Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 2

Untitled
Prior archived discussion:
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive1, 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005

Start of Archive2 Content
My initial observations of Falun Gong is that it isn't a unified belief, which makes it seem strange when the article says Falun Gong as an organization or group says or does something. By the literature, it would seem that "true" practitioners usually have better things to do than to gather in mass protests on a small planet in one universe regardless of whether or not that is where they come from, unless it humors them. I am a person who intends on learning the exercises, (making progress on the first one- I find it enjoyable, by the way) and exploring the theories of Falun Gong while not subjecting myself to anyone claming to speak for it. User:hackwrench

I was just looking at those pictures in the article with the practitioners sitting peacefully in meditation and the CCP police are arresting them. I also saw these brutal torture methods that the CCP use to ___________ practitioners (what do they do it for again?).

Man, those practitioners sure had it coming to them! They should have never tried to improve themselves, find inner peace, meditate, cultivate to higher levels, or align themselves with Truthfulness, Compassion, and Forebearance. Best yet, once the practitioners started complaining about the "correction" the CCP was trying to perform on them, they went and tried to reveal it to the rest of the world! What a big bunch of whiners. That is sooooooo political! They are clearly much more interested in politics than they are in trying to stop the torture, brainwashing, and forced slave labor that is enacted upon them. All the torment practitioners received prior to trying to create awareness about the torment itself, was just their future punishment for when they would get political about it. Pshaa! It is an open and shut case; the CCP clearly knows best! 128.186.122.147 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi,I'm writing this to ask if I can add some content like how Falun Gong promote itself in China(thing like using email, chat bot, Instant Messaging Tools bot - QQ, change TV program to their program and painting 'Falun Gong is Good' on the wall of my back yard). And maybe I can provide some screenshots but unfortunely don't have a picture of my back yard wall cuz I already cleaned it long times ago(spend my half day). But it did quite popular for a period of time a few years ago, if you in China you know. :/ --80.235.142.144 06:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Greetings 80.235.142.144. If you could provide links to news stories or other journalism relating to the activities you mention, we would be happy to include them in the article. We have to be able to verify that they engage in such activities. Fire Star 06:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Experience of use spam,, chat robot, Chatroom, massive mail and nuisance call to promote Falun Gong. About the source: according to List of words blocked by search engines in Mainland China, minghui.org is The official website of Falun Gong.

Here is a link to the search results for the article I mentioned in the lead section. It apparently now requires that you pay for it to access it since it's in the archives, so I've also copied out the question about the accusation of Falun Gong being a cult. Let me know if you want me to put more of it on the comments page since I have access to the article right now.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B14F635550C7B8CDDA10894D1494D81&incamp=archive:search

Question: Falun Gong has been described as a cult. Is that description fair?

Answer: A cult advocates end-of-the-world theories and leads people to do many bad things. I am only teaching people the practice for healing and fitness. Not only that, I am teaching people to have good moral characters. I think this is good and meaningful to society. The Chinese Government accused me of advocating a doomsday and of saying I can delay the end of the world by 30 years. That's really ridiculous. And very often people assume that in order to study the Great Way of Falun they would have to live like a monk and give up everything. Actually, all practitioners are members of society; they do ordinary things just like anyone else. Perhaps more specifically, cults don't tolerate dissent. Do practitioners of Falun Gong have differing opinions? Or do they tend to be of one mind on most things? Normally people who do not like the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance would not be very likely to study Falun Gong. Only the people who like these principles would come to learn. But people come and go as they please, you know; it's voluntary.

Here are some quotes by the cult's founder and guru:

"The change in human society has been quite frightening! People would stop at nothing in doing evil things such as drug abuse and drug dealing. A lot of people have done many bad deeds. Things such as organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human. How do Buddhas look at these issues? Your government permits them. Laws permit them. Still, it is only the approval by mankind itself. The principles of heaven do not permit them!" (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/xnjf1.htm)

"Nowadays some people not only are bent solely on profit, but also stop at nothing in doing evil. They commit all manner of crimes for money, killing and framing innocent people, redeeming lives with money, practising homosexuality, taking drugs among many other things." (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl.htm)

"Think about it, isn't man on the brink of danger? Your government permits it, your country permits it, and your nation permits it. Even you approve of it in your mind and consciousness; it is not necessarily good. So look at what is happening in today's society, drug taking, drug trafficking, drug making, trans-sexuality, homosexuality, sexual liberation, underworld, etc. These things emerge in an endless stream. Selfishness and desires have made people wary of each other and without any right mind. Various phenomena of a degenerated human society abound everywhere and in all walks of life, like in so-called modern art, rock and roll, the madness of demonic nature during soccer games, etc. Such phenomena penetrate into every aspect of society. The deterioration of the human heart has reversed human concepts. Good is taken as bad while bad is seen as good. Human concepts have been reversed. Taking money and fame by force, advocating the philosophy of competition, and glorifying the heads of gangsters. You tell me, are they still human beings?

Some people claim how great the Greek culture was, but where did the people go? However, today one can find something from the Greek culture: the culture left from Greeks is definitely something from the final period of the development of the Greek civilization. We found that there was also homosexuality in it, and other things such as promiscuous sex. Besides, life was very extravagant, corrupted, and very degenerated. It can be seen that the human race had already highly deteriorated. Why did it disappear? It was because of its low morality." (http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/mgjf.htm) --

Justification for comments
From article The practice of Falun Gong is currently present in more than 60 countries across the world; government reactions range from open acceptance (United States) to tolerance (Australia) to suspicion (Japan,Indonesia and Singapore) to unconstitutional arrests (France) to persecution(China). In what way is Falun Gong treated differently in the United States 'open acceptance' to Australia marked as 'tolerance'. Given both countries permit Falun Gong but do not themselves endorse it, isn't Falun Gong treated the same for both? At the least, there should be justification for the distinction. Readyfreddy 23:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The "open acceptance" statement seems to be POV pushing a bit. I'll change it. Fire Star 23:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, if anything it's "embracement" in the United States considering the government gave Li Hongzhi awards and honorable citizenship. Not to mention he was a candidate for the Nobel peace price on, I think, on more than one occassion. Some cities in the U.S. even have declared some days of the year to be "Falun Dafa Day." As I have no resources to present at this time, these sorts of things cannot be put in the article but maybe they answer your question. --Mas5353 03:33, 29 May 2005 (EST)

I think calling Jiang Zemin a President is kinda misleading, because a President is someone who is elected by the people. But in China there are no elections... it is only the party itself which made him head of party - and because there are no other parties - it made him head of state. People like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, had the exact same position as him, and you americans wouldn't call these people President either would you?

And that comparison with how Falun Gong is supposed to be treated differently in different countries... I think it's also kinda missleading. Because whats the difference beetween the US and Countries like Singapour or Indonesia ? Right... the US is not dependend on China, and even hates communism. So is it a coincidents that all those countries that are supposed to be "suspicous" regarding Falun Gong, are neigboors of China? So isn't it still only the Communist Party that wants to "wipe out" Falun Gong?

Before the Communist Party started it's persecution their weren't any incidents in any country. Why should there have been? Those are just people doing those exercises and stuff. It was only after the Communist Party started persecuting them, that they started all those activities to stop the persecution... Now the Communist Party tries to justify their actions and says that Falun Gong is getting political (and in China getting political is a VERY negative term, cause basicly only the party is allowed to "get political")

Now people say "look Falun Gong practitioners are getting involved in politics, even though their principles say that one should not get involved in politics."

But the fact is that with whatever activities they did, their only aim was to stop the persecution.

So that's why I would say that the way the text is right now, one can't really say that it is wrong, but it is definetly very misleading.

And there is another sentence in the article... and this one is simply wrong:

"China's state-run media have produced many reports claiming that some believers hurt or kill themselves after reading the books by Li Hongzhi, although few such reports have been verified by independent parties."

I changed this line. If this really is true, than please someone put it back and name one of theese "independent parties" who verifed those deaths... because as a matter of fact Amnesty International made the following statement:

"As a human rights organization, we were appalled and taken aback when we got reliable information from China that people who practice Falun Gong exercises have been rounded up, tortured and imprisoned without any due process.(...) One thing that surprised us was why the Chinese government is so scared of this movement. This movement is not a political movement. This movement is not there to overthrow the government. As a matter of fact, Gail Rachlin even gave an open invitation to the Chinese government to have a dialogue with them to understand each other so they can move forward. This is primarily average citizens of China who are exercising their fundamental rights. As a human rights organization, we did not document even one single incident where a Falun Gong member has hurt even an average citizen in their practices. They've never done any harm to other people, so why do you round up these people and imprison them?"

