Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 20

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

Mediation update

The Mediation Committee is currently discussing whether or not it is possible for mediation of Falun Gong articles to continue. We appreciate your patience and any input you have to offer here. For the Mediation Committee, Martinp23 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for editing restriction on the Falun Gong page

I know that in the past, maybe about 6 months ago or so, the Falun Gong mainpage (and perhaps the subpages as well) had an editing restriction. I don't remember the details of it, but I believe it was that a user had to have been registered for at least a week before being able to edit the article. With a number of unregistered users having come and made very POV edits recently, which admins have had to revert, I think adding this restriction again would bring some order. I also find it interesting that all of these unregistered users have come all at once and so soon after Tom and Sam were banned. Interesting. Mcconn 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

correction - most of the users that have been editing have been newly registered users with extremely limited or no edit history, and without a user page. In light of this, does anyone have any ideas about something that can be done? Mcconn 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading some of the archives I support this, will make them have to at least register beforehand opening them up for checkuser. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is absolutely necessary that newly registered users won't be able to edit this article. What are editors like User:Gtyh, User:Fufg, User:Devilmaycryfan and User:IamYueyuen doing here?! These articles are under attack by anonymous vandals who only seek to preserve Samuel's legacy. In fact, I believe this whole thing is orchestrated by someone. Will some administrator put these articles under semi-protection? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
A-ha! So it was confirmed! Kent888 was a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo! [1] Evidently that wretched malefactor stops at nothing. I bet that quite a few of these new editors can be traced back to San Francisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Olaf, this can never justify you editing other users' pages. Editing Samuel's main user page, after he was banned indefinitely, shows you to be just as intolerant as before of anything critical of Falun Gong. Please cite a Wiki rule that bans personal pages being posted on one's own user page. There is pushing the limits, and clearly stepping over the line. This latest action of yours clearly falls into the latter. This action alone makes a total mockery of all the 'objectivity' you preached about before and adherence to Wiki rules!!! (After all, remember how you condemned users editing pro-FG user pages' links???) Jsw663 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Samuel is a Wikipedia criminal and no longer a legitimate user. I'm sorry, but I still haven't seen you condemn what he's done to us and these articles. And I'm still waiting for that apology for confusing us with NuclearBunnies and his vandal buddies. I'm not going to touch Samuel's page anymore, but his website won't be included in the article, either.
Seriously speaking, I don't want to fight with you, Jsw663. Let's just focus on improving these pages. You came across as quite reasonable by not trying to singlehandedly revert my edits today. I think we should basically sweep the table clear and move on. Let me just give you a small advice: if you want to appear more neutral and balanced, you ought to honestly admit that Samuel and Tomananda deserved their ban. The ArbCom is not that biased. Only one ArbCom member out of ten would have placed them on revert parole. Surely you understand what deep frustration I and many others experienced while these two crusaders bounced us around for over a year. In response to these actions, several pro-FLG editors made mistakes as well, of course. I'm not denying that. But the root cause was rightly identified by the ArbCom.
But again, thanks for your apparent cooperation (compared to many other editors); I still intend to make these articles featured, and cooperation is just what we need to achieve that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Just wanted to point this out: according to checkuser, Yueyuen and Samuel Luo share the same IP address. [2] I'm dumbfounded. This guy is really something. "Yueyuen" has been around for a year! See my post below. This is far more egregious than that. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that I saw on User:Blnguyen's talk page that you were already aware of these sockpuppets on May 12, why didn't you tell us anything, Jsw663? Imagine if pro-FLG editors had been resorting to long-term sockpuppetry? You'd be better off and earn more respect by honestly admitting that you are not neutral and balanced. It would be really hard to come across as anything but biased at this point. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not completely balanced either. You said it on your userpage that you believe in Falun Gong. And I am not Samuel Luo or any of his sockpuppets, although that wouldn't stop you from accusing me of it.70.225.174.146 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ban template

"At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice." - just looks funny when it's an indef ban. Maybe a new template without the remove-me line. Obscurans 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Fire Star 火星 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Changing the Title

I wish to point out that the term "suppression" used in the subtitle "suppression of Falun Gong" is hardly used in 3rd party literature. The UN, The amnesty International, HRW, papers from Rutgers, Harvard, New York University, U.S Congress resolution 188, The National Review, CNN all refer to it as "Persecution".

