Talk:Academic views on Falun Gong/Archive 1

Starting the discussion
Per the talk page for Falun Gong, here is the beginning of the discussion for the article. I suggest that everybody comment on each section separately, just to keep clarity in our discussion. CovenantD 06:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong
Critics of Falun Gong point out that while using established Qi Gong terms for cultivation practice, Li’s version applies new meanings to the traditional terms. Deng and Fang (2000) state that Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.” In Falun Gong, a practitioner is able to accumulate De (德, dé, virtue) through his or her own cultivation efforts, but needs the direct intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into cultivation energy. In Zhuan Falun, Li states: “Cultivation practice depends upon an individual himself while the transformation of Gong is up to the master. The master gives you the Gong that develops your Gong, which will be at work. It can transform the substance of De outside of your body into Gong.” 

According to Deng and Fang, Li uses traditional religious terms in order to gain the commitment of new initiates through miscommunication: Through adoption of confusing terminologies, followers are led into miscommitting—believing they are practicing Qigong or qigong of the Buddhist school (Fojia Gong, it is also Li’s invention to include it as part of Buddhism). Built upon this technique, Li was able (we believe to a lesser extent he still has this capacity) to use the socially acceptable terms to create an impression of conformity but retains the ability to claim supernormality. The problem for Falungong is to introduce such self-proclaimed extraordinariness without arousing the suspicion of abnormality; instead it must provoke trust built on the traditional labels.

Deng and Fang argue that Falun Gong's unique cultivation mechanism -- involving the accumulation of De (virtue) and the master’s intervention to transform it to Gong -- and it's use of traditional terms in novel ways was a source of early criticism from the religious community: Though the creation and misapplication of the traditional terms with “new meanings” Li is able to promote Falungong without a radical appearance. By confusing the readers, Li makes them commit to what they believe as a “new” traditional school of Buddhism or a form of qigong. The inconsistence between the message and the intended object creates the disparity to some students well versed in traditional studies. It was this kind of terminology dispute that prompted the earlier and insightful criticism of Falungong from the religious circle.

Other critics have pointed to the range of sources Li used to create his unique version of Qi Gong. In Falun Gong: The End of Days, Maria Hsia Chang writes: "By 1992...Li Hongzhi had devised his own variant of qigong, which he combined with elements from China's traditional creeds of Buddhism and Daoism to create a new religious movement--the syncretic sect of Falun Gong."

Suggestions for edits
I've added (citation needed) above where I think there's a statement that needs support. CovenantD 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim in the blockquote above contradicts what is said in the teachings of Falun Dafa. Zhuan Falun says: You must also be able to preserve de, maintain your xinxing, and not do things at will. You should not casually do whatever you want, and you must be able to maintain your xinxing. Among everyday people, this statement is often heard: “Doing good deeds accumulates de.” A practitioner does not practice to accumulate de, as we believe in preserving de.Why do we believe in preserving de? It is because we have seen this situation: Accumulating de is what everyday people believe in, as they want to accumulate de and do good deeds so that they can live well in the next life. But we do not have this issue. If you succeed in cultivation practice, you will attain the Tao and there will not be the issue of your next life. When we talk about preserving de here, it has another shade of meaning. Namely, these two substances carried in our bodies are not accumulated in one lifetime—they are inherited from a remote age. Though you could ride a bike all over the city, you might not run into some good deeds to perform. Though you could go about things this way everyday, you might not encounter such opportunities. Dilip rajeev 13:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no contradiction here, other than possibly Li's himself. Zhuan Falun clearly states that De is accumulated by doing good deeds, suffering, etc:


 * "The white substance – De (virtues) will be attained through doing good deeds while the black substance – karma will be procured by committing wrong deeds." Zuan Falun,   p.144-145
 * We have said that De is attained through enduring, suffering pains, or doing good deeds. Therefore, this situation will occur in the sitting meditation. Zhuan Falun  p.148

The fact that elsewhere Li talks about preserving the De you already have is not a contradiction. Both can be true. More importantly, your long quote is off-topic. The main point in this section is two fold: It's those two points which form the essence of the criticism and by inserting an over-long quote which does not relate to those points the effect will merely be to undermine the criticism with uneccessary and distracting content. That, in fact, is a form of apologetics. --Tomananda 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Li applies new meanings to traditional Qi Gong terms
 * Li's interpretation of how gong (energy) is evolved is drastically different from traditional Qi Gong. In the case of Falun Gong, the master's intervention is required.


 * Please note I have deleted that last block quote from the edit and added two others from the same source. There's no need to go off into a tangent with this material.  --Tomananda 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so just to confirm, we're going back to making major edits directly into the text and only discussing them if they become contentious? I don't have an opinion either way but you've done it twice now and I just want to make sure we all understand the process. CovenantD 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of the Falun Gong versus Qi Gong section, I was responding to Dilip's critique of the last block quote. I think we should respond to the challenges first, not try to do any major re-writes. That was my intent for this section, and I'm not planning on doing anything more. (Except perhaps provide citations here and there if needed).  If you think I added a bit more than I should have, I apologize.  However, I certainly allow for the possibility of a "rebuttal" edit being added by practitoners.  Anyway, that's how I see this process working: the rule should be that we add if needed, but don't delete (unless it's in response to a specific challgenge from the other side.)--Tomananda 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, just checking. I wasn't absolutely clear that it was in response to Dilip. Carry on :) CovenantD 22:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

On Terminology
These quotes, dated December 21 1995 and several others make it clear that the terminology used in Falun Dafa carries different meaning from traditional ones .I draw the attention of other editors to this. "Some students were once lay Buddhists and have a very deep impression of the terms in Buddhist scriptures. When they find that I use words identical to those in Buddhism, they think that their meanings are the same as in Buddhism. In fact, they do not denote exactly the same meanings. Some terms in the Buddhism of the Han region are Chinese vocabulary, and they are not exclusively terms from Buddhism." Dilip rajeev 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in United States says:

" Today, I’m only using human language—the simplest human language of today—to tell you about the general situation of this entire vast and profound cosmos. If you can truly and thoroughly understand this Fa, and can practice cultivation in this Fa, the height and depth of what you’ll experience and enlighten to will be beyond description. As long as you practice cultivation, you’ll gradually experience and enlighten to more and more. The more you read Zhuan Falun,[30] the more you’ll understand from it"

"The first issue concerns why our Dafa doesn’t follow the conventions of grammar. This has become a strong obstacle for intellectuals and those with advanced schooling, especially those who work with writing or literature, or do Chinese language studies, etc., that is, people in those disciplines. Why can’t we follow the conventions of ordinary human language when we teach the Fa? As you know, the meaning of a standardized term has been predefined: “This word means precisely XYZ.” Moreover, standardized language is limited and unable to describe the immense Fa. In this enormous cosmos, humankind’s Earth isn’t even a speck of dust in a speck of dust inside yet another speck of dust. That’s how puny it is. How could it possibly hold such an immense Fa? How could the Fa of the cosmos possibly be confined by the conventions of human languages? How could It conform to the conventions of human languages? There’s absolutely no way.

Our Fa merely employs human language. As to how this language is used to teach Dafa, it’s good enough as long as it allows you to understand—that’s the purpose. That’s why the language we use doesn’t conform to conventions of grammar." "Since I’m teaching the Fa to modern people, of course I have to incorporate modern people’s concepts in my teachings. You wouldn’t be able to understand it if I were to use the language and terms of the heavens, or if we were to invent a lot of new terms. So this is how I have to teach the Fa." Dilip rajeev 12:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, you've proven your point. Actually, the first quote did that. So the controversy isn't that Falun Gong uses different meanings for words and terms, but the differences themselves and the confusion that they cause. Perhaps the section, and people's comments, can focus on those aspects. CovenantD 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Deng and Fang do focus on Li's assignment of different meanings to traditional terms and make the argument that he intentionally gains intiatiates because of his use of familiar terms. I have merely reported that criticism.  (Deng and Fang say X about Y).  The problem here is that Dilip hasn't really written a readable response. Three paragraph block quotes from Li don't do it.  In this section,  and also in the homosexuality section, the practitioners should be able to summarize the opinions of other commentators about the criticism.  For example, are there any Qi Gong experts who would argue that Deng and Fang are wrong?  Are there other respected Qi Gong schools that also have divergent meanings for words like De and Gong?  Actually I don't know, and that might be interesting to report.--Tomananda 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a brief statement to the effect that a previous version of Deng and Fang's paper was presented to the AFF, with a Wikilink to AFF. Somewhere else we can have something published by the critics of Deng and Fang. Let the reader decide. CovenantD 19:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC) And I think the paragraph provided by Dilip that starts "The first issue concerns why our Dafa doesn’t follow the conventions of grammar..." should be included since it directly addresses the issue from Li's own words. CovenantD 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Li as a savior or supernatural entity
Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period; In Zhuan Falun he states “If I cannot save you,  nobody else can do it.”  If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa. In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:  "I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."

Also found is the idea that Master Li has numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect practitioners from harm. These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power." They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds. Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun : “If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly.  What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.”   While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result.  In Zhuan Falun  Li Hongzhi states that if a practitioner does not follow the requirments of the Fa, his "body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.” In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to the Fa’s requirements. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states that when a practitioner continually practices cultivation, his life will be prolonged. However, there is a criterion "that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over", referring to old people whom he claims should have died already, according to his conception of their predestined life span.

Suggestions for edits

 * I've added [citation needed] above where I think there's a statement that needs support. CovenantD 06:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As indicated at the bottom of this page, I'm moving this section to the main article since it has gone four days without comment. CovenantD 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions
In 2002, Li claimed that after spreading Falun Gong for ten years, some of humanity's predestinations had been averted, including a "comet catastrophe" and "the third world war." 

In Zhuan Falun, Li explains that catastrophes “which destroy everything in the universe” are recurring events in the history of our universe. He claims he “made a careful investigation once and found out that mankind has been through the state of complete annihilation eighty one times.” 

In a speech in Boston in 2002, Li reported that scientists have discovered that the observable universe “is expanding faster and faster, and the speed of the expansion keeps accelerating.”  Explaining that “something only expands before it explodes,” Li told his audience that he and the immense force of Fa-rectification have so far been able to avert an explosion: Although the universe is expanding, I’m doing things at an extremely fast speed, and I can definitely catch up with it. If I don’t catch up with it, I can tell you, the final disintegration would make everything in the surface dimension cease to exist. If I do catch up with, everything is resolved. Not only will I catch up with it, but I will also surpass it, and that's when the Fa rectifies the human world Deng and Fang (2000), suggest that Li’s teachings on cosmic explosions and the existence of advanced pre-historical civilizations were “borrowed from Western catastrophists and pseudo-archaeologists” whose ideas were commonly reported in Chinese media as “scientific facts.”  They report that early in the history of Falun Gong scientists “criticized Li and his followers for creating a deceptive science by misusing scientific terms and theories.”

Suggestions for edits
Quite honestly, I'm not sure how the expanding bit fits into the historical influence part. Maybe it's explained in the full speech (which I haven't finished reading yet), but from reading the above excerpt it seems as though he's talking about the present and perhaps the future. It could use a bit of tying-in to show it's relevance to historical influence of Falun Gong. CovenantD 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the title that's off. I actually had changed the title prior to the revert wars. Here are two more accurate titles:

--Tomananda 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Predictions about catastrophes and cosmic explosions
 * Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explositions

Okay, since there's been no discussion on this topic for days, I guess that signals acceptance. Transfer being made. CovenantD 20:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
There is some controversy about how meaningful Falun Gong’s many municipal awards and recognitions are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong. Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2000), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.”  Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida. 

In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution which was subsequently misrepresented on an official Falun Gong website. Given San Francisco’s long tradition of tolerance and the Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality, there was controversy about the exact wording of the resolution. As reported in the Sing Tao Daily (2/1/2006), four of the supervisors, when asked about the resolution, stated “that they either don’t understand the Falun Gong belief system or do not support it; in addition, they feel uncomfortable about the Falun Gong’s homophobic positions.”  The Chinese supervisor who had co-sponsored the resolution, and worked to amend it in committee, was quoted in the Bay Area Reporter  : "I am concerned about these homophobic teachings. It is a good thing these were called out. I don't think people understand the Falun Gong. So to the extent it is educating the community, it is a good thing." Aware of these teachings, the sponsors of the resolution amended the original draft language to include a disclaimer. As a result, the Board passed Resolution 66-06, condemning the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, while also stating that “the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco” and that the resolution “in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong.” Shortly thereafter, the Clearwisdom website published an altered version of the resolution which omitted the disclaimer language. Bowing to pressure, the editors of Clearwisdom eventually deleted the entire text of San Francisco’s Resolution 66-06 from their website.

There are also reports of politicians being persuaded to support awards or recognitions for Li Hongzhi without knowing all the facts about his teachings. According to a San Jose Mercury News article, American politicians have been caught in the middle in the battle between the Chinese government and the Falun Gong. In January, 2001 four US representatives from northern California—Representatives Tom Lantos, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren and Pete Start—signed a letter to the Nobel Peace Prize praising Li Hongzhi for promoting the “highest humanitarian values.” When asked whether they knew about Li’s teachings on homosexuals and race before they signed that letter, three of the representatives said no. Representative Anna Eshoo, who subsequently rescinded her nomination, stated: “Obviously I wouldn’t recommend to the Nobel Institute someone who’s anti-gay, because that’s a human right.”

Suggestions for edits
I can't access the Patsy Rahn paper. It appears to be available only by subscription. CovenantD 07:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Added [citation needed] to the first sentence of the second paragraph. CovenantD 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As indicated at the bottom of this page, I'm moving this section to the main article since it has gone four days without comment. CovenantD 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Covenant: I'm responding to various comments about this section as follows:
 * 1. Yes, the Patsy Rahn paper requires a subscription on-line, but I believe it is available free in some libraries, at least in the US.
 * 2. Your request for a citation for the first sentence is a problem and I am willing to rewrite the article to address it. Here's the situation:  immediately after the resolution was passed, practitioners posted an incomplete version of the resolution on the Clearwisdom website.  In our discussions above, Olaf commented that he had already asked them to change that posting.  Olaf also agreed with me that the posting amounted to a misrepresentation of the truth about the resolution.  Olaf then wrote a second time to the editors of that article asking them to correct the posting (presumably to restore the text to its complete version.)  Instead of making that change, the editors simply deleted the resolution in its entirety.  Once having made that change, it is no longer possible to provide a web source to the original version.  Olaf: can you suggest a way of providing proof of this event?  If not, I will do a re-write.
 * 3. Dilip has stated that the word "manipulated" in the last paragraph represents POV. I agree with him and have changed the word to "persuaded."
 * 4. There was a long discusssion among the edtitors about the title of this section. The outcome of that discussion was agreement that the word "Questionable" should be changed to "Debatable."

I've gone ahead and made that change. --Tomananda 00:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong and sexual orientation
As in many traditional practices, lust is thought of as something that hinders a person's progress in cultivation. Though not central to the beliefs, homosexuality is regarded as not meeting the standard of being human. Considered to be an act that brings bad karma upon oneself, Li states in Volume II of Zhuan Falun that "The disgusting homosexuality reflects the dirty mental abnormality that has lost ability to reason at this time."

Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s “upright Fa to keep human beings in check” homosexuals could expect to be singled out for punishment by the Gods. Speaking in Switzerland in 1998, Li suggested that by renouncing their sexual behavior (and presumably living a celibate life) homosexuals might experience a different outcome. When asked why homosexuals are considered "bad people" Li responded: ''When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them.'' According to Li, events such as “wars, epidemics and natural and man-made disasters” happen in order to remove karma. While stating that people who are degenerated will be destroyed, Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. Not only will the “fundamental elements of their existence” be destroyed, they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process: That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. 

In Frankfurt (1998) Li stated that homosexuals could still practice cultivation, provided they give up their bad behavior:  "You are wantonly indulging your thoughts. Your thoughts, like the ones I just mentioned, are not actually you. The mentality that makes you homosexual was driven by postnatally-formed bad things. But you yourself were numbed by them and went along with them and wallowed in the mud. You need to find yourself again and stop doing those filthy things. Gods view them as filthy."

