Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 15

Next stage of dispute resolution

I have archived the last month's worth of discussions.

Since our request for mediation[1] has stalled, the next stage is perhaps to investigate an informal mediator from the Mediation Cabal. Otherwise, we should make a request for arbitration with the arbitration committee. I will do some research in the next week or so to find out what we'll need. In the meantime, remember this is not an FLG discussion board. No amount of argument or accusation will have any effect on the article in its present state whatsoever, so please refrain from either pro or con polemics as they will simply clog this page to no good end. --Fire Star 火星 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just made a request for another informal mediator from the Mediation Cabal. If that doesn't go anywhere, then we should go to the Arbcom. --Fire Star 火星 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your intiatives. Mcconn 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted any links to Falun Gong sites from this page. It is Wikipedia's goal to provide non-biased links and sources. In this case falun gong websites and Chinese government articles are clearly off-base. If you want to link for proof, link to a 3rd party, reputable source such as the NYTimes or CNN. DO NOT USE THIS PAGE TO PROMOTE FALUN GONG!Kwazyutopia19 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)KwazyUtopia19

Is mediation possible on such a controversial topic?

Is mediation even possible for an entry about Falun Gong? Given the controversy, I don't think true mediation is possible, regardless of whether you ask the ArbCom, the MedCab or any other party. Think about it - how many people can have truly neutral views on both the CCP and FLG, as well as have a relatively centrist political inclination (ie not pro- or anti- human rights / 'freedom of religion') and not be involved in the matter in some way (eg through ethnicity) yet be sufficiently knowledgeable? Jsw663 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem does seem intractable. I consider myself to be neutral, but I also acknowledge that what I consider to be a neutral reading of the issue makes Li Hongzhi look very much like a megalomaniacal nutjob. I do acknowledge that as my opinion, however, and wouldn't (and didn't) express that opinion in the article. The public domain reports of grandiose claims he publishes about himself, his (and his disciples') word-gaming promotion of FLG and his post-CCP suppression flight to the USA led me to that opinion. So, not wanting to state any opinion in the article itself, I can also see why it is necessary for a complete picture to report exactly the things Li himself claims for himself (what led me to my opinion in the first place); the statements that attempt to differentiate FLG from as well as associate FLG with mainstream Chinese religion (his claims of superiority for FLG over any other system of qigong for example), his xenophobic public lectures and his claims of himself as the only effective universal saviour contrasted with his also calling himself an ordinary human. Notwithstanding those issues I also personally believe the CCP are indeed a gang of thugs who routinely overreact on religious speech issues such as this one, and that Li and FLG have received notable support from governments and human rights groups around the world. But, to FLG acolytes, my resistance to having the article be a simple advert for FLG makes me a biased editor. I can accept that (everyone is entitled to their opinion!) and I do agree that some editors here are unremittingly hostile to Li and FLG at the same time they are uncritical of the CCP. We have had a good run at a mediation in the past, before it was derailed by issues outside of any of our control. We may yet be able to have another successful mediation, but it is also very likely that we may not. I feel it is worth one more try. Failing that, an Arbcom decision, enforceable by administrators, is the only way I can see towards getting this page unlocked and subsequent to that having it relatively unmolested by edit wars. --Fire Star 火星 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, some of your comments seem to be insiting another debate. I thought that you were against the borderline useless arguments that editors on this page continually get into. No one was asking for your opinions. You know that as soon as you post these kinds of opinions, opinions that others here (like me) strongly disagree with, that they will (likely) respond and thus start another debate. So why do this? Mcconn 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For two reasons, both related to the article, and not intended to provoke believers (although I knew it would anyway, unfortunately: "... to FLG acolytes, my resistance ... makes me a biased editor"). The first reason is for transparency, so that everyone, especially the people new to the subject whom we've asked to help, will know where I stand. I'm suspicious of both FLG and the CCP, in other words, which is in reply to a point raised by Jsw663 above about the possibility of neutrality. Everyone has an opinion, and my considered professional experience in Chinese cultivation methods (wen and wu, civil and martial) leads me to the conclusions I have reached about Li and his FLG. The second reason I wanted to highlight my opinions above was to show, as I mentioned twice in the process, that I sincerely believe those (or anyone's) opinions have no place in the article. What does belong in the article are the published positions of Li and FLG worldwide that led me to those opinions. I saw an identifiable pattern in those utterances, others' mileage will vary. We are in the information business, what people do with the information isn't up to us. You may even get some new FLGers if they like what they read... --Fire Star 火星 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; our perspectives as editors is relevant to the article because it allows us to be honest and transparent. Indeed, if you have an opinion different from Fire Star's, please express it, because through such honesty and clarity an unbiased article can spring forth. 67.100.45.134 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Informal mediator WikieZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter, and in case I've missed anyone, I'd like to extend my apologies and post a notice here as well. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So you aren't going to try mediation? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation has failed since not all parties agreed to the mediation attempt. -- Миборовский 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, just mediate with to see if a consensus can be reached with the others, and if the other is way outnumbered, then it doesn't matter.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So, we are going to vote - like a democracy. Ok, I will prepare all of the Cawley Fashen bots. That's what the FLG will do. If you really want to, we can run an ad in the Chinese newspapers and see if we can't get all 1.3 billion people to vote.

Cj cawley 09:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, we have had one RFC that went nowhere, and three attempts at mediation:

[2]

User:CovenantD attempted informal mediation but left

[3]

[4]

So, given the longstanding intransigence of the disputing parties, explicit as above or implicit, the next step is to attempt to get an enforceable ruling from Arbcom. --Fire Star 火星 12:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Has a request for Arb been filed yet? --HResearcher 12:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[5] --Fire Star 火星 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How to make everyone happy at once

Why dont we divide the article up into three equal pieces. One is about the actual religion, one is about support of the human rights about the religion, and one is about how the religion is being prosecuted. If someone is feeling a certain opinion which they think may lead to them vandalising the article, they shouldn't edit anything except the prosecuted part. That way, only part of it gets messed-up, instead of the whole article. Its not a perfect solution, but it should last until the dispute gets mediated. Perhaps if everyone insists on acting so immature and persists to vandalize articles to the point that they must be locked-up and protected from editing by everyone so that they don't turn into giant vandalism forums, then its time to rewrite the whole article. maybe a fresh start is all that this article needs.

Ilikefood 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You really have no clue, do you? This is not some college exercise. This is for real - life & death.

Cj cawley 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What? How will partially rewriting the article kill people? Ilikefood 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because according to cult experts, the PRC, and victim testimonials, Falun Gong has led to the deaths of many of its practioners. But according to Falun Gong, the PRC is killing their people. Who controls this Wikipedia page controls the opinion of people who come finding out about the "true nature" (whatever that may be) of Falun Gong, and it is not entirely impossible that what they read here can get them killed, one way or another. -- Миборовский 22:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

People dying from practicing Falun Gong? i practice Falun Gong, ive studied Mr. Li's teachings and i know suicide is against Falun Gong teachings. According to our philosophy ive come to understand we must precisely stay alive in order to continue our inner cultivation, if we commit suicide we will never be able to accomplish this goal. We cannot provoke our own death. Having no fear of dying is different from killing yourself. Do you have any substantial evidence of your claims or just some "testimonials" from people who claim to practice falun gong?. When you make such accussations you should back them up properly, you dont even practice falun gong and im sure maybe you havent even took a glance at the book, and if you have, im sure you've done it with the intent of criticizing it, if thats how you look at these teachings, youll never understand anything. Lastly, what people read here, wether pro or anti falun gong isnt gonna get anybody killed, what gets someone killed is their own decisions, not what you decided to write on some webpage.--Andres18 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a Dad and I have all of the powers & responsibilities that come with it. When I see a posting on the FLG website of a woman with her year old - BOTH DEAD, then I could care less whose fault it is - IT'S WRONG. WHO KILLED WHO OR HOW THEY DIED IS IRRELEVANT. The FLG "cultivator" took the kid into a situation. She was expecting trouble. What nut would knowingly take a child into a situation where the kid might be hurt? I could care less if the CCP killed them or she committed suicide. THEY ARE BOTH DEAD. I have read the book & judge people by their actions, not words. Cj cawley 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You dont describe the situation in detail but still you assume this "cultivator" was expecting trouble? for all you know she could have taken her child to a quiet morning for practice and sharing with other fellow cultivators and they were stopped and tortured by the police. It does matter who's fault it is, and it does matter who killed them, you dont see violence from the part of falun gong practitioners on any protests precisely because of our philosophy. Police killed these two innocent people and you blame it on them instead of the killer? that doesnt make too much sense to me. If you are going to judge someone by their actions, make sure you know all the details involved in the situation, still you should consider your sense of judgement, just as mine or anyone else's, is not always right. Above all i wonder why you dont care if the CCP killed them, it is important to know who's fault it is, because if these situations repeat themselves continuously, then they have to be stopped somehow. Yes, they are both dead, but there could be even more deaths in the future, and in that case, if you had the chance to prevent it somehow, then im sure you would. Since you read the book im sure you know suicide is not part of the Falun Gong philosophy because it breaks the natural order of one's life so its not permitted. If youd like me to find you a quote on this, i would happily do so.--Andres18 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

In order to have adequate information for the Arbitration Committee about what is happening the article needs to be unprotected. Fred Bauder 21:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that was sheer chaos last time. Cj cawley 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But in this case the chaos would be good chaos. -- Миборовский 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After several hours no one is editing. I'm sure they will be along, but this pot is not boiling. Fred Bauder 02:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is quiet, too quiet... ;-) I think the page has been protected so long everyone is out of the habit of compulsively checking it. --Fire Star 火星 12:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The page has been protected again. But it would be helpful if some sysop or admin could add a {{protected}} tag to it. Right now it doesn't seem to have one. -Wookipedian 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

OK folks, this is your chance. Sam, Tomananda, CJ and Dilip, Mcconn, Fnhdds, Olaf, you can go to [6] and present your arguments why the article should go the way you want it to. I am also preparing a statement. It would perhaps be best if the people who agree with each other prepare statements they all agree on before submission. --Fire Star 火星 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link that explains in detail what we are to say in this statment? Mcconn 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, going by other cases that the Arbcom decides, you have to say why what you want to present in the article fits Wikipedia policies and why the side(s) you disagree with violates them. It isn't the same as deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is arguing the issue based on policy. This discussion has been practically comatose lately, so we may not be accepted as a case unless there is some action soon, however. --Fire Star 火星 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What we need is examples of behavior which violates Wikipedia policies. We will not consider the content of the article although we might consider repeated insertions of poorly sourced material. To show behavior cite diffs. like this [7]. (This edit happens to be a good example of tendentious editing). Fred Bauder 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if I remember correctly the last revert war on this page was caused by the disagreement of including the following referenced statement. In Zhuan Falun, the Dafa is introduced this way: “Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School. During the historical period of this human civilization, it has never been made public. In a prehistoric period, however, it was once widely used to provide salvation to humankind. In this final period of Last Havoc, I am making it public again. Therefore, it is extremely precious."[8] Critics of Falun Gong (I am one) believe that this article must includ inner teachings of the group while FG practitioner editors have been trying to prevent us from doing so, which often lead to edit wars. How would you rule on issues like this? --Yueyuen 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong is not the only church with secret doctrines; others include Scientology, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Freemasons. If what we are talking about is just mumbo jumbo, like Mormon underwear or Masonic rigamarole, there is no reason to insist on having it in; however, if there is a substantial doctrine being taught to initiates as to the Upper levels of Scientology, it is, so to speak, fair game, if you can find reliable sources. Fred Bauder 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an attempt at arbitration, not another place for you to regurgitate what you have repeated a hundred times elsewhere. -- Миборовский 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Falun gong practitioners have done massive changes to Li Hongzhi and Teachings of Falun Gong pages since they were unprotected. Their edits are so absurd. On Li Hongzhi page they deleted Li's picturs and his statements, on Teachings of Falun Gong page they deleted their core teachings and even the emblem of the group. They obviously have a scheme to deceive the public on Wikipedia, what can we do about it? --Mr.He 05:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yueyen, I am a practitioner and have said that I will cooperate with an article that includes all of the teachings of Falun Gong. I think everyone else agreed to that, too. An important point we see is that it must be presented responsibly; we all think this is a very precious thing, and do not want these pages to present an ill or inaccurate interpretation of the teachings. I do not object to including that quote you have cited. --Asdfg12345 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Would an admin please unlock the persecution page? Also, Mr. He - no practitioners have edited the teachings page since it's been unlocked. I did make some rather large changes to the Li Hongzhi page. However, I deleted little content and explained all my edits all on the teachings page. So if you think they're absurd then perhaps you can respond to my statements and explain why. On this note, Tomanda - you seem a little revert happy, contributing a revert to my Li Hongzhi edits and Wookipedia's Teachings edits, with no other contributions. Maybe you can cool down and use the talk pages to express your discontent with the edits rather than simply reverting them. This kind of behavior is one of the big problems with our working together on the articles. Firestar and Fred - thanks for providing further explaination for what to write. Mcconn 13:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake in the above post. Wookipedia did not edit the teachings page; it was actually someone named Wikipedia Editor, and I don't know who that is. Mcconn 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In my persective, some editors have been pulling out semi-quotes, assigining their own interpretations, extrapolations and POVS to it and putting it on the wikipage. Attempts to fix this are often labelled "covering up" "inner" teachings by those editors. I would like the teachings to be discussed objectively and accurately, taking into consideration the foundations of this science - certainly not in semi-quotes with POV extrapolations.

