Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived discussion:

Breaking the intro down further

Zhen, shan, ren wording and straw poll

Okay, we've been spinning our wheels for a while here so let's try breaking it down into smaller pieces. According the consensus on the central concepts, the first concept we have to summarize is Zhen, shan, ren (Truthfulness, Compassion and Endurance). Here's the latest complete suggestion from Samuel. (I'm not including Andre's because he has some incomplete references.)

According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

Can we get a straw poll on just this sentence? CovenantD 14:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be a little clearer that Li posits "Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance" as the "supreme nature of the universe". It could perhaps be done with different punctuation. Anyway, I'm off on holiday for a few days, I'll look in when I get back! --Fire Star 火星 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

From the quotes below, Why Doing Cultivation Exercises Doesn’t Increase Gong

So to put it another way, you have to care about character cultivation, cultivate by the nature of the universe—to be True, Good, and Endure—and get rid of those ordinary people’s desires, those character flaws, and those thoughts about doing bad things.

Falun Dafa’s Special Features

So I think you now know how gong comes about: the gong that really decides your level doesn’t in fact come from exercises. It comes from cultivation. It has to do with you cultivating yourself, and how when you improve your character in the midst of ordinary people, and when you assimilate to the universe's nature, then the universe’s nature doesn’t hold you back, and you’re able to rise higher. That’s when your virtue starts evolving into gong, and as your character improves, it goes right up with it. That’s how it works.

Note here xinxing is translated as "character". It seems to me, the cultivation of xinxing is towards the goal of assimilating the universe's nature. Or the xinxing cultivation has to be according to the nature of universe. samuel's version is almost ok to me except I still feel a little bit different with what I feel. Fnhddzs 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs, I think that the way Samuel words it allows for different reasons and the ultimate end result without being specific as to reasons. In other words, your interpretation is implicitly in there already. Having said that, if everybody else agrees to this version, would you be able to accept it? CovenantD 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems you English speakers think we have the same meaning, then I am fine. Fnhddzs 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems ok to me. I apologize for not being present these last few days, it has been an incredibly busy week for me. This is the most I can say at the momement. I don't think this situation will last long, so I should be participating more again soon. Good luck! Mcconn 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also okey for me, except one thing: Omido 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 

:Just so we know what we're voting on, this is Samuel's version and I support it:   --Tomananda 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We still need to hear from Dilip, and maybe Olaf, Miborovsky, Kent888 and Cj cawley.

Omido's addition and a straw poll

"According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character) and lets go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance."

I think it is very important that we include that can only cultivate their xinxing by letting go of attachments and desires. One cannot assimilate to the nature of the universe and not letting go of attachments, so it is important that it is included. Master Li has also said that cultivating with attachments is not real cultivation, but one can realize his own attachments during the cultivation and gradually remove them. Omido 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on adding this to Samuel's suggestion. Please state an opinion on both parts. People may agree with the original wording and disagree with the addition or agree to both. CovenantD 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

agree to addition to the original. I will second this addition to Samuel's version by presenting a quote in the very beginning (the third paragraph of the first talk) of Zhuan Falun [1]

I’ll tell you a truth: the whole process of cultivation is a process of constantly getting rid of human attachments.

So in my understanding, removing attachments is the central or the whole thing of xinxing cultivation. This idea is quite much the whole idea of xinxing cultivation. Then Samuel's version would be quite good. Fnhddzs 19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just added a few words. --Samuel Luo 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, does this mean that you agree to the addition? CovenantD 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that we are voting on a sentence to replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of my suggestion here. Am I right?--Samuel Luo 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two related straw polls happening here, but both are just about the second sentence of the 1st paragraph. The first is based on your wording as shown here and the second is an addition proposed by Omido as shown here. I'm guessing that you support your own wording and want to know if you agree to the addition by Omido. CovenantD 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Li when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings in cultivating his/her xinxing (mind nature or character) and letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.
Just so we know what we're voting on, this is Samuel's version and I support it: --Tomananda 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A grammar question. Why no "to"? "followes" --> "follows"Fnhddzs 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I can give you a rule of grammar to cover it. When used next to "assimilate" it's a redundant word. CovenantD 23:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But why the translators put a "to" there? I believe they have native English speakers too. Fnhddzs 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked up answers.com [2]. There is an example:

To adapt. It was difficult to get the new baby to assimilate to his parents' schedule.

Now I think we have to have this "to" although it is right in grammar either way. Since the meaning in the Falun Gong teachings is to ask practitioners to cultivate their character to adapt to universe's nature, instead of letting the universe's nature adapting to us. I guess I am right this time :) Fnhddzs 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not attached to this at all. It just seems wrong to me. CovenantD 07:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Andre's suggestion for the second sentence

Maybe you can inlcude my version in here too Covenant? the problem of the refferences has been solved by Fnhddzs already.--Andres18 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here you go. I've highlighted the differences and added a comment. CovenantD 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Practitioners believe that when cultivating their xinxing (heart and mind nature or translated as character[3]), they can assimilate to the core principles of --Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance-- which are also referred to as the "cosmic characteristic" [1][2]

Major differences

Samuel's places the authority on Li. Andre's places it on practitioners.
Addition of cosmic characteristic wording.

Comments - I think the first difference is a big one. We should be relying on the words of Li. For that reason alone, I think Samuel's phrasing is better. CovenantD 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I prefer Samuel's version. It is clearer in meaning and reads better. :-) --Samuel Luo 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments - I think cosmic characteristic is just another translation version of "nature of universe" . Well, the both seem quite close to me. I would add references to Samuel's if his is used. I think Andres' version uses longer sentences and reads better to me. Li also said the "truthfulness, benevolence and forbearance" are guiding principles for practitioners to conduct themselves [4]. This idea is covered in Andres' version. The issue of whether practitioners believe or according to Li is not very important to me. Maybe the two versions could be combined somehow. Anyway, we are almost there. Fnhddzs 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - I think we neednt keep repeating "According to Li Hongzhi".. Its quite clear we are refering to the teachings of Falun Dafa. I think we can write it as "In Falun Dafa, the process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates to Truthfulness (Truth), Compassion and Endurance." Then, we can mention( In the next sentence or in a later paragraph) that "In Falun Dafa, Zen-Shan-Ren is considered the highest manifestation of the Buddha Law or Dharma(Fa) and the fundamental characteristic of the Cosmos." . I suggest these two sentences to introduce cultivation of Zhen-Shan-Ren. Dilip rajeev 10:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we really do. Falundafa isn't a person and therefore can't teach anything. To suggest that it does implies that Wikipedia believes it exists outside of the postulations of Li. A parade example of weasel wording. It should be reported with a small degree of elegant variation so that we aren't always saying exactly the same thing, but the attribution ultimately belongs entirely in Li Hongzhi's lap, I'm afraid. --Fire Star 火星 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev 15:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dilip. I agree we make sure clarifying the source of point of view as Fire Star suggested. This article is to report Falun Gong. It is better to say "in" Falun Gong. And with the wording of "it is believed", "is thought of", we do not imply this is wikipedia's thoughts. We have a sentence to say Mr. Li is the Master. Of course everything of the teachings is from Mr. Li. Why we have to repeat this when we refer to teachings? If we put "according to Li", I think people may wonder why to repeat? Is there another possibile author of teachings? Fnhddzs 13:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say both. The reader needs to understand that the teachings come from Mr. Li, but given this, since the system he teaches is called Falun Dafa, I think it's fine to say "In Falun Dafa it is believed...". Both ways are ok to me and I don't think we should overuse either of them. However, the problem with Andres version is that it says "practitioners believe". Well, practitioners believe it because it is a principle taught by Mr. Li and practitioners believe what Mr. Li says. So In this case it's better to say "According to Li..." or "In Falun Dafa it is taught..." As for Samual's version (with Omido's suggestion), I think it's good, but there's one little thing. Cultivating xinxing includes letting go of attachments and desires. So it would be better to say something like "...in cultivating his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), which includes letting go of attachments and desires,...". But this isn't the only aspect of xinxing, theres also virtue, "enduring", "awakening to things", and "enduring hardship". And this is only "to name a few things". So should we mention more of these things when refering to character? To make this a little clearer I've pasted Mr. Li's explanation of "character" from Lecture 1 of Zhuan Falun. Mcconn 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So what is character? Character includes virtue (which is a type of matter), it includes enduring, it includes awakening to things, it includes giving up things—giving up all the desires and all the attachments that are found in an ordinary person—and you also have to endure hardship, to name just a few things. So it includes a lot of different things. You need to improve every aspect of your character, and only when you do that will you really improve. That’s one of the key factors in improving your potency.

ok. I agree with Mcconn. This way would be more accurate. Letting go attachments is not the whole thing of the xinxing cultivation. It is a part of it. I am sorry about my previous interpretation [5]. With this straightened out and keeping in mind not overusing the wording of "according to Li" or "it is believed or thought" in the whole article, then either Andres or Samuel's version would become quite good. Anyway, we are almost there. It is fine to me to address the "Zhen-Shan-Ren" as principles as in Andres's version. It is also fine to me not to mention this as in Samuel's version. Fnhddzs 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A small thing. followes --> follows? Fnhddzs 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to start writing long explanations on "what is character" here we will be straying from the task of writing an introduction, which by definition should be a consise review of why the this topic is notable, and what a reader can expect to find in the the article if he/she reads further. Yes, character "includes a lot of different things," as does Fa-rectification and Li's teachings on consumation. But if we ever expect to complete the introduction section, I hope we can focus more on writing just one sentece at a time, with the end goal of having, let's say, 3-4 paragraphs worth of "introduction." --Tomananda 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No no. Mcconn just suggested to add "which includes" Fnhddzs 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested lead by Hiding

Feel free to disregard this, but all the quotes from Li can be addressed in the article, a lead should not be so specific. Would people be happy with these three paragraphs?

Falun Gong, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and moral teachings. According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

Add Paragraph Here about Salvation and Fa-rectification. We already agreed on these topics, but have not agreed on the wording. --Tomananda 23:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. The Chinese government claims to have banned the group for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong claims the ban was a result of President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin’s personal jealousy of the group's popularity. The suppression of Falun Gong is considered a human rights violation mainly by western human rights groups and politicians.

The exact number of Falun Gong practitioners is not known. A figure of 70 million practitioners was quoted in a New York Times article published April 27, 1999. According to the article, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government. According to a statement posted on November 1, 1999 the membership estimated by Beijing was 2.1 million. A main Falun Gong website states a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide, including 70 million in China.

Someone would have to stick the characters my system hasn't got in, instead of the question marks. Anyway have a think on that, feel free to ignore it but do try and work out what your lead should do with regards guidance at WP:LEAD. Don't try and cram too much detail into it, we want people to read the whole article. :) Hiding Talk 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, Hiding, we've already reached consensus on the last two paragraphs of the lead section. We've kind of been working backwards, from the easiest bits to the more difficult. Also so you know, we've also discussed what should be in the first paragraph or two here. You couldn't know that unless you dug through the last few archives and scoured this entire page so I thought I'd mention it. CovenantD 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the central concepts discussion, I just felt the discussion on the first paragraph was getting bogged down on the usage of quotes, and I don't see that the quotes should necessarily be in the lead. A lead should be a brief overview, and if you start using one set of quotes then people might want another set of quotes to balance, and those arguments and balancing are best made in the article itself. Hiding Talk 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding We (anti-FG-editors) do not want to place Li's quotes here but simply mention FG’s core belief--salvation and Fa-rectification--and provide links to the body of the article where these terms are explained in greater detail. However practitioner-editors insisted on including Li quotes for reasons they have not fully explained. --Samuel Luo 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

About the right mostly, except the "moral" teachings --> "spiritual" teachings (I don't mind continuing our previous sentence by sentence vote and I will read more about what is a lead section and rethink) and I am going to propose a poll on using the name persecution. I feel very uncomfortable if we cheat ourselves that is not persecution, per the new source confirming organ harvesting on live Falun Gong practitioners even TODAY. Fnhddzs 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Update on consensus for the lead

Falun Gong, (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") also known as Falun Dafa, (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi (surname is Li) to the public in 1992. Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation). According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

We have consensus on the above. We have two suggestions for addition to this, seen below in bold text.
I'm calling a 24 hour straw poll before we move on to the next sentence on Fa-rectification.
Even if you have expressed an opinion on this before, please do so again so we have a clear idea of consensus.

I am sorry I don't agree with the above. Falun Gong refers to both teachings and exercises. Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll #1

Please support or oppose with at most one or two sentences explaining your reason.

Falun Gong refers to five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and spiritual teachings.

How about "and spiritual teachings centered on moral improvement". It's more accurate and flows better into the next sentence. Mcconn 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Flun Gong is about exercises. --Samuel Luo 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Falun Gong (fah-luhn gong) – “Law Wheel Qigong.” Both the names Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are used to describe this practice. But not vice versa. --Yenchin 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. Falun Gong refers to both teachings and exercises, as what is called mind and body cultivation system. Otherwise, just a body cultivation system if following your thought? Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

i support Mcconns version.Falun Gong is also about spiritual teachings and moral improvement, please remember that if you are going to state something like "Falun gong is just about excercises", then you have to back it up, or else i dont think it can be considered a valid disagreement. Also, I dont think using the term Falun Gong or Falun Dafa will affect the neutrality of the article.--Andres18 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We need more input. Another 24 hours. CovenantD 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the version above, but I have a suggestion. The discussion on whether the terms "Falun Gong" and "Falun Dafa" refer to the same thing was already quite lengthy. Did we get nowhere in that discussion? I had thought that we had all basically reached consensus that although the terms literal meanings are different, they in fact refer to the same thing in use. To me this is undeniable and I don’t know why anyone would bother denying it, as no one is to gain either way. The paragraph confuses this by saying "Falun Gong refers to...", which almost suggests that "Falun Dafa doesn’t refer to..." The term "refers to" is the problem. I think if we instead use "includes" there won’t be such a problem. So this is what I'm suggesting:

"Falun Gong includes five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation) and spiritual teachings centered on moral improvement". Mcconn 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with this suggestion too, its much more accurate.--Andres18 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We are trying for a quick description of Falungong. I agree with the original description we are voting on above. I don't agree with the pro-FLG addition. Trying to load the description with "moral improvement" - a very subjective claim that only devotees are likely to agree with, especially in light of Li's racist public statements - is blatant advertising. --Fire Star 火星 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is my suggestion a "pro-Falun Gong" version? Previously, non-Falun Gong practitioner editors were suggesting "moral teachings" rather than "spiritual teachings". Later, a practitioner suggested "spiritual teachings" instead. Doesn't my version try to incorperate both? In addition, since the following sentence talks about the focus of the practice, ie. cultivating xinxing, which is certainly a pursuit of moral improvement, it flows better and makes it clearer to add "centered on moral improvement" to the previous sentence. Other than this I just tried to clarify the use of the term "Falun Gong". You seem ever more accusing these days Five Star. 61.229.233.44 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you are Mcconn who didn't log in. The addendum is pro-FLG because it is an attempt to imply early on that Li's teachings are morally sound. Later on, we can say Li or others claim them to be moral, but there isn't universal agreement as to whether they are. The same with FLG jargon like "cultivation" and "rectification", etc. Claims, not established fact, that should be qualified as such. My position has been constant since I started editing here. It is symptomatic of an ongoing pattern that has been with this article since day one. Li and FLG practitioners commonly say one thing while acting another. They say they aren't political, yet the suppression started as a result of their huge political protests in China. They say they aren't a religion, yet they address entirely religious subjects using religious language to the point that Li declares himself the only and universal saviour for all mankind throughout eternity. The capper is that Li has ordered his followers to deliberately obscure his "higher level" teachings to the public. FLG practitioners several times in the course of these discussions have accused non-practitioners of not being qualified to edit the article but I wholeheartedly disagree. I am sure that I can see right through the sleight of word that seemingly comes from the top, and I won't allow this article to slowly thereby become advertising for Li and FLG. And that is a declaratory statement based on a pattern of evidence. --Fire Star 火星 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright FireStar, then, what do you think about just "spiritual teachings" like it was initially proposed? is this the one you are agreeing to in your previous post?. If so, i can agree to it and think its a neutral way of defining this other aspect of falun gong. I think using "spiritual teachings" doesnt imply these are for moral improvement neither does it imply the contrary. If any of us, the editor practitioners, have done anything wrong then we apologize, but keep in mind we are not the only ones who have made mistakes during this process.--Andres18 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after three days of a badly formed straw poll (my fault) it's clear we don't have consenus on adding anything to the above. CovenantD 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not entirely my fault. Too many suggestions when I specifically asked for only support or oppose statements. CovenantD 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll #2

Please support or oppose with at most one or two sentences explaining your reason.

According to Li when one cultivates his/her xinxing (mind nature or character), which includes letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

Discussion
How about "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires,". We don't want to create the impression that this is the only aspect of xinxing, but it's fine to mention it provided we make this clear. Mcconn 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested this earlier:

According to Li when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings in cultivating his/her xinxing (mind nature or character) and letting go of attachments and desires, he/she can assimilate to the supreme nature of the universe--Truthfulness, Compassion, Forebearance.

I will only agree to adding this "letting go of attachments and desires," when the bolded text is added. --Samuel Luo 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "Stricly following the teachings" sounds odd to me. I do not think I strictly follow the teachings even now and it is not required for practitioners although I think it is a goal to aim at. Cultivation is step by step. Fnhddzs 07:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with condition. With emphasis on the exclusiveness as Samuel pointed out. No matter what you do, in the end, it's up to the "Falundafa shih zheng fa". --Yenchin 07:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with version #2 with the addition suggested by Samuel as well. Shall we call it a consensus? --Tomananda 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Samuel's latest addition, but I agree with the earlier straw poll 2 and mconn's addition. Omido 09:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support with Mcconn's addition. Fnhddzs 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Support with Mcconn's addition Xinxing is not only about letting go of attatchments, that is just a part of xinxing, there is also truthfulness benevolence forbearance, virtue, innate quality and so on. Perhaps letting go of attatchments can verify how assimilated you are to these principles but it doesnt constitute the entirety of xinxing. Well now, since we dont want such a long explanation then Mcconn's suggestion is just perfect.I disagree with samuel's suggestion because following the falun gong teachings, which is basically assimilating to these principles, which is also called "cultivating" is a gradual process, so strictness varies depending on how long you have practiced, the experiences you go through during this process and it also depends on your understanding of these teachings. If anyone could strictly follow falun gong teachings then there would be no cultivation.--Andres18 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, obviously this one needs more discussion and the straw poll was premature. CovenantD 01:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we discuss changing the term "suppression" to "persecution"

Thanks. "Persecution" is a widely used term. These are some citations in English, not considering other languages (such as European):[6] U.N. Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his Mission to China from November 20 to December 2, 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6), March 10, 2006.REPORT INTO ALLEGATIONS OF ORGAN HARVESTING OF FALUN GONG PRACTITIONERS IN CHINA [7][8] [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] [19] ...began its bloody persecution ... The Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong followers is allegedly run by the notorious Office 6-10 [20] Fnhddzs 21:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Avoid both persecution and suppression in the lead, would be my advice, instead sticking to the facts, that China has outlawed the practise and human rights groups condemn the move, if those are the facts. Avoid weasel words. You can introduce terms like suppression and persecution on the main body of the article through sourced quotes from reliable sources. Hiding Talk 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds a good idea. Fnhddzs 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest we remove mentioning what is reason for the ban. It is not a fact with consensus. The reason is quite debatable. We'd better avoid that in the introduction if the introduction is focused on facts. Fnhddzs 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hiding. We have a whole page entitled "Suppression" and that's where the details belong. --Tomananda 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Hiding that avoiding both persecution and suppression in the lead. But I would say the suppression page title should be changed to "persecution". Fnhddzs 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hiding, wikipedia should provide the facts--what CCP and the FG say about the ban. Suppression is not neutral term how about Chinese government Vs Falun Gong? --Samuel Luo 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We'd remove the ban reasons in the lead. They are details and debatable. If you'd insist on putting reasons in the introduction, we'd put these quotes of what Master Li say in 1999 as below. Some Thoughts of Mine June 2, 1999

Actually, I know perfectly well why some people are bent on opposing Falun Gong. Just as reported by the media, there are too many people practicing Falun Gong. One hundred million people is indeed no small number.

Oh give me a break! Falun Gong's claim of having one hundred million practitioners is one of its biggest lies. Here in California, the FG has to rely on busing hundreds of practitioners from city to city to have a decent showing at parades and protests. On July 4th, practitioners were bused from northern California to Los Angeles to march in a parade. The entire Bay area is estimated to have fewer than 1,000 practitioners. --Tomananda 07:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I am just presenting a quote on a view from Master Li in 1999 why some people oppose Falun Gong. It is not a place to discuss how many practitioners here. Everybody has a way of estimation.Fnhddzs 16:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Also Master Li mentioned the main body of practitioners is in China. Fnhddzs 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, everything you just said is POV. Speak about the article, not your own personal opinions. Omido 10:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding to Fnhddzs's ludicrous boast of there being 100 million practitioners world wide with actual information about what the numbers are like in California, the biggest state in the US. In order to muster about 140 practitioners for a San Francisco Board of Suprevisors meeting earlier this year, the FG had to bus in about 80% of those folk from out of the city. This figure is not my POV, it came directly from one of the Supervisors who actually took a count. --Tomananda 22:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont think this contributes in anyway to the making of the article, please dont spend your time in vain attacking other editors. For those who might have a doubt, according to google ludicrous: absurd;incongruous;inviting ridicule. Even though you are entitled to disagree, please respect other people's statements--Andres18 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


It is fine with me if you would use a title Chinese government vs. Falun Gong. To me, that is a better title than "suppression". But I disagree wikipedia help to cover up the persecution facts if wikipedia is dedicated to report things. I suggest "persecution" must be mentioned. "persecution" cannot be replaced with the term "suppression". "persecution" is facts here, not a POV. Fnhddzs 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course persecution is facts. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners are tortured and detained every day, are you going to try to cover that up? People have to know the truths, they have to know about every evil act the Chinese Government have done against Falun Gong practitioners, tortures, organ havesting from live practitioners, killings, raping and many other evil horrific things. This is facts, there are so many witnesses and independent researchers in the west that have stepped forward and spoken about these things. I also have two independent books that are speaking about the persecution of Falun Gong, which I will use in the article to clarify the truth about the persecution. Omido 10:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Millions of FG practitioners are tortured and detained every day? Is there no limit to the unsubstantiated claims you're willing to make to promote Falun Gong? Master Li is quoted as once having said: "I have to exaggerate, or else no one would believe me." (Would you like the citation..I think I can find it fairly quickly.) --Tomananda 22:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean million, that was wrong. I meant alot of practitioners are being tortured and detained every day. Also, please show me the citation that you mentioned. We practitioners know that sometimes you say something without understanding what you are saying. Omido 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for correcting yourself on the numbers. I used the word exaggeration because that is exactly what the FG does in an effort to get support. I've always said in discussion that I have sympathy for Falun Gong practitioners who are mistreated in any way while being detained in China. But mistreatment and even torture, if done by corrupt individuals at the local level does not equate to a government policy in favor of torture, nor does it justify words like "genocide" which are also used in FG propopaganda. Take, for example, the first report you cite above...the March, 2006 Commission on Human Rights report. In that report I learned the following:
  • "Since 2000, the Special Rappporteur and his predecessors have reported 314 cases of alleged torture to the government of China involving over 1,160 individuals.
  • Of those alleged victims, 66% were deemed to be FG practitioners. That means over a 5 year period the Rapporteur reported a total of 765 alleged victims, or 154 per year. So rather than speaking of "millions" of alleged victims, the word "hundreds" is more like it.
  • The Special Rapporteur welcomed "the willingness of the government to acknowledge the pervasiveness of torture in the criminal justice system and the various efforts undertaken in recent years at the central and provencial levels to combat torture and ill-treatment."
  • He also acknowledged that "these measures have contributed to a steady decline of torture practices over recent years." --Tomananda 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please find the citation if you could. Please do not slander. Fnhddzs 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "China Vs Falun Gong" version. But i also think "persecution" should be used if there are that many refferences which use such a term. Toamananda, im sorry but that is surely another of your personal understandings of another of Master Li's quotes. Please Look at the references that we are presenting and give us a justified reason of why the term "persecution" should not be used.--Andres18 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will track down that Li Hongzhi quote and report it here. --Tomananda 18:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Noah Porter reported the Li quote in his Master's Thesis (p.72), but doubts its reliability because it comes from the Chinese Embassy in Denmark. The quote relates to the question of why Li changed (fabricated?) his birthday to make it coincide with Sakymuni's. Here's the quote:
'When Li's acquaintances asked him why he made up his life story, Li answered, "No one would believe me if I do not exaggerate a little bit.'" Porter obtained the quote from: [21] I am not proposing that we add this to the ariticle, but nevertheless find it very interesting. For me, it provides one plausible, though ironic, explanation for Li's grandiose statements. --Tomananda 01:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the quote. Now I am not worried. It is not Li's words. It is just a cliche from Chinese Embassy. Unfortunately it cannot support your POV.Fnhddzs 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
When Li's acquaintances asked him why he made up his life story, Li answered, "No one would believe me if I do not exaggerate a little bit.'" Ah please...for all we know they could have just made it up, is there a name and last name of an acquaintance from Mr Li confirming it? no, is there enough evidence to back that up? no. Its completely unsubstantal. Besides, you are contradicting yourself, arent people suppossed to think you are lying if you exaggerate?. Why dont we focus on what we have to do? pleeeeasse lets center on the real objective of this subsection, we are waiting for the critics opinion on the use of the term persecution.--Andres18 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