Li lists "homosexuality, licentious desires" as one category in his poem The World’s Ten Evils (a direct translation from Chinese):


 * Humans without kind thoughts / Human against human as enemy.
 * Destroying traditions / Culture turning decadent.
 * Homosexuality, licentious desires / Dark heart, turning demonic.
 * Gambling popular, drugs popular / Following whims and desires.
 * Lifting restrictions, promiscuity / Leading to evil and wickedness.
 * Sinister gangs. treacherous factions, / Politicians and bandits, all one family.
 * Acting on one’s own decisions, deranging the masses / Against heaven, betraying Dao.
 * Blindly believing in science / Mutant mankind.
 * Publicizing and revering violence / Fond of audaciousness, competing at ruthlessness.
 * Religions turned evil / Money seekers, politicians
 * July 7, 1998

Deng and Fang (2000) state that “the theories and behaviors of the Falungong Master and some disciples reflect a deep-seated belief of elitism (superiority of the chosen), racism (against biracial at least), and bigotry (condemning homosexuals to the harshest punishment).”  While observing that homosexuals are singled out for the harshest of punishments, these commentators also argue that Li Hongzhi uses a variety of fear tactics to indoctrinate and control all of his disciples. Among those fears are demonic interference, “evil forces,” alien invasions and an approaching apocalypse. These fears are supported by practitioners’ beliefs that humans have been abandoned by the Gods, they're in the period of the Last Havoc (a kind of apocalypse), and only Li Hongzhi can save them. According to Deng and Fang, when practitioners accept Li’s starkly negative valuation system, they take “a step toward removing human confidence and dignity.”

Suggestions for edits
I dont think Zhuan Falun II has been official translated to english.
 * On this note, I think that we need to refrain from quoting any Falun Dafa teachings that are without official translations.Mcconn 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we put what Falun Gong says on homosexulaity in block quotes rather than add our own commentaries or that of some political science professor.

Kindly see the see the section on homosexuality on an earlier version of the page: As in many traditional practices, lust is thought of as something that hinders a person's progress in cultivation.

In reply to a question on Whether a homosexual who doesnt give up his behaviour can practice cultivation, Li Hongzhi replied: "....Never in history has society been in as big a mess as today. Yesterday I mentioned things like organized crime, drug addiction, perversion, sexual liberation, promiscuity, incest, and the shift in human values, as well as homosexuality… Think about it, everyone: Humans are created by gods. A man is given a wife. That was stipulated by gods. People now want to find a partner of the same sex. Gods think that people do that because they no longer have human values. You are wantonly indulging your thoughts. Your thoughts, like the ones I just mentioned, are not actually you. The mentality that makes you homosexual was driven by postnatally-formed bad things. But you yourself were numbed by them and went along with them and wallowed in the mud. You need to find yourself again and stop doing those filthy things. Gods view them as filthy. No matter whether a government permits it, the law of your government is not the truth of the universe. That’s because the law of a government is made by humans, and when humans make laws, they have the intention to rule and punish others, or they make laws against their conscience in order to protect things and gain power or votes. So they are not made with good intentions. I think the fact that this question was asked means that he’s realized this is inappropriate. People nowadays can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, between what they should do and what they shouldn’t. Everyone is sliding down with society’s trends. Human morality is sliding down at a tremendous speed and keeps on deteriorating. Since everyone is amidst the torrent, they’re unable to distinguish between good and bad. What was done prior to your cultivation is done; let bygones be bygones. As a cultivator you should first of all live as a human being does, nobly and upright. Then, join other cultivators and become a cultivator. And eventually, transcend and become a purer, more noble person one who reaches divine realms and who is like a god. Gods would never permit a cultivator to do that kind of thing, nor would they permit everyday people to."

When asked "Why is it that homosexuals are considered bad people?" Li Hongzhi replied:

"Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods. You know that homosexuals have found legitimacy in that homosexuality was around back in the culture of ancient Greece. Yes, there was a similar phenomenon in ancient Greek culture. And do you know why ancient Greek culture is no more? Why are the ancient Greeks gone? Because they had degenerated to that extent, and so they were destroyed. When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them. Do you know why wars, epidemics, and natural and man-made disasters happen in this world? They’re precisely because human beings have karma, and those events exist to remove it. No matter how wonderful a time period may be in the future, there will still be wars, epidemics, and natural and man-made disasters on earth. They are a way of eliminating karma for people. Some people who have sinned can have their karma eliminated through the death of the flesh body and suffering, and then they’ll be free of that karma when they reincarnate. Their lives don’t really die and they reincarnate again. But the karma that some people have accrued is too much, in which case the fundamental elements of their existence will be implicated and destroyed. Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic. That’s the issue. That kind of destruction, however, isn’t just about disappearing after they’re annihilated. That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. A person should live in an upright manner, living honorably like a human being. He shouldn’t indulge his demon-nature and do whatever he likes."

The poem "The World’s Ten Evils (a direct translation from Chinese)" mentions homosexuality:

Humans without kind thoughts / Human against human as enemy. Destroying traditions / Culture turning decadent. Homosexuality, licentious desires / Dark heart, turning demonic. Gambling popular, drugs popular / Following whims and desires. Lifting restrictions, promiscuity / Leading to evil and wickedness. Sinister gangs. treacherous factions, / Politicians and bandits, all one family. Acting on one’s own decisions, deranging the masses / Against heaven, betraying Dao. Blindly believing in science / Mutant mankind. Publicizing and revering violence / Fond of audaciousness, competing at ruthlessness. Religions turned evil / Money seekers, politicians July 7, 1998 [26]

Dilip rajeev 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip says "I suggest we put what Falun Gong says on homosexulaity in block quotes rather than add our own commentaries or that of some political science professor." My response: Absolutely not. This article is for the criticism and controversies, not the teachings themselves. That is for another article. What belongs in this section is the published commentaries of experts on the topic of Falun Gong and homosexuality. I'm about as neutral as they come and I'm NOT going to see this article become a puff piece that avoids the controversies. Dilip, I'm going to ask you to stop putting so many block quotes in your comments. Not only are they overly long and often repetitive, but it's really beginning to feel like preaching. CovenantD 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Covenant. I think Dilip is exemplifing the heart of the problem, which is that it is difficult for practitioers to accept any reporting of criticism about the Falun Gong. Rather than attempting to refute critical claims with the claims of other critics,  they simply drown the critical commentary in a sea of Li Hongzhi quotes.  The result is not a readable Wikipedia article.  At a certain point, the practitioners must accept the fact that some parts of this article will not be to their liking.  Suppostedly practioners honor "forebearance" as a virtue,  so this shoudn't be that difficult to do.  I am not a practitioner, but am willing to demonstrate forebearance in this editing process (in fact I think I already have.)  On several occassions I have deleted my own content in reponse to challenges and I have re-written material as well.  Please, can't all the editors cooperate and do the same?  --Tomananda 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I believe that the following quote from Tomanda's version's reference to the Switzerland lecture is a POV: "According to Li, events such as “wars, epidemics and natural and man-made disasters” happen in order to remove karma. While stating that people who are degenerated will be destroyed, Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. Not only will the “fundamental elements of their existence” be destroyed, they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process:..."

This paragraph implies one particular way of interpreting the concerned statements, but I don't actually interpret them as such. It's not a kind of suffering particular to homosexuals, but instead is what happens to any life that is completely eliminated or destroyed. The usual reason for this happening is that a person has accumulated so much karma that there's no turning back. This is clear in other lectures' descriptions of "total elimination of body and soal". This may also be suggested in the Switzerland lecture when Mr. Li states, before he describes the process of destruction: "That kind of destruction, however,...". The last destruction he mentions was that of people who create too much karma, which indicates to me that he may be further elaborating on the same kind of distruction. I also think that this kind of suffering may only apply to homosexuals during a large disaster. He speaks about it in context with great disasters or wars, which can be considered a "cosmic cleansing" in my words. At the beginning of the quote he speaks of how one of these "cosmic cleansings" occured in ancient Greece, with one notable reason being its abundant homosexuality. He then follows by explaining that "When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them." This is then followed by the talk of other large disasters. To suggests that the form of destruction described may only apply to homosexuals during a "cosmic cleanse", since its not solely related to having too much karma in their case.

This analysis may be very confusing, but it just shows how this quote can be interpreted in different ways. I don't believe that this is the only way to interpret it, and I'm actually not very sure in my understanding over its meaning, as I can see it from different angles. So maybe it's a bit more clear now why quoting small segments is an issue and why the way the quote is currently presented in Tomanda's version is a POV. I don't know how to resolve this issue with this particulary quote other than to include the entire thing and let the reader interpret it themselves. Mcconn 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mcconn, thanks for 1) presenting the part of the draft you dispute, 2) explaining why you have a problem with it, and 3) presenting a way to resolve it. Other ways I can think of are to provide references that support your interpretations, for Tomananda to provide a source for the statement you find POV, or for it to be amended in some way. CovenantD 19:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are sources out there that interpret this excerpt then we should certainly include them, but since this is quite specific I don't think there are, at least I haven't seen any. I also don't think it would be appropriate to offer two different unsourced interpretations of the quote, especially when they can be quite involved, as mine is. Currently the statement is included only to validate a POV, rather than report the facts. It's basically only saying that Li describes a special kind of suffering attributed only to homosexuals, which is differnent from what is suffered from accumulating too much karma. Since this is completely a POV it can be said that the whole basis of the statement's inclusion is a POV. However, if we include the quote as a whole then the reader can understand the abovementioned statment according to their own interpretation. Bear in mind that my interpretation of the statement involves understanding it within the context of the whole quote, and cannot be interpreted otherwise. OR we can simply not mention the described suffering, avoid a complex issue, and only work with quotes that are more straight forward. Therefore when making reference to the specific Switzerland quote I think the following would be good enough: In Switzerland, Li stated, "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods." He further elaborated, "When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them." This is pretty sans-POV if you asked me and it still presents the points that Tomanada wanted to present from the quote (with the exception of the the statement discussed above). I suggest this since we need to be concise, but if conciseness were not an issue then I would opt to include the whole thing since it is quite interconnected. To give context to why homosexuals are consitered to have oversteped these boundries we can also include the following quote from earlier in the lecture. In Switzerland, Li described why homosexuality is not human behavior: "Heaven created man and woman. What was the purpose? To procreate future generations. A man being with a man, or a woman with a woman—it doesn’t take much thought to know whether that’s right or wrong. When minor things are done incorrectly, a person is said to be wrong. When major things are done incorrectly, it’s a case of people no longer having the moral code of human beings, and then they are unworthy of being human." If we include this then I suggest we put it before the previous quotes. That's all for now. I may not post anything again in the next week as I will be away and likely without acess to internet. However, I may still have time for one or two posts before I leave. If not, then good luck! Mcconn 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mcconn:  This is nonsense. Li Hongzhi describes a special punishment for homosexuals but you don't think that should be reported in Wikipedia?? Here is the excerpt again:


 * According to Li, events such as “wars, epidemics and natural and man-made disasters” happen in order to remove karma. While stating that people who are degenerated will be destroyed, Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. Not only will the “fundamental elements of their existence” be destroyed, they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process:


 * That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. [21]

Tell me again, what, precisely is incorrect with this report (other than the fact that when faced with Master Li's intense level of homophobia it makes even you, a practitioner, uncomfortable)?

This excerpt must be reported. We can talk about alternative ways of presenting it, but we cannot delete it from this section. --Tomananda 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Falun Gong a cult?
''In order to guide our current discussion, I am reposting this section on the discussion page. It covers a controversial topic fairly and represents both sides of the academic debate. To me, this section serves as a model for what is needed in other controversial sections as well.--Tomananda 22:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)''

Critics of Falun Gong in the West argue that because of the relationship of dependency that Li Hongzhi establishes between himself and his followers, using what they say are a variety of manipulative techniques, the Falun Gong should be thought of as a cult rather than a new religious movement or metaphysical qigong. A number of American cult experts, including Rick Ross, Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan, have claimed that Li Hongzhi meets their definition of a manipulative cult leader. While cult experts have not reached a consensus definition for a cult, they often focus on what is considered the coercive behavior of the group leader as an indicator for the potentially damaging aspects of a particular group. In a New Times article (March 23-29, 2000) cult expert Margaret Singer stated: “Some will say it’s not but Falun Gong looks like a cult to me. My criteria is a self-appointed person with secret knowledge to share, who gets his followers convinced he is the pipeline to the eternal good life. Doesn’t that sound like Master Li?”

Different theories of what constitutes thought control have also emerged, but again without consensus. American psychologist and exit counselor Steve Hassan has “grave concerns about the personage of Li Hongzhi, head of the Falun Dafa and his organization.” In his 2002 book Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves, Hassan describes the BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotion) model, which explains mind control as a combination of control over behavior, information, thought and emotions. Hassan believes that Li Hongzhi “comes very much out of the cult extreme, the authoritarian stereotype”. On his website, Hassan states: As far as the controls exerted by the group on individuals, I am not convinced that this group (Falun Gong) fulfills my BITE model in its entirety. I have not had an opportunity to interview any individuals who have been very involved with this group and decided to leave. I do have a strong impression that Thought control and Phobia indoctrination (emotional control) is very much used. People are made to feel that the only "true" path is by following Li Hongzhi, and that to fail to do so would result in serious physical health problems manifesting.

However, opinions within the scientific community are notably varied. According to Philip Jenkins (2000) (quoted by Porter 2003), along with fringe religious groups almost always came movements to denounce or even eradicate them; the definition of a cult was not created in a vacuum, but rather is "a prefabricated script some centuries in the making, incorporating charges that might originally have been developed long ago against a wide variety of movements". Porter points out that supernormality was already a part of qigong before Falun Gong was introduced, as was moral guidance. Also, "Falun Gong does not force practitioners to sign contracts, threaten physical or economic harm for apostasy, or any other such coercive methods that are often attributed to cults. If someone tried Falun Gong and disliked it for any reason, they would have nothing to fear from practitioners. Also, it is interesting to note that practitioners are cognizant that Falun Gong does not fit neatly into categories like qigong or religion, and some are looking for more accurate ways of describing it to non-practitioners." Porter also opines that it is unfair to make comparisons between Falun Gong and cults such as People's Temple and Branch Davidians; "such statements irresponsibly leave the impression that Falun Gong has similarities to these violent groups, when in fact Falun Gong practitioners have consistently refused to use violence against those who persecute them."

The "thought control" theory greatly divides scholars. The scientific evidence on such phenomena remains inconclusive. For example, in 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer to set up a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987, the committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On 11 May 1987 the Board rejected the report. In the rejection memo is stated: "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue." 

Sociologist Susan Palmer's field notes and a preliminary research report on Falun Dafa practitioners were released in the Nova Religio journal (nr. 4, 1 October 2000). The article states: "When I first decided to embark on studying Falun Gong, I hoped to crack the surface within a month and expected to find an efficient core group behind the scenes, masterminding the missionary programs. I had researched other new religions whose leaders were in seclusion... But Falun Gong does not behave like other new religions. For one thing, its organization - if one can even call it that - is quite nebulous. There are no church buildings, rented spaces, no priests or administrators. At first I assumed this was defensive, that they had established guerrilla-style cells to fend off an intolerant Communist Party. By now, I'm beginning to think that what you see is exactly what you get - Master Li's letters on the Net on the one hand and a global network of practitioners on the other. Traveling through North America, all I dug up was a handful of volunteer contact persons. The local membership (they vehemently reject that word) is whoever happens to show up at the park on a particular Saturday morning to do qigong."

Stub
I began the article with what I hope is a bland (even "neutral") summary of some of the main points of contention. I was not trying to be comprehensive, nor was I really keen on being as accurate as possible. But I tried hard to provide a balance between the two sides of each issue.

Surely someone can do better than I have done. I don't really want to "contribute" to the article. Think of what I wrote merely as "priming the pump". --Uncle Ed 13:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Time limit
I suggest a time limit for making edits before we transfer sections to the main article page. Shall we say four days, more or less? Obviously if something is actively being worked on then we let it go longer. CovenantD 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on keeping a time limit.


 * I don't see the point of a time limit. If it becomes obvious that a branch article can be integrated, fine: copy and paste and leave behind a redirect. But in my experience, this has a 20% chance of happening.


 * More likely, is to put a brief summary section in Falun Gong and use the main template to refer to the "sidebar" article. This makes it much easier for the casual reader. It also makes it easier to continue to contribute to the series of articles.


 * An edit war like this is not going to become eternally peaceful, just because we put a time limit on it. See Arab-Israeli conflict for an example of a topic which simply cannot be "resolved" or "settled". --Uncle Ed 13:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Suggestions
I am concerned about representing these "Deng and Feng" a political "science" professor and microbiologist as some kind of authority of Falun Gong. They are by no means any authority on QI Gong or Xiu Lian.

Regarding the section on Homosexuality we must put the teachings of Falun Gong on this matter in Block quotes.. no need to write our own commentaries or that of Deng and Feng.. The Blockquotes would just run a few paragraphs and there is no need to dispute over the material then.

Kindly put forward your suggestions on the issue. Thankyou. Kindly look into the material on terminology I posted in reply to the allegation made in the first paragraph. Thankyou.

While a political science professor says Falun Gong is very different from Qi Gong... Master Da Liu the Master who introduced Tai Chi to North America and the author of several books on Qi Gong, Tai Chi and I Ching considers Falun Dafa a Dafa (Great Way) of the Buddha School.

In the age of 95 Master Da Liu made following statement: "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."