Another issue I would like to point out is that a lot of material of central importance to the article - material from the Amnesty Internation, US Cong Res 188 ,etc has been repeatedly deleted by some editors . For instance, in the article titled "Supression of Falun Gong" several paragraphs have been deleted and replaced with material sourced from the CCP controlled news agency - xinhua news agency. Further, almost all information along with the animated gif revealing details of the incident has been removed from the section on the Tiananmen Square Incident in the page. I request the moderators to kindly compare the subsection in the current version of the page with the one here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Falun_Gong&oldid=70023045#The_Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident ) Infact, the animated .gif( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TiananmenSquareFalseFire.gif ) in the page has been removed from the page by some editors, over a dozen times. Attempts to restore these have always resulted in revert wars.

Another concern I have is regarding the sources being used. The united States Congress Resolution 188 ) points out,

"Propaganda from state-controlled media in the People's Republic of China has inundated the public in an attempt to breed hatred and discrimination"

The CCP propoganda machine has spread a lot of fancy stories to inundate hatred among the public and justify the brutal persecution. Yet, If one goes through the edit history( including recent edit history ) of the "Supression of Falun Gong" page one finds that the relevant material has been repeatedly replaced by "material" sourced directly from CCP propganda. In the present version also the CCP controlled xinhua news agency is used as a source.

"Sources" used for the "criticism" page range from self-published books to a file at a website xyz.org (literally) and even an editor's own personal website. And A lot of the criticism page is the editor's own "original research".

An editor (Samuel Luo) 's personal website appears as the primary source for what has been called "criticism" . Kindly see the reference section of the main page. Despite it being pointed out several times that the material cannot be used as a reference it continues to be listed first among "critical sites"

Currently in the "teachings" page an editor who call himself a "critic" has been writing in paragraphs of his own POV - pulling out semi-quotes and mis-representing them by adding his own extrapolations to it. This, in my understanding, violates wikipedia policies completely. Kindly look into the matter. Even the ordering of the sub-titles reflect the POVs of the editors. And this results in the reader being unable to even understand what Falun Gong is by reading the articles. I would also like to point out that I had reverted the teachings page to an earlier version as I felt the content was too biased to be called encyclopaedic.

I also feel that, even in the main page, the ordering of the sub titles and the amount of information under each sub-title is substantially biased.

Dilip rajeev 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not having time for Wikipedia lately. I moved to France last week.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, Dilip. I would like to add that perfectly sourced information from excellent sources, such as Noah Porter's "Falun Gong in the U.S.: An Ethnographic Study", which is a Master's Thesis and also available in print, have been deleted or moved elsewhere. The external links section has been almost entirely rewritten by some people, so that pages presenting Falun Gong in a positive or neutral light have been removed. The objective of anti-FLG editors has been to turn this page into an "exposé" about Falun Gong instead of a logically arranged and rational encyclopedia article. They have been introducing text passages in a very goal oriented manner. By selecting "controversial" quotations from a corpus of thousands of pages, omitting their context and glueing them together with sarcastic commentary, without even explaining the fundamentals of Chinese cultivation practice, any reader is bound to get very confused.

One of the things I've wondered for quite a while is that Fire Star has never really said what she thinks about the related Chinese traditions. Of course, we all know that she's a neigong teacher, and she doesn't think too highly of Falun Gong, but at least she may acknowledge the existence of dantian, heavenly circuits and other related things. In other words, where does she draw the line of demarcation between "superstition" and "knowledge"? She may think that Li Hongzhi is making megalomaniac and incredible claims, but she doesn't think that the concept of xiulian in and of itself is bogus, right? I remember her saying something like "I just don't think Falun Gong could do what is claimed" (my words, not hers).

I encourage the people in Arbcom to really dig into what we're talking about here. Fred Bauder's comment about Falun Gong being a "church" with "secret teachings" expresses that he might not be familiar with the subject and the disputes revolving around it. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You should assume that I am neutral. I am not familiar with the subject, but you folks are informing me. On Fire Star's opinions...I would say you should not try to figure out nuance to the level you are doing. Rather unfair. Fred Bauder 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an arbitration attempt, not an attempt to delve into the personal beliefs of Fire Star. Kindly stop diverting the attention of everyone who reads this page. -- Миборовский 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that the article lacks a comprehensive cultural background for Falun Gong's ontological postulations. The readers' attention is being diverted by sneering commentaries and controversial trivia. The whole question is about an entirely different paradigm, and we shouldn't treat Falun Gong as an isolated phenomenon. You may disagree with Master Li's interpretation of the related traditions, but qigong phenomena per se shouldn't be thought as matters of "personal beliefs".

Miborovsky, while I respect you like any other editor, I wish you would sometimes take part in discreet conversations instead of just policing around. Nothing bad in keeping some order, but you frequently seem to have this straight-laced disposition of a junior security guard, you know... ---Olaf Stephanos 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The last time I felt the need to "police around" was when both sides were warring with dozens of reverts each. Maybe if yall didn't war so much, I wouldn't have needed to "police around" and this article wouldn't have been protected and there wouldn't have been an arbcom case! -- Миборовский 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, indeed, this is the Talk:Falun Gong that I remember! The very reason we've gone through such a slow process to show the necessity of ultimately seeking an Arbcom decision in this debate is that when activity proscribed by any such decision starts, admins like Миборовский are exactly the "police" who will stop it. --Fire Star 火星 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

After being in divorce court for the past 6 years with FLG, this is the only way. A lot of the FLG anti racial comments are very disturbing. They only come out after you are "in". I am White & the ex Chinese. It's a problem for her. Also, the kid looks white - that's a whole nother issue. Stupid question: When's the "Fa Rectification period" over? I need to keep the ex in court until at least that time. Cj cawley 11:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea about your ex-wife or your unsuccessful marriage. So you had some bad love, but why do you bring your dirty laundry here, Cj cawley? What makes me or any other editor to have anything to do with your family issues? Based on my own experience, interracial marriages between Falun Gong practitioners (especially Caucasian and Chinese spouses) are probably more common than in society at large. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of people like me. Most happen to be in China.

172.144.22.166 02:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

yes. Actually as a very sincere suggestion to Olaf, do move to China. Colipon+(T) 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I was born here. As for the FLG marriages, that's not been my experience. Go back and read up on the racist aspects of FLG. Why do you think the ex filed for divorce? She had to get rid of my "white blood". According to FLG, you are supposed to lead a "normal life". Well, divorce is normal now a days, right? You can throw in abortion, adultery, etc. As for my divorce case, there are also government agencies involved. Do you want to keep going? Or stick your head into the ground deeper? Oh yea, I am definitely not on the path of enlightenment. Cj cawley 11:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You can say anything about your ex, because she's not here to tell her side of the story. Let's play it fair and get back to arbitration. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just came back from vacation. There is nothing about Falun Gong pages on the Requests for arbitration page, has anyone requested help there? --Samuel Luo 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion.

Yet another convert seeking to push the links as often as possible and convert others. It gets old when you've seen the same thing from the 20th or so editor. CovenantD 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that danielprice may actually be being honest by telling the editors here that they will understand the topic better by studying it's core teachings. This makes sense to me, why doesn't it to you? I don't know why you and others always jump to the conclusion that the practitioners here are trying to convert people. Falun Gong doesn't lay emphasis on "converting" anyone, but we do want people to understand us and our practice correctly, especially when the people involved are writing an article about it. A lot of conflict in our edits and discussions comes from misunderstandings people have formed by not having read the teachings in their proper context. I think daniel's suggestion is pretty good. Who here has even read the book one time through? If some of the editors here haven't, then how can we really give them the benefit of the doubt when deciding things like what are Falun Gong's core teachings? Mcconn 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, I would tell you a joke; however, it would be lost. So my response is simple: FredFredBurger, FredFredBurger... Why do I even have to read the book once? That sounds like a command to me. I just keep counting the number of deaths related to FLG. That's more than proof enough.

My own personal experiences are more drastic. I would post them; however, that would violate the court order. Also, a couple of government people would be pretty upset. They would not appreciate their names coming up in a divorce case.

I watched as a 39 year old woman overpowered a defenseless 7 year old boy. She was only missing her "stick" and outfit. What's for an encore? Any true parent would know that it's only a matter of time before he is big enough to rebel, but it will be too late.

Yes, I read the book. I even helped out a couple of times. Oh, wait a minute, I understand - It's all my fault - RIGHT? I don't think so.

As for the "article", we should get some more of the "former cultivators" from China to participate. Let's go through the list: we can get the guy who gutted himself like a fish, wait a minute, he died. Ah, we can get the people from Tiananmen, wait a minute, some of them died. Ah, we can get the people who refused medical treatment, wait a minute, they died. Ah, I got it! We can get the doctor who thought that FLG would cure SARS. What was her name Dr Feng? Wait a minute, she died. Cj cawley 10:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban, Suppression, Persecution, or Genocide

Surely this subject has been discussed before, but I want to raise it again. If we described what the CCP is doing to Falun Gong merely as a 'ban', that would be completely inadequate and it would hide the facts about what they are doing. The way this event is referred to is important. It has been labelled as a genocide by Vice-President of the European Parliament, and it fits the definition of a genocide. From the wikipage: "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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." Jiang Zemin's infamous order to “demoralize them mentally, bankrupt them financially, and eliminate them physically,”, and everything one can find to read about this that does not come from the CCP would indicate that it is a genocide. I can find some links to different reports from the UN, human rights groups, even the recent highly regarded and very clear Canadian report confirming the organ harvesting stuff, if anyone needs to familiarise themself with what is happening here. It would be most accurate to refer to it as "genocide", but I get the impression that some of you would not like that word. So I am proposing that the term used to refer to what is happening be "persecution", rather than "suppression". Can we exchange ideas here about what different people think?--Asdfg12345 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the archives. CovenantD 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CovenantD, and want to add that you, Asdfg12345, should familiarize yourself with Wiki policies. Loaded words are explicitly forbidden - and what may seem 'common sense' to one person may not to another living in another country. I suggest you read the "Additional suggested Reading" section above which highlights Wiki's main policies. If you disagree, please quote a Wiki policy/guideline to back up your POV, thanks. Jsw663 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please visit this link: http://www.faluninfo.net/torturemethods2/

I wish that you can both calmly read through those pages. What is happening is truly tragic. It is a genocide.