I wish to point out this article from New York University : http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/OldSiteBackup/SubmittedDocuments/Fall2005/graduate/non_referreed/Yang-Invited.htm

In my opinion the term "suppression" does not represent whats happening in China- which includes, according to reports by ex- Canadian MPs who investigated the issue ( http://organharvestinvestigation.net/ ) , harvesting of Organs from live practitioners, torture and killings.

I have not seen the term "suppression" being used to describe something of this sort in any literature on Falun Gong from a reputed source.

I also want to point out that, if I remember right, the article originally carried the title "Persecution of Falun Gong" which was later changed to "suppression" by some editors. Mainly, the editors recently banned. Attempts to fix this through discussion failed owing to constant reverts by these editors.

Dilip rajeev 07:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above are all Western (and human rights) sources who all have a jaundiced view of the Chinese government. The UN source relies almost entirely on (pro-)Falun Gong sources, which is suspicious in itself. Let's not try to twist neutrality into subjectivity! You are fully aware already about the debate that China's official position is that it never persecutes FGers, so suppression was a compromise. Persecution assumes what Falun Gongers say are completely true facts that are verifiable, but after examination of such documents the test fails. Also read my reply on how the Holocaust cannot be compared with FG situation, and how China's view with respect to Falun Gongers is similar to US' view on Marxist guerillas and extremist Muslim jihadists. Let's not carry personal political bias onto supposedly encyclopedic pages!!! Jsw663 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are 6 billion humans on this planet and what you said above was just your point of view. What matters is what reputable sources say. It may be normal in CCP to kill innocent people and extract organs from live people. And if you think HR organizations and western countries all have have a "jaundiced" view when they speak against such terrible crimes, it is just your POV.
There is absolutely no question of "compromises" here. If the international community and organizations of authority in the field like the Amnesty International sees it as a persecution we are obliged to use the term persecution in the articles. It is not what you think or I think that matters.
It is not what "FGers" (whatever that means) say that was quoted in the intro but words directly sourced from Amnesty International and other highly reputed sources. Do you think good natured people practicing Qi Gong exercises are making up some stories of a persecution? If you really think Falun Gong practitioners are not persecuted in China would you dare go to Beijing and declare aloud that you practice Falun Gong? Friend, I request you take a good look at your own mentality. Am not asking for lawyers' arguments but just asking you to be true to your own conscience.
Dilip rajeev 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I never denied the Amnesty International quote its place in the introduction, but it needs to be in the appropriate place. There is a place for 'other sources' and a place to be informative. Once again learn to control your bias. Jsw663 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that people practicing Falun Gong are making up some stories of a persecution to gain public sympathy and US support, because US are just dying to get some dirt on China. Read the sources where these reports are coming from. All the claims are based on 2nd hand reports from Falun Gong practitioners (2nd hand because their only possible defense is that all 1st hand witness are dead). How can you be so sure that those pro-Falun Gong sources are neutral and impartial? My friend, go to China and see what it is really like. Don't only read one-sided reports. 70.225.170.163 13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I've tried to restore some of what was discussed before to provide balance. Users like Dilip are tilting the balance so it is completely one-sided. Olaf's bias is also indicative in not restoring balance in the introduction. FG has taken up most of the rest of the article (i.e. besides the pre-intro), but the pre-intro should not set a particular tone already, and should only provide a brief overview of the situation. Note also I've tried to reorganize the sections so that each paragraph contains a bit of the pro-FG and a bit of the anti-FG side in roughly equal fashion. If you dispute this balance, please say why!!! Jsw663 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts as cited by reputed sources are what matters. If the facts turn out to be "pro-Falun Gong" we are obliged to present it so. It is not a matter of pro-anti POV balance.
Dilip rajeev 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against "balance", as long as all text is verifiable, well-sourced and attributed. If there are more reports that seem favourable to Falun Gong, it's just a reflection of the opinions held in the scientific and international community, and the article should reflect this relationship between majority and minority viewpoints. I don't think there are too many people who oppose the persecution simply because it's the CCP who carries it out; they are against the CCP because it persecutes Falun Gong practitioners and other dissidents. That's the cause and effect. The Chinese government can only blame itself for getting stuck in the muck. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For our purposes, it doesn't matter why a person is motivated to act the way they do. Only that there are secondary sources that say what they do. If you look at the language at our Tiananmen massacre article: "Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protestors and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press." That is a standard journalistic formula, reporting what happened drily and succinctly, without the added freight of an accusatory word like persecution. We can say that X and Y source call it persecution, but we shouldn't. In English, the academic passive voice is the convention for neutral presentation of an issue. An entire suite of editors not being satisfied with that voice is what got this article put on probation, if you'll recall. --Fire Star 火星 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right, Fire Star, and that's why I changed the word "persecution" in the introduction to "crackdown", as you may see. This term has been employed by all sides. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. I do recommend that our editors look at the way other Wikipedia articles, good articles, handle similar situations, like Tiananmen mentioned above. Besides having the nice side effect of consistency within the project, they may save us a lot of discussion time by acting as practical templates for these articles if they are agreeable. --Fire Star 火星 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, thanks for being the voice of reason, Fire Star. I personally have no objections to the word 'crackdown', even if I know for sure some anti-FG people will protest heavily against this. Another article that should be looked at for good quality BALANCE is Globalization, another controversial topic but now rated GA due to its balance. I think this is how the FG article should proceed. Please let me know if y'all agree or not. Jsw663 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes! That's just what I had in mind. --Fire Star 火星 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Because the Intro is too long, I suggest adding a heading for the section starting with "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since July 20, 1999,..." What do others think of "Controversy" ? I welcome any suggestion! --Ghormax 10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Samuel and his puppet show