Dilip rajeev 11:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again I feel that you are trying to stifle the publishing of controversies. If you have concerns about the qualifications of Deng and Fang then present evidence that they are not quailified. CovenantD 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Critics and supporters
Cut from intro:
 * The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as racist, homophobic and anti-science by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by Falun Gong's founder are fairly interpretted.

This seems overly broad. I customized it for the homosexuality section, with a link to Homophobia.

I didn't see anything in the body of the article about racism, but no doubt there *is* something. Let's address that.

I'm not sure about the "anti-science" part. Perhaps that refers to the "refusal to seek traditional treatment" aspect? How about a source for that, should be easy to find. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration amoung contributors
I'm not trying to "own" this article. If you all (or most of you) want me to butt out, I will. About half the of the time when I've started a stub the way I have (and continued it as I did this morning), it turns out splendidly. The contributors who really know something about the topic take over start describing each disputed aspect fairly.

But if you want to blank it again, I won't revert. Hey, I'm just here to help. If my "help" isn't helping, then I'll stop. --Uncle Ed 15:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't go. Seems that people will still listen to what you have to say at this point. CovenantD 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle Ed, please stay with us. You are a voice of reason and without your intervention I don't think we will make any progress. --Tomananda 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is Fang
One article cited is from http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/religion/

If you carefully check, this is a Chinese website with only some files translated to English sneakly. The files cited are stored on a folder which seem a personal folder. :) It is not a serious publication. Seems Fang also a critics of Jesus and Chirstianity. As to who he is, he seemed to ever have an email: shif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Shi-min Fang) And the xys.org hosts his webpage http://www.xys.org/fang/about.html He is a 'Biochemist'. He said in Feb., 1994, he proposed to publish the first electronic Chinese literacy magazine, Xin Yu Si (New Threads 新语丝) and edited its first issue. So the xys.org is his own website. Based on above information, I don't think Fang is a reputed critics. Fnhddzs 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Put down the question of whether Fang is a qualified critics, I took a look at http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/Fang-Zhouzi/religion/2tales.doc Deng and Fang wrote the following words:

In Li’s answer to Changchun disciples (July 26, 1998), he challenged one of them asking whether true cultivation meant staying at home to cultivate instead of joining a petition protest, Li tersely replied: What do you mean by firmly and truly cultivating? As if all of us have not heard your tone? That is, you did not participate [in the Beijing protest of the Beijing Television Station in May 1998], and you are the one who “firmly and truly cultivate”? Is it what you mean? Your words were merely finding an excuse for forsaking by yourself a chance to complete cultivation. You are playing tricks on me. The reasons cannot have been expounded by me more clearly. Every event, whenever such a big event happens, is the best test to the disciples to march the best step toward completing cultivation. It was the best chance. Some of us made the stride, some still considered themselves as firmly cultivating by staying at home. Completing cultivation you are not moving toward. I will see what else you can do. You do not want completing cultivation. Cultivating! For what? Why not for completing cultivating? In fact, you are looking for an excuse for yourself, an excuse for your another heart. It was not firmly cultivating and not moving, are you firmly cultivating at normal time, such unmoved? (Changchun, 19) The purpose of Li’s message is clear: do not consider the possibility of completing cultivation alone, it demands collective efforts, contrary to the individual salvation that the “scriptures” has indicated (transporting whoever completed cultivation).

If you think the above is too long. The similar citation was used in to express such statement: From July 26th 1998 onwards, addressing followers in the city of Changchun, he emphasised that practice did not consist in staying at home but, for example, in joining the peaceful demonstration that had been organised shortly before around the central Peking TV station. Such events, he said, were the best opportunity for making spiritual progress. Those preferring to practise in private were seeking excuses for their lack of firmness or courage. Submitting to the test of public practice and protestation was necessary to salvation.(20)

I found Deng and Fang seemed to be good at distorting the meaning of the article and interpret it with a false statement.

I looked up the original Teaching the Fa at the Assistants’ Fa Conference in Changchun.

There is a question and answer part, which says cultivation at home is the same as to go outside if "truly conduct yourself as a practitioner". Question: If I cultivate at home, does Teacher transform less gong for me than if I were to do the exercises at a practice site?

Teacher: If you cultivate at home, truly conduct yourself as a practitioner, and cultivate solidly and steadily, then you aren’t worse off than cultivating outside. But human beings usually have laziness in them—you can’t deny it—because your thoughts haven’t yet elevated to that level. When you stay away from the group practice environment, it’s as if you won’t be spurred on, and you lose an external condition that drives you in cultivation. For example, when we do the meditation, if other people are enduring the unbearable pain yet no one takes down his legs, you’ll feel embarrassed to take yours down. This compels you to increase your exercise time. That is, an environment like that pushes you forward in many respects. Without that environment, if you don’t handle yourself well, you won’t be spurred on by that external factor, you might slack off, and you won’t manage to be diligent. Although you’re still practicing, your progress might be much slower. That’s the relationship. If you’re really able to handle yourself well, then it makes no difference where you practice. The only concern is that you might not handle yourself well. Even though some people may say, “I can be self-disciplined,” I believe some people, but not some others, because I see it very clearly: They haven’t broken through to reach that level yet.

so the location of practicing is not important.

About the incident in Beijing (maybe the TV station), there is another question and answer. Question: In the incident in Beijing and other similar ones, what about those steadfast cultivators who did actual cultivation?

Teacher: “What about those steadfast cultivators who did actual cultivation?” What do you mean by that? It seems that none of us understand what you mean. Do you mean that you didn’t participate in it, and that you “steadfastly did actual cultivation”? It sounds like you’re trying to find excuses and justifications for missing an opportunity to reach Consummation. You’re being crafty even with me. I couldn’t have explained the principles any more clearly. Every incident, every occurrence of such magnitude, is the best test and best opportunity for students to make that best step toward Consummation. Some of us were able to step forward. Some felt that they [did the right thing by] not making a move for the sake of actual cultivation. If Consummation is at hand and you still won’t move, I wonder what you would move for. You don’t really want to achieve Consummation and only want to cultivate. What are you cultivating for? Aren’t you cultivating for Consummation? You’re actually looking for excuses for yourself, trying to find excuses for another attachment of yours. That’s not doing actual cultivation and remaining unaffected. In all the situations of your everyday life, are you truly performing as someone who does actual cultivation and remaining so unaffected?

I think that is the quotes based on which Deng and Fang draw the conclusion that "do not consider the possibility of completing cultivation alone". However, that Q&A is for that incident. If we are faced with a fire or something, should we go out to put out the fire or stay home meditating? That does not mean, we should only go out any time. The previous Q&A already mentioned cultivation at home is ok. There are more articles on home or together. I won't cite here. Basically, in my memory, new practitioners are recommended to go to the site to get help. It is up to individuals. My personal experience is when I do it alone, I could be lazy. We have a group practice each week locally. I value that time since I found I hardly found other times to do a complete excercise by my own at home. When I got super busy, I don't even go to the group exercise.

What I mean is that, the critics themselves are problematic. When we reply, we have to cite the original Falun Gong teachigns in quotes. That is the most strong reply. If we are not allowed to cite the quotes, do you require us to publish something else to a website as Fang's:)? Or this article only likes to report the critics, but not likes to report how problematic the critics is? Fnhddzs 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, this is absolutely the place to report "how problematic the critics" are. The problem with your analysis is that it's your analysis, and counts as Original Research. That is a different thing than the suitability of the website that associated with them that you raise first - for that, we go by Wikipedia guidelines. CovenantD 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I found complaints that Fang did plagiarism on his research : He translated some writing by others from English to Chinese and publish on Chinese magazine  as his. Currently Fang seems in China.

Fang not only criticized Christianity, slanders Falun Gong, also he misinformed China people that 60-70% U.S. food contains genetic-transformed contents without labeling so. However, FDA had policy that “FDA will require special labeling if the composition of a food developed through genetic engineering differs significantly from its conventional counterpart.” since July 1995 He cheated China people that genetically-transformed foods are safe because U.S. people have eaten them for over 10 years. I strongly protest we cite Fang's stuff. Fnhddzs 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe mine is original research. So we would rather cite a false research instead of original but maybe more reasonable research? What I can do to make my research not original? Set up a website like Fang's? Fang's research is as original as mine, except putting on his own website. Strongly protest! Fnhddzs 21:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you haven't already done so, please go read No original research. That should answer most of the questions you ask. CovenantD 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources should help too. CovenantD 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh...the old Falun Gong trick of attacking the critics. This is nonsense.  You can introduce rebuttal material using another critic's comments, but not simply disqualify a critic because of alleged personal bias.  Deng and Fang's work was presented at a conference and actually has undergone more peer review than the highly suspect "scientific findings" of Falun Gong practitioner and apologist Lili Feng.--Tomananda 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm interested about Deng and Fang's work going through peer review, would you please find me sources to back this up? In addition, I'd like to highlight that the policy against "original research" did not prevent Wikipedia editors from trying to dispute Lili Feng's position as a reputable academian by digging up her comments that didn't directly relate to the issue at hand. (Of course, I have nothing against doing this, I'm just pointing out what I believe is a double standard.) How wouldn't it be okay to mention that Fang is accused of scientific plagiarism and far-fetched claims about U.S. gene manipulation? In addition, he is a biochemist, not a social scientist or a scholar of religious studies. I have repeatedly stated that we ought to keep a wary eye on false authority. And again, I state that I have nothing against including Deng and Fang's opinions in the article, provided that they are balanced by background information and critical commentaries.


 * For some reason many people have a hard time comprehending that cultural studies are actually a branch of science. For instance, a layman or an expert of another field would be inept to analyze and define biochemical reactions, but when it comes to deconstruction of cultural phenomena, everybody seems to claim competence. ---Olaf Stephanos 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Olaf...if you want to reject the opinions of writers because of an absence of what you consider the appropriate academic credentials, we should definitely reject whatever Master Li says about science, human sexuality, sociology and comparative religion for starters. I believe Li Hongzhi was a high school drop out from a country town in China. He does not have a basic college education, much less any advanced credentials.  Roughly at the age of 40 he took advantage of the Qi Gong boom in China to develop a new career...actually, a new religion. Why should anyone take what he says seriously?   --Tomananda 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I have a reason to believe that Master Li has different epistemological means of approaching reality. I, for example, have university education, but I find Li's approach intriguing and probably veracious. Of course, he doesn't utilize academic language - he probably even couldn't. That's not the point. The ancient Chinese doctors didn't learn modern science either, but that didn't prevent them from comprehensively describing the passages of energy in the body. And it is possible they knew a lot more than that, maybe they could even look into the human body with their third eye, etc. And how did they learn about the five elements, for example? Yin and yang? If Li simply "took advantage of the Qi Gong boom in China to develop a new career", why do you think his method was deemed the most effective by tens of millions of qigong practitioners in China? Why did it initially get such appraisals from the Qigong Research Society? Do you think the Chinese qigong practitioners are not culturally competent to evaluate different systems and their effectiveness? It goes without saying that convincing empirical proof is required if people decide to switch into an entirely new system after practicing some other qigong for a long time. These are questions that most critics are not willing to address seriously. Falun Gong's movements are extremely simple, yet their efficiency is unparalleled. Qigong is not aerobics or callisthenics - it's not about training muscles or burning fat. I'd say that any John Doe or Wong Dong just cannot cook up an intricate qigong practice system. On the other hand, Deng and Fang are just basic scientists who seem to step over the boundary of their own area of expertise. --Olaf Stephanos 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CovenantD. I checked wiki policy Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing. WP:V says: "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic."

So Fang's personal website cannot be used as source about others.

I am actually also a bit confused. You asked Dilip to find evidence of Fang's source problem. So I did research for the sake of that. Then my research is treated as useless in the name of original research. Ok. It's ok not to report my research on wiki. But it is useful to prove the problem with source of Fang, isn't it? Fnhddzs 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Deng and Fang's article was presented to the annual conference of the American Family Foundation in 2000. It is a legitmate academic paper. If a paper of this type cannot be used in Wikipedia, neither can anything coming from Clearwisdom, which is a private website. Actually, the Deng and Fang piece has more legitimacy than most of what comes from the Falun Gong because it builds its arguments on fully sourced material, which can't be said for the Falun Gong. --Tomananda 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearwisdom has articles about Falun Gong and the situation of Falun Gong in China. Therefore, "self-published sources maybe used [...] as sources of information on themselves, and [...] in articles about them." They are directly relevant to an article about Falun Gong, much more so than a lot of other sources we have been quoting. The American Family Foundation is hardly a scientific venue, and the papers don't have to go through peer review. If the paper was published in a social sciences journal, for example, it would have a lot more credibility. As somebody who has studied these fields, I can easily see that it would never pass such critical scrutiny, of course. But if you consent to letting us balance the Deng and Fang paper with some background information about the authors, like you did with Lili Feng, I have nothing against the inclusion of their stuff. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we use Deng and Fang when needed, find other sources if possible, and include published accounts of the problem with their research. Agreed? CovenantD 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference betweeen Falun Gong and Qi Gong
Sorry practitioners, but the opinions of critics will be reported in this article and the way for you to deal with it, as Uncle Ed has said, is to add your own critical commentary. The above discussion is not on topic. It might be interesting how each of you approaches your own cultivation practice, but that discussion is not relevant to our editing task. Just to remind you, the topic we are now discussing is the difference beteen Falun Gong and Qi Gong.

Deng and Fang make the following point about that topic: Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.”

You have offered nothing in response to that point, so I guess you all agree with it, correct?--Tomananda 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give them a little more time to answer. I hardly understand the Deng & Fang quote myself. They seem be alluding to another idea about energy, but I'd sure like to know what that other idea *is*. I suppose I should go read the entire Teachings of Falun Gong article.


 * But what is the cause of energy? How is cultivation of one's character related to energy? What's with the funny exercises? Are they like self-inflicted stress positions? Is FG masochistic, or someting like medieval monks wearing hair shirts?


 * And what specifically is different between Qi and Falun ideas of energy? Let's get away from the quibble about "is too, is not" and focus on the what and how, shall we? --Uncle Ed 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. Maybe if we stay on this topic (not as controversial as some of the others) we can develop a model for cooperation.  I believe the main point Deng and Fang make about the uniqueness of Li's theory of Gong is it's causality.  I gather that in traditional Qi Gong practices the practitioners develop their gong (energy) without requiring the direct intervention of a "master."  And in Falun Gong's version of Qi Gong it appears that one's gong is atually transfromed from one's accumulated De (virtue).  So those are the two mains points of departure, or so it seems. --Tomananda 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did not check carefully what is discussed here. But let me briefly intrude several word about Qi. I just tried to search the source. Please check here for part of details. Falun Gong thinks that "Yet qi is merely qi—you have qi, he has qi, and one person’s qi cannot have a restraining effect on another’s qi. "... "A person who obtains advanced abilities through cultivation does not emit qi."... "Instead, he or she emits a cluster of high energy. It is a high-energy substance that manifests in the form of light, and its particles are fine and its density is high. This is gong. " Fnhddzs 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: You still haven't responded to the question. The claim is that Falun Gong's version of Qi Gong is different from all other versions of Qi Gong because of the role Master Li plays in the development of Gong. Is that statement true or not? Also, Ed, please read the discussion above about the Deng and Fang article. Editors are now challenging its use a critical source in this article, even though it (or an earlier version) was presented to the annual meeting of the American Family Foundation in 2000. If we reject the Feng and Dang article, we will have to reject a lot of other stuff, and I can't believe that makes any sense. --Tomananda 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there precedent for rejecting a source? I thought we could just say that Source A calls Li's approach unique while Source B says it's pretty much the same. Why do we have to evaluate the sources? It's just like Bush said he went to all his drills, and CBS said he missed half of them. We just let the READER decide which source is more credible. Or like global warming again: the United Nations climate panel says GW theory is correct and the Kyoto Protocol is our only hope; Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton say it's a bunch of hot air. If you trust the UN, you'll pick Kyoto; if you trust Lindzen and Crichton, you'll reject it. We should *we* try to make up the reader's mind for him? --Uncle Ed 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki need reliable sources. Reliable_sources Verifiability am I wrong?

Sorry I try to respond the question from Tomananda now: "The claim is that Falun Gong's version of Qi Gong is different from all other versions of Qi Gong because of the role Master Li plays in the development of Gong." Well, what do other versions of Qi Gong say? I thought all cultivation systems follow that cultivation is your(practitioner's) responsibility, but energy is transformed by the Master. This is definitely my own words. Here is the quotes: "There’s a saying in the cultivation world, "Cultivation is up to you, gong is up to the master." " So it seems that the Master's role is not unique for Falun gong.