This is the wiki definition from the page Religous persecution:

"Religious persecution is the persecution of individuals within a group in the struggle to maintain their religious identity, or the abuse of power by an individual or organization that causes members of a religious group to suffer. Persecution in this case may refer to unwarranted arrest, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified execution, denial of benefits, and denial of civil rights and liberties. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate among other things."

Are you trying to say that what is happening to Falun Gong is not a genocide? or not a persecution?

Perhaps you could also check out just the background section to the UN report (The United Nations Reports on China’s Persecution of Falun Gong (2004)), which is probably good enough to get an idea: http://www.flghrwg.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1027&Itemid=0

I feel that the only explanation for your comments is that you do not understand what is truly happening. Please look at those links. I have provided definitions for the words "persecution" and "genocide", and material that would demonstrate that what is happening to Falun Gong fits those definitions. --Asdfg12345 03:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, please use a Wikipedia POLICY and/or GUIDELINE to back you up. I am not disputing content, but a violation of Wikipedia policy here. Jsw663 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

what violation of wikipedia policy?--Asdfg12345 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said above already, assuming you do read my replies in full, WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View, a Wikipedia Policy). 'Genocide' and 'persecution' here is a loaded word (ie subjective). And once again, as I said before, if you feel the word 'persecution' is justified in this case, please back your case up with a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Jsw663 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your posts. I will take a look through the policy and get back to you. Though I still do not understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that "persecution" and "genocide" are loaded and subjective words... Every word has a meaning, I copied the meanings of those words above. It is a question of whether what is happening to Falun Gong meets the definition of those words. I then gave you a link to a page showing some of the tortures employed against Falun Gong, and also to a report by the UN also demonstrating that it is a persecution or genocide. I do not understand what you are expressing. It is not just that I feel like it is a genocide or persecution. It really is. If I said "the vilest, most wicked, base persecution" or "the most evil and deceitful persecution in history", then that would not fly. These are simple words with clear definitions. I do not see what is subjective or loaded about it. I will take a look through that material and write something back to you. As I understand it, this is just an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If the meanings of those words are such, and what is happening to Falun Gong in China is such, then I don't understand what else there is to it. Maybe you could answer your own question; can you present a Wikipedia policy or guideline that would suggest "persecution" NOT be used? I'll get back to you though. I would be gratified if you could examine what I have said and try to understand what I am saying. --Asdfg12345 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The words 'persecution' and 'genocide' already assumes that one party is clearly in the wrong, and by inference the other is clearly in the right. You may say that there has ALLEGEDLY been persecution / genocide - that's different. But to state that something is fact already when it is so controversial means you are already showing POV. Why not let history determine if it was genuine persecution and genocide? Jsw663 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Was My Post Deleted

Why was my post deleted?

I want to make it very clear right here to everyone, I am not trying to convert anyone to practice Falun Dafa. You practice whatever you like. If you don't want to cultivate your heart and mind in Falun Dafa, isn't that your own personal choice? I was simply saying, it doesn't make sense for someone to be allowed to edit the Falun Gong article, even editors, if you haven't even read through the book Zhuan Falun a few times.

I was just providing the links to make it easier for others to find the book. I'm not trying to convert anyone.

CJ Cawley, every single word that you spread about deaths caused by Falun Gong and its followers are lies and misinformation spread by that evil political party. You sound like the Xinhua Daily newspaper. Stop spreading that poison, it is not welcome here. Falun Gong is good, and unconditionally teaches people to better their health and improve their moral standards according to the universal standard of Truthfullness, Compassion, and Tolerance. Why have so many people been cured from terminal diseases and improved their moral standards? I even used to take drugs and fight people, a true wretch of a person, but now, after a few years of studying the gong, I know how to behave myself.

And yet, you still spread that poison about Falun Dafa. How come I haven't ever killed anyone or commit suicide? I am a perfectly sane, college student. My major is music composition. You can look at my MySpace page if you want to listen to some of the songs I have written, there are links on my blog too. I am just a normal person, living a good life, and silently cultivating my heart and mind nature.

There is nothing wrong with Falun Dafa...perhaps there is something wrong with you.

http://www.myspace.com/golden_lotus

Oh, and by the way, it is my understanding from studying Falun Dafa that practitioners should indeed live a "normal life," but definitely not the kind of life you described. Divorce, abortion, and adultery are far from normal, and are not proper human behaviour. Marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman, made before heaven and earth, it is not something to joke about. Abortion, that is outright murder. Mankind may think that some things are good out in society, maybe simply because they are widely accepted, but they are in fact no good. Don't try to pass off those things you described as normal.

Mankind during this historical period has gone astray and is far from the Dao. In ancient China, for committing such deeds, you would be put to death on the spot.

And another thing, why are all of your sources from that wicked politcal party? Why would you believe in an athiest organization that has been bent soley on seeking power and profit for over eighty years, an organization which has a murder list seven times as long as Adolf Hitler's?

Can't everyone else see very clearly that CJ Cawley is simply spreading misinformation about Falun Dafa because he had a poor marriage with his wife (who just so happened to be a Falun Gong practitioner) or that he carries some other ill intentions?

It sounds more like you are seeking revenge rather then trying to help write this article. Take your problems and poison elsewhere. No one else believes you.

You should all examine the facts for yourselves and don't believe what CJ Cawley has said.

Falun Dafa practitioners don't take medicine because they don't need medicine. I haven't even had so much as a cold in more then three years since studying the gong.

Master Li Hongzhi has made it clear, if an ordinary, non-practitioner becomes ill, they should go to the hospital for treatment. No one has ever died from practicing Falun Gong. It's just exercise and study, what's there to be afraid of?

If you are not here to help this article, it is because you are here to harm it. Isn't that true? What is your purpose in spreading all of that poison here on this talk page? Do you go around everywhere telling people wicked things about Falun Gong?

Get a life, right? Is it that the last thing you want to see for our world is peace, healthy living, compassionate thoughts, and people cultivating their mind and body, stabalizing society and benefitting all? No one believes that poison.

It's no wonder you have a verbal order restraining you from speaking about your divorce case. It's because you are lying and spreading misinformation.

Who here has read the book Zhuan Falun more then one time? Skimming the book doesn't count, nor does only reading the sections that look interesting to you.

You should all study the book some more.

http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new.html

No one should be allowed to edit this article if they haven't read the book Zhuan Falun more then one time. You couldn't possibly know anything about Falun Gong unless you have read the book a few times.

You can't just trust any random internet sources you come across either, and you definitely can't trust that wicked party.

In fact, if you want to really know about Falun Dafa, you need to read the original text in Chinese.

danielprice 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have a court order restricting my speech. That would be a violation of the 1st amendment. I do have a verbal order requesting the I not discuss the divorce case. Get your story straight.

(You were not clear when you explained this the first time)

danielprice

Second, now I have to read the book more than once? Why stop at once? Why not just go to infinity? Like that would make a difference? Why don't you respect the disagreement of others? You sound exactly like the ex-wife. Gee, no surprise there. You are all brain washed the same way.

Third, you assume that my motives are for revenge. In fact, you could not be further from the truth. I DO NOT WANT MY SON INVOLVED IN FALUN GONG. I have seen, first hand, the true destructive nature of the group. The ex-wife, a leader in your group, showed me the real side of FLG.

More later.

Cj cawley 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean respect the disagreement of others? That doesn't make any sense.

You are absolutely wrong to find fault with Falun Dafa. Talk about first amendment all you want, freedom of speech, freedom of whatever, but the truth is, Truthfullness, Compassion, and Tolerance is the great Fa of the Cosmos, and Falun Dafa is an insight into all mysteries. Everyone word coming from your mouth is poison.

I am not brainwashed, how could I be brainwashed. I don't even know that many other practitioners. Not a single person I know thinks I'm brainwashed. All of my family and friends love me and think I'm a good guy. I have a normal job in society, I watch football games with my buddies (Saints Game Tonight), I have a girlfriend, I go to school, and I compose music, I am a classically trained musician. Many Falun Gong practitioners hold masters and doctoral degrees in their various fields of study, and they are pioneers and leaders in today's scientific research. Falun Dafa is a higher science, it is not as simple as you imagine it to be.

You speak so casually about Falun Gong like you know it all, when all you have probably done is skim through the book once. You can't read the Fa with preconcieved notions about what you think it is. How could you possibly comprehend anything, if you are already set in your ways before you read it.

You should take a few honest reads through the book, and you will figure out where you are wrong.

And by the way, your wife is not some leader of Falun Gong. There are no leaders in Falun Gong, only Master Li Hongzhi is the leader of Falun Gong. You would have known this had you read the book a few times.

Please explain to us all more clearly, the "destructive nature of Falun Gong." I am genuinely interested, I want to know how Falun Gong could have possibly destroyed anything. How is Truthfullness, Compassion, and Tolerance destructive? Falun Gong practitioners read books and meditate, and that destroys people? You have major issues sir. Please describe your story, and we will all judge whether the problem lies with Falun Gong, or with the people involved in your story. Have you ever thought that maybe the problem did not lie with Falun Gong, and that the problem was simply a personal issue between you and your wife. Who wants to clean up your mess.

danielprice

Trying to remonstrate with a FLG practitioner who claims, and I quote, "There is nothing wrong with Falun Dafa" is similar to trying to explain what is wrong with the Bush administration with a die-hard Republican conservative. Obviously one can try to discuss and debate, but nobody's minds are opening. Jsw663 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your ego is truly impressive. I will not even bother responding. May you have a good consumation. Do you want me to light you up now or wait until you get home? Cj cawley 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To Jsw663 and Cj cawley you could try to contribute, not only label a person. --HappyInGeneral 09:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ cawley, just to let you know, no Falun Gong practitioner has ever lit themselves on fire. Stop spreading that nonsense. Falun Gong forbids suicide. That was a rumour spread by the wicked political party who persecuted Falun Gong. There's already been countless videos and articles that proved the self-immolation at Tiananmen Square was a hoax by the CCP.

http://www.falsefire.com/index1.htm

danielprice

Actually I do remember reading in HK newspapers about this fire thing - I think there were even photos. Just because it's said by someone you don't agree with does not necessarily mean it is false and untrue. This controversial matter has led to lies and propaganda spread by both sides so I don't think relying on any one side only would give a fair and balanced view.

As for HappyInGeneral's comment, initially I did not want to contribute because I am a mediator, but now that I have contributed, I must recuse myself from any mediation case concerning Falun Gong-related articles (but am still free to air my opinion when appropriate, of course). Jsw663 11:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To the admin watching over the page:

If you look at the the "supression" of Falun Gong page, you will notice that a few users are trying their best to replace critical information and with propoganda from the CCP. I think there is more to this than some personal POV - we certainly cant completely rule out involvement from those who are directly paid by the party.

You can see the same user adding slanderous amterial to all other pages. I request the admin to make sure that things strictly conform to wikipedia standards - especially regarding original research and the sources used. Few, if any, of the resources used for the "criticism" page conform to wikipedia stardards.

202.83.35.105 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so anyone who wants to reveal falun gong true teachings here is paid by the CCP. Do me a favor, look into the mirror and ask "who is slandering people on wikipedia?" --Mr.He 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663, did you watch the video link I sent to you?

The self-immolations at Tiananmen Square were hoaxes. Watch the video at the link below.

http://www.falsefire.com/index1.htm

The following organizations all reported this event as a hoax to slander Falun Gong:

• International Education Development (Statement in the United Nations and now part of UN's official records)

• Washington Post

• National Review

• MediaChannel

• WOIPFG

• FalunInfo

• The Epoch Times NewsGroup

• Amnesty International

• Reporters Without Borders

danielprice

WP:NOT a debating club, soap box, or video/book advertising directory. Other users: lease stop engaging user 70.189.41.157 trading as "user:danielprice". Any future advertising material will be deleted. --Sumple (Talk) 12:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Material related to Falun Gong including the teachings need to be discussed here. How can we label it advertisement? For a good understanding of what Falun Gong is, I think, one needs to go through the teachings first-hand, all of which are available online. The central part of the teachings are these Nine Lectures:http://www.falundafa.org/bul/lectures/index.htm#video . I request anyone who wishes to understand Falun Gong to go through the teachings first hand - that way, you can know for yourselves what Falun Gong is.