We've already discussed the use of the terms "persecution" and "suppression". You can go here to refer to the discussion. I stand by using the term "persecution". "Persecution" is not inherentely POV, although some people may use it that way. What's happening in China is absolutely a persecution, and the term has been widley used by people from all sides to describe it. "Suppression" does not carry the same meaning. Whether or not you like Falun Gong you still have to own up to the fact that it is being persecuted in China. I think we should use this word in the title and the introduction. The article will then give context to the word. "China vs Falun Gong" is not accurate. That term almost implies that they are two forces engaged in some kind of battle with each other. This is not true as practitioners are merely doing what they can to counter and stop the persecution against them. They beat, torture, and kill us, but we don't lay a finger on them. We just want them to stop and want people to understand what they are doing. It's totally different from an "X vs Y" battle. Mcconn 09:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now that you mentioned it Mcconn, i think you are absolutely right about the term China vs Falun Gong. We are not fighting against the Chinese government, we dont care about politics, its the persecution we are trying to stop. So, i agree with the term "persecution" being used.--Andres18 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andres and Mcconn. It can't be called "China vs Falun Gong". It is CCP that is torturing and killing Falun Gong practitioners. Falun Gong practitiotners have never answered back with any violence, they just clarify the truth about the persecution to the people in the world. Omido 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres and Omido: Li Hongzhi continually calls for the use of the Nine Commentaries to slowly eliminate the Chinse Communist Party through attrition. The Epoch Times reports how many millions of Chines people have supposedly quit the CCP because of the FG's campaign, and Li himself, in a recent poem posted on your website talks about the CCP fading due to the promotion of the Nine Commentaries. And just recently a FG practitioner gained entry to the White House lawn using her Epoch Times press pass to heckle and harrass Chinese President Hu. Given these facts, how can you say with a straight face "we are not fighting against the Chinese govenment"? --Tomananda 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone in civic world should shout at the CCP's evil. What if your friends' organs are in danger of being butchered? Stop the beast! Fnhddzs 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda: that is your personal opinion and i respect it. We ,Falun Gong practitioners, think the Nine commentaries are just exposing the evil deeds of the communst party, if they are fading its because of what they did, not what we do. But we are not here to give our personal opinion about this matter. So lets focus on making the article, if you think persecution shouldnt be used then give us a justifiable reason (backed up) of why it shouldnt be used. We have many testimonies and refferences that state this persecution is really happenning, can you prove it is not a persecution? if you can then post it so we can talk about it and move on. What the Epoch times reporter did does not represent in any way the actions of Falun Gong, if she went and did it then its her problem, that doesnt mean Falun Gong or Mr Li wanted this to happen in any way. As you may know, Falun Gong cannot take responsability for what all people who claim to be practitoners do.--Andres18 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? Master Li is not responsible for what an Epoch Times reporter does, even though he said the Epoch Times was created by his Dafa disciples for validating the Fa? And Master Li is not pushing the Nine Commentaries as a device for getting rid of the CCP by attrition even though he repeatedly reminds his followers about how it is to be used? Sorry for being incredulous, but the constant denials of FG practitioners that you are not pursuing a political agenda become tiresome after a while. The last time I checked, the goal of eliminating a governing political party through propaganda is considered "political." Anyone who has read Master Li's speeches knows that his goal is the elimination of the CCP. Sure, Master Li says it will be the gods who will eliminate the "wicked" and "evil" CCP, just as he says the gods will eliminate practicing homosexuals. But then again, Li also says he is teaching the gods his Fa, so that makes Li the king of the gods, doesn't it? And therein lies his responsibility. --Tomananda 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind this is not a falun gong discussion forum, and all this talk is not relevant to the subsection. Thats your POV, We also have our own POV of the matter, dont regard what you think as absolute. Im not going to spend one more second talking to you about falun gong, we have our opinion and you have yours. If our position on the matter becomes tiresome for you then id appreciate it if you could be more a little more tolerant towards other people's opinions. We are here trying to discuss wether the term persecution should be used or not, if you disagree then give us your motives so we can talk about it.--Andres18 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is fighting the chinese government. Falun Gong practitioners are compassionatly exposing the wicked party's evil crimes. The only thing the Nine Commentaries are doing is to help people to see the true and wicked nature of the CCP. Actually, Master Li himself have said that Falun Gong will never be against the government, not now and not in the future, he also said that Gods will eliminate CCP. Why do practitioners spread the Nine Commentaries? Because CCP has been killing people for the last 160 years, they brainwash people and they use propaganda and lies as tools for maintaining the power, the chinese people should know this. This is in fact the purpose of the Nine Commentaries, to see the true nature of CCP. Omido 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When the Dafa disciples who run the Epoch Times report on how many millions of Chinese people have quit the evil and wicked CCP, that is not "fighting the Chinese government"? And when practitioners lobby congresspeople and local politicians to get them to pass resolutions to condemn the Chinese Government, that is not "fighting" the Chinese Government? And when Falun Gong practioners based in Taiwan illegally jam the main TV transmissions that the Chinese Govenment sends to it's people, that is not fighting the Chinese Goverment? As I have said all along, the mendacity of the Falun Gong truly amazes me. --Tomananda 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
We would really appreciate it if you could stop attacking us, mEndacity literally means "Falsehood", this is an attack, i also think you should stop continuously breaking the forum rules, its not healthy towards the making of the article. Please answer to our simple request (do you agree or not with the term persecution and if you dont then give us a considerable reason so we can dialogue about it) so that we can move on.--Andres18 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not attacking anyone personally, but I am responding to the postings made by practitioners above which contain some pretty outrageous claims. I notice that instead of responding to the substance of what I said above, all you do is accuse me of attacking editors. Anyway, I will take a page from Omido and just say: No one is attacking you, I am only compassionately exposing what I consider to be erroneous claims made by the practitioners. --Tomananda 05:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You did respond to our claims which you consider outrageous, but your answer was an attack to falun gong practitioners. I think you are completely entitled to state that you disagree with our claims, but i dont think the way you are doing it is the most appropriate one. Im not going to respond to your claims because thats not what im here to do and its not what this subsection is about. I say again i think you should stop behaving like this. Im sorry if i sound rude but if you want to initiate once again a never ending argument about who is right and wrong (like on, perhaps each and every subsection on this talk page so far) and contininue posting ironic remarks trying to ridiculize us, trying to make everybody think you are right and we are wrong then i think perhaps there might be somewhere else you can do it, instead of doing it here and disturbing the edit process. Dont get me wrong, i dont mind at all you are against falun gong or anything, in fact, im glad there are non falun gong editors here so we can make a neutral article but i think this kind of behaviour is seriously delaying the edit process, im sure we all want to finish this article some day right?--Andres18 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.
I agree that CCP is different with China government. CCP hijacks the Chinese government. So I think Chinese government has to quit the CCP. Falun gong is not against any government. But everyone in civic world should expose the CCP's evil and ask CCP to stop persecution. Fnhddzs 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC) There is no consensus even in Chinese authorities and there was no legal procedures in terms of starting and conducting the persecution. Fnhddzs 02:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Some Chinese former officials has quitted the CCP since they cannot endorse the persecution any more. Fnhddzs 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, note that not covering up the persecution facts is just as it is, as just a normal wikipedia article. In my understanding: We, Falun Gong, do not appreciate the persecution at all to gain any support. Without persecution, Falun Gong will still save people well. Fnhddzs 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to the title "persecution" because that is truly a POV...it assumes that there is a deliberate government effort to persecute practitioiners in China. I can accept the word "suppression" because it correctly describes the ban and has the right legal connotations. I can also accept something like: "Conflict between the Chinese government and the Falun Gong" --Tomananda 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"Suppression" is better than "persecution". Suppression is the usual word used to describe what the CCP is doing to the movement. I'm not averse to having "persecution" in the article, but as a quote in reporting claims made by groups reporting the CCP's activities. --Fire Star 火星 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FireStar that we can use the term persecution reported as claims made from practitioners, because anti falun gong editors think there is a ban but there is no persecution right? so the persecution, wether it is truly happening or not, is our point of view. If the CCPCH wants to call it supression then lets atribute that term to their claims. The idea is to leave the reader with a doubt, not expose that there is a persecution going on or say nothing is happening at all. I think its ok to say "Conflict between Chinese government and the Falun Gong" too, to me it sounds neutral and it doesnt imply that any of the parties is attacking the other.--Andres18 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a deliberate effort from the CCP regime. Policemen got promoted, got prize if they caught Falun Gong practitoners and converted them. Your neighbors got prize if they call police to report Falun Gong practitioners. If you walk on the street, you may be kidnapped to the labor camp just because they recognized you are a Falun Gong practitioner. It is the CCP Jiang who deliberately wanted to eradicate Falun Gong in three or whatever months (citation needed). However, Falun Gong never have conflicts with the Chinese government since we are taught (citation later) Falun Gong does not have enemies and CCP is different with the government. Seven years passed, what you see from Falun Gong practitioners are always peaceful activities: The beautiful galas, the beautiful parades, the peaceful and mostly quiet protests calling for awareness. When I think of the practitioners on the rim of death (to be butchered any time) and those who already lost their lives from persecution, contrasting to the beautiful performance in galas or parades, I cannot agree more on Falun Gong's broad tolerance. Fnhddzs 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fnhddzs: Let me get this straight. You seem to be agreeing with me that the Falun Gong overtly seeks the elimination of the Chinese Communist Party and has been "fighting" the CCP through a variety of tactics, but you claim that these actions are not attacks against the Chinese Government itself, but rather the Chinese Communist party. Is that a fair summary of your position? --Tomananda 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, personally I think that the CCP will be eliminated by Gods, because they have killed more than 80 million chinese people the last 57 years. They are the worst and most evil government that has ever existed. I believe in karma, that means that "Good is rewarded, and evil meets retribution". That is why exposing the CCP crimes and clarify the truth about the persecution of Falun Gong is actually saving people. Falun Gong practitioners have no political ambition, the goal of cultivation is to reach beyond the human world, not to stay here and get wordly satiscation/wealth/power. This is why Falun Gong is not political, it is just completely upright. Master Li said (not quote): "During the Dharma-Ending period, where is there a land of purity? I dare to say that our Falun Gong is a land of purify, I dare to say that" Omido 17:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope this argument can stop now, if you can read the sign bellow, then im sure there is no need to continue this. Omido, saying things like "CCP will be eliminated by gods because they killed millions of chinese people" will just heat up the argument much more, i think you know that. Ive come to understand that If we dislike POV comments from non practitioner editors then we should stop posting POV posts ourselves too (that includes me too of course) unless they are useful for the creation of the article. We both know where we stand, we are practitioners, they are anti falun gong, i dont think we should keep debating about who is right and wrong on this, its a waste of time, whatever you claim, they wont believe it, whatever they claim we wont believe it either. They are here to make sure the article doesnt turn into a falun gong advertisement and we are here to make sure it doesnt become an attack to falun gong. Lets all be productive and spend our time here posting what we have to post or else we will never get this article done.--Andres18 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. But the thing is that Tomananda is trying to implement his understanding (which is wrong) into the article by taking a quote out of context and misrepresent it. If the practitioners doesn't agree with him, he changes the sentence a bit and then he introduces it again, and if people does not agree with him again he starts accusation about how the practitioners are hiding the teachings. This is absoloutly unacceptable. Omido 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Omido, I have been trying to stay out of this conversation, and now you make this charge against me? And Andres claims I am the one who attacks other editors? You do hide the truth of your higher teachings as witness the last four months of tedious edit discussions and endless reverts. If it were not for the edits done by non-practionters, this article wouldn't cover such basic Falun Gong concepts as salvation and fa-rectification at all. When I began editing, there was no mention that Li and his Dafa are the only source of salvation for mankind during this period of "Fa-rectification." There was no mention that the Dafa (Li's great law) is judging all people and weeding out those who are not worthy. Nor did the article mention that on the top of the list of those who are deemed "unworthy" of salvation by cult leader Li are those who in their minds do not think the Dafa is good.
Well, I don't think the Dafa is good. I think it is a bunch of bull spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi in order to fool people into blindly following him as their god and savior. Li demands total obedience from his disciples in pursuit of his personal agenda, and then threatens to withdraw his protection for those who do not do his bidding. Right now Li demands that his relatively small, but highly media-savy army of followers do everything they can to expose the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party, with the goal of destroying it. That political goal has been made into a non-negotiable requirement for salvation by Li. If you don't do this, you will loose your only chance at salvation. Andres: before you write another sanctimonious critique of me for allegedly "attacking" the Falun Gong practitioner/editors please reflect on the fact that it is Li whom I attack, not the practitioners. Li is responsible for having created this terrible bind the practitioners are in. It is Li who should be held accoutable for his actions. The practitoners are themselves victims of this manipulative cult leader who somehow continues to evade all accountability for his actions.

--Tomananda 20:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Tomanda, we've heard it before. I recommend anyone anyone who's passing through to take Tomanda's comments with a grain of salt. He has a huge bias and continually twists facts to support his pov. Tomanda I appreciate your great compassion towards me as a victim. You know, it's really terrible living life by trying to better myself by living up to high moral standards and through caring less about desires and attachments. The fact that I try to be kind towards whoever I come into contact with and do my best at whatever I do is likewise aweful. And my poor family... even though I'm the only practitioner, no one really fights anymore, and everyone seems more harmonious. Now my life is also plagued with a terrible wish to help people like myself in China who have been stripped all human rights and become human meat. And through this I've also become aware and concerned with other similarly meaningless human rights attrocities. Oh lament! How could I allow my life to be ruined like this? A sense of fulfillment, peace, faith,... Tomanda, I'm so glad you're here to help me and others like me who have ended up in this sorry state. Mcconn 07:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I encourage all readers of these posts to make up their own minds about who is twisting the facts. As long as practitioners characterize direct quotes from the Master as "degrading" and my POV, we will never get at the truth. For years practitioners have avoided being honest about the core teachings when talking to "ordinary people" by claiming that whatever quotes are offered from Master Li are misinterpretted and "taken out of context." If you can provide context which contradicts Li's obvious teachings on his and the Dafa's unique role in saving people, or his teachings about the Dafa judging people who are not worthy, then please do so. So far no practioners have been able to refute my clear reporting of Li's teachings, because really, how can you? So instead the practitoners issue blanket dismissals and personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a word for this...it's called "apologetics"...and boy is it tiresome. As to your being kind, that's great. So am I. But I also think it's important to be truthful, even about your core beliefs. --Tomananda 07:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If the FG is really about helping people to be morally up right, why would American cult experts (not us) call it a mind control cult? One characteristic of cults is being deceptive. The purpose of being a practitioner is not about treating your neighbors better and giving up desires but becoming gods in Falun Gong heaven, isn’t it? When will you practitioners start telling the truth? --Samuel Luo 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you really believe these things yourself or if you are making them up. All I know is that in the end, when the truth reveal itself, you will regret yourself, but by then, it will be too late. I recommend that from now on, you don't make any POV comments about Falun Gong and Master Li, just concentrate on the article. I won't let other people be brainwashed by your understanding of Falun Gong. Omido 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Omido, im a Falun Gong practitioner and im telling you to stop this please, you know saying something like this is going to fire up another argument about falun gong and these kind of arguments are the ones that give the wrong image from practitioners to other people. Please remember, tolerance.--Andres18 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently neither the CCP or FLG practitioners tolerate dissent. Warning others not to voice their opinions and then saying opinionated things like "...when the truth reveal itself, you will regret yourself, but by then, it will be too late." is a bit contradictory, I hope you see. If Tomananda isn't to be allowed an opinion, then neither should you. Fortunately, at Wikipedia, things are arranged otherwise. --Fire Star 火星 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand Tomananda has an opinion and i respect it. I just think the opinions should concern the subsection, so they can be useful. The same goes for FG editors. If we dont concentrate on making this article and instead we keep arguing about who is right and wrong over and over i dont think we'll finish any time soon. Ill rearrange things bellow to go back into topic.--Andres18 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.
The CCP has not even been around for 160 years. Cj cawley 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Agreement on This subsection

Alright, lets get things right to finish work on this subsection and move on.

Ill give you my opinion based on the ideas i have seen around here, then please everyone tell me if you agree or not and what you want to change. (remember it must be Neutral)

The Terms i see more neutral for the title are:

"China and Falun Gong" or "Conflict between China and Falun Gong"

And terms like "supression" and "persecution" should be atributed to each of the parties claims respectively.

Now please post your opinions on this. We'll give it as much time as it needs before we decide. --Andres18 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)




Avoid both terms in the lead

I've already said this, but I can't seem to find it, but you are getting bogged down in a side issue. Avoid both terms in the lead, and then bring them up in the appropriate section, which should be named something like Chinese government and Falun Gong rather than the POV Suppression of Falun Gong. Persecution is a perfectly appropriate word to use as a description from the POV of practitioners, for cites see:

  • Leading Article: China and the world: Hu and cry
    • The Guardian (London); Apr 22, 2006; p. 34
  • Don't insult China's victims, Mr Mayor
    • Daily Mail (London); Apr 27, 2006; p. 71

Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding: You make a good argument. I support "Chinese Government and Falun Gong" as the page title, with the understanding that this will not impede the pro-Falun Gong editors from making their case about "persecution" within the article itself. This more generic title will allow for other material to be included which may be of interest, but not directly relate to the ban and its implementation. --Tomananda 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It is both neutral and informative, so I support Hiding's lead language proposed above. --Fire Star 火星 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I too believe that a title of a page should be as neutral as possible, I vote for Chinese Government and Falun Gong --Yueyuen 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hiding, what do you mean by "Persecution is a perfectly appropriate word to use as a description from the POV of practitioners?" Is that another way of saying that it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article name? I'm not being snarky, I really don't understand what you're trying to say there. CovenantD 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You've got it. People who support the banning of Falun Gong canm legitimately argue it represents a POV. Article names and section headers should be as neutral as possible, with such controversial language discussed within the body of the article, using appropriate citations to base the usages upon. I was attempting to note that the phrase "persecution" can be used within the article, since I thought people were arguing against using the terma at all. Hiding Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I am ok with avoiding both terms in the lead as I said before[22](note it seems that Hiding's post was accidently deleted). But as to the name of subsection, we already presented the reason why we cannot use Chinese government and Falun Gong. That is a POV title which implies that they are two parties comparable. Please see Mcconn's post:

We've already discussed the use of the terms "persecution" and "suppression". You can go here to refer to the discussion. I stand by using the term "persecution". "Persecution" is not inherentely POV, although some people may use it that way. What's happening in China is absolutely a persecution, and the term has been widley used by people from all sides to describe it. "Suppression" does not carry the same meaning. Whether or not you like Falun Gong you still have to own up to the fact that it is being persecuted in China. I think we should use this word in the title and the introduction. The article will then give context to the word. "China vs Falun Gong" is not accurate. That term almost implies that they are two forces engaged in some kind of battle with each other. This is not true as practitioners are merely doing what they can to counter and stop the persecution against them. They beat, torture, and kill us, but we don't lay a finger on them. We just want them to stop and want people to understand what they are doing. It's totally different from an "X vs Y" battle. Mcconn 09:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs 02:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • That argument counters "China vs Falun Gong", not "Chinese government and Falun Gong". I don't understand the rejection of this title because it equates the two parties, because, in the context of the section the two parties are equatable. Hiding Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mccon i get what you are saying but, even though we all know there is a persecution going on, the critics say there is no persecution, that would be their point of view right?. And if we say there is then maybe that could make it our point of view even though its undeniable that its really happenning. I think the idea of making this secton is not saying "there is a persecution" or "there is no persecution" but instead to leave the reader with a doubt. If that happens then it means we exposed both points of view on the matter in a neutral way and the reader will decide wether he thinks if there is a persecution going on or not. What i dont see clearly is what is the critics position, if they say there is no persecution, then according to them, what is going on?. What do they have to say about it? i think its appropriate to know their opinion on this matter so we can make neutral statements about this situation. I also agree with using "Falun Gong and China" or "Conflct between Chna and Falun Gong" as the title and i think we can also use the terms suppression and persecution as what each of the parties claim this situation to be. China government says its a supression, falun gong says its a persecution. I think this should be the idea, does anyone think there should be more discussion on this matter


==requior can we start proposing some writing for this subsection?.--Andres18 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a book called "Investigating the Persecution of Falun Gong" that I will use as a source in this article. This book is a valid source. Omido 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The Falun Gong is banned in China for its violation of laws. It has suppressed the rights of its critics and caused more than a thousand deaths. I believe these justifications provided by the Chinese government partly because my rights as a critic was also suppressed by the Falun Gong and my step-father almost died in following Falun Gong teaching of abandoning medical treatment. The ban of Falun Gong is not a persecution but a just action to free those who have been brainwashed and manipulated by Master Li and save lives. I noticed that all Admins (uncle Ed, Firestar and Hiding) have suggested this neutral title “Chinese government and the Falun Gong,” after this much discussion I believe it is time to change that title and begin working on the article. --Samuel Luo 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still against "Falun Gong and the Chinese government" because that title is broad while the section is actually only about things related to the persecution. It really doesn't describe what the section is about. I realize admins' and other editors' concern for non-POV, but if it's a duck we should call it a duck rather than a foul or feathered animal. If I go and make a big stink on the wiki talk page on "the holocost" and make all kinds of crazy claims about why the holocost never happend, does that mean that the editors involved should then change the page, call it something else, or stick the word "alleged" before every use of the word "holocost"? Of course not. As I said, people from all sides call this a persecution, even most critics, and for most who know anything about it this goes without saying. So should we then not use this term because a couple of anti-Falun Gong editors call it a POV? I don't think so. Tomanda and Samuel, maybe rather than shooting your mouth off about your negative pov of Falun Gong or the persecution, you could instead provide some actual sources that counter the claims of this being a persecution. Mcconn 06:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mcconn, it was neither Samuel nor I who posted the original suggestion that we call the page The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong. My understanding from Hiding's post is that we should strive to be as neutral as possible in page titles. You may recall that I had suggested we have not a page, but a section called "Homophobic teachings of the FG" but that was shot down using the same kind of argument that Hiding has used in his proposal. As I've said before, I'm OK with calling the page "Supression of Falun Gong." Others are not ok with that compromise, though. --Tomananda 07:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Falun Gong did not do anything illegal. The ban of Falun Gong was illegal with no trial, no procedure, nothing. Just an announcement. In the worst inference, even if the worst people do not deserve the persecution such as live organ harvesting, torturing, raping, job expelling, school expelling, the policy of so-called "economically cut off, physically eliminate and give a bad publicity" and the policy of "beating to death counted as suicide, burnt immediately without checking the names". Can we call it a persecution? It would be wikipedia's point of view by not facing this fact. As I said, Falun Gong does not rely on persecution to get support, persecution does not help Falun Gong. It is just a fact whether you like Falun Gong or not. I was thinking "Falun Gong in China" could be ok but it is too vague and hard to organize. Since Falun Gong is present over 80 countries/areas. The persecution is spread to outside China to a limited degree too. The title of "Chinese government and the Falun Gong" is too broad too. Chinese government refer to who? It supported Falun Gong and awarded it before. Its internal officials have disputes on the persecution. There are Chinese government's presence inside China or outside China (embassies). I forsee that the Chinese government will support Falun Gong in the future too. The persecution will be a history. "China and Falun Gong" is also a mixed feeling and too broad. In my view, China, as a part of human society, its orthodox culture is highly praised and treasured by Falun gong if you read the teachings carefully. The main body of practitioners are in China. How could Falun Gong not love China and wish it well? So I think let's just use the title of "persecution of Falun Gong". We don't simply summarize who did the persecution here since it is not easy. We want the facts only. Fnhddzs 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the suppression of FLG by the CCP legal? Is it legitimate? That isn't up to us to decide. It is what it is. We report, not condemn. In yet another FLG associated irony, one can't help being amused that people practicing "tolerance, compassion and forbearance" would embrace condemnation of anyone. --Fire Star 火星 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see this is going to go nowhere fast. The discussion is split into two different sections, people are back to preaching and condemning, and there's no attempt to even deal with the lead section at the moment. I'll check back in a day or two. Meanwhile, maybe somebody could actually pay attention to the article in question, Suppression of Falun Gong. There's a lot of routine maintenance work that needs done there like formatting references, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do it all for you. CovenantD 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm actually talking about the article, differing approaches to editing the article and what is important and unimportant to the differing sides, above. --Fire Star 火星 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a FG editor and i agree with the "China and Falun Gong" title, please rememeber that even though the persecution is happening, both parties have different opinions on the matter. Critics say either there is no persecution or that there is an innoffensive suppression going on. We FG practitioners think its a persecution, since they dont agree then even though it may be true, its still our point of view. Mcconn, if you see a duck and you normally call it like that, it doesnt mean somebody else cant call it otherwise even though its still what it really is. In the article we cant say there is a persecution and we cant say that something isnt happening either. The reader should make up his own mind about it. Ill read the section and propose some edits, please lets center on what we have to do, it seems tiresome to argue so much and going nowhere with this. Im sorry Covenant if we are causing you too much trouble, we'll get on it now. As of right now i dont know how to format refferences, can anyone please lend us a hand?. Thanks to all.--Andres18 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you've learned quite a bit about citing references from your work on the "Controversies" article. Would you be willing to work with Andres18, teaching him/her what you know about it? CovenantD 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Andres, why don't you start by just looking at the existing footnotes and ask questions.--Tomananda 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Andres, Here is a link Wikipedia:Footnotes CovenantD showed me before which might be helpful. Actually it is easier to start by just following the suit of the existing ones. You will pick it up soon. Again, we could report on opinions of persecution. But persecution itself is facts. Even if you are a non-Chinese citizen outside of China, you may also be on a black list so that you could not board on airplanes to other countries. That did happen. Fnhddzs 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Temp page

  • Okay China and Falun Gong is plain wrong. However, can we move past this dispute over persecution and suppression? I'm going to create a temp page and just start from scratch. Write the stuff up, nobody reverts and we discuss as we go. If people start edit warring on the temp page I will most likely delete it. Hiding Talk 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hiding WE DO NOT need to start a page from scratch. What we need now is mediation. Can somebody request a wiki mediator? --Kent8888 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch. I'm standing here attempting to mediate. I'm trying to work out what everyone agrees on, by asking people to add to the temp page what they think everyone agrees on. I would hope people would show good faith in this process. Hiding Talk 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
At the rate it's growing, the references section should be about as long as the article itself :-) CovenantD 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that occurred to me too. Something to add to the to do list for once we get the whole article rewritten. Hiding Talk 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiding I am sorry that my response seems a bit strong. I oppose the temp page idea because I am tired of following the argument from both sides. Instead of creating a page for them to "discuss" issues, a formal mediation would save time for all of us. --Kent8888 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I'm not over bothered, although I'm not sure how mediation works without discussing the issues involved, to be perfectly honest, and I'm not sure this should be seen as an us and them issue. It's a question of finding out where we all agree Wikipedia's best interests lie. Wikipedia should be presenting the issues surrounding Falun Gong from a neutral point of view. Whilst we can argue our points, that the important thing to keep in mind. Hiding Talk 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong To Do List

I want to create a To Do List for the Falun Gong-related articles.