There are a lot of quotes regarding masters of qigong or qigong master. Quite complicated to summarize in one or two words. In my understanding, Falun Gong said genuine "Qigong is About Cultivation", but these in public spread did not usually teach higher level principles or teachings and they just teach a level for fitness. There are also sham qigong. Falun Gong was introduced to the public in the beginning as a qigong, but it is different with other qigong spread in public. Sorry write here for now. Fnhddzs 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fnhddzs: Again, that is not an answer. I don't think the question is so complicated. It appears you are uncomfortable speaking for yourself in this matter or doing independent research. By continually going to Li's writings for an answer demonstrates an intellectual dependency on the Master which might limit your ability to do appropriate edits in the Controversy and criticism section. The opinions of critics, commentators and other writers are needed to present different POV's in these sections.  In this case, the claim is rather straigt forward:  Falun Gong's version of Qi Gong is different from all other versions of Qi Gong in some important ways.  Surely someone who knows about different kinds of  Qi Gong has written about this subject? I suggest you read some other sources on this subject...you might be surprised what you find out! --Tomananda 05:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed, normally I would agree with you about accepting sources and letting the reader decide, but in the case of disagreements Wikipedia does have guidelines that we can fall back on. I deal with the comics articles a lot and one of the things we're constantly dealing with on them is "official" web sites versus "fanboy" sites. If you think this is something, you should see the winnowing out that happens with those! Most external links are rejected. CovenantD 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Covenant: The analogy you make to magazine "fanboy" sites is telling. In the case of the Deng and Fang article, whose legitimacy as a source is being disputed above, we are talking about a serious work of scholarship that was presented at an annual conference of the American Family Foundation. (Which is now called the International Cultic Studies Association).  Ed asked if we have any precedent for rejecting a source, and the answer is no.  But there has certainly been challenges, including to the obviously biased Epoch Times which is run by Falun Gong practitioners.  It's clear to me that the practitioners are going to challenge any critical content. Rather than addressing the criticism, we get endless dodges. I, for one, would like to move forward.  --Tomananda 05:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to make an exception to the general rule, but cautiously. First of all, the Falun Gong movement (and reaction to it by governments and the general public) are much weightier matters than pop culture. Secondly, we are deadlocked and need to get some info into the article. Thirdly, it is possible to explain why certain sources seem doubtful, in terms of One Side saying that it dismisses the credibility of the Other Side.


 * As I said before, it's like the Global warming controversy. One side (the UN's IPCC) is seen as authoritative and presenting a scientific consensus. Who knows, they may even be "right"? The other side (GW "skeptics") claim that they have the "real truth" and have been unfairly dismissed by the establishment. Should Wikipedia take sides with the UN, and reject any info given by the other side on the grounds that "it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"? Or should it indicate that there is a controversy over who is allowed to say what in the public arena about GW?


 * In political and religious controversies, the first line of attack is generally to say that "my opponents" have no right to a voice. They are not theologians, or they are heretics, or they are brainwashed puppets clearly lying to protect their master, or they are bitter apostates who will do anything for a buck, etc. ad nauseum.


 * Are we contributors really so wise that we can evaluate all sources objectively? What if there is a genuine and significant controversy over which sources can be trusted? --Uncle Ed 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My analogy is telling of what, Tomananda? I haven't evaluated the sources in contention here, merely pointed to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that may be applied and responded to the question "Is there precedent for rejecting a source?" with the first example that came to mind. I am not taking sides here, if that's what you're implying. I've said all along that sources, and critiques of sources, need to be referenced. CovenantD 14:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that i really feel that this article doesn't seem to say anything. I mean sure it's supposed to be an article about the controversies in Falun Gong. But basicly all of the things it mentions are merely prejudices which came up AFTER the massive propaganda-campaign by the Chinese Communist Party, AFTER it started its persecution of Falun Gong. These "controversies" didn't originate from the the actual teachings of Falun Gong, viewed as a whole.

Don't belive me? Than how come the article doesnt actually state anything, or has the actual quotes from the Falun Gong teachings?

This entire article just alleges something and than turns it arround and say's "But it may not be true". *lol*

Than what is the point of such an article? If one remembers that this in reality isn't even an article but an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, it seems even more so that one has the feeling of "what's the point of those Wikipedia guys stating something if they aren't sure THEMSELVES if it is true?"

I mean you American and Chinese guys are really funny sometimes (-:

Just look at how incredible gigantic and well referenced your discussion is, and how small and entirely without any references your actual article is. *lol*

Manuel


 * Covenant: Your example was telling in the sense that it provided such a contrast to the particular source we are now discussing. If a source for a Wikipedia article represents an academic paper that has been accepted for presentation by a respected association in that field, and the members of that association are a combination of academics, helping professionals and people effected by the subject matter, how can that be compared to a "fanboy" site? Papers are presented at meetings of hundreds of associations each year, and many of these are not subsequently published in a journal because not all of the associations have that kind of money. Actually, in the case of the AFF a version of this particular paper may have been published in it's journal, and in any case an abstract of the paper would have been published in the Conference program.  (Now the ICSA, which is the new name of the AFF, publishes abstracts of all its conference papers on-line, but I don't believe that was the case back in 2000.)  As I said before, I can't believe that Wikipedia policy would exlude a paper of this sort as a source because, in its present form, it may only be accesible on a private web site.  A policy such as that would have the unintended consequence of excluding an enormous amount of critical information from Wikipedia articles.  So at a certain level, if we are going to challenge each side's sources as we go along (and I am capable of playing that game), we may need to ask Uncle Ed to clarify the policy.  But actually, I think he already has in his statement above.  --Tomananda 18:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the problem, Tomananda. You've mistaken my use of an example of sources being tossed for a comparison of the value of the sources. I had no such comparison of value in mind. Quite honestly, I haven't gone so far as to evaluate the sources for this article yet. I've followed a few links to make sure they say what they're reported to say, but no more. This discussion isn't played out yet and I have plenty of time before it is :) CovenantD 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No no... you didn't get what i mean... I mean the title of the article is: "Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong". So i am wondering "what's the point of having an article which contains only seemingly impossible to proof controversies?"

I mean I surely don't wan't to only "gush praise" Falun Gong.

What i mean is you should have an Article which instead of ADDING to disputes an controveries, settles them.

How you do it?

By simply only stating the facts, instead of the gossip.

And if you than relize that this is impossible because you don't have any facts, than mayby you schouldn't have such an article untill you have facts.

This isn't only applicable to articles related to Falun Gong or the Chinese Communist Party, but to ALL Wikipedia entries as a whole.

Manuel


 * Actually, Manuel, until you have something useful to contribute I'm pretty much ignoring you. CovenantD 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The insistence by Li that FLG is superior to all other styles of qigong is noteworthy. It is a purely subjective differentiation to an outsider, but Li does report it in his lectures fairly often. Unless reported (or complained about) by an outside source though, I think Li's statements on the subject should be mentioned at the FLG teachings article, not this article, as I've said elsewhere. --Fire Star 火星 08:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of brainwashing
Cut from article:


 * Some Western cult experts have claimed that Li Hongzhi controls his disciples through "manipulative techniques" such as "mind control".

I googled this and only found Rick Ross and IndyMedia web sites quoting our own Wikipedia contributor Samuel Luo. Um, Samuel, aren't you more a "relative" of a cultist than a cult expert? (What is a "cult expert" anyway? We don't even have an article on that.) --Uncle Ed 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed: Your statement surprises me.  There are many psychologists and other professionals who have devoted much of their work to the dectructive nature of cults.  You can't rely on Google to fairly represent this field, but you can certainly do a search in Wikipedia itself to discover a number of these published and well-respected experts.  Included in the list are: Margaret Singer and Steven Hassan,  both of whom have written about the maniuplative or "mind control" techniques of cult leaders in general,  and Li Hongzhi specifically.  I ask that you check these out for yourself and then revert that sentence.  There is no justification whatsover for not reporting this material.  --Tomananda 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Although Wikipedia does not have an article called cult experts, it does have an article on Cult and it's important to point out that many present or past members of the International Cultic Studies Association (previously called the American Familty Foundation) are listed in the bibliography section.  Included in that list are Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, Robert Lifton and Herbert Rosedale.  There are many more, but the fact that one can so quickly find Wikipedia articles on some of these names suggests that the field of cultic studies is not just a pasing phase, but rather a serious effort to investigate the phenomenon of cultish control.  --Tomananda 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I probably said too much at one time.

My reason for cutting the unsourced statement is that I couldn't find anyone (other than Luo) who used terms like "mind control" or "manipulative techniques" in reference to FG or Li. If you have a source for such a statement, please supply it and restore the quote. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed, having a bizarre teaching does not make a group a cult. It is the unethical and psychosocial manipulation a group uses to indoctrinate people into believing its belief that makes a group a cult.  I have spent many hours talking with practitioners; virtually all of them truly believe that Li is “the infallible god” (they do not use that word but it is unmistakably implied) who is purifying their illnesses, providing them protection, longevity and will eventually turn them into gods.  Now, why would people who have known Li for no more than 13 years believe this man who breathes like everyone else has the kind of power that only god possesses?  Doesn’t this suggest some kind of manipulation like brainwashing?

In the last four years I have red many books about cults and been to cultic studies conferences, I am not an academic but I am what they call a non-academic cult expert. But more importantly I am a Falun Gong expert; my knowledge about the teachings and practices of Falun Gong is thorough.

In the opinion of many American cult experts the Falun Gong is a cult. Please read the following statement from America’s leading cult expert Dr. Margaret Singer. “I have no doubt that Falun Gong has many of the characteristics of a true cult, including utter obedience to a charismatic leader, coercive thought control, financial exploitation of its followers, a doomsday prediction that promises salvation only through total obedience and subservience to the cult leader, zero tolerance for dissent, and a very strict organization from which it is difficult to escape.” (source: Cults in Our Midst revised edition, 2003, page 352.)

By the way, here is a definition of brainwashing: 1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs. 2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation. (American Heritage Dictionary) --Samuel Luo 21:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What "they" call a "non-academic cult expert"? Well, I guess I could call myself an academic cult expert then, because I've read a lot about cults, but I also have an academic degree in religious studies. And I'm a Falun Gong practitioner, so my knowledge about the teachings and practices of Falun Gong is thorough as well. Oh, and I've met Master Li. Unfortunately, non-academic cult experts have a rather bad reputation among us academic experts... (see how senseless it is to appeal to one's own authority?)


 * It's a pity that Margaret Singer has already passed away; what made her say these things will remain a mystery. I have never seen any of these characteristics in Falun Gong, and they sound highly slanderous, but I'm especially interested about the "financial exploitation of its followers". Or "a very strict organisation from which it is difficult to escape". How come a great majority of Falun Gong researchers has arrived at an opposite conclusion? Margaret Singer is only undermining her own credibility by concocting such accusations. Maybe her 80+ years had taken their toll.


 * Now, let me get this straight. I am perfectly aware that harmful groups do exist, and they fall directly under the category of "cults". On the other hand, many people would like to apply the cultic typology to every group they perceive heterodox, i.e. posing a challenge to the currently accepted scientific explanation of the world. Even "intelligent design" has been labeled a "sect of creationists". Words "sect" and "cult" are habitually used for disparagement and otherization of controversial phenomena. This is something that hardcore anti-cultists rarely talk about. There is immense variance in groups labeled with such tags. Falun Gong didn't start out in the institutional field of religion. Sure, the practitioners may postulate ontological categories ("a living Buddha", "fashen", etc.) or epistemological approaches ("third eye", etc.) that you deem potty. That doesn't make Falun Gong a cult, nor does it mean that the practitioners are brainwashed. For example, a lot of people still disagree with traditional Chinese medicine and say that qi or meridians do not exist at all - they're simply quackery and TCM is just a pseudo-scientific sect. You see the point? People accept different things as possible or not possible, proven or refuted, scientific or non-scientific, religious or spiritual, and so on. Also, controversies within the cultic studies are well-known (for example, see Ph.D. Michael D. Langone's article: ). I'm not sure how much a "non-academic cult expert" would normally come into contact with the real disputes, but if you're genuinely interested about the things you should know, I can give you some literary recommendations. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Add my two cents: As far as I know, Falun Gong is legal in all other countries/areas including Hong Kong and Macow. This is self-evident. If it is harmful, we are humuliating the intelligence of all these countries/areas. I heard of that, the Japan Police Department is diligent and had researched Falun Gong even before the Falun Gong teachings' Japanese version was available online. They have all their good reason to grant Falun Gong permission when they applied for a non-profit organization. We all know that Japan suffered some dangerous cult named ? (they emits harmful gas in subway/trains). But Japan Police Department is resonable with Falun Gong based on their intelligence information. Fnhddzs 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Olaf, you are what they call an academic cult member because you truly believe an ordinary human being whom you met in person has the power of “the God” which suggests that you have lost your ability to distinguish truth from false. And you are engaging in a campaign to deceive the public by concealing the true teachings of Falun Gong.  The Falun Gong is legal outside of mainland China because it has not violated the laws in those countries; see what happens if the Falun Gong attacks the critics in these countries like the way it did in mainland China.

--Samuel Luo 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...so we now resort to ridiculing Dr. Margaret Singer because of her age! Look guys, no one expects a Falun Gong practitioner to agree that Li Hongzhi is a manipulative cult leader. It will never happen. I challenge Olaf and Fnhddza to state publicly there is one teaching of Master Li that you disagree with. If you can't do that, how can I take your pronouncements about FG not being a cult seriously? Olaf, you may be proud of your academic credentials, but you have clearly lost your ability to think independently from Master Li.

Unless you say otherwise, I must conclude that you believe everything Li Hongzhi has ever said. Li says he is preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it! He is saving mankind from a great catastrophe. WOW! And he has traveled to Jesus's paradise and found that there are no yellow people there! How sad! And he will turn Olaf and Fnhddzs into gods just as long as you do what he demands of you! Obey the Master and you will go to Falun Gong paradise. Disobey the master and he will stop protecting you and the demons will get you! Scary stuff!!!

If you can't see why your relationship with Master Li is thought to be uhealthy, manipulative and destructive by many Western psychologists, I can't really help you. Actually, I wish I could help you and other practitioners by helping you to recognize the destructive nature of your dependency on Master Li. But as long as you remain in Li's closed circle of logic, it will be so very difficult for you to break out of the bonds. It will happen, but it will take time. --Tomananda 19:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How can I disagree with something I cannot know of? True, Master Li has made some statements that I find out of the ordinary, but I do not practice Falun Gong because of them. I practice it because it is an excellent cultivation method of mind and body. It is possible that Li Hongzhi knows what he's talking about. Human history is full of peculiar myths and tales; it is only through our modern eyes that we have deemed them mostly fictional. Whether Master Li is "preventing the explosion of the universe" or not, whether there are yellow people in Jesus' paradise or not... these things do not affect my daily life, studies, relationships and cultivation practice at all. Why should I have an opinion about such matters? Of course, I do not believe that they are entirely impossible, either.


 * I would never believe anyone making wild claims if they couldn't provide at least some kind of interface to prove their point. Like every veteran practitioner, I know Falun Gong has supernatural effects, and I know other dimensions exist, so we're talking about anomalous phenomena to begin with. I have chosen to explore this practice because I've found it extremely interesting through my own experiences, and it doesn't matter if some questions remain open, unanswered or ambiguous for now. My physical body has undergone such transformations and my mental state is so much more lucid that I know Falun Gong is quite extraordinary. Even if you don't agree with Li's Dharma, why don't you give it a shot and try the full set of exercises for a few times. Maybe you wouldn't keep on practicing, but possibly they'd give you something to think about, and possibly you'd understand why many people have become enthusiasts. Things are not so black-and-white as you may currently feel.


 * On the other hand, you didn't even bother to comment on my analysis. Please pay closer attention to your habit of resorting to personal attacks on your opponents' rationality when you cannot think of any reasoned arguments. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You mistake my comments. I do not wish to atack you because I see you as victim of Master Li. It's Li who is at fault here and all I wish to do is make him accountable for his actions.  You are young, well-educated, idealistic and searching for answers.  But ironically, it's often the best educated people who get sucked up into cults.  You are correct that I did not respond to what you placed in your third paragraph above because I had such a hard time dealing with the first two paragraphs.  In your zealousness to defend the reputation of Li's teachings you slammed a very brave pioneer in the field of cultic studies, Dr. Margaret Singer. If you apologize for having done that, I will post a serious response to your third paragraph.--Tomananda 19:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Please note that I updated my comment above.) OK, I apologize for having slammed Margaret Singer because of her age. What I really meant was that a lot of people tend to view the world through rigid notions when they get older, especially if they've devoted a lot of their life to a decided mission. Even Dr. Margaret Singer makes mistakes, and she has received criticism from many researchers of cultic phenomena. Some of her claims about Falun Gong are so far-fetched that they cannot be interpreted simply as extremely subjective points of view. There is absolutely no financial exploitation of practitioners, for example. It is almost as if she had prematurely taken some typical characteristics of cults from her checklist and hoped to eventually prove them applicable to Falun Gong. That's what makes me really suspect her motives as a scientist. ---Olaf Stephanos 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Olaf: Thank you for the apology and revision of your comment about Dr. Margaret Singer. I will consider your thoughts in paragraph three and post a response at some point. --Tomananda 07:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Olaf, one of the differences between a non-cult member and a cult member is that the first asks for verification before believing in something while the latter would say: “How can I disagree with something I cannot know of?” Falun Gong practitioners are free to believe in whatever they want; I have no objection to that.  But when practitioners deliberately misrepresent and conceal the true teachings of Falun Gong to the public, such deception must be pointed out.  I am not the only one who acknowledged the deceptive Falun Gong PR, the following statement is from Dr. Lanegone, director of ICSA.  “The members I met at our conference seem, for the most part, to be well-intentioned.  However, nearly all of us who participated in the discussion with them felt very strongly that they were "spinning" us, that they had a public relations agenda.  Their goal clearly seemed to be to portray Falun Gong as simply a spiritual exercise aiming to promote a love of truth, compassion, and tolerance (this triad seems to vary; sometimes, for example, it is expressed as truth, benevolence, and forbearance).  We clearly encountered resistance when we pressed them, for example, on the nature of their relationship to Li.” (Source: Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. “Reflections on Falun Gong and The Chinese Government,” Cultic Studies Review, 2003.)--Samuel Luo 23:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is once again becoming more about Falun Gong than about the article. FOUCUS, PEOPLE, FUCUS!!! CovenantD 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hassan takes the bite out of mind control accusations

 * I am not convinced that this group fulfills my BITE model in its entirety. I have not had an opportunity to interview any individuals who have been very involved with this group and decided to leave. I do have a strong impression that Thought control and Phobia indoctrination (emotional control) is very much used.

That's the first quote I found by googling "Li Hongzhi (singer OR hassan)". Your turn: look up Singer, please? --Uncle Ed 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed: As we ourselves report in the Wikipedia section "Is Falun Gong a cult?" there is not agreement among the experts on exactly what constitutes "mind control" (hence the use of quotes), however, it is inaccurate to suggest that Steven Hassan is not concerned about Li Hongzhi's manipulative influence over Falun Gong practitioners. Steven Hassan and other cult experts were recently interviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle. Here's a segment from that article: Critics say that even though the movement doesn't keep formal membership lists, its demand for loyalty makes it a cult. "They're told not to think negative thoughts, and are given fears if they consider any other reality," said Steven Alan Hassan, a Somerville, Mass., cult counselor. Founder Li Hongzhi "comes very much out of the cult extreme, the authoritarian stereotype."

And here's the complete quote that you just posted from Steven Hassan's website: As far as the controls exerted by the group on individuals, I am not convinced that this group (Falun Gong) fulfills my BITE model in its entirety. I have not had an opportunity to interview any individuals who have been very involved with this group and decided to leave. I do have a strong impression that Thought control and Phobia indoctrination (emotional control) is very much used. People are made to feel that the only "true" path is by following Li Hongzhi, and that to fail to do so would result in serious physical health problems manifesting. What he is saying is that Thought control and Phobia indoctination (emotional control) is very much used by the Falun Gong. Those are his words, not mine. In order to focus our discussion more, please read the entire Wikipedia section in the frozen article titled "Is Falun Gong a cult?" I think you will agree that everything has been fairly and accurately reported. (Please note Samuel's posting above with a quote from Margaret Singer.) --Tomananda 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting Back to Work
Covenant asks that we get back to work and that's fine with me. We never came to conclusions about the first section: Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong  In that piece, Deng and Fang state that Falun Gong is different from all other Qi Gong systems because of the unique role Master Li assumes in the creation of Gong (energy). One practitioner commented that he thought all Qi Gong practices work the same way (meaning they depend on the direct intervention of a master.) Yet no one has offered a serious edit to add to this section (other than unedited text quotes from Master Li). There was also a challenge to the use of this source. I can't believe that a serious academic paper presented at a legimate annual conference in the United States would not qualify as a source, and Uncle Ed seems to support it's inclusion, but I guess that issue also needs more discussion. --Tomananda 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You may not have noticed some that I added today. Check out the last entry under "On Terminology" and "Who is Fang?" CovenantD 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're correct, I missed your post and the one before it by Olaf. Basically, I agree that we should be willing to accept edits which clearly relate to the subject matter and do not represent original research, rather than simply rejecting material because it might only appear on a private website. The test should be on relevancy and who the source is, rather than the particular form of storage.  If a known person (X) says (Y) about (Z), and that known person's statement does not represent original research to Wikipedia, then I'd be inclined to let it in. Using that standard, certainly the Lili Feng material would be permissable, as well as the material Samuel introduced a while back from Li's early students.  As I said before, a model for this approach already exists in Is Falun Gong a cult?  I introduced statements of several cult experts, and Olaf then added statements which sought to undermine their credibility.  I think that is fair game.


 * One more point: please don't assume that Deng and Fang are my only source for the Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong section. Benjamin Penny in an article entitled The Falun Gong, Buddhism and 'Buddhist qigong' (Asian Studies Review, 2005)has written about the same topic and I will be adding some of his commentary to that article as well. Honestly, I am puzzled why this particular section is such a stumbling block.  Either Falun Gong (meaning the exercises)is like other Qi Gong practices or it is not. When a critic claims that Falun Gong is different from all other Qi Gong practices because of the role the master plays in the development of Gong (energy), I would think that claim could be countered by some existing source.  Perhaps the reason some practitioners are not able to respond to this claim is that they simply have not been exposed to other forms of Qi Gong because the Master forbids it.--Tomananda 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. Let's not make this personal. :) I'm going to be looking for a slightly higher standard for something that appears on a website; I want it to be a reproduction of something presented elsewhere, whether a conference or a newpaper or a book or a lecture or something. Just a personal paper on a website is going to be met with raised eyebrows. I want to point out that there is a blockquote provided by Dilip that I want to have included, that seems to agree with the premise that words and phrases carry different meaning. I think it provides balance to the allegation by essentially saying, "sure, it's different, but that's the way it has to be." CovenantD 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of the sources that I mentioned above--Deng and Fang's academic article and the expose from Li's earliest followers--meet your proposed standard (the private website version of the expose is a reproduction of an official report submitted to the China Qi Gong Research Society). I assume the Lilli Feng material would meet your proposed standard as well.  There may be unusual situations in which we need to allow other types of private web site sources, but if we encounter that kind of situation we can discuss that particular case on its own merits. For now, in order to make some progress, I approve your standard, at least on a provisional basis.


 * Concerning Dilip's Master Li quote, I assume you mean the first one he presented, not the three paragraphs that came after it. If that's the quote you mean, I'm ok with it being added as well. There needs to be some transition written, along the lines of:  It should be pointed out, however, that when discussing the issue of Falun Gong's assingment of different meanings to traditional Qi Gong terms Master Li has stated:

"Some students were once lay Buddhists and have a very deep impression of the terms in Buddhist scriptures. When they find that I use words identical to those in Buddhism, they think that their meanings are the same as in Buddhism. In fact, they do not denote exactly the same meanings. Some terms in the Buddhism of the Han region are Chinese vocabulary, and they are not exclusively terms from Buddhism."


 * My only concern with introducing Li quotes is that we maintain some kind of balance. This is important for two reasons:  1) To preserve the principle that both sides of an argument will be given egual weight whenever possible and 2) Excessive quoting of Li..such as the three paragraphs Dilip introduced later in the discussion...will make for a very undreadable article.  The goal should be to summarize the essence of an argument with the shortest quote possible, and then direct the reader to the complete text if they want to read further.  Don't you agree?--Tomananda 06:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD your standard seems reasonable to me, however I have a question, does that mean the content of clearwisdom.net or other Falun Gong private websites will be excluded? --Samuel Luo 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using this quote: "The first issue concerns why our Dafa doesn’t follow the conventions of grammar. This has become a strong obstacle for intellectuals and those with advanced schooling, especially those who work with writing or literature, or do Chinese language studies, etc., that is, people in those disciplines. Why can’t we follow the conventions of ordinary human language when we teach the Fa? As you know, the meaning of a standardized term has been predefined: “This word means precisely XYZ.” Moreover, standardized language is limited and unable to describe the immense Fa. In this enormous cosmos, humankind’s Earth isn’t even a speck of dust in a speck of dust inside yet another speck of dust. That’s how puny it is. How could it possibly hold such an immense Fa? How could the Fa of the cosmos possibly be confined by the conventions of human languages? How could It conform to the conventions of human languages? There’s absolutely no way.

I'd rather use the one you point out, Tomananda, but it doesn't say where it's from or in what context it was first presented. If that can be found then I say we go with it. BTW, how soon can you get the sources other than Fang & Deng worked into the draft?

I also share your concern about too many quotes from Li affecting the readability of the article, but they are probably the best source of material for actual teachings. As long as they're kept short and to the point...

Samuel, it depends on the context in which ClearWisdom and other Falun Gong sites are used. If it's being used as a source on Falun Gong teachings, I'd say it meets "primary source" criteria. If it's being used to highlight something else, like persecution, then another, independent source should be found and used to avoid the controversy of "questionable" sources. (I'm not expressing my opinion, merely reflecting what others have expressed, hence the quotation marks.) CovenantD 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I remember practitioners used a personal statement from clearwisdom.net in “Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong” section. The following is the statement in question: “Li refused the house according to the practitioner who bought the house in this letter [8]. The house which Mr. Li admitted to living in in the report was at least partially paid for by James Pang, ‘who was among Mr. Li's first followers in the U.S. and helped rent the Queens apartment for Mr. Li.’” According to wikipedia standards and what you are saying here, this statement will have to go. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That bit is no longer in the article, so it's a bit difficult for me to comment on it. I seem to remember thinking that the entire section needed work to provide balance since it seemed to be reverted back and forth a lot. CovenantD 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On a different note, I see that a couple of other sections, Li as a savior or supernatural entity and Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions, have gone many days without any suggestions for edits, so I'm going to move them into the main article. Once again, this is done with the understanding that any further edits will be discussed on this talk page first. CovenantD 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Covenant: By "move them to the main article" I assume you mean the main Controversy and criticism article, right? As far as I'm concerned, the Li as savior or supernatural entity is ready to go.  The next article, Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions had some questions I need to respond to, which I will do shortly.  --Tomananda 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We fought over that statement over and over again. I deleted it because it does not meet the wikipedia standards but practitioners restored it.  Since we are now talking about qualification of sources, this makes a good example.  Do you believe it should be included or excluded?  --Samuel Luo 22:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how to evaluate this without context. I've sat here for 20 minutes, thinking about it from one angle after another and always reaching the conclusion that I don't know why it was included in the first place. It's obviously in response to something, but what? I'm at a loss without that. Since it's not in there currently, and you obviously don't want it returned, I'm not even sure it's an issue right now. Besides, wasn't that on the other talk page? ;) CovenantD 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cult quotes: can we get a balance?
I asked for quotes in addition to Hassan, and I got one from Margaret Singer. The quote from Hassan sounds mild - not nearly as harsh a slam as he gave the Moonies. The quote from Sanger seems to be "just her opinion".

I suggest we add both those quotes to the article, and let readers decide for themselves what to conclude. If they click on Singer and read the article on her, they'll run across the fact that US courts stopped accepting her as an expert witness. The APA gave her a chance to prove her mind control theory, but she couldn't convince them.

I am not arguing that she is wrong - I'm a mediator and I'm staying completely neutral here. I'm just letting you know something about Singer which POV pushers might not know. If your purpose is to condemn FG, it might not work if readers think that the APA discredited Singer.

Anyway, who cares what some so-called expert's OPINION is? Readers want to know what facts they observed which led to their conclusions. If Hassan or Singer argue that Li's charisma or semi-messianic claims make FG a cult, that's their point of view and they are welcome to it. Let's include their POV and balance it with quotes from sociologists or ex-FG practioners (if any).

Ed: have you actually read the section on Is Falun Gong a cult? It reports the statements of Hassan and Singer and follows up with the counter-POV. It is quite well balanced and has already been discussed among the editors, so for my money we don't need to revisit this one particular section...unless, after reading it, you have a different opinion. --Tomananda 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Savior section
I deleted the entire section about Li's messianic / salvific role. It's completely one-sided and non-controversial. Hasn't it already been covered in the teachings article?

There's no point rehashing it here, unless SOMEONE disputes his role. Is there anyone who says Li's "not the Messiah" or "not a savior". How about, "Neither Li nor advanced cultivators can provide healing or elevating energy to practioners. It's all a sham!" Samuel, you got a quote? --Uncle Ed 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: You can't do that! Perhaps you don't know the history of Falun Gong's self-promotion, but the ironic fact of the matter is that this section is most controversial because Falun Gong practitioners do not volunteer any of this information ever. If it doesn't appear in a Controversy and criticism section, it won't appear at all. The strategy for the Falun Gong has been to present itself as a meditative Qi Gong group, not a messianic group with a leader who assumes the role of God and savior. This material is absolutely critical for an understanding of what the Falun Gong is all about and it must stand! --Tomananda 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's it - I quit. Ed, I find it really annoying that the sections you deleted were up for editing on this talk page for five days and not once did you say anything about not wanting them included. Only after I took the time to move them over did you do anything, and that without discussing it first. If this is the kind of 'working together' I can expect, I don't see any reason to continue trying to help. CovenantD 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed, what was the title of the section you just deleted and where was it. There is a “Li as a savior or supernatural entity” section on this page, is this the one you are referring to?  --Samuel Luo 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CovenantD could you give me the link to the page where that deleted section was on? (right here, on this same talk page)


 * Uncle Ed, if what you deleted was the section called “Li as a savior or supernatural entity” then you should put it back. This section has had very little dispute from pro and con editors.  Deleting it without a discussion shows a lack of respect for all of us who have been working on this page. --Samuel Luo 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Standards for criticisms
I have just glanced over the previous discussion. There are two kinds of considerations that come immediately to mind:
 * (1) Do we judge the FLG pronouncements against a Buddhist orthodoxy?
 * (2) Do we get to make our own judgments? Or is it our job to list and contextualize if necessary the challengest made against FLG by other people?

One thing that seems clear: FLG claims to speak in the name of science, but it makes assertions about things that are not interpersonal objects. The net effect is to hold the position that people in the know can tell the lesser beings what they are supposed to believe. That is the way of revealed religion, but not of science. P0M 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Patrick: The problem with writing about the Falun Gong is that practitioners, with the encouragement of Li himself, habitually conceal what they call teachings "at the higher level" from the general public. Although the material is all available on their websites, very few people have the time or patience to read through the teachings and get an accurate picture. A case in point:  when I first introduced Li Hongzhi quotes showing that he claims to be the only savior of mankind at this time, practitioners challenged it. Even though they all believe in Li as their god and savior, they do not talk to "ordinary people" about it.  What's more, Li's core teaching called Fa-rectification...the belief that Li's great law of the universe is now judging all people and weeding out many human beings because of their corrupt behavior...was not even mentioned in the original article!  When I introduced edits to simply report those teachings, more arguments and deletions ensued.  Right now even the mediator, Ed Poor, seems to have a problem with reporting this stuff, or at least doesn't grasp why it is so controversial.


 * So when you ask "Do we judge the FLG pronouncements against a Budhist orthodoxy?" my answer would be we first have to report how FG differs from traditional Buddhist orthodoxy.


 * And when you ask "Do we get to make our own judgments?' the anwser is no, since that would amount to original research.  But as it turns out, there are many comparative or critical writings about the Falun Gong which can be reported here. --Tomananda 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is "habitually concealing" anything. On the other hand all practitioners have been encouraging everyone to go through the teaching of Falun Dafa. Dilip rajeev 10:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dilip: Have you had a change of heart?  When I first introduced edits to reveal that Li claims to be the only savior for mankind during this dharma ending period, you challenged me over and over again.  If you have a new attitude of openness about reporting the teachings "at the higher levels"  you should agree that the Li as savior or supernatural entity is correct.  In just one sentence, how would you describe Li Hongzhi in terms of his alleged divinity?  And if you were to write a second sentence using your own words, what would you say about Li's promise to turn you into a god some day?  --Tomananda 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Li's pronouncements about things, such as his own evaluations of his and FLG's superiority to other systems, even if no one has publically crticised them, can be reported at the FLG teachings article. Reported, not commented on. --Fire Star 火星 08:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tomananda, you're venturing very close to baiting and taunting Dilip. This article isn't about what Dilip says about Li's 'alleged divinity.' CovenantD 17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Covenant: I certainly don't mean to bait Dilip, but I do wish to challenge him to respond honestly and seriously to issues about the article.  Dilip has a long history of introducing non-related content in these discussion pages which have the effect of diluting our editing efforts. See my most recent response to him below.  --Tomananda 21:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor what are you doing?
Ed Poor, after reviewing the record of your edits on the article I am not sure you are the mediator we need here. For whatever reason, you seem to believe that you can delete sections without talking to any of us first. As a mediator you are not supposed to edit the page but give guidelines. Isn’t that how a mediator is supposed to work?

Request for Another Mediator
Covenant: Please come back to work on this article. It is now clear to me that Ed Poor is not the right mediator for this topic. I have just sent an e-mail to the chair of the mediation committe asking that another mediatior be assigned. Here's a copy of what I just sent:

Essjay:

Please help us editors working on the frozen article on Falun Gong. Recently a mediator named Ed Poor introduced himself to the page and offered to help us sort out our disputes on the content. At first it seemed to be working, but Ed has now taken to doing much editing and deleting of content he apparently doesn't approve of...in some cases, that content has already been agreed to by the editors themselves.

After doing a bit of research I discovered that Ed Poor is not the neutral third party we all thought him to be. Apparantly he is a member of the Unification Church and has a particular bias against any of the cult experts whose commentary some of the editors have taken weeks to introduce into the article. If you check the history page, you will get an idea of what has just happened:



You should also read the most recent discussion on the Talk: Criticism and controversy page at:



You'll find there that one of our most neutral editors, Covenant, has announced he is quiting because of Ed's tactics. --Tomananda 05:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here's a link to an Ed Poor page in which he blasts Herbert Rosedale, one of the founders of the International Cultic Studies Association, for criticizing the Unification Church:



Clearly Ed Poor cannot play the role of a neutral mediator for this article. It's ok that he believes in Reverend Moon as the true messiah and the True Parent. It's his bias as a mediator which is the problem. Surely there is a mediator who is neither a cult member nor an anti-cult advocate who can help with this article?

--Tomananda 05:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I4t was Ed who gave us a stub which he tried to make as neutral as possible. I think he has the right to edit his stub. Fnhddzs 06:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I am sorry if CovenantD would leave. Thanks for all your hard work. Fnhddzs 06:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to what has already been said by Covenant, Samuel and myself about Ed's editing the article (rather than mediating) here are some samples of his bias against cult experts from his postings above:


 * The title Steve Hassan takes the bit out of mind control accusation...it's totally inappropriate for someone playing the role of mediator to let that kind of POV be exposed.


 * His generally snide comments about cult experts further proves the point. Here's a sample:


 * Anyway, who cares what some so-called expert's OPINION is? Readers want to know what facts they observed which led to their conclusions. If Hassan or Singer argue that Li's charisma or semi-messianic claims make FG a cult, that's their point of view and they are welcome to it. Let's include their POV and balance it with quotes from sociologists or ex-FG practioners (if any).


 * Actually, a lot of people care about what cult experts have to say and it's not the role of a neutral mediator to insert his personal bias against one side or another. Sorry, but this is clearly a topic which Ed has strong feelings about.  We need a new mediator.  --Tomananda 07:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request you in all sincerity that you stop personal attacks on people. Failing that, I am reporting your words and actions. We chose Ed as the Moderator and Ed is the moderator here unless the majority decides he is not. Dilip rajeev 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This group of editors did not choose Ed; he chose to involve himeself. He is not here in an official role as mediator, thus he's just another editor.
 * He made a HUGE mistake in blanking several sections that he didn't help craft without prior discussion.
 * Some people would consider that vandalism.
 * It wasn't his stub that he removed (not edited, removed) - it was the same text that has been on this talk page for four days without any suggestions for improvement. Only after the time limit that was discussed passed did I move those article with no active discussions.
 * I've just replaced them in the article because I no longer see Ed as a mediator for this discussion, with the leniency afforded mediators in their decisions, but just another interested party who want to edit this article.12:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)CovenantD


 * I'm happy to drop out of "mediating" if there's not enough confidence in me, expressed by enough article contributors. I was not assigned by the committee anyway.


 * I'm surprised that the fact that I made an edit has suddenly become an issue. No one objected to my previous edits. Perhaps it's more a case of CovenantD and Tomananda "suddenly" discovering my church affiliation. If you think this necessarily will prevent me from editing neutrally, or from providing neutral guidance, okay: it's all about perception I guess.


 * You'll note that I did not say to leave out Singer and Hassan's ideas but to include them. The point is to create a neutral article. With me, or without me, you must do this or give up contributing on this topic.


 * By the way, I did not simply choose to involve myself; I offered to leave before (well more like "threatened to walk off in a huff" ;-) and was asked by two contributors to stay!


 * If you all can get over the idea of a Wikipedian having strong ideas about religion and religious groups, and evalute him by his track record on the topic in question - then maybe, just maybe, you'll decide to accept me. If not, well, I have a lot of other things on my plate. Perhaps you'd do better without me. It's up to you. --Uncle Ed 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was quite pleased by your presence until you blanked much of the article - I'm one of the people that asked you stay, you may recall. But what you did wasn't an edit - that was wholesale removal without discussion. I don't care about your affiliations - I wasn't even aware of them when you made the changes and they don't color my opinions of you now. It's how you conducted yourself with this article that caused my ire. You've made several well-balanced suggestions, asked some good questions, but that all paled in comparison to that one action. If you can understand why I found that so offensive and go along with the idea of not making major changes without discussion, then perhaps this can still work. If not, one or both of us will have to go and leave this mess to others. CovenantD 15:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will go along with the idea of not making major changes without discussion. Sorry about those huge cuts. --Uncle Ed 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) Now that that's done, I can move forward. CovenantD 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Ed: I, too, wasn't aware of your status as a Unification Church member until you began deleting big sections of work that had reached some level of editor consensus long before you introduced yourself to this article. Actions speak louder than words, and even though you claim neutrality I do not believe you can be neutral about this particular topic. Your wholesale editing of the main article page was a breach of faith.  At this point I agree with Covenant that you have assumed the role of another editor and thereby have forfeited the role of mediator.  In the interests of moving forward, it's clear to me we need another person to play the mediator role. This is not a reflection on your skills as a mediator, simply a recognition that this particular topic is not something you can be neutral on.  I sent an e-mail to Essjay, the chair of the mediation committee asking for another mediator to intervene (on an informal basis).  It's ok for us to continue editing, but I do not consider you to have any more authority at this point than any other editor in this article.  --Tomananda 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed Poor, I appreciate your earlier help. But as CovenantD and Tomananda pointed out, your recent edit was not acceptable and can be consider as vandalism.  You are welcome to edit this page but since some of us no longer have confidence in you, it would be inappropriate for you continue acting as a mediator here.  thanks. --Samuel Luo 07:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of the Savior section
Ed has said that this section doesn't need to be here because it's not something that's in contention and he thinks it's covered in the Teachings article. (I don't know if it is or isn't - I haven't checked.) Tomananda thinks it needs to be included because it is one of the criticisms about Falun Gong. Thoughts on those two perspectives? Remember this is about whether this section meets the criteria for inclusion in the Criticism and controvery article, not whether Li is or isn't a savior. CovenantD 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is quite controversial as demonstrated by previous deletions of the content. We must remember that we had a major revert war which brought us to the place we are today. There are many Falun Gong practitioners on this board, for example Dilip, who have objected to this content appearing in the article.  If the known editors who favor Falun Gong (Dilip, Mcconn, Fnddzhs and Olaf) can right now make a statement that they will refrain from deleting this content in a future revert war, I would be ok with it appearing in the main article rather than the controversy article.  I have asked this question before.  Responses?  --Tomananda 18:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

“Li as a savior or supernatural entity” section can be place on either the main page or the criticism page. Why don’t we put it in the main page?--Samuel Luo 01:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-write of Li as savior or supernatural entity
In case no committment comes from Dilip, Mcconn, Fnddzh and Olaf to refrain from deleting this section as previosly presented, I am now proposing an enhanced version to appear in the Criticism and controversy section. In this new version, I have made clear what the controversy is (denial of Li's divine status by practitioners) combined with critical commentary to the effect that he most certainly does consider himself divine. Here's the re-write:

Li as a savior or supernatural entity
Although practitioners claim that Falun Gong is merely a “cultivation practice,” some commentators point to Li’s divine status as proof that Falun Gong can rightly be considered a religion. (Chang, 2004). While Li himself has never claimed to be God, he has spoken of himself as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending period.”  In Zhuan Falun he states “If I cannot save you,  nobody else can do it.”  If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa. In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:  "I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."

Chang opines: “If Li Hongzhi’s disciples can become gods by engaging in falun gong, it stands to reason that the founder of this cultivation practice must himself be a deity.”  Included in the idea of Li’s supernatural status is his claim of having numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect his practitioners from harm. These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power." They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds. Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun : “If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly.  What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.”   While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result.  In Zhuan Falun  Li Hongzhi states that if a practitioner does not follow the requirments of the Fa, his "body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.” In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to the Fa’s requirements. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states that when a practitioner continually practices cultivation, his life will be prolonged. However, there is a criterion "that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over", referring to old people whom he claims should have died already, according to his conception of their predestined life span.

According to Chang, the existence of Li’s law bodies combined with his claim to be without karma amount to an admission of his divine nature: “Li also maintained that human beings do not have law bodies and that only he – as well as buddhas, daos and gods – have law bodies. Falun Gong practitioners must wait until they have completed their cultivation, and attained buddhahood, to have such bodies.”

source: Maria Hsia Chang, Falun Gong: The End of Days (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004)

Suggestions
In my personal opinion, some of the material is "original research" and is far from accurate. Nowhere is it said that as long as you "safeguard" the Dafa you'll achieve Buddhahood. Please see this quote.

Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in Europe says: If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either.

Another thing I want to point out is.. We must make clear what these so called "requirements" are:

True cultivation depends completely on cultivating your mind, so as long as you’re able to cultivate, and as long as you can keep on cultivating solidly and steadfastly, we’ll guide you as a disciple. Treating you any other way wouldn’t work. But some people can’t seem to really take themselves to be cultivators and keep on cultivating. It’s just not doable for some people. But a lot of people will really keep up their cultivation. And as long as you keep on cultivating we’ll guide you as a disciple.

So if somebody just does these few sets of movements every day, you think he counts as a Falun Dafa disciple? Probably not. The reason is, when you truly cultivate you have to discipline yourself with that character(xinxing) standard we talk about, you have to really improve your own character(xinxing), and then, and only then, is it true cultivation. -Zhuan Falun

Note that xinxing is not just "character" in the ordinary sense of the term.... Xinxing encompasses how to deal with the two matters of gain and loss. "Gain" is to gain conformity to the nature of the universe. The nature that comprises the universe is Zhen-Shan-Ren. A cultivator’s degree of conformity to the nature of the universe is reflected in the amount of his or her virtue. "Loss" is to abandon negative thoughts and behaviors, such as greed, the pursuit of personal gain, lust, desire, killing, fighting, theft, robbery, deception, jealousy, etc. If one is to cultivate to high levels, one also needs to break with the pursuit of desires, something inherent in humans. In other words, one should let go of all attachments and take lightly all matters of personal gain and reputation.

In my understanding, Falun Dafa requires one to cultivate one's xinxing (heart-nature or mind-nature). It must be made clear that the "requirement" is that...

Dilip rajeev 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And i also want to point out that the statement "There are also reports of politicians being manipulated into commending Li Hongzhi without knowing all the facts about his teachings." is a POV. Present the facts as such. To say they were "manipulated" is ... Dilip rajeev 11:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dilip: Here you're talking about the section called Questionable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions which I haven't yet gotten to, but now I will. I agree with you that the word "manipulated" reflects a POV and I will change it to the more neutral verb:  "persuaded".   Is that word ok with you?  There are other issues that need to be addressed in that section, and I will be attending to them shortly. --Tomananda 23:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Olaf and Covenant: Please note that I have made some changes in this section (including changing it's title) and posted a question to Olaf concerning documenting the action which the Clearwisdom editors took when they deleted the incomplete version of the SF Resoltion.  Please respond there.

--Tomananda 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to Dilip's Suggestion
Dilip: Are you actually claiming that Li allows his Dafa disciples to remain disciples if they don't safeguard the Dafa? I'm sure you're not, becaue Li has repeatedly set that as a non-negotiable condidition for maintaining one's status as a practitioner, and clearly you have to be a practitioner first before you can be a candidate for becoming a god. If you'd like, I can provide many Li quotes to support what I am saying.

There are several basic problems with what you have written in your long suggestion:

1. Your logic is incorrect. Here's the statement you object to:


 * If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa.

Notice that the subject of the statement is "Falun Gong practitioners" and it is assumed that Falun Gong practitioners must also maintain a good moral character. In fact, that is covered by the first sentence about the necessity of following the requirements of the Fa. But as you know, merely maintaining a good moral character is not sufficient even for keeping your status as a practitioner, much less for becomming a god. If you are saying we need to add a second condition in this text just to reinforce that point, I am open to that. Perhaps we need to revise that second sentence along these lines:


 * "Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming "Gods" as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa, and maintain good moral character in accordance with the characteristics of the universe." Or, if you prefer, I would accept other words for "safeguard and uphold"  such as "validate".  Li uses all three of those words when telling practitioners what they must do.

But it is absolutely not true that a practitioner who does not safeguard and uphold (or "validate") the Dafa can even remotely be considered a candidate for godhood. Thus your error of logic: my text correctly states that condition X is necessary for result Z.  You come along and instead of saying that condition X and Y are both necessary for result Z, you argue, Oh no, condition Y is what's needed for result Z.  Another way to present this way of reasoning is to say that condition X is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to yield result Z.

What's more, you spend all your time talking about the condition itself, but totally avoid talking about the desired result Z...which in this case is the promised godhood of practitiors. Why are you so evasive about that?

2. Your post fails to provide specific editing suggesting for the actual text. As with your previous posts, you have merely written an idependent essay here on the importance of maintaining your xinxing as a practitioner. That information has already been covered in the teachings section. This section is about Li's status as a god or supernatural entity, and his promise to practitioners that they have the possibility of becoming gods.

3. As previously stated, Falun Gong practitioners habitually conceal Li's teachings "at the higher levels" when talking to ordinary people (and when editing in Wikipedia as well.)  You  prove my point by writing off-topic essays which act as a diversion from the actual subject matter under discussion. The word for your tactics is apologetics. In this particular case, you have produced a bunch of long Li quotes about the importance of maintaining one's xinxing in cultivation. All that is true, but it does not directly address the issue of Li's status as a god or supernatural entity, which is the topic of this section.

By continuing to change the subject to something else, you waste a lot of time in discussion, without offering any specifics on the actual text. Is this diversionary tactic of yours intentional? Or do you simply not want the Wikipedia article to so clearly report Li's status as a god or supernatural being? Over the years, I have spoken with many practitioners and asked them the question: "Do you think of Li as a god?" Invariably, after a lot of hedging and weasel words on their part, they say, yes, they do. And now, in this discussion, we are having a similar conversation.

At a certain point, I have to question whether you even want to work as an editor in this article. Each time we deal with a specific problem, you seem to find a way to avoid the specific issues. Case in point: There was a long discussion about the Li quotes you provided in response to the topic on "The difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong"  Two editors, me and Covenant, both agreed that one of your quotes should be added and we both suggested that your first quote was the best and asked you to provide the source. If you are serious about playing the role of editor, these are the kind of "work tasks" you and the rest of us have to do in order to build a complete article. --Tomananda 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request for Formal Mediation
I received an e-mail back from Essjay, the chair of the mediation committee, who said:


 * If you would like to have a member of the committee mediate officially, that is, on behalf of the Committee, you're welcome to file a request at RfM. Put a small note in the "previous steps in dispute resolution" (nothing expansive, we don't allow commentary on requests until they are accepted) that informal mediation has been attempted, but that formal mediation is requested.

Up until now we have only tried the informal mediation route. My feeling is that we will ultimately need to go to formal mediation in order to resolve some of our differences. But I am also willing to hold off long enough to see what progress we can make with the help of Covenant who is really our de facto mediator at this point. How do the other editors feel about this? --Tomananda 20:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research
Indeed, I think Tomananda's arguments are mostly original research. Why don't we all put down original research. How do other editors think? Fnhddzs 05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tomananda has been only quoting statements from Li and others published authors, and challenging practitioner editors to play by the wikipedia rules. Please cite his original research here so we can discuss them if you had any. --Samuel Luo 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Falun Gong
Cut from beginning of section:


 * disparaging of homosexuality and homosexuals

I replaced this with "against homosexuality". I think FG teachings are definitely "anti-homosexuality". Li makes it sound like bank robbery.

Now, whether this teaching is "disparaging of homosexuals" is a conclusion. It sounds like he's saying homosexuals are as bad as bank robbers.

For those who regard homosexuality as ordinary (like preferring pizza to lasagna or being born with blue eyes rather than brown eyes), condemning homosexuality is outrageous and irrational. For those who regard homosexuality as a great moral error, the condemnation makes more sense.

Can we separate (or distinguish) between the general issue (A) whether being against homosexuality is "irrational" or "disparaging" and the specific issue (B) whether Falun Gong is good or bad because of its teaching on homosexuality?

I'd like to have two sub-sections:
 * 1) Everything we know or can reasonably conclude about what FG or Li actually teaches about homosexuality
 * 2) How critics (or supporters) feel about these teachings

Will this work? --Uncle Ed 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it won't work. The structure of this section is fine, but there certainly could be more written in the second section. This is, after all, a criticism section and the lead topic of the controversy is a clear statement of what the controversy is:  Falun Gong's (or Li's) allegedly homophobic teachings.  It was you who added the word "disparaging" in the first place.  I would not have used that word because the issue, for me, is not how Li Hongzhi feels about homosexuals or homosexuality, but rather what the teachings are. When you identify questions such as "whether being against homosexuality is 'irrational'" you are expanding the scope of the article in a way which is not necessary and, I suspect, can't be supported by the existing commentary.  Very little has beeen written about Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality.


 * What makes much more sense is for pro-Falun Gong editors to fill in the second section to act as a counter to the claim of homophobia in Falun Gong teachings. There has been a lot of discussion about this section before you first joined the article. It seems clear to me that the pro-Falun Gong editors "defend" the homophobia of Falun Gong (although they don't agree with that adjective) by arguing that it's just the karma-producing behavior that Li objects to. In other words, as long as gays don't have gay sex, we are ok.  So, fine, let's see a discussion about homosexuality in the context of all the karma that it produces. --Tomananda 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me take this in a bit at a time, okay? The first thing I understand is that opponents of FG regard the teachings to be "homophobic". And depending on one's definition of homophobia, we can pretty much see where that would come from. As many people use the word, "homophobic" can mean simply "opposed to homosexuality". It can also, however, mean "irrationally opposed" to it (having no reason which makes sense to any sane person); or, working actively to suppress it (as by legislation); or, "afraid of homosexuals" (refusing to work with them, crossing the street to avoid gay bars); or, "hates homosexuals" (beating them up, telling snide jokes about them, refusing to rent, etc.)


 * From what little I know - basically Wikipedia and a few random bits of googling - FG's critics are using "homophobic" only in the first, minimal sense. They complain that FG opposes gay sex as a karma-producing behavior.


 * Are you going a bit further and asserting that FG's anti-homosexuality teaching is also "irrational", "fear-based" or "hateful"? If so, it would be good to provide a source for this (other than your own reasoning). Surely there's a civic leader (or cultivator's son!) whom we can quote. --Uncle Ed 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, I will respond sequentially to your comments. You'll notice that I just did a revert to preserve the structure which you don't think is necessary. We need to discuss this before making that change and hear from some of the practitioners.  To answer your question:  I am not arguing that Falun Gong's teachings are necessarily "irrational,"  "fear-based"  or "hateful."  Although all those statments may be true, my goal in writing this section the way it is...after literally months of challenges from practitioners...is merely to establish that Li's teachings are against homosexuality and homosexuals and to provide some critical commentary.  In other words, I am using the most bland definition of the word "homophobic."  Against that view is the view of practitioners which is that Li is not against homosexuals, but only the behavior and the basis for his objection against the behavior is that it creates a great deal of karma. Frankly, I don't think many practitioners have thought through the consequences of that postition and, to a certain extent, are in denial about what their Master's teachings say.  --Tomananda 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the revert. I like discussion before' radical change. Stop me any time I'm moving too fast here.


 * It seems you and I have found a point of agreement:
 * We agree that Li's teachings are against homosexuality.


 * Apparently there is a dispute between (1) Li's critics and (2) Li and his followers over:
 * whether Li's teachings are "against homosexuals"


 * I'll check back in a day or two and see how we can work together on this. Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross is the only on-line source I've been able to find in English:


 * "The disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time," Li wrote in Volume II of Zhuan Falun, or Turning the Law Wheel, which was translated into English in 1996. It is now posted on Falun Gong's main Web site only in Chinese.


 * In a 1998 talk in Switzerland, Li said gay people would be "eliminated" by "the gods." Asked in Frankfurt, Germany, that year whether gays could practice Falun Gong, Li answered, to a round of applause, "You can cultivate, but you must give up the bad conduct."

No doubt a contributor who can read Chinese will tell me if it's an accurate translation. --Uncle Ed 18:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A "special punishment"?
I created a subheading so that I don't cut off the above discussion. Concerning this topic, I want to raise an issue abou this section that I mentioned about two weeks ago. There is a part of this section which is based on POV and in my mind attches a specific understanding to a quote, which I personally don't buy. I mentioned it before here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong#Suggestions_for_edits_5 I know that Tomanda responded in disapproval, however, I don't think he really understood what I wrote. I was showing another understanding of a statment that is completely different than what the article indicates, namely that Mr. Li doesn't prescribe a special punishmnet for homosexuals. With this I also brought up the dilemma of how to include Tomanda's quote since the only way to not misinterpret it according the undstanding I expressed was to include Mr. Li's entire response. Tomanda suggested including alternate interpretations, but it's not our place to provide our own analysis. As I mentioned before, if there are third party sources that directly address this quote then I they can be included and the quote can be given in this context, but I haven't come across any. This is why I suggested that it perhaps not be included. I would like to hear others' feedback on this. Mcconn 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mcconn: It's clear that the especially slow and painful elimination process Li describes pertains to homosexuals.  I think your argument is that it can also apply to others who in Li's mind have, because of their extraordinarily bad deeds, accumulated extreme amounts of that black substance he calls karma.  Is that a fair summary?  The problem, here, is that I do not believe Li has explicity identified any other groups which fall into this category.  Admittedly, that does not mean they don't exist.  But clearly, homosexuals will receive the worst of punishments, albeit perhaps with some other categories of realy "bad" people.  Having said that, I am open to a wording change as follows:

Possible revised text:


 * Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s “upright Fa to keep human beings in check” homosexuals could expect to [be singled out for] receive a particulary harsh  punishment [by] from the Gods. Speaking in Switzerland in 1998, Li suggested that by renouncing their sexual behavior (and presumably living a celibate life) homosexuals might experience a different outcome. When asked why homosexuals are considered "bad people" Li responded:


 * When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them.


 * According to Li, events such as “wars, epidemics and natural and man-made disasters” happen in order to remove karma. While stating that people who are degenerated will be destroyed, Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. Not only will the “fundamental elements of their existence” be destroyed, they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process:


 * We can take out the "singled out" wording if you would like. But the quote must remain, and we don't need to have the entire, extremely long, Li quote to report the basic message.  Contrary to your editing approach in the teaching section...in which extremely long block quotes from Li are used with little or no exposition...I strongly feel that we must make this article readable.  That means we need to summarize the gist of an argument or a quote as much as possible, rather than relying totally on Li's quotes. As it stands now, many people are going to be turned off by the style you, Dilip and other practitioners have used in the teachings section and simply won't read it. I realize that matters of style are matters of taste, but this is an encyclopedia, rather than a compilation of Li's writings about the Falun Gong.  --Tomananda 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I hadn't realized that Li predicted "punishment" for homosexuals. I only had learned that he condemned homosexuality. To me the difference is like that between: (A) Don't eat junk food, it's bad for you; and (B) Anyone who is more than 20% above their maximum weight will be boiled in oil. (Sorry for this terribly silly example, but I skipped breakfast today and am just about to leave for lunch!)


 * A better way to put is that:
 * In addition to proscribing homosexuality, Li predicts that "the gods" will punish homosexual persons, i.e., they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process.


 * The only thing I'm still unclear about is how this is a criticism or a controversy. Is their another religion (or spiritual teaching) which disagrees with Li's views on homosexuality? (Hint: try Episcopalians or Unitarian-Universalists) Or does someone condemn Li or FG for teaching something which around 50% of Americans think is perfectly okay?
 * Like Christian fundamentalists, Li teaches the unpopular idea that homosexuality is forbidden, even "sub-human". (The Book of Revelation ends with a harsh passage about "dogs and fornicators" not getting into heaven.)


 * In sum, we need to first describe Li's teachings on homosexuality as accurately as possible (he's agin' it!) and then report public reaction to those teachings. Like the SF city council stopped the mayor's proclamation about "persecution in China" because they "sharply disagreee with" Li's stance on homosexuality: "He's anti-gay, let his followers be tortured, they deserve it." [okay not an exact quote but I'm grasping at straws here] --Uncle Ed 16:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ed, but I still don't agree with you. The structure we have now has the best chance of success, or at least we should give it a try.  There is very little published commentary about this subject and several of the practitioners in past discussions have complained that they can't come up with that kind of material.  However, they can come up with contextual quotes from Li, and the expectation is that they should be able to add material to the second section to act as a balance.  --Tomananda 08:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I wrote this response a day a go, but didn't realize that I hadn't sent it till now. I see what your saying about avoiding long block quotes when we can summarize them in a few sentences, but the problem is that sometimes its not possible. And when it's not possible we can't distort the meaning just to make it more readable and concise. I still have some issues with your summary. The first quote you included above was given before and after Mr. Li spoke of large disasters, rather retribution on an individual basis, but since the context is not included it's easy to misinterpret it to mean that Gods will eliminate any individual homosexual when they die regardless of the circumstance. The following statement from the proceding paragraph is confusing: "While stating that people who are degenerated will be destroyed, Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals." It can be interpreted to mean that the suffering described for homosexuals is particular and different from that of the other degenerated people. Also, I think consensus was that your comment about "a presumably celebate life" is best not included because Mr. Li doesn't actually say that, and the reader can interpret that for themselves if they feel that way. How about this:


 * Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s “upright Fa to keep human beings in check” homosexuals could expect to receive a particulary harsh punishment from the Gods. In Switzerland, Li responded to a question asking why homosexuals are bad people. In his response he stated,
 * "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods. You know that homosexuals have found legitimacy in that homosexuality was around back in the culture of ancient Greece. Yes, there was a similar phenomenon in ancient Greek culture. And do you know why ancient Greek culture is no more? Why are the ancient Greeks gone? Because they had degenerated to that extent, and so they were destroyed."
 * He further elaborated, "When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them."


 * In the same paragraph Li said that events such as “wars, epidemics and natural and man-made disasters” happen in order to remove karma. While stating that amidst these phenomena people who have accumulated too much karma or are degenerated, including homosexuals, will be destroyed, Li described their destruction as a special kind of suffering. Not only will the “fundamental elements of their existence” be destroyed, they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process:...

Note that in this version the quotes and statements are more clearly linked and given within the context of one another. I think this kind of clarity of interconection is important with these statements since they are all of the same quote. What do you think of this? Mcconn 17:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: Since you want more of this speech to be reported, I can accept the following:

second revision of report on Switzerland speech on destruction of homosexuals:


 * Also taught is the idea that if it were not for Li’s “upright Fa to keep human beings in check” homosexuals could expect to receive a particularly harsh punishment from the Gods. In Switzerland, Li stated that by renouncing their sexual behavior homosexuals could experience a different outcome. Responding to a question asking why homosexuals are bad people, Li said: "Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods.”  As an example, Li talked about a similar phenomenon that happened in ancient Greek culture.  According to Li, that culture no longer exists “because they had degenerated to that extent, so were destroyed.”


 * Li further elaborated, "When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can’t tolerate their existence and will destroy them."


 * Continuing his answer, Li explained that events such as “wars, epidemics and natural and man-made disasters”  happen in order to remove karma.  There are degrees of  karma accumulation,  however.  Li explains that while some sinners “can have their karma eliminated trough the death of their flesh body and suffering” and then go to reincarnate, some people have accumulated too much karma for them to reincarnate again.  Instead, “the fundamental elements of their existence will be implicated and destroyed.’  Li is clear that homosexuals definitely fit into this category and although he may have other categories of sinners in mind, he does not give other examples in his answer.  He  goes on to describe the special kind of destruction homosexuals and possibly others with ”too much” karma will experience:

That kind of destruction, however, isn’t just about disappearing after they’re annihilated. That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. 

--Tomananda 08:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As I currently see it, I have no quams with this (maybe remove the "definately" in "homosexuals definately fit"). I'm glad we could work together and actually get something done. Does anyone oppose this? Mcconn 18:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Money Making
I seem to recall somewhere in the many source articles I've read in connection with this topic that Li has a financial interest in the official website that sells copies of the books and receives income from that source. Does anybody else have info regarding this? CovenantD 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but I have a suggestion about the Making money from Falun Gong section:


 * I think we should divide this section neatly into 2 points of view, rather than doing the "back and forth" thing. Start with the charge that Li made a promise and broke it. Next part should be rebuttals from Li and/or his followers. Something like this:
 * Critics charge that Li promised that he would never try to profit in any way from Falun Gong, but that he broke this promise in several ways. They say accepted book royalties in China, charged for treatments in (fill in this blank), and that he bought two residences in the United States.
 * Supporters say that the book royalties were too small to count as "profiting" [perhaps they regard the money as just compensation for his writing time?]; that he never charged for lectures or treatments; and that the US residences were gifts from a follower which he refused to accept.


 * Would a break-down like this help? If so, please help me straighten out the details, I was only suggesting an NPOV format for the section. I don't actually know anything about FG finances beyond what I've learned here at Wikipedia. I'm good at NPOV, however. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A few things I wanted to point out - we need to be careful abou the sources we use. Second, we cant present un-founded allegations.. the wall street journal has never said Li Hongzhi brought a house .. the article says it was a gift which Li Hongzhi refused. Dilip rajeev 17:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the United States, because of community property laws, it makes no difference whether a man or his wife makes a purchase. The Wall Street Journal says Li's wife bought 2 houses, or that two houses were "bought in her name".
 * It was another source which said (1) that it was a gift and (2) that this gift was refused, right? --Uncle Ed 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually the WSJ articles acknowledges both that the house was a gift and that it was claimed to be refused. Mcconn 18:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out a lot of stuff that are blatant POVs. But are we discussing one issue at a time ? Dilip rajeev 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: Concerning your comment about POV, articles certainly can contain the POV of critics and should be presented to show competing POV's when they exist. Virtually everything your master says is POV, but I assume you're ok with that. Are you seriously suggesting that we just report Li's claims of divinity, stopping the universe from exploding, curing illness, condeming homosexuals, dealing with the serious problem of mixed race people, etc., and not also present an alternative POV? Now that I think of it, you did send me an e-mail once stating that you were concerned that my critical commentary in Wikipedia would prevent people from being saved by Li's Dafa. But guess what, it is not the function of Wikipedia to provide a recruitment mechanism for cults. By the way, you didn't respond to my question above. Will you be able to accept critical commentary in this article or not? If the answer is that you cannot, I suggest you resign as an editor, because you are just wasting everyone else's time. --Tomananda 09:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Using "Deng" and "Feng" and xyz.org as "sources"
Using personal articles and labelling it as "sources" violate wikipedia policy. Such material will have to scrutinized and removed. Dilip rajeev 06:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war looming
Tomananda just alerted me that Dilip and Fnhddzs have deleted substantial portions of material from this page without first obtaining concensus. Please refrain from edit warring and unilateral deletion. -- Миборовский U 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dilip has once again reverted back to his favoured version without forming a consensus... -- Миборовский U 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Their was no "favoured" version. Nobody deleted anything without discussion. Atleast five other active editors feel the version by tomananda was compeltely unsourced. One section even says. "Li Hongzhi borrowed things from sciecne fiction writers." Using personal websites as sources violate wikipedia policies. Neither was any "deletion" done. Nor were the edits without "consensus". Please dont make unsubstantiated accusations. I invite tomananda to point out which of well sourced material has been deleted( then, I will take up the responsibility) instead of making personal attacks, starting a revert war and blaming it on others Dilip rajeev 09:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dilip, you most certainly did delete the Deng and Fang material without discussion. In fact, the Deng and Fang material was specifically discussed at length about two weeks ago in these very pages and editors such as Olaf, Ed Poor, Covenant and others had agreed to a standard proposed by Covenant.  That standard would allow material appearing on a private website if it had also appeared elsewhere (such as an academic conference paper).  The Deng and Fang material clearly fits that criterion and there will be some verification of that coming from the ICSA soon.  Meanwhile, you have a large amount of material which doesn't even meet the more permissive standard set forth by Covenant. See discussion below.  --Tomananda 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Olaf, Covenant or Ed Poor would agree to "papers" presented at a family association conference. That really doesnt qualify as a "paper". Nor do I think wiki standards allow such material. Dilip rajeev 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the pro-FLG editors need to cool down a bit or this will become a revert war again. discuss everything before making an edit on the article itself. 24.189.163.169 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Source issue
It is ridiculous that people seem to have hesitation on citing the public U.S. government publication, instead people seem not to have hesitation on citing the biochemist's self-publicated sources on his personal website. The bias hidden on mind of people here does concern me.