T. Kumar Amnesty International's director for asia and the pacific

And here is another quote by the U.N. :

"Statement by International Education Development in the United Nations (and now part of UN’s official records) Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-third session, Agenda item 6 August, 2001 (...) In our statement under item 3 we described the Falun Gong Practice as we have found it to be. The government, in exercise of the right to reply, attempted to justify its State terrorism against the group by calling it an “evil cult" that has caused deaths and the break-up of families. In our investigation, the only deaths have been at the hands of the Chinese authorities; families have been broken up because family members have been killed by the regime; people have been broken down, not by Falun Gong, but by extreme torture, incarceration in mental hospitals with brutal treatment, hard labour in labour camps and other such practices. As was reported in the International Herald Tribune on August 6, 2001, the regime admits that it has officially sanctioned violence against practitioners in order to wipe out Falun Gong. The regime points to a supposed self-immolation incident in Tiananmen Square on January 23, 2001 as proof that Falun Gong is an "evil cult”. However, we have obtained a video of that incident that in our view proves that this event was staged by the government. We have copies of that video available for distribution. In his most recent report (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/66), the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Torture attests to tens of thousands detained and tortured practitioners. (Paras. 246-290). The Commission's Special Rapporteurs on Violence against Women and Extrajudicial Executions also attest to these abuses, with similar indications as to numbers. (E/CN.4/2001/73/Add.1, para. 19; E/CN.4/2001/[ ]). We are compiling evidence indicating that at least 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners are detained in prisons, labour camps or mental hospitals, of which thousands are beaten and many tortured to death. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of practitioners are severely threatened. The UN mechanisms clearly cannot handle this volume of verified cases, nor can the international community easily cope with perhaps millions of asylum seekers -- all of whom would clearly meet asylum criteria. Accordingly, the international community as a whole and the Sub-Commission in particular should address this situation of State terrorism as one of extreme urgency."

Recent Edits (reference to those prior to 05/30/05)
Recent edits to the article seem very thoughtful, though, I think some issues of NPOV were present and I have adjusted them accordingly. One thing, however, is that most of these changes resulted in a transformation of context and/or loss of content (surprising considering that they were done by an administrator). Although the intention was stated as being one thing, the outcome involved more. Please make changes to content in manageable doses and discuss on this "talk" page those which change the context of the article or take away content. --Mas5353 03:51, 30 May 2005

In General
It seems there is some inconsistency throughout the article with respect to the use of the word "Falun Gong." Let's be clear that "Falun Gong" is a practice and that people who practice it are probably best referred to as practitioners or followers. Some uses of "Falun Gong" that I have corrected use the words to refer to everyone that practices it as a group or organization (i.e "Falun Gong denies that..."). Using the words in that context causes ambiguity as it's not clear whether the words are referring to the teachings of Falun Gong, it's creator, or all practitioners. As a result, that sort of use can imply things that are not factual (such as all practitioners believe or think a parituclar thing), I believe, so we should be careful of this. Please comment if you think this sort of simplification isn't a good idea. --Mas5353 00:40, 30 May 2005 (EST)
 * Consistency is a good thing. There is falungong (the more normative pinyin based romanisation) which is the exercise system, and Falundafa, which is the organisation, and then the writings and public pronouncements of Li. A rewrite to more clearly delineate the three would be very welcome. Fire Star 05:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that Falun Dafa (or Falun Gong) is not an organization and practitioners firmly reject all connotation involved with being one. Furthermore, I gather from the Chinese language that the literal meanings of "Falun Gong" and "Falun Dafa" may be different, though practitioners interchange them freely.  Whether this is another idiosyncrasy or something linguistically legal, who knows.  The interesting part of this fact (that Falun Dafa is not an organization) is that it is the direct cause as to why nobody knows for sure how many Falun Dafa practitioners there are, causing reliance upon all these surveys and estimates.  Does anybody have any idea why certain individuals or groups insist on labeling Falun Gong and it's practitioners as an organization, where practitioners find it so important to maintain that there is none?  Forgive and disregard this if it is beyond the intention of this discussion page. --Mas5353 02:15, 30 May 2005 (EST)
 * My understanding is that falungong is the exercise routine taught by Falundafa followers. I can't recall where, but I have read that some prefer to be labelled as Falundafa instead of falungong. Falungong, however, is how they are best known to the public. It is a good question, I just wish I had a better answer! Fire Star 06:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Lead
In an attempt at eliminating redundancy some content was removed. However, though well proposed, I believe contextual supporting language (as well as actual information) was lost and have added or reworded some things that I thought to be a good compromise. Comments welcome. --{User:Mas5353|Mas5353]] 00:44, 30 May 2005 (EST)
 * How about:
 * "However, the public teachings of Falun Gong discourage political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in politics."? Fire Star 04:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds even more appropriate. If you haven't already put it in, I will Mas5353 01:00, 30 May 2005 (EST)

The lead currently states that "the basis for denial is said to be found in Falun Gong's teachings, which claim that their practice encompasses the entire universe, and that the Buddhist and Taoist schools don't." In reading about Falun Gong and its teachings, had not made the leap between the universality of Falun Gong expressed in its teachings and practitioners' claims that it is not a cult. If such an explanation is to be made in the article, I think it needs to be said what about the teachings' claims to universality keep Falun Gong from being a cult according to practitioners (maybe it would be useful to address the definition of a cult). I understand it to be more significant that the teachings are meant to lead people to be what a practitioner would call "good people"--that is, hardworking, unselfish, etc.--and that they do not lead practitioneres to harm others or themselves, or to cut themselves off from society as cults are generally said to do. On August 8th 1999, soon after the ban in China, an interview with Li Hongzhi was published by the New York Times entitled "Eye of the Storm" in which he responds to a question on this issue. Although it is a few years old now, I think his response is still relevant. --134.173.232.70
 * I believe you've got a good point, but the description/definition of a cult already resides within its own article. I would think that readers could almost be expected to make their own contrast/comparison between those qualities of a cult and the teachings of Falun Dafa presented here.  Whether there is currently sufficient information present to do that is debatable.  Perhaps the current written treatment of Falun Dafa's teachings needs attention.  Or, perhaps a new section devoted to your topic could be added to this article, that is, an NPOV comparison of Falun Dafa teachings vs the characteristics of a cult.  What do others think?  With respect to your NYT interview: could you post a link to that article in the references section?  Thanks ;) --Mas5353 20:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the information needed to determine whether or not Falun Dafa is a cult can't be found in Falun Dafa's teachings. Cult status depends a great deal on how other people perceive Falun Dafa.  In addition the actual practices of Falun Dafa members (practioners?) are very relevent.  Given the ambiguity and social nature of the concept of "cult", I doubt that a complete rebuttal could be found in Falun Dafa's teachings.RampagingCarrot 22:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess to the point I really wanted to make is that this is not in my experience the reasoning Falun Dafa practitioners use to refute claims that Falun Dafa is a cult, which this sentence seems to suggest it is. I emailed the site to a few practitioners I know, and the one who's gotten back to me confirmed this: she said that it was a very good article with the exception of that one sentence, for that reason. The first things they seem to point to the things I mentioned above--that individuals must not be forced or pressured into practicing Falun Dafa, that practitioners are not to cut themselves off from society or disasociate with people because of Dafa, and that they are not to harm themselves or others (quite the contrary!). I would agree that the definition of a cult is pretty ambiguous; I think RampagingCarrot is likely to be right about any sort of complete rebuttal. As far as creating a new section is concerned, I don't necessarily think it's needed, as long as the information given is accurate. I do think that it's important to keep the mention the rebuttal practitioners usually give to this question, though.
 * I've edited the sentence I mentioned above to express what I was trying to say before. I hope the way I've changed it is acceptable to the rest of you working on this page.
 * The lead still says "The basis for the denial comes directly from Falun Gong's teachings, in that the practice claims to encompass the entire universe, purporting to include and go beyond Christian, Buddhist and Taoist religions." This first sentence is inaccurate. Practitioners' belief that the practice goes beyond other religions has nothing to do with Falun Gong being a cult or not, and does not support the denial of Falun Gong being a religion, as recognized by all the practitioners I've spoken with on this subject.  It is not how these two claims are defended.  The denial for being a religion as I understand it comes at least in part from lack of rituals and ceremonies, but not from being above other religions.  This was changed before; please do not keep insisting on these inaccuracies.
 * Li Hongzhi has stated several times in public interviews that his teachings supercede those of other religions, which somewhat deflates the claim that what he teaches isn't related to religion. Falungong practitioners and others can claim that Falundafa isn't a cult, that is fine, but it is also notable that many other groups besides the CCP (especially most members of the "bypassed" religions) have their doubts as to the sincerity of that claim. We aren't here to say that FLG is or isn't a cult; we just have to report on what they do publicly, what Li teaches publicly, and the various notable public reactions to that. Fire Star 22:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Purifying the Body
I'm not exactly sure why the information and distinction concerning "meditation" and "karma" was removed. They seem to be important pieces of information offering distinction to Falun Gong and carrying unique interpretations within the practice. I've put them back in. I've also made a small correction concerning the emphasis of the exercises supported by information found in Zhuan Falun. --Mas5353 02:49, 30 May 2005 (EST)

Other Beliefs
An edit I've reverted here seems to be done out of an either unresearched or very POV context. Much scientific evidence has been provided, not only in Zhuan Falun but in scientific journals, stating that human beings have certain, once thought to be supernatural, abilities (such as ESP vs brain wave interception). Please read your resources before making edits such as this. It really is a brave new world that we are living in. --Mas5353 03:07, 30 May 2005 (EST)

Falun Gong Presence in Major Metropolitan Areas
I dont' know why the most recent edit to this section (which I reverted) was done without discussion first, as the articles current substance in this section was the outcome of much deliberation on the archived talk page. I'm especially surprised considering it was done by an "administrator." --Mas5353 03:49, 30 May 2005

Gong
Gōng 功 means "achievement, merit, good result." Falungong is the only notable group that uses the word to mean "energy." Every other notable group uses it to condition or categorise another term meaning "energy." They use it as such, IME, to try to sidetrack rebuttal arguments from traditional Taoists, Buddhists and martial artists that Falungong's exercise system doesn't seem to have a mechanism that actually generates much metabolic energy, arguments to put themselves above traditional styles of qigong to their potential adherents. An unsubstantiated argument, at best. I don't want to actually say in the article that their arguments in this regard (among others) are designed to denigrate all other schools to make themselves look better, so instead I simply point out that their use of the term is unique to them. Since they are the only ones who can be demonstrated to use the word in such a sense, "idiosyncratic" is appropriate. Fire Star 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

功 gōng /merit/achievement/result/service/accomplishment/ 功夫 gōng fu /skill/art/kung fu/labor/effort/ 功绩 gōng jī /feat/ 功课 gōng kè /classwork/ 功劳 gōng láo /contribution/meritorious/credit/ 功率 gōng lǜ /power(the output of an engine)/ 功率恶化 gōng lǜ è huà /power penalty/ 功能 gōng néng /function/ 功能集 gōng néng jí /function library/ 功能群 gōng néng qún /functional group/ 功效 gōng xiào /(n) efficacy/

Fire Star 04:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver Addition to Foreign Views on Falun Gong
I'm placing this here since my comments on the user's page have been ignored. Mas persists in removing information about the Falun Gong protest in Vancouver, Canada. Clearly s/he has no knowledge of this protest, which is now in its fourth year. At any rate, I object strongly to this user's edit summaries (the first of which was something like "Wikipedia is not a blog") and to the unliateral removal of relevant and factual information.


 * I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding Exploding Boy. I didn't ignore your comments on my User page.  I had no idea they were there (as I don't check my User page because it's a page about me, not for messages to me.  I only know if you're trying to communicate with me if you leave a message on my Talk page (as you so correctly did in your second attempt) because it notifies me that I have messages available.  Please do not get upset and offer a little more forebearance.  Thank you. --Mas5353 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mas: I've been here longer than you. A simple look at my user page and contributions would have alleviated any concerns that I'm simply adding nonsense. The Vancouver Falun Gong protest is well known. This type of addition does not, strictly speaking, require a citation, since it is easily verifiable (ie: by looking), well known, and the text contains no numbers. I suggest that you err on the side of discussion in future, rather than knee-jerk reversion. Exploding Boy 18:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is relevant information, there has been a similar protest in London, which I may add to this section, and set-up a subheading entitled something like 'Ongoing protests'. Mas5353 can see by reading the statement at the top of the page that he/she is required to discuss edits in line with Wikipedia policy, especially when there is no clear reason to delete the information in my opinion. Solar 20:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but users are also required to post in line with Wikipedia policy. I'm afraid that the addition isn't as well known as the poster suggests (wouldn't it be nice if all citizens of China knew about it), not to mention that this article has been dubbed controversial, so extra care and consideration should be taken (such as citing sources, which should be done anyway) because of its potential influence.  I suggest that not adhering to or taking into consideration this sort of principle inhibits "clarifying the truth" and improving the article, as well as ourselves. --Mas5353 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * From the Vancouver Courier's website: Fire Star 21:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a resource, Fire Star, not only so that Wikipedians are able to check the addition, but to show me how verifiable the addition is. I will add it in.  I suggest (to everyone) that it doesn't matter who you are what you have accomplished at Wikipedia, it doesn't make you right.  Only resources can substantiate additions.  Based on what you've asserted, Exploding Boy, anybody can edit a page with any intentions and nobody should do anything about it, regardless of it's content unless it was first discussed on the discussion page.  In whatever time it took to do that, that edit has the potential for polluting the article.  That is not right, as the addition is not supported; it is just hearsay.  I apologize for any "jerk-like" deletions without discussion first, but I think the reasons I've provided above clealry express my rationale.  I did it out of consideration for all beings involved, and in an aim to maintain the integrity of all parties involved. --Mas5353 05:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that maybe this addition to the article:
 * "Falun Gong supporters in Vancouver, Canada continue to stage what they claim is the world's longest-running continuous protest against China's treatment of Falung Gong practitioners. The protest, which runs twenty-four hours a day, is located at the entrance to the Chinese Consulate on Granville Street."

might better belong under Falun Gong Presence in Major Metropolitan Areas. What do yall think? --Mas5353

Protests are political statements
I have amended the article to reflect that, while Falungong may not consider what they do in their protests to be political, most of the rest of the world considers such protests to be inherently political posturing, for good or ill. It could probably be worded better, if anyone else would care to have a go at it. Fire Star 20:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that that is nothing more than your interpretation. Not even Wikipedia's article on protest asserts such a slippery over-generalization.  It seems you want to promote your POV that this is the case.  Why not link to protest and let the reader deside if protest should be painted in such a light  You can have protests that aren't political and have nothing to do with the government.  Sometimes people just want to make people aware of what's going on.  Besides, if a government entity is brutally torturing, brainwashing, and forcing slave labor on a group of people, and (not so surprisingly) those people would like this to come to an end, how do you expect them to go about it?  How do you expect them to make the world aware of this?  Or do you think that this sort of thing should be allowed to happen, Fire Star?  As the persecuted group of people is defenseless, and they are forced to protest, can you really call them political?  If anything, wasn't it that persecuting government that made it political (as they are a government afterall)? --Mas5353 06:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Because of the distortion and slant of your edit, I've moved it below for discussion and reverted the article it to the previous one. Fire Star, lately your edits appear to have more motive and be less NPOV, and as an administrator you have more responsibility to withold this urge.  I'm citing this to the Wiki authorities. --Mas5353 06:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The edit:
 * Since the persecution of the practice in China, the CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on political protests by Falun Gong followers and the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). While the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid political involvement, and practitioners claim publicly to have little interest in power or politics, pro-Falun Gong political protests are a fact of life in many major metropolitan centres in the West.


 * Oh dear. Actually, only the last little bit was mine. FWIW, I am aware that articles are owned by the community at large and not by a single person or group. I meant to introduce some balance to the statement by Falungong that Falungong doesn't have any political agenda. A public protest is political, it is an attempt, by action, publicity, propaganda, etc., to persuade observers to another point of view. Regardless of whether they claim they are forced to protest, they are still reacting in a political way to the political suppression of their movement. That contradicts their public position, at least a little. Perhaps that is a better way to put it. You may certainly report me to whomever you'd like, I'll be happy to discuss things... Fire Star 00:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FLG's political sources
Many people in the Chinese community tend to see FLG as a political group, as shown by the FLG backed newspaper 'Dajiyuan', in which it accused the Chinese Communist Party of being an 'evil Satanist cult'. In the wave of FLG crackdowns, Li Hongzhi allowed his followers to make political statements about the ongoing events, as long as they don't link them to him. Many former FLG practitioners has quit due to the over-politicalization of the group.

recent edit
Removed an reference to the English version of Minghui.org, the official website of Falun Gong because it is not an EpochTimes article, fine. Removed another reference because it has no English translation, fine. But I see no reason to keep the remain paragraph, since these internet promotion metioned there are not massive, not worth to report, and thus not influential enought to "spreading the truth of the universe" (from another removed reference).