The CCP has spread a a lot of slanderous material to justify their brutal persecution and to inundate hatred among the public. And sadly, some people are using these wikipedia pages to propogate slander and and are even repeatedly deleting info from sources like HRW and Amnesty International.

202.83.32.60 09:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone, please stop "engaging" me.

I am so obviously trying to advertise for Falun Gong. Saving imprisoned and abused practitioners in China, and restoring my Master's rightful name, this is so obviously advertisement, especially since Falun Gong doesn't collect money, or even have any official membership. *Sarcasm* People can come and go on their own, I'm not trying to advertise anything. Hasn't the Buddha school always believed in the idea of "predestined connection" and "karmic relationship"? Only those good enough predestined people will come to study anyways, it's not some requirement of Falun Gong that I spread the practice, people come to learn on their own.

Falun Dafa is good.

Study the Fa

12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)~

danielprice

Daniel, you are correct. Falun Dafa is good and Falun Dafa practitioners are all good people. It's such a shame that many people have been brainwashed by the CCP lies and propaganda. The CCP have been using all propaganda tools to make the people go against Falun Gong. The CCP is so afraid of people knowing the truth. They have already seen that their persecution has failed. Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is Good, Falun Dafa is Good! /Omido 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize that this place is NOT to discuss the merits or evils of FLG but just a quick reply to 'danielprice' here - Yes, I've visited the website, as well as read the articles. As far as I can see they haven't openly disproven the incident with counter-evidence, but merely raised a few question marks with the details by playing to emotion and sympathy. Unfortunately, this does not convince me - I tend not to believe something unless it can be proven, or at least with facts which sufficiently obviously suggest to infer, in all likelihood, one conclusion. By saying this, I'm not saying I completely believe what the CCP says, but rather, that I read what both the CCP + FLG (or other pro-human rights groups such as Amnesty or Reporters w/o Borders) with a grain of salt. Please don't ask me to take sides on this controversial matter because as long as I'm on Wiki I'll try not to do so (although, of course, I do hold some steadfast opinions on FLG, e.g. that it is a cult, not a religion, though I'm not to judge whether it is evil or not). Anyway I'll end my post here. Jsw663 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take into consideration the following. A Falun Dafa practitioner will not beat or kill anybody; even he is a policeman or an army soldier or general. Now consider that in 7 years from 0 it grew the number of people practicing to more then 70 million, also having the potential to grow a lot more. Then in 1999 the CCP actually said that in order for the party to survive it needs to eradicate Falun Gong. Now can you see their point? I can see it and I can not approve it. As far as I’m concerned, if I have to choose between good or bad, I will always go for the good. Don’t know about you, but I think that anyone or anything that is making you behave more Truthful, with more Compassion and more Tolerance, is a good thing. I think that Falun Dafa is good.

Please let me know if there is anything that you think that you would need to take “with a grain of salt” of what I just said above, because I would really like to be very explicit. --HappyInGeneral 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663,

Those who practice Falun Dafa, practice the Qi Gong exercises when they find time and study the books cultivating their heart-nature. Thats absolutely all there is to it. What is 'cult'ish about doing gentle meditative exercises that, in the experience of tens of millions, have profound health benefits and in cultivating one's own heart-nature to assimilate to Truthfulness-Compassion-Endurance?

And all teachings, exercise instruction videos and lecture videos are available for free download online - there isnt even a need to meet another practitioner to learn and practice Falun Gong. And practitioners absolutely dont deal with money, gifts, donations or anything of that sort.

Please go though the nine video lectures here[9] which form the central part of the teachings- that way you can see for yourself what Falun Dafa is. Dilip rajeev 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Karen Parker, of International Educational Development, states at the 53rd session Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, United Nations :

"State terrorism in the form of Government terror against its own people produced far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism; an example was China's treatment of the Falun Gong. The Government had sought to justify its terrorism against Falun Gong by calling it an evil cult that had caused deaths and the break-up of families, but the organization's investigation showed that the only deaths and resulting family breakups had been at the hands of Chinese authorities, who had resorted to extreme torture and unacceptable detention of thousands of people. International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an evil cult in fact had been staged. The international community and the Subcommission should urgently address this situation."[10]

Please see this article by Danny Schechter http://faluninfo.net/DisplayAnArticle.asp?ID=3641

The viewpoints of several Human Rights Agencies and Governments can be seen here in http://www.faluninfo.net/Compassion5/

Dilip rajeev 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again I've removed propoganda links from the talk page. There is no need to include them when the point is to sway others to a particular point of view and not edit the article. I'm tempted to remove the entire blockquote of Karen Parker too, since it's been used ad nauseum in the articles and has no relevance to the topic of discussion. CovenantD 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, The links I presented were material directly related to the article. A Primary source, an article by a reputed journalist and a magazine which presents the viewponts of several reputed human rights lawyers, Abraham Harpen, US Congress etc Dilip rajeev 06:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to HappyInGeneral's comment on my user talk page here. As for Dilip rajeev, if FLG was only about meditative exercises, the CCP won't clamp it down - if you don't agree, why does the CCP not outlaw Confucianism, (Chinese) Buddhism and mainstream Qigong? Do cults use their resources to intercept satellite TV and other channels to advertise in countries (this is a proven fact that has happened in China by FLGers in the US / Canada)? As I said in my own page (read the linked reply), I'm not going to say whether FLG is good or bad since I believe history will make an appropriate judgement. Nothing in reality is pure good or pure evil either - we are not living in Disney movies or Hollywood blockbusters. If you believe otherwise, you are entitled to your POV, and I have also heard many FLGers air their views. As far as I'm concerned, I'll listen/read, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your views, nor do I have to convert to your beliefs. Wikipedia is not a site for propaganda wars by EITHER side. (continued next paragraph)

As I've said on my talk page, I'm here purely as an encyclopedist. I do NOT want to see this FLG page become a FLG advertisement, that's all - to adhere to Wiki policies, and keep the page as 'Wikified' as possible. I sincerely hope that people on both sides - pro-FLG and pro-CCP people will respect Wikipedia policies when posting on here. If they wish to have a discussion on the merits of FLG, please do so elsewhere. Jsw663 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663,

The persecution is completely irrational. Falun Gong is Xiulian or cultivation practice- cultivation of one's own heart nature to assimilate to Zen-Shan-Ren. Please go through the nine lecture videos - I am requesting this repeatedly so that you will be able see through the lies spread by the CCP and objectively understand what Falun Gong is.

The "interruption of the TV signals" done by a practitioner in China was absolutely not for advertisement. The CCP was using the staged incident in the Tiananmen Square to incite hatred among the public and to justify their killing of thousands of innocents. This practitioner wanted the people to know the truth and not support, in ignorance, this terrible crime. What he aired was the video titled "False Fire". And this person was tortured to death for doing so.

All Falun Gong practitioners editing this page are requesting, is to please make sure that the content here conforms to wikipedia policies regarding Original Research and Reliable Sources.

Dilip rajeev 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663 the wording of the first paragraph of intro was the source of strong disagreement and the reason for the protection of the page. There was a tedious and drawn-out discussion before and during the protection of the page (see archived discussion) which did not produce any result. Since you are new here I thought I should give you some background info. It would be great that you take the lead in initiating a discussion here again.

I found your recent revert troubling. Do you honestly believe that characterizing the Falun Dafa as “religious teaching” inappropriate? Do you really think that that 29 words long summary of the Falun Dafa is “going into details?” --Kent8888 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for those who responded. For those who responded on my talk page, I'll respond there in due course. For those who replied here, I'll give my reply here, so here goes. Dilip rajeev, as I have said before, it is hard for anyone with any knowledge of this matter to stay completely neutral. Some people want to believe one source; some want to believe the other. However, I think it is rather extreme to dismiss any one side COMPLETELY by saying that EVERYTHING they say is false, lies and propaganda. This is also why I said I take all source with 'a grain of salt', not 'only salt'. Even documentaries are sometimes spurious with their sources, although like I said before, I will hear (or read here) you out. I don't see why you need to repost the same sources over and over again just because I don't refer to them in my replies here - it doesn't mean I haven't read / watched them.

To Kent8888: The debate about religious / spiritual teaching I think is being engaged below this section. The term 'religious' is not quite accurate for FLG - after all, there is nothing 'godly' about FLG, not even LHZ himself (even if he likes to think himself as a demi-god). As for the introduction, notice I am NOT denying you the text on the entire page - just the very beginning, or the 'pre-introduction' if you like. There are far too many Wiki pages at present with ridiculously long intros that need to be cut down severely. Ideally the pre-intro should contain 50 words or less, but this is not a rule or guideline. The phrase 'spiritual teachings' embodies more or less all FLG beliefs, and if the reader wanted to know more details, they would read the rest of the page; if not, they wouldn't. Jsw663 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious or Spiritual teachings?

Religious or Spiritual aren't these too words pretty similar? Is there any reason to argue too much about them? My personal preference inclines to Spiritual because for me it inclines directly to the mediation part. Which, though is not the only part of Falun Dafa, it's an important component as well. Also Spiritual, about spirit, state of mind, character, al these ring a bell when talking about Falun Dafa. Religious, for me at least, it carries the burden of the obligation part, which is not present at all in Falun Dafa, since if you like it you can cultivate in it, if you don’t you can leave without any problem. --HappyInGeneral 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page - I thought I was FOR putting the word 'spiritual' and AGAINST putting the word 'religious'. Jsw663 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True and I agree with you. Best regards. --HappyInGeneral 20:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

intro

Falun Dafa refers to a set of religious teachings. Li claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. [1]

Li's own words justify the use of this statement, if you disagree please provide your argument here. --Mr.He 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(Just copying and pasting my text I typed above again here) - As for the introduction, notice I am NOT denying you the text on the entire page - just the very beginning, or the 'pre-introduction' if you like. There are far too many Wiki pages at present with ridiculously long intros that need to be cut down severely. Ideally the pre-intro should contain 50 words or less, but this is not a rule or guideline. The phrase 'spiritual teachings' embodies more or less all FLG beliefs, and if the reader wanted to know more details, they would read the rest of the page; if not, they wouldn't. Jsw663 18:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Li claims that he and his Dafa...

"...are the only source of salvation for mankind"

This statement is NOT supported by the link. It is also very POV and I'm removing it for both reasons. CovenantD 00:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is used to supported the later half of the statemnet which you intentionally left out. This statemnet simply reports what Li has said, where is the POV. --Mr.He 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the portion I quoted above. The source does not support this statement. It is up to you to provide proof that this citation does indeed contain the claim that "Li claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind." CovenantD 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You (as well as anyone who is not a fool) know that this link is used to support the latter half of the statement. There can be no reasonable explaination for your deliberate manipulation. --Mr.He 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, cease your personal attacks or risk getting blocked. This is the last time I will warn you. Second, a source needs to be found for the first part of the statement. It is so controversial that it demands proof. And third, if you want to know my motives then I suggest that you read the archives for this talk page from, oh, May of this year through the beginning of August. At this point you're only showing off your own ignorance. CovenantD 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I might not be smart but i am not a manipulator. Your threatening tone is disgusting. --Mr.He 04:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.He I believe a source for that statement can be found in the archived talks. --Kent8888 01:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, per discussion above, the POV cannot stay here. In addition, Falun Gong is (also known as) Falun Dafa. Please do not split them. Please do not make repetitive mistakes. Fnhddzs 02:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

there is no POV in the sentence, stop lying to the public. --Yueyuen 03:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, "Li claims that he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind" is not supported by the source provided. Cite a source that states this before including it again. CovenantD 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything in that statement is supported, you should know that since you were there when we discussed it in length. --Yueyuen 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Then finding a source that supports that statement should be pretty easy. But it's not in the reference provided in the edit you reverted, and a statement that controversial needs a very clear source provided. CovenantD 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can help here. The following is one of his many statements about providing salvation to us. "You all know that I’m teaching the Fa and offering salvation to people. Because all of you have benefited personally, everyone here believes it. You have truly learned this starting from the Fa and its principles. I can tell you, however, that I’m not here to only offer salvation to people; what I’m doing includes offering salvation to people."[11] That statement is justified. --Samuel Luo 04:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This does not say "only", also as far as I know it's not required to learn Falun Dafa in order to pass alive the Fa-Rectification, which is of course only my humble understanding. It is enough if your attitude toward Dafa is not negative. So yes this is a kind of salvation to every human on this earth.