Based on the checkuser performed by User:Dmcdevit, I'd like to inform everybody that the following editors have been sockpuppets of Samuel Luo: User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen, User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He. I'm sorry for not having believed HappyInGeneral and some other editors as they suspected this earlier on. Samuel is not only banned from Wikipedia; he's probably one of its biggest vandals of all time. I don't understand why nobody checked this out earlier. From now on, we must be extremely careful with any new editors who come in and start making significant changes to the articles. It's probable that Samuel will try to continue his deception from other IP addresses. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember CovenantD being shut down rather forcefully when he tried to get a checkuser run on Samuel Luo about a year ago. I'm sure that had the effect of stifling inquiries at the time for all of us. The user who blocked CovenantD has since been asked to leave, so, while slow, the Wikipedia community perhaps does correct itself over time. At any rate, it is in the past, and since these articles are being more actively monitored by the Wikipedia community generally, I doubt that any disruptive contributions will be allowed to stand for any appreciable time. --Fire Star 火星 16:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, there is some pretty blatant sockpuppetry going on at Teachings of Falun Gong. I will report it. --Fire Star 火星 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg are probably Samuel as well. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Samuel keeps vandalizing these articles under different sockpuppets. During the last two hours, he has reverted both Li Hongzhi and Falun Gong. What can we do about this? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat ridiculous. I am going to protect this page, and have left a note at ANI asking for input wrt to blocks (etc). Thanks, Martinp23 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a note here which applies to everyone in the dispute (I want to make clear firstly that I am not your mediator :)). Please remain civil when dealing with editors who may offend you - edit summaries like this are absolutely unacceptable, and if they continue, blocks may follow. You must keep a cool head when dealing with other editors, even if they are banned and/or get on your nerves. Set an example. On a related issue - looking through the histories of the articles I have protected, and the contribs of the users I have blocked, I see absolutely no vandalism. Ignoring an Arbcomm ruling is by no means vandalism - at worst it can be considered trolling. The assertion above that Samuel Luo is "one of [Wikipedia's] biggest vandals of all time." is frankly laughable - one user using multiple SPAs to attack only a few articles is by no means as bad as some of our worst vandals. Be careful with what you might say in the heat of the moment, in summary :) Martinp23 22:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (ps - an RFCU has been filed by me WRT the four accounts I've blocked).
Thank you Martinp23 for reiterating what I've been saying time and time again to Olaf. However, the words mean very little when it comes from me from Olaf's POV, so I'm glad you repeated the above here to keep these editors in check.
On the issue of Sam's sockpuppets, I was aware of this a few days ago and very surprised, I must admit. However, that does not mean there should be a sharp lurch towards the pro-FG side either to be NPOV. A GA-rated article on Wiki about a fairly controversial topic which seems like a good indication as to how the FG one should proceed is Globalization. Let me know what you all think, as I'm most interested to hear pro-FG views on this. The reason I chose the above entry was because it has the balance that I think this entry should maintain. Let me know if y'all agree or not. Jsw663 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Martinp23, I lost my nerves there momentarily, and I apologize for compromising WP:Civility. I acknowledge that the actual scope of Samuel's vandalism doesn't compare with some other people who have behaved even worse, but this is a matter that involves other issues as well. In my eyes, Samuel is more or less directly promoting the agenda of a Communist dictatorship engaged in a genocidal campaign against prisoners of conscience. He has sought to ruin these articles and poison their readers, which, of course, is a matter of interpretation. I think many of his stated opinions are outright fascist, and when he resorts to blatant trolling to push his tendentious edits after being indefinitely banned, you can imagine how many of us, especially those belonging to the targeted group of people or their peers, may feel. This is an extremely complicated dispute with possible reflections on a global scale. In addition, Samuel's sockpuppetry has gone unnoticed for an entire year. Nevertheless, I will mind my speech from now on. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Fyutii just appeared. Please revert his edits and protect Teachings of Falun Gong for 12 hours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • After a night's sleep I want to sincerely apologize one more time for using improper language. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice that User:Chinatravel was traced back to Samuel as well. How curious. He's not only fighting against Falun Gong, but removing sentences such as "400-2000 protestors were killed and 7000 to 10000 were injured" [in the Tiananmen square massacre] from Human rights in the People's Republic of China as well. In fact, I think Samuel could be more or less directly working for the Chinese embassy. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally feel its quite obvious. Anyway we need to scrutinize the edits done by the user and the person who was working along with him.
