Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 6

Archived discussion: Bold text
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive1, 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive2, 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive3, 31 July 2005 to 20 January 2006
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive4, 21 January 2006 to 2 March 2006
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive5, 3 March 2006 to 21 March 2006
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive6, 22 March 2006 to 10 April 2006
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive7, 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive8, 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006
 * Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive9, 26 May 2006 to 2 June 2006

Political Involvement
Why is it that this religious faction one of the only groups that protest against the CCP in a grand scale? Why do we see FLG people passing out fliers in every major chinese social gathering? Don't you think this faction is a little too politically oriented to be really a sole religious organization, but more a hybrid of religion and politics?

On a side note, "Truthfulness, Benevolence, Forbearance" is ancient Chinese values, why do FLG claim ownership (for lack of a better word) over it?

Posts from Main Page for Discussion, or, Let's Start Over
Fire Star has suggested I post the following bullet items from the Beliefs section for discussion. Please read post # 23 in Archive 5 "Response to Request for Comments" for more detailed sources and comments concerning the formulation of my expository statements. Also note subsequent discussion and the comments made by Olaf concerning who can be saved in the Fa-rectification (an apparent change in emphasis by Master Li due to the persecution in China) --Tomananda 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Li Hongzhi's Role as Savior in This Dharma-ending Period
Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa. In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:  "I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."


 * I know this has all been posted here before, but lets start over from the beginning with a fresh page. What I'd like to do is solicit comments (relatively brief if possible) on each of these points. We will take them individually. In this one Li does seem to be exercising the role of a religious saviour. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, made similar promises. Do any FLG students have another take? --Fire Star 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Replies
What I dont agree with is the commentary given - which, with the intention of portraying Falun Dafa as an "authoritarian cult", ( Tomananda himself admitted that is what he wants to do) completely distorts the content. The text has no basis on facts!!

1."Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period."

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1, Section 7: "Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School."

2.If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.

Doing exercises alone is not enough because this is cultivation practice not aerobics. And these quotes very clearly demonstrate that belief in Falun Dafa doesnot automatically lead to "salvation" as Tomananda claims. The term "candidate for salvation" deviates far from the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. The emphasis is always on cultivation of heart-nature(xinxing). See the quotes below:

From Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe (1998) "If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing (mind/heart-nature) to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either" From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 3, Section 1:

"Can you be considered a Falun Dafa disciple if you just practice these few sets of exercises everyday? Not necessarily. This is because true cultivation practice must follow the requirements of the xinxing standard that we have established, and you have to truly upgrade your xinxing—then, it is true cultivation practice. If you only practice the exercises without improving xinxing and without the powerful energy that strengthens everything, it cannot be called cultivation practice; neither can we treat you as Falun Dafa disciples."

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 3, Section 3:

"Without cultivating the heart, no one can make it. Conversion is a formality of everyday people. Are you a member of the Buddha School after conversion? Will Buddha then take care of you? There is no such thing. Even if you kowtow everyday until your head bleeds, or even if you burn bundles of incense, it is still useless. You must truly cultivate your heart to make it work."

This clearly distinguishes Falun Dafa from "religious belief":

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 4, Section 4: "Genuine cultivation practice depends entirely upon a person him or herself, so it is useless to pray for something."

I find no realtion between Falun Dafa and Mormonism or Scientology!!! Falun Dafa is cultivation practice which is faaar from what they are. "50 cents" and Beethoven are musicians but there is a difference- but in this case I dont see even that much similarity!

Dilip rajeev 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Li Hongzhi's Role as Protector
Also found is the idea that Master Li has numerous Fashen (spiritual Law bodies) which protect practitioners from harm. These Law bodies “exercise great supernatural power." They surround practitioners at all times and know everything that is on their minds.  Li Hongzhi states in the Zhuan Falun  : “If you can really cultivate in the right way, nobody dares to touch you rashly.  What’s more, you are under the protection of my Law bodies, so you will never be in any danger.”

3. Consequences for a Practitioner Who Does Not Follow Requirments of the Fa
While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states that if a practitioner does not follow the requirments of the Fa, his "body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”  In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to the Fa’s requirements.  In Zhuan Falun  Li Hongzhi states that when a practitioner continually practices cultivation, his life will be prolonged.  However, there is a criterion "that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over.”

There are more serious dangers for those who directly violate the Dafa. For example, a practitioner who plagiarizes the Dafa is subject to the ultimate penalty of death. In The Essentials Li Hongzhi states: “Did you know that in recent years some students suddenly died?...Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life. It’s even useless to seek protection from other Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, as they won’t protect someone who undermines the Fa. What’s more, your karma will also be returned to your body.”

4. Fa-rectification: the Dafa Judging All Beings
If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, or what Falun Gong also calls consummation. The idea of salvation for a practitioner has developed over time. In Li Hongzhi’s earlier teachings the focus was on an individual practitioner reaching consummation. In 1999,in what many would consider an apocalyptic prediction, Li Hongzhi warned that "The vows of Gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings.” Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards.   In  2001  Li Hongzhi  made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing: “Moreover, when an Enlightened Being descends to the world, it is usually at a time when people’s morals are declining day by day, when people’s sins and karma are enormous, or when people’s morality is degenerate. Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.”

5. Saving All Beings, the Good and the Bad
Note: This section was written in response to Olaf's commentary above. There has definitely been a shift in emphasis in Falun Gong teachings concerning Fa-rectification over the years. Whereas the previous focus had been on the development of moral quality (xinxing) for a practitioner to reach individual consumation, the newer emphasis is on the requirment that Falun Gong practitioners work to save all sentient beings during the Fa-rectification, as well as "safeguard and uphold" the Dafa.

In Li Hongzhi's most recent speeches, a practitioner's requirment to "safeguard and uphold the Dafa" seems to mean that the practitioner must work to expose the "evil,wicked CCP" and educate the public about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. This does not mean that Li Hongzhi has abandoned the moral teachings, but rather that he now emphasizes that all people can be saved providing they "do not play a negative role with regard to Dafa." He can make exceptions and save even the "evil ones" by giving them them "benevolent solutions."

Here's the proposed text: It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation. However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved. In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process, providing they do not have "a bad attitude" towards the Dafa. In 2005 Li Hongzhi stated: “In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma.” --Tomananda 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Replies
Note this: Tomananda Claims: "It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation. However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved."

From Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe (1998) "No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart."

From Zhuan Falun,Lecture 4 Section 2 (Published in 1993):

"Someone asked, “Is it that if one has too much black substance one is unable to practice to high levels?” One could say so, as with a lot of black substance, one’s enlightenment quality will be affected. Because it forms a field around one’s body and wraps a person up right in the middle, one is cut off from Zhen-Shan-Ren, the characteristic of the universe. Thus, this person’s enlightenment quality may be poor. When people talk about cultivation practice and qigong, this person will consider all of them superstitious, and he will not believe them at all. He will find them ridiculous. It is usually this way, but not absolutely so. Is it that it’s too difficult for this person to practice cultivation, and that he is unable to achieve high-level gong? It is not so. We have said that Dafa is boundless, and it is completely up to your heart to practice cultivation. The master takes you through the entrance, and it is up to you, yourself to practice cultivation. It all depends upon how you, yourself practice cultivation. Whether you can practice cultivation all depends upon whether you can endure, sacrifice, and suffer. If you can commit your mind, no difficulties can stop you. I would say that there is not a problem."

I will be pointing out fallacies in all the claims made by Tomananda. Till then the editors are requested to make sure that such grossly twisted material doesnt go into the article.

Dilip rajeev 13:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dilip, you have good points, and I wish you would edit and provide background for Tomananda's additions instead of entirely removing them. We must settle this in a spirit of mutual cooperation. In addition, as a practitioner, one should exercise forbearance, don't you agree? If practitioners are right, everybody will probably understand it sooner or later, and if we're wrong, then we'll just move on, right? We don't have to impose on people what we think is true. It's not that differing opinions (be it "ours" or "theirs", even though I don't like such antagonistic separation) have anything to do with the authentic truth or falsehood of Dafa. Let's all take a step back and calm down! I assure you that we can work this out together. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Dilip, Part I
What I dont agree with is the commentary given - which, with the intention of portraying Falun Dafa as an "authoritarian cult", ( Tomananda himself admitted that is what he wants to do) completely distorts the content. The text has no basis on facts!! Dilip: How can you say a text which either directly quotes or paraphrases Li Hongzhi "has no basis in fact?" You simply want to censor this information from Wikipedia and that is not acceptable. I do not intend to elaborate on the cultish nature of the Falun Gong in the article unless we get into an all-out war. I am happy with the two sentences which now appear in a different section and have not commented about "authoritarian cults" in any of the edits that we are now discussing. The reason I brought up the issue of cults in the discussion section is that it's the only way I can make sense of your blatant dishonesty when reporting Li Hongzhi’s teachings. You are engaging in apologetics here! And the only explanation I can think of for your behavior is that you are obeying Li Honzhi's repeated directive to not speak about Falun Gong at the higher levels when talking with ordinary people. As Li says in Zhuan Falun: "It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people."

1."Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period."

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1, Section 7: "Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School." Dilip: Again, your are engaging in apologetics. In the same chapter of Zhuan Falun you quote from Li Hongzhi states: “The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was provided for ordinary people of the extremely low levels two thousand five hundred years ago, who just evolved from the primitive society with simple minds. The Dharma-ending Period that he referred to is today. Now, people can no longer practice cultivation with that Dharma. Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending Period, let alone offer salvation to others. The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was based upon the situation at that time….”

As I said in my edit, “Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as exlusive savior in this “Dharma ending” period.”   Are you willing to declare on this discussion page that you do not agree with Li Hongzhi’s statement above? Are you willing to state that the monks practicing in Buddhist temples in this Dharma-ending period can save themselves with Sakaymuni’s primitive dharma? If so, you will be directly contradicting your Master and I will congratulate you for it.

2.If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation.

Doing exercises alone is not enough because this is cultivation practice not aerobics. And these quotes very clearly demonstrate that belief in Falun Dafa doesnot automatically lead to "salvation" as Tomananda claims. The term "candidate for salvation" deviates far from the concept of cultivation practice found in Falun Dafa. The emphasis is always on cultivation of heart-nature(xinxing). See the quotes below: Dilip: I never said anything about "belief in Falun Dafa,"  so don't misrepresent what the edit says, OK? What I did say, using Li Hongzhi's own phrasing, was that a practitioner must follow the requirements of the Fa to be considered a Dafa disciple. You are correct that developing one's xinxing is an important part of that requirement, but it is not the only part. Li Hongzhi demands action from his disciples, not just development of their xinxing.The action he demands now, more than ever, relates to standing up to what he calls the "evil" or "wicked" Chinese Communist Party. He says that practitioners must follow the requirements of the Fa, which is broader than just developing one's “mind-nature”. I know you know this, so again why are you trying to censor this information from the general public? ……………….. This clearly distinguishes Falun Dafa from "religious belief":

I find no realtion between Falun Dafa and Mormonism or Scientology!!! Falun Dafa is cultivation practice which is faaar from what they are. "50 cents" and Beethoven are musicians but there is a difference- but in this case I dont see even that much similarity! Dilip: The words “religion,” “religious beliefs” and "pray" do not appear in my edits,  so there’s no need to debate this. If you want to refute my choice of words, refer to those words directly. I do not claim that one has to believe in Li Hongzhi to achieve salvation, but one certainly must do what his Dafa requires. And, yes, it is his Dafa:

'''“I am telling you now that Dafa belongs to me, Li Hongzhi. It is taught to save you and spoken from my mouth.” ''' --Essentials for Further Development II

Tomananda, .. The statement "It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people."...

is part of this paragraph:

"Besides providing you with many other things, I have taught you this Dafa. Among some other issues involved, your body has been purified. Accordingly, it is simply unacceptable for me to not treat you as disciples. Casually disclosing so many heavenly secrets to everyday people is not allowed."

Please see the context.

Thanks Dilip! Your additional quotes from Li help support my case!
Dilip:  Of course I see the context! The additional sentences you have provided further help to make my case. It is precisely the master-disciple retationship in Falun Gong that practitioners most seek to conceal from the general public. Just consider what Li is saying above. He is saying that:
 * 1) he provides many things for the practitioners (eg: protecting them from harm)
 * 2) he teaches them the Dafa (which alone offers salvation to all sentient beings at this time)
 * 3) he purifies the bodies of the practitioners
 * 4) because of this, he considers all the practitioiners his "disciples"

So to be honest, you must ask yourself how often have you ever revealed the four items above to any "ordinary" person you have met? In any of your proposed edits have you reported these things honestly to the readers of this site? If you haven't, why haven't you???

If it is not because your master makes statements like:

"It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people".

then what other explanation can you offer for your practice of concealing these easily verified teachings?

If you were to walk into a Chistian church to find out what Christianity is all about, wouldn't you expect them to talk about more than the golden rule? Wouldn't you expect them, at some point, to reveal the "big secret": that Jesus offers salvation? I am not saying that Falun Gong needs to be labeled a religion because of this analogy, but we certainly need to be honest about Li Honzhi's absolutely essential role "in cultivation." Without Li Hongzhi's direct invention during culitvation, it would not be possible for a practitioner to reach consumation. Is that not a true statement?

The reason why cult experts focus on Li's relationship with his disciples...which they often refer to as "manipulative" or "coercive"...is that Falun Gong practitioners seen to lose their ability to think objectively about Li Hongzhi and what he teaches. Over a period of time, with sufficient manipulation from the Master and sufficient peer pressure from senior disciples, the followers of Falun Gong all seem to mimic the same game of apologetics. Altough this is a sad phenomenon, it does not reflect at all on the good faith or idealism of the followers.

Even though you don't agree with my POV, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that the above block quote does not mean exactly what it says: that the "heavenly secrets" Li Hongzhi doesn't want his "disciples" to casually disclose to "everyday people" are the secrets of his relationship with his disciples. And that relationship, as Li himself points out, involves a great many things he gives to his disciples...things which are supernatural and wondrous in nature. I don't object to your believing that these benefits come from the Master, but I do object to your dishonesty in not freely ackowledging them.