People may get so comfortable with spreading the truth that regard sending emails to tens of people at time as usual. --Skyfiler


 * The "Internet Reading Club" reference that you have mentioned was not removed and is in fact still there. The paragraph was originally edited because there was an implication that all referenced stories were from the Epoch Times, which was not true. Now, the remaining paragraph is honest and clearly portrays and references ways that practitioners clarify the truth of the persecution, which, from reading the paragraph, I see is through email, chat rooms, etc. (you can read the references for the way these methods are undertaken, which, unfortunately for you, mass mailing is not condoned). --Mas5353 22:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I missed the link. but look at this. That's how some FLG practitioners clarify the truth. I constantly get many messages and emails every day, if I go online. Only to get ride of them that I changed my email address, stoped adding users to my chat contact list and keep denying all request of new chat contact. But I can not stop recieving such requests, even I can tell the sender is FLG chatbot or not by their pattern--Skyfiler
 * I know it wasn't your intention Skyfiler, but the translation of the article you've linked to is absolutely incomprehendable. &lt;laughs&gt; Check out this excerpt of the translation:
 * "I told the younger sister the big method younger brother child have laboriously, for said really looks like economical in everyday spending, day and night even is destitute and homeless has is not easy. She said to me, actually, if she and the big method younger brother child speaks the time they can answer no the speech does she also do not have does not want."
 * I guess the Google translator needs a lot more work for Chinese to English. Sorry! --Mas5353 19:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mixed race people are "defective"
The statement, in question, posted to the article by a Wikipedia administrator, Fire Star, is:
 * "Li Hongzhi, who has stated that all people of mixed race are 'defective'."

--Mas5353 03:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My source for the statement is the interview with Li featured in the Apologetics Index link in the external links section at the bottom of the article. It seems that he said it.


 * From the source:


 * "In Li's view, the races are not to be intermingled. Mixed-race children, he notes, are a symptom of societal decline. A race has its own particular biosphere, and whenever children are born of a mixed-race relationship, they are defective persons. Li contends that heaven itself is segregated. Anybody who does not belong to his race will not be cared for. I do not just say that. It is really true. I am revealing the secret of heaven to you."

Such incredibly controversial statements have to be mentioned in the article. Fire Star 15:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The source itself is not NPOV and is not considered to be a syndicated or respected source or collection of facts or knowledge. The source itself does not even appropriately cite where they claim they got Li Hongzhi's words from and that fact cannot be checked.  If you would like to represent the point of view of that source in saying that some people (apologetics of course) believe that, then that is your prerogative.  Otherwise you are intentionaly distorting the truth and using substandard and POV sources to push your agenda. Shame on you for using such tactics. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia administrators. --Mas5353 04:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's a source, and can be cited, with the proper caveats. So, whether the outside source is POV or not won't matter if Li actually said those things. If Li is demonstrably racist, that is a notable feature of his public career and will go into the article. I'm going to look into it. As for whether I'm a disgrace, that has yet to be determined, but I believe in reporting neutrally, warts and all. Since you've opened the door of disrespect several times (and aren't above the odd threat), I will say, in lieu of actually insulting your methods or credibility (which would be small of me) that curiously your edit history seems almost exclusively devoted to maintaining a pro-Falungong POV. We've had this discussion before, and you've denied it, but the evidence is apparently there. I don't have a problem with that, or with you, but you are going to have to learn to work with me, I'm afraid. I'm not going away. Can't you just feel the Wikilove? Fire Star 13:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * To accuse anyone as being "a disgrace to Wikipedia administrators" without good reason and just because of clashes in political ideas is simply shameful. Mandel 08:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Mandel. My reasoning follows that a non-disgraceful Wikipedia administrator would only want to include sources in their encyclopedia that were legitimate.  When encountered with an illegitimate source with a POV that may be perceived as noteworthy, then that information would be duely included in the article as what it was, a POV.  If you are unable to see that source and this fact in conjunction with Fire Star's most recent contribution as something which disgraces Wikipedia, then we might as well let vandals take over our beloved encyclopedia.  I still contest as the bottom line that a Wikipedia administrator should know better than to do that and, after having a history of such actions with complaints, cannot declare ignorance. --Mas5353 13:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, That racism thing isn't a quote nore an interview but only the opinion of that guy. There is no such quote by Li Hongzhi (if there is why don't you directly quote Li Hongzhi's own words?) But now i would like to point out something...

I am a German and a friend of mine is a Holocost survivor and a supporter of Falun Gong and she once said that the reason why the Nazis where able to do what they did was beause people at that time simply thought that "even if jews are indeed getting so terribly persecuted then the Nazis for sure would have a good reason."

Well and then when people heared in the Nazi Propaganda that Jews where suppossed to be trying to slander the German nation, have huge Anti-German forces in other countries behind them, where suppossed to be greedy lunatics who brutaly wound themselves and others etc. they said: "see... I told you that the Nazis weren't doing this for no reason" Even though deep inside they knew that jews weren't like that.

Well of course I am not triyng to compare Falun Gong with Jews, I am just saying that this might also be a very sensitive issue, and you don't want some people here mix up the facts with communist propaganda and then let them get away with the excuse that the article would only be NPOV if it states half of what Falun Gong says and half of what the Communist Party says as fact.

If one where to go according to this logic than the entry about jews would only be NPOV if half of it where to state the Nazis propaganda as fact!

So lets make this clear: even just a tiny litle bit of such propaganda stated as fact in an encyclopedia would be absoltly unaccaptebly to any european. (but of course communist propaganda is not the same as nazi propaganda)

So still in order to prevent the Falun Gong entry from beeing constantly used by some people to state the many rumors about Falun Gong as fact and to thereby manipulate viewers into beliving them to be true ("look after all this is from an independent encyclopedia...") I would suggest that from now on everything in the entry or at least everything stated as fact should either be based on statements from organisations like the U.N., Amnesty International and so on, or at least on personal experience.

I am sure that some will object now and say that that way it would take too long for the article to grow big... but after all I think in time one would finally be able to tell what's true and false, and then it would be more difficult for some people to constantly mess everything up again. What do you guys think of my proposal? --Some_IP

You're a idiot, as if your friend is a Holocaust survivor. Falun Gong is an evil anti-China cult and how dare you compare FLG to the Holocaust.


 * Your proposal sounds well-reasoned and appropriate to me. --Mas5353 13:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed Fire Star's entry and although the source is not ideal it seems to be in-line with many statements regarding Li Hongzhi's views on inter-racial marriages and by extension inter-racial children. Try this BBC article (who are a respected organization) BBC: Falun Gong. I support Fire Star in his position and believe that name calling and constant harassment by some users is more out of line with Wikipedia policy than a weak source. - Solar 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By that token, I offer Fire Star my sincerest apology and hope that he/she will accept it. To those who have forgotten, as it seems to have disappeared in all the muck, I will remind you that the source that was used in this originally disputed post, not to mention the whole reason we're having this conversation in the first place, doesn't even specifically cite where it got the alleged words of Li Hongzhi.  We should be more careful to and respectful for Wikipedia articles. --Mas5353 16:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is another source which does include the quote that Fire Star seemed to be referring to, it is cited as being from the New York Times:


 * Li Hongzhi said that: "...interracial children are the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period,' a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, 'The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven.' As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention."

I hope that helps - Solar 17:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As the title of this section states and as Fire Star wrote it, the quote from Fire Star's source claims that Li Hongzhi stated that interracial people are "defective." The fact is that these words were never said by Li Hongzhi. Furthermore, the quotation that you are citing, as well as the other sources cited by the information that currently resides in the article, does not say or mean the same thing as that statement. --Mas5353 03:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most would agree from a NPOV that the term 'Dharma ending period' does not imply positive or respectful ideas towards a person identified with it. I think that Religious Tolerance is a respected NPOV organization as is the BBC, so at the very least Li Hongzhi's views on race should be questioned and some definition of his terminology included (which I am happy to add). Mas5353 if you feel that he is not being derogatory you are free to add elements into the article, which explain what he means by his statements on race and how they are positive and inclusive. - Solar 09:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invite, though I'm wondering if you even read what you've linked to. From what I've read, Li Hongzhi says that the entire human race is in the "Dharma Ending Period" and according to your source, Solar, that is the "spiritually degenerate age" where the morality and spirituality of mankind is in decline.  As you've remarked, by implication, definitely that "age" is not a positive thing to be associated with.  But the coining of the phrase and the assigning of the association has been done by several Eastern religions (such as Buddhism and Taoism).  All it takes for a person to decide as to whether we truly are in the "Dharma Ending Period" is for them to look around and observe for themselves the nature of human beings. --Mas5353 15:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Greetings everyone. I have been doing some research, and have come up with a few things. I have found lots of sites quoting the "defective" statement such as this one, but none of them seem to give a clear citation back to Li. Also, as Mas5353 points out, most of them are from religious sites arguing against Falungong or Li. What I have found is from this Q&A with Li from a Canadian Falungong site:


 * http://www.faluncanada.net/library/english/sydney/xini_e.html


 * from the above:


 * "Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them. Therefore, you find the place where the continents of Europe and Asia meet a desert in the past and a depopulated zone. When the transportation means were not advanced, it was difficult to pass through it. With the progress of modern means, all these are broken through. Thus, races have become increasingly mixed up, which can lead to serious consequences. Of course, I will not go into details. I'm just saying that the higher levels do not recognize such a human race.


 * Question: Can you say a little more about the interracial children?
 * Master: I have already talked about such interracial children. I have only mentioned the phenomena in this Dharma-ending period. If you are an interracial child, it is, of course, neither your fault nor your parents' fault. Anyway, it is just such a chaotic situation brought about by mankind, in which such a phenomenon has appeared. The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have the corresponding races in heaven. Then, if one is not from his race or does not belong to his people, he will not take care of him. This is the truth, and it is not that I’m making up something here. What I am telling everyone are heavenly secrets. All interracial children were born in the Dharma-ending period. People are not to be blamed for it, because everyone is drifting in the tide, and nobody knows the truth. This is the way they have come through. If you want to practice cultivation, I can help. As for which paradise you will go to, we will need to look at your situation. I will assimilate more of whichever portion that is better preserved. Anyway, you should concentrate on your cultivation and should not concern yourself with these things. There is nothing to be afraid of now that you have attained the Fa. I did not mention such things when I was teaching the Fa in the past. However, such a matter will be told to man sooner or later."


 * In my turn, I harbour no ill will towards Mas5353 (or anyone else) and would like to say again that I am interested only in a complete article. If Li has made apparently controversial statements, they should be mentioned as such, without a value judgment but with as much context as is feasible. We have to assume that our readers are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. It would be preferable, IMO, for another editor to include the above info into the article, if they would be so kind, so as to smooth the collegial waters here a bit. Cheers, Fire Star 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If we return to the original statement by Fire Star "Li Hongzhi, who has stated that all people of mixed race are 'defective'." we can see that the statement is a fair interpretation of Li Hongzhi's views on people of mixed race based on quotes I and others have found. Although Li Hongzhi may believe all peoples outside of his belief system are part of the defective age or the 'Dharma ending age' (Note: My link above was a general definition not a Li Hongzhi quote) he does single out and use racially based derogatory language. For example the statement "Mixed races have lost their roots, as if nobody in the paradise will take care of them. They belong to nowhere, and no places would accept them." does not apply to all people but only to those of mixed race. Also to state that it is not their fault or they should not be blamed implies that there is indeed something defective about people of mixed race. To conclude as I said it was fair to say Li Hongzhi believes people of mixed race to be 'defective' to what level and how far this view goes is another matter. I propose adding a more in-depth section dealing with this area, as it is clear that it is an important area in terms of how many view Falun Gong. I hope everyone feels that is the best solution and that way we can create a truly NPOV section. - Solar 16:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well this has only become an "important area in terms of how many view Falun Gong" because after the persecution the communist party has looked through all of Li Hongzhi's writings in order to find something that they could take advantage of to justify their persecution, and so then made some more "fair interpretations" regarding that (-: and spread them (the "fair interpretations" not the original quotes) in all their media.

But ofcourse because of that many people now really have a bad impression of Falun Gong because they think that those fair interpretation would be the contents -and basicly the only contents of Falun Gong. So sure that might now make it worth mentioning... Regarding the way this should be done i agree with what FireStar just said.

Here is another interview with Li Hongzhi: http://www.upholdjustice.org/English.2/G_3.doc he doesn't seem to say anything about the races, but he gives his statement to a lot of similar questions.

Manuel- July 24. 05

Images
I have noticed that the images on the main article are being removed and added to, I feel that we should have a vote on what images to include. In my opinion is not clear. I also feel that the image should not be here but should remain on the page about Li Hongzhi. Please add your comments in support or against. - Solar 17:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Li's image should go back to his bio. As for the others, they should be clearly illustrative of a given point in the article, technical or political, and not of the "aren't we cool?" genre. Fire Star 17:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for including your research Fire Star. IMHO, Fire Star is right about the images and subsequently removing the headshot, but I do believe all other images in the article are appropriate in their current positions and context. --Mas5353 13:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

An Interesting AP Article
Chinese Defector Tells U.S. Lawmakers of Campaign Against Falun Gong Through Embassies, Consulates

By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer 717 words 21 July 2005 08:45 pm Associated Press Newswires (c) 2005. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A defected Chinese diplomat told U.S. lawmakers of a global campaign against members of the Falun Gong spiritual group being waged by the Communist Party through China's embassies and consulates, calling the party a "government terrorist organization."

Chen Yonglin, drawing on his experience as first secretary in the consulate-general in Sydney, Australia, outlined his former government's ways of countering Falun Gong adherents through surveillance, extortion, heavy-handed diplomatic pressure, propaganda.

"The war against Falun Gong is one of the main tasks of the Chinese missions overseas," Chen told the House of Representatives Foreign Relations human rights subcommittee Thursday.

"The Falun Gong policy of the central (Chinese Communist Party) for the overseas missions is `To fight eyeball to eyeball, to attack at will and aggressively.'"

Falun Gong is a set of meditation practices, based on the principles of truth, compassion and tolerance.

Chinese leaders have not specified the source of their animosity toward the group but say Falun Gong is an evil, dangerous cult. Practitioners say it is apolitical and nonviolent, but in recent months it began waging a campaign to persuade members of the Chinese Communist Party to quit, even if they do it secretly and anonymously.

Practitioners contend more that 3 million people have registered on a Web site established for the purpose, and 20,000 more are signing each day signaling they had severed relations with the party, the Communist Youth League or other party organizations.

Gretchen Birkle of the State Department's Democracy, Human Rights and Labor section testified that more than 100,000 practitioners have been detained in China, some for merely saying they adhere to the teaching of Falun Gong or refusing to criticize its founder and organizer, Li Hongzhi.

She said punishments include lost jobs, forced study sessions against Falun Gong's principles, and imprisonment. The labor camp system still active in China is used regularly to punish adherents, she said.

"It is absolutely horrifying what they do to these people," she said, a catch in her throat, after describing pictures of tortured practitioners and children orphaned when their parents died in captivity.

In June 1999, the Chinese Foreign Ministry set up the Office of the Falun Gong Issue in Beijing, and the Sydney branch was established in February 2001, Chen said. The name was changed to the Department of External Security Affairs in July 2004, its duties expanded to deal with other restive elements among China's numerous ethnic groups that were beginning to agitate abroad, he said.

Chen, who abandoned his post in May and was granted asylum by Australia, said Chinese diplomatic posts in the country had more than 1,000 Chinese agents and informants "who have played a role in persecuting the Falun Gong. The number in the United States should be higher."

"The party is a government terrorist organization," he said.

He said the anti-Falun Gong activities he participated in as a political officer in Sydney were quite similar to those employed in the United States.

The first recourse in every country is a large-scale anti-Falun Gong propaganda campaign, he said.

In New South Wales, Sydney's state, "the consul-general preaches the CCP's policy on the Falun Gong whenever he hosts or attends any functions."

He said a Web site at the University of Wollongong, south of Sydney, displayed a photo last year of a stall sponsored by Falun Gong. The Chinese Students Friendship Association, controlled by the consulate, complained, he said, and the photo was removed within hours.

A confidential report distributed by Chen outlined consulate activities soon after the expansion began, describing a plan to "actively respond, take the initiative to strike, work to create the inner dispute, to convert some soft elements and `disinfect' the existing bad influence."

It reported that more than half Australia's 3,000 Falun Gong adherents were in the Sydney area. "The consulate has put all the Falun Gong key activists we know onto an internal monitoring list," it said. Adherents discovered as they compiled the list were invited to the embassy "to persuade them to separate from the Falun Gong organization," the report said.

Posted by: 128.186.122.139 03:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Persecution?
Is there a term we can use that could be a bit more neutral?

I don't know is Crackdown more neutral? (I am German I really don't know) But the term the Party ussually uses is just simply "wipe out" or "eliminate Falun Gong".

Manuel

Teachings
I would like to draw our attention again to this section under "Teachings":

Falun Gong also borrows from Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Theories about the cultivation of elixir (dan), "placement of the mysterious pass" (xuanguan shewei), among others, are also found in ancient Chinese texts such as The Book of Elixir (Dan Jing), Daoist Canon (Tao Zang) and Guide to Nature and Longevity (Xingming Guizhi). Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. However, the definitions of many of the terms used differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions. Francesco Sisci says that Falun Gong "re-elaborated old, well-known Taoist and Buddhist routines, used the old vocabulary that people found familiar, and revamped them in a simple, persuasive way."

I do not think this paragraph is conducive to making an average Wiki reader in understanding the things Falun Gong teaches. My view is that over the past two years, due to constant POV-pushing, this section has been watered down to reflect on making Falun Gong teachings positively and, where possible, use esoteric language to confuse readers. The rest, including all the controversial teachings, were banished to the "Teachings and beliefs of Falun Gong" article, one which we rarely pay attention to. I invite editors for some collaborative effort in improving this area. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Personally, considering that most of Falun Gong's teachings derive in large part from qigong, that should probably be mentioned up front, and the third paragraph more or less removed, or placed later in the article. In any event, qigong should not be treated as if it were some sort of secondary matter. Personally, I think the whole section needs major work. I didn't bring Ownby with me today, but let me check what he says, and maybe a few journal and other articles, and get back with it then. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ownby is a useful resource. As mentioned above, there are other resources that we can use as well, and we should not limit ourselves to Ownby alone. The most useful reference to this section should be Zhuan Falun. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned him because I have him. I'm fairly sure some of the journal articles would be useful as well. Having said that, this does raise a question. Do you all think that the Li books deserve their own articles or not. Certainly, Zhuan Falun is the primary text, and most primary texts of religious groups do have their own articles. I think this book has probably, in the various sources, been covered significantly enough to pass notability requirements. Should it be spun out? John Carter (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooray! yet another article to do battle over... ;-) Yet seriously, it will be somewhat duplicated in the 'Teachings' article. Li's writing is always so esoteric that we need to focus on the review, analysis and interpretation of the work by scholars and the mainstream press. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Zhuan Falun, for all practical purposes, is the holy creed of Falun Dafa. Therefore I think it definitely is notable enough to have its own article. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
OhConfucius, regarding this edit, did you copy and paste the content removed to another article? I do believe that this information is quite relevant because it describes the reasons behind Falun Gong's popularity. I think it does still belong here, perhaps needs cutting down, and the bulk of it should be moved to the "History" article. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I just plain removed it, as the section seemed unbalanced. I think that got copied to History. I'm tryng to build it from the ground up, preferring to remove too much than to leave too much at this stage. The whole article's structure should change radically since the creation of History. The paragraphs were just opinions. I would like to see it expressed as a general view (if we have sources), or otherwise cite some more views, to give it comprehensive coverage. Lowe was ambiguous, and I thought it could go as a cleanup. We can always put it back at a later stage. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, I did copy the whole block over to History as soon as it was renamed. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Woot for Ohconfucius
This article has been in desperate need of references by Sima Nan for a long time. Kudos for finding them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Seems like Sima is a maverick and not the 'rentathug' which Falun Gong has been making him out to be. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Falun Gong practitioners
'List of Falun Gong practitioners' was merged into this article. Now that the list has been removed, it would make sense to delete the redirect too, or not? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since said section was deleted, there's really no need for a redirect any longer since the content is gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Ohconfucius recent edits
After Ohconfucius recent edits the article makes the following statements:

"Regional offices diverged in their organizational structures. Each office generally maintained a "propaganda department", logistics department, and "doctrine" committee, or variations of those functions thereof, according to reports in state media."

Great... you have a source for that too? I mean after all you just kinda labeled Falun Gong a big hairy propaganda-organisation but then your sourcing it with an article which doesn't itself state those things but basically only states that the Communist Party ministry of propaganda states it (big surprise).

"Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'"

"While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation."

"Articles critical of Falun Gong were also published in major Chinese newspapers. In response, founder Li Hongzhi called on disciples to "defend the Fa" by lobbying media outlets and government officials to censor content critical of Falun Gong."

"Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi."

Those statements are all simply sourced with "Palmer (2007), pg249" So i looked up Palmers book page 249 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RXeuibmD2dsC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA250&vq=%22Changchun%22&client=firefox-a (hope the link works, if not use the one in the article). And i even read the previous and the next page, but simply could not find any such statements. Maybe Ohconfucius would like to give an actual source or would care to explain where exactly the present sources actually make such statements? --Hoerth (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your sarcasm is not appreciated. Please show some good faith. It's not one I recognise as my insrtion. I may have moved it, that's all. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That phrase was my contribution, not OhConfucius'. I cite "James Tong: An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing* The China Quarterly, No. 171 (Sep., 2002), pp. 636-660", who in turn cited People's Daily's "Li Hongzhi qiren qishi" for that particular statement, which is the citation used by me. There is even a disclaimer that this report is by state media so it should not be taken as impartial. In addition, I even insert phrases like "Chinese media claimed" to ensure that full NPOV treatment. Please assume good faith. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Falun Gong was highly centralised, and it maintained "absolute centralisation of thought, healing and money." Power flowed directly to or from the Master 'whose authority was strictly moral and ideological'"


 * "While it relied on traditional network (in a Qigong sense) for dissemination exercise techniques - a nationwide network of local and regional practising stations, the Falun Dafa Research Society (FDRS) was its national umbrella organisation."


 * "Donations and the sale of all materials were centralised through the FDRS, and funds flowed directly to Li Hongzhi."


 * Apologies, I'll have those sorted in due course. They are from real sources, I may have got some pages wrong. Or some sentences may have been moved away from their original cite. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see i have restored my comment and have posted your response as a response (instead of your editing my comment). I don't understand why you crossed those things out anyway - since they are still in the article and haven't been changed. All you did was mentioning another page of the palmer book and giving another source not accessible. I am getting the impression that you must have wasted a lot of time (i guess it must be many days at least) reading through countless unimportant and little known documents only to eventually find some sentence in which an author quotes from or agrees with the things that the Communist Party propaganda ministry claims about Falun Gong, and then you use it as opportunity to write in all those claims, basically putting them off as fact and then NOT sourcing it with the Communist Party affiliated media (which is the actual and most prominent source of the rumor) but instead sourcing it with some western guy who isn't the actual source at all but simply repeated what the Communist Party said or quoting from it.
 * And that is precisely the problem i have with you. We all know that the Communist Party is a totalitarian dictatorship allowing no free expression, controlling everything with almost all money flowing directly to the top and that in order to justify all those terrible things they control all the Chinese and many foreign media and spreading a lot of propaganda and then using minorities like Falun Gong as scapegoats and projecting all those methods that they themselves use onto their victims.
 * They have spread so much propaganda about Falun Gong that it is almost impossible not to have heard it - therefore i am not against mentioning what the Communist Party claims about Falun Gong since it's very likely that people have heard it anyway. But your trying to disguise all the well known propaganda spread by the communist controlled media against Falun Gong as something western scholars spread, when in fact they merely repeated it.
 * The Communist Party is a much more well known source for all the things your trying to pass off as facts in the article... i could immediately, on the spot give you hundreds of communist party sources for all your claims - while you obviously have to go through a lot of effort finding a westerner repeating it. If you would give the actual and more prominent source - i would have no issue with you. --Hoerth (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. This response is just unreasonable. Further comments like these can be considered violations of the articles' probation and actions will be taken accordingly. Firstly, you are accusing editors of bad faith editing, which essentially constitutes a personal attack. Secondly, it's great you have these informed views about the Communist Party, but Wikipedia is not a place to advocate for a cause. Here we only stand for writing from a neutral point of view. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoerth would you like to list the primary sources for the rumors? It would help this issue a lot. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * simply go to any chinese video or media site and enter 法轮功 (Falun Gong) if you don't get an error (censorship) you usually get at least a couple of hundred if not thousands of results - all slandering Falun Gong and all saying the exact same things you guys are trying to push... this is well known... impossible you could have missed it and weird that you should even ask... all 3 of you should know this only too well... --Hoerth (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What rumours? All the above are direct cites, as my amended references indicate full well. Please refer to WP:V and WP:RS - the primary sources are only of limited relevance. This encyclopaedia is built principally from secondary sources, and that's how it should stay. The sources are perfectly accessible - just go to Google books: that's how I found the stuff - otherwise go to a library. My efforts show there's actually plenty of academic material out there, not just Ownby. There's a lot more work to do on this article I have no time to waste on bad faith complaints from yet another FLGSPA. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, Hoerth, please don't start the whole POV-pushing thing again. If you feel strongly about Falun Gong in any way, then you are the wrong person to edit this article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually other than inserting a picture i haven't edited the article since october 2007. Yet i might choose to do so... if i where to do so, pls tell me why would i be "the wrong person"? And why am i not allowed to point out why i feel that Ohconfucius recent edits of the article are POV? --Hoerth (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COI..........umm.....you're straying from the topic. Your disruption on the talk page is counterproductive toward's our goal of improving these articles... Plus, if you really have something you feel that needs to be done about Ohconfucius, please follow the appropriate procedures, instead of bashing him on the talk page...also,FLG sources are are not any more valid than PRC's...--Edward130603 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoerth, "WP:COI" refers to Wikipedia's rules about conflicts of interest. If I am a militant Islamist or a survivor of 9/11, then I am simply not allowed to edit the article about 9/11. Wikipedia's contributors are expected to have a dispassionate attitude. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight... your telling me that say a Jew wouldn't be allowed to say anything regarding an article about Judaism much less edit it, right? --Hoerth (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Most Jews these days don't have a very passionate relationship to Judaism, so IMHO it wouldn't be a problem in most cases. What we don't want is for someone who LOVES and ADORES Elvis to write about the quality of his final few records. Or for someone with a vested interest in the conflict between FLG and the CCP, like yourself, to write about that issue. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's exactly why i was pointing out that Ohconfucius is such a person as basically all of his edits have clearly been from the POINT OF VIEW of the Chinese Communist Party and he tries to pass this POV off as NPOV --Hoerth (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will ignore all trolling on this, and all related pages. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Braking coments
Please don't brake other comments. You can always quote if you want to refer to some section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ASDFG's recent changes
Many of these changes deliberately mislead readers or misquote sources. I have little time to get into the details now, but for other interested editors - please read the sources given in that "persecution" section. You will be a stark contrast between the way it is presented in the article and the way it is presented in the source. One of the sources, for example, points out that testimonials from Falun Gong practitioners are almost impossible to verify; another says that the government's campaign targeted people who were actively organizing protests, not those practicing Falun Gong (and this is really no different to other disenfranchised social groups protesting that their houses have been illegally evicted. Falun Gong cannot claim that the government made special policies in this area only as part of a "terror campaign" against its members). In addition, the "torture, electricution" allegations are mostly routed through the Epoch Times. If and when these things are carried out, they are done by local authorities, not some secret-police-like network set up by Luo Gan, which is essentially a story played up by Falun Gong. If you bothered to look even slightly into each of these allegations, it's very easy to why this entire 'persecution' section needs to be re-written, or removed. Colipon+ (Talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please like to quote your sources? Thank you. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Happy. We might just want to make a rule, to keep things really simple: if you're not going to bring sources, don't worry about diatribes on the talk page. For that reason I'm not going to respond to Colipon's remarks unless he can substantiate them. There is a wealth of sources on this stuff. They'll go in the article.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This change clearly aims to re-balance the POV in favour of Falun Gong. Such an edit is not in good faith. Apparently, all references to Li Hongzhi had been whitewashed with this single edit. Colipon+ (Talk) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, please address the substance of the article rather than talking about other things. The note I made was asking how it makes sense to mix in comments about Li's teachings with straight up notes about the persecution. They're different things. If we want to address Li's comments, that's fine.But weaving them in when there is no real connection is a kind of original synthesis.--Asdfg12345 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More so than trying to stick that relationship between He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan into the article? That's a far stretch. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentators have made this connection. If it doesn't come as a quick sentence after introducing He, do you have another suggestion of where it may be better placed? The point is that the readers are aware of what the sources say on this.--Asdfg12345 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions
Hi. I'll put some questions here. Please do your best to answer them, Colipon and Confucius, and whoever else feels responsible. Actually, the first set of questions are just about the changes to my other edits. Then the other questions are general, about how the current points of emphasis in the article can be understood within the context of wikipedia content policies, particularly NPOV and DUE.

By the way, Coipon, I will just take you up on one thing you said, about the secret police network etc. Here's from Tong's Revenge of the Forbidden City:

"As his initial shock turned to anger, Jiang instructed Luo to handle the crisis, convening a meeting of concerned department to work our solutions and to engage the demonstrators in dialogue. Luo then called a meeting with the heads of the Ministry of Pulblic Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Armed Police Headquater, the Central Security Bureau, the Central Committee General Office, and the State Council General Office, as well as related departments..." p. 5

"Perhaps the most significant telltale sign of the imminence of the crackdown was the absence of the top two leaders in the 610 Office that was in charge of suppressing the Falungong. Their public appearances were much less frequent... Likewise, as the public security tsar and the operations head of the 610 Office, Luo Gan had reduced his monthly public appearances..." p. 51

Is there any dispute that the 610 Office is a secret police group tasked with persecuting Falun Gong? I understand the scope of its functions was later increased, but it was certainly set up for the purpose of persecuting Falun Gong practitioners, according to the sources.

About recent edits

 * What misleading impression does the Luo Gan/He Zuoxiu thing gives the reader? (Note that I restored the comment with a reference to Porter.)
 * Gah, too much time has passed already and I forget what other problems I had. I restored some information.

General
Actually, I think that's it. --Asdfg12345 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the understanding with making the "organisation" section of the article, since it's mostly about Falun Gong in China before the persecution. Should it be labelled clearly about which time period this corresponds to? By putting it as it is now, it gives the impression about Falun Gong as a whole, rather than in a specific time period in a specific place, which all those sources are talking about. So, it would be good to hear the understanding there. The point would just be to group information in a meaningful way. In particular, is the space that has been given these quite specific details (such as which departments Li tried to register the association with) in accordance with DUE? I had often heard confucius complain about academic sources, but none of this information would have appeared in any of the thousands of articles written about Falun Gong in the press, yet it takes up a lot of space here. Please help me to understand this.


 * I just went through and eliminated two very OBVIOUS disrespectful comments abut Falun Gong. I'm not a practitioner, but know several. It is always best to treat other people's beliefs with respect, even if they differ from yours. -- User:Zonetones

Housekeeping
Hey, can get use a consistent reference system between us? I don't mind which we use. Whatever the consensus is. Here are the three forms that are used on the pages now:


 * 1) (later uses of the form  )
 * 2) (after the initial full reference has been given)

As I say, while I don't really mind which we adopt, I will just put forth my recommendation for the first. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Here are my reasons. Happy to go with whatever is decided:


 * The first is the most widely used already on the pages. We want the refs to be consistent, and we'll have to change many of them if we pick any other style. That's one thing.
 * It seems easier to do. If you use the citenews one, you need to copy/paste into those templates, and also copy/paste a template from some other place. Kinda an extra step. If you go with the first one, you can just type it right out usually.
 * It keeps things grouped. The last one creates many different entries in the references section, so it's hard to see how often one particular reference is being used in the article, which is important information. We often want to know the page numbers. Could this be put in style comments where applicable? I'm not sure, actually.
 * Does the citenews template have a way of assigning page numbers for each ref? That would be helpful.

anyway, just some thoughts here. --Asdfg12345 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * citation templates make the whole thing neater, but it's a barrel load of work as most of the refs are in (1). cite does support page numbers as a parameter, as in '|page=2' or '|pages=294-312'. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also go with citation templates, also for conversion we can use . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that would be nice. I didn't click through. I guess it will be a bit time consuming. I'll look at it on a rainy day, but for now, should I plug in new sources with the citation templates, or use the old method them convert them? Hmm.. I don't expect anyone will know. Anyway.--Asdfg12345 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can volunteer to do it, I have quite a bit of experience with this. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

About the persecution and protests
At the moment the article treats in one section protests in China, and the persecution. Could someone speak to this? Why? Have most sources made this connection? Would it be adequate to give a broad outline of the persecution, and then Falun Gong practitioners' response? It's unclear why they are chained together atm. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, about my removal from the sentence in the lead: it's problematic because it asserts a disputed interpretation of Falun Gong as a fact. There's no room for bringing these disputes into the lead, so I think what's in there should just reflect the baseline of things we can usefully say about the subject that everyone agrees on. It doesn't need to venture into claims that are more complex, said by only one person, or whatever. On the other hand, if this can be shown to really be a mainstream view, commonly cited, then I'll be happy to go with it. But I have Ownby here saying that Falun Gong was not unique in its protests against what it saw as a concerted government campaign in the 90s; and in other cases where sources talk about Falun Gong practitioners' apparent overzealousness in responding to criticism, it's never discussed in the context of how these people are different from other religious or qigong groups. --Asdfg12345 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We've had it from many sources, including Ownby, that Falun Gong practitioners' overzealousness in responding to criticism is as good as written into the scriptures, thus is a defining characteristic of practitioners and the movement. I don't think we need to compare with the other movements. It's already noted all the other qigong groups (eg Zhong Gong, the most prominent) got crushed. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if we could say that so definitively. But whatever the case, I think it's a good idea to expand on this kind of thing and explore the whys and wherefores in the actual article. Trying to make it as part of the lead seems to over-emphasise this perspective. I mean, when people give a brief introduction to this whole topic, which includes Falun Gong, the persecution, etc., is that one of the things that comes up? ("oh, yeah, and they're a really reactive group of people, by the way") Is it really one of the most notable things about the topic, warranting its inclusion in the lead? Just seems kinda forced.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I hope we can all agree that this sort of stuff is vandalism. I just reverted to the last version by HiG. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

good work.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article structure
Something wasn't making sense to me about the structure, so I shuffled things around and renamed some headings. What does everyone think? The subject is so complex that it gets tricky to figure out where things should be properly grouped. Here is some of my reasoning for the changes:

1) because nearly all that stuff related to mainland China. If we have a section called "History," that's quite open ended. It could include nearly everything on the subject, starting from the beginning to now, with not much left out. If, instead, the history itself is integrated into the article (as in, a section on inside mainland China, and a section on outside mainland China), this seems to make more sense? It's a thought.

2) I think it makes more sense to have a sub-section called "reception" and include both the positive and negative response Falun Gong received in China. At the very least, for the sake of neutrality, if you had a section about critics, you would have to have one about supporters, which doesn't seem to make much sense. There were both.

3) It seems quite tricky to untangle all the things that happened in China that led up to the persecution and the ban, and there are many different narratives. If we narrate the events and key perspectives/opinions/interpretations of them, leading up to the ban and persecution, I think that provides some value to the reader. The media attacks and protests move in lockstep up until July 20; it's hard to make a clear cut, so I think it makes sense to call all this "friction" and then explain the ban.

4) the only other change, as I recall, was to group all the material about Falun Gong outside China in one section, rather than split it over two sections. The "outside China" is closely related to "response to persecution," and the way it was until then broken up seemed kinda arbitrary.

5) the public debate section now includes more things, and we can give this more subtlety and neutrality. Here though, again, it's unclear whether all this material should be shipped to relevant areas? As in, much of the stuff about organisation etc. is relevant to mainland China. Should that be in the mainland China section?

Anyway, these are just some ideas and thoughts. Looking forward to figuring it out.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing is, the issue of the protests and the persecution will have to be resolved. Are these not separate things; the idea of a section called "continued protests and statewide suppression", or a chunk of text which interspersed how the persecution was actually carried out and the results on the people affected, with the protests against that persecution, seems slightly odd. At the very least, the protests are a response to state violence; grouping this together and calling it "response to persecution" in the mainland section could make more sense. Unless I'm missing something? I'd again recommend Ownby as useful to consult here. His "Falun Gong and the Future of China" is the most recent and highest quality scholarly account of this whole phenomenon, so I think much of the way things are framed there would be useful to us. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Touching base
I am checking in. How are things going at this article and others in the topic area? What are continuing points of contention, if any? Do any particular discussions or content disagreements need mediation or outside opinions to help form a consensus? What sorts of guidelines or community assistance could help further stabilize the topic area and improve the involved articles? (On the last question, please avoid "ban user X" type answers.) Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you impose a ban on the Falun Gong SPAs, please? ;-) Seriously, since you last checked in, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident has been declared FA. We have a spinoff article, History of Falun Gong, which is in growth phase. Save for the renaming/deletion of Persecution of Falun Gong, there has been relatively little drama, and a small handful of minor spats and drive-by taggings. For that, we have to thank the disappearance of Olaf Stephanos, and the self-imposed exile of Dilip rajeev and asdfg12345. My wish from Santa is that this peace will last. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Vassyana chipped in here. This is a good opportunity to bring something up. Please take a look at the recent history. Several changes I made were simply reverted by Colipon. It took a while to make those changes, but he just wound them back. His comments on the talk page also accuse me of bad faith editing. I'm not upset about that, but I don't think reverting people and accusing them of bad faith is conducive to the editing environment we want.

Another thing is, I think there are some problems with the current balance of the articles. We're presented with a singular narrative of Falun Gong, rather than a more variegated picture. The reality, and what the sources say, is far more complex than is being made out. For example, there was an organisation in China, but it was disbanded in 1997, and things are highly decentralised now. The only reason there was an organisation in China in the first place is because no group is allowed to do anything without registering--i.e., they were made to register as an organisation. So nearly everything in that section is about pre-1997 China, but by default it purports to describe Falun Gong as a whole. This is just one example of the over simplification. Even in this there are many sources and many different voices, and they have all been deleted. Similarly with Falun Gong's reception in China; all the stuff about awards and approval by the mainstream have been purged, and now it's all about skeptics and critics; in fact, skeptics and critics were on the fringes back then. It was certainly part of how Falun Gong was received, no one disputes that, but the article currently presented a skewed picture, and one not in line with much of the research on the topic.

Another thing is, the History page was made mainly so the persecution page could be deleted. For some reason that wasn't successful, and now those pages are neither fish nor foul and cover similar ground. The History page is also hopelessly one-sided. Anyway, to put a positive spin on it, when we can provide a balanced picture that will be better than either pro-Falun Gong propaganda or (the current) anti-Falun Gong propaganda. Right now, while there are some good developments, the strong-arm tactics, marginalisation of mainstream discourse, elevation of a few sources to control the narrative etc. has gotten a bit out of control. It's basically like, whoever spends more time on the pages controls them. What I'm most worried about is that when I start trying to insert these mainstream views that someone is going to call in the anti-Falun Gong hordes and everything will be wiped again. Something like that happened six months ago, and we had some bizarre conversations about how the word "criticism" didn't really mean "criticism" but instead something else.

Also, the deletions of mainstream views from the pages so far is already quite extensive. For example, Ownby is interspersed with scholars whose interpretation he doesn't support (so it looks like he buys into what they're saying), whereas his analysis in other areas has been deleted. Just some generalisations here.

I'm looking forward to doing good work on these pages, and I'm genuinely interested in working with everyone. I'm just a little concerned about Colipon's willingness to do blanket reverts (I think this kind of thing should only been done rarely, when an editor has obviously done just wacky changes) and make accusations about other editors' intentions. Anyway, I've just started editing again, and it takes some time to warm up. I might have forgotten that you need a thick skin around here. By the way, I plan to edit other articles on aspects of Chinese society and politics, it's just tricky to find the time. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comments by asdfg need to be put into context of his absence for almost two and a half months. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think I had seriously edited the pages for more than six months. Either way. I don't want to sound negative. I'm not blaming anyone. Basically, I think it will be great if we can work collaboratively, play by the rules, and just keep our noses clean. No playing dirty and no backbiting; just the regular tussles about sources, policy, how things should be framed, compromise, negotiation, and so on. We've been doing this for a long time already and know how it goes. The key is just to be reasonable.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 10:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Falun Gong articles are on probation. After several months of peace and quiet I am discouraged that POV editing has entered the fold once again. I stand fully behind my reverts and all of my edits as a means to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. I will continue to fight against POV-editing from both the Communist Party side and the Falun Gong side. But it seems as though the majority of POV-pushing continues to be coming from the Falun Gong side, with much the same "gaming-the-system" tactics employed earlier by users who have already been banned. <P>To Vassyana, it would be extremely helpful if there were one or two uninvolved but knowledgeable editors who to monitor the page and will be bold when it comes to reverting POV edits by questionable users and who are familiar with how SPAs on this page game the system. I have little energy left in combatting senseless POV-laden edits and answering to non-productive partisan discussions, and then receiving accusations from users with a clear conflict of interest against me as though I am the one doing the wrong thing. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, not sure what to say. I'm editing in good faith. Happy to engage in dialogue on policy, the sources, etc., and hammer out the best way of presenting things. You're basically saying I'm gaming the system, doing bad faith edits, etc. That's not true. I would prefer just to deal in the nuts and bolts of what's in the sources and what is on these pages.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is and is not true is very visible in your edits. Ask any uninvolved editor to review your edits and talk page rants, and it will be very clear what is going on. There is no to continue denying that you have a very clear conflict of interest in this subject, and as such should not be editing Falun Gong articles, period. Your disruptive edits have been sparse in the past few months but they are creeping back as of this week. Deny it all you want, but these are plain facts visible to any uninvolved spectator. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just keep our discussion to the sources, policies, and what's on the pages. If my editing is in violation of wikipedia policies then I'm of course vulnerable to AE measures, or whatever.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, discussion along those lines is fine, but not to the extent where it gets bogged down in wikilawyering, which unfortunately happens much too often. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 05:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)