Dilip rajeev 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There are disturbing resemblances between Olaf and pro-FG action and McCarthyism. You've got the guy banned already; you should now call for immediate protection of ALL FG-related pages. You also are fully aware that Wikipedia has its weaknesses so instead of seeking to impose authoritarian control over certain pages and content, how about working constructively? For starters, you could answer whether the FG page should retain a balance similar to the GA-rated Wiki entry Globalization. Jsw663 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, now, Jsw663, please remember to be civil yourself. I assure you that I just want order and cooperation, not any kind of authoritarian control over these pages or their content. I'm interested about your suggestions, and retaining a balance sounds like a good idea. However, I'd like you to elaborate a bit more about taking Globalization as a model; what does it mean in regard to these articles? Do you have some concrete examples? Also, I'd like you to keep in mind what Asdfg12345 stated on Talk:Suppression_of_Falun_Gong#Please_read:_note_on_working_methods. If there are any changes to be made, we shouldn't straightforwardly revert to a previous version. Referring to your edit summary, "personally I think it is as outrageous as FG claims about the Chinese Gvt, but the FG claims were kept due to your defense of that, so why not this?" [3], you should remember that "any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor". (WP:CITE) That applies equally to pro-FLG, anti-FLG and so-called "neutral" material. If you find any unverifiable and poorly sourced pro-FLG material on these pages and you remove it, I don't think anybody's going to start a revert war. There are no excuses for substandard content. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please cite the instance where I have not been civil myself. Your civility is laid bare for all to see on this entry's main page. Let me quote from Hoerth on the Criticism talk page, who quotes LHZ: "Others may treat us badly, but we can not treat them badly. We must not look upon people as enemies." Li Hongzhi --Hoerth 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC) The only editor between the two of us as far as I can see being incivil is the editor comparing Samuel with JW Gacy - you. Once you learn how to properly control your own temper and bias, I am as always interested in what you have to contribute. But you cannot look upon a process as constructive if FGers only seek to revert anything wholesale that challenges any edits without discussion. This is what I mean by civility - if you preach Wiki rules, then learn to live by them, instead of offering excuses of why you breach them and how you escape punishment. It was these wholesale edits that led to edit wars in the first place. Now that one side is removed, this still does not justify these wholesale edits. The link provided on the criticism page of the section FGers seek to excise is clearly a valid link. Like you said yourself, we shouldn't simply revert, so why do you and other FGers persist in doing so even when I propose compromised versions? Talk about incivil!
Furthermore, to back up my accusation at you being incivil (which is not an unique accusation by myself), you said: "Samuel is more or less directly promoting the agenda of a Communist dictatorship engaged in a genocidal campaign against prisoners of conscience." This is a clear example of where you fail to control your own bias and clearly trample on all prospects of civility. Don't mistake my disappointment in you for supporting anti-FG material though. It just means that you should learn to realize that a GA article like Globalization was rated that because it starts off with a descriptive passage (note the neutral but informative language), then gives the pro- and anti- side a roughly equal amount of space to air their case. There is also no restriction for the pro- or anti- side on amount of content on their respective (linked) Wiki entries either. Why would you oppose the format of a GA article unless you wanted to push through an agenda of your own? I'm interested to hear your side of the argument. It's not like I was giving the article a GA-rating - it was done by the consensus of many Wikipedians, including many highly experienced editors (more than you or I). Time to learn from other Wiki articles that were given GA-ratings, instead of just twisting and focusing on Wiki rules to suit your own agenda. Also, civility means a minimum standard of politeness and respect. Strictness does not mean incivility. Calling other editors names, comparing them to "genocidal maniacs", calling others lapdogs of governments etc. is clearly incivility. Jsw663 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have given you many examples of your uncivility. One of them is the continued accusations of vandalizing your user pages. You even tried to present this "evidence" to the ArbCom, since these actions were "curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case". Curiously well-timed indeed - everybody knows who have tried to harness this inanity to their own purposes. You have systematically refused to comment on my inquiries about why you attempted to link our party to these vandals. In addition, I remember you calling pro-FLG editors "an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia" [4]. Your sympathies can be tilted, but that is thick, Jsw663.