--Tomananda 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Later I will comment on this issue more specifically. However: if you want to state that the relationship between Falun Gong practitioners and Li Hongzhi is that of (allow me to use my own wording) a brainwashed herd and an abusive, authoritarian leader, you must take into account the actual ethnographic studies, like Noah Porter's, which definitely do not support such assertions. You cannot apply an etic definition on a phenomenon if you're not familiar with the emic. Otherwise, it's just another form of arrogant "dominating knowledge", which has nothing to do with an honest and scientific approach.


 * Let's put aside the question that my own understanding of these issues certainly differs from yours. What's the use of trying to introduce uninterested people to Falun Gong's teachings? Isn't that like converting people? Wouldn't it turn counterproductive? For goodness' sake, the only thing people should do is to give their support for ending a genocide. They absolutely don't have to believe in what Master Li teaches. Instead of being deceptive, I think it's being considerate of other people to not impose your personal worldview on them. Why, the Christians think that those who haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour will absolutely go to hell. Falun Gong practitioners think that everything's going to be alright for you, even if you don't practice Falun Gong, insofar as you don't give your support for perpetrating crimes against humanity.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have an impression that you and Samuel Luo have actively lobbied to withhold Falun Gong practitioners from participating in an annual parade in San Francisco. Even though their cause is so urgent - even though their family members and friends are being killed and tortured in China - would you rather sweep such aggravated crimes under the carpet? Wouldn't you want everyone to see how these people really act (meaning, they're not some stomach-cutting, uncle-killing bunch of extremist weirdos, like portrayed by propaganda) - even if you don't share their worldview regarding certain moral issues? Have you done something to stop the persecution? That is what really counts, not the personal belief system of a group of supernaturalist qigong aficionados. There are indeed people who hold strong opinions against "pseudo-science", and if they feel somebody's pushing his own quirky thing a little bit too rashly, they will react negatively. But we all share a common humanity, and slaughtering innocent people because of their peaceful personal beliefs is nothing but pure evil. If something so alarming is taking place, each and every respectable person ought to stand up for the fundamental rights of the oppressed. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf:  I read the Noah Porter work some time ago and am familiar with the basic argument. I am quite familiar with the emic definition of the Falun Gong phenomenon. The Noah Porter work already has some prominence in the FG article. For reasons of balance, as well as the need to report the views of professionals who actually work with Falun Gong practitioners or their family members, I have inserted one sentence into the Beliefs and Controversial Teachings section. You modified it and I have just modified it again..I hope we can reach a compromise on the language.

My basic moral stand on the Falun Gong can be summed up by what I learned from my mother: two wrongs do not make a right. What the Falun Gong tries to do is argue that because of its persecution in China, we are not allowed to criticize it. In fact, the organizers of last year's International Cutltic Studies Association in Madrid were actually threatened with a lawsuit by a Spanish Falun Gong lawyer if they proceeded with a planned panel discussion on Li Hongzhi and his Falun Gong organization. The absurd legal argument that the lawyer presented was that any criticism of the Falun Gong whatsoever would amount to aiding and abetting the Chinese government's persecution of practitioners in China. The organizers gave in to this threat because of financial reasons. But just think: a group which condemns the suppression of its religious beliefs in China seems to have no problem with stifling the free speech of people in the West who disagree with their teachings.

Having said that, I agree with you and other Falun Gong practitioners that the persecution of practioners in China must be condemned. At the same time, I am convinced that Li Hongzhi uses manipulative "thought control" techniques to get his disciples to pursue his political agenda in China. I know he denies that his agenda is political, arguing that it is just a means for practitioiners to achieve consumation, but that argument has never made any sense to me. Would Sakyamuni have taken a similar stand 2,500 years ago?

Concerning my testimony to the Board of Supervisors, you can read my entire statement here: (It appears after Samuel Luo's letter to the editor of the Sentinel). If you read my testimony, you'll see that I don't even mention the Chinese New Years parade. To summarize, I bascially gave the Supervisors background information on the homophobic teachings of Li Hongzhi and argued that because of those homophobic teachings they should not pass a resolution that would have the effect of promoting the Falun Gong here in San Francisco. There was a week between the public hearing of the sub-committee and the actual vote of the full Board of Supervisors. During that week, I lobbied the supervisors directly and proposed compromise wording for the Resolution. I proposed that while condemning the persection of Falun Gong practitioners in China, the resolution, if passed, should also condemn the homobphobic teachings of the leader of the Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi. In other words, stand up for the civil rights of Falun Gong practitioners in China and homosexuals who live in San Francisco!

Ultimately the resolution passed without my proposed language, but at least it had a clause stating the City and County of San Francisco does not sanction the views of Falun Gong practitioners. Outrageously, two days after the resolution passed, the Falun Gong posted on it's website what purports to be the complete resolution, but ommitting...without even an elipsis...the disclaimer language. So much for the truthfullness of the Falun Gong!

Olaf, I cannot speak for my friend Samuel Luo in this discussion. But I can say that I have great compassion for Falun Gong practitioners. There's an idealism and sincerity about Falun Gong practitioners which I admire. But at the same time, I am convinced that Li Hongzhi has exploited the good intentions of his disciples, while also getting them to engage in bold-faced lies about the true nature of the Falun Gong. (Is it truthful to alter the language of an official resolution in the way the Falun Gong did?) The dialogue that I have had above with Dilip and others practitioners seems to support that observation.

--Tomananda 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sujiatun
Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Of note are:

Evaluating sources

 * Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.
 * Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
 * Find out what other people say about your sources.
 * Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
 * Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

See No original research and Verifiability for more information.

Check multiple independent sources
blahblahblahblah As you can see, the epochtimes reports meet none of the bolded criteria. -- Миборовский U 05:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Epoch Times is not an extremist newspaper. True, many people agree that it has a bias against the Communist regime. We are only reporting that suspicions about a genocide have surfaced, not stating anything conclusive. Various human rights organizations (such as Worldrights and Freedom House) have already reacted. Apparently, other media have also deemed the issue worth reporting. If you want to check whether Timothy Cooper, the executive director of Worldrights, has really given these statements, you can call him at +1-202-361-0989, send a fax at +1-202-244-9479, or email Worldright@aol.com.


 * Indymedia Ireland has reported on the issue. Check out Google with keywords Sujiatun and organs. Laogai Research Foundation  has a wide variety of reports about harvesting organs from Chinese prisoners, and they have started investigation on this case. Association for Asian Research (AFAR)  carries several articles on the Sujiatun concentration camp.


 * I'm seriously baffled by your unwillingness to report on a suspected genocide. Remember how a certain professed quote about miscegenation could only be found on a few dubious websites, and it could never be traced back into any of Li's published lectures. It turned out to be a misquote from Sydney 1996, as far as I recall, but you still insisted that we must include the word "defective" into the article, even though such an expression was never found from the original sources. Now multiple media have reported on alleged organ harvesting, and it seems you're playing a game of whitewashing, possibly because you realize how seriously this issue might swing the pendulum on the side of those who oppose the persecution. Talk about a double standard.


 * I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, attack me. Sorry, doesn't work. China Support Network is a Falun Gong-affiliate group. The Indymedia article states clearly: "by Tommy Donnellan on behalf of Gerald O'Connor - Irish Falun Gong Information Centre" and opens: "'The Irish Falun Gong Information Centre received...". ie. they're all mirroring off the same Falun Gong/Epoch Times report. You say "Now multiple media have reported on", but what "multiple media"? Do a google news search for just "Sujiatun" and you'll find a dozen articles... though conspicuously all from Epoch Times. I wonder why. Where is this "multiple media" constantly hanging on your lips? You say "various human rights organizations (such as Worldrights and Freedom House) have already reacted". Where? Where are their press releases? Their reactions? www.world-rights.org? www.freedomhouse.org? Nope. Where then? On sites like China Support Network and Epoch Times. So it all goes back to Epoch Times. Which fits few criteria of being a reliable source. -- Миборовский U 10:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're avoiding my argument. Organ harvesting is commonplace in China, so we have no reason to not tell about these suspicions in the article. Of course, before we draw definitive conclusions, it is enough to keep the issue under the title "Alleged organ harvesting", and simply report on what various representatives have stated. The sources' reliability is easily verified, meaning, if such statements have been made, you can call Worldright and Freedom House anytime and ask whether it's true or not. And that's not all. We're reporting on allegations, not conclusive data; therefore, it is sufficient that the position is held by a significant minority. It's almost like saying "there's no proof that the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party exist, because it's only found on the Epoch Times' website".


 * We can and should mention sources (like "according to Clearwisdom", "according to Epoch Times", "according to Falun Dafa Information Center"). You may have noticed that information from these sources does exist elsewhere in the article. Besides, they are exactly the organizations who are researching the persecution most intensively, and their position must be reported. Likewise, in our chapter about the Tiananmen self-immolation, we're reporting what each party has stated about the issue, and what problems are related to verifying the claims. I have already asked for people to improve and discuss the neutrality of the Sujiatun chapter. It is obvious that it cannot be totally removed. I will wait for the opinions of other editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Organ harvesting is commonplace in China: Please provide reliable, verifiable sources.
 * The sources' reliability is easily verified, meaning, if such statements have been made, you can call Worldright and Freedom House anytime and ask whether it's true or not: How about you do that? See WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."
 * It's almost like saying "there's no proof that the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party exist, because it's only found on the Epoch Times' website": "Nine Commentaries" has widely been commented upon by all kinds of media. Can you say the same for Sujiatun?
 * it is sufficient that the position is held by a significant minority: No, it is not. Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY. I've already pointed this out to you numerous times:"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." Note, reputable sources. Does Epoch Times even constitute a reputable source?
 * Check this out:"Audience: Why is it that mainstream media have not reported on the Sujiatun concentration camp and the bird flu incident? I wonder how true this is. Law professor Yuan Hongbin: First of all, think about this, 72 hours after a worldwide online media and newspaper make such a headline report, (if it is a report about US) what kind of reaction will the US government have? There are possibly two reactions: One, to verify the incident; second, if this concentration camp does not exist, the US government will hold the reporting media responsible for an inaccurate report. Let us see what the Chinese government has done? Since the incident came out, up till now, the CCP has remained silent for 72 hours. Therefore it is reasonable for us to conclude that this information is reliable."In other words: "We published this report without knowing if it was real or not, but since nobody took it seriously enough to reply or report it, it must be real!"
 * -- Миборовский U 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Says someone from Finland who never set foot in China, let alone finding Sujiatun on a map of China. To my amazement, the user sees The Epoch Times as some authority on Chinese news, and vandalised the List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults page, adding the CCP as a "cult", because The Epoch Times said so. Who told you organ harvesting is commonplace in China?--PatCheng 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fi&lr=&q=organs%2Bprisoners%2Bchina&btnG=Hae


 * Of course, if you disagree with only having references to the Epoch Times' sources about organ harvesting, we can mention some of these scientific journals, as they're directly related to the treatment of prisoners in China. Then we can add that these allegations have also surfaced in Falun Gong's case. Is that alright for you?


 * Indeed, the only thing I did was add CCP to the "List of groups referred to as cults". And it was one and a half months ago, and when it was removed, I didn't even revert it back. Hardly vandalism. ---Olaf Stephanos 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the first link is for Entrez PubMed, which does not give out full copies of the paper. Not even abstracts. Besides, it's listed under "editorial". 2nd link is editorial as well, and unfortunately does not disclose the sources from which the author obtained his facts.
 * You don't seem to realise that the question here is not whether organ harvesting is present in China. The question here is whether the Epoch Times report is verifiable and reliable. As of right now, I don't think you can say it is either.
 * PS. I'm not here to judge your "CCP=cult" edit, but it does give a pretty clear indication of where you stand.
 * -- Миборовский U 07:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the persecution is a secret. See US Congress Resolution 188, UN Reports, Abraham Harpen... Dilip rajeev 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And this has to do with Sujiatun how? -- Миборовский U 23:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The US Congress Resolution 188 has nothing to do with Sujiatun. But this does: . The Washington Times has now reported on the issue, and we have all the more reason to mention these allegations in the article. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Washington times article discusses the issue thoroughly and does not even cite Epoch Times. Should we not consider it a valid news source? I think this validates the worthiness of this content. In addition, The Toronto Sun has now covered it too, and so has News Max, a well-read online news source.
 * Mcconn 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose edit for Cultivation of Mind and Body section
The etiology of disease has been systematically studied for generations by scientists but Master Li believes that they have been looking at the wrong direction. “It (the cause of illnesses) is simply beyond the reach of modern medical technology” he says. The real cause of sickness is not physical, but moral, Li explains—it is caused by karma (sin).

Master Li claims to possess the power to heal illnesses by eliminating karma. He treated patients personally and collected fees at the beginning of his career. While healing followers, Li also declares that although the better part of karma is eliminated by him, the followers have to pay for the remaining karma by suffering sicknesses. When a Falun Gong practitioner pays his or her karma (sin), Li says, “You will thus feel physically uncomfortable, as if you were suffering from sickness.” --Samuel Luo 23:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, information about Falun Gong's view on the root cause of illnesses could be added, but with different phrasing. A certain POV is obvious from the implications of this proposition: it means to say that Falun Gong or Li cannot really cure anything; he's just getting rich and swindling people to believe that their sickness is paying for karma. Generally, we don't prefer overtly simplified explanations in this corner of Wikipedia. Selecting one quote from here, another from here, and combining them together is more like proving one's point than adding to the value of the article. And the first phrase is apparent sarcasm: "The etiology of disease has been systematically studied for generations by scientists but Master Li believes..."


 * Falun Gong teaches that the root cause of sickness is physical, but it doesn't exist on the cellular or molecular level. And Li does say that hospitals can cure illnesses, "why would people go there otherwise?" It's just that he believes there is a law of cause and effect, and everybody's got a tab to pick up. Of course, the problem of suffering is an age-old metaphysical question, as we all know.


 * One of the issues that I've intended to cover in this article is the medicalization of people's bodies, and how such a paradigm intrinsically contains a value judgement against the "heretics" who don't agree with resorting to Western medicine whenever there's an ailment. People ought to have dominion over their own bodies, and studies have proven that Falun Gong practitioners have not, for example, put their children to risk; they generally go to the hospital in case of an injury; and they have recommended other practitioners to see a doctor if they really feel that they have severe symptoms of an illness. (See: Porter 2003) In fact, Li even points out that severely ill people shouldn't seek for treatment in Falun Gong. And a lot of people in the larger society choose to treat themselves with herbal medicine or other alternative cures.


 * But I know about your parents, Samuel, I've read your story, so you don't have to tell me. I feel sympathy for all of you. Fear for the safety of one's own family members must be agonizing, but so is losing contact with one's own child. May I ask you how they are doing nowadays? ---Olaf Stephanos 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dishonest Editing Techniques
I notice that we are once again on the verge of an unnecesary and counter-productive revert war brought to us by practioner Dilip. There has been a great effort to reach compromise, and much discussion about content and alternative points of view, leading to the creation of a new section called "Beliefs and Controversial Teachings." In an edit done on 16:01, 24 March, Dilip deleted significant content, representing that change as merely "re-arranging content". I take this as an intentional effort to deceive other editors.

I hope we can all agree to work cooperatively in building this article. Part of that coorperation should include providing an honest edit summary.

The recent addition of highly controversial content about the alleged organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China is a case in point. I, personally, am suspicious about the validity of those reports. But at the same time, I do not have any verifiable sources I can bring to bear to justify changes in the content, so I have taken a pass on the discussion. What would the others editors think if I were to revert that content away without any justification or discussion? This is not a threat...I wouldn't stoop that low...but it is a request for mutual courtesy among all the editors who are working on this piece.

It seems to me that there will have to be sections of this article which bother both "sides" of this debate. The Wikipedia rules do not demand consensus for the inclusion of content, but they do demand verifciation of sources. As I've said previously, I understand why Falun Gong practitioners work hard to conceal some of Li Hongzhi's more controversial teachings from the public domain. If one were to sit through an hour or two presentation about Falun Dafa, one probably would hear nothing about Fa-rectification, or Li Hongzhi's role as savior and protector in that process. But this content must be included in any objective report on the Falun Gong, and I believe that represents the majority opinion of the editors. --Tomananda 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The San Francisco Resolution 66-06
Tomananda's edition was crafted so that it seemed to imply that the city of San Francisco decided to include a statement against Falun Gong's beliefs in particular. He himself had omitted the phrase that was far more important for understanding what they meant. The resolution states: "the San Francisco Board of Supervisors explicitly states that the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco, and that this resolution in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong."

Also, "purporting to be a representation of the complete resolution" is another accusation that is not based on the original Clearwisdom source. The resolution contained a lot of things about the rape and torture of practitioners, and so on, but they are not found in the CW article. Apparently, the Clearwisdom editors decided to only include certain selections. It would be a different case for you if the whole resolution really was found on the Clearwisdom site, except for the omitted sentence in question.

Personally, I agree that they should have provided a link to the complete resolution, and it would've been even better if they really had included the complete text in the Minghui/CW article. I sent e-mail to feedback@clearwisdom.net and stated our opinions about the omissions. However, in my opinion, accusing Clearwisdom of a deliberate fraud in this article is definitely a POV. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Clearwisdom commit fraud when it posted an altered version of SF Resolution 66-06?
Olaf,

There’s no need for me to be clever about this issue. I was correctly reporting the first sentence of the San Francisco Resolution and you correctly reported the last one. The point is that the Clearwisdom editors intentionally deleted language in the San Francisco Resolution to give the appearance that the City and County of San Francisco endorses the beliefs and teachings of the Falun Gong.

I try to write succinctly, which is why I chose to report the first sentence rather than the last. But since we are now debating this, let’s compare the apparently fraudulent Clearwisdom version to the official version for the sake of other readers, who can decide for themselves:

The altered Clearwisdom version:


 * Condemning the Persecution of Falun Gong Practitioners

Resolution condemning the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, expressing the position of the City and County of San Francisco to Federal Officials, urging federal officials and the State Department to follow United States Congress Resolution 304.

Whereas, the persecution of Falun Gong violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion, the right to assemble, and the right to speak freely, and the city of San Francisco has been a champion in promoting human rights; and

Whereas, in 2004, the United States House of Representatives (with the United States Senate concurring) passed a concurrent resolution, Resolution 304, expressing the sense of Congress regarding oppression by the Government of the People's Republic of China of Falun Gong in the United States and in China; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that Falun Gong practitioners should be free from persecution within the City and County of San Francisco and that appropriate City agencies, including the Police Department and Human Rights Commission should protect the rights and safety of Falun Gong practitioners; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco urge federal officials to continue their stance in support of Falun Gong as articulated in the United States Congress Resolution 304.

Posting date: 2/2/2006 Original article date: 2/2/2006 Category: Worldwide Support

The official San Francisco Version, bolding the words omitted by Clearwisdom editors:


 * San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 66-06

Resolution condemning the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, expressing the position of the City and County of San Francisco to Federal Officials, urging federal officials and the State Department to follow United States Congress Resolution 304 and stating that the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco.

Whereas, the persecution of Falun Gong violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion, the right to assemble, and the right to speak freely, and the city of San Francisco has been a champion in promoting human rights; and

Whereas, in 2004, the United States House of Representatives (with the United States Senate concurring) passed a concurrent resolution, Resolution 304, expressing the sense of Congress regarding oppression by the Government of the People's Republic of China of Falun Gong in the United States and in China; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that Falun Gong practitioners should be free from persecution within the City and County of San Francisco and that appropriate City agencies, including the Police Department and Human Rights Commission should protect the rights and safety of Falun Gong practitioners; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco urge federal officials to continue their stance in support of Falun Gong as articulated in the United States Congress Resolution 304; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors explicitly states that the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco, and that this resolution in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong.

Adopted January 31, 2006 (became effective February 10, 2006 without the Mayor’s signature)

Does this constitute fraud in the legal sense? I don’t know, let the lawyers decide. When one of the San Francisco Supervisors asked for a legal opinion about this very issue, he was told by a lawyer in the City Attorney’s office that the Falun Gong could put whatever they want on their website, even if it is not true.

Legal implications notwithstanding, surely you would agree that this represents a bold-faced attempt on the part of Clearwisdom editors to misrepresent the sense of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. And if the editors of Clearwisdom are so casual with the truth when reporting something as straight-forward as an official document of a city and county government in the United States, can we really trust them when they report on what’s happening in China?

--Tomananda 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tomananda, you indeed have a point here. I didn't read the text so carefully as to notice that there were actually two phrases omitted, while the other passages were intact. Luckily, the names of the editors were mentioned: Kerry Huang and Wang Ying. I sent another e-mail to Clearwisdom about this issue. I'm definitely with you. Something like this shouldn't happen with people who strive to cultivate Truthfulness.


 * For sure, many practitioners are subjected to great pressure, and what they're trying to do is basically good: to stop a horrendous persecution and guarantee the fundamental right of personal belief to everybody. But I've also noticed that some individuals tend to promote Falun Gong a little bit too fervently. The main reason why this happens, I think, is because of the lack of formal organization - nobody's genuinely coordinating things and issuing orders (like in companies who strictly guard their external image). Everybody wants to do his or her share as a volunteer for human rights, hence occasional blunders are inevitable. It's humans doing things after all, with all their attachments that have not been cultivated away. I do understand that the impression each person gives out is directly affecting people: "So THAT'S Falun Gong, THESE are the practitioners...", etc., which is unfortunate, because many people definitely don't agree with everything that the other practitioners are doing or thinking. There are millions of people practicing Falun Gong around the world, and probably tens of thousands in the West, and they are an incredibly mixed group. You probably understand that each practitioner can only represent himself or herself, not the entire movement.


 * Still, I'd rather not draw any conclusions about the reliability of the Sujiatun murders and organ harvesting. I'm sure you are also concerned about a suspected genocide. Such matters are not to be taken lightly, even if we need more evidence and third-party investigations. ---Olaf Stephanos 01:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Extrpolation must be avoided
I have removed these as the content is not factual:

How meaningful these municipal awards are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong are matters of some controversy. Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2002), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.”

> You dont need municipal awards .. See Resolution 188 Unanimously passed by The US Congress

> Broken semi-quotes from some-one with POV content added in-between.. please provide a link to the article.. or the original text of the articleso that the content may be verified.

Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida.

In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution which was subsequently misrepresented on an official Falun Gong website.

> We are waiting for futher clarification from the clearwisdom website on the issue.

"Given San Francisco’s long tradition of tolerance and the Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality, there was controversy about the exact wording of the resolution. "

>This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

In a compromise, the Board passed Resolution 66-06, condemning the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, while also stating that “the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco” and that the resolution “in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong.” Shortly thereafter, the Clearwisdom website published an altered version of the resolution which omitted the disclaimer language.

> We cant conclude the resolution was "altered" ... the resolution has nothing to do with the clearwisdom website... such a resolution exists -independent of what the editors of clearwisdom.net write.. that a website editor missed the disclaimer of one of the hundereds of such documents published on the website doesnt lead to the conclusion that "the Clearwisdom version creates the false impression that the City and County of San Francisco sanctions Li Hongzhi’s teachings" .. what "sanction" any teaching?? .. the resolution only had to do with the persecution of falun gong...

Dilip rajeev 12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, I see that you have reverted my edit. The extrapolation is unsourced. Shouldnt facts be presented as facts? A disclaimer missed is a disclaimer missed. Please think about this:

the paragraph says: Given San Francisco’s long tradition of tolerance and the Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality, there was controversy about the exact wording of the resolution.... I am suspicious of the content that goes between the quotes...

“are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.”

Dilip rajeev 13:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dilip, you are right in the sense that extrapolation should be avoided. None of the sources mention anything about the Board of Supervisors adding the disclaimer because of Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality; this is just a POV of certain people who have lobbied against FLG because of these issues.


 * However, you removed two entire paragraphs instead of making appropriate changes. As we've all stated before, that is not the way to deal with these issues. You can dispute and rephrase information, provide better backgrounds and contexts and seek for alternative sources. But you must take into account that Wikipedia is public domain and anybody can revert your editions. Nobody can control information from surfacing, and revert wars will turn counterproductive. One just has to learn how to play the ball. ---Olaf Stephanos 12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, I apologize for removing the paragraphs completely -- though I still disagree with the POV content in the paragraphs. I will try to edit them. I see that you are putting in a lot of work into ensuring factual accuracy in the article and I wish to help you do the same. I think somebody who wishes to make an entry to the article must first discuss it in the talk page and get it sanctioned by other editors. To put in a POV and ask other users to go fix it is not in line with wikipedia etiquette. Such edits have made some parts of the article sound almost childish. Quotes, if put in must either have the context behind them explained or be put in without a POV commentary - atleast a twisted commentary must be avoided. the commentary on the quotes was put in single-handedly by Tomananda. Many other users have attempted to introduce context.. all such changes were ignored.... I think it would be much better if we could discuss such changes on the talk page, and once finalized the content introduced. The same, I think, should apply to the paragraphs in the awards section and also to the newly introduced paragraphs in the belief section. We are not offending anyone-- just ennsuring that the article stays factual... Kindly let me know you opinion on the issue. Dilip rajeev 13:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

SF Board of Supervisors was concerned about the homophobia of the Falun Gong, but passed an amended version of the resolution which added disclaimer language
I have not extrapolated in my edit on San Francisco's Resolution 66-06. However, you are correct in pointing out that I did not include all of my sources. I have rectified that problem.

Here's the expanded edit, complete with sources from two respected news sources:

In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution which was subsequently misrepresented on an official Falun Gong website. Given San Francisco’s long tradition of tolerance and the Falun Gong’s teachings on homosexuality, there was controversy about the exact wording of the resolution. As reported in the Sing Tao Daily ( 2/1/2006), four of the supervisors, when asked about the resolution, stated “that they either don’t understand the Falun Gong belief system or do not support it; in addition, they feel uncomfortable about the Falun Gong’s homophobic positions.”  The Chinese supervisor who had co-sponsored the resolution and worked to amend it in committee,  was quoted in the Bay Area Reporter  : I am concerned about these homophobic teachings. It is a good thing these were called out. I don't think people understand the Falun Gong. So to the extent it is educating the community, it is a good thing."

Aware of these teachings, the sponsors of the resolution amended the original draft language to include a disclaimer. As a result, the Board passed Resolution 66-06, condemning the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, while also stating that “the views expressed by Falun Gong practitioners are not officially sanctioned by the City and County of San Francisco” and that the resolution “in no way encourages the practice of any particular faith, philosophy, religion or belief system, including but not limited to Falun Gong.” Shortly thereafter, the Clearwisdom website published an altered version of the resolution which omitted the disclaimer language. Purporting to be a representation of the complete resolution,, the Clearwisdom version creates the false impression that the City and County of San Francisco sanctions Li Hongzhi’s teachings, which it explicitly does not.

Olaf and Dilip: There's even more I could add about this issue, including other instances where the Falun Gong has intentionally deceived American politicians about their beliefs in order to get their support for either a resolution or an activity. For example, Supervisor Fiona Ma...who was praised in a full page ad run by the Epoch Times for her sponsorship of the Falun Gong resolution...withdrew her support for a 2005 Falun Gong art exhibit in San Francisco after she learned about the political nature of the exhibition. As you may know, Supervisor Ma is the "Chinese supervisor"  who is quoted in the edit. I know Supervisor Ma personally, as well as many of the other San Francsico supervisors. I also attended the sub-committee meeting in which the original Chris Daly/Falun Gong version of Resolution 66-06 was presented for public comment. The San Franciso Board of supervisors films all of it's meeting and they are accessible on the web as streaming video.

Dilip: it surprises me that on this particular issue you would claim that I am not being factual. I believe in reporting the truth and, as Olaf commented in his edit summary, some of the truth about the Falun Gong now posted in Wikipedia will be taken as "displeasing" by Falun Gong practitioners. But that is no justification for deleting it.