Question for an admin - where would be the proper place for this, as a subpage of the talk or the article? Or should it be a subpage of Wikiproject China?

  • I created it as a subpage of here, it matters little and can be moved if needed. Hiding Talk 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm going to move the list to the top of the page, just under the archives. CovenantD 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's preview of things to come... CovenantD 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I've been looking at this whole mediation thing and trying to figure out what we haven't been doing within the bounds of that kind of framework. The two biggest things that I see are 1) the powers of the mediator and 2) the role of the participants.

  1. An official mediator has the power to edit others' comments, removing or rewording extraneous comments and personal attacks. This would have been very helpful during the recent straw polls when editors starting throwing in other suggestions and making comments on the motivations and tactics of others. A "real" mediator could have kept things focused much better with this power.
  2. The two sides in a dispute each have a single voice. This can be done easily when there are only two editors involved or by choosing a representative spokesperson to speak for each side.

I'm still willing to be the informal mediator, but I think we've moved beyond the point where progress is possible without these two points. CovenantD 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Give us one more chance please, i think these situations wont repeat themselves. If you see one more editor out of control then ill stand by your decision.--Andres18 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD I believe most editors here really appreciate your help, but as you yourself have realized, we are reaching a point where a formal mediator is needed. --Kent8888 21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that some means of keeping the discussion on track is needed. I haven't seen the self-control required on the part of editors so I guess it will have to be an outside party. So let's find out

Who would agree to be a party to mediation?

Would accept mediation

  1. Accept. --Fire Star 火星 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes --Kent8888 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Accept--Yenchin 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Accept --Yueyuen 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Finally -- Миборовский 03:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Accept Or else we'll never finish the article.--Andres18 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Accept Look forward to turn around. Fnhddzs 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Accept See more detailed post below. --Tomananda 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Decline mediation

I decline on the basis it is a poor suggestion. Whitemanners 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to elucidate? -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

It would be counter-productive for me personally. As a neutral party it would be inappropriate for me to take a side, nor would I wish to give up my right to comment on the goings-on. CovenantD 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I know. Like I said, I've been doing research. Where do you think I got the idea to find out who agrees? CovenantD 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I think it is a fine idea, there is too much of an impasse. --Fire Star 火星 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky, you could have done this at any time. Hell, any of you could have. It will only work if the main participants, like Tomananda, Dilip, Samuel, Omido, etc., sign on. Interesting that none of them have done so yet. CovenantD 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Could I? There would have been 5 people crying out for my blood within the hour. -- Миборовский 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL... point to Miborovsky. CovenantD 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Did Ed Poor do the mediation before? Fnhddzs 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't binding mediation. He was attempting to do what CovenantD also is attempting to do. What is now being proposed is that the seemingly intractable dispute will be considered in the light of Wikipedia policy by mediators and perhaps eventually arbitrators whose subsequent decisions about the article will be enforced by administrators. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Fire Star 火星 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD official mediator here

Hi all, CovenantD has been playing a role of an informal mediator here and he is interested in continuing this role. I am proposing that we make him an official mediator on the Falun Gong article. His edits have shown his enthusiasm in improving this article, his ability to remain neutral and his willingness in following Wikipedia edit principles. I believe if we recognize him as an official mediator here, meanning giving him the power to make final judgments in conflict, his future contributions would speed up the improvement of this article. ConventD and I have reverted each other a few times, however I recognize his ability to make NPOV contributions. I don’t believe we can get a mediator who would spend the kind of time and energy as ConventD has contributed. I propose that we work with ConventD for now and if it still doesn’t work then we go to formal mediation.

CovenantDcan only work as an official mediator if he has the power to make the final judgment. Would you recognize him as an official mediator here and give him the power to make final judgment? Please vote here.

Accept--Samuel Luo 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept He has shown scrupulous neutrality, I am willing to accept his decisions for the final wordings of disputed passages. --Fire Star 火星 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept I trust him too. --Kent8888 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept I think Covenant has done a good job in mediating already. I vote for us to give him this role officially, but also ask him to keep us on track. Increasingly we are going from one topic to another without ever completing any. Covenant has written a comprehensive "to do" list which is posted above. If we are serious about editing this article, I think we should systematically go through that list, perhaps giving a deadline to complete each item as we go along. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels with debates which never conclude with approved edits. --Tomananda 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

3/4 Accept I have only one concern--what if CovenantD is a practitioner but posing as a neutral editor? You will have my full support when you say master Li is full of Sxxx. Of course you should also say the CCP is full of Sxxx to maintain your neutrality. --Yueyuen 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop. Those are not nice words. Never use them on anyone. Fnhddzs 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on Fnhddzs, you don't want to say the CCP is full of shit? R U a communist? --Yueyuen 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comments striken for provocative nature and no relation to article. CovenantD 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • LOL Neither of those statements would really make me neutral, now would they? I understand your concern, but you'll just have to trust that my past edits have revealed my true nature. If you have much doubt, look at my other contributions and you'll see that Falun Gong is just a side issue for me. My true passion is comic books ;-) CovenantD 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And reverting vandalism. CovenantD 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

True, making those statements do not prove your neutrality, but they make you likeable by both sides. --Yueyuen 03:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to bet the bank that CovenantD is definitely not an FLG practitioner. He doesn't write like one. --Fire Star 火星 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept i trust he will do a good job on this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres18 (talk • contribs)

Accept Although I haven't agreed with all of Covenants edits, I've seen his effort in being neutral. I think that if we're going to have a mediator Covenant would be fine for the job. However, should Covenant begin showing clear signs of pov then he should then loose his position as mediator (I think this goes without saying, but I just want to make sure it's clear). Mcconn 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept Omido 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is starting to look serious.
For the record, I am not a Falun Gong practitioner, I do not know any practitioners, and I have no bias towards or against them. Same for the opponents - I'm not one, no bias for or against, I have had no contact with them other than this wiki, nor do I intend to. As for Mcconn's statement, I of course agree. I have full confidence that if I start to show preferencial treatment for one side or the other that I will be called on it. I'm not perfect, but I'm willing to listen and learn about this process and the issues at hand. CovenantD 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • While waiting for a few more editors to vote, I would like to make one point clear, Wiki mediators are requested when there is an impasse, CovenantD should also wait for us to request his decision. We (editors on both sides) should try to reach an agreement without going to CovenantD, but once his decision is requested and made then all of us who have voted to give him the power of an official editor have to respect that decision. If there is disagreement with CovenantD’s decisions wiki policy and facts backed by evidence should be cited instead of our POV.

Since many editors on both sides have supported him, I propose that CovenantD start exercising his power as an official mediator in 24 hours, in the absence of objection. Since we have agreed to request mediation, his first task should be making a judgment on the disputed paragraphs in the intro and request the article to be unprotected. --Samuel Luo 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Accept. CovenantD is quite devoted and I believe his good will in editing. But I wonder if a mediator has to be an admin? Fnhddzs 06:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, adminship is not a requirement. Only the trust and goodwill of the involved editors. CovenantD 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

This article has been protected for ages and, despite the discussion above, I cannot find any extant request for mediation. Would it be out of the question to simply unprotect the article and see what happens? --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not out of the question, but perhaps not a good idea either. Every time I've seen this article unprotected without a clear idea on the talk page on what to do next, it's ended up in a revert war in a matter of hours. (The major editors haven't been present for a few days, though, so it might go longer this time.) If you do unprotect it, I'd ask that you do so when you have the time to keep an eye on it. Don't just unprotect then sign off Wikipedia for a couple of days ;-) CovenantD 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not something I've a habit of doing. However I think I'll wait a few more days. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time to unprotect. It was protected for the first or second paragraph of the introduction. But now the discussion is quite far astray from that. Fnhddzs 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
But the question is, what are we going to do when the main page is unprotected? Why don't we at least agree to a deadline for completeing the introductory se=ction before unprotecting the main page?

--Tomananda 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let’s give us one more week to work out the dispute regarding the first paragraph in the introduction. --Samuel Luo 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Fnhddzs went ahead and requested unprotection which was declined because, in the words of the admin, "The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved." So that's that until we come to some agreement. CovenantD 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You know my concern is why we did not keep the discussion on the introduction? I remember we had a good discussion. I forgot when we began the straw polls before the discussion is finalized. Then we suddenly jumped to request a mediation. Then nobody remembered to discuss the introduction more. Can we think of a way not floating with anybody's random proposal and stay concentrated? Fnhddzs 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that selecting a mediator will help that process. I'm gonna start striking out comments that are personal in nature (see below for some examples) and not related to the task at hand. That should prevent side-issues from overtaking the real work. CovenantD 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sub-section for criticism and contreversies

We have been waiting for more than one month for Tomananda to change the sub-sections in the critcism and contreversies, still he did not do that. ConvenantD, we should change the sub-sections for the critism and conterversies section, don't you agree? Omido 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article on Critism and Controversies, I think that enough time has passed that other people can start suggesting improvements to it on it's talk page. If you're referring to the subsections in this article, well, nobody could make changes for the last three weeks. CovenantD 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Omido why don't you respond to the polls above? And after that we should solve the dispute of the 1st paragraph of intro first, so the page can be unprotected. --Kent8888 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Not correct, Omido. As agreed, I was in the proces of re-writing the summary of the Criticism and controversies page when that all changed. Covenant removed the links that had appeared on the main page to the subsections of the criticism page, while a new introduction I had just written and posted on the main page (also as agreed) was deleted because of a complaint from Samuel about changes in general on the main page. Shortly thereafter the main page was frozen, so no other changes would be possible. If you're talking about the Criticism page itself, I think we should complete our existing tasks first, which includes finishing the introduction paragraphs first. By jumping around, we are not completing anything. --Tomananda 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Tomananda, no we will not wait anymore. The sub-sections for the critism and conterversies has to be changed. The critism and contreversies have five sections:
   * 5.1 Differences between Falun Gong and other beliefs
   * 5.2 Li as a savior or supernatural entity
   * 5.3 Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?
   * 5.4 Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions
   * 5.5 Falun Gong and sexual orientation

These sections have to be put into one section, we have waited for this for a very very long time no and still no results, I hope we can begin with this as soon as possible. As I see it, this is the most important thing right now because it is really unfair and wrong to have the critism section be like this. Omido 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to come up with more convincing arguments than "because it is really unfair and wrong" if you are looking for agreement by consensus to your demands. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is out of balance in the Table of Contents, but disagree with Omido's solution for correcting it. The better way is to work on the daughter articles and have those changes reflected here, which will probably result in some sub-headings being added. The first place to start is in the Teachings article.
Since it looks like we're headed toward s more formal mediation, I'm going to make a bold suggestion and test the mediation agreement. For this article, we focus on finishing the lead. While that is happening, we also turn out attention to the Teachings of Falun Gong article. Once we finish the lead section for this article, we turn our attention to the Criticism and Controversies section of the main article. That way we're always working on two separate topics at all times. More than that and I agree with Tomananda that we'll lose cohesion.
To that end, I'm going to leave a comment on the Teachings article talk page to get the ball rolling there.
Omido, I want to assure you that I'm not dismissing your concerns. We will deal with the portions that you find troubling, but I believe that working on the Teaching article will bring a better balance without gutting other sections. CovenantD 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a fine plan. Let's go for it. --Tomananda 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Omido: I am offended by your threatening tone and suggestion that I have not done something I was supposed to do. The main page has been frozen for weeks while we quible about how to present Master Li's basic teachings about the Dafa judging all people, weeding out the unworthy, and Li offering salvation, etc. When you say "we will not wait anymore" that amounts to a threat. Are you preparing for yet another revert war? And as to the specifics, if "we" as editors want there to be balance on the main page, it doesn't make sense for there to be multiple links to multiple Falun Gong pages, but only one link to the entire Criticism and controversies page. Covenant long ago deleted all the sub-section links in the main article pointing to the subsections on the criticism page, so I really don't see what has provoked your tantrum.
More importantly, your tone and agressiveness are not in keeping with your stated values of "tolerance and forebearance." And as a Wikipedia editor, you are demonstrating an outrageous lack of cooperation. We are supposed to be working together, not issuing vailed threats and accusations.

--Tomananda 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I don't quite know what you are talking about, but I believe you guys' good will. Don't you want to let the article move on? Fnhddzs 06:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took it as a threat, personally I think you are overreacting, but if you really took it as a threat I apologize, I can assure you that it really wasn't my intention. I just wanted you to understand that it is very important, because it is really out of balance in the table of content. Omido 07:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Let me ask you guys a question real fast. Why would it be inappropriate for someone who practices Falun Gong to edit the Falun Gong article as long as he completely applies the wikipedia standards?

Maybe some of you are saying that this would be okay. Then may I do it? I think you would not let me do it, and would revert my change. Because right now the article makes it appear as though a major part of Falun Gong may be to spread material indicating the doom of the world, discriminating homosexuals, showing off the awards and recognition of Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi (which according to the article may simply be used to mislead people), and promoting Li Hongzhi as a savior, and Falun Gong practitioners as "Gods".

My article would mention all of these things, but it would also explain why those things might not at all be a major aspect of Falun Gong, are not being spread by Falun Gong practitioners, and are being mentioned in an encyclopedia entry only because since the beginning of the persecution (or "suppression" or whatever,) related quotes from mister Li's works have been taken out of context so as to make the mass murders (this fact does not seem to be debated) of Falun Gong followers by the Chinese Communist party seem justified.

My article might also try to explain the original context of the disputed quotes, so as to avoid missunderstanding.

But because I would do that, I think most of you would not agree with my article. Am I right?

--Hoerth 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoerth: Your comments above so unfairly characterize the Criticism and controversies section that I feel I must respond. A strong POV appears in what you say, and perhaps you haven't even considered to what extent. Here's a partial list:

1. Li's teachings condemn homosexuality as one of the greatest karma-producing activities he has ever talked about. He has taught that homosexuals might suffer elimination through a particularly slow and painful process unless they (presumably) give up their "bad" and "post-natally formed" behavior. These are facts, not my opinion, and the bulk of Li's teachings are accurately summarized on the Criticism page. If you look carefully at that page, you will also see that a stub article was created in which FG practitioners were invited to add whatever edits they deemed appropriate to provide a "different" context. I actually initialized that stub in order to be balanced and to date no practitoner has added anything. When we get to that section, I invite you to add some edit material, but not to delete the summary of the essential teachings which must be reported in Wikipedia.

2. You mischaracterize the homosexuality edit in a big way. Although Li's teachings are summarized, there is no claim that Falun Gong practitioners themselves "discriminate" against homosexuals. One of the tricks that Falun Gong practitioners engage in when defending their master's teachings on homosexuality is to say "Ah, but we don't discriminate against homosexuals." Well guess what, even though you don't discriminate against homosexuals, Li's teachings about homosexuality...which in his parochial mind "does not meet the standard of being human"...are nevertheless controversial and extremely disturbing for many people. What's more, a strong argument can be made that the kind of spritual/moral condemnation that Li uses to address homosexuality is not representative of mainland Chinese culture. In a very real sense, Li's teachings create a level of homophobia that is new to the Chinese. I ask you for a moment to read Samuel's letter to the editor about his mother's attitude towards homosexuality. Sadly, there is one Chinese-born Falun Gong practitioner who takes Li at his word. With her indoctrination into the Falun Gong, she now believes that natural disasters are already weeding out "evil" people, including homosexuals. How many other practitioners think as she does, but just don't talk about it? I'll add the link here for you to consider. [23]

3. You say your article would claim that Li's role as savior and his offer to turn practitioners into gods are not major parts of Falun Gong teachings. Well, I would like to know how you can "prove" that given the preponderance of these teachings. You might try to represent the views of practitioners, but unless you can point to some objective study, you will be engaging in original research. What's more, I have personally spoken to enough FG practitioners to know that they really do consider Li a God (or Buddha) who is offering salvation, and the Dafa as a force which is (or will be) judging all people (even me) and weed out the unworthy. By way of "proof" you can go back into these discussion pages where you'll find multiple postings made by Dilip and Omido which prove that point. Most recently, Omido has warned me of bad consequences for stating I do not think Li's Dafa is good. If you say these teachings are not a major part of Falun Gong, then your statement is refuted by the public postings of Falun Gong practitioners themselves. At best, you can only suggest that not all practitioners agree what is most essential, but then again wouldn't that be original reseach?

4. Your final statement is totally without basis in fact. Let me repeat it here:

"...the critical(edits) have been taken out of context so as to make the mass murders (this fact does not seem to be debated) of Falun Gong followers by the Chinese Communist party seem justified."

Where, in the world, do you get this idea? Do you really think that because Falun Gong practitioners may be (or are if you prefer) persecuted in China, Wikipedia should not report the teachings of Master Li which are considered harmful or controversial? Did you know that last year at an ICSA conference in Madrid, Spain a Falun Gong lawyer argued that any criticism of the Falun Gong would constitute aiding and abetting what he said was the crime of "genocide" and based on that claim he would seek the arrest of the conference presenters and organizers? Is that the logic you are using here? If you are, than the American Civil Liberties Union and fair minded people who live in the United States will have to differ with you. And if you are not making that claim, how can you in good conscience object to the reporting of controversial teachings of the Li Hongzhi, together with reasonable summaries of the opinions of many academics? --Tomananda 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kinda moot at the moment because the article is protected - nobody can edit it. We need to resolve the lead section before it should be unlocked. Would you care to help with that process? CovenantD 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure... but since I was not involved in the article or in the discussion you would have to explain to me what exactly it is that is disputed. I will try to represent Falun Gong practitioners point of view as best as I can... Rigth know MY problem is that I believe the article to not be within wikipedia's NPOV policy because of the issue I just talked about. This is basicly the only major problem that I see. I actually talked with Larry Sanger about the problems on the Falun Gong entry, and he told me the following: "...My advice to you is to remind the participants of the neutrality policy and what it absolutely requires; keep the discussion on that, and think and write clearly about what it requires."

--Hoerth 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What caught my eye in your proposal was this bit: "but it would also explain why those things might not at all be a major aspect of Falun Gong" Why wouldn't that be original research in aid of pro-FLG apologetics on your part? --Fire Star 火星 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As it says one can avoid doing original research by relying on quotes. I could of course also DO original research, put it on a Falun Gong website, and link it. Besides the article right now draws A LOT of conclusions without giving precise reference to the material on which the conclusion is based. I would of course NOT do it this way. But why do you believe I would, even before I have written anything? Is it because I am a Falun Gong practitioner? --Hoerth 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that I believed you would. I asked why the explanations you were proposing would be different than apologetics, precisely. Your actual answer to that question (not the diversionary bit about the other side's problems with the article) was logical and promising, because if you can find quotes by Li prioritizing his supernatural and moral doctrines into sets of major or minor teachings (I haven't been able to find any) that would be great. I agree that there is a lot of both pro and anti POV associated with these articles and that it should go. I will say here, explicitly rather than implicitly, that I personally discount the explanations of FLG practitioners somewhat because Li has ordered them in the past to obscure features of his teachings to the greater public. That being said, if a practitioner provides verifiable quotes and other citations, I wouldn't continue to say their value is diminished by their provenance. So, notwithstanding the implications you've drawn from my earlier question, for now you get the benefit of my doubt. --Fire Star 火星 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that there's plenty of distrust to go around. In a way that's an asset because it means that no unsupported claims should be able to make it into the article. CovenantD 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question that started this section, no, it's not inappropriate for someone who practices Falun Gong to edit the Falun Gong article as long as he completely applies the wikipedia standards. But hopefully you already knew that. It's the adherence to the Wikipolicies that matters. CovenantD 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the editing part, but it is also Wikipedia policy that a mediator must not have a personal stake in the subject matter she/he is mediating. In other words, to be a mediator for the Falun Gong article, neither a practitioner nor a critic of Falun Gong could be chosen. That policy I think is explicity stated somewhere and so if you are a practitioner, you need to disclose that fact now. I still respect your proven ability to adopt a neutral stance, but since we're talking about you as the official mediator, based on Wiki standards, you cannot yourself be a practitioner. I assume you are not (since comic books are your thing), but you do need to disclose this now before we go down this path. --Tomananda 04:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed this in the appropriate section of this talk page. CovenantD 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oooops! Yes you did, sorry I missed it. --Tomananda 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

going back to intro

CovenantD Time is up and you are now the official mediator here. Are you ready to finalize the wording in the intro? --Samuel Luo 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, if time is up, it seems to be a great time to answer my Question. --Hoerth 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, above. CovenantD 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, I'm ready to start looking at the bits that have been thoroughly discussed above and have a decision in a day or so :-) Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to take a look at the merge proposal over at the Teachings article? CovenantD 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I rather leave those pages created and written by practitioners alone. I am afraid that if I interfere they would leave more personal attacks on my talk page. Thanks for helping, looking forward to your mediation. --Samuel Luo 04:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If Samuel won't follow this discussion and critique the merge proposal, I will. At this point there are many FG practioner editors involved in this discussion. There must be some balance. --Tomananda 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


ATTN: Hey is this the right place to post? Anyways, why do you site refrences at the bottom of the Falun Gong Wiki page that are obviously and provably false and irresponsible. The articles by James Randi and Rick ROss can easily proven to be nonsense and slanderous. One example that is easy topoint out, is that James Randi states suicide is a part of Falun Dafa teachings. That's slanderous and BS, totally BS. The James Randi and RIck Ross sites need to be taken off Wikipedia immediately!

James Randi says nothing about suicide being a part of FG teachings, as a matter of a fact the word “suicide” is not on his insightful article. Who is being slanderous and BS here?
I don’t know whether suicide is a part of FG teaching, but according to the reports of human rights groups many practitioners have committed suicide. And the FG leadership has said nothing about it. The most deadly mass suicide took place in June, 2001 when ten plus female practitioners hung themselves from bunk beds with ropes make of bed sheets in Wanjia labor camp outside Harbin city in Heilongjiang Province, reported by a rights group. [24]
The Chinese authorities believe the Falun Gong leadership having a hand in the suicide. “Those organizations [Falun Gong organizations] are using all possible channels to pass on the so-called `instructions' to the practitioners in the reform camp in order to make them believe that going to heaven after their death is the highest level of practicing,” Lan Jingli, director of the Heilongjiang government's judicial bureau told the AP. “The mass suicide of June 20 could also be caused through this way.” [25]
The FG itself has reported many suicidal attempts. 140 practitioners once went on a mass hunger strike while in the Da-Guang detention center.[26]
It is very clear that many practitioners have committed suicide and the FG leadership is doing nothing to stop it. One can reasonably assume that suicide is encouraged by the FG leadership. --Samuel Luo 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Everything past the first sentence is out of order, Samuel. It has nothing to do with discussing the reference. The last paragraph is nothing more than your POV, complete with weasel words. CovenantD 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the rest of paragraphs are not discussing the reference. But my last sentence is not “weasel words” but an argument supported by facts and reasons. --Samuel Luo 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a big lie and propaganda that suicide is a part of the FLG teachings. Master Li has himself stated that suicide is a sin. I don't believe that FLG practitioners would do suicide, why would they do opposite against Master Li? Master Li has clearly stated that suicide is a sin. Omido 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the link that sparked this and nowhere does it use the word suicide or anything equivalent. Unless somebody has made that assertion in or for the article this is off topic. CovenantD 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Rendering my decision

I went with a minimalist approach to these two sentences. Yenchin and Samuel's objection about the difference between Dafa and Gong are addressed in the first sentence (not shown here) where the two are used interchangably. Fire Star had compelling arguments on why moral improvement should be addressed in the body of the article. Mcconn's suggestion, "which includes, among other things, letting go of attachments and desires" and Samuel's suggestion, "when a person strictly followes the Falun Gong teachings," are implied by the cultivation line and can be expanded on in the main article or the Teachings article. CovenantD 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You have more to cover “salvation” and “Fa-rectification” that both sides have agreed to include in the intro, right? --Samuel Luo 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I'm still reviewing those for the best possible course of action. My feeling at this point is that more input will be needed, but I'll let you know. CovenantD 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable to me. --Fire Star 火星 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its perfect so far, Covenant, if you could post your suggestion of the part of the intro that talks about "Fa Rectification" then it would be great because this way we could guide ourselves better to provide more neutral suggestions on these topics.--Andres18 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the discussions to date. CovenantD 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Since my request to unprotect the page and insert these edits has been denied, would one of the monitoring admins mind placing these two sentences in the first paragraph? They should replace all but the first and last sentence in that lead paragraph. CovenantD 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I will do it. I want to make it crystal clear that I am only editing according to the request(s) of our mediator by consensus, CovenantD. --Fire Star 火星 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a Chinese I can tell you that these terms Falun Gong and Falun Dafa refer to very different things. Also, please provide links in the lead paragraph for these terms. --Mr.He 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Wiktionary links? --Fire Star 火星 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean links to Falun Gong article where these terms are defined, like this one [27]. --Mr.He 05:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for investigation: Samuel/ Yueyuen

I refuse to contribute to this article until this matter is resolved. I am sick and tired of the neglect on the part of the "anti- FLG" editors when "perceived" pro FLG editors try to make contributions. In other words, I beg you to address this issue properly. Thank you all. Whitemanners 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or some other administrator page. This is not the proper place for such requests. Please stop clogging the page with this. CovenantD 23:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question

Hi, I just dropped by because I was curious about the Falun Gong (I read a headline in the Epoch Times, who I didn't know until now are an FG newspaper, about FG practicioners being the subject of live organ harvest and it made me curious about what was going on). I found this page a little unsatisfying. Here are some questions I have that the page didn't quite answer, or answered incompletely:

Is Falun Gong a meditative practice, like t'ai chi? A practice that can also be a religion, like Yoga? A religion that happens to have formalized meditation forms in it?

What does it mean to be an FG practicioner? Are there FG "churches" where people meet to practice/discuss? Do people sign up somehow, or enroll as FG practicioners? What about it is so compelling that people would sign up for it over, say, Qigong practice (especially considering the persecution aspect)? I would love to see a picture of the physical practice, if is photographable.