I am aware of my own flaws, and I wholeheartedly agree that I should learn to control my temper and not look upon people as enemies. It is clearly a loophole in my own cultivation, and I definitely should have kept my mouth shut when I've had nothing substantial to say. That doesn't mean that anybody should just tolerate Samuel's deception, fraudulence, hypocrisy and guile. But please don't twist my words: I've never called anyone a "lapdog" or a "maniac". I just stated what I think, and my tone was rather neutral. Don't you have anything to say after all we've gotten to know? You defend Samuel as if he were simply Mom's slightly overactive little scallywag.
The section I removed from the Criticisms and controversies had a couple of strongly POV sentences that were totally unsourced. The rest, well, I thought it's just not very important or interesting to anyone, but I'm OK with it. If you insist on having it, you should cite the exact words from the original Chinese source and add them to the references. (see: WP:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English)
I never opposed to taking another article as a model; in good faith, I asked you to elaborate on this idea that we could possibly develop - how should we reform the structure of these articles? I'm taken aback by the aggressive tone in your voice. You seem to take up a defensive position as a matter of principle, as if you were already assured that I would oppose anything you suggest. I know that a good article needs to be neutral, balanced and well-sourced. I absolutely don't have anything against verifiable material from reputable sources that are critical of Falun Gong. The problem with Samuel and Tomananda was that they couldn't really provide us very much of that and insisted on their moonshine instead. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the Requests for Arbitration page where I gave my response to your allegations of my incivility: "The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?" and that strictness is not the same as incivility. Incivility consists of labeling people as a certain stereotype, or comparing them with a person that almost everyone finds abhorrent. I'm not saying the anti-FG camp were guilt-free on this point, but they've been punished for their part. Have you? I suggest you read what the anon IP editor wrote on my user + user talk page (use the history function as most was 'reverted') before understanding why I came to such a conclusion that the editor is pro-FG.
On the issue of content, the reason balance keeps getting promoted by myself is because of insufficient knowledge on content. I may have read pro- and anti-FG sources now thanks to this discussion page and its editors (past and present), but that still does not make me an expert on the subject. However, I am a stickler for defending both sides, and when one side gets removed because of their activism and not the other, it may appear that I am defending one side more than the other. This is what I mean by human rights support - supporting the rights of all, even if they may not deserve it. Upholding the principle, not applying it differently to different people. As mentioned before too, I don't mind you editing content as long as it is not biased towards one side's version of events or "facts" except in the later, relevant section. It has no place in the 'pre-intro' part, where it should be brief and informative. The Introduction workshop where a semi-meaningful discussion took place about the version of paragraphs that should exist seemed to be a comparatively constructive way forward. It was editors on both sides who refused to accept compromises who derailed it, causing edit wars. Now that one side is removed, some edits on these pages clearly revert back to the old biased version, provoking anti-FG editors into another edit war. Like you, I am tired of seeing these FG-related entries not making progress, but you have to accept that your (and other pro-FG) versions will be challenged, just as anti-FG versions will be challenged by others. Constant wholesale reversions are thus not helpful or constructive to both sides.
Since the main two issues I am concerned with are NPOV and balance (essentially the same issue), I may challenge on (length of) content on that front. The Globalization entry was thus for comparison regarding section length and content, as an indicator. But no matter how much you bait me, I cannot give a proper anti-FG version of these pages, because not only am I not in the anti-FG camp no matter how many times you try to label me as such, but because I don't have the expertise in such content and arguments. That doesn't preclude me from challenging and questioning at a more general level though, because that is essential (and why Wiki can be better than the average encyclopedia). So to start off, stop trying to censor others' Wiki user pages would be a positive way forward. It's not like these user pages receives a fraction as much coverage as the main Wiki entries anyway. It is this total crackdown your side seeks in eliminating all anti-FG sources even on other user pages that scares me, and hence merits the comparison with McCarthyism. Jsw663 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe according to the contributions that, User:Ghuigh is yet another sock. Evilclown93 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced template