--Tomananda 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Tomanada,

We all have a POV. I am concerned that you are inadvertedly introducing your POV into the article. The reason why I deleted the paragraph is that, I felt, when POV and extrapolation are removed the paragraph reduces to : "Clearwisdom.net published Resolution 66-06 without the disclaimer". We dont even know if it was done on purpose. We must understand that clearwisdom.net is a website run by volunteers- not by any organization - they are trying to let the world know about what is happening in china and bring an end to the persecution as soon as possible. If they missed a disclaimer - could we accuse them of "manipulation" or of intentionally "altering" the contents? Dilip rajeev

A response to Olaf
Olaf’s statement “Li says you have to "bear hardships" to reduce karma, not practice FLG in particular” is incorrect. Li separates people into two categories: everyday people who have no chance of reducing their karma even if they suffer hardships and Falun Gong practitioners whose master eliminates a big part of their karma while the rest is eliminated by suffering hardship. To my knowledge Li has never said that a non-Falun Gong practitioner can eliminate karma by bearing hardship or any other way. If such a quote exists please cite it.

I wrote that “So, if one truly wants to have their illnesses healed they have to be a disciple of Master Li” because this is what Li emphasizes in Zhuan Falun. See the following two quotes: “The body purification (the process of eliminating and curing one’s karma and illnesses) will be done only for those who come to truly learn the practice and the Fa.” And “It (body purification) will be done, however, only for practitioners who come to genuinely practice cultivation.”

If you do not agree with my sentence “So, if one truly wants to have their illnesses healed they have to be a disciple of Master Li” you are welcome to edit it. Your deleting all my statements and Li’s direct quotes was unnecessary. --Samuel Luo 09:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a few examples. I can search for more if you want. It's pretty obvious that, according to Li, the purpose of illness is to make people bear hardships and thus pay off their karma through tribulations. The same principles apply to everybody, cultivator or not. You're quoting him entirely out of context, because the paragraph from Zhuan Falun that you mentioned above contains also the following words:

Ordinary human affairs, according to the Buddha School, all have predestined relationships. Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the same as committing a bad deed.


 * This one's from a lecture in the United States:

Of course, we’ve said that you generate karma when you live in the world. If you don’t get sick, your karma won’t be eliminated. When people suffer from sickness, their karma is really being eliminated. You get well after it’s eliminated. Oftentimes, a person gets a serious sickness, and after a while, when you’ve recovered, you’ll find your face glowing with radiance and everything you do will go smoothly. That’s because after your karma is eliminated it’s transformed into blessings—virtue. Because you’ve suffered, whatever you do will usually go smoothly and can be accomplished easily. People can’t see this, so they think it’s bad to undergo even a little hardship. Actually, what’s so scary about hardship?! Even if you have a little hardship, if you steel your will and withstand it, you’ll find afterwards that everything you do will proceed differently. I’d say it’s nothing more than just hardships that humans have to endure when they practice cultivation.


 * Why can qigong cure illnesses? There's already a whole corpus of literature about this subject, and, like stated in the chapter "Theoretical background", it's mostly a debate between "naturalists" and "supernaturalists". Both sides have a lot of good points, and if you're unfamiliar with the subject, there's no way you can convince any experts. Claiming that Falun Gong practice cannot achieve the goal of healing illnesses doesn't get you anywhere. As a suggestion, I'd say that if you truly want to criticize Falun Gong's disease-curing effects, you'd better provide an alternative theory for its mechanisms, don't you agree? ---Olaf Stephanos 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Friend, Falun Gong very clearly says that suffering is reducing karma -- whether it is for practitioners or otherwise.. It is believed that when one goes through mis-fortune or illness there is a process of conversion of karma into de(virtue)... transformation of karma through suffering is the same for both practitioners and non practitioners.. if you just believe there is some wisdom in the cosmos.. it is easy to see that suffring is benevolent in nature and also that it is not coincidental.

"When humans go through hardship and suffer it is so that they may pay off karma and thereby have happiness in the future." Dilip rajeev 12:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit on the problem of Mixed Race People (Emphasis on Moral Nature section)
The existing text on the problem of Mixed Race people depends unnecessarily on an unverifiable source. There's no need for this ambiguity, as Li made an almost identical claim about mixed race people during his Sydney lecture (page 29). For some reason, whoever wrote that piece did not seem aware of the quote, even though later the blockquote comes from the same lecture. So I propose the following change (the affected sentences are presented in bold):

Existing text: The taking of any life is said to have negative karmic consequences. In one of his lectures, Li Hongzhi controversially states that mixing of races is a chaotic phenomenon that has manifest only in the “Dharma Ending Period” and that different races bear the image of the gods that created them; that each race of people on earth have their own cosmic paradises but people of mixed race lose this connection. '''According to an article by Andreas Landwehr, a journalist writing for Deutsche Presse Agentur and reproduced in the German Scientology News, Li Hongzhi is quoted as saying: "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." However, these words as such haven't been found in any of his public lectures or interviews. Li Hongzhi said in Sydney (1996):''' "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." Proposed new text: The taking of any life is said to have negative karmic consequences. In one of his lectures, Li Hongzhi controversially states that mixing of races is a chaotic phenomenon that has manifest only in the “Dharma Ending Period” and that different races bear the image of the gods that created them; that each race of people on earth have their own cosmic paradises but people of mixed race lose this connection. '''In 1996, Li Hongzhi said that “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.”   Since the mixing of races is the work of aliens seeking “to get human beings to shake free of the gods,”  mixed-race people should not be blamed for the problem. Just as Li offers a benevolent solution for evil people in the Fa-rectification by personally eliminating sins and karma, he offers to look at each individual situation for mixed race people in order to assure them a place in paradise. Speaking in Sydney in 1996, Li Hongzhi said:''' "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."

--Tomananda 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quote that was given previously is unnecessary and not very good. However, you’re first quote is from the same lecture as the big quote, and the content of the quote is already implied in the previous sentence (and it also doesn’t sound right on its own). In addition, I also thought the wording could be a little better in the sentence before the quote. Here’s a slightly different spin. I suggest:


 * The taking of any life is said to have negative karmic consequences. In one of his lectures, Li Hongzhi controversially states that mixing of races is a chaotic phenomenon that has manifest only in the “Dharma Ending Period” and that different races bear the image of the gods that created them; that each race of people on earth have their own cosmic paradises but people of mixed race lose this connection. In discussing this issue in 1997 Li Hongzhi said, “He has lost the body that comes from the top down through to here. Let me put it this way: People of the yellow race have people of the yellow race up there, and people of the white race have people of the white race up there. He’s lost this thread.” Since the mixing of races is the work of aliens seeking “to get human beings to shake free of the gods,” mixed-race people should not be blamed for the problem. Just as Li offers a benevolent solution for all beings in the Fa-rectification by personally eliminating sins and karma, he offers to look at each individual situation for mixed race people in order to assure them a place in paradise. Speaking in Sydney in 1996, Li Hongzhi said:


 * "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."


 * Mcconn 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Time to split the article
The article is getting too large with quotes. I suggest spliting the article into the spiritual and political actions of FLG, one dealing with doctrines and teachings, the other with the government crackdown.--PatCheng 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pat: I think you're right. Fire Star: Can you work on this over the weekend?

How about three broad categories instead of two:
 * Beliefs and practices
 * a) Origins and theoretical background
 * b) Cultivation, Morals and Fa-rectification
 * c) Falun Gong and other Qi Gong systems
 * Political Actions and Issues
 * a) Chinese Government crackdown
 * b) Response to the Falun Gong in the West
 * Controversy and Criticism
 * a) Is Falun Gong a cult?
 * b) Falun Gong's manipulation of politicians
 * c) Controversial teachings on homosexuality, mixed races, aliens and "sickness karma"

(I got the idea for some of these categories from the article on Scientology.) --Tomananda 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Better make it clear that aliens = extraterrestrials, not foreign persons. :) -- Миборовский U 05:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is a good idea. I have been pretty busy lately at some other articles, and haven't been able to look in here much, but that seems to have cooled down now. I will look into it a little more tomorrow. --Fire Star 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically, if we're going to rearrange the article, we won't be doing it to further the cause of any POV. In my opinion, splitting the beliefs section into "accepted" and "controversial" beliefs can only reflect the opinions of current editors. The process of editing this article is one of constantly making selections about which issues to highlight. It seems you would like to give additional space - even distinctive categories - to exhibit the questions you consider most important, while downplaying the opinions of those who would, for example, want to balance the beliefs section by a comprehensive outlook on Falun Gong's teachings as a whole (not simply focusing on the very basic and the most eccentric issues). Also, "Falun Gong's manipulation of politicians" is a POV. But don't get me wrong, I'm not against making any changes at all, provided that we can reach a consensus.

I've said this before, but I never cease to wonder how many editors would rather accuse Falun Gong of heresy than focus on torture, crimes against humanity and aggravated violations of the Chinese constitution and international treaties. Do you really think that Falun Gong's controversial beliefs are a good reason to withdraw the active support of politicians and organisations for ending a genocide? Is that where you stand? Falun Gong practitioners would have no need for recognitions, demonstrations, etc., if the their fundamental rights were not constantly trampled in China - if their friends, relatives and colleagues were not illegally imprisoned, tortured and killed. Do you really think that the practitioners wouldn't have better things to attend to, like their jobs and families? Instead of truly reflecting on these issues, you may just claim "two wrongs don't make it right", or something along those lines.

Some editors even try to whitewash accusations of mass murders, as if the lives of the practitioners were just trash. Like Hannah Arendt said in his study on the Nazi regime and Adolf Eichmann, the true evil lies in those people who silently accept when others are being brutally exterminated. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why practitioners try to get support from goverments is that their friends and family are being persecuted in the most cruel manner in China.We must appreciate that despite having to witness their close friends and family go through this, none of the practitioners have ever resorted to any form of violence. They have been trying to get support from goverments world over in bringing an end to this terrible tragedy. How could we, in good conscience, call that "manipulation of politicians"?


 * Dilip rajeev 13:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Olaf: No one is saying they are unconcerned about about the persecution of practitioners in China. Certainly the article can address those concerns (in some cases allegations) while also addressing the concerns about how Falun Gong conducts itself in the West. When a Falun Gong lawyer shuts down a legitimate panel discussion at an academic conference in Madrid, or a politician is manipulated into endorsing an event of the Falun Gong without being told what it's really about, then there's clearly grounds for concern.  If it were just about Li's bizarre teachings there wouldn't be such a groundswell of criticism about the Falun Gong.
 * --Tomananda 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could someone provide the source for ...
 * Volume II of Zhuan Falun says "The disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time."


 * As I understand, the book has not been translated in to English.


 * Dilip, it's available in Chinese on one of the Falun Gong websites.
 * --Tomananda 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip: The manipulation of US politicians by the Falun Gong to get municipal endorsements is well-documented and has been going on for a long time...even before the 1999 ban in China. When the Falun Gong does get a municipal government to pass a resolution condemning the persecution it typically misrepresents the resolution as an endorsement for the Dafa. That's exactly what happened in the San Francisco case. The 2001 San Jose Mercury news article (links section) also documents how some US Representatives were duped into signing a Nobel Prize nominating letter for Li Hongzhi, only to find out later what the Falun Gong really teaches. In one instance, a US Representative actually had to take the extraordinary step of writing to the Nobel Committee withdrawing her support and explaining why. Then there's the previously mentioned case of a San Francisco supervisor being duped into endorsing a Falun Gong Classic Art exhibit having been told it would not be political.. When she found out later about the exhibit’s political agenda, she was forced to withdraw her support because her policy is to remain neutral concerning Chinese politics. If that isn't manipulating a US politician, I don't know what is.

Now I see you've again edited out some of Li's teachings on homosexuality. You've written to me asking that I give up my karma-creating homosexual activities, saying that you "can affirm it is not something god given." You and Li Hongzhi are wrong about homosexuality; it is an inborn trait, just like heterosexuality. As with so many of Li Hongzhi's teachings, I find his disgust for homosexuality to be full of ignorance and self-righteousness.

Critical views on the Falun Gong must be represented in this article and I have proposed one way to do it. I am not saying that we should permit words like "ignorance and self-righteousness" in the article itself. But we surely must report the basic truths of what Falun Gong teaches and how it operates in the United States. If we don't, this Wikipedia piece will become a one-sided piece of Falun Gong propaganda. --Tomananda 22:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Friends,

The recently edited sentence in the morality section carries the text... "Though not central to the beliefs, homosexuality is regarded as not meeting the standard of being human and in “The World’s Ten Evils”  Li opines that a homosexual has a “dark heart, turning demonic.”

I am replacing the the paragraph with the below version, which avoids POV language and also puts the quote from "The world's Ten Evils" in complete sentence.

Though not central to the beliefs, homosexuality is considered an act that brings bad karma upon oneself. The article “The World’s Ten Evils” says "Homosexuality, licentious desires—Dark heart, turning Demonic."


 * First of all, the quote from Zhuan Falun II serves little purpose as the issue is clearly and comprehensively addressed in the following quote from the lecture in Germany. Zhuan Falun II has not been officially translated into English, so the accuracy of the quote is also debatable. In addition, the book is no longer in publishing, so it is even less of a good source for this article. I propose that it be removed.


 * Secondly, by placing the quote from "The World's Ten Evil's" on a seperate line as you have done is unecessary due to it's short length and thereby only reflects your POV. In addition, placing this quote outside the context of the rest of the poem distorts its meaning. Given the context of the rest of the poem, "Homosexuality and licentious desires" are likely adressing two different things rather than saying they are the same. Lines from poems can't be quoted this way. I don't think it's a good quote for this section and should also be removed.


 * Mcconn 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the same concerns regarding the section. Just pulling out a line from a poem doesnt make the context clear.. But, I have not removed the quote on homosexuality. I am making edits as you suggested and reverting the section to the version before the quote from the poem was added. Dilip rajeev 15:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A little note about “qi”
As I commented in the past, Falun Gong practitioners don’t believe qi can purify a person’s body. Instead, that's what gong does. People can purify their qi through practicing qigong and get better health by doing so, but that’s different. A person's body only begins to be purified after he goes beyond the level of qi. So I altered the definition a little.