Practitioners want to achieve consummation through Falun Dafa. Falun Dafa can offer consummation only to Falun Dafa practitioners. Other systems might offer consummation through their respective system, which might be different and specific to that system.

Since I think that all this debate is again on wording, "Religion vs. Spiritual", I'll paste my previous comments.

Religious or Spiritual aren't these too words pretty similar? Is there any reason to argue too much about them? My personal preference inclines to Spiritual because for me it inclines directly to the mediation part. Which, though is not the only part of Falun Dafa, it's an important component as well. Also Spiritual, about spirit, state of mind, character, al these ring a bell when talking about Falun Dafa. Religious, for me at least, it carries the burden of the obligation part, which is not present at all in Falun Dafa, since if you like it you can cultivate in it, if you don’t you can leave without any problem.

This is why I believe that in intro the word Spiritual is quite enough. If you pun in the word Religion, than in order to provide a correct understanding we have to add a lot more words for disambiguation from other religions.

Thank you for your understanding. Best Wishes. --HappyInGeneral :) 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, that word only is the real problem. There is still nothing that supports that claim, not even the excerpt of the source that you include. CovenantD 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that, only was taken out yesterday.:-) I have info to support only but I am going to wait little bit. --Samuel Luo 06:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong people, stop putting pressure on my parents

You FG people have repeatedly demanded my parents to stop me from editing wiki pages. And every time my mother put pressure on me it always ended with distress. Be a man, guys, talk to me here. Stop using my parents. I have never seen such a manipulative group. --Samuel Luo 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you that I did not talk to your mother :). Did anyone do that? By the way how old are you? If you are above 18 years old and have some financial independence, you should be a man and stand up for your convictions (and of course suffer the consequences). This is what grownups all about. Please correct me if I’m wrong. --HappyInGeneral 07:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about here? make yourself clear. --Samuel Luo 08:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please point out which part is hard to understand? --HappyInGeneral 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If FLG people are indeed trying to censor people from saying anything bad about FLG, then how are they better than those who they condemn for this very thing? Note I am not saying whether this is true or not; I just hope that all people will apply their principles equally to themselves as well as to others, including opposition groups. Jsw663 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with this point of view and mentality. Also in my humble opinion this is what Falun Dafa teaches. This is why I have a hard time believing that this is the case, pressuring the parents of Samuel. Anyway my first comment actually tried to show that pressure or no pressure, none of that should matter as long as you know that you are right. I heard, but I'm not sure, that Samuel parents are practitioners, so how could anybody pressure them? Also I think that we have a strong proof about practitioner’s resistance to pressure, in China where practitioners still say that Falun Gong is good even tough for this some of them are tortured to death.

But then again, practitioners should practice Compassion and Forbearance so they should not pressure anybody. Since everybody has it’s own free will and every body is choosing his future for himself. As long as I’m concerned I do my best to respect that.

If I would knew his parents probably I would tell them about his attitude toward Dafa, but I wouldn't ask them to do anything. --HappyInGeneral 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

| |WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page. |}

Should we delete then this section started by Samuel? I don't mind either way. --HappyInGeneral 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, unless you want to delete most of this talk page. There has been far too much FLG discussion here, most of it pro-FLG. Just because something a little odd and anti-FLG appears does not justify partial filtering of information - that would be inherently biased. Jsw663 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FLG exerting "pressure" on those who report anti-FLG info is nothing new. -- Миборовский 18:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't feel any pressure if they weren't reporting negative untrue things.

danielprice

You mean there are negative true things? -- Миборовский 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Миборовский Can you please give some examples of negative true things? On which Falun Gong practitioners put some pressure? --HappyInGeneral 05:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have to. "negative untrue things" with the qualifier "untrue". That qualifier is there to differentiate "negative untrue things" from negative things of a different sort. Besides, others have provided plenty of examples. -- Миборовский 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Samuel. Nobody give you pressure. But it is sad if you are trying to manipulate your parents. They may not know what you said about them at all. I called your mother once since her contact is online. She asked me to translate the articles you wrote about her and send to her. But to be honest, I have never done that. I hate to do such things. I just think things may turn well some day and such things are not needed. I, sincerely, hope such day will come finally. Fnhddzs 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You called my mother so she can give me pressure, yet you are accusing me of manipulating my parents. Is this Falun Gong compassion? My edits on wiki pages say nothing about my parents and I have never put words in their mouth. I don’t know which one of you fanatics called my mother recently. If you think putting pressure on my parents and me can stop me from exposing FG here you are WRONG. It only motivates me to do more. --Samuel Luo 06:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me understand, you are saying that if your mother knows what you are doing, that is pressure on her or on you? Are you that much afraid of the truth? Anyway feel free to do anything you like, but, of course, rules will still apply. --HappyInGeneral 08:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, please stop your personal attacks, it is starting to become tiresome and it is also quite unnecessary. Falun Gong practitioners have no bad intentions at all. Falun Gong is very good because it teaches people to be good people and to treat everybody with compassion. Nobody hates you and nobody tries to stop you from doing anything. Practitioners only want to create a good article here on wiki. You are not being honest when you say things like that. Maybe some Falun Gong practitioner called your mother, but what does that have to do with stoping you from editing wiki? You mother is a contact person, which means it is natural for other to call her. Please stop exagerating and trying to discredit Falun Gong and my Teacher. /Omido 11:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By insisting FLG is only good, and that its practitioners only have good intentions, and most importantly, CENSOR any bad or inconvenient comments about FLG, this is hypocrisy at work, no? As I said before, I'd advise ALL people to apply their principles equally to everyone - that includes FLG practitioners who apply the critical perspective they apply to the CCP to their own FLG as well. If FLG were really better, they should lead by example to show how they are, instead of selectively criticizing, forming a mentality that can only be described as anti-CCP. How can anything on earth be ONLY good? If anyone tried to convince me of that about anything or anyone, I'd know for sure they weren't telling me the (whole) truth. Jsw663 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

About the part "CENSOR any bad or inconvenient comments about FLG, this is hypocrisy at work, no?". Right I definitely agree that it "would be" hypocritical if it "would be" true. Can you please provide some examples where this happened?

The fact that Falun Dafa is good is something that we come to know, after beeing in contact with it and trying to understand as much as possible about it. So how can we tell you othervise? --HappyInGeneral :) 20:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no proof that FLG is "good" beyond the claims of its founder and his devotees. Demonstrable results are one thing, hyperbole in aid of improbable claims of mystical superiority another. Critically minded people find Li's claims hard to swallow, even ridiculous to dangerous if taken at face value. Lets see which ones have come up here: studying FLG doesn't allow one to defend oneself against physical attack, as martial arts related qigong does, yet Li claims it is somehow "better" than martial (or any) qigong. Li Hongzhi claims that FLG somehow "cultivates" better than anything else, ever, that he alone can save a human from hell. He claims that any other disciplines and religions than his are incomplete. He asserts that homosexuals are "filthy" and "degraded" and on top of that (and this is the cruncher) he also claims that the Chinese are smarter than all other races. Yet there is no objective evidence to indicate any of those things to be so. Also, there are lectures where Li orders his followers to publicly obfuscate what he really teaches at "high levels". Li Hongzhi would seem just another quaint religious crackpot if it weren't for the explicit racism of those "high level" teachings, teachings he later ordered his follwers to dance around in public discourse. So, if we sit back and allow FLG followers to have undisputed editing rights, who is to say it will tell a complete story, that it won't turn into a simple free advert for a megalomaniacal racist and his unquestioning followers? Fortunately, this is an encyclopaedia, and the articles are eventually going to be formed to those principles, not Li Hongzhi's. --Fire Star 火星 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does Li Hongzhi claim that the Chinese are smarter than all other races? Can you provide a quote? ---82.239.82.200 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, you are not correct in your claims. You talk about proof. What proof do you need that FLG is good? FLG teaches Compassion for all beings. Falun Gong teaches practitioners that one should not hurt others for selfish benefit. Falun Gong teaches practitioners to follow Truth-Compassion-Forbereance at all times. I don't know where you got your understanding about Falun Gong that you currently have, maybe from CCP propaganda. But I do know that when you put things like that you are saying things according to your own post-natally formed notions and you are not being rational. People that are reading what Fire Star are saying should not believe him at all. There are more than 100 million people in more than 85 countries that are cultivating in Falun Dafa. Scientists, Lawyers, Judges, Politicians, PhD's, Engineers, Doctors and many people from all different professions around the world are learning Dafa and doing things according to Truth-Compassion-Forbearence. So many people around the world think that Falun Gong is really good and that it teaches such profound and high level principles. What mighty virtue do you have to disrupt the Buddha-Fa, The Law of the Cosmos? /Omido 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The lecture where Li talks about his conceptions of the superiority of Chinese intellect is linked on the archives of this talk page in several places, I will try to hunt it down, in the meantime you should read through those archives, too. We've been over all of this before, many, many times. As for Omido, your supernatural speculation as to the defects in my logic is in violation of WP:AGF, so stop. Interpersonal issues aside, for the sake of the article whether I am right or wrong doesn't matter, we aren't here to prove that FLG is or isn't "good" and we aren't going to assert that it is in the article. Just as I am not going to assert that Li Hongzhi is batshit insane anywhere in the article, because: Wikipedia is not a Falungong discussion forum. That you believe FLG is good is wonderful for you, but for me and many others the inflated claims you make are still only so much hot air, and don't satisfy Wikipedia policy for purposes of drawing any conclusions published in our articles. Li says that FLG requires compassion, etc., but he doesn't give all of his money to the poor, he doesn't even go out of his way to financially support the followers who are being tortured and killed because of his teachings in China. There has to be some fruit of his and his follower's much-vaunted compassion to report a cause and effect relationship. So far, nothing. To put it in a nutshell, you say FLG people are compassionate, tolerant and forbearing and that makes FLG "good", yet I don't see evidence to back that up beyond FLG people simply saying that they are. A lot. That FLG editors here seem to be less familiar with what Li Hongzhi has actually said in his public career than more critical editors should give you pause. --Fire Star 火星 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, to be honest with you, Li Hongzhi has never claimed that the Chinese are smarter than other races. In spite of your allegations, you or anybody else have never provided any sources to back this up. Li has talked about how it's relatively easier for the Chinese people to understand Dafa, because of the Chinese cultural history, language and other related factors. Wouldn't you think that this applies to traditional Chinese medicine, martial arts and many other things as well? Does it have anything to do with "racial" intelligence?