{{editprotected}} {{Controversial3}} is for the Talk namespace (plus is redundant for a protected page). --h2g2bob (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I've read this article and discussion here. I find Samuel's website useful so I put it back. I don't plan to stay here long since I don't know enough about this group. I believe Samuel's site provides a balance to this article, thanks. --Yellowtuna 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Samuel. Please remember to take your Risperdal, you are not many persons but only one, OK? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Yellowtuna (or Samuel, doesn't matter). This site actually does not present the facts about this group of people correctly - it is only the point of view of its author. There are many other points of view and personal experiences of many other people that suggest a completely different interpretation of the quotes, original research, etc. this site contains. Besides, it has been suggested that this website's author has a strongly biased and incorrect view of the facts about this group (may he one day understand it :)!), which are all arguments against the inclusion of this website. This comment was added by Emanuil Tolev 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC), sorry about forgetting to sign on 20. May.
Well, from what I can see, Sam Luo is highly ranked in Google and shows up in some discussions of FG as a source, so the guy has managed to burn his way into the discussion. It'd be POV to not have his viewpoints referenced somewhere. ArekExcelsior 23:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms parts

Just quickly to explain what I think about this section. I will copy one more thing in now. This whole page needs to be changed, as I mentioned briefly before. It will need to become more like a third party views, and have criticism balanced by counter-criticism/defence, and all the original research will need to come out. Such original research I am referring to includes parts which do not cite any third party reliable sources at all, but are just compilations of quotes of Li Hongzhi with some commentary. This, in essence is not even really criticism, it is just parts of the teachings that whoever wrote those sections thinks are bad. Those things should go on the Teachings page and be written neutrally, with consideration given to due weight as they fit into the teachings as a whole. I am referring to the part about homosexuality and about the Fa-rectification. These should definitely simply be presentations of the teachings on the teachings page, unless there is a third party reliable source who criticises Falun Gong for these aspects of the teachings. I am sure there must be some, it is just a matter of digging them up and reporting them.

