Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 20

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 18

→

Suppression, Persecution, or Genocide?

OK, I know we've done this before, but let's do it again. Let's take a look at how these terms are defined in the Wiktionary.

Persecution

The act of persecuting.

A program or campaign to subjugate or eliminate a specific group of people, often based on race, religion, or social beliefs.

Supression

The act or instance of suppressing.
The state of being suppressed.

Suppress

To hold in place, to keep low.

Genocide

The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

So here they are. Which fits best? Mcconn 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

McConn, I thought the point of disagreement was already stated before. The pro-FG camp says that persecution of FGers is a fact and there is some kind of systematic torture system going on. The anti-FG camp and FG skeptics camp doubts the validity of these so-called sources and says no such system exists. Exaggerations and fabrications are abound - shock used to promote the spread of its beliefs. If this is not essentially what the wrangle between the use of the words suppression and persecution is, what is? I also added before that the CCP totally denies this 'persecution'. Since FG + HR orgs says there is persecution, CCP says no such thing exists, and FG-skeptics say that there may be clampdown of FG followers but certainly no systematic torture system, what should we do? Not compromise? This is why I said we should keep the word 'suppression' to avoid only one of the two (FG v CCP) parties' views being aired so as to avoid any violation of WP:NPOV policy. McConn, if you disagree on anything else but 'facts' which have not yet been conclusively proven, then why insist on such a loaded word? Jsw663 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS to McConn about 3rd party sources / HR orgs - yes, 3rd party sources, esp expert or reliable testimony, can be printed, if acknowledged and sourced. But giving 3rd party sources to support only one side would be distinctly unfair. After all, a US State Dept report (see one of past archives for link / text) denied some FG allegations, and I don't think the US Government are not experts, or pro-CCP, right? So as long as both sides' opinions are aired fairly, including 3rd party opinions, go ahead. But this cannot justify a totally disproportionate bias to either side by sources either. Jsw663 11:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "persecution" is not any more loaded than "suppression". I don't know why people have said it is. Could you back up that claim? Yes, it is associated with atrocious acts, and is thus connected with controversial subjects, but that doesn't make it loaded. It means what it means. Using the term "suppression" is not a compromise. Look at what it means. No one, not even the CCP, is denying that there is a suppression taking place. We can't define what's taking place simply by using what all parties, including the protagonists (an authoritarian dictatorship), can't deny. The only people who would deny that there is a persecution taking place are the protagonists and their cronies. You mention systematic torture system, but even if there wasn't one, it's still a persecution in all senses of the word. There is most certainly a campaign going on to not only subjugate, but eliminate Falun Gong. It has been made illegal to practice, and it's books banned from publishing and burned. A public propaganda campaign denounicng Falun Gong to gain support from the masses was initiated.[1] People are put in jails, brainwashing centers, and more for practiticing. That is definately subjugation, to say the least. And those are hard facts. Elimination? Let me quote what Taiwan's China times reported on September 1, 2000: "The Chinese Communist Party has decided to escalate its oppression of Falun Gong and plans to eradicate Falun Gong within three months." This a persecution no matter how you look at it. Let's stop beating around the bush, and accept this. Mcconn 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mcconn I think you presented very well which of the suppression/persecution/genocide words should be used. So can we all agree on the word persecution for now? --HappyInGeneral 12:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you HiG for once again not stating any facts or anything new. Do you think a few phrases of "presented very well" suddenly changes the facts from fiction / exaggeration? Now to McConn. The word suppression may be interpreted in a non-neutral way, but there is room for leeway. The word persecution suggests something is systematic, 'official', has been happening for a long time and unambiguously states that there is genocide going on. That's all. I do think that the word suppression in itself favors the FG camp but it is less biased than persecution. Actually the CCP have been providing some conflicting reports, including some of which have totally denied any persecution is taking place. Some have admitted low-level suppression. And like you say, it's hard to discern the truth from so much propaganda by both sides. With your statement of a campaign to eliminate FG, you should add the words 'mainland China'. It has tried but not succeeded in eliminating FG from its outer territories / recently 're-'acquired SARs. But eliminating a belief system / practice does not mean eliminating its practitioners - it means stopping Li Hongzhi from spreading it within China. This is where the difference lies, and where you must make the distinction. And it is because of this that 'persecution' is simply not a fact, let alone proven in any way. However, the case for suppression is a lot easier to argue despite bias from both sides, and is a far better compromise, don't you think? Jsw663 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese Government claims that they have prohibited the practice of Falun Gong and restricted the Chinese people's liberty of expression regarding Falun Gong for the purposes of protecting their motherland. That means they are censoring Falun Gong, and according to the deffinition of supression, they are "Suppressing" Falun Gong. If we use the term supression, we are actually favoring the Chinese government. Falun Gong practitioners claim that the persecution going on is a genocide. Clearly the most neutral definition would be "Persecution".

One more thing, regarding the response to the Kilgour/Matas report, even though i know that you invested a lot of time and effort in analyzing it and posting your opinion about it, your response is not useful for editing purposes because it is "Original Research". We are going to use the Kilgour/Matas report if needed and if there is no published criticism coming from reliable sources about it, we will not report any criticism on it. The same goes for any criticism regarding any aspect of Falun Gong, we cannot post the editors concerns regarding Falun Gong, we have to report criticism from reliable and published material and we have to report it from a neutral POV, meaning from an outsiders point of view. I am also aware that the wikipedia article is not for advertising Falun Gong.

By the way, if anyone has started a mediation case against Omido, i would suggest you stop. If we are going to judge each other in the terms you have decided to judge him, id have to say i have enough evidence to start a mediation case against any of you as you have it to start one against me. We are all guilty of the deviation of the editing process. Its not fair to start throwing stones at someone when we have also made mistakes, perhaps even worse mistakes than the ones he has made. Lets just focus on the editing process.--Andres18 06:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres, like I said before, the word 'suppression' will inevitably leave both sides feeling it has favored the other. However, we cannot pass off one side's "facts" as "facts" until it has been proven. Like I said in response to McConn, persecution suggests a (systematic) genocide is taking place. This is almost certainly not true.

With regards to the K/M criticism, I am NOT advocating that my responses be placed on the main Wiki page. Therefore WP:No Original Research will not be breached. What I AM trying to say on the discussion page, however, is that it is dangerous for a supposedly neutral article to pass off the K/M report as a totally 'neutral' third-party report, which is clearly not the case.

With regards to the Omido mediation case, yes I did start it. The only reason I started it is because he engaged in section blanking, which is without an iota of doubt in violation of several Wikipedia policies. Although arguably most of us have breached guidelines like WP:Civility and biased editing, they tend to be targeted at specific areas. Section blanking done constantly almost in violation of WP:3RR does not show any commitment to discussion of points. It merely represents VANDALISM. The problem is, Omido has engaged in such behavior many times before. And although doing it once or twice may be overlookable in a topic as controversial as this one, doing it many times within a short period of time with scant regard of a multitude of Wiki policies is clearly not acceptable. There is a line to draw (for behavior), and there is a red line (non-acceptability). Omido has crossed the red line. However, as long as Omido isn't section blanking, there is no need to pursue with the mediation case, which is why I've put it on hold for now. Last but not least, a mediation case does not count against any user, unlike blocks, bans and ArbCom decisions. If anything, as a Wiki editor, Andres, you should help prevent vandalism instead of passively supporting such disruptive behavior. Wiki policies are in place for a good reason. Jsw663 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep in the boundaries of Wikipedia, and also I would like to test your POV by asking if you will do the same when: Samuel Luo, Yueyuen, CovenantD, Mr.He and occasionally Tomananda does the same thing? Blanking and/or reverting without discussion like it happened on the Li Hongzhi page? --HappyInGeneral 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Such section 'blanking' (they weren't totally blanked, but heavily edited, unlike Omido's 99% blanking) should come under discussion too, and it has on the Li Hongzhi page, but in a far milder form. But any 'reverts' are automatically done by a bunch of very dedicated FG editors on Wiki so I have not yet had to step in. But do inform me if any such happenings do occur. Wikipedian rules, after all, applies to every Wikipedian editor on Wikipedia. Jsw663 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but according to wikipedia:

"Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms."

I dont see how that could imply systematic genocide.

According to the chinese embassy in the United States of America, Falun Gong has been "outlawed" by the Chinese government. According to the webpage dictionary.com, to outlaw means:

  1. To declare illegal: outlawed the sale of firearms.
  2. To place under a ban; prohibit: outlawed smoking in the house.
  3. To deprive (one declared to be a criminal fugitive) of the protection of the law.

Note the second definition "To place under a Ban, prohibit". So the Chinese Government aknowleges that they are prohibiting and banning Falun Gong. On the same webpage, the definition of suppression sup·pressed, sup·press·ing, sup·press·es

  1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
  2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
  3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
  4. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind.
  5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.
  6. To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or cough, for example); arrest.

Note it also says "prohibit" and "curtails" which means to apply restriction, this means that the terms outlawing and suppression for our purposes of definition are practically the same thing said in different words. If we use suppression, we are favoring the CCP. I believe that if the CCP had completely denied they banned falun gong, then supression would be a neutral title. After reading this, what do you think about it?

Regarding the Kilgour/Matas report, i believe that your analysis cannot be used to justify that the report is biased because if we did so, it would break the code of Original Research because we would be saying it is not a 3rd party report according to your opinion and not according to a statement from a published reliable source. Dont get me wrong though, i know it took you a lot of time and effort to bring it up, but i think its against the rules. Think about it, maybe i could make an analysis in favor of the non-biased position of the kilgour/matas report, but that wouldnt count either because in the end, its not reliable information right?. If there are sources saying its not biased, we can report it just as we can report sources saying it is biased. I believe we dont have to conclude wether it is 3rd party or not.

About the Omido case, well i personally do not agree with section blanking and doing edits without consulting, but i also know of editors from the criticism party who have done the same as him and have not been punished for it. I think we should try to make an agreement to not make edits without consulting with the condition to agree to participate more actively in the wikipedia page in order to advance more efficiently on the editing process so that all these faults on the article that people are so eager to modify can be discussed and so we can reach consensus on them. This way we can do stable edits that dont get constantly reverted. Perhaps it would be the first step to take in order to start working harmoniously as a team. Lately its been an "us against them" kind of attitude from both sides, if we work as a team and learn to accept each other's faults a bit more and not engaging in discussions unrelated to the editing process perhaps we can finish sooner than expected.

I dont know if i should make a new section and re-post what has been discussed so far about the lead section or to start over again. Also, id like to make a section for the agreement to not do edits without consulting and that if someone breaks the agreement, he/she would be penalized. Can this be done? i think also this way we can see who is truly willing to work on the editing process instead of engaging in revert/edit wars. What do you suggest?.--Andres18 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andres, thanks for your response. There is a difference between outlawing and suppression - the latter being 'forcibly', with that term being vague. How much force would constitute 'forcibly'? But there is no doubt in the word 'persecution'; it states outright that FG practitioners are being tortured and killed off as a fact. 'Outlawing' is only labelling something as a crime; the Chinese government has made spreading Falun Gong beliefs a crime. But once convicted criminals are put in prison, there will always be an element of 'force' against the prisoner as they are not given full rights normally enjoyed by that of a law-abiding citizen. That is where the difference is - the CCP has convicted some FGers as criminals but what goes on in the prisons is up to debate. But FG is judging FGers like the average law-abiding citizen, which is clearly not the case. And why should convicted FG criminals not be considered like the average citizen? Because they seek to overthrow the government - in effect an act of treason. This has been the source of contention for ages and this is why it is essential to allow a word which will give some room for vagueness (to account for the fact that we do not know for sure what is going on due to propaganda by both sides) yet is not too vague. Suppression fits the bill; persecution assumes certain things as fact. This is why I have supported the term 'suppression' throughout rather than 'persecution' because it reproduces known, proven facts without saying anything that has merely been suggested or not proven. This line is delicate but it has to be drawn.

Regarding the critique / counter-critique of the KM report. Note I am not saying we should place any of your / my comments on the main Wiki page. Although the KM seems to be of suspect neutrality, there is no denying it is 'officially' a third-party report. So as long as anything commented in the KM report is attributed to it, and anything said within there is penned with the term 'allege' as K/M have not been able to prove anything for certain yet, then it can be placed on the KM page. But FGers have been passing off KM allegations as facts, and this must be distinguished because it is not proven yet.

I do think it wise to set up some kind of committee drawn from both sides (pro-FG and anti-FG) to ensure vandalism in the form of section blanking does not take place. After all, it is the responsibility of all Wikipedian editors to ensure Wikipedian entries adhere to Wikipedian rules. However, reverts should only be granted if they are OBVIOUS vandalism. This becomes tricky since persons from both sides will be sorely tempted to overstep their bounds. Any comments to this yourself, Andres? Jsw663 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsw, persecution does not imply Genocide. Although there is always persecution in genocide, it is not the case vice versa. The facts that I stated are proven facts. There is a lot more going on that I didn't state because I wanted to keep things simple. Look at the definitions that I listed. It is clear that persecution is the most accurate word. Actually, I could easily make an argument for genocide too, the second defintion fits perfectly, but I'm not going to go that far right now. I'm sorry Jsw, but your argument for "suppression" is weak, and your strong opposition to accepting "persecution" is starting to make me question your motives here. Mcconn 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The K/M report is certainly not proven facts. They have gathered some evidence, but it is certainly not water-tight and certainly not proven as they admit themselves. If suggestions and inferences are passed off as facts then neither side will agree to anything soon. Read my response to Andres for more. Your definitions are deliberately vague, it seems - read Andres' for more detail. But if you want to say my argument is weak, at least have the courtesy to say which part is. Critique it through analysis and counter-proof. After all, that's what this discussion is about. Jsw663 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the K/M report. It has nothing to do with any of my comments in this section. Look at my second post here. I only mention proven facts. Facts that meet the defenition of persecution perfectly. My definitions are not vague, and they are not my definitions. They are definitions from the "wiktionary", wikipedia's dictionary. Comparing them to other dictionary defintions, they are almost the exact same. I have countered your argument for suppression. If you can't see that, then read the posts in this section again. Mcconn 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it more worrying that you did not read my response to your second post, which is directly below HiG's, and my response to Andres above. If you can only define suppression as the 'act of being suppressed' then obviously that is not a sufficiently detailed definition, is it? The three terms "suppression, persecution or genocide" are not the only three available, and seem to be chosen deliberately so that you can justify 'persecution' as somehow being more neutral. The two choices you left out are that the CCP has done nothing at all against FGers, and the other one being simply outlawing FG. Andres, on the other hand, has provided more detail, for which I am grateful. Your definition of persecution is vague enough to suit your interests, whereas Andres' definition was sufficiently detailed so that we could argue on the main difference between the two terms. That is what I mean by suspiciously vague in your (McConn)'s definition. You also never replied to my response to your second post - maybe you should read that before saying I should read the other posts in this section. Maybe you'd like to consider these other posts by Andres and myself in this section before belittling anybody else, assuming you can bring yourself to consider all the statements equally. Jsw663 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I missed your post since you added it later, but I did address some of its content in my other posts. As I already said twice above, the defintions are not my own. They are wikipedia's. I chose wikipedia definitions because we are editing wikipedia. I also checked their consistency with dictionary.com, and found them almost the exact same, so I used them. Andres did not provide another definition of persecution, so i will. This is from the same source as his other defintions:

  per·se·cu·tion
   –noun
  1. the act of persecuting.
  2. the state of being persecuted.
  3. a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their 
  religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.

As I said, this is almost the exact same as the definition I posted above. The three terms I chose are the three that we have always talked about. No one in the past suggested using "outlawed", and the CCP does not say they "have done nothing at all against Falun Gong practitioners." So I didn't include these. As for "elimination", you said they are trying to eliminate the practitioners not the belief system itself. Well, that still fits into the defintion since Falun Gong practitioners are a "specific group of people". I already mentioned why persecution does not suggest genocide. So here you go, a response to everything. Mcconn 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, McConn. Care to give the definition of suppression, and the difference between persecution and suppression? The two are not exact synonyms, and knowing why you insist on one but not the other will be interesting. I think I've already made my case perfectly clear - persecution leaves no doubt that extermination is taking place, but suppression is slightly more vague in that it does not state as a fact that extermination is taking place, but does not completely deny it either. This is in keeping with the third-party sources including the K/M report, which has not managed to prove anything (though they did gather some evidence) as they were not able to enter China, or verify anything said by the wife of that surgeon mentioned therein. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres posted a definition of suppression above. Suppression is to "curtail or prevent the activities of", and persecution is to "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate". The Chinese government does not want Falun Gong to exist. They are not content with just keeping it down, which is what the definition of suppression suggests. As I've pointed out, the Human Rights Watch report below goes into detail about why the government decided to "eradicate" Falun Gong. Also, note that persecution can be any of those three terms, including subjugate, which is closer to what suppression means, only a little harsher. The Chinese government admits that it is suppressing Falun Gong, although it may not use that term. And the facts, as I've stated, show that it is beyond a suppression. Using the term "persecution" is not choosing sides. It's supported by facts and very credible third party organizations. Thus I think it is very appropriate. (note: let's go by the definitions here. Your arguments seem more attached to your personal feelings about the terms, rather than what they actually mean.) Mcconn 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal feelings!? I am working with Andres' definition after all. You fail to make the distinction between the belief and its practitioners. The CCP seems to be outlawing the belief, but no conclusive proof is given that it is exterminating its practitioners. I know you will probably throw a variety of human rights orgs. reports plus FG sources at me, but after reading those in detail, little is conclusively proven since few facts are verifiable / verified. This is why persecution does not reflect what is happening to FG practitioners; it is the spread of their beliefs that the CCP wants to curtail. At least that's what I get from Xinhua news and other official CCP sources... and they are NOT admitting to suppression (which is vague about whether such actions are legal or not) - they are only admitting it's illegal because of its commitment to overthrow the government and thus need to take action because of its political consequences. Time and time again I have not argued that even the word 'suppression' is loaded and biased in itself, but if you continue to seek / push for more extreme definitions, then the need for the CCP view not to be misrepresented will be all the more important - that would mean pushing for "restriction" instead of suppression. Personal feelings should not interfere with facts - and facts need to be verified with a sufficient degree of certainty (i.e. 99% or thereabouts) (aka 'beyond reasonable doubt' under common law) especially if you are making a criminal charge. This is one of the most basic things about criminal law you should know. Jsw663 13:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, personal feelings. You think that these terms are loaded, and that persecution implies genocide and systematic torture. These are your personal feelings, and a lot of your argument is based around them. As I've said, I don't consider these terms loaded at all. When referring to persecution I said, "Yes, it is associated with atrocious acts, and is thus connected with controversial subjects, but that doesn't make it loaded. It means what it means." And I stand by that.

