picture of a young children practicing Falun Dafa in Falun Dafa websites is meant to show people that anyone can practice it and that it is not restricted to any age limit.--Andres18 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When have I never kept a cool head? I will also always assume bona fide (good faith) intentions initially until shown otherwise. It's a pity, but pro-FG editors have clearly shown the otherwise - that being a certainly concerted if only sometimes united effort at information and psychological control and the propaganda, aka point of view, being put forward by your 'camp'. Time and time again people have said that Wikipedia is not a FG advertising website yet time and time again pro-FG editors' behaviour reflect their real-life - thinking that constantly bombarding people with an avalanche of distorted Li Hongzhi opinions can convince them as to the 'bona fide' aspect of FG. So although I will respect your opinions, respect can only be reciprocal if there isn't a targeted agenda to ensure half-truths or fabrications are put forward only, dismissing anything critical or contrary as CCP propaganda or lies. Now we get onto the picture of the little girl. Note that I personally have no objections if you want to fill the Teachings of Falun Gong page full of the elderly or the younger generation practising Falun Gong, providing they are instructional. However, placing a picture of a young girl at the top of the page clearly has a subjective motive and is intended to suggest or imply to the average reader of the 'innocence' of Falun Gong. Yes, I'm basing the 'innocence' of a young girl on a stereotype, but unfortunately it remains common nowadays. So if, and only IF, Falun Gong really only want to show its practitioners practising it, I suggest a more value-neutral picture in the appropriate section of the page or appropriate page. And in case you think I harbor some anti-FG bias, I'm here to dispel such a misconception now because I would equally vociferously object to any similar picture be shown on any cult pages (Scientology), religious pages (Christianity, Islam) or spiritual pages (qigong) in their pre-introduction section. Jsw663 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for Asfgd's answer.--Andres18 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another picture of someone doing the exercises is fine by me. I didn't think too much about what Jsw said, promoting the innocence of Falun Gong since its a young child etc.; we'll use another picture. Can someone else put it there please? I have a lot less access to computer now and less time in which to do these things. --Asdfg12345 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing to add for the moment: What's with this "the Falun Gong" business? There is "Falun Gong" and there are "Falun Gong practitioners", but there isn't "the Falun Gong". Falun Gong is the name of the practice, and Falun Gong practitioners are the people who practice it. There isn't some kind of organization called "the Falun Gong". This should be appropriately corrected. Mcconn 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Second Paragraph on Fa-rectification and Salvation by the Dafa

Using some of Asdfg's suggested language, and relying exlusively on quotes from Li himself, I am proposing the following to appear as the second paragraph in the introduction:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind^[9] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.^[10] In the Fa-rectification process, all beings will be judged based on their moral quality and the attitude they have towards the Fa-rectification. Li states: “Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.” ^[11] In more recent speeches, Li has stressed that “the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (the CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure and all who have a hand in what they do.” ^[12]

I'm asking all the editors to comment on this new paragraph and make suggestions for changes.--Tomananda 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a new paragraph right?. Ok, give me a day or so and ill answer to your proposal.--Andres18 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question: Where does the above paragraph fit into the one in "Balancing the Intro" (last proposal by Asdfg)?? Jsw663 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, im not really sure because i think the above paragraph is an idea that Tomananda is proposing, and its an additional paragraph. When we discuss and modify it properly, we'll see if it fits. Asdfg came up with some modifications for the paragraph that Tomananda suggested and all the practitioners editors have agreed to it and added a few things. Im waiting for him to post it here.--Andres18 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Note that next time Andres, you can post or modify anything I propose without notifying me. I will make some very short points at the end to explain something:

Li Hongzhi has stated that by teaching Falun Dafa he is offering universal salvation to all sentient beings. Li Hongzhi has also stated that he initiated a process called Fa-rectification, which refers to the salvation, renewal, rectification and completion of the disintegrating old cosmos. In this process, all beings' attitudes toward Fa-rectification determines their position in the new cosmos, whether that is salvation or destruction; their attitudes toward the teaching of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is said to decide their future. The Fa-rectification process is said to be nearing completion. Of this, Li Hongzhi himself says: "Why did Fa-rectification have to be done? To save the beings in the cosmos - save all the beings in the cosmos, normalize bad beings and turn them into good ones, have sinful beings be rid of their sins, and have those warped beings reconstructed into good ones again. Dafa brings humankind these wonderful things, and it brings the beings in the cosmos these wonderful things. But during this persecution many beings have indeed lost their chances to be saved and have been denied salvation."

My understanding quickly:

Fa-rectification is that the old cosmos has reached the final stage, of destruction. It would disintegrate without a trace left, and all beings would perish. The new comos would become. Li Hongzhi has, at this final moment, come to save all beings in this cosmos so they can enter the new comos and not perish.
Li Hongzhi has stated continually that the fundamental basis for his coming is mercy
Those who oppose Dafa have destroyed themselves, ignorantly or knowingly, because they are opposing this greatest compassion and mercy that has ever existed; they have opposed their own futures
Li Hongzhi is not arbitrarily selecting those who are "good enough" or "worthy", to be saved. Continually, he has stated that sentient beings decide for themselves how they want to be positioned, I do not think Li Hongzhi himself has too much to do with that