If there aren't churches or formal enrollment, how does the Chinese government identify FG practicioners? And why is the Chinese government so upset about the practice?

I see that the page is gargantuan already, but I suspect most people unfamiliar with FG would share my curiosities and want to know that stuff more than they'd want to know about FG ethics, origins, epistemologies, etc. I see that there are troubles with the page, so I apologize if I'm adding to the problems; I just thought I'd let you know what an uninvolved person was interested in. Good luck with your editing! Katsam 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't requesting that someone explain to me the answer to these questions, I just wanted to explain what I would like, as a reader, to see on the Falun Gong page. (Although it was nice for people to try and explain it to me personally as well.) Katsam 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

(Response from Andres moved to Katsam's talk page. It was nice of you to answer, but it doesn't relate to editing the page. Move back if you disagree. CovenantD 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

Oh ok, sorry about that covenant!--Andres18 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was off for a while. I took the kid to the zoo three times in one week & was a little shot between that & court. Now then, where are we? It looks like we need to restart. I see lots of things flying back an forth; however, very little about the actual content. Cj cawley 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been some substantial progress; a mediator has been chosen by most of the editors. Could you review those sections and indicate your support or lack thereof? CovenantD 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Research into Health Benefits?

my question is, where is the research by Quan Zhen Li and Richard Johnson? i can't find such research at any place. sorry, i'm not use to wiki's discussion page, and i can't remember my account name.

--69.231.130.102 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find them at PubMed (which is the place to search for most medical research). Go to this address : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and type in "Falun Gong" as your search term. The first citation that comes up is a study by those two authors.

I went into some academic databases and downloaded it: I don't speak Doctor, so I'm not going to try and crack it (it's 38 fun-filled pages about "gene expression," but if you like to read that kind of stuff and have an email address I'd be happy to send the .pdf along.

Another article that would be useful to read if anyone really wanted to create the article "Health and the Falun Gong" would be this one: FALUNGONG: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINESE NOTIONS OF HEALING. By: Gale, Deborah Dysart; Gorman-Yao, W.M.. Journal of Cultural Diversity, Winter2003, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p124-127, 4p; (AN 12164405) Katsam 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed this article has one interesting researcher. Lili Feng, M.D. , a Falungong memeber who just died a while ago due to cancer. I believe in academic articles, if a name is at the bottom of the list then that person is the lead researcher.
Can you provide verification of Lili Feng's death? It doesn't appear on any of the websites.--Tomananda 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
hmm, i only have some Chinese articles, but yes, she died a month ago due to pancreatic cancer. She was a core member of FLG, you still can find her name all over FLG's website. she talked about SARS, bird flue, cancer, immunity, the "third eye" and melatonin etc in behalf of FLG. There's no news from FLG media about her death because her death didn't do any good for FLG's image. She also had a painful death,it was really nasty. A core member had cancer, and the master didn't/couldn't help her . just think about it.
oh and they hardly report any of their core member's death unless it happened in china. A few months ago, Li Guodong, a core member of FLG who i believe is a lead editor in FLG's TV station( New Tang Dynasty)'s news center died due to liver cancer. They didn't report that either.--69.231.112.138 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is very interesting. When things happen to FG practitioners which don't reflect well on FG's image, one way Li and the practitioners handle that is to claim that person wasn't really a practitioner anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to hear some high-sounding words from Li himself about how Lili Feng wasn't really doing what she needed to do in cultivation. It's always the fault of the practitioners, never the fault of the Master or his teachings. So practitioners are sacrificed for the greater good...which is a pristine reputation for the Dafa. Would you be able to provide any sources in Chinese for Lili Feng's death? If so, please post them here. Also, is there any FG practitioner who can verify the accuracy of these reported deaths? Or will you just remain silent? --Tomananda 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
if you are asking for news articles from news papers or magazines, i can not provide them since her death is not significant enough for mainstream media.
but here's an article in chinese http://www.kaiwind.com/swss/200607/t3669.htm
this website is a private website which has tons of information on FLG from anti-FLG POV. they also have some videos of master Li from chinese television stations.
interview with Margaret Thaler Singer, author of Cult in Our Midst: http://www.kaiwind.com/media/vodinfo.jsp?ProgramID=6495&ChannelID=5&CatalogNumber=SPDB18
they also have five videos from China contain footages of master li.
Chinese/English transcrpits + videos:
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t3771.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t3846.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t3929.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t4015.htm
http://www.kaiwind.com/xlzt/wgzx/200607/t4101.htm
I read the English transcrpit for the first video, i can assure you, they did an excellent job of translating it.
I'm still not sure about wiki's rules on discussions. so, please forgive me if i posted too much stuff not related to the editing of this FLG page.
--69.231.119.242 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Kaiwind article cited its news source from "foreign internet users", which is a dead end. I've checked the Baylor College of Medicine website and although Dr. Feng isn't listed in the faculty, one could still fish her page via Google. I couldn't find any other related news from the college. Frankly speaking I think this is irrelevant to the article unless we have a confirmed source and then we can try fitting it in anything related to "health benefits". --Yenchin 04:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
here's FLG's official website's response: http://www.minghui.ca/mh/articles/2006/7/15/133056.html --69.231.119.242 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
well, here's my suggestion, at least point out that it was a FLG practitioner who did the research on how FLG benefits people's health.
btw, i just remembered my account name, i was the one who posted with IP address in this section. --Weaponofmd 05:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A falungong researcher published a paper about falungong. this is pretty fishy to me.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.29;jsessionid=nE3JM4Ub1bL5hzZ7EY?cookieSet=1&journalCode=acm

anyway, good luck with this FLG page. --69.231.159.68 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortening of "criticism" section on main-page and Re-rrangement of subsections

It is hoped that the criticism sub-section on the main page be shortened as soon as possible. I request the admins helping to edit the page to kindly make sure that it is done at the earliest. Also Samuel Luo's Personal webpage deosnt belong to the references section. Kindly remove the same from the references.

Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The sections Falun Gong outside China and the section on the persectution of Falun Gong, in my opinion, must come above thse section on "criticism". Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. I was wondering what had happened to you. Would you care to comment on the above discussions that you missed in your absence? CovenantD 14:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Olaf's observations

First of all, hello everybody. I've found it hard to return as an active contributor, because the article is locked and the whole process has turned incredibly complex and somewhat frustrating. It seems that a lot of the editors are still here and the action stations have basically remained unchanged. Pro- and anti-FLG editors still argue over the same questions, and I don't know how much you've really progressed.

I'd like to state my comments on some issues that have surfaced here. One of them is the allegation of "obscuring" Falun Gong's teachings, as well as the differences in our points of view regarding this matter. Editors who strongly criticize Falun Gong tend to argue that their point is valid because they've directly quoted Master Li and that they haven't changed the essential content of his words. At least, this is what they say, right? When Falun Gong practitioners or other pro-FLG editors have stated that they feel a certain description is inadequate or even misleading, accusations of obscuring the teachings have surfaced, and many people have even claimed that Master Li specifically tells his students to hide his words from the public eye.

Sorry, Olaf, but Li does just that and has done so on many occassions. Since what Master Li says to his disciples directly effects their conception of what they can (and can't) do in order to reach salvation (or "consumation" if you prefer), his directives matter a great deal. When you state "many people have even claimed that Master Li specifically tells his students to hide his words from the public eye" you are either not being honest, or are extremeley ill-informed of the Master's teachings. Master Li does specifically tell his students to hide his words fromt he public eye.--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that such interpretations are quite extreme.

Olaf, these are NOT interpretations that FG critics make up out of the clear blue sky but rather accurately reported statements. It is Master Li who goes to extremes, not his critics.--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We have not sufficiently addressed the fundamental moot point here: how do we construct a narrative of Falun Gong when the available information out there is a lot more complicated and multifaceted than we can summarize in an encyclopedia article.

Olaf, I think you are confusing an encyclopedia article with the PR spin that Falun Gong is used to creating. Enclopedia articles are not "story lines." They are attempts to objectively report on a subject using the exisiting sources, including the views of critics, and by their very nature they do not conform to a particular "story line." --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of pages of information, lectures, articles and other sources written about Falun Gong. A good editor is able to discern the essential questions while at the same time addressing all parties' concerns. Because everybody has his or her subjective POV, we tend to emphasize certain issues while downplaying others. You all know this. However, if we are to contribute to this article while paying attention and respect to what others are saying, we should strive to understand more sincerely why they're concerned about certain issues. We don't have to think that "he's a cult apologetic who doesn't want to admit that he has a hidden agenda" or "his only objective is to denigrate Falun Gong because he is evil".

Essential questions? Are you claiming that the salvation that Li offers to all sentient beings is not "essential" for an understanding of Falun Gong? And when one talks about "salvation" one needs to talk about salvation from what. In this case, Li has a well-defined theory of moral corruption and a cosmological/ethical theory of judgment (being done by his Dafa) and the results of this judgment (Fa-rectification and the elimnation of unworthy beings, so that the universe can return to it's orginal state.)--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of a text is not formed out of individual words or sentences only. Instead, as I mentioned above, we're constructing a narrative or a "storyline". A good article has a red thread running throughout, and all the chapters are in a reasonable relation to each other. A lot of meanings can be transmitted through what is implied by certain selections. For example, why do we choose to include in the second chapter (Origins) some relatively unimportant trivia from Li's biography instead of providing a good, comprehensive background for the qigong phenomenon and Falun Gong's cultural position in the Chinese context? As I see it, these selections have been chosen to implicitly undermine Master Li's credibility as a whole. Mind you, I am not saying that we can't mention them in the article, but when we're explaining Falun Gong to people who have no clue about the basic axioms and research, such trivia is highly misleading unless we have first provided an ontological and epistemological background for these supernatural postulations.

Before the article was split in parts, I wrote the chapter that is now classified under "Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong".

You did, but actually very little writing on that page addresses the epistomolgocical theory of Li Hongzhi. As I pointed out in previous discussion, epistemology means the study of how humans know what they know. In Li's case, he knows what he knows because he claims supernatural or divine powers which cannot be questioned. For example, Li has stated that there are no oriental people in Jesus' paradise. How does he know this? Well, he has visited Jesus' paradise and we are expected to accept what he says based on his authority alone. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was to make an essential point: we cannot write a third-party article on Falun Gong without anchoring the phenomenon into its historical and cultural context. This is the basic flaw of many studies, and it is especially prominent outside the scientific community (such as fervent "anti-cultists"). But the fact is that fabulous motives are deeply rooted in the Chinese tradition, even if they're considered fables, myths or feudal superstition. These stories seem quite extraordinary and fantastical to anyone who clings to modernist thinking. Of course, we know that qigong has been researched in China already for a few decades. During the 1990s, Falun Gong became the paragon of a burgeoning supernaturalist paradigm in the Chinese qigong community. The quotation from Journal of Asian Studies 58 clearly elucidates that we're talking about a discoursive struggle between two qigong paradigms. Therefore, we are obliged to explain this background, because most readers of Wikipedia are entirely unfamiliar with these problematics. This is why I feel that the chapter about the origins of Falun Gong has deteriorated.

Learning something new always starts from the basics and proceeds further as the fundamentals of a certain mode of thinking have been grasped. Some people don't want to acknowledge that this holds true for Falun Gong as well, even though the entire educational system is based on this approach. Not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday anti-persecution activities has, in my opinion, at least two major reasons: the first one is that practitioners want to build a consensus against human rights atrocities in China, even among people who hold different beliefs. Falun Gong as a cultivation method is available to whoever wants to practice it, but as practitioners we don't want to impose our worldview on others by coercion or "evangelism". The second one is that the Western scientific method is by far the most dominant framework for observing and conceptualizing reality, and many people strongly believe in its exclusiveness and superiority. A system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized, especially by people who have been influenced by positivist philosophy. I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues (i.e. condemning torture, organ harvesting, brainwashing, slave labor, etc.) and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence.

I've also noted that some editors always select their sources based on their personal beliefs, even when two sides of the story are easily available. One instance is Samuel Luo making allegations of a mass suicide in the Wanjia labor camp, even though we have read from various sources that the Chinese government counts deaths resulting from torture as suicides, and we know that the deceased practitioners were under surveillance 24 hours a day. In addition, using terminology such as "Falun Gong leadership" is directly related to this "expositional" discourse - rather anti-scientific in itself. Because some editors are intentionally striving to create a narrative that portrays Falun Gong as a cult, they try to make Falun Gong seem more similar to the popular stereotype of a cultic group, which includes a hierarchical top-down leadership, financial exploitation, hidden agenda, and so on. When practitioners read this, they feel that such portrayals are totally derogatory.

I think it is extremely far-fetched to say that Falun Gong operates like a cult when studies (like Noah Porter's) point out that Falun Gong is more like a network of voluntary practitioners.

Olaf: Other academics disagree with your POV here and most definitely see dangerous cultish aspects in the Falun Gong. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is notable disagreement even among the so-called anti-cult organizations of different countries about what Falun Gong really is. "Le mouvement spirituel Falun Gong est-il une secte dangereuse? A ce jour, les groupements antisectes et les pouvoirs publics se montrent plutôt circonspects, quand ils ne sont pas clairement favorables au mouvement de Li Hongzhi. Ainsi l’Union nationale [française] des associations de défense des familles et de l’individu (UNADFI) estime que l’on ne peut qualifier Falun Gong de secte que dans le sens le plus anodin du mot, à savoir de «dissidence»." [28] ("Is the spiritual movement Falun Gong a dangerous cult? These days the anti-cultist groups and public authorities are first and foremost presenting their views circumspectly, when they are not clearly favorable towards the movement of Li Hongzhi. Therefore UNADFI estimates that Falun Gong cannot be qualified as a cult except in the most harmless sense of the word, namely «dissidence»") In other words, what Samuel Luo and Tomananda have stated about the consistent position of such organizations is untrue.

Sorry, Olaf, but you are grossly mis-characterizing what the edit on "Is Falun Gong a cult?" says. You and I worked on that many months ago and you have already contributed several paragraphs. What's more, my writing does not claim a consisent point of view. Instead, it states up front that there is no agreement among the acadmics of what constitutes a cult or brainwashing. So please don't mis-represent that material. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Another issue I've seen frequently brought up is Falun Gong practitioners' relation to their critics. Samuel Luo keeps reminding us that a letter from a lawyer led to the cancellation of a planned anti-cult seminar in Madrid. Of course, I understand his concerns, because it was exactly he who was scheduled to speak there about Falun Gong. Based on all that I've read, he's not exactly nonpartisan, and many of his allegations are rather obstinate. I think his presentation would have been considered pro-persecution by anybody sitting in the audience.

It was not just Samuel who was scheduled to speak, but also a distinguished professor from Harvard and others...all of whom were equally intimidated and bullied by the Falun Gong lawyer. The point in bringing up that very unfair threat is that the Falun Gong does not practice what it preaches. On the one hand it seeks sympathy and support from Americans based on civil liberties claims of free speech and freedom of religion. But when it comes to the free speech of its critics, the FG has a long history of intimidating and even harassing its critics. It did this in China (long before the ban) and it has contintued to do this in the West by using legal threats. --Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning of July 2006 a Milan court adjudicated that European Chinese Newspaper was guilty of slander and propaganda against Falun Gong practitioners and imposed a hefty fine as a punishment. [29] Therefore, we do have a test case illustrating that hate propaganda against Falun Gong practitioners does exist, it's not tolerable, and "criticism" does not equate to discrimination. For example, we have seen Samuel Luo profess that Falun Gong has a "leadership" telling "members" to commit a mass suicide. Maybe it's just mutter on his part - I don't know if he really believes that - but such comments have no place in an international seminar while aggravated state terrorism is taking place against prisoners of conscience. And this is just one isolated example.

On the other hand, I would advice Falun Gong practitioners to understand Samuel Luo and Tomananda. In addition to other things, they're deeply concerned about Falun Gong's teachings on homosexuality. Our axioms are different - they look at the whole issue from an entirely different point of view. While practitioners believe that there is a divine standard of conduct for man and that a human being is the cosmic "underdog" who either pays his karma through suffering or accumulates more of it by getting attached to various sentiments, not everybody believes this way. A lot of people feel that they should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Some think that good and evil are relative or covenanted. Some are deeply spiritual, but their metaphysical assumptions are different. Maybe Samuel Luo and Tomananda have suffered discrimination themselves; maybe they have worked all their lives to improve the status of homosexuals in society. Just as I said, we have different starting points, and thus we accept different conclusions.

Olaf, you are now bordering on personal attacks agaist me and Samuel. We should limit our discussion to the edits, not what you consider the motivations are of the editors who do not agree with Master Li's teachings.--Tomananda 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing is that we can coexist peacefully, and we can allow the existence of different rationalities. It's not up to the practitioners - or Falun Gong's critics - to decide how the universe really is. We can be wrong, right, or neither, and I think there are a lot of things we can agree upon after we've cooled down a little bit, such as protecting the human rights of each and every person regardless of his or her personal beliefs or orientation. Ultimately, isn't that what Tomananda and Samuel Luo also want? It's just that our peer groups are different, and sometimes we've turned a blind eye on the other party's concerns. I suggest that we all take a step back, try to drop the baggage we've accumulated during these overlong debates and relax. Maybe we could also try to tone down our language, avoid going into extremes and sincerely open our hearts to build bridges instead of burning them down. ---Olaf Stephanos 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia isn't a place to "allow the existence of different rationalities", it is a place to objectively report their existence. Neither are we in the business of "protecting the human rights of each and every person", as there are wildly differing opinions as to what that even means. In the long run this article is going to objectvely report opinions as opinions; pro, con and other, that demonstrably exist in the public domain. As long as I am around it is not going to be sympathetic to FLG, the CCP or any other party or religion. Whether that is going to be an easy process or a hard one is up to the ability of our editors to work through the arguments presented. Faith based arguments for apologetics are less convincing than simple reports of what people, including Li, have said and are saying out there. --Fire Star 火星 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, we're not here to discuss about falun gong, we've been over this a million times.--200.35.221.67 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes let's discuss the writing of the article instead. Olaf, it would be greatly apreciated if you could stop posting this kind of provocative and long messages. Why don't you post it on samuel and tomonanda's talk page instead? --Mr.He 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha, a Provocative message? why dont you read the messages from the critic editors just down below?. Quoting Samuel Luo "the kind of miraculous healing power of the Falun Gong and Li that all practitioners claim to be true is just a lie. You guys are lying to yourself and the public." This is provocative. Maybe i should quote someone else, lets see.....Oh Tomananda "More lies: Fnhddzs says..." so not only are the editor critics defaming falun gong and provoking other editors in a place they shouldnt be doing it, they are also saying other editors are liars too, hows that?.--Andres18 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least they are talking and providing information about the Falun Gong which is the subject here whereas Mr. Olaf talks about the motivation of Samuel and Tomanada. see my point? --Mr.He 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Olaf, I too find that editing the Falun Gong article frustrating. And your post just added to that frustration. It is frustrating that often times practitioners respond to negative reports of their group with unfounded personal attacks. Since the links to the articles reporting the suicide incident in Wanjia camp were provided, here your personal attacks against me can only be interpreted as a blatant disregard of the truth.
  • I am posting the whole article here for everyone to see, so they would know that this Wanjia camp suicide incident was not made up by me as you have implied. --Samuel Luo 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong Deaths Set Off Dispute on Suicide Report

New York Times/July 4, 2001 By Craig S. Smith

Shanghai -- At least 10 followers of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement were reported on Tuesday to have died at a labor camp in northeast China last month, either in a group suicide or from torture. The Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said 10 women killed themselves to protest their treatment at the Wanjia labor camp outside Harbin in Heilongjiang Province. A government spokesman in Beijing said early today that 14 followers had committed suicide at the camp. Another 11 attempted suicide but were stopped by camp guards, he said. [30]

Li's statements to practitioners about concealing the higher truths

In the above post, Olaf outrageously accuses Falun Gong criitics of "claiming" that Master Li specifically tells his students to conceal his higher teachings. Claiming??? Here's what Li actually says:

In Zhuan Falun (the FG Bible):
  • "It is not allowed to casually disclose so many heavenly secrets to ordinary people."
And in a recent speech in San Francisco, Li was quite clear on what he demands from his disciples:
  • So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things. Teaching the Fa in San Francisco, 2005 (November 5, 2005) [31]

Olaf: rather than trying to paint a picture of Falun Gong critics being "extreme" why don't you, just for once, address the extreme demands that Li has placed on his disciples as a condition for their salvation. Yes, Olaf, Li DOES "specifically tell his students to hide his words from the public eye." Sure, you can quibble about my use of the word "conceal"...but really, what other interpretation can you give to words like "not allowed to casually disclose" or "absolutely must not speak at too high a level." Your entire post above is a diversionary tactic to the editing task we have and is rather offensive because you are questioning the motives of some of the editors. My motive is to tell the truth about the Falun Gong...something that the world has never gotten from the Falun Gong itself. --Tomananda 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole chapter from Zhuan Falun (beginning of third lecture):
  • Does everyone know what I’m doing? I treat all practitioners, including those who are able to truly practice cultivation through self-study, as my disciples. In teaching cultivation at high levels, it will not work if I do not treat you this way. Otherwise, it is the same as being irresponsible and causing trouble. We have given you so many things and let you know so many principles that should not be known by everyday people. 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. But there is one point to be made. Now, times have changed. We do not practice the ritual of kowtowing or bowing. That kind of formality serves little use, and it performs like a religion. We do not practice it. What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping Teacher if once you step out the door, you still continue to conduct yourself as usual and do whatever you want, competing and fighting for your fame and self-interest among everyday people? You may also damage the reputation of Falun Dafa under my banner!
In my text above I said that individual words or sentences do not constitute the meaning of a text, but it is a question of their relation to the whole. Here we can see that Li is talking about accepting practitioners as disciples, which is basically what a master does. I have understood this chapter quite differently from you. After all, Zhuan Falun has been published, and it was one of the most popular books in China during the 1990s. I don't think everybody who read it started practicing Falun Gong. In my opinion, Master Li is saying that these things have been known in certain circles for quite some time now, but revealing them to people requires somebody who's taking the responsibility for dealing with related issues. In fact, my understanding is that he's referring to people in the audience when he's talking about "everyday people" in this passage. Not revealing these things casually is the key word. It's also good to remember that Zhuan Falun is mostly transcribed material from Master's lecture series, and the context of his words matters greatly.
As for talking about high-level cultivation and gods when clarifying the truth about the persecution, I expounded on that above. Maybe you can give your comments. What other quotations are you referring to? Also, I'd appreciate that my text would be left intact and replies were written below it; it's a lot easier to follow lengthy conversations this way. ---Olaf Stephanos 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf, You have not really responded to my point which, simply stated, is that Li asks his disciples not to talk to ordinary people at the higher levels. Quoting the entire paragraph from Zhuan Falun really doesn't contradict that message. In fact, the context Li himself gives to the quote has to do with the belief that by practicing FG your body is purified. If I were going to expand the quote, here's what I would report:

  • 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.

In other words, Li gives one specific example of the kind of higher level truths that should not casually be disclosed to everyday people. Please notice that right after that, Li changes the topic to one of kowtowing to the Master.

More importanly, Li very precisely issued a similar directive in San Francisco late last year. His words are clear and to the point: "So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high a level." He goes on to say that practitioners should talk about the persecution and the evil party. He then finishes his statement by saying "And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things." Are you denying that Li has said that, or are you trying to say that by some kind of contextual analysis we can come up with some alternative meaning for these words? Really, I don't see how you can deny Li's obvious meaning which is that you guys should only talk about the persecution and the evil CCP and that's it. So when FG practitioners edit in Wikipedia, that's all you want to talk about. And then when a critic of FG tries to insert well-sourced content about Li's teachings (other than his political objective to destroy the CCP) we get constant diversionary tactics. It is so incredibly tiresome and I don't think any objective reader of these posts could come to any conclusion other than the obvious: Master Li does not want his practitioners to talk to ordinary people about his higher teachings. The fact that you try to deny something so obvious suggests to me that you cannot be trusted to honestly report some aspects of Falun Gong teachings. --Tomananda 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Didn't Li also say at one point that non-Chinese weren't intelligent enough to understand his teachings? I read that in one of his lectures a while back. I'll see if I can find it again... --Fire Star 火星 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's made several comments about white people not being able to understand his teachings. Here's one quote for starters:
People of the white race have a different way of thinking from people of the yellow race, like us, so you should take their special traits into consideration. Don't baffle them by using the very complicated ways of thinking and language. That would make them think: "this is too difficult." Falun Dafa Lecture at the First Conference in North America (New York, March 29-30, 1998) p.14.--Tomananda 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, You have your POV and he has his POV, none of them are necessary in the creation of the article. We appreciate your help on the creation of the article but please lets concentrate on doing that instead of this.--200.35.221.67 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And who is this anyonomous poster who uses the imperial "we"? All these posts you object to are in response to Olaf's post. Olaf is a practitioner who lives in Finland and has not been very active on this site for a long time. Some months ago he and I worked together on the edit called "Is Falun Gong a cult?" but after that he ceased to make any major edit contributions. Now he has done one which seems to personalize the issues at hand, and in reponse he is receiving appropriate feed back. It would be nice if you could identify yourself. --Tomananda 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, to my mind, Li's teachings on who he believes should be taught (or even told about) what, not to mention his opinions on how the relative intelligence of different races impacts his teaching methods, is vitally important to a thorough article on FLG. --Fire Star 火星 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Master Li Hongzhi just pointed out that chinese qi gong terminology may at first sound a bit confusing to someone who is not familiar with it. I am from India so I dont have a cultural background that will help me understand gong, energy mechanisms etc as easily as someone who would have grown up in the traditional Chinese Culture would... its just a cultural Gap.. please dont attribute such connotations to it.. it doesnt suggest to me, even remotely, any meaning like what some editors are trying to attribute to it..

and in response to the claim that practitioner "hide" teachings I urge everbody here to go through all the teachings of Falun Dafa, especially the 9 day Lecture videos which forms the central teaching.