Mcconn 13:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi's Teachings on Homosexuality Put in Context
Dilip:

I have no objection to expanding the quote from Li's poem, The World's Ten Evils to include both lines of the stanza, as you suggest. I have now re-edited to include that change. However you are wrong in suggesting that the reference to Li's judgment that homosexuality is not "the standard of being human" is my POV. In fact, it is Li's POV and I am simply reporting it here. I am willing to expand the paragraph on homosexuality further if you'd like, by expanding the quote on not being "the standard of being human" and providing additional context, but I am not willing to omit it altogether. Have you given any thought to why I would think the quote from The World's Ten Evils is so important for an understanding of Li's views on homosexuality? It suggests that Li is unaware of the concept of sexual orientation as something apart from sexual behavior. He speaks of having a "dark heart"...which refers to the person. Do you have any idea of how offensive that thought is for a homosexual? And how ignorant Li appears by making such a statement? I find it ironic that while Li uses his harshest rhetoric for those in power in the Chinese Communist Party, calling them an "evil" and "wicked" regime, it's that very same regime which has made homosexuality legal in China. And in 2001, the psychiatric professionals in China removed homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders.  It seems that the "evil" regime in China has more compassion and understanding than Li when it comes to homosexuality.

We must also distinguish between the perceived undesirability of homosexuality in China as a social phenomenon and the condemnation of homosexuality as a sin, as found in the Falun Gong. On this important point, I refer you to the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality in China As Wikipedia points out, "None of the Chinese major religions condemn homosexuality as a sin as many Christian churches do." So in a very real sense, when Li Hongzhi taught his Dafa in China, he was creating a new and worse kind of homophobia in Chinese society.

I'd be happy to provide more social and religious context in the main article about Li Hongzhi and his ill-informed, destructive views on homosexuality if you'd like.

--Tomananda 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please Tomanda, this is a discussion forum used to discuss content for the Falun Gong article, not to debate on the correctness of the practice's teachings. Your are entitled to your opinion above, but understand that it is not fact and only your opinion.


 * I'd like to address the use of the word "homophobia". It's relevent to mention in the article that practitioners of Falun Gong are NOT homophobic. I'll speak as a practitioner here. I believe that homosexuality is not upright and with respect to the theory of yin-yang, creates disharmony and thus goes against the dao. Does this make me homophobic? Absolutely not. This is merely a belief and a principle for self-guidance. I also believe to be compassionate to others and understanding of them. I treate homosexuals just as I do non-homosexuals. Just because I don't agree with a person's actions or lifestyle doesn't mean that I fear them, hate them, or look down upon them. The principles of Falun Gong are taught for a person to use to cultivate onself, not judge others. In addition, none of the major religions traditionally and few traditional cultures accept homosexuality either. Most relgious people hold similar beliefs to Falun Gong practitioners when it comes to this issue. So this isn't as crazy or absurd as you're making it out to be.


 * Mcconn 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tomanada, Please refrain from pouring your POV into the article. Putting things the way you do, causes your POV to reflect very strongly in the article. I am not interested in discussing homosexuality. If you are interested in finding out what Chinese traditions say, I'd suggest you refer the Buddhist Scriptures - not Wikipedia. And in my personal opinion, it is a little too far-fetched to say Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha were being "homophobic".

Dilip rajeev 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mccon, If we dont have an official translation for Zhuan Falun II, it is incorrect to say that Zhuan Falun II says so. I suggest removing the quote from the article. Dilip rajeev 14:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop Concealing What Falun Gong is All About
Dilip: We've had this discussion before. Reporting Li Hongzhi's teachings does not mean I am reporting my own point of view. What's more, his teachings on salvation and his exclusive role in offering salvation to mankind during this period of Fa-rectification are pervasive. He talks about this stuff in virtually every lecture now, and you know it. But for some reason you are uncomfortable having it reported here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a word for that...It's called apologetics.

Concerning the teachings on homosexuality: they are important, too. Think about it! If US Representative Anna Eschoo had been told the truth about Falun Gong teachings when she was asked to sign that letter supporting Li Hongzhi for a Nobel Prize, she wouldn't have done it. As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, Representative Eshoo "subsequently rescinded her nomination, writing to the Nobel Institute that while practitioners deserve freedom of speech, belief and assembly, Mr. Li has made statements that are offensive to me and are counter to many of my core beliefs.

Also, Dilip, I need to remind you that you were the first editor to introduce a detailed justification for Falung Gong's teachings on homosexuality in the discussion pages...not me. You also have written to me personally suggesting that for my own good I should stop my sinful homosexual behavior because if I don't, I will suffer in the Fa-rectification (or words to that effect.)

It is simply not true that all religions condemn homosexuality as a sin. The Chinese major religious traditions do not do that. It is Li Hongzhi who has cobbled together pieces of Buddhism, the Tao, Christianity, and belief in alien interference with the lives of human beings, to come up with one of the most starkly judgmental, anti-science and anti-humanity philosophies I have ever encountered. And that's not all! Li Hongzhi repeatedly warns his followers about the dire consequences of not obeying his Dafa. You better watch out! he warns in a 2003 lecture: When you're disrespectful of your Master, do you know what I think? I don't mind in the least. Right now, do you know who I am? You only know the human image I manifest. What manifests before you over on the other side are also images within the cosmos. In the future you won't know who I ultimately am. No being in the cosmos will know who I ultimately am. Whether you treat me well or not, I don't mind in the least, but the old forces will destroy you in the tribulation. Watch out! To add insult to injury, he tells his followers not to reveal what those "higher teachings" are to ordinary people. So just think about it! Aren't there two worlds views here? One that the practitioners talk about among themselves, and the other a PR-driven distortion of the teachings made to appeal to a Western audience? So as editors of Wikipedia, don't we all have to work to present all the major views about the Falun Gong, not just those which you are comfortable reporting? --Tomananda 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You raised this baseless allegation before and this has already been discussed. I dont think I need to reply to them again. I will just say All the teachings are available for free download online.

This is not an article on homosexuality. Neither is it a place to vent your hatred. If you want to know what Buddhist and Daoist ( The "Major Chinese Traditions")scriptures say about homosexuality, refer an earlier post of mine. If you want to know what the Bible says about homosexuality.. refer the Bible. If you want to know what the Gnostic ( Nag Hammadi ) scriptures say, refer Pistis Sophia. And NONE of them were being "homophobic". I am not interested in discussing the topic of homosexuality - it has nothing more to do with Falun Gong than it has to do with Christianity or Buddhism. Infact, Buddhist scriptures, the gnostic scriptures and christianity use much stronger language. In the case of Buddhism, it is more than just usage of strong language.. Dilip rajeev 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinion of Editors
I would like to know what other editors feel on these recently added Paragraphs. The content of which has been described as a POV by many other editors. Taking into consideration the viewpoint of the editors, in my opinion,  we should remove the content from the article, discuss them them further in the talk section, proper changes be made, and if found necessary, add them back into the article. Please let me know your opinion regarding this too. The quotes chosen and commentary which distorts the context completely reflects, in my opinion, a strong POV on part of the editor.

The recently added paras are: "Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period; In Zhuan Falun [5] he states “If I cannot save you, nobody else can do it.” If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple. Falun Gong . . . you from the most microcosmic point to the surface of your being, and this even includes any thoughts a being may have. I rectify from the bottom up, all the way through. That would have been the best kind of benevolent solution, and not a single being would have fallen, not a single being would have sinned against Dafa and this Fa-rectification. Wouldn’t that have been wonderful? But no, they insisted on doing this, and it’s brought on this disaster in human society."

Dilip rajeev 14:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This Paragraph is redundant and and a POV extrapolation of the following quote... we just need to put the quotes as the quotes... please avoid extrapolation... "Since the mixing of races is the work of aliens seeking “to get human beings to shake free of the gods,” [20] mixed-race people should not be blamed for the problem. Just as Li offers a benevolent solution for all beings (including the “evil ones”) in the Fa-rectification by personally eliminating sins and karma, he offers to look at each individual situation for mixed race people in order to assure them a place in paradise." Dilip rajeev 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this line which was there in the earlier version of the article has disappeared: Kindly re-introduce the line. "Falun Gong Practitioners point out there are many mixed race people practicing cultivation in Falun Dafa." Dilip rajeev 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC) An editor has replaced: The "thought control" theory greatly divides scholars. The scientific evidence on such phenomena remains inconclusive. For example, in 1984 the American Psychological Association (APA) requested Margaret Singer to set up a working group called Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC). In 1987, the committee submitted its final report to the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. On 11 May 1987 the Board rejected the report. In the rejection memo is stated: "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."  with the following text: Although some scientific evidence is beginning to emerge on recognized patterns of mind control and coercive manipulation within groups, it remains inconclusive. Therefore, some have suggested that defining Falun Gong as an evil cult, new religious movement, metaphysical qigong or a valid cultivation method of the Buddha School depends on one's personal values and belief system.

I find the first version far more informative and I cant see any reason for deleting the information and replacing it with common-sense trivia. Also some links to the talk section are being added into the article as reference. Dilip rajeev 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Source Needed for the Following allegation:

"However, the survey was conducted by Falun Gong affiliates, and the accuracy of the survey suffers from methodological problems, as it relied on self-reported rather than medically-verified improvement. In addition, the questionnaire used an inadequate range of answer options, reflecting possible bias."

The survey was state sponsored, conducted by a team of reputed researchers and medical scientist.( List of researchers available in the article) I am removing the unsourced alegation which probably was just the POV of some editor. Dilip rajeev 21:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Dilip on the "Venting Hatred" Charge
Dilip: Now you accuse me of "venting hatred" because I insist on a fair and balanced report about Li Hongzhi's teachings on homosexuality in this article? If you think calling Li "ignorant" about homosexuality is a sign of hatred, you are mistaken. Li grew up in a rural town in China and did not have the benefit of a college education. I would be surprised if he hadn't turned out "ignorant" on the subject of homosexuality. Did he even know any homosexuals growing up in China at the time? Probably not, because homosexuals in hostile social environments keep their sexual orientation a secret, even from their parents. It's a question of survival.

Just as I do not hate Li Hongzhi, I do not fear him or his Dafa. I respect Li's great imagination, his ability to cobble together a unique brand of "Qi Gong" from many different religious traditions, adding in a mix of alien-invasion theory for good measure. Most of all I admire his ability to capture the hearts and minds of so many disciples. But my admiration is not without profound concerns about what I see as manipulation (through the creation of fear and dependency) and exploitation of the practitioners in the pursuit of a certain agenda...Li's agenda.

As always, I have sympathy for all Falun Gong practioners. I do not fear retribution from Li Hongzhi, his Dafa, or any other celestial beings or demons he may threaten people with. I am perfectly comfortable critizing his teachings when I find them destructive, or wildly improbable. Can you, as a practitoner, make the same statement? Is there any claim that Li Hongzhi has ever made that you doubt to be true? I know that practitioners have these kinds of conversations with themselves and that from these conversations comes a peer-driven reinforcement of the prescribed world view. Funny how we see the mechanism of Falun Gong belief so differently. --Tomananda 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, the reason why the number of practitioners grew exponentially in China (it doubled every six months) is that Falun Gong's astonishing effects are tangible for everyone to experience himself or herself. Of course, you could probably argue that Li has abused his position as the master of the most efficient and widespread qigong system ever publicized. But why does his practice work so well? Have you ever tried it yourself? Are you competent to really evaluate different qigong systems? Can you provide an alternative theory for its mechanisms? It seems that a lot of people are just sticking to a paradigm that cannot really contain these matters, and their criticism is hollow before concrete manifestations of such phenomena. That is what really makes people interested en masse.


 * This is a little bit off-topic, but do you know about N,N-dimethyltryptamine and its possible relation to the pineal gland (or the third eye)? Hasn't science already discovered the existence of the other side? Sounds kind of "anti-science" to me... if it only weren't real, I'm afraid. ---80.221.154.22 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, your entire post is off topic, since we are not talking about the exercises here, but rather Li's Dafa and some of the claims he makes. I assume you are a practitioner, right?  If so, do you believe that the reason people of different races have mixed is because aliens have come to this planet to separate humans from gods? Do you think it's a problem that we have mixed races in the first place? Or that Li is personally preventing the explostion of the universe by keeping up with it? In fact, is there anything Li has ever said that you don't accept?  You are entitled to your beliefs, but by the same token Wikipedia must reflect the whole package.

--Tomananda 18:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Li's Statement About "the disgusting homosexuality" in Zhuan Falun II
Dilip: You questioned the validity of the Li Hongzhi quote in "Ephasis on Moral Nature," so I just added a link to the source. I hope we can avoid a revert war over this one paragraph on homosexuality. I agree that we do not need a big section on homosexuality in this article, but we certainly need a fair representation of Li's teachings on this subject. Frankly, I don't undertand why you keep deleting these statements of Li, except perhaps that they embarrass you.

This particular quote has appeared in many English articles over the years. There may be a question of translation from the Chinese. Here are two possible versions:

Existing version: "The disgusting homosexuality shows the dirty abnormal psychology of the gay who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time."

More literal translation provided by Samuel Luo: "The disgusting homosexuality reflects the dirty twisted mind which has lost its reasoning ability at the present time."

I am happy with either version and wonder if anyone on this site can offer an expert opinion on the best translation of this quote.

Source: Falun Canada web site: 

Select "Dafa Books" in left column. Select Zhuan Falun II. Go to "Humankind at the Period of the Last Havoc" at page 22. --Tomananda 20:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, this quote serves no purpose as the issue is comprehensively addressed in the following quote from Germany. It's clear from the Germany quote that Falun Gong views this behavior or state of mind as filthy. And since there is no official translation it is even less acceptable. If you cannot provide a better reason to keep the quote it cannot stay in the article. The same goes for the poem quote; I stated ample reasons for it's removal, so unless you or anyone else can respond, it should not be included.
 * Mcconn 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn, These quotes are essential for an understanding of what Li Hongzhi himself, not "the Gods," thinks about homosexuality. If anything, the section needs to be expanded. The Frankfurt quote you believe says it all really doesn't. It offers yet another Li Hongzhi explanation for homosexuality: that it "was driven by postnatally-formed bad things." While this explanation is interesting, it is also totally ambiquous. What exactly are the "bad things"? Li's Zhuan Falun II explanation that homosexuality shows "the dirty abnormal (or twisted) mind of the homosexual who has lost his ability of reasoning at the present time" is much less ambiguous and it should stand. What we can do is delete some of the unneeded material in the Frankfurt quote if we want the paragraph to read better. It makes no sense to delete the Zhuan Falun II quote. It is by far the clearer statement of what Li thinks about homosexuality. Nor can we delete Li's The World's Ten Evils  quote, which explicitiy states that Li thinks homosexuality is not just evil, but is so evil it deserves to be listed on a top ten list.

As I suggested earlier, this section could easily be expanded because there is a lot of information here, not only concerning Li's view of the moral status of homosexuality (one of the world's ten evils) but also some of his various explanations for its "cause."

In this discussion, you seem most comfortable with words like "filthy" to somehow justify Li's moral teachings on homosexuality. I could make the same statments concerning heterosexuality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike engage in sexual practices that might be considered "filthy" or "disgusting" by others. Since when did matters of taste rise to the level of moral condemnation? Would I be justified in condemning heterosexuals as being "evil," or having "dark hearts" because they do things that I consider "filthy" or "disgusting"? The problem with your (and Li Hongzhi's) thinking about homosexuality is that it totally ignores our current scientific understanding of sexual orientation (as something apart from sexual behavior). But then again, Li Honzhi doesn't accept scientific explanations for things and thinks modern science is a take-over plot from the aliens, right? Much of Falun Gong comes from a deep level of discomfort with the human condition. It's Li's anti-science and anti-humanity teachings which are so troubling for people once they understand them. This is not just my POV...a number of published critics of the Falun Gong have made this observation.--Tomananda 23:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a brief comment: I have nothing against including the poem "The World's Ten Evils", provided that it's quoted in its entirety. Otherwise, people don't get a coherent idea about what Li is saying there. Secondly, as far as I understand, Li is specifically talking about homosexual behavior (tóngxìnglìan, literally same-sex relations/love). Thirdly, Li opines that all things on Earth, regardless of what they are, have supporting elements in other dimensions (be they positive or negative). Their co-existence is supposed to exist in the universe according to the "law of mutual generation and mutual inhibition". Earth is just a scene where these things are played out. This is a very old idea in itself. Fourthly, Li also considers premarital sex as something that goes against the Dao and human moral standards. How many people would agree with that in today's society? In addition, Li's saying that if you want to break through, you'll have to eventually let go of all desires and attachments. Genuine cultivation practice is nothing but bearing hardships and tribulations for the sake of returning to one's original nature. Only from this viewpoint can one understand what is really "filthy" and what is upright in Li's cosmology. I quote Zhuan Falun:

When someone is doing a wrong deed, he will not believe it if you point out to him that he is doing a wrong deed. That person indeed will not believe that he is doing something wrong. Some people evaluate themselves with the declined moral standard. Because the criteria for assessment have changed, they consider themselves better than others. No matter how the human moral standard changes, this characteristic of the universe remains unchanged, and it is the sole criterion that distinguishes good people from bad people. As a practitioner, one must then conduct oneself by following this characteristic of the universe rather than the standards of everyday people. If you want to return to the original, true self and move up in cultivation practice, you must conduct yourself according to this criterion. As a human being, you are a good person only if you can follow this universe’s characteristic of Zhen-Shan-Ren. A person who deviates from this characteristic is truly a bad person. In the workplace or in society, some people may say that you are bad, yet you may not necessarily be bad. Some people may say that you are good, but you may not really be good. As a practitioner, if you assimilate yourself to this characteristic you are one that has attained the Tao — it’s just such a simple principle.


 * It's the age-old argument: good and bad are not covenanted, and there exists a kind of natural ethics in the universe. Be it as it may, you don't have to believe this; nobody's forcing you to give up anything if you don't agree with Falun Gong's teachings. It seems to me that you're opposing FLG because it challenges the ontological status of your beliefs. We could, of course, coexist peacefully; in my opinion, people can believe and think what they want, provided that they don't restrict the freedom of others. Li Hongzhi obviously doesn't hold cultural or definitional power in your worldview. But I'd also like to remind you that one shouldn't try to oversimplify an issue of this magnitude. There are noted academic viewpoints on both sides. And we must also keep a wary eye on "false authority", like all kinds of self-proclaimed "experts" (I'm not talking about Margaret Singer, but maybe Rick Ross is a good example of a "counselor" who isn't taken very seriously by the academic community.) Besides, the pitfalls of ethnocentrism, cultural bias and bigotry have devoured even reputed intellectuals into the abyss of mistaken science. And I'm perfectly well aware that you'd probably present the same accusations against Falun Gong. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Olaf: Your response surprises me, because it amounts to a personal argument over what you consider my motivations may be for "opposing" the Falung Gong rather than providing an argument on the merits of Li's moral thinking. Do you agree with me that an argument to justify the moral condemenation of homosexuality because it's "filthy" or "disgusting"  is a false argument based on one's subjective tastes? I laid out my argument above, and neither you nor Dilip has responded directly to it. Admittedly, you seem closer to providing a rationale for Li's teachings on homosexuality than Dilip. But it is still circular: homosexuality is a great moral evil because it is "disgusting," the Gods feel the same way, and it is not in keeping with the priniciples of the universe, as defined by Li Hongzhi.  Is that the argument you are making to condemn millions of homosexuals as evil? Sorry, if that's the best you can do I'm not buying it.

What's at issue here is not whether I agree with your formulations on morality, or you agree with mine, but rather the need to present a fair and balanced report on Li's moral teachings. Frankly, this attempt to conceal something as basic as Li's teachings that homosexuality is one of the world's ten evils shocks me. He said it, unambiguously, and it needs to be reported here. Earlier in this discussion I was asked to add the complete two lines of the poem, which I have done. But it seems that practitioner Dilip still objects. Could it be that he is not totally comfortable with all of Li's teachings on this subject? There's a point at which this comes down to blatant apologetics, and that's not acceptable.

Olaf, you suggest that I am opposing the Falun Gong because it challenges "the ontological basis of my beliefs." This is nonsense. There's an enormous body of scientific research on the subject of homosexuality in the West. Many decades ago homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric disorders by the top psychiatric association in the United States. It is considered a healthy variation in human sexual orientation by an overwhelming majority of psychiatric professionals. You may not agree with these scientific opinions, and clearly Li Hongzhi does not, but please don't try to belittle my edits on homosexuality because you think I am personally insecure about my own sexual orientation. The bottom line is this: while the Falun Gong may believe that homosexuality is a great moral evil because it is "disgusting" or not in keeping with it's interpretation of the principles of the universe, that opinion is not supported by science. We could expand the material on homosexuality to point out all these things, but that shouldn't be necessary. But what we can't do is conceal what Li Hongzhi actually says about the subject. --Tomananda 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Zhuan Falun II quote is one statement made while listing the aspects of society that have become deviated in modern times. It addresses how Mr. Li regards this behavior in context to the many other aspects of society that have degenerated rather than addressing the behavior or lifestyle on its own. However, the quote from the Frankfurt lecture is specifically addressing the issue on its own, which is one reason why I prefer it. If we want to create as clear a picture of Falun Gong as possible, it makes more sense to me to use material that specifically addresses a subject, rather than that which mentions it in passing. Tomanda, when I mentioned that in the Frankfurt lecture it’s clear that Falun Gong views homosexuality as filthy I wasn’t directing this at you or your beliefs, so there’s no need to be so defensive. I mentioned it because the Zhuan Falun II quote, using the word “disgusting”, addresses it in a similar way, yet it is not as complete in reflecting Falun Gong’s view. What I don’t think is necessary is to have such a long section with multiple quotes on a belief that has such little centrality in the practice. So when there are quotes in this section like these, with their candidacy for inclusion being questionable on a number of aspects, I opt to have them removed.


 * I agree with Olaf in that if we are to keep the “World’s Ten Evils” quote that the poem should be included in its entirety. Tomanda, you have sated that Mr. Li “unambiguously calls homosexuality one of the world's ten evils” and that he puts homosexuality on a top ten list, but this isn’t necessarily true. There are ten two line verses in the poem, one of which mentions homosexuality. This doesn't mean that homosexuality is on "a top ten list". If you study the poem, that's clearly not the case. Like most poems, it's very subjective. You can understand it in different ways. I think the larger issue that Mr. Li is addressing in the poem is mankind's self indulgence, which is exemplified through homosexual behavior. This is just my interpretation though. So when you want to include merely this line from the poem, and talk about it as you have, you are attaching to it your own interpretation, which is unfair. As I mentioned before, poetry is also a different form of written art that can't necessarily be quoted like any other quote. Yet, with the whole poem included in the section I feel it will be too long. For now, for the sake of accuracy, I suggest including the entire poem, but I don’t think this is ultimately the best solution.


 * -Mcconn 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: You've got to be kidding! Li writes a poem called "The World's Ten Evils" and gives each evil a two line stanza, allocating one stanza for "Homosexuality, licentious desires" and you argue that Li does not "unambigously" call homosexuality one of the world's ten evils? I noticed that you reverted the original poem source to a different translation. I've reverted the poem to the orignal one that we have been citing all along. I've also added some needed context.

Also, I am not defensive about the use of words like "filthy" or "disgusting," but rather wish to point out that such characterizations or prejudices do not constitute moral arguments. The Switzerland quote I added helps to address that issue. Despite what you might think as a practitioner, Li's moral teachings have underdone a fair amount of critisism from various commentators. I've also added a bit of that information as well.

--Tomananda 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The true cause of illnesses, where did Li acquire his secret knowledge and healing power?
In the cultivation of mind and body section, I notice that my sentence “collected fees for his services” was replaced with this: “most notable were his treatments at the Asian Health Fair in 1992 and 1993, which were performed to “promote Falun Gong.’” Is the fact that Li made money from his supernatural healing power making some practitioners uncomfortable? My sentence adds more information to the subject by showing what Li did with his power while the other sentence repeats what is made clear elsewhere in the section. For this reason I am putting my sentence back and deleting the other.

From Li’s own statements there is no question that he claims to know and possess the power to remove the true cause of illnesses. He is the only one in the world who is making such a claim as far as I know. What he has not mentioned is the origin of his secret knowledge and healing power. One thing is certain that Li’s teaching on healing illnesses is not a part of the Chinese culture. Some branches of Chinese Buddhism teach that in general suffering is the tribulation of one’s past misdeeds, but no one from the Chinese culture has ever claimed to posses the kind of healing power that Li has claimed, except fable characters. An inquiry into the origin of Li’s wisdom and powers is most important. Only then will we know whether he is superhuman or a swindler.

Dr. Lili Feng is a diehard Falun Gong practitioner who believes the Falun Gong has the cure for all of the world’s illnesses. When the world was terrified by the SARs virus, this doctor gave the following statement: “If over 100 million Falun Gong practitioners had been allowed to practice Falun Gong, they would have been able to resist the SARS virus, stop the SARS virus from being transmitted through them, and form a large immunity shield, which could protect more vulnerable people in China. This is the saddest thing for me and brings me to something I must emphasize. What I want to say is this: persecuting Falun Gong is the most evil and foolish act. While this plague prevails over China, what we need most are those people with resistance to the SARS virus.”

Object to concealing information
I am putting the phrase “collected fees for his services” back. The source comes from a report called “Expose of the swindler Li hongzhi” put together by Li’s earliest followers in November, 1994. Zhao Jiemin, one of eight ex-members who wrote the report pointed out that Li Hongzhi treated patients for money at his home. Li did not set prices for his supernatural healings but instead collected money by using a “donation box” where patients would put in any where from ten to hundreds of Chinese dollars at a time. Zhao paid Li forty Chinese dollars to treat his daughter-in-law’s high blood pressure and coronary heart disease. The “Expose of the swindler Li hongzhi” is in Chinese and can be found at this address: http://www.xys.org/xys/ebooks/others/history/contemporary/Lihongzhi2.txt

The deletion of Dr. Lili Feng’s comment about the Falun Gong being able to defeat SARs and protect China from this deadly virus is grossly unjustified and can only be seem as an attempt to conceal information. The deleted paragraph shows her affiliation with the Falun Gong and her professional opinion on the healing power of the group. Given the fact that her scientific finding of Falun Gong’s healing power is presented in this section the deleted information is totally relevant here. --Samuel Luo 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Chinese government has released all kinds of "exposés" about Li Hongzhi, as you know, claiming that it has acquired information from "people close to Li", etc. Unfortunately, a text file from an obscure site hardly conforms to the Wikipedia policy of Sources and Verifiability. We had a lot of debate even about including allegations of organ harvesting, because they were initially reported only by the Epoch Times, which is, after all, a major newspaper in print. Now we're not even talking about a scientific study or a journal, but simply a random text file on a Chinese site.


 * I don't read Chinese, but babelfish.altavista.com tells me that the document is entitled "Exposes and denounces the swindler Li Hongzhi material", or something like that. And even though Babelfish's translation is crude, I understand a lot of the themes discussed in the text on a general level. It's really nothing but "exposing" and "denouncing". No bibliography, no sources - nothing.


 * Exactly because of the so-called information war, we'll have to really consider the reliability of our sources. Besides, everybody knows that the Chinese government doesn't care about truthfulness. They're even denying all torture and abuse charges put forth in Manfred Nowak's United Nations report, which is just ludicrous. Let me ask: would you buy a used car from this regime?


 * I understand that you want to include Dr. Lili Feng's comment in the article. Maybe you have a point there. I don't oppose to that. But let's not do this with every person we mention, okay? We'll have to try to keep the article centered on Falun Gong, and it's already considerably long. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your statement "everybody knows that the Chinese government doesn't care about truthfulness" is full of POV. What do you know of China anyway, besides one twisted by The Epoch Times? If the Chinese government states that the sky is blue, would you deny it because Li Hongzhi never confirmed the claim? And what authority does this so called Manfred Nowak report to attack China, considering that even Abu Ghraib claims has been denyied by US officials? As for The Epoch Times, what qualify it as a "major newspaper", when it's distributed for free and noted for venomous anti-Chinese propaganda? --PatCheng 05:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know plenty of things about China, even if I don't read the language. Just like I know about totalitarianism in general, or Finnish Civil War, or German idealism, or Europe during the Renaissance, etc. Even though I haven't lived in these time periods and/or countries, there are plenty of literary sources available, especially for academic study. See my user page if you want to know what I'm currently studying. Also, because I'm involved in human rights activities, I get to speak to politicians, ministers, journalists and representatives of various institutions. A lot of people are aware of what's going on in China.


 * It was ludicrous for the US officials to deny Abu Ghraib torture claims. Anyone who's violating basic human rights deserves equal denouncement. Secondly, torture in China's labor camps is systematic and widespread. If the Chinese government states that the sky is red, would you believe it because of upbringing and ideology? If you don't trust in the Bush administration because of cover-ups and blunders (well, at least I hope you don't), why do you speak for a government with an acknowledged history of propaganda and violence? Is it so that even United Nations and international human rights organizations cannot make everyone see how the Chinese government tramples over fundamental international treaties and China's constitution? Who would want to vindicate such violations? There's no need to get into how the Chinese middle class is now prosperous and foreign investments are flooding into the country. What's happening behind the scenes is most important, and that is what determines China's future, in my opinion.


 * By the way, CCP is not China. The Epoch Times is anti-CCP, not anti-Chinese. And this discussion doesn't belong on the talk page of this article. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Chinese government has little creditability in the west but it has not claimed to have the power to heal illnesses and eliminate karma with a stroke of hands.

Li has been promoted as a man who despises money. FAQ section of Falun Gong’s official clearwisdom.net states: “He is not accorded special treatment, nor does he accept money or donations from students of Falun Gong.” Under “Origins and beliefs” section on the Wikipedia, it is said that “Li's insistence that the practice be offered free of charge caused a rift with the China Qigong Research Society.” All these claims are pure lies. Before he started teaching the Falun Gong in 1992, Li was working as a clerk in China and was paid no more than 300 Chinese dollars per month which equals to less than US$40.00. If he was not either charging or accepting money from students, how could he immigrate to the US and buy a house in New York in 1998?

The creditability of “Expose of the swindler Li Hongzhi” was verified by the Falun Gong. This report was submitted to the China Qigong Research Society which the Falun Gong was a member of, in November, 1994 and played an important role in the Falun Gong being expelled from the Society. In response the Falun Gong submitted its own report to the Society called “Reveal the Scheme of the Very Few People from Changchun” sometime in 1995. In the Falun Gong report, Zhao Jiemin and others were said to be Li’s earliest students, and “they once were in charge of the Changchun Falun Gong General Assistant Center.” This suggests that they were very close to Li so they knew how the business was done. The “Reveal the Scheme of the Very Few People from Changchun” is no longer available on clearwisdom.net, it used to be available at this address: http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/1999/7/21/11163p.html.

What is more important for our debate is that this Falun Gong report clearly states that Li did charge money for his teaching. “Each Falun Gong class had duration of 10 days, cost for first-time attendants were 40 Chinese dollars (US$5), for others were 20 Chinese dollars (US$2.5)” the report said. This information was given to refute the accusation that Li was charging students 50 Chinese dollars (US$6.25) per person. So, who is the used car salesman now?

I am not sure if you know all these; it would be nice if you could question the creditability of my source before deleting it. --Samuel Luo 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I quote Porter (2003):

Li Hongzhi went to the United States in October 1996 on a tourist visa to give a lecture in Houston (Tong 2002a: 640-641), and then he gave lectures in Europe. “Responding to the issues of power and authority within the organization raised by his departure, Li at least symbolically abrogated his personal authority over the movement when he left giving official control of the tutoring stations to the ‘Beijing Research Society’” (Bruseker 2000: 70). As a result of being apart from the China Qigong Research Society, Li Hongzhi was able to set his own prices, which were much lower than those being offered in the Chinese Qigong Research Society, and he even gave free lectures. Other Qigong masters complained about how “Falun Gong was undercutting their prices and competing unfairly” (Schechter 2001: 67). The enemies Li Hongzhi made in the Chinese Qigong Research Society lobbied for the government to slow the growth of Falun Gong, and began slandering Li Hongzhi by questioning his legitimacy as a teacher and calling him a “spy for America” (Schechter 2001: 67). [page 82]

At least from April 1994 onwards, and even from the very beginning according to a practitioner I talked to, cash contributions to the guidance stations were forbidden (Li 2001a: 44, 46; Tong 2002a: 637). The Chinese Government has accused Li Hongzhi of getting rich off of Falun Gong. While “rich” is a relative term, it seems clear that the figures they report are exaggerated. When Li Hongzhi taught seminars, the admission fee was usually 40 yuan per training session for a new practitioner, and 20 yuan for repeat practitioners. The repeat practitioners made up between 50 – 75% of the admissions, but the Chinese government figures for the profits of the seminars counted all attendees as paying the 40-yuan fee charged to newcomers. Also, the Chinese Qigong Research Society received 40% of admission receipts from July 1993 to September 1994. Falun Gong’s first four training seminars took in a total of 20,000 yuan, which is only 10% of the 200,000 figure cited by the Chinese government. Finally, from that 20,000 yuan, they had several operating expenses, including “material, personnel, travel and accommodation costs, as well as entertainment expenses for local cadres and special guests” (Tong 2002a: 651). The Chinese government has also claimed that Falun Gong made large profit off the sale of audio tapes, VCDs, video sets, badges, laminated photos of Li Hongzhi, calendars, exercise suits, and cushions (Tong 2002a: 652-653). They have also claimed that the Falun Dafa Rsearch Society “directly edited, distributed, and sold 11.08 million copies of falun gong books, 5.31 million copies of video products, 1.29 million posters, and 230,000 badges, totaling 135 million yuan of sales and 4.2.49 million yuan of profits” (p. 653). However, practitioners have pointed out that these figures include the sale of bootleg Falun Gong materials, and that the bootleggers “received the lion’s share of profits” (p. 653). Also, the companies and organizations that agreed to produce and distribute materials for Falun Gong deprived the Falun Dafa Research Society of the revenue from the sales in various ways (p. 653). Li Hongzhi claimed that he made only 20,000 yuan from the sale of his books inside China. [pages 197-198]

The crackdown on Falun Gong had been building up ever since some Chinese officials decided it was time to be more aggressive in eliminating “superstition” and Li Hongzhi starting making enemies at the Chinese Qigong Research Society by undercutting their prices, claiming his method was far superior to theirs, and making his method so widely available. [page 247]


 * On the whole, it's apparent that the Chinese Qigong Research Society actually got envious of Falun Gong's tremendous growth and felt that their profits were at stake. Li Hongzhi's lecture series were considerably cheaper than those of other qigong masters. The text file in question is by no means a reliable source for making any conclusive allegations of Li Hongzhi being a "money swindler", especially now that you've told that it originates from people within the CQRS.


 * By the way, did you know that one of the possible reasons for crackdown was the death of Deng Xiaoping? Deng was apparently a qigong enthusiast, and he had nothing against Falun Gong. Probably Jiang Zemin didn't dare to do anything while Deng was still alive. There's an interesting anecdote I found. The mysterious "healing powers" of qigong masters was a pretty normal concept in China at the time:

The death of Deng Xiaoping may have been a contributing factor in the crackdown. According to a practitioner I talked to, Deng Xiaoping was a qigong enthusiast in life. Indeed, some have even said that qigong bought him a few extra years of life ...

Another report said: “after returning to Beijing from a visit to Qingdao in June [1994], Deng Xiaoping, supreme leader of the CCP, was once on the brink of death because his heart stopped beating. He was later saved through the efforts of four qigong masters” (Shih-Chang 1994: 10). In addition, it has been claimed “that over 200 qigong masters were active within Zhongnanhai at one point while Deng was alive. Some high-level cadres in the Chinese government were said to be Falun Gong practitioners, but the extent of their power or their connections to potentially sympathetic higher officials is unknown” (Ditzler 2001: 14).


 * And as a conclusion, Verifiability states:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.


 * ...and...

Self-published sources

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


 * ---Olaf Stephanos 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Luo's link to the "Reveal the Scheme of the Very Few People from Changchun" article can be found here:

Let’s examine information posted regarding the following issues, the healing power of Falun Gong and organ harvesting allegation with Wikipedia verifiability policy.

Falun Gong’s health benefits are applauded by Falun Gong’s own surveys and practitioners, as posted in the cultivation of mind and body section. This information is by no means verifiable and does not meet the standards of Wikipedia verifiability policy.

The organ harvesting allegation is solely a claim of Falun Gong’s Epoch Times. This paper is created, managed and distributed by the Falun Gong to disseminate its propaganda. A San Francisco Chronicle report states the following: “Movement followers sit on the boards of these media organizations(The Epoch Times newspaper, satellite television station New Tang Dynasty and radio network Sound of Hope) and reporters for these media often serve as advocates for Falun Gong. Browde (corporate director of the English-language edition of the Epoch Times) has been identified in Epoch Times news stories as a New York spokesman for Falun Gong and for the Falun Dafa Information Center.” Arie Ravid who married Lijuan Ma, a practitioner for six years stated the following: “I was married to Epoch Times director and Falun Gong is behind it.” In other words the organ harvesting allegation can be considered a cooked-up charge by a self-published source and such allegations have not been verified by any reputable unbiased source which means it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia verifiability policy.

Zhao jiemin and others who put together the “Expose of the swindler Li hongzhi” were Li’s earliest students and assisted Li in propagating the Falun Gong at its beginning. This information is verified by Falun Gong’s “Reveal the Scheme of the Very Few People from Changchun.” The “Expose of the swindler Li hongzhi” was written in 1994, five years before the ban by eye witnesses with first hand information, thus far more creditable than Porter’s article and any other sources. The “Expose of the swindler Li Hongzhi” in Chinese is available on a website created and maintained by Dr. Shi-min Fang in San Diego.

Olaf quoted Porter, “Li Hongzhi claimed that he made only 20,000 yuan from the sale of his books inside China.” I have quoted first person account of Li’s accepting money from his students. In either case, Li did make money. So why is my input deleted?

What Li made from his students was more than what he felt comfortable admitting, judging from a Wall Street Journal report titled “American Dream Finds Chinese Spiritual Leader,” on November 1, 1999. As reported, Li purchased a house in New York for $293,500 in 1998 then acquired another for $580,000 in New Jersey in 1999. Li and his wife each earned less than $500 a year in China, how did they manage to buy expensive houses in the US shortly after their immigration? Perhaps, it is not so far reaching to claim that Li did make a big profit from his students.

I am putting my phrase back in and adding a little more. Anyone who deletes my input without deleting material glorifying Falun Gong’s health benefits and the unverified reports about CCP harvesting organs should consider him or herself not being consistent.

--Samuel Luo 22:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Summarize and split
This page is very long. I just want some basic information about teachings, practice, history, and politics. This page is long and rambly enough that I cannot get to the basic info without much effort.

Any suggestions as to what could be broken out? I think that, for instance, the issue homosexuality could get a nice page of its own, like, say, Homosexuality and Judaism, with the little frame on the right linking to other pages in the "Homosexuality and Foo" series. The main article could then have a summary of a few sentences, and a reference, sort of like these:

194.109.198.99 15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever did this reorganization did a great job! Was it Olaf or Fire Star? In any case, I think this new organization will make editing a whole lot easier and, hopefully, will avoid uneccessary disputes about the inclusion of content.  Not all topics will be of interest to all people, but that's not a justification for omitting important information. I also agree that at some point we should consider splitting major sections off the main page (leaving a brief topic summary on the main page). However, I recommnend that we hold off a bit before doing that in order to get used to the new categories this anyonymous editor has created.  Thanks!

--Tomananda 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me, but I agree it's a fine idea. A fresh perspective can be a big help with an article this complicated. --Fire Star 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Li's words
Translation version B of “The world’s ten evils” posted by Tomananda is far more literal and accurate than version A posted by Olaf. One obvious mistranslation of version A is that the second half of four stanzas start with the word “people” which is not found in Li’s writing. The following list of characters from version B also shows its accuracy: dark heart, following, leading, mutant mankind, Fond of audaciousness, competing at ruthlessness. Looks like the argument is centered around the translation of “心.” The literal and accurate translation of “心暗” is “dark heart” in version B. “心” first means the heart, the organ in the body, and often used in making moral judgments. “心” should only be translated into "mind" when it is used to discuss mental power. There is a good reason for creating translation version B. --Samuel Luo 20:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Tomanda's comment about each stanza being a category; The poem is provided below in it's entirety, so the reader can then understand the reference according to their own understanding. Writing "In one poem Li lists 'homosexuality, licentious desires' as one category of The World’s Ten Evils", seems to stear the reader's interpretation too much and takes away from the fact that it's a poem. It's enough to call it a stanza, which I think is undebatable. In my opinion, the same goes for saying "lists" verses "includes".Mcconn 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The preferred translation for “理智” is “reason.” As a third choice, the dictionary lists “senses.” In a reverse translation, reason is translated to “理智” while senses is translated to 1.感官；官能. 2.感觉；知觉；…感；…心. 3.意念；观念；意识. 4.感觉器；【计算机】感受；读出, then 5.〔pl.〕理智；理性. Obviously “reason” is a more accurate translation for “理智” than “senses” and judging from the contents it is what Li means.

Firstly let me say that each practitioner speaks for themselves, there are no fixed rules, there are no lists of Falun Gong practitioners, no clubs. Each practitioner develops their own understanding that deepens the longer you practice. You could ask two Falun Gong practitioners the same question and get different answers.Master Li also speaks for himself.

Are Falun Gong practitioners Allowed to Think for Themselves?
In response to Mcconn's recent edit which purported to report the prevailing opinion of Falun Gong practitioners about homosexuality I added some additional statements from practioners in order to arrive at some kind of balance. It seems to me that if practitioners are allowed to have different points of view about this subject, we must try to report all major POV's. Otherwise, we should report none. I had always thought that practitioners were not allowed by Li to voice any views in disagreement with his, but apparantly I was wrong. A case in point is the following statement received from a 10 year veteran practioner: Firstly let me say that each practitioner speaks for themselves, there are no fixed rules, there are no lists of Falun Gong practitioners, no clubs. Each practitioner develops their own understanding that deepens the longer you practice. You could ask two Falun Gong practitioners the same question and get different answers.Master Li also speaks for himself.

So in the spirit of this one practioner's statement, I expanded Mconn's very limited POV edit with some additional statements. Here's what I came up with: -- There is some controversy within the Falun Gong community concerning Li's teachings on homosexuality. [37]Some practioners have stated that each practitioner speaks for himself concerning this issue, while others claim that Li's teachings are directed towards practitioners for personal guidance and self-cultivation, rather than to discriminate against or judge others. Most practitioners seem to agree with Li that homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but instead reflects deviations from the natural order that have occured at the higher levels. These deviations are considered to be part of the cause of homosexuality and part of the need for Fa-rectification.

The idea that practicing homosexuals will be among the first to be "weeded out" in Master Li's Fa-rectification has not been publicly refuted by any practitioner. When asked to comment about Li's teachings on homosexuality, one practitioner posted his interpretation of Fa-rectification on the San Francisco Indymedia blog. The posting was subsequently deleted by the editor of the website due to it's promotion of a homophobic point of view:

"To say that a it would be silly for a God to want to eliminate deviant Human beings is like saying it would be silly for a Human being to want to eliminate a cancerous tumor. In many ways God’s view deviant Human beings as the same as cancer. Look at it this way, the prevailing medical wisdom is such that if you get a cancerous tumor it should be cut out, and or killed with chemotherapy and radiation treatments. As far as I know those are the only ways that modern medicine knows of curing cancer."

Practitioners often point out that Falun Gong, while teaching the ultimate elimination of homosexuals during the Fa-rectification, nevertheless does not overtly discriminate against homosexuals,nor does it push any particular social agenda. However, homosexuals and critics consider this to be a distinction without meaning and point to the intolerance that such teachings can cause in the general society. --- So that's it: an honest attempt to report what I believe to be the diversity of views of Falun Gong practioners. But is it accurate? For example, if there's a large community of Falun Gong practioners who do not agree with all of Li's teachings about the Fa-rectification and the elimnation of practicing homosexuals (several hundred million on the planet by my count), then obviously we need to write up a different piece. --Tomananda 03:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I think that this perspective, the one of practitioners taking or leaving Mr. Li's teachings, is quite rare. And actually, your quote doesn't necessarily suggest that. Practitioners do disagree with each other all the time, as we interpret things differently based on our own situations. Mr. Li does speak for himself, it's just that practitioners believe everything he says. However, if Mr. Li said "This makes me laugh", it's not true that it would make every practitioner laugh. But I understand your interpretation. However, I bet if you asked that practitioner if that's what he really believes (that some practitioners don't believe what Mr. Li says), and he actually thought about it, he would say no.


 * Here's a little bit from my experience. What is Falun Dafa? Isn't it the teachings of Mr. Li Hongzhi? So isn't someone who practices Falun Dafa someone who follows the teachings of Mr. Li? That's how it is. In the past, Mr. Li has made statements that I didn't understand or maybe even still don't understand, but as a practitioner I still take them to be true. Because over time I've grown to have strong faith in Mr. Li and his teachings, I take them to be true, even if I don't understand everything at the beginning. If one could understand everything correctly right at the begining where would the cultivation be, right? Time and time again things that I didn't understand, after time, contemplation, and lived experience, have come to make a lot of sense. Do I think for myself? Of course. Actually, Falun Dafa is not dogmatic, but instead it encourages practitioners to interpet the teachings according to their own understanding. I certainly don't think for myself any less than a comon devout Buddhist or Catholic. I don't think guiding your way of life with the principles and teachings of a spritual doctrine means that your not thinking for yourself. It just guides your thinking in a certain way.


 * I guess I'm kind of adressing two issues above; one of whether or not practitioners take or leave Mr. Li's teachings and one of whether or not we think for ourselves. I don't think it's right to include the view that some practitioners may disagree with Mr. Li on this issue. That's pretty much at odds with being a "disciple" in itself. What I wrote above is the more or less the how every practitioner thinks. There's no real controversy. So, I removed your paragraph about this. Yet, since you still have the critics' views at the bottem, the practitioners' views need to follow to keep it balanced. Mcconn 16:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Some grumble to everybody
I removed your text, Tomananda. The points are:

1. From now on, everybody must start citing their sources better and check that they comply to Wikipedia policies. You can only quote newspapers, scientific studies, journals and reputed article sources.

2. There is no original research in Wikipedia. We do not accept stuff from personal websites, nor do we quote people who are nobodies. From what I can see, the general mentality among the editors of this article is currently that of proving one's point. Some editions have been full of personal extrapolation.

3. I think that the balance between different sections has suffered from attempts to turn this article into an "exposé" in and of itself. In addition, we don't generally use words like "reveal" or "expose" in non-partisan prose.

4. Wikipedia is not a place to prove anything. It has become quite time-consuming to monitor this article now that a lot of the introduced editions are heavily disputed because of apparent defects. The same policies should apply to each and every article here, controversial or not.

5. I suggest that we all (I don't mean only you and Samuel Luo) take some time to go read all the rules of the game once again. ,

Best regards, ---Olaf Stephanos 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course there is no original research in Wikipedia. But if you check out the history of this edit, you'll see that I was responding to the "original research" Mcconn had edited into the section on Falun Gong and sexual orientation.  It seems that Mcconn was not happy with the starkness of the reporting on Li's teachings on homosexuality and felt the section needed to balanced out with his own opinion of what Falun Gong practitoners think about this subject.  I objected to that approach because his own opinion amounted to apologetics (re-state the Master's teachings, leaving out the scary parts so as not to frighten the non-practitioners).  As it turns out,  I am happy with the final compromise language that you have not deleted in the last paragraph.  It includes one of Mcconn's original sentences, as well as addtional context from me, plus a link to a site which covers this topic in greater depth.  So if we can leave it at that, I am ok with it.

--Tomananda 16:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you "believe everything Li says" what's the point of reporting "your own" beliefs about Falun Dafa in Wikipedia?
Mcconn: I appreciate you honesty in the post above and would like to point out some implications. You say "I don't think it's right to include the view that some practitioners disagree with Mr. Li on this issue." In effect, you are saying that even if a practitioner privately disagrees with an aspect of Li's teachings, we shouldn't report that disagreement because "that would be at odds with being a disciple." There are two implications in this:

1. It is impossible to accurately report the opinions of Falun Gong practitioners in Wikipedia because we (or they) will only be able to report those opinions which meet the standard of agreeing with Master Li.

2. A practitioner cannot think for himself on the important Falun Dafa stuff, but is allowed to  think for himself on the inconsequential stuff such as what is funny.

Have you ever thought that what you are descibing is the consequence of Li's authoritarian control? Did you know that one of Dr. Margaret Singer's conditions for thought control in an authoritarian cult fits perfectly with the situation you describe?

According to Dr. Singer, cults "put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval."

Think about it! Li requires that you uphold and safeguard his Dafa as a non-negotiable condition for being his disciple. You are not allowed to disagree and if you do Li warns you of bad consequences. He threatens to withdraw his protection and then the demons will get you. He says you'll lose your one-time-only chance at reaching salvation. And that his Fa-shen know everything that you are thinking 24/7...so your thinking is monitored even when you are alone. Isn't this a kind of control mechanism? If you truly agree with every last word that Li ever utters, I suppose that's ok. But what if you really don't, but have lost your ability to think independently? What if part of this loss is from reading and listening to Li himself, but another part comes from the social pressure of your fellow practitioners who expect you to modify your thinking or language to conform to Li's teachings. Li is always right and the practitioner is always wrong. Does that accurately describe your situation?

So when it comes to editing in the opinions of practitioners to this Wikipedia article, based on what you have said, we will never get an objective report from any Falun Gong practitioner. Every disciple of Master Li will, by your definition of that role, never publicly voice disagreement with Master Li. Instead, we will get cleverly formulated apologetics which evade the truth. As long as your obedience to Master Li supercedes your own natural inclination to think for yourself, this problem will exist. --Tomananda 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong and sexual orientation
There is some controversy within the Falun Gong community concerning Li's teachings on homosexuality. Some practitioners have stated that each practitioner speaks for himself concerning this issue, while others claim that Li's teachings are directed towards practitioners for personal guidance and self-cultivation, rather than to discriminate against or judge others. Most practitioners seem to agree with Li that homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but instead reflects deviations from the natural order that have occurred at the higher levels. These deviations are considered to be part of the cause of homosexuality and part of the need for Fa-rectification.

--Samuel Luo 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am moving Tomanada’s paragraph in Falun Gong and sexual orientation section to this page. The views of practitioners can not be verified and therefore should only be discussed in the discussion page. This shortens the length of the article and ensures the focus on Falun Gong belief system. --Samuel Luo 04:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FLG now debased to spamming?
Yep, that's right. Getting a bunch of email spam from FLG lately. Getting more and more desperate, they are. -- Миборовский U 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

missing critical info
Its strange to see this article not make mention of a lot of the criticism that is levied against this group's more controversial teachings, in particular its eugenics ideas against "race mixing' and other conservative and controversial points of view, such as that homosexuals are not fully human be depraved demons, a cancer in the cosmos, etc. At least this is what I've been reading from critics who offer a lot of quotes, and practitioners have not rebutted these claims, saying they are 'internal' only, etc. For example, [see http://sfist.com/2007/01/08/the_falun_gong_show_sfist_goes_to_the_ntdtv_chinese_new_year.php#comments] I came to his article to get the scoop with these controversies, but surprised to find no mention of it. Why the lack of info? Its not like wikipedia to have less info over more.76.14.42.191 (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a reference to the race mixing comments on the Teachings of Falun Gong page. I'm sure you understand that considering the scrutiny of a very activist group of members of this religion discussion of Hongzhi's more controversial statements requires above average quality references.  These can be hard to come by since the response to the FLG in english speaking countries has largely been to accept the idea of FLG as victims of "evil communists". Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoever you are, you should drop by more often. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article(s) have been thoroughly sanitised over the years of Falun Gong domination, which we are working to address. Please register, and get stuck in. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion, I believe these things should be included on the main article, and given their weight in a section called "Criticism of Falun Gong" or "Falun Gong controversy", which is currently titled "public debate". Colipon+ (Talk) 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

People who have heared about the persecution might wonder why the persecution is possible and why so many people and even media and governments are ignoring it. People also forgott what the National Socialist German Workers Party labeled the rich jews as... to put it simply they just labeled them an evil cult and projected many of the methods the party itself uses on to them... Only after that do people become indiferent to a persecution as they will not believe it when an alleged "cult" claims it's followers get made into soap. This article here already contains this kind of demonization but does not source it properly (for example the article states that according to some western scholar Falun Gong would have a "propaganda departement" and then gives a source from that western scholar but when one looks into that source one realizes that he was merely quoting or repeating something which originaly originated from the ministry of propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party). There are many such instances... I already mentioned it previously on the talk page but my suggestion got deleted and it got me labeled many evil things... so i will try and see if i can correct this myself. Because i feel that the viewpoint of the Chinese Communist Party is important to mention here and that viewpoint should not be labeled as the viewpoint of western scholars when all they where doing even in the given sources was quoting the Communist Party. I mean those are such important accusations on which lives depend on as they are what made the persecution possible, so shouldn't they be handled with greater care and their original sources be given?

PS: I realized i can't do this alone after all and will need Ohconfucius help as his main source is not available online but is a hard to get and expensive magazine. Only the preface is available but the first sentence in it's preface already is "Drawing on both regime and falungong sources, this article analyses two conflicting depictions of falungong's organizational structure, communications system and financing base."

I know that Falun Gong does not claim to have a "propaganda departement" for example so this statement must be on his list of things sourced from the regime. It's not difficult for me to find this statement on Communist Party websites, but i would rather give the original source to which you (Ohconfucius) are referring to and since you must have the publication, maybe you would be so kind as to mention which source it is? --Hoerth (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see a section at least that gives voice to the critics and controversies that surround the Falun Gong. I'm not sure I follow the logic of that last message above, though, unless its trying to make an argument about the veracity of those claims as merely an invention to rationalize repression, etc, i.e. the analogy of the Jews in Nazi Germany? However, this goes beyond Wikipedia's goal: The issue is not about if a certain claim is actually true or not, but only if they are notable criticisms or not? Given they clearly are, I'd expect to see it given full breath here. If it's disputed, then lets give air to that view as well, per NPOV. I think the article already abundantly communicates the claims of the group as being persecuted in China by the govt. and offers evidence that this is the case. It is outlawed, after all. So I don't think there is any conspiracy to keep it hidden. :) My problem was that a criticisms section that one would expected to find was just completely missing, or just buried and not easily seen for readers to learn about.  This is not about "demonization," whether or not that is the real motivation behind the critics, but that it should be reported on, objectively. Suppressing information is counter to the purpose of Wikipeida, not being a place of activism or pushing for a particular causes, per se. Its much easier, and less conflict will ensue, if we follow the policy of "Verifiability Not Truth" as our guide here (esp. since people disagree about what the truth is).76.14.42.191 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To Hoerth: You bring up the Holocaust for the second time, and though this is not a forum, I cannot help but comment. I am unable to evaluate whether or not your FLG/Jews-comparison has any merit; however, what I do know is that Hitler wouldn't have given a damn about what wikipedia writes. As the IP's comment correctly states, we are not here to "rectify" the world or to prevent potentially looming atrocities or injustices from happening. If(conditional) the government of China really wants or wanted to implement a new Holocaust, they could, and we aren't the ones who'd be able to stop them. I agree that the "who-exactly-said-what" is indeed crucial, but alas, that's all we can do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)