Tomananda said the xys.org source is a reproduction of a conference paper. What is the proof of that? How to get the conference paper? It is not verifiable. Fnhddzs 05:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how some admins feel about this. Ed, Fire Star, Miborovsky... who am I forgetting? CovenantD 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just the 3 of us, I believe.
 * What of it? I doubt that anyone in the United States Congress has researched as much into Falun Gong than the authors of the "xys.org article". -- Миборовский U 07:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Specifically, what I'm interested in is the burden of proof that this paper is what was presented at a conference. CovenantD 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The essence of the article in question was delivered by Dr. Deng at American Family Foundation’s 2003 conference. Elizabeth Wang, a Falun Gong representative and I were there also.  My presentation was later published by the AFF that means I or others can quote my paper. The title of my paper is Falun Gong: A Family Member’s Perspective. --Samuel Luo 18:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there were two different papers presented by Dr. Deng at American Family Foundation conferences. Although similar, each paper had it's own focus. The first one, co-authored with Fang, was presented in the 2000 Seattle conference, while this second one that Samuel refers to above was presented in the 2003 conference. I expect to receive verification back from the International Cultic Studies Association soon about the first paper and by any reasonable standard, it should be allowed in Wikipedia. The real outrage here is that while Dilip and Fnhddzs keep deleting all the Deng and Fang quotes from this page, they seem perfectly ok with keeping a large amount of unsourced or unverified material on their various pages. There cannot be a double standard on the issues of sources. Here's just one blatant example of what the practitioners think is ok as a source fior the health benefit claims reported in the new page called "Research into health benefits"...an article entitled "An Ancient Cultivation Practice Falun Gong...etc." at:   Unlike the Deng and Fang paper, this article was apparantly never presented at a conference and certainly was not published by an established journal. Instead, it is part of a private Falun Gong website with this home page: --Tomananda 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A simple "Hey, check out this article and it's talk page for a similar problem with sources" would suffice. It avoids those nasty buzzwords like outrage and blatant. Anyway, I've added it to my watchlist. CovenantD 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for the adjectives. But the point is that I have not deleted any of all the unsourced or unverified material on the pro-Falun Gong pages, whereas Dilip or Fnhddzs continue to delete the Deng and Fang quotes from multiple sections in the Criticism page, and then provide inaccurate justifications for doing so.  I will cool my rhetoric, but at the same time expect to have support against the continued deletions of these two editors. --Tomananda 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the research paper by Richard Johnson et al, it is a scientific medical paper. Solid genome profiling done by experts in the field from Microarray Core, Center for Immunology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine and Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. I will get you a list of journals in which the paper has appeared these include the JACM. Another, very similar, version of the paper is: http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf ( not exactly the same paper but drawing upon results from genome profiling done on Falun Gong practitioners and the micro-array analysis of gene expression levels of PMNs in Falun Gong practitioners.) Another source for the paper is http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2397.html Dilip rajeev 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't use the asianreach version and say it's the same thing as the JACM version. The JACM went thru a medical editor to weed out all the biases. That's why you can't have laymens writing anything academic I think. Their own biases and judgement goes into what is published. There has to be strict protocols to what is acceptable. JACM version does not point out to just FLG, it's conclusion said Qigong. And JACM version is the published version, not the asianresearch version. (NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) weeds out thousands of papers, when they are worht printing they will tell the author to fix a couple of the wording because there is biases and outright bad conclusions that needs to be worked out. This is the same case as the asianresearch version and the JACM version.) 24.189.163.169 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See, this specifically is what I would like to point out. What we are looking at is research material by experts in the field. We are interested in what Steve Hassan says but what is presented at a family association conference,  in which anybody (including you and me) may present their opinions, is of little significance to an encyclopaedia article. For instance, Samuel presented something at that "conference", can we use that? Certainly not. No personal offense intented I am just pointing out that wikipedia standard dont allow such material. For instance, practitioners present their experiences in Fa conferences around the world. Many practitioners are prominent medical scientists, martial artists, professors and so on.. We can get an opinion from the professors in the Falun Dafa practice groups of Yale or Harvard ... but we really cant present all their opinions here.... what qualifies as a paper, in my understanding, is something accepted by the academic community or something that has appeared in a reputed journal. Dilip rajeev 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, as per our discussion, we cannot accept using the biochemist's personal website as a source to talk about other party. Fnhddzs 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have searched the website for the cult study conference hosted by American Family Foundation (mentioned by Tomananda). However, I could not find either Deng or Fang in the Author list. Fnhddzs 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on the posts to this section: Use the JAMC version. It doesn't have to available online, as long as other people can find and read it.

The xys.org reference is becoming more and more problematic. First we need to verify that the paper was actually presented. (Samuel, I don't doubt you but we can't just take your word for it. That would be Original Research.) Then we need to determine if the paper was published. Then we need to determine if the forum meets the standard of a reliable source. Only once those steps have been completed should we definitely allow it. Until that process is finished, and I say allow 3 or 4 more days, it should remain. If it does't meet all those tests, I'll be the first to say it needs to be pulled. CovenantD 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Covenant: Thanks for this tip. As far as I know, the Deng and Fang 2000 paper is not available on-line (other than on their private website), but I have contacted the American Family Foundation (now called the International Cultic Studies Association) asking them to verify the paper, perhaps in the form of their published printed material.  I made the request over the weekend and Monday was a holiday, so I haven't heard back from them yet.  Meanwhile, in my discussion posting I asked Dilip not to delete the Deng and Fang references for now, and pointing out that the Lili Feng health claims that appear in different pages also apparently only appear on private websites.  Unlike Dilip and Fnhddzs, I said I would not delete any of the pro-Falun Gong material until they have a chance to track down better sources.  In other words, I think we should cooperate, not fight.


 * Meanwhile, thanks to your suggestion above about search engines, I was able to discover that one of the published works that the Falun Gong folk use for their eidts...Noah Porter's book entitled Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study...cites and quotes the Deng and Fang 2000 paper many times. Check it out here:   and the more general reference here:    If the 2000 Deng and Fang paper is worthy of being cited multiple times in one of the Falun Gong's most frequently used texts, isn't it worthy of being cited in Wikipedia?   --Tomananda 18:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL  Oh, that's funny. I'll check out the references when I have time. CovenantD 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like you've provided a good resource for those wishing to debunk Deng and Fang, if nothing else. It does provide some credence to the availability of the 2000 paper somewhere. Now it's just a matter of finding it. I somehow doubt that Noah used the xys.org website. CovenantD 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Deng and Fang's xyz.org website was used in the bibliography of their book as the source for the 2000 paper, so they didn't have any problem with it. They quote from Deng and Fang extensively, so we might be faced with the absurd situation where I am forced to cite a Deng and Fang statement and reference it as: "According to  Deng and Fang, as quoted by Porter on page#"  In fact Olaf made a similar posting earlier using another source quoted by Porter.  I remember reading a Wikipedia policy statement about allowing unpublished sources when they have been cited by published sources.  Do you know where that is?


 * If we are going to apply a very tough standard on these sources a significant amount of pro-Falun Gong stuff will have to be deleted as well, yet the practitioners don't appear to be addressing those issues. For example, one of the health claims of Dr. Lili Feng featured in the main article is apparently only accessible on a totally private website, and there isn't even a claim that it represents a paper presented elsewhere.  There's an inequity about this process:  I take all issues of sources and verifiability seriously and do my utmost to verify sources.  I have re-written my own material many times in response to challenges. Shouldn't we expect a similarly serious effort from the Falun Gong editors?  Except for Olaf and Mcconn, all we've seen are endless edit deletions, often without even an honest statment as to why (see for example Fire Star's pointed comment to Dilip when she reverted one of his many sneaky Criticism pages deletions.  She commented:  "It's becoming more and more difficult for me to believe what you say about anything."  I want to assume good faith, but time and again some editors have shown that they are willing to bend the truth every which way, or not resond to other editors' issues, all in the name of defending Li's Dafa. Your comments?  --Tomananda 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Frak. I was hoping that wouldn't be the case with Fang & Deng. But okay. I'd like to get a reference to that post by Olaf so I can compare. The best way to go with this now may be to agree whether the book by Porter is a reliable source, which would cover anything that he directly references.


 * If you have a problem with a source in the main document, then bring it up on that talk page and we'll hash it out like we are with this one. I'm gonna caution you before you get started to not take a retaliatory approach to questioning them. Having said that, don't compromise standards either. CovenantD 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons were provided in Edit Summary
Serving the purpose of discussion. What is your reasons of changing back? Fnhddzs 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To stop you and Omido from deleting material without discussion. In fact, one editor considered Omido's editing to constitute vandalism. See discussion on the main page. --Tomananda 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Omid is very new to wikipedia. .. I dont think he exceeded his revert limit.. anyway.. please see that he is giving his reasons on the talk page.. he was just deeply concerned with the fact that almost all material in the page was poorly sourced and even personal opinions of the editors were forced into the article... trying to edit the page cannot be labelled "vandalism". Taking his concerns into consideration we must discuss, in detail the material in the criticism section.

Anyway I have temporarily reverted the page to 09:05, 30 May 2006 before omid did the edits.. we will discuss his edits one by one and keep the appropriate edits.. Dilip rajeev 10:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, edit summaries do not replace discussion on an article this contentious. All they do is provoke edit wars. CovenantD 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting the Discussion
Please note that discussions on different sections in the article can proceed in parallel.

Discussing the Wall street journal claim
The wall street jounal article only says the house was registered in Master Li Hongzhi's name. Ifact the article, which we dont have access to also says that it was offered by a practitioner and was refused. A letter to the editor that appeared in WSJ clarified the issue further. Dilip rajeev 11:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Letters to the editor are not a valid source for anything other than primary references. It could be said that "X claims Y never accepted Z" but it CAN'T say "Y never accepted Z" because that's not part of the news reporting function of the paper. All they are responsible for is making sure the letter is from who it claims to be from. CovenantD 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No more xys.org Deng and Fang
Please see last post on Source Issues

I have searched the website for the cult study conference hosted by American Family Foundation (mentioned by Tomananda). However, I could not find either Deng or Fang in the Author list. Since xys.org is a personal website by Fang, please do not use this source. Thanks. Fnhddzs 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about no more of your bullshit. Deng presented the essence of that paper in the 2003 conference. --Samuel Luo 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I'm going to ask you to remove this personal attack. CovenantD 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Omido: This is a response to your post on the main Talk page in which you asked if it is ok to permanently delete the Deng and Fang material:


 * No it is not ok for one editor to simply make that decision. There is a larger discussion taking place about standards for sources, and this is just one of many issues.  The Deng and Fang material was specically discussed by many editors several weeks ago in the Talk Critisicm page. At that time, the decision was to allow it, pending further discussion from other editors.  Meanwhile, your own sources have similar problems as Deng and Fang in terms of verifiability...for example much of the Lili Feng medical material...and no one is addressing those issues.  I have asked for a spirit of cooperation on the issue of sources, but when you simply delete material you do not approve of, we are not cooperating.  There is a long history here which you are apparently not aware of. --Tomananda 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"If it is in a published book, it can be considered a source. The weight given the source is up to the reader. Li Hongzhi is a private person, according to FLG followers, yet we quote his books. --Fire Star 火星 16:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)" Are Deng and Fang from published books? /Omido 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While, wiki is not other place. Wiki has its own standard. Even if other people cite xys.org. wiki cannot cite it. Fnhddzs 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's in Porter's books, then those portions can be used. IF Porter is going to be used as a source. And there's no two ways about this one - either his work is used or it isn't, across the board. CovenantD 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We have to follow wiki's standard. I don't care Feng, Lili's publication. It is removable if it does not qualify wiki's standard.Fnhddzs 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

=== Personal websites as primary sources ===

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing. WP:V says: "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic."

=== Personal websites as secondary sources ===

Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources.

That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

=== Self-published sources ===

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material in his own field. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work is being accepted by credible third parties. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.

=== Self-published sources in articles about themselves ===

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above. A Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.
 * It is relevant to the person's notability;
 * It is not contentious;
 * It is not unduly self-serving;
 * It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources;
 * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
 * There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Thanks. Fnhddzs 23:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fnhddzs: I see that you are anxious to get rid of Deng and Fang and deleted that portion of this article.  Although I've located at least one newspaper report on the 2000 Seattle conference that places Deng there as a presenter, I have not heard back yet from the International Cultic Studies Association.  Depending on what I hear back from them, I may or may not revert the Deng and Fang material back.  In the meantime, I have re-written this article.  It has a lot more detail than the previos one and I am happy with it.  --Tomananda 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: When the main page is unfrozen, I will change the title of this article to Differences between Falun Gong, Buddhism and Qigong

Tomanda. Wikipedia says "No self-published books or articles". State your sources and what they are. We are not looing for personal opinions. The Dalai Lama has said Falun Gong is very good.

Uhmmm and you're taking Dalai Lama's statement as an unbiased non-political source??? You anti-CCP people tend to get herded into a group without actually taking a look at each other's agenda. I wonder if you guys support each and every one of those groups out there. The Taiwanese Independence group, the Tibetian Independence group, the Inner mongolian independence group, and East Turkistan independence group and the FLG group. Do you guys understand what the average chinese in China and all over the world is thinking of right now??? That you guys can be all put in the same kettle and labelled as anti-China. Do you FLG people now know why maybe most chinese don't take you guys seriously? Think about it a little. 24.189.163.169 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not all Chinese think trying to bring an end to the torture and murder of Chinese people is "anti-China"... If they have nothing to hide from the Chinese people, why do the "pro-china" CCP block even websites like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International? Remember its people like you and me who are dying.. and its tens of thousands of families, like ours, that are left devastated... the more we cover-up the truth and refuse to speak out the greater the number of people die.. and then arent we also part of the crime? Could someone with a conscience keep quiet when such terrible atrocities are happening? If good people do nothing about it then who will? What would you call it if a foriegn country were to kill so many Chinese people??

I request you to kindly go through these..

http://www.faluninfo.net/Downloads/materials/newspaper/systematic-persecution-screen.pdf http://www.faluninfo.net/Downloads/materials/newspaper/falungongtoday_ny5_final_screenres.pdf http://www.faluninfo.net/Compassion5/Compassion5-v35-screen.pdf Dilip rajeev 16:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read again what I said. My main point was do you really believe all the other groups' agenda when you support each other. In an article I just read, most chinese Human right advocators don't even want to associated themselves with FLG. Most chinese do not take FLG seriously... because of these associations. 24.189.163.169 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not anxious. I just observed no progress so this is not the way of waiting. Fnhddzs 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is gonna keep changing just like many of the contraversal issues being addressed in the world. There will not be a final version maybe even in our lifetime. 24.189.163.169 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's remember that this talk page is to discuss the article, not try to bring others around to a particular way of thinking.

Tomananda, am I correct in thinking that you've made what edits you feel necessary to the Deng & Fang stuff and it's now open for comment? We were waiting for you to find a source for them, but I know you've made edits that might address that. CovenantD 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted Deng and Fang quotes from just one section: Difference between Falun Gong and Qigong, but have not given up totally on verifying their paper. So far, I've located a San Francisco Chronicle news report which verifies the Seattle conference and that Deng was a presenter at the conference   but I have not heard back from the ICSA which was the sponsor of the conference.  My main concern is that we can't permit a double standard.  If the Deng and Fang material has to go, then so be it.

However, we must also delete or revise a series of edits based on unsourced material, self-published websites or original research that appear in the Teachings and Persectuion pages. I documented those problem areas some time ago on the Talk Falun Gong page, but there has not been any specific responses to my concerns. So in the absense of a response I have gone ahead and deleted most of the problem stuff. Also, I deleted a very nasty personal attack against Samuel which had appeared on the Talk Falun Gong page as well. --Tomananda 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to strech it one more day, but after that they really need to come out until verification can be provided.


 * I'm also aware that there are many other citations that will be challenged on the same basic grounds of notability, reliable sources, and all the other guidelines and policies. For now I suggest we allow the same kind of leeway you've been given - some time to find a source, challenge a source, whatever. If proper documentation can't be found in a few days, they go. I've reverted some of the stuff you removed from the Persecution article with just that in mind.
 * An important subnote to this - it applies to stuff already in the article. ANY new material needs to be sourced from the time it's included or it's subject to immediate deletion. Challenges to cited statements should be made on the talk page BEFORE cited material is deleted.


 * For the issues with specific articles, I'd suggest you put those directly on the talk page for that article. You also might want to send me a message letting me know which ones. (So much has gotten buried in the deluge that is the main page.) I'll try to keep up this week ;-) CovenantD 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive the talk page?
I'm willing to do it, keeping the relevant bits about Fang & Deng, citing sources and other current ongoing discussions. CovenantD 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)