The stuff from Chang did not seem to be any kind of criticism either. Maybe there was more to it and she wanted to criticise Falun Gong for saying it is not a religion but for nevertheless, according to her, being like a religion or sharing characteristics of a religion (she refers to Li Hongzhi's direct or indirect claims of divinity)... since this was not couched critically in that section I cited that bit and put it above. I guess it does not really belong there either. Having a third-party views transition will help in this situation too, since she has something to say about Falun Gong, like an analysis, and it is neither critical nor positive. Aside from this, there were some other words in this section about Li Honghzhi's quotations. Here is what I think: Li Hongzhi's claims of offering universal salvation, of rectifying the cosmos and saving it from disintegration, of having fashen, and everything else should really appear in different parts of the teachings section, since these are essentially teachings of Falun Gong. Of course if a third party has referred to these in some way then they should be mentioned in this context, as I just said about Chang. Nearly everyone who has written about Falun Gong has something to say about Li Hongzhi's statements in this regard, so there is ample space for this. The key is to get away from the original-research way of presenting this information, as though it were criticism.

Li Hongzhi's statements about homosexuality go in the criticism section when there is a third party reliable source who criticises them, and the same with Fa-rectification. Otherwise putting them there does not really constitute criticism, but original-research. This information actually belongs in the teachings section and it should accord with NPOV.

I will change the name of it to third party views now and copy a paragraph in about Falun Gong being a cult. There should be a couple of sections here, the one about debateable significance of awards is a good criticism. Of course, these introductory paragraphs should follow the format suggested under WP:LEAD, and should quickly give both sides of the issue. Unlike the current one about the awards where the criticism is given three lines and the defence one, the presentations should be even. Just some thoughts and explanation. I will change the heading and copy in the cult section now. It will need to be adjusted for NPOV becuase now I will just copy the criticism and wait for someone to add in the defence/counter-criticism. This is a prelude to the changes on the criticisms page for now.--Asdfg12345 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually copied both the criticism and defence so it is a bit longer. still needs big improvement, obviously. The arguments from each side need to be pared down and written very succintly, and the section on the criticisms page may need to change to reflect the NPOV "third party views" framing of this information, rather than the former "criticism" framing.--Asdfg12345 23:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Asdfg12345. Original research must be purged. Of course, we won't remove material from verifiable critical sources. When they touch upon subjects that are covered in the teachings, we can either provide a link to a relevant section in the teachings page or quickly summarize what Li has said about these issues. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and the third-party views on Falun Gong are not limited to this specific daughter article, we should find a better headline. I propose "Controversies surrounding Falun Gong". As a thematic entity, it is delineated yet extensive. See my post below. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What Li says about these things could be blandly listed in an expository section on the details of what he teaches and espouses. If we have them in a section on "criticism", then we also should reference a notable critic or critics. I think having it framed the way it is is artefact from an anti-FLG agenda. --Fire Star 火星 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi

Hello,

the article states, that: "according to some cult experts, Li demonstrates the classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader." - could someone point out which cult expert has this (exact) opinion? I perfectly well know and recognize criticism on Falun Gong, but yay "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Nothing against including a quote from a renonowned religious, or cult expert or scientist, I'd just like to point out that it must be a 'something' from 'someone', like all things on Wikipedia. Emanuil Tolev 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, people? What's your opinion? I'd try to find such facts (person and quote or another form of statement of opinion). And if there are none, as I suspect (because of the used weasel words and unaccurate expression - what are the "classic characteristics of an authoritarian cult leader"? If the quoted person didn't specify, well, at least who is he, "some cult experts"?) - I'd suggest the deletion of this sentence. I can conduct no research as of now and I'm pointing this out, because another Wikipedian who is currently free may want to do it. I'll try to get to something myself later. Emanuil Tolev 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say in these cases, in future, without breaking any rules, it is fine to be a bit bolder and first tag the sentence in question, put a note on the talk page, then if no one responds in 24 hours just delete it. Of course, you could also just try deleting the sentence outright and then leaving a note informing other users of your action and explanation for doing so. Maybe the second is okay too; that is acceptable. It is just I guess maybe a bit friendlier to tag it and leave a note. On second thought, it would be better to act at a high standard and proactively be more congenial about these things. It's the responsibility of the person who wants the material there to justify it, however I think this sentence could be altered and attributed to Margaret Singer or someone else. You aren't responsible for doing so, though, but the person first put that content there. Anyway, just my thought.--Asdfg12345 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably another holdover, see my comment just above. --Fire Star 火星 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming and merging the articles

I propose the following changes:

✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is okay by me, but on the second I still advocate "Third party views on Falun Gong" for the reasons set out on that talk page. If there is something I have missed and that name is actually more appropriate then it's fine by me.--Asdfg12345 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The first one, no, "suppression" is a more "passive voice" term, although "crackdown" in the article itself is an acceptable descriptor, IMO. The next two, yes, although Asdfg's suggestion for "Third party views on Falun Gong" works for me, too. --Fire Star 火星 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why some editors are so strongly against the term "persecution". I wish to raise this issue elsewhere in wikipedia where I can get a proper answer to this. I dont understand what is so "impassive" about the term persecution and how the term "suppression" can describe what is happening in China. In my opinion the term "persecution" describes, far better than the term "suppression", what , according to The Amnesty International, The UN, The US Congress, EU, HRW, Kilgour-Mata Reports, etc. , is happening in China.
Dilip rajeev 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you why I don't like the term for our purposes, as I've explained before. "Suppression" describes the actual effects on FLG of what is happening, FLG's adherents are having their activities, their practise and proselytising, suppressed. They aren't allowed to do those things publicly by Chinese law. "Persecution" is subjective, it indicates an injustice, implying that the FLG adherents are being victimised unfairly. That may or may not be the case, but it isn't up to us to publish that. We only report what is objectively happening. We can say that this or that source terms it persecution, but an objective, neutral report cannot call it persecution. We say what others have said, and let people make up their minds. Personally, I'm sure the CCP has hunted down FLG people mercilessly, but we are an encyclopaedia, not The Epoch Times. We say what we can establish has happened or is happening, not what we want other people to think. Let our readers make up their own minds. --Fire Star 火星 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


The accepted definition of persecution, as found in the Oxford Dictionary (1993) is:
"1 The act persecuting someone or subjecting someone to hostility or ill treatment; the fact of being persecuted; an instance esp. a particular course or period, of this b Harassment, persistent annoyance 2 The action of pursuing with intent to catch, injure or kill; pursuit of a subject etc."
The definition, "The act persecuting someone or subjecting someone to hostility or ill treatment", as far as I can see, does not carry with it any inherent bias or any connotation of so called "unfair victimization", "injustice" etc. And I think we need to be clear on the fact that there is more than just a suppression of "proselytizing" happening in China.
Dilip rajeev 06:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I feel the term persecution is far more appropriate for the title than the word "suppression" for the simple reason that it is not just a suppression that is happening in China. Furthur, the term "suppression" is hardly, if ever, used to describe the HR crisis in China in material from reputed sources. I would also like to know what other editors think on the matter. Thanks :). Fire Star, I don't see any inherent bias or anything "un-encyclopedic" in the accepted definition of "persecution".
Dilip rajeev 15:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions aren't the only thing, Dilip. Persecution DOES have that ring, that connotative meaning, even if denotatively it doesn't. One has to write with knowledge of what words connote; otherwise, weaseling phrasing gets in. I am in support of the crackdown change, because I think it is a bit more accurate AND all parties agree (so it's not a matter of it being a bad term but whether "Crackdown" is positive or negative in this case). ArekExcelsior 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed subtitles from the third party views section. Please help improve the existing summary. Dilip rajeev 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the subtitles? Whatever final presentation that is adopted, it should be uniform. I think having the introductory paragraph of each daughter article with a link to the daughter article would be perhaps the most appropriate. Maybe a 300-500 word summary of the daughter article. But without having agreed or decided on anything I myself am reluctant to make big changes. The last thing we want is edit wars. It would be better to discuss changes like this before making them, and coming to some overall approach to this page.--Asdfg12345 19:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed more than subtitles, Dilip, you removed 5 entire paragraphs from the article. