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.

→

Criticism Section

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the criticism summary on the main page is too long. While other sections have at most two subsections on the main page, it has 6, including its intro. It's not as though it is any longer than the other pages either; the teachings and overseas pages are about the same length and with about the same number of subsections, but they are not accorded this special treatment. I suggest that this page's summary be reduced to a single paragraph to fit in with the rest of the page. Mcconn 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be as long as the other sections, I reckon. Probably I think a good way to order this page is to have a section for every branch page, like "teachings", "criticisms", "conflict with the CCP", etc. I think blowfish will only start getting involved again when the arbcom is finished. I would like an article that strongly references the wiki article guide and the stuff about how to make featured articles. I also think eventually that criticisms page will need to change to "third party views", and it will have to hold both positive and negative third party views on Falun Gong. Each point of contention can clearly lay out the pro and con views using neutrally presented reliable sources. It's far from that now. If no one else objected, for now I would suggest culling this section so it is the same size as the others. Please speak up any editors that disagree, or if this is stepping into revert-war territory. I don't have time now to spend on wiki. Since there are probably going to be large changes on several of these pages, maybe the way it will have to be done to avoid a lot of problems is to draw up a kind of plan for how each page should eventually look, a very rough guide, then go from there. --Asdfg12345 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure that it would only be a matter of minutes for someone to make a revert were I to cut down this section right now, why is it that this topic is has been posted here for over 5 days with no response by the people it concerns most? This is important and I want your response. Last time I brought this up, it was ignored in the same way, but I won't let it go this time. Mcconn 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't respond yet because of the pending ArbCom case about how to move forward regarding future edits. To say the criticism section should be as long as each section of the rest of the article promoting FG is yet another example of twisting rules to justify shortening criticisms. I'm not saying the criticism section should be as long as the section as the informative one. But the line between informative and propaganda has been crossed far too many times. This is yet another idea to make sure FG is received in the best possible light whilst sweeping any concerns under the carpet - not exactly the mark of a true 'democratic society' (at least FG is opposing CCP because of curtailing freedoms, but it seems they only want to replace it with an authoritarian system benefiting FG practitioners). Nevertheless, I'm not going to engage in serious discussion about this now with the ArbCom still not having arrived at a decision yet. Insisting on anything now would seem to indicate you wanting to promote something before you are (possibly) placed on revert parole. Why can't you wait? Jsw663 11:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there no harm in starting discussion now. You didn't address the issue in your post, but instead attacked my motivation for this suggestion. The fact that this section is accorded special treatment is the problem. It's simply out of place to be as long as it is. This is the issue. Mcconn 10:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of discussion you'd want with most of the anti-FG camp banned or on parole, and only half the pro-FG camp on parole. It cannot be balanced anymore when anyone accused of being a Chinese Communist Party member is banned, yet editors making these wild allegations only get a slap on the wrist. I already answered you on the issue of length, but did not on content. This is because I do not know enough about FG to form an opinion on content so far, and I'd require time (not something I have an abudance of now). Jsw663 13:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Some details on the main page

"religious" teachings? As I said before, this is totally a matter of opinion. It doesn't matter how much you think these teachings are religious, Mr. He or Sam, Falun Gong practitioners don't, and I'm sure they're not the only ones who don't. By insisting on including the term "religious teachings" in the intro, you are in turn insisting on your opinion. This doesn't get any more pov. Spiritual is the safest term to use because it's more broad and no one denys it.

Falun Gong and Falun Dafa... I've already explained this a hundred times to you. While their literal meanings differ, they refer to the same thing in practical use. Falun Dafa practitioners and Falun Gong practitioners refer to the same group of people. When I or any other practitioner says they practice Falun Gong we aren't only referring to the exercises, and when we say Falun Dafa we aren't only refering to the teachings. In practical use they have the same meaning and refer to both the exercises and the teachings. Some media have used the term Falun Gong, and others have used the term Falun Dafa, but they are talking about the same thing. The literal differentiation can be made later on in the article, perhaps in the teachings section, but putting it in the intro only creates confusion.

"The" Falun Gong. Enough of this "the" business. Look everywhere else in the article, do you see a "the" before Falun Gong? No, you don't. Very few media have put a "the" before the term "Falun Gong". It really doesn't make much sense, when you think of it. As most of us here probably know, there is no article like "the" in the Chinese language. So it's use is up to translators. Do people say "the Taichi" or "the Daoism"? No, and it just sounds like a bad translation. I've found that critical articles tend to use this "the" more, perhaps because it makes Falun Gong sound more like a secret society or a cult (at least in my mind it does). Maybe that's why certain people here are insisting on its use. But it doesn't make any sense and it's seldom used, so you should give it up boys. "Supression of Falun Gong" is the name of that page, and it was named a long time ago. When you put a "the" in the link it doesn't work. Are you forcibily trying to restrict people from seeing that page?

I don't know why you insist on these things. Sometimes it seems like you do it just for spite. And sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of 3 year olds. I hope you get it this time. Mcconn 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong teachings are religious. As someone has pointed out Li talks about providing salvation to humankind, if this is not religious I don’t know what is. It is your POV to say it is not but you should not push that POV on this article.

The Falun Gong is an organization. Members of the Falun Gong has also found many sub groups. Why deny being a organization? I don’t see any point in this argument at all.

You are removing critical links in the references. You are not here to help people to understand the truth. You are here to make this page a Falun Gong propaganda. --Pirate101 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You think the teachings are religious, and I don't. Perhaps many people disagree with me, but I know many people disagree with you too. There are lots of different understandings as to what constitutes a religion, and you're criterion may not be the same as others'. It's a matter of opinion, not fact. Wiki can't take a stance on this opinion, so we need to use a neutral word. That's why I chose "spiritual". It has a broader meaning in which "religious" may or may not be included. It's not saying that it is or isn't. How can you possibly suggest that it's me, not you, who is forcing their pov onto the article in regards to this?

Without proof, or something substantial to back them up, your words are meaningless, Pirate. You might as well be saying that Falun Gong is a "cooking movement", that's how much they're worth. Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the names of the spiritual discipline that Falun Gong practitioners adhere to. It's true that practitioners have gotten together and created organizations or associations for specific purposes, but there is no actual organization called Falun Gong. I can say with all certainty that you will only be a disturbance and waste of everyone's time to try to refute this. What I'm saying is fact, plain and simple.

I removed Samual Luo's PERSONAL website, which everyone has known for a loooooooong time does not meet wiki standards. It is a personal website by a self-proclaimed critic with no credentials. I also removed a link to a discussion about Falun Gong by random internet users. There's no way that such a link complies with wiki policy. Stop putting this garbage on the page. Mcconn 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of religion: Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life". The Falun Gong proclaims its teachings the highest & only truth on earth, Li claims to have the divine power to provide humankind salvation and he also claims to trun his followers into gods. If the Falun Gong is not a religion I don’t know what is. You are forcing your POV on this article.

The organization that represents the Falun Gong, registered in the US, is “the Eastern U.S. Buddha’s Study Falun Dafa Association” [1] Since you are a member of this Falun Gong organization I am sure you are aware of this, why continue concealing the facts. You are wasting my time.

Sam’s website is very informative and he has been interviewed by a number of media including San Francisco Chronicle and the KPFA. By Wiki policies, Sam can not add his own website to the article but others can. --Pirate101 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to McConn: Calling FG critics "a bunch of 3 year olds" and describing anti-FG websites as "garbage" does you little credit in light of the current ArbCom case. It is also not exactly a mature response in itself. I suggest you tone your language down, even if you personally feel FG critics are that 'worthless'. Jsw663 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I never called you guys three year olds, I said that I feel like I'm talking to three year olds. Actually, that's not quite right, it's more like 6 year olds. What I mean is that it's very hard to get a point through with some of the people here, even when it's very simple. It often has to be explained a number of times and in different ways to get it acrross. I'm actually a teacher and I find this quite similar to teaching kids sometimes. I'm not referring to everyone either, just a few individuals. Not all of the critical sites are garbage, but I will make no reservations using that word for the two sites I was referring to.

On the issue of these websites, I will try to clarify a little better why they are not acceptable. Pirate said "By Wiki policies, Sam can not add his own website to the article but others can." I've looked for the policy you're referring to but haven't found it. Perhaps you could show us. However, if you look at Self-published sources you may see more clearly why Sam's site is not acceptable no matter who adds it. It says that a self published sources are largely unacceptable, unless produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. Sam certainly does not meet that exception, and with so much opposition to it being there from the start, it really should be removed for good. As for the other site, if you look again at the link you'll discover that blogs are not acceptable sources either. Besides, the link is broken, it goes nowhere.

Religion - Go ahead an produce as many definitions of religion as you want, it won't make a difference. The fact is that this is a matter of dispute, not just with people here, but in academic circles as well. Take a look at Noah Porter's Master's Thesis page 35. You'll notice it sites two academics, one suggesting that Falun Gong is a religion, and the other providing reasons why it isn't. Wiki cannot take a stance on this. That is the main point, but that aside, there are lots of different definitions of religion in the world. There is no fixed definition. Many people would say that teachings without defined rules, ritual, or worship cannot be consitered religious. As I said, "spiritual" is a much broader term that may or may not include religion. It is a neutral word that satisfies both stances.

You said that I'm a member of “the Eastern U.S. Buddha’s Study Falun Dafa Association” [2]. I'm not. I have nothing to do with them. This organization is made up of a few Falun Gong practitioners, and has a number of functions, one of which is to represent Falun Gong practitioners in certain circumstances. Most practitioners act and organize themselves completely independently from this organization. There are also a lot of countries that have practitioners, but no organization. Does that mean they can't do anything? Of course not. Besides, the argument here is about whether we can use the term "the Falun Gong" as the name of an organization or in the name of what practitioners have done or said, and you've provided no support for it. As I said before, you're digging into a bulls horn on this one.

Also I've made clear points about why Falun Gong and Falun Dafa should not be separated in the intro, and they have not been responded to. Why then, was this still reverted? Mcconn 10:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mcconn, that is your opinion, anyone who reads Chinese understand that these two terms mean very different things. Also don’t delete Samuel’s website without consensus. --Mr.He 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel's website has been repeatedly removed by BInguyen, a third-party administrator and a member of the ArbCom. Unless you provide some reasons to overrule his decision, the website will not stay. Also, there is no way you can separate the meaning of "Falun Gong" or "Falun Dafa" from how it is understood by people who practice it. On a side note, if you'd learn to present your arguments instead just posting simple two-line utterances like you've always done, you could come across as someone more reasonable. Luckily the articles will be eventually placed on probation. I'm waiting to get started with some real improvements. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf: If we can only report the understanding of Falun Gong practitioners in Wikipedia as you suggest..."There is no way you can separate the meaning of 'Falun Gong' or 'Falun Dafa' from how it is undersood by people who practice it."....these articles can never tell the complete story of the Falun Gong. For you to argue this indicates that you think the POV of practitioners should prevail over all other considerations (including the words of Master Li Hongzhi himself.) Your agenda is clear and it comes directly from the Master:

A Dafa disciple who fails to achieve the effect of safeguarding and upholding Dafa has no way of reaching Consumation, because your cultivation is different from that of the past and the future. “Fa-Rectification Period Dafa Disciples,” Essentials for Further Advancement II, item 40

But Wikipedia is not and cannot be a platform for Falun Gong practitioners to "safeguard and uphold" Li's teachings. --Tomananda 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is, because "safeguarding and upholding Dafa" means to make sure that the reports about Dafa are made truthfully and so this is exactly what Wikipedia requires. --HappyInGeneral 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that, mister "determined activist" [3]. I'm talking about a simple definition of these concepts, not about anything you concoct as my agenda. If practitioners view Falun Dafa and Falun Gong as basically the same thing, where do your ideas draw their legitimation? Are we talking about the same thing or not? By the way, how come a native English speaker systematically misspells "Consummation" even when citing a direct quote? ---Olaf Stephanos 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a snide and unnecessary comment, Olaf! Is this discussion about Li's teachings and the practices of Falun Gong, or is it about whether a critic of the Falun Gong has made a spelling or typing mistake in his writing? Your hubris speaks for itself. As to the "determined activist" reference, why do you bring that up? Is it to gloat that an Arbitrator has made that comment? So much for Wikipedia "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks." --Tomananda 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave the tags and templates

The first template is because this article falls far short of wiki policies in many ways, and the people looking at it need to know that, and that it is in the process of review. The other templates express that it is in review, but does not note that there are concerns of the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article. The first pov tag is because that sentence to introduce the teachings that way is certainly from one angle and quite incomplete, uncontextualised and therefore not neutral. The other two tags, original research and failed verification should be obvious by clicking on the link. The link doesn-t even mention the Fa-rectification is judging all sentient beings, and you won-t find that sentence anywhere in the books, so it is original research plus does not appear in the cited source. I propose that these tags and template should not be removed without clear explanation as to why they are innappropriate.--Asdfg12345 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: You are mis-representing the disputed edit. It does not say that the Fa-rectrification is judging all beings, but rather that Li's Dafa is judging all beings, which in fact is exactly what Li says himself. The source for that quote is the second citation in the sentence which, by the way, keeps disappearing after a FG editor makes other changes. Here's the complete sentence:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind [4] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings [5] in a process called Fa-rectification.[6]

The only part of this sentence which does not directly appear in Li's writings is the last part: "in a process called Fa-rectification". But it is clear from the context of Li's writings that the judgment of his Dafa (great law) is part of the Fa-rectificiation process. Yes, there is more that can be said about Fa-rectification, but certainly it involves the judgment of beings in the cosmos. What also needs to be said is that as a result of Li's Fa-rectifiction and the judgment of his Dafa, some beings will be "saved" and others will be "weeded out." He has stated this many many times and you know it. If you can come up with revised wording that conveys these thoughts, I think that would be a useful gesture on your part. --Tomananda 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What we'd like to see is a version that makes clear the following points: 1) Those who will be weeded out are people who support the persecution in their hearts and fail to identify with the cause of stopping it. 2) Dafa provides salvation to all beings, regardless of the bad deeds they committed in history. The only line of demarcation for "weeding out" is point number one. 3) In regard to those who can stay, the better attitude they have towards Dafa and Dafa disciples, the better they position themselves in the future. As long as these aspects are made as clear as possible, I don't think we have a problem.

To put it more clearly, right now during the Fa-rectification, no matter how great are the sins sentient beings have committed or how grave are the mistakes they made in the past, the only thing that is looked at is the attitude that they have toward Dafa and Dafa disciples during the Fa-rectification period. There is just this one line of demarcation. Actually, this line is not a line at all; it's just about whether you want to enter the future. Amidst lies that have deceived the world, and amidst the wicked culture created by the evil CCP, how many people can still recognize that point? How many people can tell right from wrong? How many people can see clearly the wickedness of the evil CCP? It is very hard to do, and that's why Dafa disciples clarify the facts, expose the evil, and help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Only by doing these things can the world's people be saved. This is precisely what Dafa disciples are to do. Fa Teaching at the 2007 New York Fa Conference

---Olaf Stephanos 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Olaf, if I say that the CCP is evil and wicked, but so too is Li Hongzhi for his manipulation and exploitation of Falun Gong practitioners, will I be saved by Li's Dafa? I react to Li's extreme rhetoric of absolute evil (the CCP and all their sypathizers) and absolute good (his disciples), the same way I react to George W. Bush's simplistic rhetoric concerning the Axis of Evil. In neither case is the political leader (Bush) or the so-called spiritual leader (Li Hongzhi) helping to improve the situation through better understanding. Sorry, but I do not agree that the answer to all of your problems is to seek the absolute down-fall of the Chinese Communist Party. I consider that to be a naive and desructive over-response to what you call "the persecution." I also am deeply bothered by the fact that Falun Gong practitioners feel free to fabricate stories about organ harvesting. This is not to say I do not condemn any and all persecution, but rather that the noble principles which Li espouses of "truthfullness, forebearance and benevolence" should not be so casually abandoned in the service of Li's goal of destroying the CCP. --Tomananda 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about your salvation, and it's none of our concern as Wikipedia editors. You may be compromising it. With reference to the Chinese Communist Party, I don't think it's any better than the Nazi Party of Germany. Of course, the Nazis did a lot of "good" things as well; they built autobahns and put the German economy on its feet after the great depression. Germany in the 1930s was not a bad place for the petite bourgeoisie. However, you see a lot of "simplistic rhetoric" when people talk about the Nazis. There is a reason for that, as they were truly evil because of what they did to Europe and its people. The Chinese Communist Party has killed about 80 million people during its 60 years of rule. For the most part, it has destroyed the traditional Chinese culture, corrupted people's mindset and wrecked the environment. Its official state religion of atheism, dialectical materialism, proto-fascism and militant nationalism has poisoned the minds of countless people. It kills my fellow practitioners - good, kind and intelligent citizens of China - for supporting a dissident metaphysical paradigm. As long as it systematically prevents third-party organisations from entering China's hospitals and labour camps to investigate the alleged organ harvesting, there are good reasons to believe it has something to cover up. From my point of view, it is a wicked and evil Party, just like the governments of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and various other dictators have been wicked and evil. There is a standard of morality by which to judge.

You're saying that Falun Gong practitioners work for the destruction of the CCP. Well, as long as we use legal and nonviolent means for exposing its rule of terror, I don't see any problem in what we're doing. Our peaceful demonstrations and spreading the Nine Commentaries are done openly and uprightly. If that's "working for the destruction of the CCP", then you're working for the destruction of the Republican party as the chairman of San Francisco for Democracy, right? At least it should be made clear that we don't want to obtain political power; we just want to see China without a Communist dictatorship. Our stance should be represented fairly and dispassionately in this article. You've been unable to achieve that.

By the way, I don't mean to make "snide and unnecessary" comments, but "truthfulness" is written with one l and "forbearance" has no e after the first r. ---Olaf Stephanos 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You amaze me, Olaf. You seem to be acknowledging in this post that the goal of Falun Gong practitioners is the destruction of the CCP, yet when I have made that same point in previous discusions, it's always been rejected out of hand. Oh no, we're just here to expose the persecution! FG editors say. But to what end? To reform the CCP or to eliminate it? You know, there's a big difference between those two goals and given the importance of China as a major national player, I would think you would want to achieve clarity on this point in these Wikipedia articles. As to the relative "evilness" of the Nazi regime and the current Beijing government, I find your comparison rather telling. I don't claim to be an expert about how the CCP works, but I do know that the central government in Beijing has publicly announced a campaign against local government corruption, with special emphasis on dealing with corrupt police officials at the local level...you know, those very same police officials whom the FG accuses of torturing practitioners. The problem with Li's absolutist way of thinking is that it closes the door on these types of reform efforts As long as Li continues to call for the destruction of the CCP...and encourages a campaign to diminish it's numbers through his media outlets such as the Epoch Times...the CCP is only going to be put in a more defensive position. My position has never been to prevent anti-CCP edits in Wikipedia, but rather to insist that both sides of the debate be given equal time.

You say "we just want to see China without Communist dictatorship," but at the same time you agressively prevent any edits which try to report this goal in order to preserve a false image of the Falung Gong. If you believe that is a justifiable goal, why can't you post some edits to reveal that part of Li's teachings? Or at least let editors like me have a go at it?

You say the Falun Gong has only engaged in "legal and nonviolent means for exposing its rule of terror" in China, yet there are numerous indicents of illegal activities...such as the jamming of China's TV broadcasts from Taiwan...that fly in the face of that statement. Yes, I'll grant that the "nonviolent" adjective in your sentence is propably appropriate, but not the "legal."

As for my interests, this discussion is somewhat beside the point. Most of my editing has steered clear of the China-versus-the-Falun-Gong debate because, frankly, I am not an expert on those matters. But I do know something about comparative religion and how cults differ from legitimate religions in the way they deceive the public about their higher teachings and practices. I also know about and have even met Americans who consider themselves victims of Li Hongzhi's manipulative and deceptive practices. Families here in the US have broken up because of Li's teachings, and some people have jeopardized their health. On top of that, I find Li's teachings on homosexuality and race to be particularly harmful. So all and all, there really is another side to the Falun Gong that deserves to be told.

As to my outside activities, I resent that you have mis-represented my goals as "Chair" of a local activist group in San Francisco. More could be said about that point, but it should be considered totally irrelevant to my role as a Wikipedia editor. Surely all the Arbitrators will agree with my position about that.

Finally, as to the oft-made point that Falun Gong practitioners are not themselves seeking political power, it's not what is at issue here. Whether one considers the destruction of the government of China a "political" goal or a "spiritual" goal or a "metaphysical" goal shouldn't prevent an honest reporting in Wikipedia that this is, in fact, the goal of the Falun Gong. Master Li Hongzhi has told his disciples that in order to achieve salvation they must work to achieve this goal. He has given explicit instructions to his disciples who run his media outlets about how they should approach their work. All of this information is notable, well-sourced and relevant to an understanding of the Falun Gong and therefore belongs in Wikipedia. --Tomananda 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of definition. What we're against are your obscure, simplistic, insidious formulations. There are plenty of people around the world working for the "destruction" of different political entities. Normally people understand it as some kind of warfare that involves more or less covert means and even aims for an eventual coup d'état. Ultra-leftist guerillas in many Asian and South American countries belong to this category. How did you intend to assure that our casual readers draw a clear and distinctive line between peaceful, nonviolent Falun Gong practitioners and these groups? You must understand our right to avert such confusion. We are not the ones destroying the CCP; we're operating within a legal and morally respectable framework and encouraging people to make a decision for their future. Oftentimes the words of late Jerry Garcia come to my mind: "Though I could not caution all, I still might warn a few: Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools". [7]

It seems preposterous that you, as a partisan for democracy, actually claim to believe a Communist dictatorship when it launches yet another nationalist campaign to "weed out corruption". I don't want to make any "snide and unnecessary comments" about your naïveté in this matter, but you shouldn't expect too many people to share such starry-eyed beliefs. Violent and genocidal policies in the campaign against Falun Gong practitioners have been top-down all the time. Jiang Zemin issued an order to "defame their reputations, bankrupt them financially, and destroy them physically". Jamming the television signal of CCP's propaganda mouthpiece easily falls within the boundaries of civil disobedience. I quote Peter Suber's essay from Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia:

Thoreau, who performed civil disobedience in a democracy, argued that sometimes the constitution is the problem, not the solution. Moreover, legal channels can take too long, he argued, for he was born to live, not to lobby. His individualism gave him another answer: individuals are sovereign, especially in a democracy, and the government only holds its power by delegation from free individuals. Any individual may, then, elect to stand apart from the domain of law. Martin Luther King, Jr., who also performed civil disobedience in a democracy, asks us to look more closely at the legal channels of change. If they are open in theory, but closed or unfairly obstructed in practice, then the system is not democratic in the way needed to make civil disobedience unnecessary. Other activists have pointed out that if judicial review is one of the features of American democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, then it ironically subverts this goal; for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it. Finally, the Nuremberg principles require disobedience to national laws or orders which violate international law, an overriding duty even in (perhaps especially in) a democracy. [...] [J]ustice delayed, King proclaimed, is justice denied. After a point, he argued, patience in fighting an injustice perpetuates the injustice, and this point had long since been passed in the 340 year struggle against segregation in America. In the tradition which justifies civil disobedience by appeal to higher law, legal niceties count for relatively little. If God trumps Caesar to justify disobedience to unjust law, then God can trump Caesar to permit this disobedience sooner rather than later. In this tradition, A.J. Muste argued that to use legal channels to fight unjust laws is to participate in an evil machine, and to disguise dissent as conformity; this in turn corrupts the activist and discourages others by leading them to underestimate the numbers of their congeners. [8]

If you feel that Falun Gong practitioners, as a group suffering from rampant state terrorism, and whose voice has been muffled on all venues in Mainland China, don't have a right to jam CCTV's television signal to expose their persecution, I find it rather dismaying that you actually claim to stand for democratic values.

I also know something about comparative religion. Quite a lot, for that matter. I'm specializing in questions like marginality, otherness and relationships between minorities and majorities. I have highest overall grades in my major and both of my minors, which is rather irrelevant in Wikipedia, of course. I also know how cults differ from legitimate religions. There are extremely few professionals in comparative religion who would term Falun Gong as a cult. Because of the prevailing secular materialist paradigm, most academicians would define it as a religion or a quasi-religion. Of course, I don't view it as a religion, because I have good reasons to believe it's objectively true. If you have met so many Americans "who consider themselves victims of Li Hongzhi's manipulative and deceptive practices", why don't you show me at least a couple of former practitioners who have turned against Falun Gong out of their free will? As far as I've seen, even those who find it too difficult to follow usually admit that it's very good. No matter what you believe, Falun Gong is an impressive practice method. I have taught it to countless people, and the general impression is always the same: people who have a long history of qigong or taijiquan practice usually say right after doing the exercises that Falun Gong is more powerful than anything they've tried before. Concrete, empirical proof is more convincing than mainstream opinions about what is possible and what is not. That's exactly why it spread so rapidly in China.

Nevertheless, I am not here to promote Falun Gong as such. I have plenty of academic knowledge about this subject, and my principal intent is to report what has been written about Falun Gong in various scientific journals and major newspapers. I'm relieved to see that our party's voice of reason has been heard and acknowledged by the ArbCom. You and Samuel will be almost unanimously banished, and this set of articles will be placed on probation. It is a significant milestone. I hope we can finally start writing a real tertiary source instead of having to ward off ideological struggle and harassment. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomananda, many people are saying that the CCP will be eliminated by the Heaven or Gods because it has done to many bad things. The CCP has persecuted Falun Dafa and the chinese people in general. When we, Dafa practitioners use peaceful means to expose and end the persecution, it cannot be considered wrong. Falun Dafa practitioners have been tortured and murdered for the last 8 years. Teacher Li have been slandered and the CCP have used propaganda to turn the chinese people against Falun Gong and to badmouth Master Li. How can you call us political when we clarify the facts about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners? This is a human rights issue, it is not that we Falun Gong practitioners are seeking political power. The ultimate goal of cultivators of Falun Dafa, as I personally understand it, is to reach beyond the mortal world, ascending and becoming a Buddha through cultivation practice. Not to rule the country or have money or power. I have to say that you are using the same arguments over and over again to justify your notions and to force people to think like you. From now on, I will not have these useless arguments for you and I wont give you an audience. I will just create a good article here on wikipedia and reject the lies and propaganda that you are spreading. Omido

I agree that it doesn't do much good to engage in arguments against Tomananda or Samuel Luo, since they'll be leaving us in a short while. The most important thing, however, is to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines thoroughly and adhere to them in every instance. That is the only way to create a quality article that represents Falun Gong as truthfully and dispassionately as possible. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that your commitment to truthfulness and dispassion is not what you can get away with by interpreting and twisting Wiki rules out of context, and also a recognition that respect must be paid to those who are 3rd parties on these pages, and not insult anyone who questions any aspect of Falun Gong by labeling them as commies with only an agenda to lie. If you can make this commitment to genuine balance and fairness that would be a new leaf turned over by you, Olaf, much like Asdfg has done so far, and I shall be more than happy to just step back and let you do all the content editing if that is so. After all, like I've said numerous times before, I'm no expert on this topic, but the actions of a year ago by pro-FGers blanking the entire criticism section (or limiting it to one or two sentences) is clearly not acceptable. Jsw663 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel in violation of 3RR again

He reverted 6 times on May 3rd. Will an admin please take some action? Thanks Mcconn 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We can see how nothing matters to Samuel at this point. He's like a wounded, cornered, snarling beast, waiting for his ultimate kickban by the ArbCom. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are calling Samuel a beast, and you guys suppose to be the ones promoting Compassion? Samuel reverted 6 times because some Falun Gong practitioners have been deleting well sourced material. --Mr.He 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We promote Compassion, but Samuel is a highly tendentious editor that directly hurts these pages and their readers, and he blindly believes that his ends justify his means. He has shown utter disrespect towards his fellow editors, and the ArbCom has almost unanimously decided to sweep him out. He has been officially declared incompetent for editing any Falun Gong related articles. He's breaking the rules while being fully aware of doing so. I'm sorry, but I don't get the impression that he has too much normal dignity left. If I hadn't initiated this purge, these delinquents would be still spinning their cobwebs without any restraint. What makes this affair even more ridiculous is that several editors, including Mr.He, have been repeatedly defending Samuel's actions and helping him vandalize these pages over a long period of time, making them accomplices in his buffooneries. Now that the ArbCom has indicated us what was right and what was wrong, have you thought about presenting an apology?

Mr.He, if you want to contribute to these pages, you'd better engage in some real discussions instead of posting these two-line yaps that have become your trademark. You haven't even replied to my previous message. Samuel is deleting tags that are insisted upon by several people. No matter what you think about them, you are violating the policies by removing them. In addition, the inclusion of Samuel's website has been forbidden by Wikipedia administrators. I've worked in a kindergarten for one year, and I agree with McConn: not infrequently this stuff feels like teaching 6-year old kids, with the exception that you are at least teenagers and should know better. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me go through the disputed text passages one by one: 1) You have not indicated any secondary source making the distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa (see WP:Verifiability). 2) Same goes for "mostly western" human rights groups, which are obviously weasel words. 3) Using words like "leader" to describe Li Hongzhi does not conform to WP:NPOV. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Insinuation and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances. 4) "The" Falun Gong is pushing a tendentious POV. You have even added this word to a direct quote from Zhuan Falun! What are you up to, a deliberate fraud?! 5) When Maria Hsia Chang is quoted, there are all the more reasons to add the words "According to Maria Hsia Chang". See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Attribution and citation. Unless you provide comprehensive reasons for overriding these policies, stop your reverts now. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please people, it is time to drop all references to teaching kids or teenagers in Wiki discussion. The same can be said in reverse too, after all, depending on your POV. It is borderline personal attack, and is about time that both the accuser and accusee stop wrangling about non-Wiki-issues. Moreover, Olaf, please stop calling others beasts, even if they have been banned from Wikipedia. It doesn't reflect well on you, and can be used against you in a future case. Jsw663 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are one of the editors who have defended the tendentious editing of Samuel Luo and Tomananda right from the beginning. Maybe you could elaborate a bit on your personal bias and tell us what made you so blind to its egregiousness. An apology would probably clear the air to some extent. By the way, I did not call anybody a beast; I compared Samuel to a wounded, cornered, snarling beast, because I thought it was rather felicitous. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read this guideline which clearly backs up our position: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint. I suggest that you read the whole page. The only difference is that usually our disputed terms are not even technically correct. All Falun Gong articles shall be reformed accordingly. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always wanted balance in the article and recognize that there is an overwhelming number of Falun Gong practitioners on this board compared to 3rd parties and critics. Balance is impossible when the pro-FG side is just like the anti-FG side, hard-selling their POV and "facts" on a Wiki entry, as if Wikipedia is merely a propaganda tool to be used by both sides rather than respecting Wikipedia for what it is, an informative piece. This should be done out of respect for Wikipedia. After all, I have no personal agenda to be on either side's camp, but recognize the odds some critics are facing on a board where people still let their "commies can only tell lies" stereotype affect their judgment when editing. Now, just because you came away relatively unscathed due to some evidence of control in your debates before this case, please remember that this ArbCom case may not be the final 'judgment' and your conduct as well as provocative remarks are subject to constant examination.

In the spirit of balance and fairness apologies should be made by all sides to all the other sides (the sides = every involved editor, basically). This is what I call neutrality - not denying anyone their right to express their POV on discussion boards (within reasonable limits), and not rejoicing when you have succeeded in getting anyone banned. Level-headedness is the sign of maturity, and as a postgraduate student yourself, surely you should recognize this (and especially as a Bach-lover, since his music is inherently structured and calm whilst showing flair and ability as well as complexity, e.g. the Art of the Fugue - but this is getting off-topic so I'll stop this discussion right here). Jsw663 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, you are coming across as an conceited, strident harpy. Aside from your arrogance you are also deceptive. You said “the inclusion of Samuel's website has been forbidden by Wikipedia administrators,” but all you have is a statement from Binguyen that reminds Samuel not to add his own website. Samuel has been interviewed by a number of American media including S.F. Chronicle and KPFA. He represents a point of view on the Falun Gong and his website is informative. According to External links Samuel can not add his own website but others can. The fact that Samuel is no longer here makes the inclusion of this site more legitimate.

Samuel is no more tendentious than any pro-Falun-Gong editors like you. Take a look at the evidence Samuel provided for the arbcom case.[9] Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors were concealing their group’s real teachings by removing them from “Teachings of Falun Gong” page. On “Li Hongzhi” page they also repeatedly removed “Divinity of Li Honzghi” and “Interview of Li Hongzhi” sections. Material in these sections is sourced to Falun Gong’s own website and major American media; there is no legitimate reason for their removal.

Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors are also mean-spirited and nasty. Take a look at the personal attacks they have left on Samuel’s talk page. [10] Vicious personal attacks like this have also been directed at other editors including neutral ones. It is you guys who are like wounded, cornered, snarling beasts !

Samuel is not banned because “He has been officially declared incompetent for editing any Falun Gong related articles.” He is banned because the arbcom found him “promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism.” As Jsw663 pointed out Arbcom did not apply their judgment consistently, while banning Samuel, even Tomananda, they did not ban Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors who also promote a viewpoint consistent with their outside activism. [11] I do not consider arbcom’s decision fair. --Mr.He 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute in introduction

Mcconn, in order for people to accept your edits you have to explain 1) why Falun Gong (law wheel exercise) and Falun Dafa (law wheel great law) mean the same thing. 2) why the POV and Failed Verification tags when the sources are valid and back the statements.

I notice that Asdfg12345 took out “the” from Li’s quote in “Beliefs and teachings” section. He is manipulating Li’s words. Samuel might be leaving, his departure makes his site more legitimate. This statement is false "Samuel's website has been forbidden by Wikipedia administrators." To my knowledge no admin has ever said such thing. --Mr.He 16:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. He, are you familiar with the basic policies of Wikipedia? I requested you to provide a secondary source that makes this exact distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. The burden of proof lies on you. The POV and Failed Verification tags will stay there until we create a new introduction, one that is formulated according to the policies. Meanwhile, I urge you to read this: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view. If you want to discuss a new introduction that complies with these requirements, you are welcome to do so, provided that you stop this two-line POV pushing and actually start writing real messages. I'd also like to know which quote in "Beliefs and teachings" section are you referring to. You can ask about Samuel's website from BInguyen, a member of the ArbCom. He has been removing it several times, see [12], for instance. Such self-published sources are not acceptable.

Let me also remind you of the ArbCom decision: "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." As the articles are placed on probation, they will be closely monitored. If your edits fail to comply with the official policies and meet these requirements, you will join Samuel and Tomananda rather swiftly. Consider yourself warned. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.he that no justification for recent changes were given. there is a Faln gogn organization and Samuel's website is informative. --Yueyuen 19:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I have written plenty of justifications for the recent changes! I'm waiting for policy references and point-to-point rebuttal of my arguments. Then we can discuss. In addition, answer the following questions:

1. Why are there things in your revert such as a direct quote that has been intentionally altered? (Quote from Zhuan Falun)
2. What do you have to say against the removal of Samuel's website by the ArbCom member BIngyuen. How does the website conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)?
3. Which secondary source refers to a "Falun Gong organization", and why don't you clearly attribute this concept to that source?
4. The name of the article is "Falun Gong". Why should the name be changed to "the Falun Gong" in the contents of the article? Do you honestly feel that the latter term is not only justified but "neutral" (as defined by Wikipedia)? Why?

Thank you for your cooperation and a complete reply. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, it is you and Mcconn who want to make these changes, the burden of prove is on you guys. So far you have not provided sound argument to prove why calling Falun Gong teachings “religious” is wrong. And why referring the group as “the Falun Gong” is not appropriate. I demand that you make your case here before making those changes.--Mr.He 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because calling Falun Gong teachings "religious" or using the term "the Falun Gong" implies a point of view. That is enough to forbid their use in a neutral description.

Firstly, Andrew P. Kipnis has stated: "Thus, to the Western layperson, qigong of all sorts may seem to be religious because it deals with spiritual matters. Because Li Hongzhi makes use of many concepts from Buddhism and Taoism in his writings, this may make Falun Gong seem even more like a religion to the outsider; Falun Gong grew initially into a space termed scientific [in China], but was insulated from the spaces formally acknowledged as institutionalized science in Western countries." ([13], pp. 38-39)
Secondly, even if you think that term is technically correct and perfectly justified, that's not enough. When there is no consensus, that's not a sufficient criterion for accepting it as a neutral definition in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terms_that_are_technically_accurate_but_carry_an_implied_viewpoint explicitly states: "It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear POV or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y"). This applies even if the term is technically accurate, or very credibly sourced, because accurate and sourced terms can in certain contexts still imply a viewpoint. Terms such as these almost inevitably function as a description from the point of view of "outside the belief" of those to whom it is applied. It does not always imply neutrality."
Now we have an instance that is not backed up by any cited sources, is challenged by at least one other source (Kipnis above), and where a neutral wording (spiritual) is readily available.
You don't seem to have internalized how Wikipedia works. 'Neutral' description doesn't mean 'what is perceived as indisputably objective by one party' but 'what is the lowest common denominator between all important parties'. Indeed, Wikipedia does not aim for "objectivity" as you seem to understand it: "This is probably the most common objection to the neutrality policy. It also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The misunderstanding is that the policy would have said something about the possibility of objectivity. It simply does not. In particular, the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)—such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy and it is not our aim!" [14] If there are any credible sources that call Falun Gong teachings religious and make this distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa, you may cite them directly. Currently, there is no source cited at all. This distinction is not attributed to anybody after a long period of time, which basically means that it can be directly removed by any editor. Mr.He and Yueyuen, when your actions will be evaluated by the ArbCom, they will definitely note this.
The same points apply to "the Falun Gong". It implies a point of view, and our party has been against the use of that term. First of all, there is a logical inconsistency, as the name of the article is "Falun Gong", not "the Falun Gong". Secondly, you have stated yourself that you want to use that term because "The Falun Gong is an organization". If that is the reason you want to use it, and we don't agree with you, Wikipedia explicitly forbids the use of "terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint". Meaning, even if that term was technically accurate (even though we wholeheartedly disagree), it would still not be acceptable. The principles of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_can_imply_facts_which_may_be_unsupported and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_controversial_or_multiple_meanings apply here as well.
You are saying that "mostly Western" human rights organizations disagree with the persecution. Who says that? If you don't attribute that claim, it is a weasel word.
There are major problems with the lead sections and all of the articles. All claims must be eventually attributed or they are removed. And that's not enough: there are plenty of other policies controlling NPOV, no original research, balance, relative space given to minority and majority views, and so on. If you don't recognize what Samuel and Tomananda did wrong, you are bound to repeat their mistakes and end up getting banned. Your unwillingness to discuss the essence of controversial edits in length, as well as outright violations of cited policies, don't look too good on the record. Do you really want us to accumulate material that can be used against you in another ArbCom review? Their criteria don't change. Please keep in mind that if your edits bear a resemblance to those of Samuel - regardless of whether you think they're justified - you'll get burned as well. Do you want your party to eventually become extinct just because you didn't take policies seriously? I'm still waiting for a point-to-point rebuttal of my arguments. It's not enough to say "I disagree with you, you have not provided any sound arguments"; by doing that, you're completely ignoring what I have written and basically stating "I don't know how to argue rationally against you, but I just don't care".
We will start reforming this article by replacing any unsourced definitions with citations from scientific publications, tagging all statements that require attribution, and inserting material from peer-reviewed journals and major newspapers while unambiguously stating who says what. I replaced the definition of Falun Gong in the lead section. If you disagree with it, you may provide an alternative quote from a scientific publication, and then we can combine their essential elements. That's the way to reach an eventual balance. This is fully consistent with the requests of the ArbCom: "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." If you have something to add, do it, and do it well. Any suppression of legitimate, attributed, well-sourced and verifiable viewpoints, or attempts to impose a POV without explicitly attributing it to someone, or excuses such as "you can't make any real changes without discussing them first" are not acceptable. The policies are out there, and they are our only standard by which to continue this work. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, your recent edit in the intro is ridiculous. You replaced Li’s direct quotes with information from a secondary source. Noah Porter is no expert on the Falun Gong and his paper is just “a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.” This paper is self published and no one has ever interviewed Mr. Porter nor quoted his work. Do you see how absurd it is to place his writings in the intro to introduce the Falun Gong?

I went to Falun Gong’s clearwisdom.net and found that the group itself understands why it would be placed in the category of religion. Under "Is Falun Gong a religion?" section in the FAQ it says: “it is not considered necessary to be religious in order to achieve the goal of raising one's spiritual level, but one does need a cultivation practice. Here in the West, since we don't really have the concept of cultivation, anything spiritual or that has to do with transcending the human world has traditionally fallen under the concept of religion. Falun Gong is no exception.” In other words, the group itself is OK with being called a religion. --Mr.He 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In your version, there are no direct quotes from Li, only vague references to sources such as Lecture at the First Conference in North America. I agree that a quote from Noah Porter is not the best possible source for the lead section, but at least it's a step forward. It neatly outlines the different viewpoints that have been expressed by various commentators, whereas your version fails to do that altogether. The lead section is supposed to establish context and be a concise overview of the article instead of going into any details of the subject matter. "The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word — we are eased into it." [15] Using freely combined primary sources in a short introduction is highly dubious. "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." [16]
In addition, there are Wikipedia guidelines against introducing new and potentially puzzling content without first providing a sufficient context. In Wikipedia, there is a "principle of least astonishment": "The average reader should not be shocked, surpised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article. As the writer, you should not use exaggeratory language in descriptions or arguments. Instead, gently offer information by by anticipating the reader's resistence to new ideas. Try to bridge each sentence with the sentence before it by using an idea or word that appears in both sentences. Use consistent vocabulary in parts that are technical and difficult. To decide which parts of the sentence are going to be difficult for the reader, try to anticipate the reader's resistance to the ideas. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them someplace that makes sense. Similarly make sure that concepts that are being used to base further discussion on have already been defined, or linked to a proper article. Explain causes before consequences and make sure your logical sequence is clear and sound, especially to the layman." [17] There is absolutely no way for an average reader to understand what exactly is meant by "Fa-rectification" and "Dafa is judging all beings" in the third sentence of the entire article, and I have an impression that this is exactly what you want - to confuse them by highlighting what you perceive as sensational. Note that I am absolutely not against writing a full exposition of Fa-rectification and all related matters into an appropriate chapter. Everything must be explained. What we want is a professional introduction that conforms to guidelines and policies, as well as a logical article structure. That's why the whole lead section must be rewritten based on good secondary sources.
I've requested at least three times that you provide a secondary source in which the exact distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa is made. All disputed claims in Wikipedia must be clearly attributed: who says what. Do you still have problems getting that? I've never said that I don't understand why some people would place Falun Gong in the category of religion, but we're talking about finding a well-sourced description that's as accurate as possible.
Samuel's website doesn't conform to Wikipedia's requirements for external links. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" ("recognized authority" basically means academic credentials and articles in peer-reviewed journals; a couple of partisan interviews doesn't make Samuel a "recognized authority").
I still haven't seen you quote any policies to support your version. I have written maybe twenty to thirty times more than you have during this discussion. What exactly is your idea of an article that conforms to the Wikipedia standards, and why do you systematically fail to comment on the policies and guidelines I have cited? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what it means that Tomananda and Samuel tried to use Wikipedia for "ideological struggle and advocacy". You may wonder, "How come? Didn't all of their Li quotes come from the lectures?" Well, Wikipedia is not a collection of primary source citations that have been glued together with weasel words and intentionally placed to create a desired impression. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source consisting of references to recognized research and other reputable sources. There are essential policies and guidelines, such as the ones I've quoted, and many others, that both Samuel and Tomananda completely ignored. That's why they were almost unanimously banned, and that's what awaits you (and some other editors) if you don't learn to cooperate, discuss properly and change your editing patterns. I don't care if you're against or in favour of Falun Gong; I'd like to work with people who sincerely care for the rules of the game. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Li’s words were paraphrased, I can use his direct quotes if that is what you prefer.

I agree that the lead section should establish context and be a concise overview of the article, and I believe Li’s quotes are doing that just fine.

No one is trying to interpret what Li and the Falun Gong says, they are being directly quoted. Secondary source can be used to describe the Falun Gong but that does not mean we should ignore what Li and the Falun Gong says about themselves.

The term “religious” is neutral. There are articles calling the Falun Gong a “cult” [18] I don’t see anyone trying to put that in the intro. As I pointed out above the Falun Gong itself does not mind being called a religion.

The distinction between Falun Gong and Falun Dafa lies in these terms. “Gong” means exercise while “Dafa” means great law. I and others have made this point repeatedly. Li has two books Falun Gong and Zhuan Falun. The first one talks about the exercise and the latter talks about his great law. This again shows the distinction between the two.

Samuel’s website meets Wiki standards. 1) As the most visible critic of the Falun Gong he is a “recognized authority” in the subject, the many interviews and presentations he had support that. 2) under [What should be linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked] it says: “Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.” 3) under Links to be considered it says: “Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” 4) Samuel might have academic credentials. His writing is academic.

Olaf, if you ever wonder about why people do not talk to you, all you have to do is read your writings from a third person perspective then you might be able to detect that arrogance and threatening tone. --Mr.He 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my crucial points. You always dodge the most important arguments. Why do you still wonder that my comments seem "arrogant and threatening"? I am frustrated by your inability to have a point-to-point discussion and provide answers to everything that you're expected to.

Li and Falun Gong say a lot of things about themselves. That's why we need to proceed logically. If there's a concept that cannot be understood based on what is written earlier in the article, it has to be moved elsewhere. That's how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be constructed. Again, you didn't even comment on my citation that explicitly stated this guideline. Answer my question: is any casual reader able to understand what is meant by "Fa-rectification" or "judging all beings" in the context of Falun Dafa by reading the introduction?
The problem with "religious", according to several third-party commentators and myself, is that Falun Gong practitioners don't consider Falun Gong a religion. Many practitioners might approve the use of that term by people who don't know better, but it still doesn't make it exact. What makes you think that this "outsider" point of view is the most neutral? Wikipedia forbids the use of such "outsider" terms when others are available, even if they were technically correct. You didn't have anything to say about that. In addition, if this exact description is not properly sourced and attributed, it will be removed. The same applies to all unsourced, unattributed and controversial statements. Stop playing blind and deaf. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
Preventing editors from realizing the explicit desire of the ArbCom -- "It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources" -- is extremely disruptive. We're supposed to completely reform these articles. If you want to participate, do learn to edit according to the policies.
The first book (Falun Gong) is basically just a short summary of Dafa that was published before Zhuan Falun. The essential content is the same. There is no real Falun Gong practice without Dafa cultivation, and the names of the exercises are in the vein of Fo Zhan Qianshou Fa, Falun Zhuang Fa, and so on. Li has stated several times that the movements themselves are Fa. The two concepts cannot be separated artificially.
Samuel is a massage therapist from San Francisco. He has no academic credentials whatsoever, not even a lower degree. Just because somebody is a "visible critic" doesn't mean that he's a "recognized authority". Mr.He, I've spent so many years at the university that I'm absolutely sure about the meaning of this concept. A recognized authority in this kind of field is a noted researcher or professor whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. "Recognized" means exactly this. It's not a matter of opinion, and you can't get over that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel's site is appropriate according to Wiki policies. 1) under [What should be linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked] it says: “Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.” Samuel’s site can be considered neutral and it is definitely accurate since he backs up his writing with citations. 2) under “Links to be considered” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked] it says: “Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.” Samuel’s site provides abundant information about the Falun Gong which makes it qualified. You have ignored these policies even though I just pointed them out to you.

Samuel’s writing shows that he is well educated. He might be a massage therapist (I don’t have that info), but that doesn’t mean he has no degree. One of my friends has a phd in computer science but he is selling ice cream in a mall now. Samuel's credential is not a problem here. --Mr.He 02:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The only people who consider his site "neutral" are anti-FLG editors. I think it's horribly biased. He has been banned for Wikipedia for ideological struggle "consistent with his outside activism", and you're still trumpeting his neutrality! You're unbelievable, Mr.He. Your motives seem exactly the same. I'm not playing this game with you. Let ArbCom evaluate your behaviour and its consistency with the policies. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a Falun Gong practitioners. Samuel is banned for ideological struggle "consistent with his outside activism" but practitioners like you are not. This is why I do not consider the arbcom decision fair. I consider Samuel’s site neutral because he uses citations to back up his assertions. It is easy to see why you don’t consider his site neutral, as a matter of a fact no critical material of the Falun Gong is neutral in your opinion. You are trying to force your pov into this article; your recent changes in the intro make that clear. --Mr.He 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are fighting for the intro again,, I hope you guys realize how silly this is.

Olaf, you inserted the following statement "FalunInfo.Net, a website maintained by Falun Gong practitioners, has stated that "after crackdown in July 1999 [...] the Chinese regime began spreading a much lower number -- 1 or 2 million -- in an apparent attempt to downplay Falun Gong's presence in Chinese society." There is enough text in the intro about the numbers are you sure this is needed? --Kent888 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, I also found your "clarification of information" regarding samuel interesting so I added more to it. You are smart as you have always reminded people on that but you do come across as arrogant, that would make you any friends. I used to be here with this user name kent8888. I only registered this new one because I forgot the password for kent8888. Now you know who I am. --Kent888 06:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted major changes which was done without discussion and consensus. --Shimanan 21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Making it simpler

If you are a commie and wanna persecute some religious minority, you need an excuse. If there is no excuse, simply take some things out of context and twist some things around. So now people have predjudges against something they don't even know and keep a blind eye on your persecution.

And in order to keep it this way, make the subject seem terribbly complicated and messy, and engage in endless pointless debates so as to efficiantly prevent people from looking at the matter themselves, and have them rely on your information instead. --Hoerth 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think it is good how Olaf is exposing the irrational behaviour of Samuel and Tomananda. This has been going on for so many months. Finally it is coming to an end. I look forward working with rational and clearheaded editors that are able to respect, understand and cooperate with other people. Instead of editors like Samuel and Tomananda that are forcing their own understanding on people. Omido 10:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Hoerth and Omido would also like to come under ArbCom examination for their conduct? Jsw663 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so anyone with a difference of opinion (or rather, objective ones that stray from the predictable Falun Gong non-sense) is automatically presumed to be a "commie who wants to persecute some religious minority." And this coming from supposedly proponents of "freedom of speech," its quite a contradiction. Alas the majority of these Falun Gong imbiciles are composed of Western sinophobic diatribes, it comes as no surprise.

Just a heads up, as a frequent Chinese reader of Wikipedia, I must say, its always the incoherent logic (aka. bullsh*t) spilling out of these sinophobes that always gets to me. I find it quite hilarious that most of these pro-Falun Gong commentators are actually a bunch of pseudo-intellectual whiteboys who've been masturbating to too much of "Master Li's" videos.

Eh well, that's just my 2 cents on the subject. This comment will probably end up being removed by the pro-Falun Gong users, after all, I'm just a "commie who wants to persecute some religious minority," right? Hah, whatever. NuclearBunnies 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So an unknown editor (Hoerth) who has made exactly two edits to Falun Gong related articles during the last year suddenly becomes a representative of all "pro-Falun Gong commentators"? And people who oppose the Communist Party tyranny because their peers are being violently persecuted are "Western sinophobic diatribes"? What twaddle, I say, twaddle and baloney, mr. NuclearBunnies. You'd better go wash your mouth out. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't immediately realize that this is your second message on Wikipedia. If I had to choose, I'd probably pick the first one [19]; it has some quaint lameness that reminds me of the olden days of UseNet trollery. And how strikingly it resembles the vandalism that was recently posted on several talk pages... I guess we got our man. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When i said "commies" i didn't mean the the self proclaimed "Falun Gong critiques" on here. Strange that you thought i was. But here is something i DO wanna say to them: "Aren't you concerned that spreading hatred against Falun Gong might make people indifferent towards the persecution and death camps for Falun Gong people in China, and that you might thereby actually be supporting the genocide of a religious minority? Or do you deny that the persecution is happening?" --Hoerth 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, please respect WP:Civility. If you are so big on Wikipedia rules, your action has to back up your claims. Statements like 'You'd better go wash your mouth out' has clearly crossed that line. If an anti-FGer were mocking a pro-FGer for expressing views that were proportionally far down the other extreme, the pro-FG camp has shown time and time again that they will throw the Wiki Policies book at them and complain of the injustice and personal attack unjustifiably launched at them. At least practice what you preach!

Also, Hoerth and Omido haven't answered - how about coming under the ArbCom microscope to examine their past edits and conduct? Surely it couldn't hurt... or do they also fear ArbCom penalties in much the same way as has been handed out to the other side? We seem to have seen the ugly side of several pro-FGers, namely gloating at the other side being banned, and viewing that they are entitled to unleash insult after insult at the other side. How about following Olaf's advice and growing up? Wikipedia tries to maintain a civil atmosphere, after all. Jsw663 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What? You have nothing to say to NuclearBunnies when he spits out a puerile insult like "pro-Falun Gong commentators are actually a bunch of pseudo-intellectual whiteboys who've been masturbating to too much of "Master Li's" videos", and then you start excoriating me for telling him to go wash his mouth out for saying such things?! Jsw663, I have always said that you're very much biased, but that is a little bit thick. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, there's a difference. I thought you wanted to become a respected, neutral editor committed to Wikipedia policies. NuclearBunnies has made no such commitment. You don't have to make sure your own action stoops to that level before 'fairness' is reached; however, you should only boast about something you intend to carry out. You claimed above that FG entries will adhere to Wiki policies including neutrality (at least for your edits). Holding you to your word isn't exactly an 'unfair' action, wouldn't you agree?

Naturally you'd always say I was biased because I rarely criticize the actions of anti-FGers publicly on Wikipedia. Have you not considered that, a) pro-FGers do that anyway so there is no need for me to 'back it up' (compared to now, where there is no solid anti-FG camp), and that b) I may actually admonish them by other means? If you were a supporter of checks and balances, then you should support my actions here. Jsw663 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. There's certainly a difference in how you view vandals like NuclearBunnies, depending on how you can exploit them for your own purposes. If these insults had been targeted at anti-FLG editors, you would've immediately applied the principle of "collective guilt" upon our party. After all, it would've been yet another example of "the ugly side of several pro-FGers". If you look carefully at the reference I provided [20], it resembles exactly those messages that you attributed to "pro-FLG vandals/apologists" who don't "have the guts to take responsibility for [their] own comments". [21] You even provided this "evidence" to the ArbCom. [22] In several instances, you have desperately attempted to link such abject stupidity to our party in order to denigrate us. Indeed, "how does vandalizing user pages help [our] cause?" The only efforts to make these incidents "help" somebody are made by you, Yueyuen, Tomananda and Samuel Luo. If you do things like this, how can you expect to become a "respected, neutral editor committed to Wikipedia policies" yourself? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see how you view me, I must say, even though time and time again I have repeated that what I say here doesn't necessarily or always reflect my personal beliefs. I also note that WP:Civility goes out the window once you think you can get the two main editors in the opposition banned indefinitely from FG. This isn't consistent with all that Compassion and Forbearance your... belief group... preaches. Admonishing one side more than the other here doesn't necessarily indicate or conclusively prove bias towards one side. Oh, and the point about 'taking responsibility for one's own comments', refers to the users who do not even register a name on Wikipedia, and tries to hide behind IP addresses. I find that a great shame. Responsibility does not necessarily mean own opinion; it does mean responsible comments. Your recent 'Crusader' attitude on here can be of a cause of concern, as you view your 'NPOV' as the only correct one. How about just outrightly stating that you ARE a Falun Gong practitioner OR a pro-Human Rights campaigner, but nevertheless you will try to keep out your personal feelings, rather than saying (and implying) that your version of what's going on is the only correct one? That would imply you only accept one version of views, and that all challenges to your views must be wrong as the challenges only come from 'anti-FGers'. Can't you see your own bias here?

I also notice how unhappy you are that ArbCom did not 'admonish' me like Wooyi wanted, even though you lump me in with other editors who have been banned. Perhaps you want to recalibrate your standard of 'neutrality'? Like I said before, as long as your edits are balanced and fair, I won't even bother editing the main entries' text (although I will talk on the talk pages). However, you cannot expect the ArbCom to watch this page forever, nor can you expect that everyone will convert to your beliefs. And like I said before, as long as you complain about the Chinese government's (in this case, the opposite side to your beliefs) repression and a lack of check and balances to their POV, if you cannot practice what you preach with your own beliefs, then can you see how little water your own view holds? Please see my function here not to destroy your edits or your groups' beliefs; after all I do support placing UN, Amnesty, HRW reports etc. on the page. Like I also said to HiG before, I respect you for your own beliefs, but don't seek to impose it on others! Therefore, Wikipedia entries have to read like balanced ones and not propaganda leaflets for either pro- or anti-FG sides. Thus my last sentence in my previous comment - if you truly supported balanced and fair as well as NPOV, you'd be supportive of what I'm doing here, rather than trying to attack me for being biased, because in the end it only reflects the degree of your own departure from 'balanced and fair'. Jsw663 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh gee, what's this here, another little dyslexic pro-FLG whiteboy. That's some amazing deductive reasoning skills you got there, sherlock. My first edit was simply just for kicks, y'know? Then again, maybe it has never occurred to your little FLG brain that most Chinese don't really give a shit about your cult. If I indeed were a troll, then I feel pretty damn good about luring you into my bait. Ha, only a third-rate noob like yourself would fall for such a childish trap.

By the way, it doesn't take an anti-FLG or a "commie" to figure out the usual Falun Gong bullshit. Just a quick Google Search of your favorite Master Li porn sites would do the trick just fine. Tool. NuclearBunnies 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear NuclearBunnies, you do not expect anyone to take your contributions to the Falun Gong issue seriously after these childish statements, right? Emanuil Tolev 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Nobody seems to have answered my question so i ask it again:

"Aren't you concerned that spreading hatred against Falun Gong might make people indifferent towards the persecution and death camps for Falun Gong people in China, and that you might thereby actually be supporting the genocide of a religious minority? Or do you deny that the persecution is happening?"

Of course i will also answer yours: I no longer dare touch wikipedia articles. A couple of years ago under a different nick i put in dozens of additions like relevent statements from amnesty international and other references. They always got deleted and i got banned for almost a year saying i was biased because i practice Falun Gong and was trying to use wikipedia to stop the persecution. --Hoerth 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoerth, different people have different views as to what is going on not only to FG practitioners in China, but also what FG actually represents. The pro-FG camp insists that there is persecution and that FG only represents peaceful exercises; the anti-FG camp insists that this is all rubbish and that FG is just another anti-China organization arranged to play on people's anti-China sympathies. I try to stay somewhere in the middle - not enough information to conclude what is going on really, so both cases need to be stated. Let the readers make the informed judgment. This is why I so strongly oppose passing off assertions and allegations as facts, because this persecution hasn't been proven beyond doubt. Naturally pro-FGers dispute this, but then anti-FGers also dispute me giving any credibility to FG claims. Jsw663 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there are people who say that the Holocaust hasn't been proven beyond doubt. You could always dispute the scope of human rights violations in the persecution of Falun Gong, but saying that "this persecution hasn't been proven beyond doubt" (if you're referring to the existence of the persecution as such) sounds really extremist and dangerous. By the way, I'm taking a 5-day Wikibreak, so I'll be back to you later. Meanwhile, you could write some explanation about the accusations you made against our party for vandalizing your user pages instead of trying to steer the conversation elsewhere. I say this once again, and I'll keep on saying it after I come back: I don't care what your personal beliefs are, and I respect you as long as you are committed to upholding the policies. There are some rather simple, unambiguous things that can never be compromised. The disputes we've had revolve around these questions.

1) Unattributed and controversial text can be immediately removed by anyone.
2) All citations must conform exactly to the cited source.
3) The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.
4) Sources must be verifiable and reliable, not "objective" or "true", because there are no concepts of objectivity or truth in Wikipedia.

Honestly, what I want to see is balanced, neutral, academic-quality text. I want these articles to become featured. That will never happen if we have unattributed allegations, original research, POV pushing or anything in that vein. I welcome all editors who are committed to these ideas, but I don't want anybody to ruin this project by adding substandard material.

As I recently wrote on User:Kent888's talk page, I admit that I may sometimes come across as arrogant. I've been editing these pages for two years now, and I'm really disappointed about the last year or so. When I see similar mistakes repeated over and over again, I get frustrated and stressed out, even though it's often counterproductive. I'm looking forward to cooperating with all those who want to play a fair and transparent game, no matter what viewpoint they uphold. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We have already had the debate on the differences between the Holocaust and China's treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. These are clearly not the same because the Holocaust was clamping down on people on the basis of their race. Clamping people down for their beliefs can work both ways, e.g. US government against Marxist 'guerillas', Muslim 'jihadists' just like the Chinese government against Falun Gong 'practitioners', where the two ways = the two interpretations of the same situation, depending on whose side you are on. Now, I don't think you'd compare the US government's clampdown on extremist Muslims with the Holocaust, so why would you do so for the Chinese government? This just indicates personal bias.

Regarding your four points. The first one is controversial in itself. It resides on what counts as pure 'vandalism' and what is legitimate content. This is a dispute that ArbCom refused to resolve, so I don't think we can resolve it either. What is needed is a 'detente' of sorts - a compromise between the pro- and anti-FG sides on content that is relatively balanced. On the second point, yes, but what if the websites change content in the future? Does that mean you can constantly change content? The main sticky point between the pro- and anti-FG camps on this point is quoting 'out of context' - after all, what constitutes 'out of context', and in which situations? Third, agreed, but that does not justify any one side deleting it until it is 'approved' by the other, because that almost never happens. Fourth, the question is on the issue of 'reliability'. We may have Wiki guidelines on this, but reliability of sources has been constantly questioned in the past, and will obviously not change in the (near) future.

I also share your frustration with the lack of progress made on the FG-related pages. However, you have to understand that Wiki is a pluralistic community, so on a topic as controversial as FG, this is to be expected. Whether this article will be featured is doubtful; is there any comparable encyclopedic text on FG for reference? But like I said before, if you want balanced and fair, then you have to stop viewing your actions and views as the only correct ones and the only one that adheres to Wiki policies. So, for a start, you can stop publicly insisting as a fact that the Chinese government actions re FG as comparable to the Holocaust, UNLESS you also oppose US government actions re jihadists and Marxist guerillas. But this would indicate personal, anti-government bias that needs to be addressed. Jsw663 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Cry me a river, boy. NuclearBunnies 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) What is that supposed to mean? You're statments don't really say anything.

NuclearBunnies, if you don't have anything to contribute to the article, why say anything at all? Are you not wasting your time? Please be calm and respect other people. Also, please stop saying bad things about Falun Gong and Master Li because this kind of behaviour is totally unnecessary. The truth is already being revealed and people are understanding the truth about Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. You are just wasting your time. Falun Dafa is righteous, Falun Dafa is Good. Thank you. /85.229.29.242 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation update

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for editing restriction on the Falun Gong page

I know that in the past, maybe about 6 months ago or so, the Falun Gong mainpage (and perhaps the subpages as well) had an editing restriction. I don't remember the details of it, but I believe it was that a user had to have been registered for at least a week before being able to edit the article. With a number of unregistered users having come and made very POV edits recently, which admins have had to revert, I think adding this restriction again would bring some order. I also find it interesting that all of these unregistered users have come all at once and so soon after Tom and Sam were banned. Interesting. Mcconn 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

correction - most of the users that have been editing have been newly registered users with extremely limited or no edit history, and without a user page. In light of this, does anyone have any ideas about something that can be done? Mcconn 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading some of the archives I support this, will make them have to at least register beforehand opening them up for checkuser. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary that newly registered users won't be able to edit this article. What are editors like User:Gtyh, User:Fufg, User:Devilmaycryfan and User:IamYueyuen doing here?! These articles are under attack by anonymous vandals who only seek to preserve Samuel's legacy. In fact, I believe this whole thing is orchestrated by someone. Will some administrator put these articles under semi-protection? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A-ha! So it was confirmed! Kent888 was a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo! [23] Evidently that wretched malefactor stops at nothing. I bet that quite a few of these new editors can be traced back to San Francisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Olaf, this can never justify you editing other users' pages. Editing Samuel's main user page, after he was banned indefinitely, shows you to be just as intolerant as before of anything critical of Falun Gong. Please cite a Wiki rule that bans personal pages being posted on one's own user page. There is pushing the limits, and clearly stepping over the line. This latest action of yours clearly falls into the latter. This action alone makes a total mockery of all the 'objectivity' you preached about before and adherence to Wiki rules!!! (After all, remember how you condemned users editing pro-FG user pages' links???) Jsw663 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel is a Wikipedia criminal and no longer a legitimate user. I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen you condemn what he's done to us and these articles. And I'm still waiting for that apology for confusing us with NuclearBunnies and his vandal buddies. I'm not going to touch Samuel's page anymore, but his website won't be included in the article, either.

Seriously speaking, I don't want to fight with you, Jsw663. Let's just focus on improving these pages. You came across as quite reasonable by not trying to singlehandedly revert my edits today. I think we should basically sweep the table clear and move on. Let me just give you a small advice: if you want to appear more neutral and balanced, you ought to honestly admit that Samuel and Tomananda deserved their ban. The ArbCom is not that biased. Only one ArbCom member out of ten would have placed them on revert parole. Surely you understand what deep frustration I and many others experienced while these two crusaders bounced us around for over a year. In response to these actions, several pro-FLG editors made mistakes as well, of course. I'm not denying that. But the root cause was rightly identified by the ArbCom.

But again, thanks for your apparent cooperation (compared to many other editors); I still intend to make these articles featured, and cooperation is just what we need to achieve that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: ~~Just wanted to point this out: according to checkuser, Yueyuen and Samuel Luo share the same IP address. [24] I'm dumbfounded. This guy is really something. "Yueyuen" has been around for a year!~~ See my post below. This is far more egregious than that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that I saw on User:Blnguyen's talk page that you were already aware of these sockpuppets on May 12, why didn't you tell us anything, Jsw663? Imagine if pro-FLG editors had been resorting to long-term sockpuppetry? You'd be better off and earn more respect by honestly admitting that you are not neutral and balanced. It would be really hard to come across as anything but biased at this point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not completely balanced either. You said it on your userpage that you believe in Falun Gong. And I am not Samuel Luo or any of his sockpuppets, although that wouldn't stop you from accusing me of it.70.225.174.146 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ban template

"At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice." - just looks funny when it's an indef ban. Maybe a new template without the remove-me line. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Fire Star 火星 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the Title

I wish to point out that the term "suppression" used in the subtitle "suppression of Falun Gong" is hardly used in 3rd party literature. The UN, The amnesty International, HRW, papers from Rutgers, Harvard, New York University, U.S Congress resolution 188, The National Review, CNN all refer to it as "Persecution".

I wish to point out this article from New York University : http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/OldSiteBackup/SubmittedDocuments/Fall2005/graduate/non_referreed/Yang-Invited.htm

In my opinion the term "suppression" does not represent whats happening in China- which includes, according to reports by ex- Canadian MPs who investigated the issue ( http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ ) , harvesting of Organs from live practitioners, torture and killings.

I have not seen the term "suppression" being used to describe something of this sort in any literature on Falun Gong from a reputed source.

I also want to point out that, if I remember right, the article originally carried the title "Persecution of Falun Gong" which was later changed to "suppression" by some editors. Mainly, the editors recently banned. Attempts to fix this through discussion failed owing to constant reverts by these editors.

Dilip rajeev 07:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above are all Western (and human rights) sources who all have a jaundiced view of the Chinese government. The UN source relies almost entirely on (pro-)Falun Gong sources, which is suspicious in itself. Let's not try to twist neutrality into subjectivity! You are fully aware already about the debate that China's official position is that it never persecutes FGers, so suppression was a compromise. Persecution assumes what Falun Gongers say are completely true facts that are verifiable, but after examination of such documents the test fails. Also read my reply on how the Holocaust cannot be compared with FG situation, and how China's view with respect to Falun Gongers is similar to US' view on Marxist guerillas and extremist Muslim jihadists. Let's not carry personal political bias onto supposedly encyclopedic pages!!! Jsw663 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are 6 billion humans on this planet and what you said above was just your point of view. What matters is what reputable sources say. It may be normal in CCP to kill innocent people and extract organs from live people. And if you think HR organizations and western countries all have have a "jaundiced" view when they speak against such terrible crimes, it is just your POV.

There is absolutely no question of "compromises" here. If the international community and organizations of authority in the field like the Amnesty International sees it as a persecution we are obliged to use the term persecution in the articles. It is not what you think or I think that matters.

It is not what "FGers" (whatever that means) say that was quoted in the intro but words directly sourced from Amnesty International and other highly reputed sources. Do you think good natured people practicing Qi Gong exercises are making up some stories of a persecution? If you really think Falun Gong practitioners are not persecuted in China would you dare go to Beijing and declare aloud that you practice Falun Gong? Friend, I request you take a good look at your own mentality. Am not asking for lawyers' arguments but just asking you to be true to your own conscience.

Dilip rajeev 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I never denied the Amnesty International quote its place in the introduction, but it needs to be in the appropriate place. There is a place for 'other sources' and a place to be informative. Once again learn to control your bias. Jsw663 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that people practicing Falun Gong are making up some stories of a persecution to gain public sympathy and US support, because US are just dying to get some dirt on China. Read the sources where these reports are coming from. All the claims are based on 2nd hand reports from Falun Gong practitioners (2nd hand because their only possible defense is that all 1st hand witness are dead). How can you be so sure that those pro-Falun Gong sources are neutral and impartial? My friend, go to China and see what it is really like. Don't only read one-sided reports. 70.225.170.163 13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I've tried to restore some of what was discussed before to provide balance. Users like Dilip are tilting the balance so it is completely one-sided. Olaf's bias is also indicative in not restoring balance in the introduction. FG has taken up most of the rest of the article (i.e. besides the pre-intro), but the pre-intro should not set a particular tone already, and should only provide a brief overview of the situation. Note also I've tried to reorganize the sections so that each paragraph contains a bit of the pro-FG and a bit of the anti-FG side in roughly equal fashion. If you dispute this balance, please say why!!! Jsw663 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts as cited by reputed sources are what matters. If the facts turn out to be "pro-Falun Gong" we are obliged to present it so. It is not a matter of pro-anti POV balance.

Dilip rajeev 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against "balance", as long as all text is verifiable, well-sourced and attributed. If there are more reports that seem favourable to Falun Gong, it's just a reflection of the opinions held in the scientific and international community, and the article should reflect this relationship between majority and minority viewpoints. I don't think there are too many people who oppose the persecution simply because it's the CCP who carries it out; they are against the CCP because it persecutes Falun Gong practitioners and other dissidents. That's the cause and effect. The Chinese government can only blame itself for getting stuck in the muck. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For our purposes, it doesn't matter why a person is motivated to act the way they do. Only that there are secondary sources that say what they do. If you look at the language at our Tiananmen massacre article: "Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protestors and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press." That is a standard journalistic formula, reporting what happened drily and succinctly, without the added freight of an accusatory word like persecution. We can say that X and Y source call it persecution, but we shouldn't. In English, the academic passive voice is the convention for neutral presentation of an issue. An entire suite of editors not being satisfied with that voice is what got this article put on probation, if you'll recall. --Fire Star 火星 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Fire Star, and that's why I changed the word "persecution" in the introduction to "crackdown", as you may see. This term has been employed by all sides. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I do recommend that our editors look at the way other Wikipedia articles, good articles, handle similar situations, like Tiananmen mentioned above. Besides having the nice side effect of consistency within the project, they may save us a lot of discussion time by acting as practical templates for these articles if they are agreeable. --Fire Star 火星 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for being the voice of reason, Fire Star. I personally have no objections to the word 'crackdown', even if I know for sure some anti-FG people will protest heavily against this. Another article that should be looked at for good quality BALANCE is Globalization, another controversial topic but now rated GA due to its balance. I think this is how the FG article should proceed. Please let me know if y'all agree or not. Jsw663 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That's just what I had in mind. --Fire Star 火星 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the Intro is too long, I suggest adding a heading for the section starting with "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since July 20, 1999,..." What do others think of "Controversy" ? I welcome any suggestion! --Ghormax 10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Samuel and his puppet show

Based on the checkuser performed by User:Dmcdevit, I'd like to inform everybody that the following editors have been sockpuppets of Samuel Luo: User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen, User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He. I'm sorry for not having believed HappyInGeneral and some other editors as they suspected this earlier on. Samuel is not only banned from Wikipedia; he's probably one of its biggest vandals of all time. I don't understand why nobody checked this out earlier. From now on, we must be extremely careful with any new editors who come in and start making significant changes to the articles. It's probable that Samuel will try to continue his deception from other IP addresses. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember CovenantD being shut down rather forcefully when he tried to get a checkuser run on Samuel Luo about a year ago. I'm sure that had the effect of stifling inquiries at the time for all of us. The user who blocked CovenantD has since been asked to leave, so, while slow, the Wikipedia community perhaps does correct itself over time. At any rate, it is in the past, and since these articles are being more actively monitored by the Wikipedia community generally, I doubt that any disruptive contributions will be allowed to stand for any appreciable time. --Fire Star 火星 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is some pretty blatant sockpuppetry going on at Teachings of Falun Gong. I will report it. --Fire Star 火星 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg are probably Samuel as well. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel keeps vandalizing these articles under different sockpuppets. During the last two hours, he has reverted both Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong. What can we do about this? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat ridiculous. I am going to protect this page, and have left a note at ANI asking for input wrt to blocks (etc). Thanks, Martinp23 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a note here which applies to everyone in the dispute (I want to make clear firstly that I am not your mediator :)). Please remain civil when dealing with editors who may offend you - edit summaries like this are absolutely unacceptable, and if they continue, blocks may follow. You must keep a cool head when dealing with other editors, even if they are banned and/or get on your nerves. Set an example. On a related issue - looking through the histories of the articles I have protected, and the contribs of the users I have blocked, I see absolutely no vandalism. Ignoring an Arbcomm ruling is by no means vandalism - at worst it can be considered trolling. The assertion above that Samuel Luo is "one of [Wikipedia's] biggest vandals of all time." is frankly laughable - one user using multiple SPAs to attack only a few articles is by no means as bad as some of our worst vandals. Be careful with what you might say in the heat of the moment, in summary :) Martinp23 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (ps - an RFCU has been filed by me WRT the four accounts I've blocked).

Thank you Martinp23 for reiterating what I've been saying time and time again to Olaf. However, the words mean very little when it comes from me from Olaf's POV, so I'm glad you repeated the above here to keep these editors in check.

On the issue of Sam's sockpuppets, I was aware of this a few days ago and very surprised, I must admit. However, that does not mean there should be a sharp lurch towards the pro-FG side either to be NPOV. A GA-rated article on Wiki about a fairly controversial topic which seems like a good indication as to how the FG one should proceed is Globalization. Let me know what you all think, as I'm most interested to hear pro-FG views on this. The reason I chose the above entry was because it has the balance that I think this entry should maintain. Let me know if y'all agree or not. Jsw663 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Martinp23, I lost my nerves there momentarily, and I apologize for compromising WP:Civility. I acknowledge that the actual scope of Samuel's vandalism doesn't compare with some other people who have behaved even worse, but this is a matter that involves other issues as well. In my eyes, Samuel is more or less directly promoting the agenda of a Communist dictatorship engaged in a genocidal campaign against prisoners of conscience. He has sought to ruin these articles and poison their readers, which, of course, is a matter of interpretation. I think many of his stated opinions are outright fascist, and when he resorts to blatant trolling to push his tendentious edits after being indefinitely banned, you can imagine how many of us, especially those belonging to the targeted group of people or their peers, may feel. This is an extremely complicated dispute with possible reflections on a global scale. In addition, Samuel's sockpuppetry has gone unnoticed for an entire year. Nevertheless, I will mind my speech from now on. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Fyutii just appeared. Please revert his edits and protect Teachings of Falun Gong for 12 hours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
After a night's sleep I want to sincerely apologize one more time for using improper language. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice that User:Chinatravel was traced back to Samuel as well. How curious. He's not only fighting against Falun Gong, but removing sentences such as "400-2000 protestors were killed and 7000 to 10000 were injured" [in the Tiananmen square massacre] from Human rights in the People's Republic of China as well. In fact, I think Samuel could be more or less directly working for the Chinese embassy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel its quite obvious. Anyway we need to scrutinize the edits done by the user and the person who was working along with him.

Dilip rajeev 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are disturbing resemblances between Olaf and pro-FG action and McCarthyism. You've got the guy banned already; you should now call for immediate protection of ALL FG-related pages. You also are fully aware that Wikipedia has its weaknesses so instead of seeking to impose authoritarian control over certain pages and content, how about working constructively? For starters, you could answer whether the FG page should retain a balance similar to the GA-rated Wiki entry Globalization. Jsw663 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Jsw663, please remember to be civil yourself. I assure you that I just want order and cooperation, not any kind of authoritarian control over these pages or their content. I'm interested about your suggestions, and retaining a balance sounds like a good idea. However, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more about taking Globalization as a model; what does it mean in regard to these articles? Do you have some concrete examples? Also, I'd like you to keep in mind what Asdfg12345 stated on Talk:Suppression_of_Falun_Gong#Please_read:_note_on_working_methods. If there are any changes to be made, we shouldn't straightforwardly revert to a previous version. Referring to your edit summary, "personally I think it is as outrageous as FG claims about the Chinese Gvt, but the FG claims were kept due to your defense of that, so why not this?" [25], you should remember that "any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". (WP:CITE) That applies equally to pro-FLG, anti-FLG and so-called "neutral" material. If you find any unverifiable and poorly sourced pro-FLG material on these pages and you remove it, I don't think anybody's going to start a revert war. There are no excuses for substandard content. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the instance where I have not been civil myself. Your civility is laid bare for all to see on this entry's main page. Let me quote from Hoerth on the Criticism talk page, who quotes LHZ: "Others may treat us badly, but we can not treat them badly. We must not look upon people as enemies." Li Hongzhi --Hoerth 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC) The only editor between the two of us as far as I can see being incivil is the editor comparing Samuel with JW Gacy - you. Once you learn how to properly control your own temper and bias, I am as always interested in what you have to contribute. But you cannot look upon a process as constructive if FGers only seek to revert anything wholesale that challenges any edits without discussion. This is what I mean by civility - if you preach Wiki rules, then learn to live by them, instead of offering excuses of why you breach them and how you escape punishment. It was these wholesale edits that led to edit wars in the first place. Now that one side is removed, this still does not justify these wholesale edits. The link provided on the criticism page of the section FGers seek to excise is clearly a valid link. Like you said yourself, we shouldn't simply revert, so why do you and other FGers persist in doing so even when I propose compromised versions? Talk about incivil!

Furthermore, to back up my accusation at you being incivil (which is not an unique accusation by myself), you said: "Samuel is more or less directly promoting the agenda of a Communist dictatorship engaged in a genocidal campaign against prisoners of conscience." This is a clear example of where you fail to control your own bias and clearly trample on all prospects of civility. Don't mistake my disappointment in you for supporting anti-FG material though. It just means that you should learn to realize that a GA article like Globalization was rated that because it starts off with a descriptive passage (note the neutral but informative language), then gives the pro- and anti- side a roughly equal amount of space to air their case. There is also no restriction for the pro- or anti- side on amount of content on their respective (linked) Wiki entries either. Why would you oppose the format of a GA article unless you wanted to push through an agenda of your own? I'm interested to hear your side of the argument. It's not like I was giving the article a GA-rating - it was done by the consensus of many Wikipedians, including many highly experienced editors (more than you or I). Time to learn from other Wiki articles that were given GA-ratings, instead of just twisting and focusing on Wiki rules to suit your own agenda. Also, civility means a minimum standard of politeness and respect. Strictness does not mean incivility. Calling other editors names, comparing them to "genocidal maniacs", calling others lapdogs of governments etc. is clearly incivility. Jsw663 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given you many examples of your uncivility. One of them is the continued accusations of vandalizing your user pages. You even tried to present this "evidence" to the ArbCom, since these actions were "curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case". Curiously well-timed indeed - everybody knows who have tried to harness this inanity to their own purposes. You have systematically refused to comment on my inquiries about why you attempted to link our party to these vandals. In addition, I remember you calling pro-FLG editors "an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia" [26]. Your sympathies can be tilted, but that is thick, Jsw663.

I am aware of my own flaws, and I wholeheartedly agree that I should learn to control my temper and not look upon people as enemies. It is clearly a loophole in my own cultivation, and I definitely should have kept my mouth shut when I've had nothing substantial to say. That doesn't mean that anybody should just tolerate Samuel's deception, fraudulence, hypocrisy and guile. But please don't twist my words: I've never called anyone a "lapdog" or a "maniac". I just stated what I think, and my tone was rather neutral. Don't you have anything to say after all we've gotten to know? You defend Samuel as if he were simply Mom's slightly overactive little scallywag.

The section I removed from the Criticisms and controversies had a couple of strongly POV sentences that were totally unsourced. The rest, well, I thought it's just not very important or interesting to anyone, but I'm OK with it. If you insist on having it, you should cite the exact words from the original Chinese source and add them to the references. (see: WP:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English)

I never opposed to taking another article as a model; in good faith, I asked you to elaborate on this idea that we could possibly develop - how should we reform the structure of these articles? I'm taken aback by the aggressive tone in your voice. You seem to take up a defensive position as a matter of principle, as if you were already assured that I would oppose anything you suggest. I know that a good article needs to be neutral, balanced and well-sourced. I absolutely don't have anything against verifiable material from reputable sources that are critical of Falun Gong. The problem with Samuel and Tomananda was that they couldn't really provide us very much of that and insisted on their moonshine instead. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the Requests for Arbitration page where I gave my response to your allegations of my incivility: "The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?" and that strictness is not the same as incivility. Incivility consists of labeling people as a certain stereotype, or comparing them with a person that almost everyone finds abhorrent. I'm not saying the anti-FG camp were guilt-free on this point, but they've been punished for their part. Have you? I suggest you read what the anon IP editor wrote on my user + user talk page (use the history function as most was 'reverted') before understanding why I came to such a conclusion that the editor is pro-FG.

On the issue of content, the reason balance keeps getting promoted by myself is because of insufficient knowledge on content. I may have read pro- and anti-FG sources now thanks to this discussion page and its editors (past and present), but that still does not make me an expert on the subject. However, I am a stickler for defending both sides, and when one side gets removed because of their activism and not the other, it may appear that I am defending one side more than the other. This is what I mean by human rights support - supporting the rights of all, even if they may not deserve it. Upholding the principle, not applying it differently to different people. As mentioned before too, I don't mind you editing content as long as it is not biased towards one side's version of events or "facts" except in the later, relevant section. It has no place in the 'pre-intro' part, where it should be brief and informative. The Introduction workshop where a semi-meaningful discussion took place about the version of paragraphs that should exist seemed to be a comparatively constructive way forward. It was editors on both sides who refused to accept compromises who derailed it, causing edit wars. Now that one side is removed, some edits on these pages clearly revert back to the old biased version, provoking anti-FG editors into another edit war. Like you, I am tired of seeing these FG-related entries not making progress, but you have to accept that your (and other pro-FG) versions will be challenged, just as anti-FG versions will be challenged by others. Constant wholesale reversions are thus not helpful or constructive to both sides.

Since the main two issues I am concerned with are NPOV and balance (essentially the same issue), I may challenge on (length of) content on that front. The Globalization entry was thus for comparison regarding section length and content, as an indicator. But no matter how much you bait me, I cannot give a proper anti-FG version of these pages, because not only am I not in the anti-FG camp no matter how many times you try to label me as such, but because I don't have the expertise in such content and arguments. That doesn't preclude me from challenging and questioning at a more general level though, because that is essential (and why Wiki can be better than the average encyclopedia). So to start off, stop trying to censor others' Wiki user pages would be a positive way forward. It's not like these user pages receives a fraction as much coverage as the main Wiki entries anyway. It is this total crackdown your side seeks in eliminating all anti-FG sources even on other user pages that scares me, and hence merits the comparison with McCarthyism. Jsw663 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe according to the contributions that, User:Ghuigh is yet another sock. Evilclown93 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced template

{{editprotected}} {{Controversial3}} is for the Talk namespace (plus is redundant for a protected page). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I've read this article and discussion here. I find Samuel's website useful so I put it back. I don't plan to stay here long since I don't know enough about this group. I believe Samuel's site provides a balance to this article, thanks. --Yellowtuna 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel. ~~Please remember to take your Risperdal,~~ you are not many persons but only one, OK? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yellowtuna (or Samuel, doesn't matter). This site actually does not present the facts about this group of people correctly - it is only the point of view of its author. There are many other points of view and personal experiences of many other people that suggest a completely different interpretation of the quotes, original research, etc. this site contains. Besides, it has been suggested that this website's author has a strongly biased and incorrect view of the facts about this group (may he one day understand it :)!), which are all arguments against the inclusion of this website. This comment was added by Emanuil Tolev 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC), sorry about forgetting to sign on 20. May.

Well, from what I can see, Sam Luo is highly ranked in Google and shows up in some discussions of FG as a source, so the guy has managed to burn his way into the discussion. It'd be POV to not have his viewpoints referenced somewhere. ArekExcelsior 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms parts

Just quickly to explain what I think about this section. I will copy one more thing in now. This whole page needs to be changed, as I mentioned briefly before. It will need to become more like a third party views, and have criticism balanced by counter-criticism/defence, and all the original research will need to come out. Such original research I am referring to includes parts which do not cite any third party reliable sources at all, but are just compilations of quotes of Li Hongzhi with some commentary. This, in essence is not even really criticism, it is just parts of the teachings that whoever wrote those sections thinks are bad. Those things should go on the Teachings page and be written neutrally, with consideration given to due weight as they fit into the teachings as a whole. I am referring to the part about homosexuality and about the Fa-rectification. These should definitely simply be presentations of the teachings on the teachings page, unless there is a third party reliable source who criticises Falun Gong for these aspects of the teachings. I am sure there must be some, it is just a matter of digging them up and reporting them.

The stuff from Chang did not seem to be any kind of criticism either. Maybe there was more to it and she wanted to criticise Falun Gong for saying it is not a religion but for nevertheless, according to her, being like a religion or sharing characteristics of a religion (she refers to Li Hongzhi's direct or indirect claims of divinity)... since this was not couched critically in that section I cited that bit and put it above. I guess it does not really belong there either. Having a third-party views transition will help in this situation too, since she has something to say about Falun Gong, like an analysis, and it is neither critical nor positive. Aside from this, there were some other words in this section about Li Honghzhi's quotations. Here is what I think: Li Hongzhi's claims of offering universal salvation, of rectifying the cosmos and saving it from disintegration, of having fashen, and everything else should really appear in different parts of the teachings section, since these are essentially teachings of Falun Gong. Of course if a third party has referred to these in some way then they should be mentioned in this context, as I just said about Chang. Nearly everyone who has written about Falun Gong has something to say about Li Hongzhi's statements in this regard, so there is ample space for this. The key is to get away from the original-research way of presenting this information, as though it were criticism.

Li Hongzhi's statements about homosexuality go in the criticism section when there is a third party reliable source who criticises them, and the same with Fa-rectification. Otherwise putting them there does not really constitute criticism, but original-research. This information actually belongs in the teachings section and it should accord with NPOV.

I will change the name of it to third party views now and copy a paragraph in about Falun Gong being a cult. There should be a couple of sections here, the one about debateable significance of awards is a good criticism. Of course, these introductory paragraphs should follow the format suggested under WP:LEAD, and should quickly give both sides of the issue. Unlike the current one about the awards where the criticism is given three lines and the defence one, the presentations should be even. Just some thoughts and explanation. I will change the heading and copy in the cult section now. It will need to be adjusted for NPOV becuase now I will just copy the criticism and wait for someone to add in the defence/counter-criticism. This is a prelude to the changes on the criticisms page for now.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually copied both the criticism and defence so it is a bit longer. still needs big improvement, obviously. The arguments from each side need to be pared down and written very succintly, and the section on the criticisms page may need to change to reflect the NPOV "third party views" framing of this information, rather than the former "criticism" framing.--Asdfg12345 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Asdfg12345. Original research must be purged. Of course, we won't remove material from verifiable critical sources. When they touch upon subjects that are covered in the teachings, we can either provide a link to a relevant section in the teachings page or quickly summarize what Li has said about these issues. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and the third-party views on Falun Gong are not limited to this specific daughter article, we should find a better headline. I propose "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong". As a thematic entity, it is delineated yet extensive. See my post below. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What Li says about these things could be blandly listed in an expository section on the details of what he teaches and espouses. If we have them in a section on "criticism", then we also should reference a notable critic or critics. I think having it framed the way it is is artefact from an anti-FLG agenda. --Fire Star 火星 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi

Hello,

the article states, that: "according to some cult experts, Li demonstrates the classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader." - could someone point out which cult expert has this (exact) opinion? I perfectly well know and recognize criticism on Falun Gong, but yay "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Nothing against including a quote from a renonowned religious, or cult expert or scientist, I'd just like to point out that it must be a 'something' from 'someone', like all things on Wikipedia. Emanuil Tolev 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, people? What's your opinion? I'd try to find such facts (person and quote or another form of statement of opinion). And if there are none, as I suspect (because of the used weasel words and unaccurate expression - what are the "classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader"? If the quoted person didn't specify, well, at least who is he, "some cult experts"?) - I'd suggest the deletion of this sentence. I can conduct no research as of now and I'm pointing this out, because another Wikipedian who is currently free may want to do it. I'll try to get to something myself later. Emanuil Tolev 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say in these cases, in future, without breaking any rules, it is fine to be a bit bolder and first tag the sentence in question, put a note on the talk page, then if no one responds in 24 hours just delete it. Of course, you could also just try deleting the sentence outright and then leaving a note informing other users of your action and explanation for doing so. Maybe the second is okay too; that is acceptable. It is just I guess maybe a bit friendlier to tag it and leave a note. On second thought, it would be better to act at a high standard and proactively be more congenial about these things. It's the responsibility of the person who wants the material there to justify it, however I think this sentence could be altered and attributed to Margaret Singer or someone else. You aren't responsible for doing so, though, but the person first put that content there. Anyway, just my thought.--Asdfg12345 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably another holdover, see my comment just above. --Fire Star 火星 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming and merging the articles

I propose the following changes:

Suppression of Falun Gong is renamed to Crackdown on Falun Gong. This term has been employed by all sides, including (but not limited to) People's Daily [27], Amnesty International [28] and Clearwisdom [29].
Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong is renamed to Controversies surrounding Falun Gong, because the controversies are not limited to Falun Gong per se, but they involve the American anti-cult movement, as well questions of ideological/political misuse of the "cult" label, for instance. As a general term, "controversies" is extensive enough to include any verifiable criticism from reputable sources.
Theoretical and epistemological studies on Falun Gong is merged with Teachings of Falun Gong, and all relevant theoretical background is moved under Falun_Gong#Origins.

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is okay by me, but on the second I still advocate "Third party views on Falun Gong" for the reasons set out on that talk page. If there is something I have missed and that name is actually more appropriate then it's fine by me.--Asdfg12345 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The first one, no, "suppression" is a more "passive voice" term, although "crackdown" in the article itself is an acceptable descriptor, IMO. The next two, yes, although Asdfg's suggestion for "Third party views on Falun Gong" works for me, too. --Fire Star 火星 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why some editors are so strongly against the term "persecution". I wish to raise this issue elsewhere in wikipedia where I can get a proper answer to this. I dont understand what is so "impassive" about the term persecution and how the term "suppression" can describe what is happening in China. In my opinion the term "persecution" describes, far better than the term "suppression", what , according to The Amnesty International, The UN, The US Congress, EU, HRW, Kilgour-Mata Reports, etc. , is happening in China.

Dilip rajeev 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I don't like the term for our purposes, as I've explained before. "Suppression" describes the actual effects on FLG of what is happening, FLG's adherents are having their activities, their practise and proselytising, suppressed. They aren't allowed to do those things publicly by Chinese law. "Persecution" is subjective, it indicates an injustice, implying that the FLG adherents are being victimised unfairly. That may or may not be the case, but it isn't up to us to publish that. We only report what is objectively happening. We can say that this or that source terms it persecution, but an objective, neutral report cannot call it persecution. We say what others have said, and let people make up their minds. Personally, I'm sure the CCP has hunted down FLG people mercilessly, but we are an encyclopaedia, not The Epoch Times. We say what we can establish has happened or is happening, not what we want other people to think. Let our readers make up their own minds. --Fire Star 火星 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The accepted definition of persecution, as found in the Oxford Dictionary (1993) is:

"1 The act persecuting someone or subjecting someone to hostility or ill treatment; the fact of being persecuted; an instance esp. a particular course or period, of this b Harassment, persistent annoyance 2 The action of pursuing with intent to catch, injure or kill; pursuit of a subject etc."

The definition, "The act persecuting someone or subjecting someone to hostility or ill treatment", as far as I can see, does not carry with it any inherent bias or any connotation of so called "unfair victimization", "injustice" etc. And I think we need to be clear on the fact that there is more than just a suppression of "proselytizing" happening in China.

Dilip rajeev 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel the term persecution is far more appropriate for the title than the word "suppression" for the simple reason that it is not just a suppression that is happening in China. Furthur, the term "suppression" is hardly, if ever, used to describe the HR crisis in China in material from reputed sources. I would also like to know what other editors think on the matter. Thanks :). Fire Star, I don't see any inherent bias or anything "un-encyclopedic" in the accepted definition of "persecution".

Dilip rajeev 15:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions aren't the only thing, Dilip. Persecution DOES have that ring, that connotative meaning, even if denotatively it doesn't. One has to write with knowledge of what words connote; otherwise, weaseling phrasing gets in. I am in support of the crackdown change, because I think it is a bit more accurate AND all parties agree (so it's not a matter of it being a bad term but whether "Crackdown" is positive or negative in this case). ArekExcelsior 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed subtitles from the third party views section. Please help improve the existing summary. Dilip rajeev 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the subtitles? Whatever final presentation that is adopted, it should be uniform. I think having the introductory paragraph of each daughter article with a link to the daughter article would be perhaps the most appropriate. Maybe a 300-500 word summary of the daughter article. But without having agreed or decided on anything I myself am reluctant to make big changes. The last thing we want is edit wars. It would be better to discuss changes like this before making them, and coming to some overall approach to this page.--Asdfg12345 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed more than subtitles, Dilip, you removed 5 entire paragraphs from the article. Changes of that magnitude need to be discussed ahead of time, this article is on Arbcom probation and is being monitored. --Fire Star 火星 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Asdfg12345 and Fire Star. Dilip, sometimes you act a bit rashly. However, I understand why you removed the subtitles; they're evidently a means for the anti-FLG party to advertise and sell their stuff on the main page. Either we should include all subtitles of all daughter articles and a short summary of their respective content, or none at all. I'd prefer the latter.

By the way, I'm okay with "Third party views on Falun Gong", since nobody's found a better name as yet. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with "Third party views on Falun Gong". /Omido

I half gave up with the persecution/suppression argument in the end simply because it would have resulted in edit wars. I do not actually think there is any inherent bias or anything in the use of the word "persecution." Looking at the definition of "genocide" would also not present any problems. I already cited that. According to the wikipedia definition, the page should rightly be called "The Genocide of Falun Gong" -- so I don't really understand. The same sources that would suggest it is a suppression would suggest its a genocide. So I dont know where the line is drawn really, or how we could come to properly work this out. For me the accuracy and completeness of the content is more important than the title, so I focused more on that. I still have not heard a single rational and structured reason for not using the word "genocide" or "persecution", except for some vague comments about what it connotes. But as I say I don't feel it is worth a revert war about, and I'd rather focus on the content. Of course, I just said I don't see any logical reason why the page not be called "The Genocide of Falun Gong". Please see WP:Genocide:

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Anyway, there are always arguments about this, and whichever title is adopted automatically serves some interest.--Asdfg12345 00:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out that Splitting the History section into "growth" and "suppression" is inaccurate. The practice is steadily growing in popularity despite the persecution taking place in China. Dilip rajeev 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppression -> Persecution

The following articles are found from Wikipedia, among others: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Atheists, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, and Persecution of Wiccans. Unless somebody provides a good reason why we should stray from this naming policy, I will rename the article in a couple of days. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles are truly strong arguments FOR the renaming. I must add that I fully agree with the renaming. The whole name issue seems quite strange to me - how do we name the situation in China "suppression", when we're talking about killing, jailing without trial for years (up to 3 or 4 I think) for a single sentence containing the practice's name in the public or private sphere, beatings in custody and tortures and who knows what else... I don't put an emotional load in it, but for me, the name "suppression" just (encyclopedically) does not fit the content (imagine you never heard about the persecution. Now type "Suppression of Falun Gong" in the search box. Have a look at the content table. Well?). Emanuil Tolev 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with changing the title. Please see my posts in the previous subsection.

Dilip rajeev 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be named persecution. Omido 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "persecution" assumes a situation in China which is highly disputed. A great deal of effort has been made by Falun Gong practitioners to paint the government in China as demonic and worthy of destruction by the gods. In order to be saved, Li Honzhi says that practitioners must "expose the persecution" and spread anti-CCP propaganda every chance they get. If all the practitioners stories were true, maybe there would be a case for using the word "persecution" here. But it's clear that practitioners have fabricated stories of abuse on many occassions. One big example: the discredited anonomous reports about organ harvesting at Sujian. In prior discussion I noticed that several editors objected to the use of the word "persecution" for this page, but I guess they have all been banned and all that's left are Falun Gong practitioners...is that right? Anyway, that's my impression. So if I have any say, I would vote against the word "persecution" since it assumes a fact that has not been established. --CaptainKarma 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Samuel Luo. I'm sorry, but after receiving an indefinite ban, you aren't supposed to participate in discussions, either. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's that? Anyone who criticizes the Falun Gong is Samuel Luo? --CaptainKarma 09:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any new user who starts editing these articles in a similar pattern or uses similar rhetoric right from the beginning is "Samuel Luo" (or maybe Tomananda, even though he did seem intelligent enough to not sink into that level). That will hold true at least until Samuel has verifiably stopped using sockpuppets. See Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo. Sorry, but Samuel Luo pretty much poisoned the well for any new editors who try to represent his viewpoints. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So only Falun Gong practitioners are allowed to edit on this board is that right? What a crock! --CaptainKarma 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. But Samuel Luo and Tomananda will never be welcome. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But yes, yes indeed! You are Tomananda! The way you misspell "Sujiatun" (see: [30]) and how you write three dots without a space on either side as a substitute for a punctuation mark ("Falun Gong practitioners...is that right?") lays you bare. Honestly, I didn't believe you would resort to sockpuppetry, but I guess I was just too starry-eyed. The 63-year old chairman of San Francisco for Democracy is evading bans and trolling on Wikipedia. This is getting surreal. Go play golf or something. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and you are Li Hongzhi in disguise here to save the cosmos no doubt. What's surreal here is your willingness to divert attention from controversies about Falun Gong by engaging in personal attacks. If I were a 63 year old man, does that mean I would play golf? Or is that another one of your fantasies? My question remains: is there anyone on this board who is not a Falun Gong practitioner? --CaptainKarma 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the Wikipedia anti-FLG revolution ate its own children. Seriously, I don't know what you're still trying to achieve, Tomananda and Samuel. We'll bust every sockpuppet you create, either by Checkuser or by your editing patterns. The Wikipedia community is behind us. In fact, you said you would leave Wikipedia for good, but now it seems you just can't keep your paws off. Old habits die hard, right? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, but if you want to try to "bust" me go ahead. Is the Wikipedia community behind your attempts to delete the controversial or critical material about the Falun Gong in this article? Do Wikipedians in general support the ageist, racist and homophobic beliefs of the Falun Gong? Or is it just that there's a sense that all this should not be reported because of the situation in China. As you proceed to dlete all criticism from this article, it would be interesting to hear from some non-practitioner editors about their views. --CaptainKarma 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the Wikipedia community is to reform these articles to make them comply with the official policies. That means WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, among others. You never cared for them in the first place. Tomananda, everything you do here is illegitimate, discussions included, so I'm not wasting my time on this. You are not welcome, even if you access the Internet from another IP address. Bye. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And, once again, Checkuser exposed the deceitfulness of our Dynamic Duo: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CaptainKarma. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

0.7 held

I put this article on hold for Wikipedia:Release Version as it is a B-class article that is mid-importance. If this was high importance it would have passed. Getting this up to GA status or higher will make it worthy of inclusion in 0.7. Funpika 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A discussion can be found here on this matter. Funpika 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I was leaning on fail myself when I placed it on held nominations and 3 other people want it failed, I will now fail this nomination. Funpika 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong farm

Hey guys. I thought I'd check back recently to see if any progress has been made on neutralizing the article. All I see now is a Falun Gong pamphlet. Some of the stuff on here is now more biased than the Epoch Times.

Brilliant job. You may as well put Master Li is divine, and Falun Gong is the only true Fa on the article.Colipon+(T) 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what you mean? Exactly what stuff is "more biased than the Epoch Times"? At least I haven't made any additions that are not verifiable and attributable to third-party sources. On the other hand, a lot of original research and unattributed claims has been removed. Maybe you don't entirely understand the rules of the game. If you want to balance the article, you'd better look for good sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But any sources that seems to tarnish Falun Gong's reputation is obviously wrong. Therefore, no such sources exist. You are always right. Master Li is always right. Colipon+(T) 08:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Colipon. There are no concepts of "objectivity", "truth" or "falsehood" in Wikipedia, and they're not the criteria by which to judge the inclusion of sources. Of course, personally I do believe that pro-FLG sources are usually more objective and true, and I've seen some incredibly biased rubbish in many anti-FLG articles that come from Wiki-qualified sources. However, these articles are owned by the Wikipedia community, not by me (or any other editor, for that matter). The policies apply equally to all content. You either learn to play the game or you don't. Samuel and Tomananda didn't, whereupon they were kicked out. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps objectivity is a valuable concept... --Fire Star 火星 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait. This Falun Gong charade will not last forever. U.S. cult study groups have already published numerous articles on Falun Gong's destructive effects that are independent of any communist connections. This stuff doesn't even need to be on Wikipedia to be a powerful voice. It is simply that being one person (or one of few people) on Wikipedia who has actually seen the damaging effects from Falun Gong while I lived in Mainland China, people would not believe anything I say because they automatically assume it is Communist propaganda. The assumption here is that everything FLG is good and everything CCP is bad.

Sure. Time will tell. Long Live Master Li.

Olaf, this is also a reminder for you to never reply to my comments again. It is not only me but any unbiased third party who will regard your comments as ridiculous. Whatever you say from now I will simply agree to unquestionably, and then add on a "Master Li is always right, time will tell". Colipon+(T) 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Colipon, you've got a banana in your ear!" "What?" "I said, YOU'VE GOT A BANANA IN YOUR EAR!" "What? I can't hear you; I've got a banana in my ear!" ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Master Li is always right. Time will tell. Colipon+(T) 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. None of Master Li's claims about his learning from various grandmasters has been verified from independent sources. For all intensive purposes, these sects of Taoism and Buddhism are not known to exist. Moreover, little was mentioned of the reason why Falun Dafa was brought to communist attention in the first place, including the various occasions when Falun practitioners congregated to attack newspaper agencies for publishing unfavorable reviews of falun gong (mainly in dispute to its claims on supernatural powers) by independent experts. 128.147.38.10 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Subtitles in The History and Timeline subsection

Splitting the time line section into growth and then "persecution" is factually inaccurate for the reason that the system of cultivation practice has been steadily growing in popularity in countries outside China. Therefore am removing the "growth" subtitle ( the subtitle alone. not the content following). The second subtitle has been changed to "Persecution of Falun Gong in China". Dilip rajeev 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed statement

The following statement doesn't have a source. "Analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups." Before reinserting this statement to the article, please provide a source. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought that sentence should be deleted - as religious groups are often political. But I concede that they are much more political than most, perhaps someone could find a source? Or we could simply amend it "It is alleged that some argue that analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups."Aleksi Peltola 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, saying anything like that needs a source.--Asdfg12345 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be named Falun Dafa. I agree that Falun Dafa is also known as Falun Gong, so it's quite normal to have Falun Gong redirect here. However, since Falun Dafa is the current name, see http://FalunDafa.org, I think it would be most appropriate to rename this page to Falun Dafa.

Please let me know what you think about this, any objections? --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: as a side note Zhuan Falun also redirects here, but it should not, Zhuan Falun is a book, essential to the practice yes, but it is not the practice name. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah I agree. Put it through on the rename requests page.--Asdfg12345 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, where is that? --HappyInGeneral 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves --Asdfg12345 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, move requested see here: [31] --HappyInGeneral 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose. This group is far better known as Falun Gong in English-based media. Try again if popular usage changes towards the new name. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment anyone have any evidence either way to which is more widely used? --h2g2bob (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose 1760 some scholarly hits for Falun Gong; 175 for "Falun Dafa"; of which most also use Falun Gong (many more prominently). The remainder (34) suggest that the proposed name is WSJ house style, and has no other anglophone support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Support: Falun Dafa is now currently used aka. official name, see: http://FalunDafa.org also there is no http://FalunGong.org . As a speculation the change of the name accrued after it evolved from a simple qigong practice to a complete cultivation practice. Fa Lun translated is Law Wheel. Gong translated is Merit. Da Fa translated is Great Law. --HappyInGeneral 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is practice and policy to use the name commonly recognized in English, whether the "official name" or not. We are trying to communicate with English-speakers, not riddle them into enlightenment. This explanation belongs in the article; but it should not determine the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I'll read the policies, tuesday, because now I have to go. On the part that "not riddle them into enlightenment" I don't think that using the official name will riddle anyone into enlightenment. It's only polite + the name is introduced since before 1996, and the practice spread outside China more heavily after 1999 so I do believe that English speaking people are pretty familiar with the term of Falun Dafa.
  - Google has a hit of 1 360 000 for the term of "Falun Gong" [32] and 1 000 000 for the term of "Falun Dafa" [33]. So I think that the both terms are pretty much just as known.
  - PS: Thank you for pointing out the policies. --HappyInGeneral 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Simple Google is well known to be unreliable;
    - This result is simply because 749 000 pages have both, many of them in the form of an explanation that "Falun Gong" is also known as "Falun Dafa".
    - You have not taken the elementary precaution of limiting your search to English pages; with that taken (and it's still not perfect)
      - 840 000 use Falun Gong but not Dafa
      - 123 000 use Falun Dafa but not Gong: a substantial difference.
    - Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

more about the exercises of this practice

What do you think about writing somethig more about the exercises of this practice, seeing that is the FalunGong as title, and not criticism only page? Thanks --82.84.29.250

Zhuan Falun - new article

{{rfd}} Zhuan Falun redirects here to this article, but it should not, Zhuan Falun is a book, essential to the Falun Dafa practice yes, but it is not the practice name.

I would propose:

to delete the page Zhuan Falun
or to create a page Zhuan Falun which would give a link to the actual book and say that is the main book for the Falun Dafa cultivation practice. --HappyInGeneral 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just read here: WP:RFD that:

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

OK, good, how? --HappyInGeneral 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's now fixed :), check out the new look for the Zhuan Falun article.

I think it still needs the pinyin and the pronunciation. --HappyInGeneral 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to leave FG editing

Many editors of the past will probably know of my editing on FG-related discussion pages (and to a much more limited extent, the FG-related entries themselves). I have gone through the ArbCom case (and found not guilty by almost all admins), through bashings by both sides accusing me of bias and being brainwashed, being accused of not being neutral, immoral and every word and insult that can be used. There is a time, however, when one has to realize as a single person you can't beat organizations with their systematic information control and infinite resources. This will certainly let various editors who do not support total balancing / neutrality to rejoice; this is another obstacle removed for them. All I can say is this, from my one year of FG-related involvement - there is much more to what's going on then what the public are being informed of. Be careful of what you believe because what you read does not tell the complete picture - read opposing sources to realize the extent of bias; read critically to examine what can be verified and what are allegations.

I wish good luck to all those engaged in FG-related editing in the future, and to also inform them that my deactivation from serious editing on these articles were not made entirely voluntarily; see my user page for details. As a parting favor to me please do not bombard my user talk page with any anonymous spam, or insistence on what is good or bad or true or false. Thank you for your attention. Jsw663 15:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect you, JSW. Colipon+(T) 09:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Research"

I have been wondering if this following section is hocus pocus, or has this research been peer-reviewed? The small sample size of 6 people is usually not considered large enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever.

“

Research conducted into the health benefits of Falun Dafa include work by Quan-Zhen Li (Ph.D, M.D), Richard J. Johnson (M.D.), Ping Li (Ph.D) et al. on 6 practitioners. It was reported that the result of studies conducted on Neutrophils/polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs) of Falun Gong practitioners showed that, about 200 genes were found consistently up-regulated or down-regulated.

The study states:

"We here report the cellular and molecular changes in Falun Gong practitioners' PMNs that may attribute to enhanced immunity, alteration of apoptotic properties in favor of a rapid resolution of inflammation, as well as PMNs longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation."

"Drastic system-level changes of gene expression were detected in PMNs of Falun Gong practitioners, while little changes were detected among non-practitioners, despite the differences in age and gender. Most interestingly, the genes that are regulated in a consensus fashion among the practitioners can be grouped into several functional clusters, which are directly linked to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation."^[1]

”

see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

Although we are working on a Falun article, the information still has to be reliable and unbiased, so we should not be including stuff which leads users to draw false conclusions. I have therefore removed the section. Ohconfucius 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that we should not just remove things without discussing it, therefore I am restoring it until all editors can state their opinion about this question and express their understanding. Personally I think it should still be there. /85.229.29.224 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, you have been changing alot of things. Things are not working like that here, we have to discuss things before we change it. Not just randomly change things as we like, right? Therefore I reverted your changed. I'm not saying that the things you changed were good or bad, I mean that we should adopt a better approach in editing this article. We have had alot of problems with vandals like Samuel Lou and Tomananda for example. Omido 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't reckon everyone needs to discuss or ask here before making changes, but I have seen the changes of Ohconfucius and I would revert them too. Everyone should edit the articles, but editors should contribute positively. You deleted a lot of things, Ohconfucius. At this stage the articles aren't very good and are a bit lacking. One thing is that they are not so long that content actually needs to be deleted to prevent flooding. So I think nothing should be deleted at this point, but that if there are aspects of the article which are lacking, new, sourced content could be added. Of course, if something is not sourced it can be taken out in any case, but I am talking about sourced content: there is no need to delete it. That is basically blanking, and no one will tolerate it. I think everyone should try to contribute positively and cooperate with other editors.--Asdfg12345 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WAit i only mean deleting stuff may not be the best approach right now but the articles are not that good so go for it in fixing them up, --Asdfg12345 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There may have been a bit too much deletion, but please look at the changes for what they are. I can appreciate why my changes did not go down well in some quarters. With the subject being so polarised, it is difficult to achieving balance. It is clear to all that this article has some major problems, so we should consider rebuilding it from the ground up. Basically, you people accused me of vandalism. Did any of you ask yourselves "does the article look more like an encyclopaedia article?", "is the article more coherent?". I do not feel that any of my changes were random or indiscriminate: they were totally transparent - I left a trail of some 18 different commented edits, so I do not accept that absolutely none of those changes were not positive nor valid. So what's wrong with deleting "a few bits too many"? It is a fallacy to suggest that just because something is sourced, it has to be kept: it may be irrelevant, the source may be unreliable, or the editor may have inferred something from the source which wasn't there, or it may be simply too trivial, or downright misleading (like the "research" into health benefits I commented above). I did not blank the page, nor did I turn quotes into meaning the opposite of what was intended. Anybody can put back the deletions they consider "unnecessary". Unsourced controvertial assertions should ALWAYS be removed, and can and should be done immediately without consensus. As for the intro, I believe that it was waaay too long, but I do apologise for not having read the html note left there, as I thought it was part of the tagging. I did not change the meaning, just took some of the detail into the main article. I believe that most of my changes were in line with the to-do list on the top of this talk page, which is whay I went and crossed some of the items out. If so many of you disagree, then the to-do list should probably be removed. In addition, I do not feel that wholescale reversion is very constructive either, and would appreciate a more detailed analysis, edit by edit of my changes rather that "this is vandalism". You may feel free to take this part of the discussion to my talk page. Ohconfucius 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"It is a fallacy to suggest that just because something is sourced, it has to be kept: it may be irrelevant, the source may be unreliable, or the editor may have inferred something from the source which wasn't there, or it may be simply too trivial, or downright misleading (like the "research" into health benefits I commented above)."

But that's an ARGUMENT that needs to be made. You seem to be trying very hard to be reasonable and making a lot of progress, and kudos, but at this point a lot of garbage is probably going to have to be kept to get an article not prone to continuing edit wars. FG supporters have a "scientific" study that somehow purports to prove X: I think that maybe the quote should be eliminated but it should be noted that FG sources and some scholarship (which should be noted that it is a pro-FG statement) have said X, Y and Z health benefit. The rebuttals should come afterwards. ArekExcelsior 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, on the whole, but the article is by no means stable, and could flip-flop at any time back to its "old self". I do not think that FG is detrimental to one's health (unless one is inside mainland China), but proving it is "good for you" is quite another. The research is also close to pseudo-science (because it's impossible to say that it is scientific). I believe that referring to it at all actually discredits the article and FG. Ohconfucius 05:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Take 2

I have now done some less radical moving around of bits, including the lead section, without significant deletion, and consolidated the biography of Li and Li Hongzhi sections under "Leadership". Basically, this is about one man, but should be about the wider leadership, if there is one ;-). Li's biography is already in a separate article, so there needs only to be the essence here about how and when he started the movement. His personal awards are not relevant to the article. Nominations have little value. Other than the leadership bit, I re-emphasise there has been little deletion, although I still believe that "less is more". I have re-written the US senators' resolution. I have no personal agenda, but thought the article was crap, and desperately in need of tidying up. I can see from the history that the article is the subject of unresolved trench wars, and there are corpses everywhere. Please feel free to engage me on my talk page if you wish to have a sensible discussion. Ohconfucius 05:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

再見

I can see that my hours of effort were not appreciated, once again. I am amazed that no other has even bothered to engage me on constructive changes. As an organisation that is allegedly persecuted by the Chinese Government, its "members" (using the word very loosely, for I have been equally accused of introducing concepts alien to FG into the article) seem to engage in it's fair share of the same Stalinist intolerant practices it allegedly receives in the name of "exposing the truth about the CCP". I believe there may be a witch-hunt going on -tarring all those fellow wikipedians who do not toe the official FG line as "in need of investigation". What is being implied?? that perhaps all who dare to utter unorthodoxies are sockpuppets of Samuel Luo? Why is there such paranoia? Where is the charitable tolerance (真, 善, 忍) which its esteemed leader apparently professes? Where is the assumption of good faith?

I am no fan of the CCP, the media censorship it practices, nor its human rights record, but the Epoch Times appears often to carry stories and allegations that no other respectable journal will confirm or even hint at. No-one disputes that the journal is a mouthpiece of the FG, and thus amounts to a self-published source. From what I have read here and in the related pages, quotes and stories lifted from Epoch Times are on the par with Pravda (did you know it means "truth" in Russian) and People's Daily in churning out the propaganda. Despite this, there are individuals here who treat it as "gospel", and insist that everything that can be cited, especially if from Epoch or clearwisdom, or falundafa.org, must never be removed (see above). What utter bollocks! "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people".

All the above, and I have not even mentioned how the article fails horribly to meet the Manual of style, or how the large chunks of quotes and other material copied and pasted could constitute copyright violation.

I will leave you to turn these pages to an extension of the epochtimes.com. I would wish you the very best of luck. ;-) Ohconfucius 03:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, OC, chill. Most of the FG people I've been interacting with here have not been blatant trolls, at the least, and many have been highly pleasant. I have noted that there seems to be organizational editing of the article back and forth, probably between Luo sock puppets and associated CCP supporters and by an FG movement. I DO think that anything that the Epoch Times says probably needs to be kept, not because they're right (they are a propaganda organ) but because since they in fact ARE an FG organ they represent what either FG leadership and/or the rank and file think and what resonates with them. I would, however, think it'd be fair to note that the Epoch Times is a very pro-FG source and note when accusations are corroborated and when they are not: That sounds like a compromise that even pro-ET people can live with, since if the ET is in fact right there needs be no other corroboration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Demand for an apology

Someone here in these pages accused me of engaging in vandalism and sockpupperty. You know who you are, so I will not name and shame you right now. I consider the charges laid against me were a very serious attack of a personal nature, impugning my integrity. No only is is completely lacking in good faith, it goes against everything that I and wikipedia said for. Unless these completely groundless allegations are withdrawn with a full apology within 48 hours, I will come out and name you, and perhaps you will enjoy a spell without wikipedia! ;-) Ohconfucius 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take 3

OK, I have once again made a number of fully transparent edits, each summary completely and accurately reflects the actions taken. I will scream if anyone simply reverts these all in one or two goes without good reason. Please take the effort to examine them carefully before you shout "vandal". All introductions are sourced. I have also left a comment in the relevant section that the US senate resolution has not been properly represented, so please take a look at the resolution, and then at the text in quotes, and comment on my wording.

“

The U.S. House of Representatives accused China of unlawful harassment of United States citizens and residents who practice Falun Gong, denounced '610' offices inside the China which organized brainwashing, torture, and murder; propaganda from state-controlled media. It passed a resolution, by a 420:0 vote, which called on China to "cease its persecution and harrassment of Falun Gong practitioners in the United States; to release from detention all Falun Gong practitioners and put an end to the practices of torture and other cruel, inhumane treatment against them and to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

”

There has been too much unacceptable behaviour due to paranoia as far as I am concerned. So will you all please cool down, take a deep breath, and stop thinking like a victim. Ohconfucius 04:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's so upsetting to me there seems to be some petty minded edit warring still going on, the editor concerned has not even had the courtesy to engage me despite 2 prior vandal reverts as well as false accusations about sockpuppetry and vandalism. [addressing you directly now:] Taking a leaf out of your own book, something quite relevant which was sourced, and which potentially embarrasses the cult is now in violation of WP:BLP? This was not even stuff I introduced. Is this merely an opportunity to get rid of stuff you disagree with? I would tend to believe it was hypocrisy.

I still think the large chunks of quotes copied and pasted as it exists in the article could constitute copyright violation, yet you removed the quotefarm tag I placed. I thought I was quite clear in the discussion page that nothing was removed from the lead section, only moved. But "reinserting" paragraphs which were merely moved into sections below, you are indeed making a mess of the article. Don't forget that you don't own the article. Can we not work together? Ohconfucius 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: the reliability of the source of research remains in question. Just because something is available on line and is copied faithfully therefrom into wikipedia does not make it "reliable" - It merely proves it exists. I believe the research itself is so questionable that I doubt the source is reliable in the sense that wikipedia means it. So, I have replaced the tag. Ohconfucius 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

For the record, I believe that the following are all sockpuppets of the same user, as all the edits to introduced by them restore the article to identical texts, irrespective of intervening edits. The accounts are used to edit FG or associated articles :

I have reversed edits made today by Special:Contributions/US133 Ohconfucius 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Add to above list of sockpuppets:

Ohconfucius 16:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suppression -> Persecution?

Re: Supppression of Falun Gong. I thought suppression of Falun Gong was the compromised title. Why was the article title changed to persecution of Falun Gong? This adds an unnecessary anti-PRC slant to the article, and a large amount of "evidece" described are from Falun Gong sources. I suggest moving the article to History of Falun Gong, or Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to make the title more neutral, and add some sections on pre-ban FLG history. See title conflicts on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Kent State shootings, No Gun Ri, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 etc.--PCPP 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello PCPP. There was official consensus to change the title. See here: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution, and just above: Talk:Falun_Gong#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution. Actually, it was originally called Persecution of Falun Gong, until it was changed by Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist who is now banned from wikipedia for aggressively promoting his anti-Falun Gong agenda. You may see his sockpuppets vandalise the pages from time to time. You can revert those. Nearly all third-party literature, including United Nations reports, Amnesty International reports, and Human Rights Watch refer to the persecution as a persecution. Edward McMillan Scott even referred to it as a genocide, since the CCP has actually been systematically killing practitioners for their organs for the last 8 or so years. He traveled to China and met with Falun Gong practitioners to talk to them directly about what they have suffered. Later, one of them went missing and was tortured. You may like to read his letter to Gao Zhisheng, a Chinese human rights lawyer. He has been under surveillance and subject to imprisonment by the CCP for some years now for writing to Wen and Hu, telling them to stop the persecution. After that they closed his law firm and started persecuting him too. You can read his open letters to the government, just type that info into google. He met with Falun Gong practitioners as well and they showed him their mutilated genitalia, from CCP torture. I will give you some links that you may like to pursue. You may have some prejudice toward the Epoch Times, but just note that these people don't work for the paper, and they are not practitioners. As far as I know they are both Christian, and have involved themselves in this as a matter of conscience. It is just that the Epoch Times is probably one of the few papers that would publish these things: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-9/42540.html (do you read Chinese? http://epochtimes.com/gb/6/5/30/n1334284.htm), and Scott also wrote something back: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-4/42312.html. They are just two regular people, like all the practitioners getting butchered.--Asdfg12345 10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

^ Genomic Profiling of Neutrophil Transcripts in Asian qigong Practitioners: A Pilot Study in Gene Regulation by Mind–Body Interaction, Li et al., 2005. Sourced from the Epoch Times.

[1] Genomic Profiling of Neutrophil Transcripts in Asian qigong Practitioners: A Pilot Study in Gene Regulation by Mind–Body Interaction, Li et al., 2005. Sourced from the Epoch Times.

[1]