At the same time, I'd ask Omido to tone down his impassioned style. You are pushing it, and that's no good; I think it actually undermines what we're trying to accomplish here. People can have different opinions about Falun Gong, and they might have formed these ideas by reading the Fa and disagreeing with it. Fire Star has stated many times that she's not too keen on the CCP, either. In addition, questions like "what mighty virtue do you have to disrupt the Buddha-Fa, The Law of the Cosmos?" could be fine in some other context, but here it sounds more like preaching. We should all remember that emotionality is all too easy to hide in the guise of righteousness. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, obviously me and you have different understandings when it comes to righteousness and righteous thoughts. I'm honest and I'm not afraid of saying what I think. I think the arguments that Fire Star are coming with are so narrow-minded and low level. /Omido 13:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But can you see her reactions? They're not very receptive or cooperative. I don't agree with a lot of her arguments either, and I think Falun Dafa is extremely good, but "not being afraid of saying what you think" obviously hasn't helped the editors to get forward with anything. We all have to work together, that's obviously a fact, and I think it's better that everybody exercises some polite restraint of speech. It's a matter of how to get one's message through. Virtually everything can be expressed without creating juxtaposition. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To say something is good purely based on theory and its principles is as ridiculous as saying democracy or communism are perfect systems of government. Instead of saying FLG is good until proven bad, perhaps FLGers would like to show non-FLGers what actions LHZ has taken to help the community, such as charity or community service, rather than just a bunch of mysterious sayings which followers are supposed to 'feel', yet can not prove any genuine enlightenment or elevation in status from the average human. What you think to be the one and only truth may not be the only one truth out there. Or have FLGers lost their sense of questioning and critique when it comes to FLG? Even most Christians admit Christianity does not have a perfect history - the same goes for Muslims - yet FLGers dare claim that FLG is perfect in every way and has never done wrong. Who's being far-fetched now? Jsw663 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to say it is good or bad. We shouldn't say that it is good or bad. Olaf Stephanos has the right attitude to move this forward. He and I don't agree, personally, but the article is the important thing. We can have neutral statements like: "FLG practise includes A and B" and "Li says X and Y" (as long as they are verifiable) and that is that. We shouldn't structure the article to make Li and FLG look good or bad, or spend a lot of time going on about our pet peeves on the talk pages. What any of us think personally doesn't matter for Wikipedia purposes. If Li said a thing and it is expository, we should include it. If the CCP or EU or USA govts. have made statements, they should be in. If TIME or the Globe and Mail or the South China Post etc., have weighed in, that is notable too. --Fire Star 火星 22:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes of Li on the superiority of the Chinese

Li talking about the differences between Chinese and American culture: "The difference is quite enormous. Chinese people's mentality is deeply influenced by their ancient cultural heritage. But Americans are unfettered by ancient culture. In terms of human characteristics, because Chinese people are so rational, they will consider the substance of what they do. A Westerner will make sure that it is done well on the surface. …Chinese people are concerned with the inner quality of culture, whereas Westerners are concerned with the surface qualities of culture." [12]

More: “ancient Chinese medicine was very advanced and present-day Western medicine will not be able to catch up with it for many years to come.” [13]

Li also appears to be ethnocentric, even racist: “No matter which country you're in, you were first Chinese on this earth, because your first incarnation was there. ... Are you shocked by what I just said? Actually, Chinese culture was left behind by all the world's people in different dynasties; and these people reincarnated in other regions after they formed a karmic relationship. For example, today's Americans were people of the Great Ming dynasty. …England was the Great Tang, France was the Great Qing, Italy was the Yuan, Australia was the Xia, Russia was the Zhou, Sweden was the Northern Song, Taiwan was the Southern Song, and Japan was the Sui. In those times, people from each dynasty left China and reincarnated to places that didn't have the countries that are there now--they were still rugged wilderness. [14]

How do you interpret these statements? Doesn't Li sound ingornat and stupid? --Samuel Luo 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling people ignorant and stupid is probably not a good way to encourage a constructive and collaborative attitude of mutual consensus about an article — and especially when referring to the leader of a religion that way. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not a Falun Gong discussion forum. Does this have something to do with the article? -Wookipedian 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism accepted, however, this is my personal interpretation of many of his absurd statements. Plus he is a cult leader, a murder in my view, who has taught his followers to rely on his supernatural healing power when sick while he himself sought medical treatment for his illnesses. --Samuel Luo 21:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Wookipedian. Btw, I have read the IP-registered user's "complete" quote from FLG. A much better argument from Samuel would have been to point out that LHZ's intention was quite obviously to undermine the Chinese people and the current CCP government. In trying to gain international appeal under the guise of 'Chinese culture' by describing everyone as Chinese(-influenced), thus implying everyone is 'Chinese', Li is actually trying to justify to his believers that actually FLG beliefs are universal (although naturally it is far from that). In dismissing non-Chinese culture as "rugged wilderness" he is effectively insulting others' culture (by saying it is not worth considering, compared to his 'Chinese', aka FLG, culture), and in this way he is being somewhat racist. To paint a distorted picture of Chinese viewing themselves as superior whereas he only really includes his majority-Chinese FLG believers is exploiting an otherwise innocent image for his personal benefit. To paint a distorted picture of the world by saying everyone is Chinese and actually successfully have FLG practitioners believe him is only a measure of the extent of how successful, or scary, FLG has indoctrinated its believers - that they are willing to believe just about everything he says. And in depriving FLG believers of critical capacity against FLG and Li himself (and they do so willingly!) this is what Samuel really means by calling others "ignorant".

If you tried to argue like what I said above, Samuel, people may take you more seriously. Jsw663 11:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats your point of view, we practitioners have our own point of view also. The most important principle you must consider before writing on this page is the following: Nobody cares about what you think on Falun Gong, if it is related to the article, your opinion, like mine or any one else's, will be taken into consideration if proven to have a good point and after a while of discussion and reaching consensus between the two parties. You see, the page wont reflect a Falun Gong propaganda, i completely agree with this. But it also wont reflect a Falun Gong complete degradation, you see, if we left this in the hands of the critics, do you really think this page would end up neutral? Do you think you are really qualified to emit a neutral opinion with a righteous intention of editing this webpage instead of coming here talking ill about falun gong somehow trying to relieve the frustration you have for your family problems with your parents who are practitioners and god knows if they follow the guidelines of cultivation correctly? After seeing what you wrote, meaning, calling Mr. Li ignorant and stupid like this, do you have any idea how many wikipedia rules and guidelines you just broke? how can you expect me or any other of us to assume good faith? or to think you are actually qualified to be a neutral editor on this page? shouldnt you be banned? If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to take the rules seriously or else we wont be going anywhere with this article.--Andres18 12:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any Chinese (except FG people) would agree with such extreme views. Li does sound ridiculoud maybe you should admit that in order to be taken seriously.--Mr.He 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should respect other peoples opinions. Even though i disagree with you, you havent seen me say you sound ridiculous and stupid have you? then i guess there is no need for you to say the same about us.--Andres18 04:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are puttng words in my mouth. Am I calling you or any Fgers stupid here? You said “Maybe you should respect other peoples opinions.” Well, what is your opinion on Li’s statement? Why don’t you answer that first so I can comment on it and then you can accuse me of being rude. --Mr.He 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are telling me to "admit" that what Mr. Li says is ridiculous in order to be taken seriously, to me it seems like you are disrespecting me and other falun gong practitioners who do not think Mr. Li statements are ridiculous. If i dont agree with your POV which is that these statements are ridiculous, then you wont take me seriously, that means that my opinion isnt really important to you, if it isnt, then why are you asking me for my opinion? or where you implying that you want me to "admit" his statements are ridiculous before i give you my opinion on this matter? So in my view, yes, you are being rude. It doesnt matter to me if you disagree, we all have different points of view, but offending someone by labeling his beliefs as ridiculous and not taking him seriously regardless of what he represents does seem very rude to me. My objective is not to tell you that you are being rude but to make you realize that perhaps some of the things the critics say might be really offensive and a violation of the wikipedia rules, sure, we practitioners also make mistakes, but i doubt we have contributed to create the uncivil environment the critics have brought up with their rude statements. This complete post is an example of it. If a critic has a certain opinion on one of Li's teachings which somehow relates to the creation of the article, instead of bringing it up for discussion and dialogue among both parties, he expresses his point of view in a rude, uncivil and disrespectful way and dares to say he wont take seriously the other party's opinion. If thats the case, then why bring it up unless you want to know somebody elses opinion on the matter? Thats what ive been wondering all along.--Andres18 06:39, 10 October 2

Well, I believe Li’s statements are ridiculous, if not racist, because his put down of Americans and westerners is offensive. Can you explain why you believe otherwise? Maybe you can enlighten people here. --Mr.He 06:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Im a westerner and i disagree thoroughly with you, i would definetly explain why i believe otherwise but since this is not a falun gong discussion forum, i dont see why i should.--Andres18 06:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So for the record, do you think what Sam wrote up above is reasonable? Do you believe ancient Chinese medicine is more advanced than modern western medicine? Do you believe we were all Chinese in previous lives, and that Chinese are by nature more rational than westerners? I'm just trying to get this straight here.. Does being part of FG require you to agree with Li even when his statements become.. outlandish? TastyCakes 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Andres18 You have to explain why Li’s statements are not ridiculous because you accused Samuel and I being rude. We need justification to back our accusations. When you attack me and then refuse to justify it you are being rude yourself. --Mr.He 23:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What i say doesnt matter, falun gong is what i believe personally, if you claim that it is ridiculous then it is clearly an offense. Im not attacking you, im just merely pointing out that by saying its ridiculous, you are being rude. To answer the question from mr Tasty Cakes, yes i agree with it, its just a generalization, there are a thousand exceptions to a generalization, if chinese in general are more rational than westerners, so what? Westerners in general are less envious or jealous and take money and competitiveness more lightly, unlike the chinese, this has also been said by Mr Li and i agree with it. So he is just pointing out that the Chinese and Westerners are different in many aspects in general, some are good in these aspects, some are good in these other aspects.

Its not a racist remark since mr li does not claim the chinese are absolutely superior to other races, they are just the race of origin, and that doesnt mean a westerner cannot be a better person than a chinese, there is also the issue of individual variation, so regardless of what can be said in general, when coming to specific issues then its all different. Regarding ancient chinese medicine, Mr. Li was not talking about the one taught today which is just accupuncture and making some medicine out of plants or healing by qigong, he was talking about the Chinese medicine in ancient times, and i do consider it to be much better than nowadays western medicine. Mr Li pointed it out with an example, that it was much more advanced to be able to see the interior of the body, all its layers and detect an illness with the third eye, than seeing it with a complicated machinery that you even need to learn how to use and it requires electricity and so on, while yours is something you can take anywhere with you and you can see directly and exactly the cause of the illness. So in that sense, yes, of course, ancient chinese medicine was much better than nowadays western technological medicine.

Being a part of Falun gong doesnt require me to believe in anything, in falun gong, if you believe, fine, if you dont, then its fine too, this is not an organization of any kind so it doesnt matter what you do, what matters is if you cultivate or not. What Mr. Li says in high levels is not usually told to other people who are not practitioners or to begginners simply because, its not that we want to hide our teachings, it is just that through cultivation you eliminate many hearts of attatchment and have many experiences, maybe you see some things or have certain feelings that are mentioned in the book, which allow you to understand better these teachings. So if we mention these high level teachings to begginers or non practitioners they will misunderstand them and some new practitioners might feel a little intimidated by them, so since they do not understand them they say "Ok i dont want to learn, i dont understand". Mr Li made an example of this when he said that this situation is similar as when you go to school, if you go to school, but they are talking about university subjects then you wont understand anything, youll feel intimidated and you will not want to keep practicing. First you have to go through school before you get to university, or else you cant understand the teachings of university.

The reason why some practitioners ask you to read a little bit more about falun gong is that you may think you know all you need to know about it and that you know enough to criticize. But we think that perhaps if you read a bit more then you wont have all these questions coming up and we can save us much more time in the editing of the article.

This is just my opinion--Andres18 14:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa

Again, as we discussed repetively for a while. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa. Please do not use two defintions. Also the claim on Li is not supported by the citation. Fnhddzs 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

first paragraph, intro

There has been reverts over the following passage in the intro: "Li claims to provide salvation for mankind [15] and his Dafa (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification. [16]" According to wikipedia edit policy this sourced statement is perfectly legitimate. Its repeated deletion violates wiki policy. --Kent8888 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a well-documented statement. Li does indeed claim such things, often, and I agree that it belongs in the article. The only question is whether it belongs in the intro. For myself, I feel it is significant enough of a public utterance (one doesn't meet someone claiming to be a universal qigong saviour every day, after all!) that I'll support its presence in the intro. --Fire Star 火星 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if i may, id like to edit one little part of this paragraph, tell me what you think:

Li claims to provide salvation for mankind through a process called "inner cultivation" and also that the "Dafa" (great law) is judging all beings in a process called Fa-rectification."

i changed "His Dafa" for "The Dafa" i think it more apropriate since according to FG its a law of the universe, its not something that you can "have" this way it seems more clear to me. If he has ever stated "my dafa" it is because of the way he transmits the dafa but that doesnt necessarily mean the Dafa is his. Or we could also say "...and also that, what he calls the "Dafa", is judging all beings......" And i added the "inner cultivation" part.--Andres18 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

FG fanatics act like they own these FG pages that they have been preventing people from editing them. It is rude and clearly violates wiki policies. I urge admins to warn them from continuing such a behavior. --Samuel Luo 23:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What violates wiki policies is trying to edit the FG pages to try and degrade falun gong and exposing your own non-neutral pov. Since i see there is no plausible authority to ban you right now, im guessing its better if we prevent you from editing it. One more thing, revert wars occur because you decide to edit a webpage without first consulting it with the other parties, this is for FG practitioners and critics alike, so if you want to make a change, propose it first. If you dont, then dont go complaining about getting your edits reverted by someone else.--Andres18 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The page is afterall about Falun Gong, who would be more fitting to edit them then Falun Gong practitioners?

danielprice

Who would be more fitting to edit pedophilia than pedophiles? Nazism than Nazis? Communism than communists? -- Миборовский 04:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't help laughing after reading Miborovsky's reply. How true it is though. Jsw663 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Laugh all you want, but comparing us to Nazi, pedophiles and other degenerated human behaviours isnt funny to me. if you want to have a non biased, neutral opinion on falun gong you should document yourself on it instead of just coming here to ridiculize and insult other people. Miborovsky should, of course, be banned because of this extremely offensive comment, and if i were an admin id ban you too for laughing. But since there is really no authority around to regulate the conduct of these chidren, how can we expect to make this page go anywhere?--Andres18 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Миборовский was making an analogy, not calling FLG people Nazis or paedophiles. He was commenting that the proposition that only FLG people should edit the FLG article is as ridiculous as Nazis claiming that only they should edit the Nazism article. Of course, behaviour such as calling people whom you disagree with "children" will get you blocked, by me, if you continue to do so in violation of WP:NPA. --Fire Star 火星 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, i realize my behaviour was inappropriate and that i felt offended at the time when i read his remark. I understand now that i misunderstood what he said, in any case, i sincerely apologize, it wasnt my intention to be rude or cause any trouble--Andres18 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with including the statement above is that, unlike the rest of the paragraph, there is a lot of context behind understanding that statement. Also, by including a statement along those lines in the intro we are then opening the intro for inclusion of other statements at the same level of greater significance, such as upgrading xinxing (character), the existance of Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, etc. Just because a statement may be grand and shocking to some doesn't mean that it's worthy of being in the intro. And as Jsw pointed out, the intro is long enough as it is. I'm not going to take the initiative to remove it at this time, but I will if no one responds. Mcconn 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Organ Report brought to US Congress

A new report states that when there is a shortage of organ doners (i.e. prisoners awaitng execution), Chinese officials round up Falun Gong members and use their organs for China's lucrative organ transplant business. This was brought up in the U.S. Congress in September 2006 by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)[[17]][[18]].

You are stretching the truth again. “A report which allegedly claims that …. was brought to the attention of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher,” is a more accurate description. --Yueyuen 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the sentence "This was brought up in the US Congres... etc. " was wholly irrelevant to this page. If you include this event, then you'll have to expand the FLG page at least 100x longer to include every single other event. I don't see the need for it to be included. Jsw663 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is right, let's not include every little thing that the FGers produce with their propaganda machine. --Samuel Luo 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a newsreport on CSPAN about Falun Gong organ harvesting....

http://www.faluninfo.net/audio_videos/Erping_CSPAN_VCD.mpg

CSPAN: Organ Harvesting Revealed Falun Dafa Information Center spokesman, Mr. Erping Zhang, appeared on Washington Journal to discuss the horrifying abuses in China that prompted Dr. Wenyi Wang to shout out during Hu Jingtao's visit to the White House.

danielprice

This is entirely relevent for the page, but it should be included in the appropriate section, ie. the section on the persecution. Mcconn 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

scottroberson

I'm shocked at how little is mentioned on the front page about the persecution of Falun Gong. This is especially egregious considering the recent allegations by former Canadian cabinet officials. Organ harvesting??? How can such a disgusting practice NOT be included???

Olaf replies to Jsw663

(In response to a message under "Falun Gong people, stop putting pressure on my parents":) I have never said that Falun Gong practitioners don't make mistakes, or that Falun Gong would have a "perfect history" in that sense. In fact, you make a very typical mistake by confusing the practice system with the people who practice it. Just like badminton can be played by anybody (myself included, and I think it's a great game!), Falun Gong can be practiced by anybody, and the practitioners are by no means a hegemonious group of people.

By saying that "Falun Gong is extremely good", I mean that is an excellent cultivation and practice system, according to my several years of experience. And I don't know how many FLG practitioners you know personally, but an overwhelming majority of the ones I've met are really sincere and good people, and even their appearance is very kind. We also know that Falun Gong received a great number of awards in the 1990s - after the methodology for scientific qigong studies had already been established - and that the debate in the Chinese scientific community actually revolved around teyi gongneng, i.e. supernatural abilities. Many top scientists like Qian Xuesen were involved, and most large universities had research groups focusing specifically on these matters in the 1980s. Do we need a scientific revolution to explain such things or not? That's definitely not a simple question. You may think that Falun Gong is just a spoof for useful idiots, but you only need to scratch the surface when things start getting more complicated and puzzling. You are free to think whatever you want, but you should also keep in mind that people with investigative minds definitely have rational reasons for exploring the practice further. Suppose that Falun Gong is not true, OK, you still have to explain away a lot of empirically verified phenomena. What would you suggest as an alternative approach?

So, in general terms, that's my view on the practice. However, because Falun Gong is persecuted so cruelly in China, it is inevitable that different people react in different ways. For example, I think it's extremely counterproductive to send Falun Gong related spam. But what does it have to do with me (or anybody else besides the sender)? Could I stop the person? Do you think there's some mysterious "Falun Gong leadership" that sends its agents to stop such behaviour? Even if I practice, do I have to agree with everything that others are doing? Are you assuming a magical bond of culpability between different individuals? Let's say that somebody's family member has been severely injured or killed by torture, and that the whole family has had to flee China as refugees. (United Nations is granting a refugee status for FLG practitioners who are able to leave.) Do you think that every individual who carries such an enormous trauma would always do everything in a neat, tidy and ordered manner? There are literally millions of families who have suffered, and hundreds of millions of people have been affected by the persecution in one way or another, so even if you cannot tolerate their every move and action, you could still understand their distress.

The same goes for some practitioners' attitude toward their critics. I have a degree in religious studies, and I can say that it is extremely unprofessional to categorize Falun Gong as a "cult". Using the term in such a manner obfuscates it so violently that it becomes nothing but a political tool for marginalizing perceived heresy. In addition, it deprives the practitioners of their social status and rationality, subjugating them into a relationship where "the doctor" (rational subject) can administer "treatment" to "the patient" (irrational object). Do you understand what I'm saying? I don't mean that the critics don't have a right to speak their mind, but given the killings, torture and other forms of repression, the critics should never lose awareness of these concerns; if they do, the targeted group has all the more reason to resist such definitional power. Some issues are more delicate than others.

But let us remember that this is not a Falun Gong discussion forum, so let's not turn this into an endless analysis. I just wanted you to know what I think, and be assured that my "questioning and critique" is right there. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Olaf, thanks for the reply and sorry I haven't been able to reply sooner. Practice system v its practitioners - this concept can obviously be easily misunderstood, and that is why FLG as an encyclopedic entry should not make a judgement on whether the system itself is good or not. However, even the more far-reaching stuff said by LHZ (as quoted by Samuel Luo, assuming that is verifiable) then should be included, even if it is inconvenient and contradicts the 'spiritual' side of FLG. This is why I haven't said anything like FLG is an 'evil' cult, because that would be a subjective judgement. The way I use the word 'cult' is of course a little different to its negative connotations in common usage - I use it more because of its dictionary definition. It is not a religion (I think most people agree with this point?) yet it is not purely spiritual or exercise-related. Unless you can think of an alternative word, I think the word 'cult' (minus any subjective judgements for the word) is perhaps the best way to describe FLG. It is also because of my dogged adherence to objectivity that I don't think we should say FLG is an 'excellent cultivation / practice system', nor should we only present one-sided evidence as to how good it is. Talking of which, I'd love to read some 'empirically verified' benefits of FLG - if you could provide sources, etc., I'm sure readers of this forum would be interested. After all, no matter who provides 'evidence', it can still be questioned, and it worries me greatly that so many FLGers here lack the ability to question FLG and its teachings by saying it is 'only' good.

Moreover, on the subject of subjectivity, by saying that FLG is 'persecuted so cruelly in China' you are already making a subjective statement. How about looking at it from a CCP POV as well? What you perceive to be 'killings, torture and other forms of repression', some may view as a necessary step to ensure national security. Would you ask the same question to GW Bush regarding Guantanamo Bay inmates?

As for the 'do I have to agree with what every FLG practitioner is doing', that is as loose an argument as saying that some democracy-lovers want to distance themselves from the Bush administration, or the KKK, or the ultra-leftists, etc., or that not every member belonging to every sub-division of Christianity or Islam will agree totally with each other. It is so obvious it does not need to be said. However, every group of people who share one set of beliefs are usually grouped together, because they believe in the same set of principles, and its practice is very similar. This is also why it is the duty not only of FLGers but also LHZ to condemn the more extreme factions of FLG, such as those who intercept satellite broadcasts. Most importantly, I have not known any Chinese FLGer who has been willing to accept that s/he is a PRC citizen first and foremost, before they are a FLGer, not the other way 'round. Is this stereotyping? Not necessarily - but when an overwhelming majority of such practitioners share common beliefs (even if they are not practised in exactly the same manner), it is not going overboard in making the generalization that, say, FLGers can be considered to be anti-CCP. Jsw663 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(Ok, I am very much new to this. If so desired please direct me to a good place to learn about this kind of thing.) First, I would second the notion of labeling Falun Gong as a "cult," or adding the word "cult" to the article at all. The word, "cult" contains very negative connotations, and can be interpreted as a direct attack. In the section "Wikipedia:Words to avoid," it states

"The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings, often with very negative connotations. In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group. It's sometimes said that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions."

I would just like to post that for future reference. Anyways, I am a newbie, and I would like to help contribute furhter. :) -jack Boraxmole 20:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, are you a Falun Gong practitioner or a supproter of the group? I am just curious. --Samuel Luo 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed a Falun Gong practitioner, who is self-taught. I understand that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, so there can't be only one side of an issue presented and thats why there is such a long discussion on this. On an issue like this, from what I gathered reading the archives, I am thinking that relating personal experiences and things like that could be a good way in explaining why Falun Gong practitioners are the way that they are. I do believe fully in the practice. However, I think there has to be a limit on the discussion of Falun Gong as well, otherwise nothing will get done. I do believe that I have some insights that could possibly counter-balance some of the things in the "criticisms" section. I don't want to go too much into that now, because I think I should learn about this process of medation and things like that.

And also, to Falun Gong practitioners: keep a cool head and be calm, remember that we have to conform to the way of society while cultivating, which is often misunderstood by people in my limited understanding. Also, while talking on the internet in general, people often act more angry and aggressive than they would in "real life." Always be compassionate and remember why we're doing talking about this, right? Any conflict is a chance to look within. 66.189.170.141 03:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that previous comment was stated by me - jack

Wow, I am just messing up all over the place :) Boraxmole 03:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jsw663, I wish you would expose yourself both to the material about the persecution I left links to on your talkpage, and also the nine day lecture series. I am saying this again because based on some of your comments it leaves me the impression that you have either not watched the lectures or do not have a basic grasp of their content. It would be a good idea for you to watch them so you can understand the basics of what Falun Gong actually teaches and get to know what it is about. It would also be a great idea for you to get an understanding of what the CCP has been doing to practitioners - see "torture methods" and organ harvesting links on talk page - in order that you better understand the responses some practitioners have taken. I hope I am not sounding too pushy. I do not demand or expect anything of you. I am saying this because I think it will help you to edit this article better. It is a recommendation. If you do not expose yourself the teachings of Falun Gong and those things about the persecution, then your understanding of and capacity to make meaningful contributions towards discussions of those subjects will inevitably be confined. Of course, you make your own choice about how responsible you want to be; I see above that you describe yourself as being dedicated to objectivity. --Asdfg12345 04:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already had a look at those links but as I said before, I don't have to agree with you. For example, the website questioning whether the FLG woman setting herself alight merely raises questions; it does not involve counter-evidence, like some people question whether the US really had the first man walking on the moon. Information gleaned from those pages are, furthermore, purely from people who fled the CCP and do not paint an objective picture of reality. If we were only judge another country by what its defectors say, we would all have a very inaccurate picture of each other. You can insist I am not responsible simply because I do not agree with that page stating just facts - however, I take it with a grain of salt like I said before, and take into consideration that it only highlights one point of view, and does not give (equal) coverage to the other. Like before, I will also not say that something is fact before history can judge properly. One can get caught in the whirlwind of the moment - much like the majority of Americans thought Saddam had WMD in 2003 - but I prefer not to confirm or deny either way until more time has passed. That is what I deem more responsible - not to tell others what to think, but rather present both sides and let the reader determine. By presenting an overwhelmingly one-sided view, you are merely shedding yourself from objectivity by taking a clear POV. Jsw663 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just worry that you have not properly understood what is happening to practitioners. All I can do is urge you to read that stuff and think about it. It is pretty well known that they are tortured in many horrible ways in order to write repentance statements, that many have been killed this way, they are put in forced labour camps in awful conditions, tortured arbitrarily, beaten, raped, and so on, and that now the CCP has been discovered to keep practitioners in jail and when they need organs they get a practitioner, give an injection to stop the heart, remove the kidneys, liver, heart, cornea and skin then incinerate the remains. They turn the hair into wigs and sell the rest for a lot of money. It is also well known that the CCP denies all of it outright, says that practitioners are treated quite well, that the Kilgour-Matas report is made up, and so on. It is not just Falun Gong saying those things about what happens to practitioners. The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, a bunch of other NGOs with no stake in the matter all say this is happening. Those things really are happening. With that in mind, I would like to show you a little about what the CCP says. This is the final remark on their "Statement on the issue of Falun Gong", which I just found on www.chinaembassycanada.org:

"Both the Chinese and the Canadians are great peoples. We all believe that cultural diversity is an important driving force for human progress. We sincerely hope that differences in ideology, social systems and developing models should not become obstacles to our relations. We sincerely wish that people in China and Canada will join hands, and, together with peoples of other countries, to create a more harmonious and better world."

There you have both sides of the story. You have your own mind and reasoning power, and no one here is going to say you are bad. I just need to tell you these things.--Asdfg12345 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have added little that is referenced above, and all draws from sources which have had histories of varying degrees of bias towards 'human rights' / 'liberal' doctrines, in some cases rather extremist sympathies towards that end. The UNHCR is not exactly the most political neutral organization (note I say UNHCR, a subdivision of the UN, and thus does not reflect on the UN as a whole) - after all, its focus specifically targets one area. I don't see why the Chinese government needs to explain more about the thing they deny happened in the first place. Your quote is also slightly misplaced (ie intended to mislead) because that statement only proposes how we should move forward, and does not within that last paragraph address the FG issue at hand. Until and unless what you claim above can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I wouldn't be so fast to jump on board the anti-CCP bandwagon by condemning them of such actions. Naturally, for objectivity's sake, I won't be ruling out that such actions happened either, but until it's proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's only prudent for the NPOV-aspirants that they don't stick to one camp on something that is clearly a hot topic and full of controversy at present. Jsw663 18:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its ok if the critics dont agree with the practitioners. But if both parties are entitled to have their own opinion then im sure there is no sense in trying to prove our point to each other, if that is true, then i guess there is no need to post new threads on the forum about the teachings of falun gong and criticizing them if its unrelated to the article. And of course, if nobody really has the intention to convince the other party that they are right, then im sure that if someone doesnt agree with any of the aspects of falun gong and they would like to share their disagreement they can do so and at the same time ask the other party their opinion regarding this matter in order to have a neutral point of view. I also believe that when one asks someone else's opinion, he should take this person seriously and consider what they have to say about it. This is a neutral statement. --Andres18 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Good news everybody! Our case was accepted at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong. Please keep an eye out for further developments. --Fire Star 火星 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this video has relevance for the article.

http://fgmtv.org/videos16/2006/08/eternal/mpeg1/the_eternal_story_mpg1.mpeg.001

jakarta,indonesia outrage

I know i still new in here and my english not so very good, so i not try verbal attacking them even i like to attack them cause make me and my community suffer cause they unwise action, so i still have upset and pain cause them, so i try erase my personal scream to them that my point in the main articel, even i accused they lying, but that cause i read the epoch time who have only one side story from they prespektif only and other story from they member, this to me like bending the truth, lying and what reality happend certainly in the field are diffrent.

So I certainly still upset cause they did and uncare to our community and culture and how they reaching they own agenda. who add more wound to us as result when we strugling to live in indonesia after we have been have mayor disaster in the past.

So better put reference who have both side reference that i have think for more balance for both side.

and i bit told what is the indonesia chinatown to give perspektif what they do in this buisnis area. so please who more advanced and more netral point of view.Daimond 07:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

oww, that bit shocking looking in the above the epoch time are part of falungong Daimond 08:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

Seems like nothing's happening. How should we proceed? Are the mediators waiting for a blazing revert war, or should we just initiate some discussion here on the talk page? I have found some interesting new sources, and I'd really like to continue with the article. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've checked the wp pages in weeks, and I'm really dissapointed that there has been absolutely no progress since I last checked. It's completely stagnent. Weren't we supposed to have gotten a mediator or something? If so, then where are they? I'd really like to continue too. Mcconn 14:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda?

When I was in China, people told me that the local newspapers claimed that members of Falun Gong had killed some homeless people. Whether this is true or not, these claims by the Chinese government should be addressed in the article. That the Chinese government makes these claims (true or false) is fact. --Ryan Wise 06:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)--66.87.184.227 06:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese government has made a lot of incredible statements. For example, they still claim that there was no massacre on the Tiananmen square in 1989. It's no problem mentioning such things in a proper context; they are typical (and worn-out) examples of political indoctrination. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can be an evidence. I grew up from China, I had no idea of what the Chinese TV said could be lies until I left China and met my previous teacher. I was told by TV that no people died on the square and students killed the soldiers. My teacher told me he went to see the five rescued dead bodies put in the university across the street of our school. The bodies would have been erased as evidence if not rescued just as the police/army washed away the blood on the Tiananmen square by water. He had never (dared) mentioned such things before. The bodies were very very miserable. Some with their bicycles punching through their bodies when the tank grinded them. However, the sad things are reoccurring now. Even now, one of Chinese friends coming from China said he thought the organ harvesting is ok because he heard that Falun Gong teach practitioners suicide (such as self-immolation). The Falun Gong teachings clearly teach "committing suicide is sinful[19]". The Chinese propoganda makers did not even read the Falun Gong teachings before they forged the claims. It's really sad. Fnhddzs 02:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What sort of hyped-up exaggerated emotional appeal is that, Fnhddzs? FLG may claim committing suicide is sinful yet, despite your not-so-subtle link on the self-immolation incident to a FLG source, one still cannot rule out, conclusively, that it did not happen. As for organ harvesting, if anyone thought it was just some CCP practice, maybe you should question the American doctor who was in the news less than a month ago who was doing exactly the same thing. I'm not saying it's morally and ethically praiseworthy but you can't simply lambast it as simply a uniquely CCP excess. As for the Tiananmen incident you only talk about bodies and blood - merely emotional appeal. If you condemn this incident, then to subsequently use this to justify any FLG belief is even more unacceptable. (N.B. I refuse to make a judgement, moral or not, on the Tiananmen incident. I believe history will later judge the incident more fairly). Jsw663 10:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On working towards an objectve, neutral article

A lot of the content here doesnot conform to wikipedia rules regarding NPOV or Reliable Sources. Further, a lot of well sourced information has been deleted or replaced by self-written POV in the versions in which the pages are currently locked.

I was just going through the posts on the subject here..I really dont wish to contribute more to the arguments... and so am making this post under a seperate title. At the same time I would really urge you to go through the teachings of Falun Dafa for that is the only way we can work towards an objective article..

http://www.falundafa.org/eng/media.htm#GUANGZHOU

I know someone may suggest this topic has been brought up elsewhere... but please allow me to request you to go through atleast the first four lectures before voicing your opinion on the matter...

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture1.rm

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture2.rm

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture3.rm

http://media1.minghui.org/media/dafa/en_mpg/rm-lectures/Lecture4.rm

Master Da Liu, the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North America said at the age of 95,"I had been teaching Taichi and studying various Qigong practices for more than 40 years when I started looking into Falun Dafa. I now tell all my students to practice Falun Dafa."

I am not asking you believe anything or accept what Da Liu said .. but please give it a thought .. Tens of millions around the world find Falun Gong extremely beneficial to Mind and Body ..Why did Master Da Liu say so? If you just go through the lectures and try out the exercises you would objectively know what Falun Dafa is.. Isnt everything else just borrowed opinion .... 220.226.58.72 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we do know that millions of Chinese people changed their former practices to Falun Dafa, but I remember Fire Star saying that Da Liu did not introduce Tai Chi to North America. Maybe it was a specific branch or something? Does somebody have more information? ---Olaf Stephanos 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC) 12:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is some material on the Falun Gong claims of Organ Harvesting: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/156/ I think these link will be useful.--Andres18 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How ironic a post about striving for an 'objective, neutral' article should conclude with "please give [FLG's teachings] a thought". We are not talking about objective and neutral for the average FLG practitioner. We are talking about NPOV for the community, ie where more people are non-FLG than FLG, at large. One can keep posting about 'objectivity' and 'neutrality' but if they are only undisguised covers for FLG propaganda then, since FLG discussion should be prohibited and that includes any pro-FLG teachings, this talk page ought to be drastically edited / reduced. Jsw663 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Unless 220.226.58.72 can actually cite examples of POV etc., making an empty allegation merely confirms your own unwillingness to accept other opinions, even a truly neutral one. Jsw663 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument that editors working on the page, people who are interpreting the teachings of Falun Dafa, should take the time to actually read the teachings was already made, and it's not too far above. Although I agree with the argument, we don't need to keep pushing it. And when we do it this way, 220.226.58.72, it sounds just like a rant, and it's really hard for the other editors to take it seriously. Your post above, about why the persecution started, is even more rant-like. The talk forum isn't a soap box, and that kind of posting only aggravates others. Mcconn 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)