Complete List of teachings of Falun Dafa
Li Hongzhi's 9-day Lecture in Guangzhou, China
Zhuan Falun(Translation by North American Practitioners)
Falun Gong
Exercise Instruction Videos
Essentials for Further Advancement
Other Speeches and Writings of Li Hongzhi

When a Tibetan Buddhist tells others about the persecution they are facing they dont talk about the teachings of Tibetan Tantrism.. that, ofcourse, wont help people understand... they re not "hiding" their teachings! Many upright faiths are being persecuted under the CCP regime..the Panchen Lama has been locked up in prison from age 9.. and a lot of lies are being inveneted by the regime to justify the killing of innocent people..

All Falun Dafa teachings are available for free download on the webite www.falundafa.org . There is no concept of membership or anything of that sort.. one neednt even meet with another pracitioner to learn and practice falun Gong.. all exercise videos and instructions and all lectures are available online, free of charge..

I feel sad that I have to talk about things unrelated to the edits. But let me point out that I am doing this in response to a few allegations which I consider extremely far-fetched. I consider it of great importance that that things be clarified so the editors will have a good understanding of what they are working on. In my opinion it is very important that everybody helping edit the pages go through the teachings of Falun Dafa first-hand... so that that the verity of the claims made by various editors may be objectively judged.

Just take a look at how an editor puts a statement completely out of context. The editor picks out the bolded statement and claims practitioner "hide" teachings. Kindly see the context...

Oh give me a break. You (whoever you are) are repeating the same argument that I already responded to above. Lies, lies and more lies. If you are not concealing the higher teachings of Falun Gong, you and the countless other Falun Gong practitioners who log on to this site would be able to describe in simple terms what salvation, the Dafa judging all sentient beings, and Fa-rectification mean to them. You of course can't do this because you are trapped in a deceptive game created by Li Hongzhi. --Tomananda 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Does everyone know what I’m doing? I treat all practitioners, including those who are able to truly practice cultivation through self-study, as my disciples. In teaching cultivation at high levels, it will not work if I do not treat you this way. Otherwise, it is the same as being irresponsible and causing trouble. We have given you so many things and let you know so many principles that should not be known by everyday people. 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. But there is one point to be made. Now, times have changed. We do not practice the ritual of kowtowing or bowing. That kind of formality serves little use, and it performs like a religion. We do not practice it. What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping Teacher if once you step out the door, you still continue to conduct yourself as usual and do whatever you want, competing and fighting for your fame and self-interest among everyday people? You may also damage the reputation of Falun Dafa under my banner!" -Zhuan Falun( http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new.html ), Chapter 3

That's right: it's all about protecting the reputation of Li Hongzhi and his Dafa. That's what it has always been about, plus keeping him in power and feeding his monstrous ego-needs which, in the end, actually indicate a lack of self esteem. This guy, living the good life in a protected US environment, has caused so much suffering. And yet he continues not to be held accountable by the Western media. Some day this will change. --Tomananda 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

220.226.17.127 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Its Andres, i forgot to log in, i just thought it would be great if we could go one step at a time and concentrate on what we are doing now with covenant so we can move on faster. Im not objecting to anything so please dont speak for me, i believe the criticism and controversies to be a flawed non neutral subsection, and im not doing anything about it right now because we are suppossed to focus on the "Fa rectification" part on the intro. We havent even started the edits on the introduction on the article and we are already jumping on to other sections.i thought perhaps you guys would be kind enough to do the same for now. If Olaf did edits without consensus then i agree these edits should be reverted and his ideas should be well kept until we reach that part of our work.--Andres18 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yet another practitioner weighs in voicing concern about the Criticism section. And the beat goes on. --Tomananda 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, im concerned you wanting to make things your own way and specially on the criticism subsection on the main page. Its suppossed to be neutral and approved in consensus. I think you should stop the irony, its just trying to provoke the other editors. And i thought you were actually a reasonable person...--Andres18 05:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to be reasonable when faced with an endless barage of diversionary tactics from practitoners desparately trying to uphold the reputation of their Master in order to reach consumation. You are wrong about the criticism page in two ways: 1) it was created through a consensus process some time ago. and 2) By definition, a criticism page is not neutral. It is meant to report the criticism or controversies that surround a subject. For a model of this, please check out the Criticism page for scientology. --Tomananda 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok, i dont mind about the criticism page, i was talking about the criticism subsection on the main page. The whole main page is suppossed to be neutral but there are all these allegations posted there and i dont think its the right place for them to be. Im sorry, i know editing this page is kind of frustrating sometimes but its also frustrating for us too, and we also have our opinions, critics and views on how you do your work but adding logs to the fire doesnt do much good i think.--Andres18 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are enough notable criticisms to report (and I think there are) then there is no reason to shorten their section other than some people must think it makes FLG look bad. The criticisms can be introduced in a general way on the main article page and then detailed on the daughter article. For criticisms to stay in the articles, they won't be allegations Wikipedia is making, but reports of criticism others have made. Just like many other popular movements, FLG in general and Li Hongzhi in particular are in for a lot. --Fire Star 火星 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Key Falun Gong member dying of her illness

According to this article below Lili Feng was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer Cancer in 2003. She could have saved herself by receiving medical help but instead she bet her life on the divine healing power of her Master. In March this year her condition deteriorated significantly but she was not sent to the hospital until June 20. She died two days later. Practitioners, what do guys make of her death? --Samuel Luo 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

胰腺癌是一种凶险的疾病，晚期发现者的五年存活率只有百分之五。但有时候更凶险的是精神上的疾病－－－２００３年末封莉莉偶然发现自己患上胰腺癌，因为发现的早，她是有机会治愈的，但她拒绝任何治疗，她坚信她练了四年的***可以帮助她彻底摆脱身体里这个危险的敌人。事实证明她错了，和很多可悲的***信徒一样，她用她的死证明她自己错了。可以肯定地说，如果她在发现之初就积极进行治疗，她至少不会死得这么早这么痛苦。６月２０日，在多个**徒持续＂发正念＂无效的情况下，垂危的封莉莉终于被送进医院，两天之后死去。[32]

Sidenote for this article. It came from Miss Tanxi (嘆息) from hardkingdom.com's freshrain discussion board. Tanxi herself admits it is hearsay. So it's basically a dead end. --Yenchin 04:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here is Lili Feng's most famous speech about the healing powers of Falun Gong. Believe it or not, she claimed that Falun Gong can protect China from SARS in 2003. Read just the last paragraph if you don't have time for this kind of nonsens. [33] --Samuel Luo 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


She was a core member of FLG, you still can find her name all over FLG's website. she talked about SARS, bird flue, cancer, immunity, the "third eye" and melatonin etc in behalf of FLG. There's no news from FLG media about her death because her death didn't do any good for FLG's image. She also had a painful death,it was really nasty. A core member had cancer, and the master didn't/couldn't help her . just think about it. oh and they hardly report any of their core member's death unless it happened in china. A few months ago, Li Guodong, a core member of FLG who i believe is a lead editor in FLG's TV station( New Tang Dynasty)'s news center died due to liver cancer. They didn't report that either.--69.231.112.138 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Falun Gong is not aimed at curing illnesses. Once you believe you have illness, then you should go to doctors. But it is true that many practitioners gained health benefits. I am sorry about the news though. As said in the news, what is worse is the illness on spirit. By the way, I don't think early discovery of cancer would increase the chance of survival. People in Europe usually did not discover their cancer early but it is reported that they tend to live longer than the contrasts in U.S. Fnhddzs 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the minghui website reported that some practitioners died recently in response to the news on xinhua. There is nothing to hide. But minghui is not to report anything happening on this world. I am curious who wrote the news on Lili. It seems a person knowing her very very well (such as her special birthday in Chinese calendar, the detailed status etc.). Such a person writing such articles is kind of suspicious. Fnhddzs 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

More lies: Fnhddzs says "once you believe you have illness, then you should go to the doctors." Well, once you believe you have illness that means you are no longer a Falun Gong practitioner because as Li says, if you believe in the disease-curing effects of Falun Gong, why would you take medicine? More importantly, Li teaches Falun Gong practitioners not to think of illness as illness in the medical sense. All illness is the opportunity of getting rid of karma, which should be welcomed because once you've gotten rid of all your karma (which requires the direct help of Master Li to remove every last bit of it) then you can aspire to consumation. The goal of practice is, in fact, consumation, although you practitioners seldom talk about it. Another lie. But getting back to Lili Feng: she spent so much of her professional life praising and trying to prove the disease curing benefits of Falun Gong. Now that she has died of pancreatic cancer, shouldn't the Falun Gong honor her in some way? Shouldn't there be some kind of testimonial on the clearwisdom website? Shouldn't the great Li himself write a poem honoring her life and death, all in a good cause? She died on June 22nd, so there has been enough time to recognize her. Why hasn't this happened? Why does the Falon Gong not honor its own heroes? --Tomananda 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If Lili had sought medical help in 2003 she might have lasted much longer. She also would not had had suffered that much pain. But the bigger picture is this-- the kind of miraculous healing power of the Falun Gong and Li that all practitioners claim to be true is just a lie. You guys are lying to yourself and the public.

The fact that the Falun Gong has not published any thing to honor Lili who has contributed greatly to the group shows two things: 1) the cover up; 2) the cold-heartedness of the group. --Samuel Luo 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Samuel. I don't know Lili personally. Neither do you. I don't know why Lili did not seek medical help. And how she went to hospital to examine her health (otherwise how could she find the diagnosis?) But if she did not seek medical help, I suppose she should practice Falun Gong diligently. But did she? I appreciate that she did a lot of social activities and conducted research on other practitioners. But did she really have time to do the practice and read the book? As far as I know, I am afraid she was too busy to do it. My local fellow practitioner saw her when she came to our city last fall for a speech. According to this practitioner, she looked quite tired with a bad face color. And she told this practitioner she has some some illness. And when asked if there is time guaranteed for her Fa-study and practice, she said it is hard when she is busy. Well, it seems at least she admitted she had illness according to the diagnosis. That is not a thought based on practitioner's understanding. Having said that, I regret her passing away as I regret on anybody's passing away. However, such cases are nothing fancy to our article. And nothing fancy to practitioners' cultivation if your post is trying to picking some bones. Fnhddzs 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. You are saying that if she had diligently practiced the Falun Gong and studied Li’s books she would not had had the cancer. So it is all her fault. Even though she devoted all of her time to promote the Falun Gong she does not deserve the health benefits that are guaranteed by the Master, right? One quick question Fnhddzs, how much exercises and studies does a practitioner have to do in order to have his or her health guaranteed? --Samuel Luo 06:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but attacking Falun Gong doesnt help in any way to the creation of the article, Falun Gong practitioner editors will not answer to your post because its not what they are here to do and i believe this kind of post is not what you are here to do either. Just think about it, what is your purpose with this post saying we are liars and so on? do you want to initiate another heated argument about falun gong?. Please dont be offended but i think you should stop making these type of posts because they dont belong here and it delays the editing process. I think the mediator should erase this topic right away. Its even funny that then you complain about us not behaving properly in the talk page.--Andres18 05:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite off the track of the topic. Besides, it is quite original research. By the way, I have never thought minghui is a newspaper that has to track each practitioner's life details. Birth, Aging, Illness and Death are not related to cultivation that much. Minghui's purpose is to help to stop the persecution, help to share cultivation experience. Fnhddzs 05:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don’t you guys talk to Olaf. I have not felt this excited about editing here for a long time. --Samuel Luo 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Honoring the Life and Death of Dr. Lili Feng

I strongly believe that we should honor the life of Dr. Lili Feng by acknowledging that she has died of pancreatic cancer. In FG terms, she suffered a very painful illness and apparently did what Master Li asks of all his true practitioners: not to take medicine, because sickness is really not sickness, but rather the opportunity to get rid of karma. Dr. Feng worked tirelessly to promote the teachings of Li Hongzhi, especially on sickness karma and the idea that metabolism is fundamentally changed in the body of a true practitioner. In this Wikipedia article, there was an entire page written which featured the work of Dr. Feng under the title "health claims." However, Dr. Feng's death has apparantly not been ackowledged and honored in the Clearwisdom website. I think this is an outrageous oversight. Although I don't read Chinese, there was a posting about Dr. Feng's recent death at: [34] I believe there needs to be a suitable recognition of Dr. Feng in the Clearwisdom site for people who only read English to see. --Tomananda 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Falun Gong doctrine, she must had an enormous among of sin or karma whatever the FG calls it. The question that matters the most now is that is she given a place in the Falun Gong heaven? --Yueyuen 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Samuel, you are not responsible in your wording. I understand that you may not understand me. But what do you mean by cruelty? Just based on the story written by somebody? Does Falun Gong ever guaranttee it can cure illness? No. It is not the purpose of Falun Gong. So many people died in hospitals, are doctors cruel? Falun gong ask practitioners not to seek self-benefit, to put down attachments, not to pursue .... Those may be hard to explain if you are not experiencing it. Well, I am sorry I could not honor Dr. Feng in her funeral since it is quite far. My heart is with her spirit. Peace. But minghui is not a place to track each practitioner's life stories. Fnhddzs 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fnhsszs: You are missing the point. Dr. Lili Feng, a practitioner who did so much to promote Falun Gong based on health claims, has died of cancer. The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership is that it will probably not acknowledge and honor Dr. Lili Feng's great contribution because the leadership is more concerned about it's reputation than it is in honoring a FG hero who has passed away. I, for one, have a big problem with that and I would guess many practitioners would have a problem with that as well. As long as a practitioner satisfies Master Li's requirements, and works to promote the good name of his Dafa, everything is ok. But the momement something happens which may appear to discredit the FG, such as Lili Feng's death, then the FG leadership disowns that person as if she never existed. Isn't there something wrong with that? --Tomananda 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Since my time is limited, I only write briefly now. If without Falun Gong, Dr. Feng may have passed away earlier. According to her colleagues who have all the diagnosis X-rays of her, her status(energetic, making research breakthrough etc.) had been amazing to them. Actually they mentioned some surgery. This is no ground for Samuel's allegations. As the critism article write, the five year surviving chance of such cancer is 5%. We are not clear when this cancer started to develop, it may be quite earlier. If it started in 2001, then Dr. Feng belongs to the 5%. She is blessed. Both her husband and son are practitioners. They know more details. We know she is blessed. What kind of honor you are requesting us to give Dr. Feng. How could you say we denied her existence?Fnhddzs 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be a memorial type posting in honor of her life and reporting her death on Clearwisdom and other websites. My understanding is that she died about a month ago, so this should be done right away. I looked for such a posting and couldn't find it. The editor who first reported her death in discussion commented that Falun Gong always reports the deaths of practitioners in China, but typically doesn't for practitioners who die in the West. That shouldn't be the case, don't you agree? --Tomananda 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Speculation and unencyclopaedic. WP:NOT a memorial to alleged cult victims. --Sumple (Talk) 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me. Of course this would be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Instead, I am saying that the FG should post a memorial on their website. --Tomananda 04:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The cruelty of Falun Gong leadership

In the West, practitioners are perceived as heroic and admirable for daring to demand human rights from an authoritarian government. However, these heroes are really compelled by fear or baited by the spell their Master casts. Li’s scolding of those who have failed to break away from their family (Li calls it break away from humanness) attachment reveals all:

Some of the people [practitioners]…have had their lives extended through the Fa; some of them have received all kinds of benefits, such as good health, harmony in the family, indirect benefits to their relatives and friends, a reduction of their karma, and even Master’s bearing things for them… Despite this, when Dafa is about to consummate you, you are unable to step forward from humanness, and when the evil persecutes Dafa you are unable to stand up to validate Dafa. These people who only want to take from Dafa and not give for Dafa are, in the eyes of Gods, the worst beings. Moreover, this Fa is what’s fundamental in the cosmos, so those people who are still unable to step forward today will be weeded out after this tribulation is over.”[35]

Reaching consummation is the goal of Falun Gong cultivation; practitioners are taught that they will become gods or Buddhas living in heaven. Li’s statement reveals a circumstance that the West does not see: these practitioners were not driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell.

Olaf, what upsets me the most is the cruelty of the Falun Gong leadership toward practitioners. Li and his close associates who form the leadership have never expressed any sympathy and compassion towards practitioners in pain. In stead Li regularly scold his followers for not doing enough for him and his Dafa.

Giving up the Falun Gong under any circumstance is a sin, a disgrace according to Li: “Some students haven’t been able to endure amidst the agony of the persecution, and have done what a Dafa disciple absolutely should not and cannot do. That is a disgrace to Dafa.” He followed it up by explaining why willing to die for the Falun Gong benefits practitioners themselves:

If your righteous thoughts are truly strong, if you're able to put aside the thought of life and death, and if you're solid and unshakable like diamond, then those evil beings [Chinese authorities] won't dare to touch you, because they know that other than killing you any type of persecution will be useless. The evil will have no choice but to leave you alone. If in this scenario the evil still persecutes you, then Master will show no leniency. Master has countless Law Bodies, and on top of this, there are countless righteous Gods helping me do things, and they will directly eliminate the evil, too. Didn't I tell you before that each of you Dafa disciples has eight types of Heavenly Law-Guardians protecting you? It's all because you haven't done well enough that all these Gods are being restrained by the old cosmos’s Fa-principles and can’t do anything, despite their really wanting to help.[36]

So, when practitioners suffer they should blame themselves for not being worthy of the Master’s divine protection. Safety, not consummation is guaranteed here but only when one is willing to give up his or her life. Apparently, Li has thought of every angel to convince followers to “willingly” die for him.

Olaf, do you now see why I am angry at the inhumanly-cruel Falun Gong cult. --Samuel Luo 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Craig S. Smith from the New York Times noticed the lack of concern for the well being of practitioners from their Master. He reported “Mr. Li's cryptic exhortations to followers on the Falun Gong Web site have grown increasingly strident, chastising those people who cannot endure torture or even death in defense of his cosmology, which holds that Falun Gong is engaged in a struggle with evil beings for the redemption or destruction of the universe. "Even if a dafa cultivator truly casts off his human skin during the persecution, what awaits him is still consummation," Mr. Li wrote a few days after the labor camp deaths. Dafa means great law or dharma, and refers to Falun Gong, which can be translated as Law Wheel Practice. Consummation is an apparently transcendent event that is the goal of all followers. "Any fear is itself a barrier that prevents you from reaching consummation," Mr. Li wrote.” [37]--Samuel Luo 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Again??? Fine, you re angry at falun gong, this is not the place to be posting about it. I hope all this threads will be eliminated by the mediator.--Andres18 05:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not here? It is all about the Falun Gong. This topic deserves a section on the suppression of Falun Gong page. --Samuel Luo 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but this is not a Falun Gong discussion Talk Page and this kind of post will just create another heated argument between practitioners and critics. Why dont you keep it as a material for discussion when we reach the editing of this subsection? if a section for discussion on this topic is opened by covenant id be more than glad to answer to these allegations--Andres18 06:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Andres18 In this case why don't you keep your fancy answers. --Yueyuen 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good postings Samuel and Tomanada!!! And yes, this material should be included in the page about the ban, except that we have not agreed to the title of that page yet.--Yueyuen 06:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, focus on discussion of issues pertaining to editing the FLG articles.

Fancy and out-right absurd allegations. Not really worth replying to. Is anybody moderating this? If yes kindly make sure that people dont turn this into a page for such absurdities. Christians were persecuted to death for their upright faith so were many Buddhists and Gnostics. Were those upright cultivators who were persecuted driven by fear??The Panchen Lama has been locked up from age 9.. According to your reasoning he still doesnt give up his faith because he was "brainwahed" by Gautama Buddha.. It is the kind of courage only the fewest have. Cultivators dont put down their righteous faith when people try to scare them. 220.226.10.89 12:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would the compassionate Buddha have told his followers that at all costs they must protect his reputation and the good name of his teachings? Would the compassionate Buddha have allowed a great munk leader to go un-noticed when she died because her death from natural causes was considered invonvenient for his media image? In fact, would the compassionate Buddha have been so attached to his own ego that he would threaten his followers if they plagiarized his writings or thought badly of his "great law"? Sorry, but your comparisons are absurd on the face of it. Li Hongzhi lives comfortably in the US and has a formidable PR operation (including media maven Gail Rachlin) behind him. His primary objective is the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party. He claims that is not a political objective, but of course it is. He lies and exploits his followers. If Li Hongzhi has an ounce of decency left in him, he will issue a dignified memorial for his loyal servant Dr. Lili Feng and have it published on all the various websites that he controls through his followers. Absent that, I cannot respect your leader, but I do have great compassion for all the Falun Gong practitioners who have been duped into supporting Li, thinking that he is their ticket to salvation.--Tomananda 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, why dont you add discussing this material in the "To Do" List and when the time comes to speak about this and if the mediator allows it then we'll discuss about it.--Andres18 13:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortening of "criticism" section on main-page and Re-rrangement of subsections

I hope moderators would make sure that people focus better on the edits. It is time the criticism section on the main page is reduced to a paragraph. I am moving my previous edit to the end of the page.

It is hoped that the criticism sub-section on the main page be shortened as soon as possible. I request the admins helping to edit the page to kindly make sure that it is done at the earliest. Also Samuel Luo's Personal webpage deosnt belong to the references section. Kindly remove the same from the references.

Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The sections Falun Gong outside China and the section on the persectution of Falun Gong, in my opinion, must come above thse section on "criticism". Dilip rajeev 10:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are enough notable criticisms to report (and I think there are) then there is no reason to shorten their section other than some people must think it makes FLG look bad. The criticisms can be introduced in a general way on the main article page and then detailed on the daughter article. For criticisms to stay in the articles, they won't be allegations Wikipedia is making, but reports of criticism others have made. Just like many other popular movements, FLG in general and Li Hongzhi in particular are in for a lot. --Fire Star 火星 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The mainpage section was what I pointed out neds to tbe shortened. A page on Falun Gong cant be 3/4th "critcism". Covenant, if you are the moderator here, I request you tomake sure that this is done at the earliest. Also please delete Samuel's personal webpage from the "refrences" section. Thankyou. 220.226.58.150 07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of critism section belongs to original research. Fnhddzs 17:19, 26

July 2006 (UTC)

I share the same opinion. A lot of it is original research.

07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Reporting the opinions of critics does not constitute original research. --Tomananda 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf replies

I am surprised by the strong reactions my text provoked. I wrote it with the intention of pointing out some important matters I'd like to discuss. Instead of receiving civilized and well-versed responses from the active contributors, my text was chopped and sliced in an obvious hurry, while the real issues were either avoided or slated with a few lines. I was accused of personal attacks and my writing was called "frustrating", even though I tried to foster mutual understanding between the editors. I would expect that this is quite apparent to any outsider. However, if I have insulted somebody by accident, I sincerely apologize.

In addition, if I am speaking on a too academic level and some people have a hard time understanding what I mean by a concept or an expression, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. I'm trying to compress a lot of information into a few chapters, and I'm accustomed to using the jargon of cultural studies, hence my text inevitably reflects this background. If some major points are prevaricated for other reasons, I will continue to bring them up, so you'll have to deal with them sooner or later.

Let me start by repeating some concerns here and providing additional material to back them up. The first commentary was about accusations of covering up Li's high-level teachings. Tomananda introduced two quotations from Master Li to underpin his POV, but he didn't even try to dispute my own understanding of this issue. Let me quote myself, because I don't feel the urge to rephrase the text until somebody points out its deficiencies:

Learning something new always starts from the basics and proceeds further as the fundamentals of a certain mode of thinking have been grasped. Some people don't want to acknowledge that this holds true for Falun Gong as well, even though the entire educational system is based on this approach. Not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday anti-persecution activities has, in my opinion, at least two major reasons: the first one is that practitioners want to build a consensus against human rights atrocities in China, even among people who hold different beliefs. Falun Gong as a cultivation method is available to whoever wants to practice it, but as practitioners we don't want to impose our worldview on others by coercion or "evangelism". The second one is that the Western scientific method is by far the most dominant framework for observing and conceptualizing reality, and many people strongly believe in its exclusiveness and superiority. A system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized, especially by people who have been influenced by positivist philosophy. I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues (i.e. condemning torture, organ harvesting, brainwashing, slave labor, etc.) and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence.

Therefore, while I admit that some practitioners' conduct on this page might have seemed as if they didn't want to admit certain things, I claim that a lot of quarrel is based on their different understanding of the issues at hand. Mostly it's a question of somebody taking something at face value or another person seeking to understand its relation to the whole. And like I said, our different POVs lead to a situation where editors downplay or emphasize certain selections based on their preferences and intentions. We have been discussing these matters by e-mail with Cullum, Dilip and some others, and we all agree that we have nothing against a good, comprehensive exposition of Fa-rectification, Li's moral theory and other relevant matters, even the so-called "high-level teachings" that you say we want to hide from the public. Please refrain from accusing that we don't want to make them known when the real bone of contention is the discourse, not the content.

In addition, I understand Master Li's words from the third chapter of Zhuan Falun very differently. He's not saying that practitioners shouldn't tell the so-called "heavenly secrets" to "everyday people" - I think he's referring to the audience as "everyday people" and saying that he couldn't tell these matters irresponsibly. In Zhuan Falun, there are several instances where the expression is used in this sense. Some examples: "If you search externally for something, you will not obtain it by any means. With an everyday person’s body, an everyday person’s hands, and an everyday person’s mind, do you think that you can transform high-energy matter into gong or increase gong?"; "You cannot understand it with an ordinary person’s mentality, as it is just this rotating mechanism. The same is also true with our Falun, for it just rotates. By increasing the exercise time, it has solved for everyday persons the problem of practicing cultivation amidst normal living conditions."; "Though you sit here and have begun to practice cultivation, you are, after all, just beginning from the level of an everyday person with many everyday people’s attachments still not abandoned."; "You are an everyday person. How can you cure diseases after studying it for two days? Isn’t that deceiving others? Doesn’t it encourage your attachment?" Of course, I could dig up more, but I think these suffice to prove my point.

Another commentary touched upon the editors' tendency to select their sources based on their personal beliefs, even when two sides of the story are easily available (emphasis added). Ironically, Samuel Luo immediately proved my point correct. We all know that the Falun Dafa association stated that the ten-plus practitioners were tortured to death at the Wanjia labor camp, and witnesses reported that the bodies were bruised all over, even though the Chinese authorities claimed that the practitioners hanged themselves. Of course, we know that the Chinese authorities tend to deny all their criminal stuff even when independent investigators provide strong proof of widespread torture, organ harvesting and other atrocities. Needless to say, we don't have to privilege either version of the events in Wikipedia. The reader can make his or her own conclusions, and this is what I mean by two sides of the story. I got the impression that Samuel Luo wants to believe the CCP, maybe because mass suicides are something a caricatural cult does, and his objective is to make Falun Gong seem as much like one as possible, right? He presents many of his assertions as rock-solid facts instead of admitting that he just prefers one side of the story, which surprisingly often originates from the Chinese authorities.

I also said that the article is lacking good background information. Maybe the word "narrative" was misunderstood; I simply meant that a good article first provides a context for the phenomenon and then moves on to describe its details and unique characteristics. Even Deng and Fang, while fiercely opposing Falun Gong, have stated: Falungong insists on being, or is accepted by the western media as, a part of the Chinese tradition, blending Buddhism, Daoism and Mysticism. Is it part of the Chinese Tradition? The simple answer to this question is affirmative, but the question is: which part? We have not claimed that all traditions are wise or all traditional practices are helpful to current problems. No matter what you think of these traditions or Master Li's interpretation of them, we have to provide a meaningful context for Falun Gong to elucidate its position in the cultural field. This belongs to the beginning of the article, because it clarifies a lot of issues and provides a rationale for the practitioners' profound motivation. That's what I intended to do with the "Ontological and Epistemological studies". I still don't understand why it was removed and the Origins chapter was replaced with some biographical trivia that doesn't deal with any real problematics.

Even though I talked about discerning the essential questions and addressing all parties' concerns, in Tomananda's eyes I was "confusing an encyclopedia article with the PR spin Falun Gong is used to creating." Maybe he didn't really grasp that he, too, belongs to a party I was talking about, and I was also trying to make his concerns catered for. What I want to see is a neutral, balanced article and a group of editors who are willing to give space for people with different starting points. This applies to pro-FLG and anti-FLG editors, as well as everybody else. This was also my real intent behind the guesswork about Tomananda's and Samuel Luo's motives - it was not to create stereotypes but an attempt to understand different opinions on a deeper level. Maybe I was mistaken in my estimations, but at least I didn't seek to "border on the personal attacks" against them.

On a side note, I found it peculiar to see the same persons accuse Falun Gong practitioners of "not [being] driven by their love of human rights but by Li's promises of heaven or threats of hell." I find such language defamatory. For instance, I have met many tortured people - tortured for doing nothing but practicing a method I've myself found efficient and rewarding. I also know that the persecution has drastically altered the lives and families of millions of people in China and abroad. While the practitioners also believe that exposing the persecution belongs to their cultivation process, their concerns and worries are extremely genuine.

Another issue I find appalling is that some editors suggest that practitioners should act against their deepest spiritual beliefs and give in to their torturers by signing a declaration condemning Falun Gong. Samuel Luo even shifted the responsibility on Master Li, as if He - not the Chinese Communist Party - were the perpetrator of these acts. Suddenly Samuel seems to have sympathy for the detained practitioners, whilst he openly speaks in favor of the crackdown. In addition, in this context Samuel unwittingly admits that the practitioners are "in pain" and "giving up [their lives]", and of course we know that such a situation wouldn't exist if the authorities weren't breaking international laws. However, he still doesn't want to use the term "persecution" in the article but insists on "suppression".

There are still other issues I could raise, but this message is quite long already, so maybe I'll continue later. All in all, I want to have a civilized conversation with you, so please try to think what I am saying instead of straightforwardly denouncing or ignoring my concerns. I hope you also refrain from inserting your comments in between the chapters, as it shouldn't be too hard to reply in a solid format. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that I replied civilly, and will continue to do so, but I still disagree with your position. And please don't worry, you are by no means arguing over my head academically. The biggest problem I have with what you are saying is that I still see you and others here trying to present FLG and Li Hongzhi's other teachings seemingly in aid of winning converts rather than reporting them in an encyclopaedic manner. --Fire Star 火星 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda replies to Olaf

Your long post elicited a strong response from me because, among other issues, you tried to second guess the motives of two non-practioner editors (me and Samuel) in a way which was inappropriate, albeit presumably well-motivated. You also got into a rather tortured argument about the merits of the critical opinions reported in the "Is Falun Gong a Cult" section which I found offensive because: a) you and I worked cooperatively on that piece several months ago and b) it is not the topic we are presently discussing although, as you will see from the above, there is no end to the challenges some practitioners, especially Dilip, will make to the Criticism section.

You correctly point out that I did not respond to your paragraph in bold, so here's my point-by-point response:

First the postive:

1. You do acknowledge in your writing that practitioners don't talk about "concepts of high-level cultivation in everyday....activities." Since this is a point I have been making repeatedly, I appreciate your tacit agreement with me that this is the general behavior of practitioners.

2. You provide two explanations for this behavior (which I call "concealing the higher level teachings of the Falun Gong") and, even though I don't buy your explanations, I appreciate that they are well-thought out and sincere. (More on that below.)

Now the negative:

1. Your premise appears to be that writing an encylopedia article is akin to learning a new system from scratch. But in fact, no encyclopedia article is meant to replace a learning system and when you make that argument, it appears, as Fire Star aptly points out above, that you are attempting to win converts rather than simply reporting the basic teachings and practices of Falun Gong.

2. Your insertion of anti-persecution before the word activities in the sentence I partially quote from above is very telling and ultimately weakens your argument. Your framing of the explanation for "not talking about concepts of high-level cultivation" in the context of the allegations of persecution in China amounts to an admission that practitioners approach their job of editng in Wikipedia solely based on their goal of gaining sympathy for practitioners in China and condemnation of the Chinese government. I understand that this is a paramount issue for practitioners, but it is certainly not the only issue that needs to be addressed in an encylopedia article.

3. I am a compassionate person who strongly believes in human rights, but at the same time I find the Falun Gong's rigid insistence on a "one message all the time" approach to public relations hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating. Let me provide just a few examples of why:

  • Many of the claims of torture in China appear to be fabricated, or at least are so outrageously exaggerated as to elicit a distrusting reponse. Take for example the claims of organ harvesting at the Sujian facility. Supposedly there were 6,000 victims at this facility and they were operated on, alive, in the basement of the facility. But as reports have indicated the facility has no basement, and it is co-owned by a Malaysian organization which has recently visited the site. Other outside investigators have also weighed in, including US government officials, and there has been no collaboration of these reports which are based solely on the private testimony of two people who were interveiwed by the Falun Gong.
  • Under ordinary circumstances, one might want to give the Falun Gong the benefit of the doubt but hey, you guys have a big credibility problem. Your leader makes outrageous and contradictory claims and is not accessible to western media. When he has been interviewed by the press, he has claimed to be just an ordinary person. Yet to practitioners he is thought of as a god, savior, Buddha or whatever terminology you are comfortable with. It's clear that Li assumes extraordinary supernatural powers and by his own say-so the cultivation system he provides requires his personal intervention every step of the way. Yet it's been a royal struggle to have any of this information reported in Wikidpedia because there's been an endless series of outright lies from practitioners on some of the most basic stuff. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Take one small example on homosexuality: at one point, after we had agreed to post Li's poem "The World's Ten Evils" (which includes homosexuality)a practitioner actually logged on and claimed no where do we say that homosexuality is evil. And even now, in your own post, I notice that you don't mention Li at all when you talk about Falun Gong as an "existential theory" or whatever. Falun Gong is NOT just an "existential theory"..it is Li Hongzhi's revealed truths about the origin and fate of the cosmos, his role as savior, and his teaching about Fa-rectification. Please, let's start being honest about this.
  • Concerning civil rights, I notice that no practitioner has commented on the bullying tactics used by the Madrid lawyer last year. In effect, he was ready to have the organizers and presenters arrested for hate speech because, in his twisted logic, anything anyone says which is critical of Falun Gong amounts to aiding and abetting what he claims is "genocide" in China. Give me a break! And this kind of harassment of critics is not new to Falun Gong...it was, in fact, this kind of behavior that partially led to the ban in the first place. Can Samuel and the other presenters get an apology on this?

4. Your second "explanation" for why practitioners don't talk about the higher teachings is off the mark. You mention the dominance of the scientific method in the West and seem to justify the concealing of Li's higher truths from the general public because "a system with different axioms is oftentimes marginalized and strongly criticized." Well, maybe that's true, but is that really a justification for not reporting what those teachings are in an encylopedia article? You, Li Hongzhi and FG media maven Gail Rachlin may think of that as a winning strategy, but to me it paints Falun Gong practitioners as deceitful and not trustworthy. How can a group which claims to value "truthfullness" be so outraegously dishonest about its own beliefs? And if a group cannot speak the truth about what it believes to the general public, why should that public believe them when they make outraegous and undocumented claims about torture in a forein land?

5. You finish by saying "I have seen many instances where people cannot draw a distinction between the human rights issues...and Falun Gong's existential theory, as if the freedom of belief and opinion were somehow subservient to the fight against "heretical" dissidence. But really, Olaf, the people who criticize the Falun Gong can draw a distinction between human rights issues and what you strangely call "Falun Gong's existential theory." (Don't you mean "ontological theory"?) These two areas of inquiry are certainly not mutually exlusive and there is no reason why critics and editors in Wikipedia cannot address both issues in the same article. For me that means, at a minimum, we should report on:

  • Allegations of human rights abuses not just in China by the CCP but also in the West by over-zealous Falun Gong lawyers who seek to intimidate critics with unjustified legal threats.
  • The fact that much of what Falun Gong claims is happening to its practitioners in China is highly suspect, especially given Li Hongzhi's tendency to exaggerate and embellish the truth.
  • The fact that Li Hongzhi's stated objective is not just to stop any and all persecution of practitioners in China, but rather to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party through overt means, including the distribution of the Nine Commentaries.
  • "The fact that critics in China as well as the West have voiced legitmate concerns about the harmful effects of practicing the Falun Gong. Those harmful effects include health consequences for practitioners who do not seek medical help when needed due to their belief that perceived sickness is not really sickness, but rather an opportunity to get rid of karma.
  • The fact that critics in the West find Li's teachings on homosexuality, racial differences and mixed race people very disturbing and contradictory to a commitment to universal human rights.
  • And finally, the fact that Li assumes supernatural powers and absolute authority over his disciples and that this type of relationship is considered by some experts to be very destructive. Whether that makes Falun Gong a cult or not is debatable in the academic community, but certainly there is evidence of manipulation of the disciples and what some legal experts are now calling "undue influence." People who fall victim to authoritative, charismatic cult leaders are typically sucked into the group through deceptive recruitment and pressure from other group members over time. The Wikipedia article cannot draw a conclusion on this issue, but it certainly can report all sides of the debate.--Tomananda 00:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Olaf replies to Tomananda

First, I want to thank you for your response. This is the style of argumentation I would like to see on this page instead of flame wars, even though I feel that some of your expressions are still somewhat hostile. Regardless, it's a tremendous improvement. Your point-by-point arguments also make it easier for everybody to see the real controversial issues, and now we can deal with them one by one.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear when I was comparing "everyday anti-persecution activities" with editing an encyclopaedia article. Some other issues were also misunderstood, so let me explain further. I and other practitioners have nothing against a good, comprehensive exposition of Falun Gong, its teachings and related problematics on this page. That's the nature of Wikipedia, and the editors and readers are all interested in or concerned about Falun Gong, whatever their personal motives are.

In my opinion, Master Li's words from Zhuan Falun or the San Francisco lecture do not mean that the high-level content of Falun Gong cannot be discussed with people. I already suggested that the expression "everyday people" refers to the audience. Master Li was talking about himself teaching these matters to the general public. In San Francisco, Li said: "So when you clarify the truth you absolutely must not speak at too high of a level. Right now when you clarify the truth you only need to talk about the persecution of Dafa disciples, how the evil party has been violating the human rights and the freedom of belief of the Chinese people, how historically the evil party has persecuted the Chinese people and the people of the countries belonging to the wicked Communist bloc, and how it is persecuting Dafa disciples today in the same way. And that's enough. As for high-level cultivation and gods, you shouldn't talk about those things." (emphasis added)

I've always understood that "clarifying the truth" means informing people about the persecution - this expression wasn't even used before July 1999. Of course, this Wikipedia article can serve the purpose of summing up the practitioners' side of the story, but it is absolutely different from arranging an anti-torture exhibition on the street, distributing flyers and initiating discussions with the passers-by. As far as I understand, Master Li is specifically talking about these kinds of activities. You all know that practitioners are willing to introduce Falun Gong with all its content to anybody who wants to learn it, and all the material is freely available on the Internet.

Bearing this in mind, please read my previous message once more. Maybe you see what I mean. We only want the international community to stop the atrocities in China, and we want to have the people condemn the persecution, regardless of what they think about "gods", "Buddhas" or other "high-level cultivation" matters. You must understand that our fellow practitioners are suffering tremendously in China, and we want to tell the world about this situation, whereas cultivation practice and metaphysical assumptions are delicate matters involving personal choices and reasoning. Yes, practitioners do believe that this is "saving people" - awaking and encouraging their consciences and innate goodness. You don't have to agree with our beliefs, but please don't allow the persecution against us to go on any longer.

"Concealing" or "covering up" the teachings is definitely not how we understand the disputes surrounding this article. We are concerned about representation and form - or discourse, not content, as I stated before. Therefore, I would advice you to seriously ponder why practitioners do not share your interpretations of a specific matter. It's not a matter of "outrageous lies and deceit" but a genuinely different understanding. All practitioners may feel that there's something acutely wrong with a particular interpretation, but perhaps not everybody is able to address the real moot points. One good example is what I just talked about: I don't think Master Li means that practitioners should intentionally "hide" the content of Falun Dafa from the public eye, but talking about human rights from a more secular viewpoint means respecting people's different values and reaching a wider audience. After all, it is usually the practitioners who initiate such communication. Writing a Wikipedia article is an altogether different matter. The text should be as informative as possible, because it's voluntarily read by curious people. Of course, providing them with a good and neutral explanation calls for co-operation instead of fights, defaming language and playing games.

I repeat myself: a good article always provides a background and a context. We have a right to demand that the rationale for practicing Falun Gong is explained in a neutral framework. It is not irrational and arbitrary behaviour, provided that we understand "rationality" as consistent conduct resulting from a set of axioms (this is roughly the present understanding of all humanistic studies). Moreover, practitioners think that Falun Gong's popularity cannot be reduced to any sociological or psychological motives. We are fully capable of providing a meaningful historical and cultural context for what we are doing, and even though it adds greatly to the perplexity of these matters, it unquestionably belongs into the beginning of a Wikipedia article on Falun Gong. This is also the point I meant by saying that learning a new system starts from scratch. I didn't say that we should leave the "advanced" stuff out of the article. I mean that we first provide the background, then the specifics. We want a logical arrangement and a red thread running throughout.

Why do I want us to pay more attention to narratives and discourses? Oftentimes the intentions of a certain writer become apparent from the implications of the text, how the text is constructed and structured, which matters are emphazised or downplayed, et cetera. Of course, editing Wikipedia is a dialectical process, and the adverse party can always improve the text (except now, because the article is locked!). This is the principle I've been trying to follow in my work, and I've previously stated that I consider revert wars counterproductive, regardless of who is involved. I am decidedly not claiming that the practitioners' conduct on this page has been impeccable, but we should keep in mind that conflicts usually escalate when both parties have something to correct in their behaviour.

Now to the question of "outrageously exaggerated claims of torture". You mentioned Sujiatun and organ harvesting. I'm not sure if you know about this, but the former Canadian Secretary of State David Kilgour and a human rights lawyer David Matas released an independent investigation report on 6th of July. [38] Here is a quotation from its conclusions: "Based on what we now know, we have come to the regrettable conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners. We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries. [...] Our conclusion comes not from any one single item of evidence, but rather the piecing together of all the evidence we have considered. Each portion of the evidence we have considered is, in itself, verifiable and, in most cases, incontestable. Put together, they paint a damning whole picture. It is their combination that has convinced us."

I don't know why you belittled and showed contempt for these allegations when they surfaced. Of course, I understand that they are unbelievably shocking, and most people cannot grasp their atrociousness. Unfortunately, the current evidence is convincing enough to state that the allegations are probably true. I suggest that you read through the Kilgour-Matas report. It has received a lot of media attention around the world. Vice president of the European parliament Edward McMillan-Scott visited China on a fact-finding mission in May. He has recently stated that "there is enough circumstantial evidence to alert the international community to what amounts to genocide”. [39] I don't say that you have to present an apology because of your disdainful words, but please stop playing down the severity of this persecution from now on.

You are saying that we have a political agenda. I do recognize that some people view practitioners' criticism towards the CCP as political action. However, we need to make a distinction between 1) seeking political power as such and 2) criticizing a political actor that is engaging in criminal actions. There is no indication in Falun Gong's texts that practitioners or Master Li would be interested in political power - quite the opposite. Of course, you may harbour conspiracy theories, while I see the matter in a more ingenuous light. The Nine Commentaries contextualizes the persecution of Falun Gong by providing an exposition of the cultural history of communism in China. Its purpose is to make people break out from the Chinese Communist Party and all affiliated organizations in order to save them. That is what practitioners sincerely believe - they are dragging people out from the throes of a dying red dragon. Master Li is also very consistent about this issue.

You also made a comment about Master Li claiming supernormal powers. I remember that one time Samuel Luo said something like "Master Li is making allegations of powers that exist only in Chinese fables and myths" (I don't remember the exact wording). What makes such claims more plausible than usual? If you read French, I recommend that you browse through this page, even though it's clearly pro-FLG. [40] In addition, here are some scientific papers on qigong. [41] In reality, there are a lot more, but they are mostly in Chinese. "Situated both in scientific researches on qigong and in the prevailing nationalistic revival of traditional beliefs and values, this discursive struggle has articulated itself as an intellectual debate and enlisted on both sides a host of well-known writers and scientists — so much so that a veritable corpus of literature on qigong resulted" (Journal of Asian Studies 58) As we know, there are two competing paradigms, naturalist and supernaturalist. If so many Western scientists weren't obstinately clinging to secular materialism, our understanding of reality would have already improved a great deal. How did the ancient Chinese know about the five elements, yin/yang or the network of meridians? Did they really see with their "third eye"? These are largely unanswered questions.

I quote the French site I mentioned: "Les validations expérimentales de certains des phénomènes du Qigong, en dépit d’exagérations dans des « shows » télévisés, créèrent un climat général favorable à la pratique et à la recherche sur le Qigong. A cette époque, il s’agissait d’une véritable révolution scientifique pour le monde chinois : ces techniques, en plus de procurer santé et longévité, semblaient pouvoir faire éclore les facultés latentes des hommes et prouver la véracité des prouesses des héros légendaires. Avec la définition du « Qi externe » comme substance matérielle, le Qigong se validait aux yeux de l’opinion publique – et du gouvernement – comme une démarche matérialiste, plus comme une « superstition féodale ». Il pouvait alors être promu comme la quintessence de la culture chinoise, un domaine d’indéniable supériorité sur l’Occident." It really was something like a scientific revolution and a source of national pride - it was no longer "feudal superstition". A lot of experiments validated that qigong masters possessed extraordinary energies. However, in the end of the 1980s, a lot of charlatans appeared, and the Qigong Research Society gave the title "qigong master" only to rare individuals who were thoroughly tested. One of them was Li Hongzhi. We know that Falun Gong received many awards; in addition to being named the "Star Qigong School" two times in a row, it won the "scientific advancement award" in 1993, and Master Li was named the "most acclaimed qigong master". Even the Chinese embassy in Paris invited Li to teach Falun Gong to French people in 1995! I will not summarize more, because my point is clear as crystal: the persecution of Falun Gong is just another example of gross historical revisionism. It is an attempt to eradicate by violent means a genuine cultural phenomenon that was considered threatening by Jiang Zemin. I believe that history will prove me correct, but in an encyclopaedia article it suffices to say that this is simply our side of the story.

Danny Schechter, author of "Falun Gong's Challenge to China", has stated after talking to Li in person: "We did a film on Reverend Moon and the Reunification Church for PBS's Frontline. My initial impression was that the Falun Gong leader was like Reverend Moon. But I was wrong. He is not a self-aggrandizing, self-promoting leader in that sense. He is a unifying symbol in a cultural tradition. He seems more to be an anti-leader leader because he is not politically astute in the traditional sense." [42] I wholeheartedly agree with him.

In my next message, I will answer Fire Star's allegations about Li saying that Westerners are "too stupid to understand his Dafa" (Fire Star's words, not Li's). I think Master Li is talking about the differences between the Western and the Eastern mindsets, and I can provide some anthropological research to back up my opinions. There are also other issues that I left unanswered. I don't want to suffocate you with too long messages, so I will first let you comment on this. Regards. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My words on the subject were in two edits. The first was posed in a question, exactly: "...non-Chinese weren't intelligent enough to understand his teachings?" and the quote Tomananda provided from Li narrowed Li's statements specifically to white people. The second thing I said on the subject was "his opinions on ... the relative intelligence of different races". I have not quoted Li as saying Westerners were "too stupid to understand his Dafa" as you explicitly stated I did. If you are going to refute my arguments "academically", "anthropologically" or otherwise, it will help you to quote me exactly. That is the courteous thing to do, and will expose you to less disregard from other editors. Explaining away Li's statements using fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine claims and allegations (the current Chinese government declaring someone a "qigong master" is akin to the Roman emperor Nero proclaiming someone an "orthodox Christian"), (inaccurate) quotations and diversionary complaints about the motives and intelligence of your interlocutors is apologetics in the classical sense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That the context of the quote in question is obviously Li's self-congratulatory xenophobia can safely be left to the reader, IMO. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Saying there isn't enough context every time Li is quoted by an outsider in an attempt to micro-manage Li's public utterances to make him seem less insane and less of a racist than his books, lectures and interviews tend to show him to be is disruption of the editing process, if not to make your point, then at least to filibuster the article into inutility. In the long run, all of the hand wringing by FLG acolytes adds more weight to my argument that you guys have been and are just here trolling for converts, and not at all interested in a balanced encyclopaedia article. If Li is everything you guys believe him to be, what is so bad about letting the "master's" words speak for themselves? --Fire Star 火星 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
An inaccurate quotation was an obvious mistake on my part, and I apologize.
On the other hand, if your accusations of "micro-manag[ing] Li's public arguments", "filibustering the article into inutility" and "trolling for converts" - in addition to completely disregarding my explicit wishes of taking the concerns of all editors into account - are not ad hominem, I don't know what is. All the topics I discussed are directly relevant to this article. I would also like to specifically know what you mean by "complaining about the motives and intelligence of [my] interlocutors". While I've always realized that you don't share my position, Fire Star, I remember that you used to be more moderate in your replies. You even had a balancing effect on many people, and somebody even awarded you a barnstar for the "neutrality and patience on the Falun Gong article", but based on what I've read recently, you've just been adding fuel to the fire. I don't know if you notice the scorn in your words yourself. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Despite what you say, my messages are civil, and I am interested in the concerns of other editors. You may project what you want into it, but my language is perfectly clear. You've misquoted me, and in a "fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine" way you are ingnoring your error in aid of dismissing me as newly immoderate. Calling you on a misquote makes me immoderate? Since you haven't addressed the primary issue of the message you are replying to, perhaps it isn't surprising that you are also reading what you want to read into what I've actually said as well. To be clear, I don't scorn you, I just don't believe you. Your argumentative methods so far lack credibility and are only convincing me that my assumptions about FLG practitioners are correct. --Fire Star 火星 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out my misquote was not immoderate, it was the right thing to do. Did you see my apology?
Regardless, the essential meaning of that sentence doesn't change, because "non-Chinese weren't intelligent enough to understand his teachings" are also your own words. You did not address the primary issues of the message you replied to, either. Instead, you accused my arguments of being "fuzzy, convoluted, tortuous or byzantine" and off-handedly called them "apologetics in the classical sense".
You don't have to believe what I say, but I want counterarguments, not a self-assertive, categorical dismissal of all that I'm concerned about. Maybe it's not scorn - maybe it's just ridicule. ---Olaf Stephanos 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Falun Gong's Credibility Problem

Olaf, I am not going to play this game. Your use of French quotes and your sophomoric air of assumed intellect does not address the fundmental issue I raised in my post: that Falun Gong has a big credibility problem. The only way you can convince me that you are able and willing to speak the truth about Falun Gong is to speak the truth about Master Li Hongzhi,which includes his self-proclaimed role as the exclusive savior of mankind and his claim that his Dafa is judging all beings and weeding out the unworthy. Master Li says he has removed the names of all Falun Gong practitioners from the registry list in Hell and promises to turn his followers into gods as long as they fulfill their obligations as "Fa-rectification Dafa disciples."

You and every other Falun Gong practitioner/editor has been promised salvation by Master Li. But you have been told by Li that you can no longer expect to be saved simply by studying Zhuan Falun or doing the exercises. Rather, you must expose what he considers to be the "evil and wicked" Chinese Communist Party and help to destroy that party through a variety of actions, including speading the nine commentaries and telling endless stories of persecution of practitioners in China. Even if the all the Falun Gong claims of persecution, torture and organ harvesting were true, and even if all of that were to stop today, Li Hongzhi's goal would not be satisfied because the Chinese Communist Party would still exist. The soteriological condition for Falun Gong practioners is clear: salvation = the destruction of the CCP.

But sadly, I am not buying your story. There is a point at which one's credibility is so damaged that even if the truth is spoken, the listener doesn't believe...or just tunes out. You say to Fire Star emphatically, even arrogantly, that you demand a detailed reponse to your arguments. But why should Fire Star or any other non-practitioner editor respond to your request when you yourself have ignored the post you claim to be responding to? Unless and until you and the other practitioners demonstrate a willingness to accept edits which report Li's self-proclaimed status as the exclusive savior of mankind and his teaching that his Dafa is judging all sentient beings and weeding out the unworthy during this period of Fa-rectification, there is little point for us to continue any discussion on these pages. Your explanation that practitioners don't talk about these things because Western thinking, which is too postivistic for your taste, may reject Falun Gong teachings does not wash.