In your last post you said that the CCP does NOT admit to supression, but in an earlier pos when referring to CCP reports, you yourself said, "Some have admitted low-level suppression". But even if they didn't use the term suppression, they admit to banning the practice of Falun Gong, banning the publishing of it's books, arresting practitioners, and giving long jail sentences to "key practitioners". You can say that this is the same as making it illegal, but when we're referring to a belief, or what many would even call a movement, that term doesn't fit. Suppression is the most basic term for that. Now what the CCP may or may not admit is the campaign that goes with this. The campaign uses all forms of propaganda to convince the masses to support them in what they are doing, and create greater pressure on adherents to renounce their beliefs. In my second post I attached a link to some of the propaganda they've used. Also, here is a relevenat quote from Xinhua "We must closely follow the Party Central Committee's plan, make further vigorous effort, follow up the victory with a hot pursuit, thoroughly destroy the "Falun Gong" organization and eradicate the pernicious influence of Li Hongzhi's fallacies, to seize the complete victory of this struggle." [2] So although they may not admit to that, it speaks for itself. Perhaps it's more clear now what what is taking place is a lot more than "curtailing" a belief. The only term I know that fits this is "persecution".

Also, as I mentioned below, it's notable that most human rights organizations define this as a persecution. Remember, in the definition above persecution can be "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate". It can be any of these three. While it most certainly is the second two, it is likely the first as well. As I mentioned below a lot of third parties have reported it as such, which means that it's generally understood as such. And although I can't seem give you 100% proof of "extermination", what's available still has weight, which in turn gives this term weight as well.

One of your points was that they are targeting the belief, not the people, but these two things are completely inseperable. The only way to eliminate a belief is to eliminate those who believe in it. While some may be willing renounce their beliefs, naturally many won't and will thus have to continually pay the consequences. Even those who renouce their beliefs are still direct victims of the campaign. If you take a look at this report, you might get a better sense of how these are the same. All of the facts that I have listed here are 100% verifiable. Mcconn 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution passes off the total elimination of FG practitioners as well as the beliefs as fact. From what I have read from CCP sources, it is merely outlawing the beliefs in public within Chinese territory; it cannot control it outside Chinese borders. The total elimination by torture / inhumane methods of FG practitioners is not yet proven, even by the human rights orgs. sources you quote time and again, because everything I have read has been conjecture, unprovable evidence like the K/M report, or stringing together random pieces of fact that happen to fit within a certain theory. As long as something still hasn't been properly verified from enough sources, such FG-alleged persecution cannot be substantiated. Human rights orgs. use persecution very widely, and in its broadest sense. But when the average person reads the term 'persecution', it already pre-forms for the reader a very negative image. It is entirely understandable for an organization which promotes human rights to do so, because that is their agenda. What is the FG agenda again?

I noticed with interest you never stated the difference between suppression and persecution. I wonder why. You quoted me as saying the CCP has admitted some low-level suppression, but with the phrase 'low-level' it was merely expanding / taking advantage off the ambiguity of the definition of 'suppression'. A more accurate word there would be outlawing, although suppression of FG beliefs would not be untrue - but definitely not the whole truth either. This is what I meant by ambiguity. Persecution is systematic in nature; can you cite examples where persecution was not? As the word persecution totally conforms to one side's opinions / allegations without due regard for the other, it is unacceptably biased and cannot be tolerated in a Wiki entry. Perhaps you should be asking about your own personal feelings in this matter, since you are insisting on promoting one party's agenda at the expense of the other Jsw663 13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is starting to get a little annoying. Just a little. It seems like you keep ignoring my points, and then make accusations against me. "insisting on promoting one party's agenda at the expense of the other"? Do you really mean that? We all have our own on opinions on this matter, what I did was support mine with facts and reason, to show its validity for the article. I believe that to call what's happening in China a "suppression" is really playing it down and that "persecution" is a much more accurate word, and I think I have shown this through my posts above and below. I did state the difference between suppression and persecution. Suppression is "curtailing" something or "keeping it down", whereas persecution is at it says, "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate" (this is clear from the definitions). In a sense, I consider persecution a stronger version of suppression. You keep insisting that "Persecution passes off the total elimination of FG practitioners as well as the beliefs as fact", but I have said that that is simply your personal opinion and it is not supported by the definition of the word. The definition states that persecution could any of the three things I just mentioned, and by saying this it also provides ambiguity over whether or not elimination is actually taking place. And since there have been a lot of reports that suggest that it is taking place, it's not wrong to have this as a possibility within the defintion of the word we use.

"it is merely outlawing the beliefs in public within Chinese territory; it cannot control it outside Chinese borders." Well, of course it's only outlawing it within Chinese territory, the Chinese government has no juristiction outside of Chinese territory. But that said, Chinese embassies have done a lot over the years to extend the persecution overseas. While I can't provide a totally unbiased source that documents all of these things, I can give you a link to some WOIPFG reports that do (I've been around to witness some of these occuences in Canada).

"Persecution is systematic in nature." What do you actually mean by "systematic"? I've shown how what is happening in China is a "campaign" involving the whole nation.

Look, I haven't spent all this time writing these posts just to have them ignored. I believe that I've given more than ample reason to use the word persecution (at least when we're referring to what's happening in China), while nothing solid has been said to show otherwise. I think we should start using this word as soon as possible. Mcconn 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Time and again I have made points which FG practitioners just choose to ignore if it doesn't suit their agenda. They have accused me of ignoring their opinion and not considering pro-FG sources yet I have clearly considered their opinion (to which I get no rebuttal on points in the vast majority of cases) and I even spent the time going through a pro-FG source here in the discussion. I have already said that persecution involves a lot more than just mere extermination. You also refuse to see that there is a difference between outlawing the belief and torturing its practitioners, dismissing it as a matter of 'personal opinion'. Have you ever considered that your judgements may be impeding understanding of my argument in the first place?

Let me try to give a more practical example - the UNHCR definition of refugees. If FGers were indeed 'persecuted' then every FGer who left China would be entitled to asylum in any other country as a refugee, and be granted full citizenship rights in the country of their choice in which they were seeking asylum. Let's consider a few past cases whether they were granted asylum - Qu Wencai, 1999. Quoting from a law report from the Court of Session (the highest Scottish court), "Qu Wen Cai's final appeal was to the Court of Session. In its judgment, Lord Kingarth, sitting with Lords Philip and Eassie, said he had failed to meet the required test, that the immigration judge's decision could be described as perverse, and his appeal must be refused." There have been quite a few other cases, although now and then a few famed-liberal countries have admitted FGers as refugees, e.g. Norway, Canada, New Zealand. But the US admitting FGers is more of a result of political rivalry - "the enemy of your enemy is my friend" doctrine shared by both FGers and the US administration.

Let's return to the original topic. Yes, persecution is stronger than suppression, but that's because it assumes certain things as facts. The only ambiguity in the definition in persecution is in the brevity of your definition of it, but it states outright that ruthless extermination, including by torture, is a fact, and is systematic in the sense that it is an official government policy. This is not an opinion, nor is it proven true. The ambiguity in 'suppression' is clearly in the degree of suppression. That is why there's a difference.

You have tried to argue before that the CCP has admitted suppression, but you haven't found an instance to support it. Based on its official government reports, it denies all forms of torture of FG practitioners, but seeks to outlaw its practice within China. This is why, whilst I agree with you that China only has jurisdiction within its territory, it amuses me to see you claim that Chinese embassies have sought to 'extend the persecution overseas'. Is this based on wild imagination, or hard facts?

Other users such as Nil E. (quick opinion section) (ie not random new users registered to boost 'opinions') have come on this board and expressed concern that persecution is far too loaded (subjective) a word to be used for something as controversial as this. That user was then greeted with a savaging by FG practitioners. I have deliberately not stuck to a CCP line not only because that is not my own opinion, but because it would be tiring to issue constant denials. But if you seek to radicalize this board by pushing for pro-human rights or pro-FG agendas constantly, one can only wonder about your commitment as a Wikipedian editor, rather than someone trying to push a POV and pass it off as fact. Jsw663 13:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I just finished writing posts to users CovenantD, armedblowfish, and Ed_Poor asking that they express their judgment on this matter in the form of a 2 out of 3 vote. I did this becuase I've come to terms with the fact that neither of us is going to budge on this. If they do this then I think we should respect their decisions and go with the majority. What do you think?

That said, I will still repond to your post, hopefully for the last time on this subject. You said, "I have already said that persecution involves a lot more than just mere extermination. You also refuse to see that there is a difference between outlawing the belief and torturing its practitioners, dismissing it as a matter of 'personal opinion'." and "The only ambiguity in the definition in persecution is in the brevity of your definition of it, but it states outright that ruthless extermination, including by torture, is a fact, and is systematic in the sense that it is an official government policy." We are working with a definition that I think we all agree on (even though you keep calling it "your definition"). Our definition includes three things "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate", so it involves more than exterminate and I've addressed that. And by using the word "or" it shows that it can be any of those things, which means it doesn't have to be exterminate. What's not included in this is "torture", so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. The persecution is an official government policy. It's not only illegal, but followers are actively hunted down and propaganda aimed to gain support for the massess has been employed on a large scale. Also, as I already said, making a spiritual discipline "illegal" or "outlawed" is itself more than a "supression", and it is a serious violation of freedom of belief. Because this involves people's beliefs and way of life, it is far more serious than simple "outlawing" to begin with.

You mentioned the UNHCR definition of refugees, but you didn't provide it, so I'm unclear on this. You said, "If FGers were indeed 'persecuted' then every FGer who left China would be entitled to asylum in any other country as a refugee". Is that so? Can you cite a source that says that? Also, could you give me a source for the case of Qu Wencai, so that I can see the broader context of the decision? You said, "But the US admitting FGers is more of a result of political rivalry". That is your opinion, not fact.

"You have tried to argue before that the CCP has admitted suppression, but you haven't found an instance to support it." What I meant by this is that it has openly banned the practice and the publication of its books (even burning the copies still in circulation), it has given long term jail sentences to it's followers, and it has gone to the masses for support. These things have all been reported in Xinhua news, the official CCP mouthpiece, so they clearly admit it. Even if they don't use the word "suppression" they admit to facts that amount to that or even more.

You said, "it amuses me to see you claim that Chinese embassies have sought to 'extend the persecution overseas'. Is this based on wild imagination, or hard facts?" Did you not look at the link that I provided? While I know that woipfg is not a neutral source, what's mentioned in the reports is clearly not fabrication. What I meant by "extend the persecution" is that have extended their campaign overseas in any form they think they can get away with. That includes giving speeches, pressuring politicians or other public figures, having "exhibitions" inside the embassies about Falun Gong as an "evil cult", interfering with protests, and even in some instances beating practitioners.

I appreciate, but disagree with Nil E.'s opinion and I stated why. I don't see how this amounts to "savaging". I don't know this user or their background, but I do know a bit more about the users I mentioned in the first paragaph. I know that they are neutral and have thus asked them to make a judgement on the matter.

This post does nothing more than address all of the points you made in your last post. I still stand by my points which have been made and defended over the course this discussion. Mcconn 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making your post more relevant, McConn. Your actions worry me even more. The only user of those three who are relatively neutral is armedblowfish, because s/he doesn't have a clue what FG is. Covenant D has tried to get anti-FGers Samuel Luo and Tomananda + the 71. something IP banned as sockpuppets, failed, responded with unacceptable criticism and got blocked as a result. This cannot be the actions of a responsible neutral person. Ed Poor / Uncle Ed, whilst I appreciate his non-involvement in such a matter, hasn't exactly shown complete FG-neutrality. Thus giving yourself a 2 out of 3 vote with at least 2 biased editors to your favor is nothing more than a sham agreement. I hope FG doesn't do this with all their alleged torture and persecution.

Responding to your first paragraph, I already pointed out the difference between what pro-FGers find as facts and what FG-skeptics + FG critics doubt / dismiss as fabrication / exaggeration. The CCP has jurisdiction to pass laws within the territory of the PRC (except in SARs) and thus their laws are not 'illegal'. The 'persecution' you allege has not been proven and is still only being alleged by one side (pro-FG + human rights orgs.). The CCP, by making FG illegal to practice, is within its rights to outlaw its beliefs, and criminalize (after the passage of the law) any person seeking to spread such a belief within China. Thus their actions fit within the terms of "doing its duty to protect national security" and "outlawing". This also fits into the broadest of terms of 'suppression' but definitely not 'persecution'. But because you insist on passing off the pro-FG case (on what they deem as 'facts' despite the lack of proof) as the truth, you will never realize that what I'm proposing here is NOT a CCP line, but in fact a compromise. The lack of a pro-CCP user doesn't help here and I know you are trying to take advantage of that to skew the balance.

The UNHCR definition of the refugee has been in place for over 55 years. It requires that the person to have been found to be persecuted in their home country for reasons of race, religion, etc., and to have left their country of origin (you can also look this up on Wiki). It is relevant in this case because the question is whether Chinese FGers who have left China qualify as refugees - in essence, the courts need to determine whether they have been persecuted. I was giving examples of court judgements made by the (relatively neutral) highest law courts of how the persecution criteria were not met. If this is the case, then persecution is not a fact and cannot be used. However, that same judgement says there is probably some degree of suppression, which is also why I'm advocating this compromise of a word.

My response to your second para is essentially covered in this response's second paragraph. If the CCP has jurisdiction over Chinese territory and makes the practice of FG illegal, it has the right to outlaw its spreading. How it achieves this is still subject to debate, but what FG passes off as fact is definitely not proven yet, as I've said in the above 2 paragraphs + the rest of this section.

Overseas p. / your 3rd para - I have read the page you linked. I don't think that having other governments carry out what is merely law enforcement is definitely and conclusively the result of CCP pressure. This is opinion / allegation. Any beating taking place overseas may not be the result of CCP; it could be a whole host of other factors since if the FGers are as diverse as FGers claim to be, are also involved in other activities (some savory, some not so savory) then the beatings could be totally unrelated. But FGers have been made most paranoid by all these CCP organizations as K/M also alleges, yet somehow manages to find 'evidence' from this 'water-tight ultimate evil organization'. Conspiracy theories are supposed to remain theories, not passed off as fact.

Like I said before in a section below this one, you will never change your opinion if you interpret events differently. I view unproven allegations as just that; you view them as facts. This is why I say we should use 'suppression' (to take advantage of its ambiguity); you insist on using 'persecution'. Neither of us are wrong if what we believe is true. But the question is, what is the truth? What is really going on in China? Until we know for sure, we should not make any conclusive statements in an encyclopedia. And before you give yourself any more neutral judges to 'decide' on this matter, I suggest you stop your campaign to represent one side only, taking advantage of the lack of CCP representation on Wiki. Neutrality is supposed to remain that; it is not to be exercised for your own benefit or agenda. And as someone who couldn't give a damn what FG really is personally, your insistence on pursuing a FG campaign is pushing me dangerously close to the anti-FG camp. Jsw663 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I chose those three editors because one, armedblowfish, was going to be our meditor, and the other two have done well at exercising neutrality in the past in our discussions. I went to editors that I knew were competent and able to act as middlemen. It had nothing to do with trying to get an edge over you. If not these three, then who? Jsw, I've never accused you of anything, regardless what I might think in my mind or suspect. How is it that in every post you continually put me down and make such accuastions? Is it that you can't discuss an issue like this without trying to belittle the other party? I'm not upset with you, I just want to point this out to you.

Outlawing a spiritual belief violates people's freedom of belief, period. I never said they were doing it illegally. Of course it's legal in their own country, they can make anything legal, since it's they who decide what's legal and what's not. The judiciary are a tool and have no independence. But making these laws violates the UNHCR, which they have signed and rattified. That is why I said, that "outlawing" a belief is never a simple matter of "outlawing", because it involves fundamental human rights. You said "This also fits into the broadest of terms of 'suppression' but definitely not 'persecution'". Thay may be true for this action alone, but when we look at the greater picture of what's happened (the facts that I've presented in this discussion have always been 100% verifiable unless I've said otherwise), we can see that it is much more than that. I will repeat these for the record: all publications banned, a nationwide campaign using media, posters, and slogans aimed at criticizing Falun Gong, creating greater pressure on practitioners, and gaining public support, and long-term jail sentences. I'll add a couple more: Police rounded up thousands of practitioners in a Beijing stadium after the ban, torture is proven to be being used (I'm not saying it's a campaign or an order, but it's there). This is a lot more than outlawing, and it's more than simply "keeping something down" or "curtailing". Can you look at this Xinhua quote light of this and honestly say that what's happening is "curtailing" rather than "subjugation"? "We must closely follow the Party Central Committee's plan, make further vigorous effort, follow up the victory with a hot pursuit, thoroughly destroy the "Falun Gong" organization and eradicate the pernicious influence of Li Hongzhi's fallacies, to seize the complete victory of this struggle."

I want to say that this discussion is not about "sides" or anyone's "agenda". This is not an issue of being neutral between two sides, it is an issue of how we label the facts we are presented with. I never claimed that you are on anyone's side but your own.

You mentioned that Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and the US have admitted Falun Gong practitioners as refugees. Off the top of my head I also know that Thailand and the UK have also done this. You mention one country turning down a practitioner, and that's supposed to show that there is rational doubt over whethere there is a persecution taking place? I know for a fact that there are lots of Chinese people who come to foreign countries and pretend to be Falun Gong practitioners in order to gain refugee status. Plus if this person is a practitioner, but wasn't directly affected by the perseuction in China, that doesn't mean there isn't a persecution taking place on a broader scale or that the committee doubts that there is. There is a lot more to the committee's decision than the issue of whether there is a persecution taking place. Mcconn 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term suppression, i understand what you mean now. As for me, it wouldnt really matter to me if we used Suppression as long as it can be included in that section that Falun Dafa practitioners say that there is a systematic torture process going on against practitioners and that they say they have the evidence to prove it. As long as that idea can be mentioned and given the same weight as the CCP's opinion on this matter i wouldnt have a problem at all. Perhaps a link to both the CCP and Falun Gong webpages where they talk about this issue might be appropriate. I believe my personal opinion cannot speak for all the pro Falun Dafa editors, i will get in touch with them and talk about it so i can get some insights and ideas and then ill get back to you later on. So for now, lets leave it on standby until i get opinions from other practitioners, this way, next time we talk about it, i'll make a post that condenses all the proFalun Gong editors views so we can talk a bit more and make the final decision wether it should be Supression or if there happen to be more reasons we can talk about of why we think persecution could be used instead. I personally think that maybe it would be great if we could work a bit on the section itself instead of the title because If one of the parties believes that the title is favoring the opposite party, maybe they could decide more easily if they get the whole picture instead of just one word which is the title. What do you think?.--Andres18 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andres. Your sentence "As long as that idea can be mentioned and given the same weight as the CCP's opinion on this matter" sounds positive. This way the reader can determine for themselves what they want to believe - one of the two sides, or neither side. I also commend you for your constructive and positive attitude in moving the Wikipedian article forward rather than let it sink into unhelpful and petty arguments. If we could return to the sections discussion like a month ago before the edit-warring, that would be great. I guess we're already dealing with the suppression section here. Jsw663 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jsw, thank you for your kind remarks, I have just made a new section with what he had achieved so far, we can now discuss about it and get on with the process. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about these proposals. Also, im currently speaking with other editors who have their doubts about why supression should be used and i think sooner or later they will be posting their concerns in here so we can talk about them and either make a final decision or leave it on standby until we edit the content of that section.--Andres18 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andres, thanks for your response - I will respond to this below (post starts with "Like I replied to McConn above..."). Yes, I would also like to contribute to the editing process. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my last post for the continuation of this discussion. Mcconn 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What i like about the definition of persecution is that it says that the mistreatment is directed towards a certain group because of their beliefs, so it defines this aspect more accurately. What i meant was not that the Chinese government deny they are doing anything, they say they have "outlawed" the practice, but they have not said they are killing or hurting practitioners though.--Andres18 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they have made statements saying that they will "eliminate" Falun Gong, and have carried out a campaign to do so. Even if they denied that, it wouldn't matter, because they've said so and it has been documented. Even if killing is happening and it is fact, the definition of persecution does not mention killing, so it's irrelevant. It says "exterminate, drive away, or subjugate". It is a fact that those things are their goal, no matter what the means. Plain and simple. Mcconn 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"eliminate" Falun Gong? well if it is documented, it should be reported. Could you post the source? if you do so, i believe other editors will seriously consider what you are saying.--Andres18 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I've got for the moment: Taiwan's China times reported on September 1, 2000, "The Chinese Communist Party has decided to escalate its oppression of Falun Gong and plans to eradicate Falun Gong within three months." "Eradicating Falun Gong within three months" is referring to a public statement made by Jiang Zemin. Mcconn 05:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This Human Rights Watch report documents the governments plans to eradicate Falun Gong. Mcconn 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I replied to McConn above, there is a difference between exterminating FG practitioners (= systematic) and prohibiting (though I cannot verify that's the term the CCP used) the FG belief. The first seeks to kill everyone because of their belief, and that doesn't seem to be the case due to the large numbers fleeing China. The second is actively curbing the spreading of a certain belief, which is different. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also cautious about using a ROC (Taiwan)'s source to represent CCP views - it's like using a US source to represent North Korean views - you simply won't get an accurate picture. Jsw663 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a Taiwan news report would make up a statement like that above anymore than the US would for North Korea. It's one thing to spin a report, but completely another to fabricate one. Taiwan's press probably has the most freedom in East Asia. So I think it is still a valid source. That said, many western media reports have also used the term "eradicate" when referring to the persecution of Falun Gong. If you go here and search for the term "eradicat", you'll find a few. For more about the two terms, see my other response above. Mcconn 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were the one to accuse me of letting 'personal feelings' affect my judgement yet you come up with a statement like "I don't think a Taiwan news report would make up a statement...". The China Times is known for moving towards a more pro-DPP stance recently. But in the end the question is still whether to trust an 'enemy' government with accurate information. There is such a thing called disinformation you know - and Falun Gong have been known to use it with fabricated facts, e.g. Sujiatuan incident with the alleged "6000 people" fitted into a tiny hospital. As for media freedom, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong have presses which are far more free than Taiwan. See [3]. Since the media in Taiwan has been known to be politically manipulated in the past (yes, I have actually been there) I highly doubt it would fairly represent the CCP view. However, if you find a CCP source like Xinhua or China Daily to represent the CCP view, then you may be justified in your view. But until then, your allegations cannot be passed off as facts. Jsw663 13:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is saying that the CCP plans to "eradicate Falun Gong in three months" is a stated fact. If it's just made up, then it's fabrication. While the China Times may be known to have a bias, it's not known to fabricate reports or pull facts like this out of thin air. By making that claim about Sujiatun, you're asking for this discussion to go off track. While I could argue what you said, I won't, because I want this discussion to produce something. Mcconn 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Persecution is on going [4]. Therefore, I will make the title change back to "persecution". Fnhddzs 02:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're jumping the gun. The issue isn't resolved yet. We have to leave it as it is for now. Mcconn 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Teacher or Leader

Using the term "leader", and calling Falun Gong "the Falun Gong", is a clear attempt of likening Falun Gong to a cult. Li Hongzhi doesn't lead practitioners to do anything. Instead he teaches the exercises (now only on video), teaches the principles of the practice, teaches about the existance of life and the universe beyond what we can see, and in a general sense tells practitioners what they should be doing (ie. studying, clarifying the truth, and sending righteous thoughts). When asked, he might also give suggests for how practitioners can improve some of the things they do. This is much more of a teacher/student relationship than a leader/follower one. There is very little emphasis placed on what he actually does, and there is actually very little known, except for on a more metaphysical level (ie. Fa-Rectification). Mcconn 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is from Li. “Remember these words from Master, however I handle something is righteous, and those who are dealt with are always wrong. The reason is, that's the choice of the cosmos, the choice of the future.” A teacher is someone who you can question and argue with, but Li is a authoritarian leader. --Samuel Luo 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I know they are going to ask for a source and then after it's proven valid they will deny it somehow. Just be prepared. Colipon+(T) 03:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[5]Here's a source. Everyone applauds after the quote (probably for 1 "light year" of time I guess). --Yenchin 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Samuel said, a teacher teaches (thereby allowing for debate); a leader orders (executive decisions are not to be argued against). But I'd like to see McConn try to rebutt this in an non-opinionated fashion. Jsw663 13:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that you want wikipedia to say Mr. Li Hongzhi is the "leader" of Falun Dafa, and you consider it neutral?. I saw your link, but i didnt find anywhere that Mr. Li would say "I am your leader" or "I am the leader of Falun Dafa" and so on. If you think he "commands" and "gives orders" instead of teaching and that he doesnt allow for debate, etc. Those are all your personal opinions and interpretations, and that is original research. We are here to report, not draw conclusions or personal interpretations from quotes. If you want to say he is a leader, then find a source from a critic that claims that Mr. Li is a "leader" and attribute it to that critic, otherwise, dont draw such conclusions. "Leader" is not a neutral term, you may think it is an appropriate definition, but we, as falun gong practitioner editors, believe it is not.--Andres18 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

JSW, Yenchin, and Sam Luo, a note that we need to prepare for the denial part as well. We have to ask ourselves every time before we post these comments if it will be denied in one way or another, and then cover for those possible denials before they even reply. Just a note for next comment.

I just don't know, it is a pretty hefty claim to say all Falun Gong practitioners will become gods or deities because Li can make it so. And that is pretty clear from that link. We should all submit to teachings of Master Li so we can become gods. Colipon+(T) 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres18American cult experts have called Li a “cult leader.” Do you want Li to be called “cult leader” or “leader?” --Samuel Luo 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it is also used in media.

[6]Time: "Li Hongzhi, the mysterious leader of the Falun Gong religious movement"

[7]CNN: "China orders arrest of Falun Gong leader, destroys books"

I also find the "Li didn't call himself 'leader'" hardly convincing. Zhang Jiao of the Yellow Turban Rebellion called himself "Heavenly Teacher" ("Tian Shih", 天師), but it is more than obvious that he is the leader of the rebellion.--Yenchin 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yenchin is correct. Li has repeatedly told his practitioners exactly what they can and can't do and has thereby assumed the role of leader. He has even used the term himself. Here are just a few quotes arranged chronologically:

As far as the administration of assistance centers, we’ve already documented our regulations explicitly, and you have followed them. There are requirements for setting up an assistance center. And we’ve told you to have new assistance centers report to the one in Beijing or to one of the several main assistance centers. Talk in Guangzhou to Some Assistance Center Heads from Around the Country (December 27, 1994), p.3.

In the past, all the decisions made by the Research Society have got my approval, and wherever I was, their any decisions would only be made after they contacted me through telephone or fax. . …In the situation I am not here, our Assistants Centres across the country all should obey and carry out the decision made by the Research Society. As an assistant, one should be in no way to shift his responsibility to others. Views of the Law Rectification at Beijing Conference of Falun Dafa’s Assistants (January 2, 1995), p.5

Disciples must remember: All Falun Dafa texts are the Fa that I have taught, and they are revised and edited personally by me. From now on, no one may take excerpts from the tape recordings of my lectures on the Fa, or compile them into written materials. “Awakening” (May 27, 1996) in Essentials for Further Advancement I

…when there’s something I have to talk to you about and I do talk to you about it, it amounts to my telling you what to do. Fa-Lecture at the Conference in Florida, U.S.A. (December 29, 2001), p. 1.

What I am doing is leading you toward godhood in cultivation, leading your understanding, little by little, out of humanness and beyond that of man, and the goal is to lead you to Consummation and the ascension of your being. …. I don’t want to leave behind even one single Dafa disciple, but you have got to improve yourselves through real Fa-study and cultivation! With validating the Fa, you should save the world’s people and do well the three things Dafa disciples are supposed to do. Be diligent! Cast aside your human attachments. Godhood isn't far away. In Fa-Rectification Your Thoughts Have to Be Righteous, Not Human (September 19, 2004) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_112.htm

Since when do "teachers" talk about the administration of their assistance centers, the decision making process in their organizations and who reports to whom in a verticle hierarchy? Li has always been the leader/manager/director of the Falun Gong. He even insists on editing and approving all the Falun Gong texts. So he really is a micro-manager of the Falun Gong as well as its leader. The fact that practitioners don't want to honestly acknowledge Li's obvious leadership role is just another indication of the false image of the Falun Gong they so fiercely propagate. --Tomananda 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some anti-Falun Gong media has called Mr. Li a "cult leader" or a "leader". Thats what they say, and if you are going to use the word leader, you should then report that these sources claim that Mr. Li is a "leader" but we cannot say, as wikipedia, that Mr. Li Hongzhi is a "leader". Since using your personal conclusions in order to write the wikipedia article is a violation of the rules, i guess we should just concentrate on other aspects of the article, like the lead section perhaps.--Andres18 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Andres, these are not my "personal conclusions" but rather reflect what most of the world considers to be the meaning of the term "leader." Would you prefer "Director"? You know there's a Li quote in which he actually says he is directing the Fa-recficiation. Now, if Li were just a "teacher" telling us about the Fa-rectification, do you think he would say he is "directing" it?--Tomananda 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I don't even think the word "leader" has the connotations that Andres suggests it has. To me it looks like the defence of a subject like this is unnecessary, and quite frankly just makes Andres look extremely defensive on a subject he does not need to be. For example, Deng Xiaoping has always been referred to as the "leader" of China.

Oh, and in addition, I'd like to know what this "anti-Falun Gong media" you talk about is. The BBC? CNN? or Time? All of these sources have called Li "leader". Could you tell us which one you consider anti-Falun Gong media? Colipon+(T) 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine. While I do disagree with most of the conclusions being drawn by Tomananada and Colipon, I can see that they are serious about having this view presented. Why not then, since this is obviously a matter of dispute, call the section something different like "Li Hongzhi"? And rather than simply stating that he is the "leader" of Falun Gong, we can say that some have called him a "leader", while others have called him a "master" or a "teacher". This way wiki won't be making a stance on it, but merely reporting the views. Mcconn 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A more accurate term, and one that translates well the usual Chinese term, would be "founder". Within FLG, if Li doesn't teach it, it isn't orthodox FLG. His public positioning is such that he assigns all teaching authority to himself, so leader and teacher are both appropriate. Anyone teaching in his organisation has to teach exactly what he has dictated. "Director" or "authority" are other English words that may be suitable. --Fire Star 火星 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished making some changes to the section that I think are appropriate, including what I just mentioned. Mcconn 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm fine with Colipon's version as of this post. Mcconn 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Health Benefits

I must say I am very impressed by the findings of Li et al. (2005) on the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (JACM). I have read the journal, actually, and this is just a perspective look on how these studies are not presented in the right fashion, and actually don't prove that much.

I do not doubt whatsoever that Falun Gong has health benefits. However, the fact that in the JACM Qi Gong studies are extensively covered should not be ignored. It is fair to say that FLG is but an offshoot of Qigong on a purely physical level, and that through empirical evidence I would argue that many Qi Gong studies have proven health benefits, and by the way the section looks now it seems Falun Gong is taking exclusive claim to these health benefits. Let me expand by quoting the study itself (Li et al., 30):

Subjects

Eligible subjects were 18 years of age or older. Six (6) Asian FLG practitioners (3 males and 3 females, mean age, 46.7 _ 13.3 years) and 6 Asian normal healthy controls (3 males and 3 females, mean age, 41.3 _ 11.3 years) were recruited by advertisement for our study. The practitioners had practiced FLG for at least 1 year (range, 1–5 years). The practice includes daily book reading (Li, 1994) and daily FLG exercises lasting 1–2 hours each time. Selected normal healthy controls had not performed Qigong, yoga, t’ai chi, any type of mind–body practice, or physical exercise for at least 1 year . With the approval of the Institutional Review Board and after informed consent was given, 30 mL of heparinized blood was taken from each subject.

I do not have the qualifications to debate any of the results myself. However, in the methodology, one must note the part about "...or physical exercise for at least 1 year", I am a bit unclear as to what this refers to. In addition, 12 people were used as subjects in total. The sample space seems awfully small. Most importantly, however, when the authors of the study are emphasizing the fact that these people who are non-FLG have also not practiced QiGong, Yoga, T'ai Chi, or any type of mind-body exercise, to say that Falun Gong can claim exclusivity to these benefits (as any western reader may interpret while reading this section) is absurd. I myself have practiced QiGong, and so do many family members as a way of keeping healthy, to me, to say that FLG is more effective than any other mind-body exercise seems an unfair assertion. To have a few studies support these seemingly exclusive benefits from Falun Gong is somewhat inappropriate.

This is a suggestion, that we find studies relating to how Falun Gong compares with conventional QiGong or even Yoga in terms of health benefits. Then these claims to health benefits can be fairly brought to light. I think the section should remain, but needs work. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I just looked at the Chinese study. I can only gasp in awe at its sheer simplicity by which the "conclusions" are based upon. I don't think I even have to debate the methodology there. I can't believe there's even a link on here to that. Colipon+(T) 01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Health Benefits section on the Tai Chi article. Let us be reminded that most of these studies are from PubMed's Database. These are the types of studies that Wikipdia should be citing, not studies posted on Falun Gong's official website (such as the Chinese study from 1998 in Beijing) that has little ground in the scientific community. The sheer contrast of the studies between Tai Chi and Falun Gong show an obvious gap, which I invite you to look for yourselves.

I invite refutations to my contentions based on the merit of the studies alone, refutations that do not involve denial or an attack on my character. If there are no valid contentions in the next few days, I will be bold and remodel the section on Health Benefits. Colipon+(T) 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do not be bold and remodel the health benefits section, unless you want to initiate another edit war. Also, remodeling the health and benefits sections based on original research and without trying to reach consensus doesnt seem really appropriate to me. After all, we are all working on the article right?--Andres18 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you outright ignored the fact that I am welcoming direct refutation to my comments on the merit of these studies. Actually, now that I review your comment, I'm afraid you outright ignored my comments in their entirety. Anyway, the point is, if you have nothing productive and reasonable to say against the content of the issue I have raised, then I am afraid if an edit war is to occur, whoever will come to mediate will know clearly who is at fault. Meanwhile I welcome any refutation or compromise, in an attempt to avoid an edit war. Colipon+(T) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Colipon, I think you've got some good points here. I wish there were more studies, like those done on Taichi, done on Falun Gong. To Falun Gong practitioners, the health benefits are not only clear, but often astounding. We'd like to report those in anyway we can, but it's hard when so little scientific studies are available. Actually, I believe that during the 90's there were more studies done in China that simply aren't available now. It's a shame. I would be open to see what changes you suggest for the section, although I suggest that you post them here first before making them. I also want to say that I've seen in your edits that you are striving for neutrality. So although I still may not agree with all of them, I see your effort, and respect that.Mcconn 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem for health studies (I've been involved in a few) and faith healing like FLG is that in Li's teaching there is no independantly reproducible mechanism for any health benefits which may accrue from the practise. Physically, there are 5 simple qigong-like exercises, but most other qigong systems, especially the martial ones, are more complicated and more thoroughly defined in their range of motion and application. What Li proposes energetically in his lectures is that his students have to surrender their will entirely to him and then he somehow (either directly or indirectly) puts his energy into his followers to get the FLG wheel turning internally. Most medical doctors or academics (outside of psychologists or perhaps anthropologists) would laugh you out the door after such a proposition. They want to see a chain of cause and effect from A to Z, with every stage discussed and diagrammed. If you get past that stage, then there is the issue of the critical stream of a controllled study that the hopeful devotee will have to be able to swim in. Science is a tough business! --Fire Star 火星 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment appears to be a deliberate mispresentation of the teachings of Falun Dafa or a demonstration of willful ignorance. The book is right there and there is never any mention of "surrendering the will", or the rest. If you want to talk about the teachings you are better of quoting them, unless you are strictly or accurately paraphrasing. We waste time with these comments so let's try not to do them anymore. I have made some additions and alterations to the lead which I consider improvements. They will be apparent. We should discuss them. Misrepresentations and falsifications should never be posted, such as that "judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification". --Asdfg12345 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry they are embarassing, but these are things Li has said many times in his lectures, implicitly and explicity. Don't shoot the messenger. --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, Asdfg. When an editor does quote Li, you object to the quote. I have repeatedly quoted Li (directly or indirectly) ony to have those quotes blanked by you. Fire Star is only posting a comment in disucssion here, not posting an edit entry. And regardless, "submit to Li's will" is a pretty accurate description of the relationship between a practitioener and the master, isn't it? Are you willing to state right now that Li is wrong in his teachings on any subject? Or that you are comfortable disregarding his directives if you don't agree with them? --Tomananda 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like ASDFG to respond to my comments about the health benefits which he seems to have forgotten. Colipon+(T) 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I think what you are saying, you are just pointing out flaws in the study, right? That's fine. We just report things simply and tell it like it is. If 12 people were surveyed then we say so. If the meanings of some terms like physical exercise were not defined in the report we should state that the terms were not given a definition, if the report could not prove a causal relationship between health benefits and Falun Gong - I assume that is what you are saying (but what causal relationship can be proven?) - then we can put that. Actually, for that last one, it seems a bit unrelated to state that. That is a metaphysical statement. Maybe if the report says that there is a causal relationship between the practice of Falun Gong and health benefits, then we can give them a bit of Hume to chew on, but this seems not a part of stating what is contained in the report, but crosses into what is called "Original Research", perhaps. Anyway, I am not sure if I have responded to you well. I think all that is fine.--Asdfg12345 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you responded well at all. I don't really understand what you are trying to say, and I don't think you truly understood what I was trying to say either. My contention stands until you reach this understanding, and gather some evidence to back up these circumstantial claims of yours. Colipon+(T) 07:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and opposition

If you always reject reproaches and criticism, always point your fingers at others, and always refute others' disapproval and criticism, is that cultivating? How is that cultivating? You have grown used to focusing on other people's shortcomings, and never take examining your own self seriously.

Given the founder's teaching on reproaches and criticism, I wonder if the best response to "suppression" or "persecution" is to point a finger at the "evil suppressors" (as the Epoch Times has done at great lengeth). It appears followers are departing from the recommended course.

But the real question is what Wikipedia contributors should do. I would not make a fuss over whether the ban amounts to "suppression" or "persecution". Clearly, everything about Falun Gong is controversial. Every claim is balanced by a counter-claim. They're tortured like animals, they're left alone. Their deceptive hooligans, they're fine upstanding people. It's a religion, it's a cult. And so on.

Unless you all agree that you "cannot tell whether I have a dog in this fight" from the above, I'm not going to be able to supply "neutrality assistance" here. But I'd be glad to help if I could. --Uncle Ed 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I love how no one replied to this. Colipon+(T) 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy summary on main page reduced to one or two paragraphs

I'm reposting this section since it never really took off when it was originally posted. Tomananda, I hope you can write a response since you are the one mostly concerned with this section. Mcconn 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How do people feel about a more concise single or double paragraph summary of the criticism subpage similar to that used for other subpages? Mcconn 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine w/me. There should be consistency. --Fire Star 火星 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the subpage summaries on the main page are one or two paragraphs except for the criticism/controversy subpage, which has individual subsections with links and summaries for each subsection on its main page. So I am suggesting reducing this to one or two paragraphs, like the summaries of other subpages. First, I'd like to know who supports this idea and who doesn't. If you don't support it, then please state why. If most are in favor then perhaps someone can take up the responsibility to write a draft and post it on the talk page for review. Mcconn 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not support this obvious attempt to dilute the Criticism and controversies summary on the main page. You seem to be bothered that there are separate links to sub-articles which happen to appear on the same Criticism page, but not bothered that at the same time this material was created the FG practitioners created a bunch of separate pages to promote the FG. As I've said before, the placement of some of the sub-sections in the Criticism page is rather arbitrary. For example, the "Is Falun Gong a cult?" subsection probably belongs on the main page, where it was at the very beginning of our discussions. And there are other sub-sections in the Criticism page which could easily warrent their own separate pages. Why should we have multiple pages which FG practitioners created, but only one Criticism page? Is that really balanced? --Tomananda 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, it really is balanced. Because there is a lot more to Falun Gong than criticism and controversy. Do you think half the page should be criticism? That's silly. What precedence does that have? There are many elements to this subject of which Criticism and controversy is one. And, like it or not, it is but one subpage of the article. It does not deserve the special treatment that it has been getting. I know that you originally modeled this section after the one on the scientology page, but the fact is Falun Gong is not scientology, and the two pages are different. The criticism section for scientology does not have a seperate page, while ours does. If you really have a problem with having this section's mainpage summary be just like the others, then another option would be to do something in bullet form like the christianity article. I do believe that in the current state it is being given unfair treatment.

The "Is Falun Gong a cult" section rightly belongs in that page because this is a controversal subject, and the academics' explanations of why they think Falun Gong is cult amount to criticism. Mcconn 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. The Scientology page does have a seperate subpage for criticism. Mcconn 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For an example of a well-sourced critical page on a well-known subject, please have a look at Criticism of Coca-Cola. We have a lot of one-subject editors here, both pro- and anti-, so hopefully this should be interesting. --Fire Star 火星 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars - those who start one to ensure their view is 'locked from editing

I find it curious that the page is always locked on pro-FG versions, even for paragraphs that were broadly agreed upon (ie except for a few things here and there) before. It seems certain users, including (worryingly) Asdfg12345, who returned just when a constructive solution was being discussed by users from both sides, and who also previously claimed to be working towards a Wiki solution, is taking advantage of lockdowns in edit wars to get their version across. If this persists we can never have a proper Wiki entry, and sysops should do more to rectify this. I know non-involvement should be practised, but if people are taking advantage of a supposedly non-involvement Wiki policy to their advantage (in essence, Wiki vandalism via section blanking) then it is clear that they have no interest in seeing an ultimate compromise. They only have an interest in seeing their version being put forward and will do ANYTHING to ensure this is the case - even be willing to start an edit war to ensure their version is locked to prevent further edits of it. And if this remains the case, sadly, it will be up to those with Wiki powers to rectify this, but if they don't, will point out a severe failing of Wikipedia as a supposed encyclopedia in general. An alternative solution is mediation, but that hasn't worked, nor has the ArbCom thing. See next section for the rest of this reply. Jsw663 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed three-strike solution re editors' behavior

So, I propose a three-strike solution to apply to the Falun Gong entry. Users from both sides who are heavily involved will have to sign up to it / agree to it first, of course. If agreed by at least six regular users on this discussion page, then it will apply. Finally, an administrator-level or above Wikipedian editor will have to see that this is enforced. This can maintain the admins' non-involvement in content issues. These rules are chiefly concerned with editors' behavior.

The rules are:

1. If you propose an edit to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, it MUST be posted in the discussion board of the Falun Gong Wiki entry or one of the special and related talk pages (e.g. the FG introduction discussion page). Exceptions only apply to administrators or sysops when playing their admin / sysop function.
2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.
2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.
2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.
3(a)(i). This proposal has to be on there for a minimum of FIVE FULL DAYS (120 hours) without disagreement from any other editor, except those editors blocked by Wikipedia during that time for violation of this rule IN RELATION to this proposal.
- 3(a)(ii). To prevent abuse of the term "five full days", aka 120 hours, the time that Wikipedia is down or not accessible (if more than 1 hour at any one time during those 120 hours), then the time that Wikipedia was down will NOT count to those 120 hours.
- 3(b) If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s).
- 3(c) If, after five full days, there is no disagreement from any user, then the main Falun Gong Wiki page will be edited accordingly. Reversion of such an edit is not permitted unless another proposal is made, which must then adhere to the above rules.
4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -
- a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content
- b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).
5. If a user edits in violation of this, then they will be given a warning ('first strike'). Similar action will be taken if they do it a second time.
6(a) If the user edits the main Falun Gong page without discussion, or with discussion but with less than 120 hours for disagreement, or in violation of any of the above rules, and they do it three times, then BOTH sides will HAVE to agree to take action against this user.
- 6(b) Actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have them temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If these short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.
7. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, and not to any other related entry.
8. Any change of these rules is subject to a proposal in a similar fashion to the above.

Let me know what you all think. Special circumstances should pertain to this page. And a side note to McConn, I'll reply to your posts later. Jsw663 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this suggestion in the latest attempt to build the Falun Gong article. Colipon+(T) 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is great that would take such an initiative and draft this up. I find the "If agreed by at least six regular users on this discussion page, then it will apply." a little curious, as I had never heard of anything like one group of users taking control of editing procedures over other views. I am not sure if that proposition has a place here. Of course, if everyone agreed to it then there obviously would not be a problem, but otherwise that clause might be seen as an attempt to crush pluralism. Anyway, in principle I agree to what you are proposing - in one way it may be seen as an attempt to make things more ordered and civil, and to prevent extreme editing behaviours. One potential worrying thing to me is that the article posted on wikipedia originally, the one that we will need to propose our edit for, discuss, and wait five days until editing, is one that has false, misleading or misrepresentative information about Falun Dafa. I also often get a distinct feeling that in some cases, even when points are so clearly stated and made to some editors, right in front of their faces, they still muddle up the issue, deny, ignore, or obscure. One concrete example of that is the protracted discussion on "What exactly is Fa-rectification", which also included explaining the issue of why practitioners clarify the truth about the persecution and talk about the CCP, with Tomananda. I won't go into specifics here. This, more than any other case, demonstrated to my mind that some editors are simply bent on going ahead with what they want to do and will not actually acknowledge things that are contrary to what they are pursuing, even when the evidence is right there. So getting an edit done on the pages becomes quite a process. So, if the version that is going to be up, originally, is in conformance with wikipedia policies and presents a balanced, fair and neutral tone, and does not misrepresent or falsify anything, then I would happily agree. If that is not the case then I do not agree. So, which version of the article would you be proposing? --Asdfg12345 11:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I too am willing to back a consensus to adopt the procedure. The edit warring is a way of gaming the system in this case, as there is a 50% chance that your version will be protected. I hope any admins who protect the page will also consider sanctioning chronic edit warriors in future. --Fire Star 火星 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deliberately suspended any replies to any debates I have had here with FGers (e.g. to McConn's) for a good reason - it is pointless debating if all it will come to is a ridiculous edit war in the end on the main entry.

Asdfg, there have been pro-FG edits and anti-FG edits on the main Wiki page. To achieve a 'balanced, fair and neutral tone', we will have to undergo some bias at first. This is why any edit or reversion must undergo the 5-day rule. It is not too long so as to mislead 'too many' neutral readers (should they view this Wiki entry). I am more concerned about your behavior in seeing only a pro-FG stance be aired on the main Wiki page. Wikipedia's NPOV rule does not mean NPOV for a pro-FGer. It means NPOV for the community at large. This is why discussion between pro-FG, anti-FG and third-party camps are necessary. But to ensure both sides get a say (so that we reach a compromise before editing to prevent edit wars) this is what the 5-day rule is for.

The 'six regular users' thing was only meant to include at least one main contributor (apart from myself) from each of the camps. The vast majority of those editing the Falun Gong Wiki entry are the same few people.

I also note that my 'objection from any editor' rule is subject to abuse. But how do we propose a rule to curtail this? We could, for example, place unregistered users under 'probation'. Another is to say that objections can only be concerned with content, and must cite a Wikipedian policy violation. But then there will be undue WP:NPOV being thrown around. Still, an option remains whereby a 'vote' is held for each proposal, and where at least two from each of the three camps must agree to it. However, there is no substitute like placing more broad rules into practice, and adopting more as we go along. I have changed tiny bits to the rules above accordingly.

Nevertheless, Asdfg, unless you have an alternative proposal to my above proposed rules to be adopted, are you basically saying OK? Because an objection for the sake of objection does not demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedian policies. At this time of writing I have received two approvals but both from the 'non-pro-FG and non-anti-FG' camp. Jsw663 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if debate is impossible, dialogue with results is probably an even further stretch. Colipon+(T) 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always easy to take a nihilist attitude, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to work for a compromise. Always better to do something than nothing in situations like these. Jsw663 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, after thinking it over for a few days, I've decided that it's worth a shot. While it would prevent edit wars, I think it might also really slow down the progress of the article. But we won't know unless we try it, right? If it doesn't work, then we can try something else. Mcconn 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi McConn. I know that at first it seems to slow down the progress of the article, but every time we make progress towards an agreed compromise, it gets ruined by those who blank out entire sections to see their POV be 'locked down' by an administrator. All this does is postpone progress (that is essentially what lockdowns as a result of edit wars do) and a compromise will need to be discussed again. Thus, overall progress without these rules ends up being nothing, or next to nothing. These rules I propose is to ensure that all camps agree on a compromise, and that anybody seeking to upset this compromise (providing they're not willing to sufficiently discuss it) will be (temporarily) banned from editing the FG page. This latter point is what I must stress; it is these disruptions that are disturbing progress. I see this as the only way to progressing towards a FG Wiki entry, unfortunately. It's slow, but it should make progress. Jsw663 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Jsw I agree with the idea, but I am saying that i want to know which version will be up that will be subject to this. If it has anything in it that goes against wikipedia policies or that contains bias and POV I will not agree until it contains none of that content. If that means a slightly stripped back version of the introduction until we agree on things then that is fine too. I am just asking which article you propose to go up first. However, if all edits were clearly explained and followed, maybe even cited when necessary, the relevant wikipedia policies, and everything was laid out clearly, then that would be another approach. --Asdfg12345 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version is locked down. To discuss which version this will be reverted to when this lockdown is lifted, it will need to be in the form of a proposal in a manner similar to my above proposed rules. I am aware that different people will have different opinions as to what constitutes a 'neutral' page. This is why a compromise is necessary - and a compromise, to put it in an undiplomatic way, means nobody gets what they want completely. Sure, almost all users will probably eventually compromise on a version that is slightly POV before working on each paragraph in detail, but it may be necessary in the short-term.

So to answer your question, Asdfg, I am not proposing any version to 'go up' first. However, we can always open a new section to discuss this. Please be more tolerant of versions of the Wiki FG page that will not be one that you agree to. That is why negotiations / discussions / debates are necessary in the first place! I hope that section blanking will not be resorted to again, Asdfg, because that is the least helpful of all to any progress towards a finished Wiki article. Any temporary, unfinished version will have POV in it, and unless you can recognize this reality, a final article will never be agreed to. This is why I proposed rules regarding editing behavior. This is also why I am saying every edit, section and sentence will be subject to debate for that reason. It should all be explained and followed. Jsw663 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

At 28 January 2007 18.10 UTC, I now have

*Support from 1 pro-FG (McConn), 2 third-parties (Fire Star, Copilon), 0 anti-FG.

*Objection from 0 pro-FG, 0 third-parties and 1 anti-FG (Mr. He).

*The rest have not replied or are undecided. Jsw663 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot vote for this proposal at this time, because it seems to only address the addition of edits, rather than the deletion of edits. Asdfg's comments above suggest that he is planning to delete sourced material once some of these pages are unfrozen, rather than proposing modifications on the talk page. Just to remind everyone: the last big revert war we had was initiated by Omido blanking material, with Asdfg following his lead. Typically the material that is deleted amounts to direct or indirect quotes from the Master himself, but these invariably are quotes which the FG practitioners find objectionable. Asdfg's complaint about the material on Fa-rectification is very telling. A quick review of this talk page will show that multiple edits about Fa-rectification have been proposed, yet never with agreement from the FG practitioners. This is because Falun Gong practitioners are not comfortable simply reporting what their master says about the Fa-rectification. In the last big edit war, Omido and Asdfg were able to delete all reference to the Fa-recitification on the main page. So unless this agreement explicitly addresses this on-going problem of blanking of material, I can't vote for it. As to what version of the main page...obviously it should be the version that is up now that forms the basis for discussion. Any other approach would confuse the issues. We also need to systematically go through the main page content, rather than randomly propose changes. As I recall, we were discussing the introduction section when the last revert war began. We should return to that discussion before making any changes. --Tomananda 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not the quotes that we find objectionable, it's the way they are presented. Fa-Rectification is a big concept, and one not easily understood. And your comment about Asdfg's "plan to delete sourced material" is jumping to conclusions and not assuming good faith. Mcconn 04:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, I'll reply in greater detail below. The edits I made above should cover addition as well as deletion of edits, but I'll probably propose a newer clause. As for disputing the way something is presented, that should be left to discussion rather than rules, which is only to limit behavior. Jsw663 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Tomananda. The revert wars can only be stopped when FGers refrain from deleting material directly referenced to their group's websites. --Yueyuen 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, another proposal for two additional clauses. How about explicitly adding the following -

2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.

2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.

2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.

and......................

4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -

a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content

b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm able to add a clause regarding deletion of sourced material, or the way it is presented. This should be discussed rather than enforced as a rule. Deletion of any material without prior discussion is already covered by the clauses above. My proposed addition is to prevent section blanking. 25% is an arbitrary value, but it is in these extreme cases that heavier penalties must be taken. Jsw663 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsw: with the clarification that this agreement would apply to deletions as much as to additions, I'm inclined to vote yes, assuming we will begin with the edits as they exist rather than trying to go back to some other version of the edits as Asdfg wants to do. I do have one question, though, what do some of the administrators think of this proposal? --Tomananda 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I need someone from the opposite camp to OK it, or say what they don't agree with, and if so, why. Jsw663 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be fine. However, since some of this is resting on the admins, I think they should state their stance on it before it is a go. Mcconn 22:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't make policy, they just enforce violations of existing policy. Consensus and Jimbo Wales are the tweo ways new policy is actually made at Wikipedia. If enough of us here agree to comply with the procedure, then it can become a new editing guideline for a tendentious article. If it works and works well for this and other articles, then it could even become official policy someday. --Fire Star 火星 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These new rules are fine with me. Fgers have not followed existing Wiki rules, I am not optimistic that they will follow these new ones. --Samuel Luo 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see progress in consensus.

:: At 2 February 2007 19.50 UTC, I now have

*Support from 1 pro-FG (McConn), 2 third-parties (Fire Star, Copilon), 2 anti-FG (Tomananda, Samuel Luo).

*Objection from 0 pro-FG, 0 third-parties and 0 anti-FG.

*Abstention from 0 pro-FG, 0 third-parties and 1 anti-FG (Mr. He).

Since there are enough votes with no objections, this policy will be 'passed' once at least one admin-level or above person enforces this. Thanks for all those who have contributed. Jsw663 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It won't take an admin to enforce it at the basic level, just at a secondary. It will take the vigilance of the agreeing parties to revert edits that don't comply with the new guideline. Where an admin comes in is if the person not following the guidelines violates WP:3RR and needs to be blocked, which I'll be happy to enforce. --Fire Star 火星 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can consider my statement an objection if the page contains any misrepresentations or lies. If it has Tomananda and Samuel's definition of Fa-rectification or any other rotten stuff then I object. Otherwise I am all for it. Except there is one clause which will need to be explained please - why the rule about photos? I know it is not assuming good faith, and I am sorry, but experience has shown me that you guys will revert any photos that are put up, except maybe the Falun emblem. Photos of people practicing Falun Gong have all been taken down repeatedly with no real explanation. At least one photo of people practicing Falun Gong must be included. You mentioned that thing about the little girl meditating, I told you that it was not my intention to portray Dafa in an innocent way by using a child and replaced the photo, but it was still removed by Samuel with no explanation. All good articles have photos. Featured articles have photos, sometimes a fair few photos. Photos brighten up and enhance articles, and they are good to see on wikipedia. If adding a photo has to be approved by everyone, what I think will happen is that the people who are against Falun Gong will always object to any photos of people practicing Falun Gong. That is not in the interests of a good article. So what I am saying is that I think we are in a deadlock, and that this set of rules will mean that the initial version that we start with basically will not change for a long time. We will discuss and in the end two intractable positions will be reached, like it has always happened. I can site examples of these if you like. These are cases where the arguments have been laid out very clearly and there is still an objection or may I say, obfuscation. So I will not give up my right to revert and alter the article (as I understand what subscribing to these rules means), without knowing that the article does not contain any defamatory material. Now I will try to sum up really quickly:

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposal if: the article does not contain Samuel and Tomananda's NPOV, OR, and misleading interpretations of Fa-rectification; it includes a brief summary of third party perspectives on the persecution; it includes at least one photo of people practicing Falun Gong; does not in any othe way violate wikipedia policies with regard to NPOV, OR, actually, any of the guidelines;

So if it is a skeleton of an article that we then work with, that is put up on the page, that is better - I am in general proposing that it is better that it provide minimal information rather than misinformation. I am sort-of abstaining until I hear a response, but it is also an objection to enforcing it right now. I am calling for my concerns to be addressed, and that you do not rush ahead and dismiss what I am saying because there is consensus. If you wanted to enforce it right now you can consider this an objection. I want to discuss it further and for my concerns to be thrashed out. It would be a big problem if we started this process with one of the negative against Falun Gong articles, and I am not willing to allow that to happen.--Asdfg12345 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, what is Tomananda and Samuel's definition of Fa-rectification? All we have ever used was definition provided by your master. Yes, there is rotten stuff on the article, they come directly from your master’s mouth. --Samuel Luo 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, I find your comments very disturbing. In effect, you are accusing me and Samuel of lying when, in fact, we simply report what master Li has said. The sentence on Fa-rectification you conintually object to is this:

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

You'll notice that this one sentence is supported by 2 footnotes from Li's own writing. You yourself agreed that it was an accurate statement of what Li has said in the discussion above. The truth is that you don't accept that Li's teachings "at the higher levels" should be simply and clearly reported in Wikipedia. In your comments earlier on, you seemed to object to this statement because more needed to be said about Fa-recfification. If that's the case, then why not add your own sentence to follow this sentence? We need to respect the work of other editors and whenever possible build on what has already been done. Are you willing to work in a cooperative way to make that happen?--Tomananda 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We had a really long discussion about this. We should not use this space for discussing it again. Please see the below section I just created to address this, to keep things more orderly --Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345, your behavior is very curious. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, and that is the above rules are not watertight. They are deliberately vague and general, and only seeks to restrict behavior that is disruptive - essentially an embellishment of WP:Vandalism. Now let's consider your objections.

1. No Samuel / Tom's POV - This is why there must be discussion BEFORE editing. It is unlikely either side will get what they deem is 'OK', because this is Wikipedia, a supposedly independent source. If Sam / Tom were to object to your views all the time, then we will also never reach consensus. It takes a little maturity and the will for an eventual compromised version before progress can be made. Your point about 'misleading interpretations of Fa-rectification' means you don't want any subjectivity that doesn't agree with your POV, am I right? Since such a controversial subject inevitably engenders many POVs, then your intolerance of other POVs is not only disruptive, but goes against several guidelines of Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV again to familiarize yourself with these rules again, if necessary. Wikipedia is after all not a Falun-pedia. I have already talked about this point before since you have already raised it before, but you seem to be ignoring my address so this paragraph is essentially a repeat of info already stated above.

2. Third party perspectives on 'persecution' - We should include third parties' opinions, but not all of them say or prove what is going on is in fact a persecution. Where in the article to include them is also a key concern. Since the 'persecution / suppression' point is still up for debate above (and I have merely 'paused' the debate with McConn regarding this point), this request can only be partially granted.

3. One photo of FG being practised - The rule written on photos above is only to ensure any photos posted conform to all Wiki rules. Opposing and neutral editors/admins are allowed to challenge it. It is important to note that in the discussion we had about photos above, that the style of the photo, etc. is also very important. It must be seen as a 'neutral' photo instead of a particularly positive or negative one. I referred to the black and white one (was that on the taichi or qigong page, I forgot) and even HiG's counter-examples. Unless you are saying you are HiG, Asdfg, or agree 100% with HiG's points, please air your opinion in that section as well.

4. Does not violate other WP - well, has it? If it has, please say where and how it has, Asdfg. I have asked Blnguyen to look into this matter - and surely he is senior enough as he is on the ArbCom, as well as a sysop or whatever the most senior posts are called. That is basically what I'm proposing the neutral admins to do - to ensure that the rules or its enforcement does not contravene any current Wiki policies, and doesn't go against the spirit of any guideline. I'm inviting you to challenge this point, Asdfg, but if you can't come up with a challenge, then I guess there is no objection regarding this point. Jsw663 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your response; let's just 'pause' this as well for now.--Asdfg12345 11:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Something that requires your opinion now - approval or disapproval (unless you need clarifications) - should not be 'paused'. But opposition to these rules for the sake of opposition or accusations of imperfection tend to suggest you are not willing to accept that different people have different opinions, and that your view cannot always be forced on everyone else. Jsw663 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

here

I made a very long post about the term Fa-rectification and also presented a paragraph to sum it up. You did not respond to the long post, and you did not make any concrete points about how the paragraph I presented did not represent Fa-rectification. It is actually wrong to say that what you are presenting is just Li Hongzhi's words. You are presenting your interpretation of them. "...his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification.", based on this:

Foretelling the Fa’s Rectification of the Human World

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. All of the heavens and the earth celebrate together, congratulate each other, and exalt together. Dafa’s most glorious period in the human world begins at this moment.

Li Hongzhi December 9, 2001

That is your own stuff you draw from that. That statement should not go on wikipedia at all. Fa-rectification should definitely be mentioned in a quick explanation of Falun Dafa in the introduction, because it is in some ways a major part of the teachings, but I hope you understand when I say that your proposal is difficult for me to treat as a serious attempt to actually explain Fa-rectification. So to me, I think that there should be a mention of it, but not an attempt to explain it in the introduction - but that there should be a bit more of an explanation further below in the page. Maybe you think I am trying to hide the teachings. I hope you don't think that. I am not. We can put it in the introduction but I think that would be a bit unwieldy for wikipedia. Of course, I don't have anything to hide.--Asdfg12345 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Dafa is judging all beings." Did Li Hongzhi say that, or is it something Tomananda made up? Asdfg, I suggest you check here to find that exact quote from your Master: [8] So given that your Master said these words, as well as others which I can also quote, I ask that you tell me exactly which part of the edit you disagree with. --Tomananda 07:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond and explain everything here again. It takes a while every time I do that. When it comes to an editing decision again I will spell it all out again. I have found that most of my time on wikipedia is spent in arguments that go nowhere. Basically it is because those sentences do not represent Fa-rectification and Dafa at all, but they are more like an interpretation of yours which do contain some elements of the truth, but you have actually very badly skewed, misrepresented, and not fully represented the issues. It is true that all beings are being judged - but that is not what Fa-rectification is. The judgement is only whether they oppose Dafa or not, oppose the Fa-rectification or not, which as Teacher has explained it the same as opposing themselves and their own futures. The Fa-rectification is to save all beings, so opposing it is the same as opposing one's own future. May I paraphrase my understanding and say that Fa-rectification is the rectification of the whole cosmos, with the question of judgment and weeding out only having arisen after the interference to Fa-rectification by the old forces in the cosmos who have deviated from the Fa - and now every being has a choice about their future. Fa-rectification is universal salvation. Weeding out only became a question after the interference to Fa-rectification, and furthermore it only applies to those who are opposed to the Fa-rectification (opposed to the universe, themselves, the future). Also, there was that really long post I did which spelled everything out crystal clear, so I can email it to you again if you would like. Let me know. I don't want to post it again here because it there is already a lot of this kind of content on this page.--Asdfg12345 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

pro-falun gong editors stop concealing info

Pro-falun gong editors, you have again removed two important sections, “Depravity of today’s people” and “Sickness Karma” on Teachings of Falun Gong page. Also, “Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi” and “Li's claims of divinity” sections on Li Hongzhi page. Since material in these sections are directly referenced to falun gong’s own websites and some to major US media, there can be no justification for their removal. Edit wars have been provoked by your aggressive and outrageous edits repeatedly. I am tired of reverting them again and I hope you can truly be truthful and stop removing these sections. Thanks --Mr.He 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I love how no one replied to this. Colipon+(T) 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for removing these sections are explained on those page's talk pages. If you feel that the reasons aren't good, you can say so there. The divintiy section was not removed, only renamed. Mcconn 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the intrview of Li section on Li's page. Pro-falun gong editors, what you are doing will only provoke more revert wars. do you really think that you could delete these sections? --Pirate101 21:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Definately the section you are referring to, Mr. Pirate. See the talk page. Mcconn 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, what I and many other editors have said for a long time is that we should not do editing at the expense of other editors. What that means is, wholesale blanking of sourced material should not be allowed. There's a big difference between changing a title of a section (eg: the Divinity section) versus blanking out an entire section (what you and others have done to the Interviews with Li section.) What really disturbs me is that you seem to want there to be a double standard. There is quite a lot of pro-FG material on these various pages which I have often been tempted to delete, because I don't think it meets Wiki standards. Specifically, I am referring to the very long block quotes of Master Li which do not read like an encylopedia article, but rather as excerpts from a book. I have not blanked that material because I assume eventually we will get around to improving those sections. Yet when it comes to things that the pro-FG editors don't like, they simply delete it...even whole paragraphs or sections. Sorry, but that amounts to a double standard. If the material is sourced and relevant, than it should not just be deleted. Instead, as Jsw proposed some time ago, we should have discussions about balance and weight. --Tomananda 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would say this after my reasons for removing that section have been sitting without reply for well over a month now. I repetedly tell people to take their quarrel to the talk page, just as I've done above. And I'm repetedly ignored. Sometimes there are good reasons for deleting entire sections, and if no one has anything to say in response to these reasons, am I just supposed to leave it there? I don't think so. I rarely make edits for which I don't provide an explanation in the edit summaries or on the talk page. If I've only explained my edit in an edit summary, and find that it's been reverted, I almost always go right to the talk page to explain it more thoroughly and initiate a discussion. Mcconn 03:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, Many editors (including Firestar) have restored those sections you deleted repeatedly, does this mean anything to you? The rule is very simple, you are not allowed to remove sourced material. This is the response you have been getting from me on the edit summary. I don’t think it needs to be repeated on the talk page. Your blankimgs have only provoked revert wars and protection of these pages, why continue? --Mr.He 07:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me this rule. I've got an idea. How about I create a section called "Lectures of the master" and then quote all the things I think are interesting from all the lectures he's ever given. Or, even better, I could create a section called "adjectives and adverbs". In it I could list all of the adjectives and adverbs that Mr. Li has used that I consider interesting. Don't worry, I would make sure everything was sourced. By virtue of what you said, I suppose these sections couldn't be removed, could they? Do you see how ridiculous this logic is? Get to the talk page. Mcconn 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, you don’t seem to respect others and show no desire for peace. I have tried my best to reach an agreement with you and other FGers; now I will do my best to protect those sections. --Mr.He 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Study may include "Opinions worth considering"

Any of you who has a bit of time to spare should really read the following study. It really opens up your mind. Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong Colipon+(T) 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who are planning to deny, ignore, or allege inacurracies and biased opinions in the study, or claim that the article is from a CPC spy or agent, please go read it before making any judgments. There is a comprehensive list of references on which the study is based on. Colipon+(T) 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That link has nothing at it - is there a mistake or something? You know, since you are really NPOV, why don't you post anything that says favourable things about Falun Gong? Anyway, just a little joke. We find these things interesting and they should be included in wikipedia, have no doubts. I have no judgments and everyone's opinion is worth considering, right? I just want to say, to cultivators we find these things a bit funny. We just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing. We don't want anything like money or power, and especially Teacher, he taught us to be this way, so even less does he want them. It would be wonderful if you were pursuing these things out of a desire to see a balanced wikipedia article rather than a desire to discredit Falun Gong. Like I said, if it were just us the pages would like like falundafa.org, and be short and simple explanations with links to the books. That is not really an encyclopedia, is it, so it is good to bring in all these things and report them. I just wished it would be more like an academic exercise rather than anything else, and that you realise Dafa is harmless and has taught us all to be good and kind people. That is what we want people to know. We just want to cultivate our xinxing and become good. Maybe this old Taoist story will help you to understand the way we think about these things, when people say Teacher is trying to make money or build up some thing. You know Chuang Tzu.

Owl and Phoenix

Hui Tzu was prime minister of Liang province. He had heard that Chuang Tzu wanted his job and was plotting to usurp him. When Chuan Tzu came to visit Liang, Hui Tzu sent police to arrest him. The police searched unsuccessfully for three days and nights, but in the meantime Chuang Tzu presented himself at the palace voluntarily. He said to Hui Tzu: “Have you heard about the bird that lives in the south, the phoenix? It never grows old. It drinks only from the clearest springs. It rises out of the South Sea and flies to the North Sea without touching land or water, except to alight on sacred trees from which it takes its only food, the most exquisite rare fruit. “Once, an owl, chewing a dead, half-decayed rat, saw the phoenix fly overhead. The owl looked up and screeched with alarm, frantically clutching the rat to protect his kill. “Why are you frantically clutching your ministry and screeching at me with alarm?”

--Asdfg12345 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear ASDFG, let me address your assumptions about me and address one of a few misconceptions directly from what you have said.

“

You know, since you are really NPOV, why don't you post anything that says favourable things about Falun Gong?

”

First of all, let me say that my understanding of NPOV is that it must be neutral above all else. If I were to say favourable things, it would, A, undermine my status here as a neutral editor, and B, I do not consider it necessary because there are more than enough pro-FLG editors that seem to only wish to inject favourable material and nothing else. Believe me if there was a group of enthusiastic and overzealous pro-CCP editors my response would probably a lot worse.

Let's see what else you said that is of note.

“

I have no judgments and everyone's opinion is worth considering, right?

”

Please give me and all the faithful editors here a definition of "worth considering". Does it mean, "let's look at it, and if it's critical of FLG in any way, let's get rid of it?" Because it seems so^{[citation needed]}. And let me extend that a bit. What do you mean by "opinion"? I am frank when I ask, which types of information you consider as opinion and which you consider to be fact. For example, could you tell me if BBC's news reports are "opinion" or "fact"? Could you tell me, if Falun Gong's websites are "opinion" or "fact"? Could you tell me if various religious studies and numerous documents published criticizing Falun Gong using verifiable sources is "opinion" or "fact"?

I think there needs to be a removal of the notion, that because the CCP is persecuting Falun Gong, everything Falun Gong says or does is justified and legitimate regardless of context, and everything official Falun Gong sources say can therefore be safely considered a "fact", including Li Hongzhi's purported background with training from various masters from several schools (fact), Falun Gong's refusal in its involvement with politics in any way (fact), the number of members who have quit the CPC as of now stands at 17.7 million because the Epoch Times says so (big big fact). Where is your basis for any of these claims?

“

I just want to say, to cultivators we find these things a bit funny. We just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing.

”

Li Hongzhi is no ordinary human being. I am sure his intellect surpassed that of Jiang Zemin by far. However, I would like to know what are these things that you find "funny". And if you find them funny, could you please laugh at it on your own time. Falun Gong is the true Fa. Time will tell this truth. The CPC will be destroyed because of its inherently evil nature, its willful brainwashing of the Chinese people, and its brutal persecution of the believers of the Fa. It is only a matter of time before Buddha Law cleanses it out of existence. Last time I checked^{[citation needed]} Falun Gong believes in the nature of the Buddha Law, above all else. Therefore, instead of wasting all your time here at Wikipedia in an attempt to convince blind adherents to the CCP's evil policies who are too brainwashed to understand Fa, why, honestly, I beg an answer, would you not just let the CPC self-destruct? Why does Teacher Li and the Epoch Times have to constantly portray the CPC in every negative way possible to further this cause? If it is ensured by Buddha Law, what importance is there to minimal human influence on the subject? Buddha Law ensures the CPC will be destroyed. A truly benevolent practitioner, will, like you eloquently put, just read the books, do the exercises, meditate and cultivate our xinxing. Why even get involved in discrediting the CCP and all Falun Gong critics? They'll be rid of naturally by Buddha Law.

“

We don't want anything like money or power, and especially Teacher, he taught us to be this way, so even less does he want them.

”

Let me say again, I have never said or alleged that Falun Gong practitioners want money or power. The writings on Li Hongzhi that are critical on Wikipedia have been mostly based on his own quotations, all of which are provided by Western media, all verifiable and in context, or based on studies in recognizable journals or recognized educational institutions. Yet most of this is still classified as "opinion that should be considered" by pro-FLG editors. Does something only become a fact if it comes from Li Hongzhi or Falun Gong websites themselves?

I would like to know.

Your Chuang Tzu-Taoist story lacks a source, and even if you can find one, it must be biased, therefore it has been removed by me, and its title changed to accurately reflect Daoist beliefs. The story is misleading, and discredits Taoism as a flawed ideology that overtly and unfairly glorifies "the Phoenix". I find this to be extremely biased. In addition, where is the source that Hui Tzu was actually the governor of Liang Province? And if he is the governor, does that not involve him in politics? Daoism is not a political organization!!! Does this come from a pro-Taoist website? If not then it does not provide facts on Daoism. As there is 0 words on this page that is pro-Daoism, then the parts discrediting Daoism must also be scaled down to 0 words. This is to ensure fairness.

Colipon+(T) 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the study found at http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=19014 is a PDF document (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2005) 44(2):173–185). For those of you who allege it cannot be opened it is suggested that you check your computer software support. Please notify me if you continue to have trouble opening it. It is entitled "Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong". I am more than willing to copy and paste the report onto a subpage for those of you interested. Dr. Yunfeng Lu, Ph. D., published the studies, and is a Postdoctoral Research fellow at the Center for Religious Inquiry Across the Disciplines and Sociology Department of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Dr. Lu can be contacted at Yunfeng Lu, Baylor University, Department of Sociology, One Bear Place #97236, Waco, TX 78798; E-mail: paul_lu@baylor.edu. Colipon+(T) 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered, posting the study on Wikipedia will be a copyright violation. I will gladly e-mail it to people if they wish to see. Lowe (2003:263–76) is also a good read, let me pinpoint a location for it first. All these studies provide ample, sourceable, and reliable material for the article itself. Colipon+(T) 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored Asdfg's story. Colipon, your deleting part of Asdfg's post and putting your own words in it's place is in serious violation of wiki policy. Mcconn 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You offer me very valuable advice, McConn. In the near future I will probably incorporate your advice above in a big quotation on the talk page so every can see understand Wiki policy in an emphasized manner. Meanwhile could you pro-FLG editors please go read the study. That is the topic of discussion, please do not try to change it. After that perhaps read all my comments from above again and try to refine it to find deeper meaning. Colipon+(T) 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a side comment. If pro-FG editors keep on insisting other parties read pro-FG sources, studies, etc., the least they could do is practice what they preach as well by reading and considering non-pro-FG sources. This assumes that FGers are receptive to criticism. However, try not to let this sink into a FG discussion forum again. Jsw663 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do, and I believe the others do too. I've been looking for that study, and now that you've presented a link, I'll gladly read it. Mcconn 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah me too, I read that stuff, and please can you email that thing to me Colipon, because I could not open the link you sent. Also Colipon, maybe your intentions were good, but it is not allowed to alter posts on the discussion page. Even if I made it up and did pass it off as representative of Taoism, wikipedia states that you cannot alter it. Read about it here:vandalism. I will put the story back now with the original title. I first read it in a book by Thomas Merton, but I also found that story in Lin Yutang's translation, and i remembered and wanted to post it, so I looked up "Chuang Tzu Owl Phoenix" in google. It was on a website. You'll be able to find it by doing that. Here is a link to Lin Yutang translation of Chuang Tzu, you can find it in there, just hit search and type "phoenix" or "owl": http://www.religiousworlds.com/taoism/cz-text2.html#HUMAN. --Asdfg12345 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I can open it now, I am not sure what happened before. You don't need to email me the pdf. Will save and look at it later.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again. You should read my comment in its entirety. I still don't think you understand. If you still do not understand after. Then... well, there is very little I can do. Oh and I'd like to hear responses to the study please. Put them on my talk page if you please as there is probably enough useless content on this page. Colipon+(T) 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange idea of history

The current version of the article says:

The foundation of Falun Dafa are teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun.

Since taking over the government of China in 1948 China has striven to uproot "traditional Chinese culture" and even though that attempt probably could not be called an unqualified success, nevertheless what exists in China today is a far cry from the kind of life, the kind of values, that were uppermost during the time before the fall of the Qing dynasty. Yet whoever wrote the above sentence seems to think that the new is the traditional. If these teachings were "known in traditional Chinese culture" they would not be causing such controversy today. Moreover, they could not be "set forth" in the Zhuan Falun, they could only be repeated or given a commentary.

If there is any truth at all to the statement, then the author should be able to provide ample evidence that the expression "Dharma and principles" was a common one before the "Falun Dafa" came on the scene. If there was a regular association of these terms, the the words "set forth" should be changed to "explained." P0M 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite so, there has been a couple years of POV creep as the pro- side pushes an agenda of one sided advertising. As larger matters are reverted back and forth smaller (in size, not importance) details like this have gotten missed in the rush. The Chinese word fa is actually a common usage, not just in Buddhism, and the following wiktionary link will give some background info: 法. --Fire Star 火星 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Supression of the Falun Gong or remove the

We currently link to Supression of the Falun Gong which doesn't exist. Should it be the Falun Gong or Supression of Falun Gong which does exist? 203.109.240.93 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah IC, the silly persecution argument came up again with a revert war and the last version happened to be slightly wrong. 203.109.240.93 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

falungong outside china

i think i made clear there are rejected case in chinatwon jakarta i didn't know why they erase even i am prove there picture about the rejected banner (i didn't understand why falun gong people can not ecept concept falungong could be reject cause they activitydid they think every place would acept and welcome them every where? such absurd if they think every place would acept them [well i see as denial phase they are not ecept any rejection, see]) did my foto not prove there is reject case? and certainly i have put link adress about the incident so both side argument would be put in there to read, not only one side story. http://www.indonesiamatters.com/570/falun-gong-in-jakarta/ Daimond 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong is rejected from participating in the San Francisco Chinese New Years parade. --Mr.He 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Colipon+(T) 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the parade organizers insist that the parade remain non-political. In a prior year, the FG had been granted permission to march on the condition that they not engage in political activities, but they distributed anti-CCP propaganda anyway. Chinese New Years is meant to be an inclusive holiday celebration for everybody, not an opportunity to divide the community into two camps: those for and those against the CCP. In order to participate in the parade, the practitioners need to let go of their attachment to progandizing against the CCP, but I doubt they can do that since Master Li requires them to work towards the destruction of the CCP as a condition of their salvation. BTW: by using the word "political" I merely refer to the agenda to destroy a foreign government. FG practitioners always claim they are not "political" because they define the term very narrowly. So please, guys, let's not get into another discussion of whether the FG is "political." Clearly your Master's goal, and your required activity as Fa-rectrification Dafa disciples is to work to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the reply. Colipon+(T) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. For background information about the parade denial and actions by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at that time, check out: [9] Towards the end of the article the Chinese Chamber of Commerce president is quoted about the reasons for the parade denial.--Tomananda 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This info would be very useful in the Falun Gong outside China article. --Sumple (Talk) 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Falun Gong people" did not remove your content, Daimond. Someone else did. The problem was that your section was simply a clearwisdom article copied and pasted onto the page. I thought that it was very relevant and even began rewriting it into more appropriate language (I never posted it), but I stopped after it was deleted by another user. If you want, I can continue editing it. Now that you've presented another source, I think there shouldn't be any problem. Mcconn 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

- No i don't want your edit Mccon, cause it clearly diffrent interpetion than what i wrote first. both argumention let it be hears as references(in indonesia matter). as prove and comparison with and what epoch time did and falun gong did, who damage's and too blind to see other sufer cause them, the falungong selfesnes and egois act WHO think, only them who have the right and other people didn't have right to live too. and as you see the date of the foto are 7 desember 2006. Daimond 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

and Mccon i look the history (who erase my article), the vandalisme certainly looklike from falungong folowersDaimond 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More News On Harvesting Organs

Came across this article on Yahoo news[10] and wanted to know more about this "Falun Gong"- admittedly I was ignorant to what "Falun Gong" was. So straight to Wikipedia I go and find quite the little mess and a bigger mess on the talk page. I think this article holds the record for protect/ unprotect. As a completely neutral (ignorant) reader who came here to educate myself on a topic that I had never heard of before (hence the pedia part of Wikipedia)- I certainly hope the editors can find some middle ground as this article could be very good given the amount of references. Currently there are nearly more references than there is body to the article. For my two cents I hope that editors on both sides and in the middle just don't lose sight of why they are doing this so that people like me can come here and read a good "encyclopedic" description of this topic.Cireshoe 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just another piece of FLG-manipulated "investigation" by an ignorant group of Canadian human rights lawyers. Just because the evidence is enough to "paint a picture" does not change the fact that the evidence is still, by and large, a SECOND-HAND source. Even if the facts conform with the evidence, it is simply irresponsible to blame on the Chinese Government for something that supposedly certain "evil" Chinese doctors are doing. In fact, this kind of flaming on an unverifiable fact is itself, on the part of David Kilgore and David Matas, "evil". Anyway, back to the article. I believe it has done a very good job on protecting NPOV. Kudos to ALL the editors (incl. those FLG practioners) Btmachine333667 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If these harvesting organs allegations are true (I actually do not doubt it), whoever is in charge of it should seriously make the smart decision to stop harvesting people's organs. It is not only quite terribly immoral and inhumane, but gives Falun Gong ample ammunition to mask Li Hongzhi and Falun Dafa's real background, exacerbating the current problem with mainstream western media which focuses on Falun Gong's persecution but not its origins and very doubtful leader. Colipon+(T) 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if David Kilgore and David Matas are truly sincere about correcting a "disgusting form of evil", I challenge them to go live on TV and present their findings. Instead, so far, they have been doing this type of investigation secretly, largely without any oversight from the general public.Btmachine333667 03:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Btmachine, thanks for having the same opinion as I did when I challenged the Kilgour/Matas report in one of the above sections on the discussion page. Their evidence is suspect at best, and that is sad for a lawyer to start drawing firm conclusions on such shaky evidence really. Why have they suddenly committed themselves to a FG cause where they can get next to no reliable evidence if they were truly 'independent'? Seems a little suspect. Anyway, thanks for Cireshoe / Btmachine for airing their views on here. Jsw663 19:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people will not be convinced no matter what you say. But if that is not the case here: Kilgour has been on TV to discuss/debate the validity of the article. He appeared on Lateline on the ABC, an Australian free-to-air channel. He was interviewed by the host and the host asked him a range of questions. Here is the link and you can read the transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1715849.htm Lateline is taken seriously in Australia and is generally highly-regarded. It is considered important in Australia that this show would talk to Kilgour about this. Kilgour and McMillan Scott also talked to the Australian parliament about this. They went to 30 countries. Many people are taking this with a lot more seriousness than Jsw.--Asdfg12345 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were not going to sink back into a FG discussion forum on Wikipedia. You are entitled to your own views, but please don't simply crush any views aired by those who aren't heavily involved in the editing simply because they don't agree with yours. After all, I could equally say that the US State Dept dismissed the Sujiatuan thing yet you insist that it took place; is your opinion worth more than the US State Dept's? But this is not a helpful comment and breaches the Wiki guideline on Civility. Jsw663 11:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just wanted to respond directly to his query.--Asdfg12345 12:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(Ex?)-Mediator apology for long absence

Hello. I would like to apologise to all of you for my long absence from Wikipedia. I hope you don't feel I mean any disrespect by it. If you do, please believe that I didn't. I guess I owe you an explanation. Basically, there were a variety of off-Wiki problems I had to deal with, which drained my time and energy. The top two were a friend who needed significant emotional support, and my own financial problems. I would have said something about it, except that I kept expecting the issues to be resolved sooner. I'm sorry my explanation is so brief, but since the details are rather personal I hope you will be satisfied with that. If you feel like yelling at me, please feel free to do so by email.

Anyways, I'm not sure if you've found another mediator or some other way of resolving your dispute. If not, I should have time now to mediate at least a few times a week (once I've caught up on the reading), if you still want me to.

Also, if there's anything urgent that you would like to draw my attention to quickly, I've set up my email to forward anything with both the words "Wikipedia" and "zxcv" in it to my cell phone. Just click on the mail link in my signature.

Thank you for your patience,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I had wondered what happened. I do not think anyone harbours any ill-will towards you, and I am sure everyone understands. I feel that I can speak for everyone involved in this project when I say that. I think it is great that you can spend time on this, and we appreciate your efforts. So I don't know how much time you have or are willing to invest, but the only thing I would like to do is reiterate my request that you (1) familiarise yourself with the Nine Day lectures: http://www.falundafa.org/bul/lectures/index.htm#audio - that is basically to know what Falun Dafa is and in essence what it teaches - and (2) read some third-party reports, information, investigations, about the persecution. Some of the more well-known are the UN 2004 report: http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1027&Itemid=, the Kilgour-Matas organ harvesting report: http://investigation.go.saveinter.net/, maybe this Amnesty International factsheet: http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/83fba691f912206bcc2571d3001824ed!OpenDocument. That is basically what I would request of a prospective mediator, that they familiarise themselves with a bit of the background of what is happening, but it depends on how much time you have and so on. If you listen to the lectures once then read the UN report, scan the kilgour-matas report, and look at the factsheet, I think you would have a good idea. There are probably some good critical things written about Falun Gong that you should look at too. Maybe Colipon or another editor could suggest some. There might also be other serious, third party reports that say different things about the persecution, and you could take a look at that as well. I am not aware of any. It is a fairly entrenched and protracted disagreement, even about some fundamental things, so I think it will require a lot of patience and an even keel. But I also think it will be fine if we work through the issues clearly and rationally, and abide by the wikipedia policies. Good luck!--Asdfg12345 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, Welcome back. We need a structured approach to editing (eg: specific goals and timelines) and you can help make that happen. Just one word of caution: Asdfg has asked you to read Zhuan Falun, the standard text of Falun Gong written more than 10 years ago, and propaganda about the "persecution" of FG practitioners in China. He says you can get a good idea about "what's happening" if you read that material, but actually you can't. The key to understanding the current behavior of Falun Gong practitioners and why they have dedicated themselves to destroying the Chinese Communist Party cannot be found in the Zhuan Falun. Instead, you need to read some of Li's many lectures delivered to his world-wide network of disciples. It's in the lectures that you'll get a clear picture of how Li controls his disciples, demanding that they work to destroy the Chinese Communist Party as a condition for their salvation. It's only by reading Li's material written after the ban that you'll get an accurate and current picture of Li's manipulative tactics and his real agenda. The practitioners are fully aware of this material and have worked overtime to censor it from Wikipedia.

Li says that his Dafa (great law of the cosmos) is judging all beings, and that beings who do not meet certain standards which he stipulates will be "weeded out" in a process called "Fa-rectification." Li's standards have changed over time. When he wrote the Zhuan Falun in the early 1990's in China, the main targets for elimination by Fa-rectification were people such as homosexuals who have accumulated a great deal of karma. After the ban of the Falun Gong in 1999, Li began to focus his Fa-rectification targets on the "evil and wicked" CCP, and those who support the CCP. Li's teachings have changed over the years, but the basic message is the same: mankind has become so corrupt and degenerate that even the gods no longer look after people and traditional religions no longer can offer salvation. Only Li and his great law, the Dafa, can save people during this period of Fa-rectification, which is thought of as a disintegration process in which beings who are not "eliminated" will be returned to their original higher selves. All FG practitioners look forward to returning to their higher selves and even becomming gods. In order to reach that goal, Li demands that they help to destroy the CCP through a variety of peaceful, but not always legal, means. --Tomananda 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, note that I will not respond to the above comment, and I do not think anyone else should respond to it. By now we all know how these discussions go. I would like to express my disappointment with Tomananda's behaviour. We are supposed to be working together to make these wikipedia articles. Besides, that kind of thing does no credit to your cause.--Asdfg12345 00:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Master Li Hongzhi does no credit to my cause? You know everthing I said about the teachings above is true, why can't you at least acknowledge that? I don't delete your material, but you delete mine over and over again. Actually, you delete Master Li himself, because almost all that I post about the teachings (other than the opinions of critics) represents direct or indirect quotes from Master Li. The problem is you don't like these quotes because, I guess, they too starkly display the extreme teachings of the Falun Gong. So instead of being honest and admitting that, yeah, that's a pretty accurate summary of the Fa-rectification, you resort to vague accusations against me. --Tomananda 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg + Tom: Asdfg started FG discussion by posting the FG-advertising link and then Tom countered it, so technically both of you are at fault from Asdfg's "supposed to be working together to make these wikipedia articles". I suggest a halt in link advertisements on this discussion page. Armedblowfish's adding of three pages, dividing them into pro and anti FG, was thus a wise move. Jsw663 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish welcome back. In your absence we had a few rounds of revert wars and as you can see some pages are protected. These revert wars were initiated by Falun Gong practitioner editors, attempting to conceal information, they repeatedly removed material referenced directly to Falun Gong websites. In response, none practitioners editors repeatedly restored such material.

You can help stop/prevent these senseless edit wars by becoming our judge. If you can make judgments on these conflicts (inclusion or exclusion of certain material) that would be great.

We all have our busy lives, thank you for helping. --Samuel Luo 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 when you ask Armedblowfish to watch the Nine Day lectures tapes and read Dafa books you are violating one of the many rules of your master. Li has made it very clear to all practitioners that they should show people Falun gong exercises first and only when these people are hooked, practitioners can then show them (brainwash them with) the Falun Dafa. How could you forget this rule? Do you need me to tell you when and where your master made that a rule? --Samuel Luo 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Welcome back Armedblowfish. I've been ridiculously busy the last few months as well, my particiation is only about a quarter what it was, because of "real world" reasons. We do what we can. Cheers! --Fire Star 火星 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your understanding! Asdfg12345 and Tomananda, rest assured that I can look at material from both sides. You can help me organise my reading priorities here.

To all of you, in order to help you continue productively editing while the article is protected, I suggest editing on working drafts in the talk or user namespaces. I have created three such drafts, all from the most recent version of the Falun Gong article, with disclaimers on top explaining that they are not articles.

Please edit the draft for the side of the dispute you feel you are on, or, if you don't feel that you are either pro- or anti- FG, whichever draft you think is the best place for your edit. I encourage all of you to try to find a middle ground on the compromise draft. I hope that helps!

Thank you again,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 04:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Armedblowfish, please see the Falun Gong / Introduction and other pages linked near the top that discusses pro- and anti-versions variously already. We are focused still on the 'pre-intro', i.e. the first few paragraphs before the sections start. Jsw663 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish, welcome back. Could you tell me what kind of help mediatiors provide? thanks --Mr.He 08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I try to understand all sides in a dispute, and help the parties reach a compromise. Better yet, if I can, I try to offer a choice all parties will be happy with. As a minimum, I will at least try to help the parties communicate better with each other. If the dispute is particularly heated, I may try to help calm things down. I may offer suggestions, but I do not issue binding decisions. You can read the Mediation Committee's description of mediation at WP:M. I hope that answers your question, but feel free to ask more questions. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Armedblowfish, I know you have taken on a case that is far larger than probably any mediation case that is currently out there by taking on this case. I also agree that it is best to read both sides' material, but note that there is far more available online from one camp (pro-FG) than the other (anti-FG), because there has been a sustained campaign from one side whereas the other has not launched a counter-campaign to combat this. Striving to be neutral is damned near impossible as well. Being drawn into a content war is also probably not wise, but familiarizing yourself with the basics is pretty much a requirement here.

Thus I suggest controlling editors' behavior to be a good first step. Apart from your positive action, I have proposed an extra 'three-strike rule' to restrict editors' editing behavior when it comes to section blanking or POV wars. This has generally been adhered to by members of all three camps, except Asdfg so far, who refuses to accept that there are different POVs of Falun Gong - a controversial belief system in itself (as to what it is really trying to promote, its agenda, etc.). I have asked ArbCom member and sysop Blnguyen to pay special attention to this page / enforce these rules. I hope you will not disregard this.

Naturally people will try character assassination, trying to bully you into saying you are biased / Communist / radical liberal, etc. Thus not losing sight of the main points, i.e. keeping your feet firmly rooted to the middle ground, will be no mean feat in itself. Jsw663 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jsw663! This mediation is challenging, but the more challenging things in life are generally more rewarding, and I would like to be able to help you all reach a compromise you can all be content with. I know things can get hot, but I've seen them get a lot hotter, so I'm not really worried about that. (And if someone does get upset, I would rather they insult me than one of their opponents.) Mostly, I was worried that during my long absence I had let you all down, but everyone has been kind regarding that.

As a mediator, I am not a security guard. I may try to lead a policy-focused discussion, but I do not police the edit histories for policy violations. I am not here to enforce anything. If others want to enforce stuff, that is between you all and those enforcing it. Hopefully, I needn't be involved with the enforcement of your three-strike rule. That said, good luck (to all of you) in using it towards descalation and not escalation, as such things can go both ways.

If you have any reading material, online or otherwise, to recommend, I encourage you to do so here. That said, there is no guarantee I will be able to access offline material.

Thank you for the well-wishes,

Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply Armed. Although things may not seem very 'hot' here now, the repeated lockdown of FG pages should tell the story. This situation is a lot more complex, because what constitutes as 'obvious vandalism' in a controversial matter like this is highly debatable in itself.

I think it's probably better for anti-FGers to post links that qualify under the anti-FG banner. Alternatively if you have the time you could do google searches for the anti-FG (in other words, CCP/CPC views of it) (I found a source that was translated into English but it was removed by pro-FG editors during the edit war, and this version is locked down at present). Pro-FG sources are readily available, because pro-FG people are doing a heavy campaign via the media. Their complete intolerance of any neutral or negative interpretation of the FG leader's teachings is a little suspect, though.

Anyway I won't say more about this now. Just glad to see you back. I just hope there won't be any more users who declare a unilateral edit war like Asdfg did again. Jsw663 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think content disputes and revert warring really qualify as "vandalism", which implies the intention to make Wikipedia worse. In situations like this, everyone wants to make Wikipedia better, but have completely different ideas of what "better" is, leading to much unpleasantness. Or at least, that is how I see it.

Regardless of what any editor does in the heat of the moment, I hope you all will still be able to discuss a long term solution, that will hopefully remove the motivation for edit wars. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic if I think this has a very high chance of happening, and then again maybe optimism will actually affect the chances.

Thanks for your understanding and advice on research,

Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the whole I agree with you Armed. However, I am trying to limit SUBSTANTIAL content edit-warring. 25% may be an arbitrary figure - but I don't think you'll disagree that blanking entire sections qualifies under WP:Vandalism. Unfortunately this issue isn't addressed in Olaf's new proposal. Jsw663 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Strike One for Asdfg12345 ?

Since we have already agreed to a new standard for editors, I ask that we issue a strike one "warning" to Asdfg12245 for his inappropriate blanking of a sentence about Fa-rectification in the Epoch Times page. Please note that he has blanked this sentence three different times, with no discussion or justification. Check history for these three dates:

2 February
3 February
4 February

The sentence which Asdfg seeks to delete is fully sourced. Here it is:

"The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[11].

He is not deleting this material because it is not accurate, but rather because it represents Li's teachings "at the higher level" and Li directs his disciples not to talk about the teachings "at the higher levels" when talking to "ordinary people" because we wouldn't understand. If there is any point in the exercise that Jsw just went through in the post on the proposed "three strikes" rule, it is to stop this kind of blanking behavior. --Tomananda 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Post a notice if any of us see these sorts of things happening so that the agreeing editors can act. Not all of us have all the FLG articles on a watchlist so some get by. We should record our efforts to keep the articles to the guidelines here as well. --Fire Star 火星 04:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice to agreeing editors: we now have an anyonmous FG editor deleting a portion of the above sentence from the Epoch Times page, using the argument that the quote from Li makes the Falun Gong "look bad." As Fire Star well knows, there are many quotes from Master Li which have been deleted from this article for the same reason. It seems to me that at some point this blanking behavior by Falun Gong apologists needs to be addressed. --Tomananda 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom, unfortunately the rules above only apply to the FG page. You can propose one for FG-related pages if you want, but I don't have the time for so many Wiki pages. Once Blnguyen thinks those rules are sufficient and unlocks the FG main page, then we can propose strikes for this kind of editing behavior. Jsw663 11:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

~~I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)~~ -- I hearby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions, heart and attitude toward editing on wikipedia. I now retract this statement and apologise for any confusion or miscommunication, as it was not intentional. My statement of intent and understanding of my role on wikipedia are more fully and accurately expressed in a later post. --Asdfg12345 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I should warn you that this unilateral declaration to edit war in the face any consensus you disagree with is contrary to Wikipedia policy and will definitely result in administrator sanctions if pursued. --Fire Star 火星 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is, are you trying to force your POV on Wikipedia? Jsw663 12:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To Asdfg12345: You may not like it, but it is possible that you are not the only one who holds CLAVIS VERITAS. Therefore, you should also try to remove all edits by Falun Dafa practitioners which misrepresent China and its reality and force a POV on wikipedia (that is, if you actually try). Btmachine333667 12:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that if I see it. Right now I am working on putting together some stuff for the Falun Gong overseas page. I don't think anyone should put up unsourced things on wikipedia, or misrepresent the sources. If some people think that I am doing that I would like to be told, and I will think about what you say and then examine the circumstances, for sure. I don't think it should be so hard to put this stuff together as the wikipolicies cover everything, so I know if we stick to them it will be fine. I have explained very much how what Tomananda has so far proposed as an explanation of Dafa and Fa-rectification does not belong on wikipedia and is merely his own very inaccurate point of view and skewed interpretation of Li Hongzhi's words, so I won't do it again here. Look at my posts from before. There has still been no actual response what I wrote, nor any attempt to address in a concrete way the issues I raised and my criticism of Tomananda's formulations. Also, the representation I gave based on the teachings has not really been challenged. I am going to copy it now and put it on my talk page, so look for it there if you like.--Asdfg12345 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Until you retract your previous statement above, the one which I have indicated is a unilateral declaration on your part to edit war in the face of any consensus you disagree with, you aren't as likely to be considered a good faith editor on Wikipedia. Please see WP:AGF and item 7 of WP:ABF. --Fire Star 火星 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll get back to you after I look into it.--Asdfg12345 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think any consensus would be reached that violated wikiguidelines about neutrality, NPOV, OR, or one that misrepresented Falun Dafa, or was a really skewed portrayal of the teachings. I do not think the problem is as you imagine it to be. I don't have an axe to grind. I feel that I have always well-explained my editing practices, intentions and opinions. I think too, though, that I have explained myself too strongly at times. Maybe we don't need to discuss these things so much, as over time we have formed, and will continue to form, our own understanding of our peers' editing agenda, behaviour and willingness to be understanding of and compromise with other parties' views. The degree to which we explain ourselves and the tone we adopt, the reasonableness of what we say - it is all there for everyone to see. I aspire to be really above board in my behaviour on wikipedia, both in editing and interacting with other users. I feel deeply that I have not achieved this, and I feel regret for that, and also that I want to pay particular attention to these aspects of using wikipedia now. I believe such attributes are an extremely important basis for being a reliable editor. I will never, ever simply revert things I don't like, just because I don't like them and without explaining the reasons properly and with reference to relevant wikipolicies and the subject in question. In any case of contestation I will always explain myself fully and refer to the relevant wikipolicies and the material in question. So as long as we are all doing that, and we say we all will, I do not think the situation you have envisaged could come to pass. I am describing a situation where other editors do not explain themselves adequately, do not really address the issues raised in relevant discussions, and/or pursue a clear agenda of misrepresentation. I will put my foot down in those cases and exercise my right as an editor to prevent that from taking place, and I will fully explain myself on every occasion. I think everyone should do that. I have just elaborated further on my understanding, approach and attitude toward these things. Please point out any problems you see.--Asdfg12345 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem for Wikipedia lies with this declaration:

"I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)"

It declares unilateral intent to thrust your personal interpretation of FLG on Wikipedia, no matter what is decided by any other group of editors. That may not be what you meant, but that is what the sentence says. With a statement like that, admins could make a case to just use the rollback button on any edit you make on these pages in future, and many admins would go farther and say that WP:3RR wouldn't apply to anyone reverting your edits, while it would to yours. In the context of an ongoing edit war, many admins would temp-block you just for saying that.

The way to retract such a statement is to use the strike-through feature on the original post, saying that it didn't come out the way you meant it. This isn't a content issue, it is an intent issue. Users who come to Wikipedia blatantly saying they are simply going to vandalise are banned indefinitely on sight, because of their stated intent. A stated intent to revert what you yourself don't like no matter what, while not vandalism, is still something that invalidates participation in discussions such as these for administrative purposes, as well as drawing a provocative line in the sand for your fellow editors. --Fire Star 火星 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears we need to modify the three-strike rule immediately, with any person trying to force their POV on wikipedia immediately be qualified for a ban. Forcing your opinion on others also violates the 'free speech' principle which apparently Falun Gong advocates. Asdfg, please think again about your intent on Wiki, or else action will probably be taken against you, especially if your editing behavior backs up this statement. We don't want anyone to be banned, right? Constructive editors won't. Jsw663 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Amending the sources

Hi, guys. It's good to be back. I've had a lot of other projects to attend to, but now I've decided to join your ranks once more, and I hope our co-operation will bear some fruits. I remember how we used to reach some agreeable consensus with certain editors way back when I was still here almost every day. Of course, as I've been away for many months, I'm not totally aware of the current situation. I still have some points to bring up, and I see no reason why you shouldn't agree with them.

I think that a befitting approach would be to scrutinize our sources. I've collected a wide variety of material concerning Falun Gong from many peer-reviewed journals and independent, major newspapers - all accessible by academic search engines and fully complying with Wikipedia standards - and I'm going to start writing them up in the near future. I've always tried to advocate a dialectical approach to the edition process instead of edit wars and blanking. In other words, I think the critics are fully entitled to their opinions, on the assumption that they can provide decent sources for their statements. If anyone feels that a well-sourced statement is misleading or inadequate, we should not remove any essential content but seek to contextualize it further. This applies to everybody, regardless of our subjective position in the dispute.

However, such an approach requires that everybody pays more attention to the discourse. Could we all agree that, from this point on, with the exception of self-evident truths like "Falun Gong is suppressed in China", we should always provide a source that complies with Wikipedia standards? Therefore, if someone wants to say something like "the suppression of the movement has gained more attention in the Western media than the movement itself, whose legitimacy (independent of the Chinese government's claims) has been seriously questioned upon by academics and religious experts" (from Suppression of Falun Gong), such a statement calls for removal in case it doesn't refer to any verifiable source. On the other hand, if all the editorial requirements are met, there's no legitimate basis for removing the argument without discussion. However, we should do our best to quote the sources truthfully, not adding any value judgments that are not present in the source material.

A dialectical approach - a text that systematically puts forth a thesis and an antithesis - is respectful towards the reader, who can ultimately decide for his/herself. It is fair towards all parties, as everybody has to base his/her arguments on an outside source. The quality control will naturally improve, and the discussion can be shifted from Falun Gong per se to what is requisite in Wikipedia, and how a good article is constructed whilst giving everybody a chance for free speech within the set boundaries. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest the following: starting from today, we start marking each and every controversial text passage in the articles with the "^{[citation needed]}" tag. After a certain period of time, say 3 weeks, all the statements that haven't been backed up will be removed. After this transitional phase, every unsourced controversial statement can be removed without caution. If a source is provided, but its validity is disputed, we'll take the discussion onto the talk page, where proponents and opponents of the source will put forth their respective arguments in a cool, logical fashion - not disputing the subject matter in and of itself, but explaining their stance by directly drawing upon the Wikipedia source policies. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: You've nicely summarized the means to cooperative editing. I agree with you that many disputes can be resolved through a dialectical process. And you're also correct in saying we had a lot more cooperation between the different editor factions when you were editing. Admittedly, there's been some modest progress since you left. One small example: I had written a well-sourced paragraph on the Li Hongzhi page, "Making money from the Falun Gong," which I expected would be deleted by a hot-head editor. But instead, a more reasonable editor, I think it was Mcconn, came along and just added an additional paragraph which presented the counter-point to my paragraph. (See paragraphs #3 and # 4 in that section.) So I count that as one small success.

Meanwhile, we have a little edit war going one in the Epoch Times page, instigated by Asdfg who has declared above his intention not to honor consensus. It's his way or the high way. This same editor has posted a long justification for his POV which I am supposed to take seriously and respond to point-by-point. But as long as there is no sanction for the inappropriate blanking of material, I don't think discussions by themselves will yield progress. There must be some agreed-upon standard for making actual edits, which is what Jsw has proposed above. Without those standards, and some mechanism for enforcing them, I question the usefulness of yet more discussion. --Tomananda 00:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to disregard the arguments I have put forth explaining my behaviour and intentions. I don't expect you to respond to my message point by point (I never indicated that). I have explained the situation with that little edit-battle.--Asdfg12345 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's equally unfair for you to continue to use blanking as an editing strategy. My feeling is what's the point in responding to your arguments if you've already blanked the material you object to? Here's an offer: I'll read and respond to your post-blanking discussion points if you promise to swear off blanking for the month of February. --Tomananda 06:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you swear off introducing fallacious material I'll swear off blanking it. And not just for February! Olaf has proposed a good idea, that we can put the ^{[citation needed]} on questionable content and if it remains unsupported it may be removed. I do not think that I am being unreasonable in removing and challenging that content. To tell you the truth, if I added content that was much disputed and subsequently removed, I would discuss it before engaging in a revert war about it. I gave a range of reasons and proposed alternative strategies for presenting that - at least what I think contains elements of - valid material. This is all on the talk page so I won't repeat it here. --Asdfg12345 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, it is your opinion that the material is false. Others are going to object to simple blanking of their material in the context of statements like: "I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)". These articles are broken, and without the aid of outside mediation, they aren't likely to be fixed any time soon, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fire Star, for raising that point.

To Olaf, I have proposed a three-strike rule regarding editing behavior. It isn't the same as what you proposed, but makes it mandatory that any edit from now on be discussed before it is edited on the main page. Please have a look at those 8 rules, as they have been put in bold. Your opinion of that in that section will be of great value, thanks. Jsw663 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement I referred to above has been struck through, which is good. I think a self-imposed structure is a necessary step, but an outsider will be the final arbiter so that we may be assured of neutrality in future. If we can get enough to agree, then we'll ave a framework to work with. Even the people who have agreed already should be enough. I like Jsw663's proposal, and Olaf has some commonality there, so I hope he should be able to sign on; as an entirely new proposal at this time is somewhat distracting. If we get a majority to agree, (and I think it should extend to all of the FLG articles) then we can have, simply, practically, a larger body of reverters than anyone who tries to edit outside of the consensus. If someone does try to go against consensus, then an admin will block them for 3RR, problem solved. That (if it actually works) may give us some stability while our mediator above sorts through our enormous backlog of discussions. --Fire Star 火星 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mini-mediation on suppression / persecution / genocide / outlawing / other

Hello. Since my view on the matter was requested some time ago, I have made a suggestion that I hope all will find equitable, although I am not sure how likely that is to actually be the case. I encourage you to share your views on the matter, especially considering my suggestion is rather bold.

You are encouraged to discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong/Suppression, persecution, genocide or other.

Thanks!

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on hold pending Arbitration

Based on ~~this Arbitration~~ this Arbitration, I am officially putting the mediation on hold. Sorry for failing you all, ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 01:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Cross-posting elsewhere

I think it would be difficult for a mediator to remain a mediator if he were to take any side, despite how reasonable. This is an issue of Samuel's longterm editing behaviour and is no reflection of your mediating. You have no control over what he does. In fact, I think you have been doing a good job mediating and have been balancing this difficult situation extremely well. At least speaking for myself, I would like to see you remain as mediator on these articles -- we certainly need your help. There is certainly no failing.--Asdfg12345 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Asdfg12345. We're not questioning your skills as a mediator; indeed, your kind assistance is highly esteemed. Unfortunately, Samuel has been out of control for a long time, and you can't do much about it.

On a side note, now that we've handled the arbitration request and the necessary "paperwork", I will reply Jsw663 as soon as possible. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. This arbitration attempt is most unfortunate. Armedblowfish - you have not failed us. I wish more steps to dispute resolution would be tolerated. The time this will take for an article as complex as this one would be long. Yet, despite justified grounds for the anti-FG camp to launch cases against various pro-FG users, they have restrained themselves. Remember, I am just advocating that we should be more patient and tolerant to work things out. I am NOT suggesting either way as to whether a case should be taken to the ArbCom against Samuel later. However, Tomananda did make a good point in his statement - that pro-FG users only cleaned up their behavior in the recent few weeks to launch a 'justified' case against Samuel. This is the sort of destructive behavior that should be avoided, and is essentially trying to pass Olaf's 15 rules without consensus or sufficient debate among users not in the pro-FG camp. A real shame, truly. Jsw663 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Luo is "out of control", he has been blocked 5 times, the last time for a week. That is pretty effective control, and such control is ongoing as usually, if he is blocked again, the next block he gets will be for a month or longer and eventually indefinite. Personally, I agree with Jsw663 in suspecting that the arbitration request is an attempt to derail ArmedBlowfish's promising mediation and get an extraordinary article-specific pro-FLG set of rules in place, as Jsw663's proposal was derailed by a similar suggestion, and I will mention my opinions on the Arbcom request. --Fire Star 火星 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star, I have not tried to get any "article-specific pro-FLG set of rules" in place. You're obviously not content with my 15 principles, and that's just fine - we don't need to adopt them. However, we won't compromise existing policies. It seems my words have fallen to deaf ears; this is probably the fourth or fifth time I have to say this. Meanwhile, you fail to see the inherent bias in Jsw663's proposition, as if something perfectly neutral and constructive had been "derailed". Tell me, if the same editors who've frequently introduced illegitimate content would be allowed to prevent its removal, how could it ever work?

You know, I started editing Suppression of Falun Gong in good faith after a long period of absence. Samuel flauntily removed material from Critical Asian Studies, American Asian Review, American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, and various other excellent secondary sources. Do you know how he characterized a scholar writing for one of these journals? Julia Ching "is unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group". This is what he actually wrote in the article. In addition, Samuel alleged that we can't be sure of the identity of a tortured woman, even though the information came from Amnesty International, and thus he removed the material. You said that Samuel has been banned five times already. How come he hasn't changed in spite of such sanctions? I'm tired of this vandalism, and I know that mediation does not work with these kinds of people. Don't deny it, Fire Star: if you weren't more or less against Falun Gong yourself, you would've never tolerated Samuel's behaviour to this extent. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, once again your bias towards pro-Falun Gong and a deluded sense of NPOV (essentially MPOV) has led you to be unable to accept any non-pro-FG-friendly opinion. I specifically stated above that I am not ruling either way as to whether future action should be taken against Samuel. But what you're proposing here is not only to have content-specific rules for FG by having all of your (or at least your most significant) opposition banned, but also an unequal application of Wiki policies. To want to have Samuel banned but not want any section blankers in the pro-FG camp banned (e.g. you condemned me for launching a mediation case against Omido even though his actions had NO discussion whatsoever AND he engaged in mass section blanking) shows that your own bias is affecting your judgment. Think twice before you hurl accusations at others or lump me with the anti-FG camp. There is a reason I wasn't involved with the FG or anti-FG before the case a long time ago, and once the FG-related Wiki articles are fixed, I never want to involve myself with either camp again. Jsw663 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What? When have I accused you of launching a mediation case against Omido? What on earth are you talking about?! I've always thought that Omido's behaviour was extremely counterproductive, and I've never supported his actions. You must immediately remove such claims from the ArbCom request. I couldn't have forgotten something like that, so you're obviously confusing me with somebody else. However, Omido hasn't been editing for quite some time. I don't make the mistake of talking about "pro-FLG camp" or "anti-FLG camp" and their mistakes. There is no collective guilt. I'm against individual editors who repeatedly violate the policies. Samuel has been banned five times already, and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He is, by far, the most banned editor on these pages.

Let me state this one more time: I am only against material that does not conform to Wikipedia policies, regardless of its agenda. I can prove you that there are heaps of illegitimate content in the current versions. Anything that complies with the standards can stay, and anything that doesn't must go. That's what Wikipedia is all about. I know how to edit, and I've never been banned. I am not representing any cliques or groups. Tell me, why should I tolerate continuous vandalism, harassment, and distractions to my work? This is why I filed the ArbCom request. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay Olaf, I mistook you for Andres18, and I apologize. I shall edit the ArbCom statement accordingly. I also agree that disruptive behavior should be clamped down on, as I have said many times before. But jumping straight to an ArbCom decision based on previous bans, without going sufficient mediation, is not the way forward. I also disapprove of wholesale reversion without discussion, but Samuel has treaded an in-between line - editing with discussion, to which there hasn't been sufficient pro-FG response / debate. Jsw663 16:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose to mediation as such. I'm just saying that there's an editor among us who seems completely incapable of respecting the Wikipedia policies. I told you, mediation does not work with such people. Why hasn't Samuel changed despite the bans? Is it really that hard to get the point? Does he consider Wikipedia as some kind of a game? If you think he hasn't deserved sanctions from the ArbCom, why don't you let the case unfold? The ArbCom is surely capable of evaluating the evidence, and you can provide them with diffs from other editors to prove your point. They'll easily see whether the blanked material is WP:Verifiable and WP:NOR, and whether each and every sentence is backed up by the cited sources. And they'll be able to tell whether the edits on the Li Hongzhi page conform to WP:LIVING. It's not very difficult, after all.

You know, the root of our problem isn't really a content dispute. Mediation should happen after evaluating what kind of material violates the rules and what does not. After going through Samuel's track record, I can tell you that some of the most serious edit wars have resulted from introducing material that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia standards. If everybody would've observed the policies to begin with, there would be much less ambiguity about what is acceptable and what is not.

You asked me what makes me think that we should be more strict with Samuel than with users like Omido. Well, we haven't heard from Omido for a few months, right? Samuel has been here continuously for over a year, and his edit history is at least tenfold compared to Omido. I don't think you could even start an ArbCom case against somebody who hasn't been active since December. In addition, Samuel has been in an extremely active role, both a) introducing illegitimate material, and b) blanking legitimate material. I can prove all of this. Unless I get a written statement from Samuel in which he promises to immediately stop such behaviour for good, I won't drop the case. In any event, I insist that everyone of us reads the Wikipedia policies and guidelines carefully, and that we use them to gauge the current versions. If insoluble problems persist, we may reconsider mediation. Excuse me for being coarse, but I don't see why these articles would need official dispute resolution when some editors haven't even RTFM. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Although debates can get passionate, please don't forget WP:Civility. I am fairly sure Samuel is familiar with Wikipedia policies but has grown tired, in his opinion, of seeing pro-FG POV being excessively pushed on Wikipedia. This is precisely the kind of situation when we all need to take a time out and cool our heads a bit. I realize I am advocating a very high level of tolerance, but that's because in my experience on Wikipedia, getting each other banned has not resolved any core dispute. Things resurface; people get indefinitely banned; people re-register, etc. etc. This is a vicious cycle that should be avoided at all costs. This is also why I say your inflammatory attitude does not help matters in an already highly controversial topic. If you come across as someone who is reasonable rather than as someone who is desperately pushing his own agenda, trying to see his 15 principles be put into practice at any cost, you may find me with no more objections. But until then, since you are so familiar with WPs, respect the WP:Civility one at least. Jsw663 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that the anti- bunch have gone too far the other way, as I think there is valid material for at least reporting claims of CCP abuses, torture, organ harvesting, etc., that the anti- group removes. On average though, the pro-FLG side has been swarming the page for a year now with an uncritical view of an organisation that even a cursory read through of pertinent available info shows a marked new religious bent. So what we have is a religious edit war. I'll welcome the arbitration if it only draws more attention from WP editors who haven't otherwise looked in. I'll be adding my opinion at the Arb request page tomorrow, hopefully. --Fire Star 火星 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal by Samuel Luo

Fire Star’s statement about the edits of anti-FLG editors is disputed; see my rebuttal here and here and Fire Star’s response here. --Samuel Luo 07:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what Falun Gong veritably and objectively is about, be it "a new religious movement", "metaphysical cultivation practice", "a political plot to overthrow the red liberator of the Chinese people", or something else. We can only report what acceptable and verifiable sources have stated without any modifications, weasel words or insinuations, and that's it. In addition, no significant point of view can be left out. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Strictly following these policies is even more important with controversial articles. The root of the problem lies here, not in any insoluble "religious edit wars". You, in the role of an administrator, should have constantly reminded all parties of these principles, which you have not done. I'd like to hear your explanation. Were you not aware of the implications of the policies, or did you have personal reasons for compromising them? ---Olaf Stephanos 10:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, Fire Star has already said she won't administer her 'normal' administrator duties on the FG-related pages. If you are making a personal attack on an administrator, I suggest you either do one of two things - report it officially, or retract your accusation. None of us have been able to strictly adhere to every single WP at all times, but what you are accusing Fire of is wilful negligence. That is serious. Please reconsider your statement; you can always 'strike it out' like Asdfg has done with his previous statement re the POV war issue if you retract it. Your inflammatory attitude does you no credit - remember, if you are so keen in 'strict enforcement' of WPs, WP:Civility also applies - and you are clearly stepping over the bounds with that last statement. Jsw663 17:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

seems more like a question than a statement...?--Asdfg12345 18:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fire Star has not responded to any of my inquiries, nor commented on my long, justified criticism of illegitimate edits. I know she doesn't exercise her administrator duties on these pages because of COI, and that's why I'm not accusing her of wilful negligence as an administrator. Besides, even though she's biased like all of us, I think she's quite reasonable after all. My point is that she should be clearly aware of all relevant policies; I could pose the same questions to anyone who claims to have read the rules thoroughly. It couldn't be more obvious that the necessary regulations have not been followed. My basic thesis is that most edit wars on these pages have merely reflected this anarchy. I have my own beliefs about the reasons behind this dereliction, but I don't need to elaborate on them. I'm satisfied as long as we pass the broom around a bit. Finally, let me quote you: "In the end, as long as all sides of the FG debate are committed to working towards a GA or better status for this article, we'll have done our role as Wiki editors in improving Wiki as an encyclopedic source. But to maintain this commitment we first need to weed out those who seek to stop our commitment towards this goal!" [12] ---Olaf Stephanos 19:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Looking over a sea of colons to my left, I feel like a gastroenterologist) I haven't responded directly to Olaf recently because I didn't feel it would be helpful. I don't want to further muddy the waters with reams of discussion, first because of the mediation, and now because of our pending arbitration. As a side note to Rickyrab, I may not indeed be a "she" FYI. I just think it is funny that English doesn't have gender neutral third person personal pronouns... --Fire Star 火星 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

From Gender neutral pronoun: Historically, there were two gender neutral pronouns native to English dialects, 'ou' and 'a', but they have long since died out. According to Dennis Baron's Grammar and Gender:

In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system....

Baron goes on to describe how relics of these sex-neutral terms survive in some British dialects of Modern English, and sometimes a pronoun of one gender might be applied to a person or animal of the opposite gender. So I guess you're an "ou", then. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 04:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, I put the mediation on hold because trying to build consensus could be difficult during Arbitration. This does not mean mediation cannot be resumed later, depending on how the Arbitration goes, further advice from the Mediation Committee, and whether or not you all still agree. I would also like to remind you all that the contents of the mediation should not be used as evidence in the Arbitration, per Mediation Committee rules. Thank you, ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only one comment. WP:NOT a battleground. You guys have mistakenly used it as a battleground. That is not a job for an encyclopedia: it is a job for blogs and forums. If you hadn't used it as a battleground, then there wouldn't have been an Arbitration. Go ahead and pour yourself some WP:TEA (preferably of the green variety since St. Patrick's Day is coming up and since many of you are ~~Irish~~ Chinese anyhow. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 12:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In about three or four weeks my capacity to access the internet will be significantly limited for about 2 or 3 months. Just want to say this early, now with the arbitration beginning. From late March to mid June is the rough time, but I will be able to check from time to time, I should think.--Asdfg12345 05:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Important that you mention that in the ArbCom case too, Asdfg. CovenantD 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)