One more thing: I did an earlier post about honoring the life and death of Dr. Lili Feng. Even though Dr. Feng dedicated her life to finding scientific evidence to prove the supernatural health benefits of Falun Gong practice, and even though her status as an honored Falun Gong practitioner has been recognized on many occassions by the Falun Gong, now that she has died it appears that she is being ignored by Falun Gong leadership and Li himself. If you can prove me wrong...if there is some Falun Gong honorarium for Lili Feng that I have missed...please tell me. Otherwise, Olaf, I ask that you once again intervene with the pratitioner/editors of Clearwisdom. Please ask them to post a suitable honorarium for Dr. Lili Feng. My suspicion is that pratitioners are only honored by Master Li as long as they demonstrate their utility in his campaign to destroy the CCP. I would love to be proven wrong on this, since I believe there is human decency in all of us. So please write once again to those Clearwisdom editors to make this request. Thanks. --Tomananda 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The next step: Fa-rectification

What we need next is a concise definition of Fa-rectification that can be used in the lead section. It will need to be supported by references. We should start from scratch since old discussions were ultimately fruitless. It should be one or two sentences long. We'll take suggestions only for three days, then open it up for comments on them. CovenantD 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions, no comments, for a definition

Here's my (Mcconn's) suggestion:

In Falun Dafa belief the universe has deviated from its original characteristic of Truth Benevolence Forbearance. According to Li, Fa-Rectification is the process of renewing the entire universe and having it return to its original purity. --Mcconn 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Building on that, I (Fire Star) would propose something like:
In Falun Dafa Li Hongzhi claims that the universe has deviated from what he says are its original characteristics of Truth, Benevolence and Forbearance. According to Li, Fa-Rectification is the process of renewing the entire universe, returning it to its original purity. --Fire Star 火星 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the above (Samuel Luo):

Li teaches that because of mankind’s moral corruption, the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification,” [43] a kind of renewal of the cosmos into the most original, purest state of being. In this process, the Falun Dafa weeds out the corrupted and saving only those who cherish virtue and do good.[44] --Samuel Luo 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion (Kent8888):

According to Li humankind which becoming hopelessly corrupt has entered the stage of what he calls “the final period of Last Havoc.” [45] Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” [46] a process where Li’s law (Dafa) would punish the evil and reward the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity. --Kent8888 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda's suggestion:

  • According to Li, humans have become so corrupt that “Gods don’t care about them anymore” and “No religion is being watched over by the Gods.” [47] It is believed that we have entered the stage of “the final period of Last Havoc” in which all beings are being judged by Li’s Dafa (great law). [48], [49] Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” [50], a process where the Dafa punishes the evil and rewards the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity. There is some debate about who will be eliminated and who will be saved in the Fa-rectification. However, Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples.” [51], [52] --Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we've had enough time. Covenant, can we open it up for comments now? Mcconn 09:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. CovenantD 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Let the Fa commenting begin!

We have five versions, some based on others. What we need are comments about accuracy, NPOV, and verifiability.

Comments of Mcconn's version

Agree it reads well, its concise, explanatory, neutral and it doesnt advertise falun gong in any way.--Andres18 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Agree. Fnhddzs 04:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Fire Star's additions

Ah yes, comments. I want to comment that when we do define "Fa-rectification" we should have a brief mention that the word "fa" 法 is one with a long religious and secular history in Chinese culture that Li is using in a compound, a new coinage, to present his supernatural doctrines. --Fire Star 火星 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is the point I want to make too. Falun Gong is translated into "Practice of the Wheel of Law" and Falun Dafa is "Great Law of the Wheel of Law" in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. They are different things. --Mr.He 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but i think the first one reads much better for an introduction, firestar's version perhaps makes it all sort of redundant “master li says” “what he says are” If we use Mccon's version "In Falun Dafa Belief" we get a shorter writing and it already sets us in the context without the need of repeating ourselves. I dont think a mention that the word fa has a religious connotation historically should be added. As you may know, in Falun Gong a religion can be a cultivation system but a cultivation system is not necessarily a religion, the common reader doesnt know this so adding this detail will confuse the reader into associating falun gong with a religion, falun gong practitioners do not consider falun gong to be a religion so this addition would be non-neutral.--Andres18 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Samuel's version

The main problem, which is also true for Kent's and Tomanda's version, is that the emphasis is placed on humankind's moral degradation. Fa-Rectification has very little to do with human kind's moral degradation and is instead a response to the decline of the whole universe (of which humankind is only one tiny tiny level). So this emphasis is wrong. Also, Falun Dafa doesn't weed out anything, the Fa-Rectification does. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i totally agree with Mcconn, but i think the use of “weeds out” is too strong and not neutral at all. How did you come up with "because of mankind's moral corruption, humanity is undergoing a process called Fa Rectification"??? im sorry but i clicked on the 28 link and i couldnt find anything that would imply this anywhere. Im sure that if you have read a little about Falun Gong ( im guessing it is necessary to do it in order to be able to criticize it objectively ) you will notice falun dafa does not weed out anything, what you want to do is use "Falun Dafa" because it contains the word "Dafa" in it and since the common reader may not know what "Dafa" is and may not understand the difference between "Dafa" and Falun Dafa, you are taking advantage of this similarity to claim that falun dafa weeds out the corrupted people. Thus, misleading the reader into thinking Falun Gong will punish "evil people" which is a characteristical way of thinking of a dangerous cult. I strongly disagree with this suggestion.--Andres18 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Kent8888's version

(Refactored from above section) I like Kent's version, but find it a bit skimpy and lacking in needed citations. --Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis is in the wrong place (see my comment for Samuel's version), which makes it misleading. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hopelessly corrupt"....? im sorry but i dont agree to your version--Andres18 06:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Tomananda's version

(Refactored from above section) This is a highly controversial topic and since all my previous suggestions were rejected by Falun Gong practitioners, I am willing to approve this modified version. Using Kent's paragraph as a base, this version cites all the needed sources and manages, in a short paragraph to cover the basics. It also hints at the controversy about who exactly will be eliminated in the Fa-rectrification, without trying to give an answer (so that people will feel inspired to read further in a daughter article.)--Tomananda 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too long, which really throws off the balance in the intro. Two sentences can summarize the main idea, but this is overkill for the intro. My comments for the others also hold for this. Plus, your emphasis on Mr. Li stating that some people are already being punished is off since that is hardly ever mentioned when he talks about the Fa-Rectification. Mcconn 14:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I find this version most comprehensive. --Mr.He 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may find this version most comprehensive because you are a critic and it solely expresses the critics POV, how can this version be neutral?. Again taking quotes and placing them out of context to form your own POV based on them, just like making up a puzzle taking pieces from here and there. But you always come up with the excuse "Its your masters words! how dare you question him?" Yes, he said those words, but he didnt mean what you pretend it to mean by taking out of context all these quotes and putting them into your own context to make it look like he meant all these things you've come up with. The fact that you included Mr Li's quotes on your suggestion doesnt make it neutral.

I don’t think I am a critic, this is why. I have no objection to Falun Gong ideology and practices, though I would not recommend it to anyone I know. There are many religious groups out there with strange beliefs. I also don’t care whether the Falun Gong is a cult; one man’s cult is another’s religion, right?
Recently people in the office joked about gong to China for new organs, I am sure you know why. As a Chinese I am deeply humiliated. I would prey to God to beg his forgiveness for Chinese who are capable of committing such heinous killing, if the Falun Gong accusation is true. Honesty to me is the basic virtue, without it there is no trust, peace, friendship, love…. How can the Falun Gong produce such a lie to bring shame to all Chinese people for its battle with the Chinese government?
I like tomananda’s version. In a short paragraph it covers an aspect of core Falun Gong belief system, with citations. You don’t like it because it tells the truth. Truthfulness is something that practitioners don’t care to practice. Hmm, after all, maybe I am a critic, a critic of dishonesty. --Mr.He 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. He, since you mentioned you would pray to god for forgiveness for chinese who kill and so on, then in order to explain myself better, please allow me to suppose you believe in God. Thats fine, i believe in cultivation, i think i have the right to do so. If you asked somebody who believes in the existentialist theory or in a religion which would be different from yours, what they think about cristianity, they might think it is a strange belief if they dont know it well enough. I dont see anything wrong with being a person who follows Truth Benevolence Forbearance.

I dont think Falun Gong is fighting the Chinese government, at least i dont have this mentality. I mean, im a practitioner and i dont want to destroy the communist party or whatever, i just want the persecution to stop, thats all. And i think this is what Mr. Li is encouraging the practitioners to do because there are many people suffering in China just because they believe in these principles. About the organ harvesting accussations, well, they could or could not be true, but in case they werent true, please dont think all falun gong practitioners got together and said "Oh lets make up something so that other people can have simpathy for us and we can destroy the communist party". Lying is against the core principles of Truth Benevolence Forbearance so people who do not follow this principles cannot be considered practitioners, sure, anyone can come and say "Im a practitioner" thats not necessarily true. So if something is really happening then its wrong and it should stop but if someone made it up, then that person is not a practitioner. Since we are not a formal organization i dont think there can be anyone to represent falun gong except Mr. Li, if someone is in favor of falun gong and makes a mistake in the process then you cant atribute his fault to the entirety of falun gong, i dont think its fair, thats why i think its not useful when someone posts something like "Oh This and That other guy who are practitioners did this and that, how horrible! falun gong is not good" i dont think this is fair, people make mistakes and the fact that we are cultivators doesnt mean we cant make mistakes during this process.

Since i already started a long post ill answer Tomananda's post. Why is it that i dont like his version? well, because when he is going to create an explanatory pargraph he uses the following procedure. Let me give an example, ill write an explanation of what i just said in the paragraph bellow but with the intention to criticize it without neutrality:

In Andres's post which is an answer to Mr. He, he says if you asked a non cristian what he thinks about cristianity "they might think it is a strange belief if they dont know it well enough." Which implies cristianity, which is one of the most popular and accepted religions in the world is "strange" and that non-cristian people are not knowledgeable enough to understand the principles of cristianity. He claims he doesnt want to "destroy the communist party or whatever" and in the middle of his arguent, says that he is doubtfull that the organ harvesting accussations made by his fellow falun gong practitioners themselves are true. He neglects falun gong practitioners who dont follow the principles set by master lee saying that the "people who do not follow this principles cannot be considered practitioners". Also he explained that he doesnt "think there can be anyone to represent falun gong except Mr. Li" who is the famous leader of this "non-formal" organization.

Now please tell me, do you think that what i just wrote was what i really meant with my answer to Mr. He? no it is not, this is what happens when you take some quotes out of context and create an explanation based on them with the intention to criticize in a non neutral way. There is the excuse "I am just clearly exposing what Andres said to Mr. He! Those are his words, im using his own quotes how can you say he didnt mean that?" but now then is this a valid excuse? can you really notice the difference?.

This is the reason why i dont agree with Tomanandas suggestion, the fact that i dont agree with it doesnt mean im speaking "nonsense" or lying in anyway, or that im "hiding the truth" im just exposing my opinion. The critics are the critics, they have their own point of views and opinions on Falun Gong, fine, i respect it, you have all the right to have them, but we (practitioners) also have our own opinions and point of views regarding Falun Gong, the fact that you dont agree with them does not mean we are lying or that we are being dishonest or hiding the "true meaning" (which is your personal opinion on Falun Gong) of Mr. Li's teachings. I know sometimes it can be frustrating but i think everyone makes mistakes and if we are kind enough to point it out respectfully then perhaps we'll be able to work more efficiently.--Andres18 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Andres: I quote Master Li, and you claim that by quoting him "he didn't mean what I pretend it to mean." This is nonsense. I am merely reporting the teachings. What do you think I am "pretending" those teachings to mean? More importantly, since these are your own master's words, what do you think they mean? Instead of issuing blanket rejections, you need to deal with the actual text.--Tomananda 06:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) There is more, quoting you: "Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples" i think this is clearly trying to give an answer isnt it?. I could extend myself but i think i have posted enough reasons to justify why i dont agree with this version not even in the starting sentence.Besides, its too long for an introduction--Andres18 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a game, with no end in sight. You will never agree to any wording that clearly reports the master's teachings, will you? --Tomananda 07:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with your version because its not neutral, its just you trying to attack falun gong and its too long. Perhaps it would be great if you could consider the neutrality of your suggestions before you post them--Andres18 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Really Andres? Reporting Li's teachings verbatim consitutes an attack on Li? Or is it that you are so used to distorting the teachings of Falun Gong in order to promote the downfall of the CCP that you've just forgotten what it feels like to be truthful? Anything goes as long as it works towards the elimination of the CCP, right? It's even ok to lie, because the ends justify the means, right? So much for "higher truths" and the principles of "Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance." --Tomananda 22:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in Canada last month, Li clarified once again what a practitioner must do:

  • the goal of Dafa disciples' clarifying the truth during this period is to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way.

..and he also clarified that he directs this process of Fa-rectification:

  • No matter how many Law Bodies Master has or how enormous his power is in the cosmos, his main body is [after all] amidst layers of partitioning of the old cosmos, and is directing everything in Fa-rectification from this world.

..and he encouraged his disciples to envision the future without the CCP:

  • Right now people are wondering: What will happen when the wicked Party is gone? What will things be like then? What will China's future government be like? There is no need to think or do anything about that. Of course, as you validate the Fa and clarify the truth, you can infer things with your current understanding. There is no problem with doing that, since it's okay to infer things based on the normal logic and understanding a person has. But as far as what will really happen, that's not up to human beings, and it won't resemble how people now imagine it.

Yet despite the revolutionary exhortations that are spoken from the mouth of Li Hongzhi, all in the name of salvation, practitioners continue to deny that there is a political agenda of the Falun Gong, or that there is a cosmic process, directed by Li himself, which is eliminating (in a really scary way) all the evil and wrotten people of the world, starting with those who are members of the Chinese Communist Party. Whether this goal is worthwhile or not is not the point, the point is that this is the explicit goal of Li Hongzhi and he has made it a condition for salvation for all his practitioners. And yet denials and obfustations continue endlessly. --Tomananda 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Introduction

Here's my proposed paragraph. Once again, there's been the usual blanket rejection of my edit alleging it's "out of context" or "represents my POV," but there has been no attempt to respond to the actual words which come directly from Li. This is the fourth time I have put together a paragraph on salvation and Fa-rectification using the Master's own words and the fourth time it has been rejected out of hand. I think we need to take a poll on each sentence. If there's a sentence which is not true, please point it out and explain why.


  • According to Li, humans have become so corrupt that “Gods don’t care about them anymore” and “No religion is being watched over by the Gods.” [53] It is believed that we have entered the stage of “the final period of Last Havoc” in which all beings are being judged by Li’s Dafa (great law). [54], [55] Humankind’s last hope relies on the “Fa-rectification” [56], a process where the Dafa punishes the evil and rewards the good thus renewing the entire universe to its original purity. There is some debate about who will be eliminated and who will be saved in the Fa-rectification. However, Li has stated that heaven is already punishing people who don’t deserve to be saved, including evil beings who “interfere with and persecute the Fa-rectification and Dafa disciples.” [57], [58] --Tomananda 06:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No one addressed the quote? If you look at my comments above, you'll see that I addressed the quotes content, as well as some other important problems with your intro. Take another look. Regarding the quote, put simply, just because Mr. Li has said something doesn't mean that it's worthy of being quoted. Regardless of how interesting you may personally find it, the bottom line is that it's got to be pertinant. As I said, although he may have said things along these lines in one or two instances, it is not something Mr. Li has talked a lot about and it has never been the focus of his talks on the Fa-Rectification. It's totally misleading to include this is such an elementary explanation of Fa-Rectification. Mcconn 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn: How can you say that the quote in the first sentence...especially the second one...is not relevant to an understanding of Li's teaching on salvation and Fa-recification? It is totally relevant, because it reveals that according to Li other religious teachings cannot do what the Dafa can do. "No religon is being watched over by the Gods." Li has made that same claim in a variety of different ways, but the substance of the message...which is that the Dafa can save sentient beings during this time of the Fa-rectification, but the old religions can't...is most certainly relevant. You continue to resist a straight-forward reporting of this material. I am not attached to any particular quote, but no matter what quote I provide you reject it. Care to suggest some alternative wording that conveys the same thought? --Tomananda 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is all good information, and I would support its inclusion in a section on the supernatural teachings of Li. My only criticism is that it is just a little quote-heavy. This is a literary quibble having nothing to do with whether or not Wikipedia should report such things out of a practitioner's "context". Maybe take one or two of the quotes out in favour of a paraphrase with citations, or have more prose in between the same number of quotes? --Fire Star 火星 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, Tomanda, you consider the most important aspect of Mr. Li's statements regarding Fa-Rectification to be statements that suggest only he can save sentient beings, right? This may be an important point when analysing Mr. Li's role in Falun Dafa, and his relationship with other religions and spirituality, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're looking for a concise explanation of the Fa-Rectification and what you're suggesting isn't it. What I think needs to be done is to look at the whole picture of what Fa-Rectification means, what Mr. Li has said about it, and then shrink that into a couple sentences. Your paraphragaph does not attempt to do this. The Fa-Rectification is not happening because human beings are corrupt, nor is it happening because Gods are not looking after human beings. These are telling of man's deviation, a deviation that has happened at the lowest level of the universe, but Fa-Rectification involves the entire universe. There are a lot of aspects of Fa-Rectification that are equally or more important than what your suggesting and if we were to include all of them the paragraph would be even longer. Your paragraph is already too long as it is. The weight of the paragraph needs to balanced with that of the other paragraphs in the intro. Our summary of Falun Dafa's core teachings and the persecution, are both quite concise, so this should likewise be concise. Doing otherwise would through off the balance (we were originally only suggesting a sentence or part of a sentence within the summary of the teachings). I feel that it's significance when weighed against the other aspects of the intro is not that big. I stand by my suggestion as the most focused, accurate, clearcut, and appropriately weighted of all of the suggestions up to now. Mcconn 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the article

Tony Sidaway thanks for the reminder. We should get back to the article. However I must say that the discussion we had in the last three days were all about the article. As you can see the article is blocked, our communication were aiming to solve the conflict between Falun Gong practitioners and critics.

I hope you guys don’t mind that I am moving things around. Any ideas about what to do next? --Samuel Luo 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WAIT A MIN

Samuel's personal website STILL exists in the references section.=

If Samuel's site goes, here's a partial list of other links that must be deleted:

Falun Dafa Information Center
The Epoch Times
Global Coalition to Bring Jiang Jamin to Justice
Friends of Falun Gong
Barend ter Haar's FG Evalution site

Dilip, stop changing the subject. Be a team player and help finish the first goal of writing about Falun Gong salvation and Fa-rectification. --Tomananda 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no comparing a personal website ith primary reerence. Covenant, kindly look into issue and take appropriate action. Dilip(220.226.27.254 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

All of the above, with exception of The Epoch Times, are personal or private interest websites. The Epoch Times has to be eliminated because it is not a legitmate newspaper, but rather was founded by Dafa disciples for the purpose of validating Li Hongzhi's teachings. That's what Li himself says about his newspaper and other media outlets. So the Epoch Times link has to go as well, if in fact you continue to push your agenda of removing Samuel's website. --Tomananda 17:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the Falun Dafa sites may private, since they are important Falun Dafa sites run by practitioners, they count as primary sources in the appropriate context. It's similar to how Noam Chomsky's personal website (if he had one) would be a primary source in an article about him. I think you know this. They are very different from a personal website of a massage-therapist/self-proclaimed critic. Mcconn 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn is any wiki policy being broken here? I suggest you and other practitioners who can not tolerate my website to read this discussion [59] --Samuel Luo 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section on main page needs to be shortened

We need to work on an into summarizing the criticism section. This cannot be postponed any longer.

Shortened? Why do we need to shorten what already is a very short summary of critical articles? Is it because you want to do everything in your power as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disiple" to whitewash the Falun Gong in Wikipedia? There is no editorial need to "shorten" this section. We did, however, agree to re-write it to function more like a true summary of the Criticism page, but that little project got sidetracked as you know. And by the way, there are way too many separate daughter pages for different aspects of the Falun Gong which Dilip created without any discussion among the editors. --Tomananda 20:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The order of the sub-titles need to be decided upon

The order needs to be changed? We haven't even completed the introduction section! This is yet another diversionary tactic from a Falun Gong practitioner whose very salvation depends on working towards the destruction of the CCP, which means censoring any and all material about the Falun Gong which does not fit nicely with its neatly packaged media image. Oh Glory Days! We are finally seeing the triumph of media manipulation over truth, all in the name of "Truthfullness, Compassion and Forebearance" The Dafa is judging all beings and we who do not fit the Dafa's media image shall be weeded out. Li says anyone who doesn't think the Dafa is good will be weeded out first, along with everyone who is a member or supporter of the CCP. That's a fact. What is less clear is whether all those don't-meet-the-standard-of-being-human homosexuals in the world will be weeded out now, or will we benefit from Li's divine forgiveness? And the big lie continues... --Tomananda 20:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please put up another page

All of these competing threads are pretty useless. The pro & anti FLG people will never let you get anywhere. It's like reading War & Peace to drudge through all of this. I suggest a cooling off period followed by a paragraph by paragraph page.

Cj cawley 03:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Tomananda is very very hostile and irrational because he uses personal attacks and accusations almost all the time, which is so sad. Omido 12:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your post itself is a personal attack. My only complaint is that you refuse to report clearly lthat:

  • The Dafa is judging all beings
  • Li Hongzhi and the Dafa are the only source of salvation now
  • The cosmos is experiencing something called Fa-rectification in which evil beings will be eliminated (or weeded out)
  • The first people who will be eliminated are those who don't think the Dafa is good and members or supporters of the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party. It is debatable what other categories, such as homosexuals, will be eliminated (see the daughter page)

Omido, I am very open on how we say these things and, in fact, have provided multiple ways to do it using a variety of different Li Hongzhi quotes. Even though I am a homosexual, I am willing to leave out that last sentence about "other categories" such as homosexuals possibily being eliminated in the Fa-rectification. The problem is not my hostility, it's your refusal to allow an honest reporting of Falun Gong teachings in the introduction.

As you know, your own role as a "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple" is to help save all sentient beings (yes, Li has said that and you know it). How can you save anyone if you are not willing to speak the truth about the teachings? Yes, I know you will say: Ah, but all we need to do now is to talk about the persecution in China. But to what end? The end is to eliminate the CCP and save people during this period of Fa-rectification. And the only way to save people now is by teaching the Dafa. So ironically, I am doing what you cannot do. You may once again put up a false argument, such as "you are quoting Li out of context" or "we are willing to write a whole page about this stuff, but it is not important enough to be mentioned in the introduction" but, really, that is just so much bull. It's not hostility I feel, but rather enormous frustration. --Tomananda 16:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, The problem is that whenever i read what you write i personally think i dont feel that it is the real meaning of his teachings and i also do not believe i am hiding its true meaning because if i dont i "wont reach consummation" or something like that. It is true that the Dafa is judging all beings, but its not Falun Gong ( Or Falun Dafa) who is doing it. i believe that there is a great law in the universe (Dafa) which judges these situations, for example, how do you know what is good and bad? i believe this is established by the Dafa. So it is very delicate to say "Dafa is judging all beings" just like that without providing a proper background of what Dafa really means and how Dafa is not Falun Gong or Falun Dafa, because people might think Falun Gong is just judging everyone and its not true. When you say Li Hongzhi and the Dafa are the only source of salvation, then its confusing because falun gong or falun dafa is not the Dafa. As a practitioner i believe it is the only source of salvation open to the public, other true ways of cultivation are not made public so i see it as a good oportunity to be a good person and cultivate using this system, im not hoping to be saved and so on, besides, in falun gong terms that would be an attatchment and its against Falun Gong's principles. i just think practitioners want to improve themselves and be better people every day. Im sorry but i must say i dont agree with this "The first people who will be eliminated are those who don't think the Dafa is good and members or supporters of the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party." You dont agree with Falun Gong but that doesnt mean you are a bad person. The fact that you strongly oppose falun gong doesnt make you an "evil being" or something. The fact that you are a supporter of the communist party doesnt make you evil or bad either. Being truly a good person doesnt depend if you believe in Falun Gong or not, or if you are from the communist party or anything, it just depends on if you are really a good person, thats all. If you are a cultivator then i think we believe there are certain requirements set by the Dafa but if you are a good person and you want to cultivate, these problems will solve themselves. The way i see it, Falun Gong is not against homosexuals or will "eliminate them" the fact that someone is homosexual does not mean this person is not good or that this person is evil, i believe we just think homosexuality is not right as a behaviour because man was made for the woman and woman for the man in order for the species to survive. If you take it to a macroscale then if everyone was homosexual how would humanity survive?. Thats it, i dont have anything at all against homosexuals, i have had homosexual friends who are great people and i consider them even WAY much better than a lot of other heterosexual people i have met.

Lastly, i think Omido's post was not appropriate, you are accussing Tomananda of being irrational and hostile but i think you should understand you are being hostile and irrational yourself when you posted that message. Why? because you know saying those things about Tomananda is going to create a non favorable reaction which will originate a fight. If you think he is irritable and irrational why do you publicly post it for everyone to read? if you really think he is irritable then you know posting it just like that will irritate him. I think you have also made your own mistakes too and the fact that you are a practitioner does not mean you have the right to openly criticize other people as well. In fact, i think Tomananda reacted very well to your post and was tolerant enough not to fight back but instead chose to expose his point of view on the matter without irrespecting you. Im sorry if you believe im being harsh but i have repeatedly seen this behaviour on the talk page and i think it should stop in order to be able to work efficiently. Im not in favor of anyone in this discussion, im a practitioner and i know i have made mistakes too just like anyone else but if we dont change our attitude then we will not be able to finish this article.--Andres18 00:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Falun Dafa or Falun Gong is judging all beings; I said, correctly, the Dafa. And if it were used in an edit we would say "the Dafa (great law)is judging all people." That is a very simple statement and it corresponds precisely to what Li has said. Your comments really don't address the issue at hand: we need to have a paragraph which summarizes these teachings. Why don't you propose that language, providing it covers the key concepts I outlined above I will be happy. Let's stop with the distractions and get to work. And by the way, some of what you say is contradicted by Master Li, and in that case we must use his words to represent the teachings, not yours. He says people who do not think the Dafa is good will be the first weeded out. Let me assure you, I think the Dafa is very "bad"...I use the word "bad" but I don't think in those terms, while Li clearly does. I find it amusing that a spritual leader would be so conerned about what people think or say about something that is supposed to be "a great law." Does it matter whether I think the law of gravity is "good" or "bad"? Anyway, all I want is for the basic teachings to be summarized in the introduction and I will not yield. Here's the Li quote:
  • Let me tell you, when this Fa-rectification matter is over, humankind will enter the next stage, and those people and beings who in their minds think that the Great Fa of the cosmos isn’t good will be the first weeded out. It’s because no matter how bad some being in the cosmos are, they are even worse, for what they’re against is the Fa of the cosmos. So when we clarify the truth, we’re eliminating people’s evil thoughts towards Dafa. Teaching the Fa at the Great Lakes Fa conference in North America (December 9, 2000 in Ann Arbor), p.1. --Tomananda 03:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: Concerning your comments on homosexuals, you are misrepresenting my argument and then defending against that misrepresentation. I believe that is one of the classic techniques used by apolologists. I never said "Falun Gong" will eliminate homosexuals. Li is very clear that homosexuals will be eliminated because of their bad karma in a slow and painful way. He is very clear that he doesn't think of homosexualality as meeting the standard of humans, that we have dark hearts turning demonic, etc. These are Li's words. Frankly, unless and until you are willing to refute your master's teachings on homosexuality (which are accurately summarized in the Criticism page)I am not interested in whether you think you have homosexual friends or not. The issue is, and always has been, what Li teaches. Please put your money where your mouth is and say, on this board, that you disagree with Li's teachings on homosexuality. Say it simply without equivocation and now. --Tomananda 03:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What Li meant with that quote was that people who are against the dafa or who dont agree with it are bad, its true, if you think being truthfull, benevolent and tolerant is something bad then how can you be good?. You said to stop the distractions? fine, you stop too, posting all these other useless topics isnt helping, im just limiting myself to replying at them and you say im creating a distraction, please... About your argument on homosexuals, im just speaking what i have learned from falun gong, again, what you think it says is not the meaning of it, you just read with the intention to criticize, if you tried to be objective things would be different. My personal comment was added just to try and demonstrate my point, if this is how you decided to answer at my comments, then i can say im not interested in wether you are a homosexual or not. I dont think using expressions like "put your money where your mouth is" are necessary in these posts, what you think about his teachings is not what is true in reality --Andres18 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your above post is much more honest than the one you did previously! I think the Dafa is a bunch of platitudes which Li borrowed from popular Chinese culture in order to launch his career as the biggest and best Qigong master in China. I know the Dafa is bad, because Li uses it to manipulate people and part of that manipulatation leads to dishonesty and intolerance. The point, Andres, is not that I think "truthfulnness, benevolence and tolerance" are "bad" but rather using those words to deceive the public and manipulate practitioners is bad. It's rather analagous to the use of the word "democracy" by President Bush to justify non-democratic actions in foreign lands. Bush says he spreads "democracy" in Iraq and then we all see the results. Li says he teaches "truthfullness, benevolence and forebearance" and then if we look hard enough at how the Falun Gong really conducts itself--do its actions really embody "truthfulness, benevolenance and forebearance"?--then we also see the results. I invite any casual observer to read through these discussions and ask yourself: have the Falun Gong practitioners really been honest about their core beliefs? And if they haven't been honest, the question to ask is: What can account for this strange behavior? Would a Christian be reluctant to declare that "Jesus saves"?
As to your feelings about homosexuals, you obviously are not prepared to refute any of Li Hongzhi's outrageously homophobic words and therefore I cannot take your statement about having a homosexual friend seriously. You have appararently chosen to believe every last word that Li Hongzhi says, without critical judgment, because he is your god, savior or Buddha (I don't care what particular word works for you). If you were a Catholic, you could disagree with the Pope in Rome and still count on being saved by Jesus. But since Li assumes the role of god (again choose any other word that works for you) no practitioner can disagree with him and still hope to be saved by his Dafa. If that were the extent of your position as a practitioner, I could accept it. But what I cannot accept is your refusal to come out of the closet with your core beliefs. More than anything else, it's the sneaky dishonesty of Falun Gong practitioners which makes me not respect, or trust anything else you say. As I said before, you guys have a big credibility problem and so far none of that has changed as result of these discussions.--Tomananda 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tomananda, perhaps i just have a different way of seeing his teachings. I think he is a very elevated person but honestly i dont see him as my personal god or something, actually, i see him the way i would see the dalai lama or something. Im not doing all this for fear of being "saved" or not, in fact i dont really care about being saved, i think most practitioners think this way (meaning they dont care about being saved or something) and i think they just want to be better people. I believe the higher level teachings sometimes require some personal experiences from practitioners in order to be understood much better, sometimes you see a few things or have some other kind of experiences that make you have more trust in the cultivation. Now maybe i think i understand much better your point of view, when you say you believe the Dafa is "bad" its not because of its principles but because you think its a political tool for manipulating people into hurting the Chinese government. For now we believe there is a persecution going on and we think it should stop, thats all. But me being a practitioner and all, i can say if Li said right now to do something against the Chinese government like overthrowing it or taking any kind of violent action or a mass protest in order to force the fall of the Chinese comunist party, i would not do it. I personally believe we are not hurting anyone with just communicating that there is a persecution going on against the practitioners in China. As you can see, even though its important to follow these principles of Truthfullness Benevolence Forbearance, people can make mistakes too, the fact that we have this principles as a good guide for life doesnt mean we are perfect and cannot make mistakes. If you think the Dafa is "bad" in the way you think it is then i wouldnt say you are actually against the Dafa so i do not think you can be considered a bad person in Falun Gong terms. You just have a different point of view on the matter and you are completely entitled to it. Omido, im sorry if i got you wrong but i think if you meant what you are talking about right now you should have said it in a different way, also, i dont think its proper to say "to give him a chance to change his behaviour and be easier to get along with." As you know, i guess if you put yourself in his place for a second, youll notice he also thinks you are not easy to get along with, im sure you can notice he gets frustrated sometimes just as you do too. Im sorry but as a practitioner i cannot suppose you did not intend to attack him with your post, i looked at it objectively and i dont think it was proper, im not saying they havent made mistakes on their side, i just think it wasnt correct. I dont think you are making anything up, im just saying that your previous post is not the most adequate way to approach this issue if thats how you feel. Im having serious personal problems which i have to attend to, this is why i cannot make such a long post and perhaps i wont be around all the time right now. Since there are all these topics coming on and on i think it would be a good idea to have a central thread and side topics to discuss but people should focus more on the central thread (the introduction paragraph) than in the other topics--Andres18 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment toward Tomananda was not to accuse him or attack him, but to express how difficult it is to work with him and to give him a chance to change his behaviour and be easier to get along with. You Andres as a practitioner should know that my intent was not to attack him, but to tell him to be less hostile and more cooperative. To be honest, I see many of Tomananda's comments as personal attacks and accusations, so it's not just something I'm making up. Omido

Also Tomananda, your attempts to make practitioners to change their way of thinking about Dafa and accept your notions about Dafa is something that will never happen. Practitioners are rock-solid in their beliefs in Falun Gong, because they know Falun Gong is true and that Master Li is a good person. Omido 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Master Li is a good person? Is that a correct and complete statement of how you think about Master Li? If you think Master Li is just a good "person" then I assume you do not believe him to be infallible, divine or all powerful, since no "person" I know of can seriously claim those traits. So please clarify: is Master Li just a good person in your mind, or is there something more about Master Li's status, and your relationship to him, you feel comfortable reporting here? --Tomananda 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the disscussion on this article for a while and I think that in general people are taking this all too personally. On one hand, pro-FLG see direct criticisms on FLG as "incorrect interpretations" or character attacks on themselves and L.H. Zhi, criticizers of FLG themselves are a bit too zealous in imposing their viewpoints, and maybe overly pointed in their criticizms. Tomananda, I sense your intense frustration, but beating people over their heads with facts (no matter how good they are), and treating them as "being blinded" will not help in coming to a consensus. As for pro-FLG editors, remember that an encyclopedia should report facts, and do so in as plain and as uncoloured a way possible. The job of editors is to state facts without tailoring or interpreting them for the reader. I believe that this article has a lot to offer to people in understanding FLG and I really hate to see it being stuck in the mud and going no where. --Sjschen 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Worthy sentiments, and sentiments that have been expressed several times in the archives of this talk page. There is a level of frustration on both sides that is high, but I predict good old Wikipedia policy is eventually going to win out over fuzzy, clamorous Wikiality. I can't speak for Tomananda, but it is frustrating for me to debate with people who won't acknowledge the largely evidence-based opinions of others that FLG and Li say many things about themselves, their teachings and their motives yet often seem to act otherwise. These statements and actions are demonstrably in the public domain, so they will be in the article eventually, due to the weight of Wikipedia policy on notability and verifiable sources. Apologetics in aid of advertising is pretty easy to revert, even if I am the only one doing so it will be well documented and in accord with policy. We have had a good mediator, and if he is tired of all of this and doesn't want to do it anymore, I will thank him and request another. Failing that, it will be time for arbitration, sooner rather than later I'll say. The decisions (if any) by the Arbcom will then be enforcable by myself and other admins. --Fire Star 火星 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I view Teacher Li as my Teacher. He teaches me the Fa. I feel this Fa he is teaching me is very good, so I think he himself is very good. If I personally see him as a "Buddha" or not, then that opinion can not and will not represent Falun Gong, because Master Li has told everybody to treat him as an ordinary human being. The truth is, I don't see Teacher Li as a God, how can I see him as a God when he has never said that he is a God? He has never said who he is, he just said that he is an ordinary man that teaches people how to cultivate and be better persons. So I just see him as someone that teaches people how to cultivate the Dao. He teach me how to cultivate, so he is my Teacher, and anything else is your POV. Omido 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Li has said he is an ordinary man to the Western media, but he has told his followers he has many supernatural powers including:

  • He has fashen (law bodies) which surround practitioners bodies and know what they are thinking
  • He has traveled to Jesus' paradise and found there are no oriental people there
  • He will cure the illnesses of his practitioners directly
  • He is preventing the explosion of the universe
  • He protects his practitioners from harm
  • He will teach the gods his Dafa

Do you believe that each one of those claims is true? --Tomananda 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Covenant, whenever you see this, how about deleting this seemingly useless thread and helping us focus on the task at hand, ie. the Fa-Rectification content of the intro. In the past I wouldn't have considered the above discussion useless, but now having seen it so many times and never gone anwhere, I just don't think it's worth any of our time. When any of the issues discussed above become relevant to the article, then we can discuss them, but right now it's just a waste of time. Let's work together on the Fa-Rectification content and get this article unlocked. Mcconn 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Mcconn, we will not delete this discussion and our task at this point is to write about both the exclusive salvation offered by Li and the Fa-rectification. You seek to conceal not only the truth of Falun Gong on the main page, but on the discussion page as well. That is not acceptable.--Tomananda 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleting observations made with a direct bearing on how a group of editors debates with those who disagree with them? There is absolutely no precedent for that that I know of in Wikipedia history and the suggestion makes it look like Mcconn is trying to avoid the issue of having to acknowledge the opinions of editors who disagree with Li Hongzhi. --Fire Star 火星 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came off that way, it wasn't my intention. I was just suggesting a way to get our discussion back on track. You're right that it was a bad suggestion though. Deletion was a stupid idea. Here's another idea - move the discussion on our Fa-Rectification content suggestions to the bottom of the page. That would probably achieve the goal of my suggestion without any deletion. Mcconn 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the explanation. For getting us back on track, please see my latest suggestion at the bottom of the page. --Fire Star 火星 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he have said that he has fashen's. No he did not say that he have been to Jesus' paradise, he said that there are no oriental people there, but he did not say he has been there. He will not cure illnesses, he will purify the bodies of genuine cultivators. He did not say he is preventing the explosion of the universe, that is only your notion that is controlling you. Protects his practitioners from harm? He is rearranging the life of practitioners so that they can cultivate. He said that all levels are listening to this Dafa. Omido 16:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A Few of Li's Claims: Do Practitioners Believe Them to Be True?

Omido, here are the quotes:

No oriental people in Jesus’ paradise

“I have also found no oriental people in Jesus’ paradise. It is very sad!....I have also found no white people in Buddha’s paradise in the past.” Falun Dafa Lecture in Sydney Australia (1996)

You are correct, Li did not say preciseley that he visited Jesus' paradise, just that he "found" no orientals there. When one claims to have found something at a place, one is assumed to have visited that place either in one's corporeal form, or psychically. The question remains: do you believe this claim?

Li cures illness directly:

“Your illnesses will be cured directly by me. Those who practice at the exercise sites will have my Fashen (law bodies) to cure their illnesses.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.126

“The true cultivator has no disease, which my Law body has eradicated, and all that should be done will be done and there is nothing of acupoint massage. . . . It is no problem if you are a doctor because it is your job in ordinary people.” The Law Explication for Falun Dafa’s Assistants of Changchun, (September 18, 1994), p.11.

You are incorrect, Li clearly does say he cures illnesses directly and also that true cultivators will not have disease because his law body will eradicate their disease. The question remains: do you believe this claim?

Li is preventing the explosion of the universe:

“Today's scientists, too, have discovered the situation in which great changes are taking place in the cosmos. They've discovered that the scope of the universe they can currently see is expanding faster and faster, and the speed of the expansion keeps accelerating. I didn't want to talk about this before--I only taught principles of the Fa. Let's think about it: what does this expansion mean? Something only expands before it explodes; it expands and expands, and when it reaches a certain point it suddenly bursts. So everything is in its final stage. A lot of beings are watching all this with anxiety. As for the old forces, they, with their requirements in mind, are also anxious. Of course, the beings in the new cosmos are also eagerly longing for the conclusion of all this. The immense force of the whole Fa-rectification is doing its final work at an even more forceful speed, which transcends all times. Now it's only a little bit away from catching up with the speed of the surface's expansion. Of course, the speed of the expansion seems to be slow in terms of human time, but it's in fact very fast. I am doing things very fast, too. I've told you before that however much is done up there, that much can be broken through at lower levels. Although the universe is expanding, I'm doing things at an extremely fast speed, and I can definitely catch up with it. If I don't catch up with it, I can tell you, the final disintegration would make everything in the surface dimension cease to exist. If I do catch up with it, it's resolved. Not only will I catch up with it, but I will also surpass it, and that's when the Fa rectifies the human world.” Teaching the Fa at the 2002 Fa Conference in Boston (April 27, 2002)

You are wrong, Li clearly claims he is keeping up with the exploding universe and therefore preventing its final disintergration. The question is: do you believe this claim?

Li protects his practitioners from harm:

“If you are a genuine practitioner, our Falun will safeguard you. I am rooted in the universe. If anyone could harm you, he would be able to harm me. To make it plainly, he would be able to harm this universe.” Zhuan Falun, 2nd edition, p.44

“I have adjusted your bodies and installed ‘Falun’ (a law wheel installed by the master in the lower abdomen of practitioners) . . . and my Fashen (law body) also protects you. “ Falun Gong, revised edition, p.50

You are again wrong. Li has often spoken about how he (or his fashen) protect practitioners from harm.

Omido, rather denying that Li has made these claims, I request that you provide a simple answer to my question: do you not believe any of these claims? Or if you do believe all of these claims, do you really think Li is nothing more than a person who is a good teacher? This is not a trick question and I am not saying you do not have a right to believe these things. But as long as you deny that you believe these things, I will distrust everything you say. Once again, I am deeply concerned about your credibility. Rather than engaging in evasive answers, or denials of the accuracy of my reporting of Li's teachings, why not speak the truth? --Tomananda 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, I believe in everything Teacher Li has taught, all those things you are quoting, I do believe in them. But to be honest, I do not feel that you have understood things very well, that is why I do not agree with you. I believe in everything Teacher Li has said, but I believe in nothing that you say. That is the difference. Omido 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you believe in everything Li has said, then surely you don't believe that Li is just an ordinary person. An ordinary person cannot do the things he claims to do in the above list, right?
The question remains: when Li contradicts himself, how do you decide what is true? For example, Li has said he is just an ordinary person to the Western media, but he has also made many claims of supernatural powers which simply cannot be held by an ordinary person. So the problem here is not my interprettation of things (it doesn't matter what I think about Li) but rather your interpretation.
There's no reason why you can't think for yourself and have your own interpretation on these questions, is there? In an earlier post you said "how can I consider Li to be a god since he has never said he is a god?"...my answer to that is simple: unless you are truly brainwashed...which means you have lost your ability to think independently from Li...you can easily say: "Even though Li has not said he is a god, I think of him as a kind of god or Buddha" (or whatever word works for you.) Before you became a FG practioner, didn't you make statements like that all the time?--Tomananda 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Request formal mediation

It doesn't look like CovenantD is coming back. Should we request formal mediation? --Kent8888 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has only been a few days. People sometimes disappear for days at a time, especially if the weather is nice where they live. I'd give him until next Monday. --Fire Star 火星 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The next mediator needs a hammer & anvil. These conversations have all been going in circles. That's what happens with the FLG people - bait & switch. Cj cawley 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese government mass organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners

Is China harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners?

Articles:

--HResearcher 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

China is organ harvesting according the the chinese and english epoch times.

60.225.199.123 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong mass brain harvesting of Communist cadres!!!
See for reference *insert dodgy self-made site*
Just kidding. --Sumple (Talk) 10:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the sources suggesting that this happening are dodgy? Mcconn 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. All of them appear to derive from the same few unreliable sources (the Epoch Times, a FLG mouthpiece). The fact that a story is repeated several times does not make it true, except to Stalin ("A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth").
I doubt the veracity of this story because it is way too sensationalistic. Without some neutral and reliable source, it seems like concoction (e.g. for immigration purposes). --Sumple (Talk) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong practitioners, stop telling your lies!!!

The organ harvesting allegation is a Falun Gong lie.

On April 13, 2006, an official from the hospital gave the following statement: “the hospital is lacking the required facilities to conduct organ transplants and has no basement to house the Falun Gong practitioners.” Le Tian, Falun Gong lies slammed by hospital China Daily, April 13, 2006.

According to a document from Ministry of Health of Malaysia, this hospital—Liaoning Thrombus Medical Treatment Center—is partly owned by a Malaysian company, Country Heights Health Sanctuary. [60]


The US government did investigate and the Chinese government cooperated. Officers and staff from the U.S. embassy in Beijing and the U.S. consulate in Shenyang city have visited the area and the specific site on two separate occasions. According to the State department report, “In these visits the officers were allowed to tour the entire facility and grounds and found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.” US State Department, U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alleged Concentration Camp in China 16 April 2006

More articles expressing doubts about the Falun Gong allegation.

Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation doubts FLG's claim: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0606/07chinese

HK newspaper Takunpao's investigation discredits FLGs claim: http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/03/31/ZM-545907.htm

A reporter's first hand experience with Falun Gong media outlet, Epoch Times: http://holidarity.blogspot.com/2006/04/organ-harvesting-controversy.html

Samuel makes a good point in his article:

Does the group really believe that six thousand of its members were murdered in Sujiatun? The answer is no. The Falun Gong has kept a record of practitioners who allegedly died due to abuses; their personal information and the causes of their death have been disclosed in a section on the group’s official clearwisdom.net. As of June 3, 2006 the death toll was numbered at 2,898, and none of them were killed in the so-call Sujiatun concentration camp.8 In other words the victims of this crime do not exist! Despite the much so-call evidence and condemnations posted on Falun Gong websites, there is no attempt to account for these six thousand victims—a natural response if the group really believed such a crime has taken place. [61]

Many in the Chinese community here believe the Falun Gong is supported by the Taiwanese government. --Mr.He 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been released a 45 page independent investigation (not by FLG people) which states that the organ harvesting are really happening. Omido 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok boys. First of all, the first source of the organ harvesting allegations did not come from a practitioner or anyone who had anything to do with Falun Gong, it was the ex-wife of a sergan. If you don't think that the source is credible, then read the investigation done by David Matas and David Kilgor to find out why she is. You don't believe Epoch Times or practitioners? Fine. But at this point the weight on these allegations come from the report done by the two affirmentioned Canadians, not practitioners themselves. These are high profile individuals with very good reputations. If I were you I would read up on them and read their investigation report before you go any further with denouncing their claims. After conducting an independent investigation they firmly believe that this organ harvesting is happening and on a large scale. You can currently access their report at this site: http://www.come4u.info/ . I think this is a temporary site until they can get a better domain name.
Also take a look at Kilgor and Matas' response to an article in the Embassy Newspaper here
Samual's argument is poor. The death toll listed on clearwisdom is not the number of practitioners we believe to have died from the persecution. Instead, it is the number of deaths verified through eyewitness accounts. Practitioners have always said that the true number is likely much higher. Plus, there is a huge number of practitioners that have simply gone missing in China.
It took the Chinese government weeks to respond to the allegations of organ harvesting. After a number of weeks they released a statement denying the claims and invited a US delegation to investigate. This was more than enough time to cover up anything they had to hide (and you know they would certainly do this if the allegations were true). This delegation was then given a show tour of the facility.
Overall, I find some people's fervant dismissal and denial of something as serious as this, something with so much now supporting it, really appaling. Olaf already commented on how some people's hatred for Falun Gong has spilled over into support for the Chinese government. You may deny this, but your actions show otherwise. Mcconn 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As for Mr.He's assertion that Falun Gong is backed by the Taiwanese government, what fact is this based on? It sounds completely ridiculous. "Anti-Chinese forces" working together, right? Give me a break. Mcconn 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes and discussion for them

Okay, I have been procrastinating but got some time now. I realised that for many diffs, there is no more immediate explanation than what's in the edit summary. But what's disputed further, we can discuss. I number and link there here anyway, so it's clear what's going on. Again, I request that each edit be dealt with separately, and that responses not be ad-hominem, but actually dealing with the straightforward question of wikipedia policy and sources. You can see how to easily set up the numbering system, or use your own way. Is this the best way of keeping track of the discussion? Anyway, we can try it like this. Would it be more helpful if I copied and pasted the edit summaries right here, so we can see? At the moment I just have two browsers on each side of the screen and can refer to them back and forth easily, but if the paper trail needs to be clearer, I am happy to oblige.

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65] -- This needs a source or it's simply a random snippet that someone put in cause they thought it sounded good. Do I misunderstand something? It's like putting in any random comment or statement, right? Doesn't make sense.
  5. [66] -- I could be missing something here. Like in all the cases, happy for an explanation if I misunderstand something. But I didn't believe the CCP was a reliable source? Maybe it could be handled with context, or something? In this case, it's not clear how their view is relevant to the discussion, though, since they are not RS, and the CCP's view on Falun Gong is most relevant in the section about their view? Am I wrong?
  6. [67]
  7. [68] -- this is actually a more complex issue. It's basically a question of how the cult label debate should be treated in the article. I don't think major revision is necessary to the current version. But I think there are two key points that are both verifiable through sources and important for the page to reflect. 1) the origin of the term. 2) the "uptake" or response the term has received among journalists and scholars--i.e., how it's most often talked about and contextualised. More on that later. In short, I believe this should be in the section that explains the CCP's propaganda campaign against Falun Gong. But it's not enough to simply assert that. The point is to show that such an argument actually has strong textual support. Wikipedia has to conform to what the sources say, so the placement of this material should reflect the best sources.
  8. [69]
  9. [70]
  10. [71]
  11. [72]
  12. [73]
  13. [74]
  14. [75]
  15. [76]
  16. [77]
  17. [78]

--Asdfg12345 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes have been reverted multiple times, and no one has made any attempt to respond to the edit summaries or the info above. I also wrote above whether it would help if I ported the edit summaries here, but no response... This is now kinda entering the realm of fantasy. But I just watched the last half of that star trek prequel, so I'm feeling pretty optimistic. It's hope that makes me so assiduous. I'm just going to restore the information that I added to the article. I will also list the other problems that currently exist, as I perceive them. These are all in various states of non-discussion. As in, the problem is brought up, someone makes a dismissive remark, abandons dialogue, and nothing further. Then, apparently, it's "no consensus" so no one can edit. anyway. I have taken note of how to make good edits, so I hope things are even more transparent. --Asdfg12345 13:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a lot of material to the article. I didn't change much of what was already there. Apparently that's a no-no. And I tried to check the diffs to see that they were all very clear. All these edits in the midst of so much turmoil, it seems pretty contentious. I know. I will explain briefly. I don't think it's right that I be intimidated from editing the pages because people are revert happy, because they call me names, say I'm a pro-Falun Gong POV-pusher, and whatever else. The pages just need improvement. I'm not going to not do that because of irrational arguments levelled at me. This isnt' meant to be provocative. I just do not want to get caught up in all this drama. I only added information, impeccably sourced, and often quite relevant. Most of the time it balanced an existing POV, or added some (what I would consider) background or context. I will be interested to see whether someone dares revert them all. I was careful to not actually modify the existing structure or content, so as not to invite that sort of thing. So I basically just added stuff. I welcome others to build on it, work with it, and play with it constructively. If you revert it all and call me names, I'll be sad. Unfortunately though, I won't be surprised. But it will be a great example of the collapse of the editing environment around here if it happens. I think the edits stand on their own, and I think they fit the context of the article. I suggest you read through them before deleting them. Judge whether they are good or useful changes or not. Don't tell me that I have to get a consensus on each point before I can add information. That's not true. This is a dynamic, work in progress, right? As I say, my changes are simply adding information. First read, think, and consider: is it a net benefit to the page, to the encyclopedia? We can change and discuss, change and discuss. I hope I'm not acting out of line, but I've been considering the events of the last few days, and I think it would be wrong to just give up on improving the pages because I've been met with hostility. Live long and prosper.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked this diff and unfortunately it's not as clean cut as I tried to make it. I apologise if that is annoying to anyone. I don't think it will be hard to recognise that nothing much of the existing content has actually been changed, though. Only the minimum necessary to add more information. The real changes are additions. Over and out.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Li, Hongzhi (Draft Translation Edition Feb. 2003, North America) One Standard Alone Determines if Someone is Good or Bad: Whether He is Able to be True, Good, and Endure from Zhuan Falun-The First Talk, Falundafa.org, retrieved July 5, 2006
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference DaYuanManFa_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_13&oldid=1136718915"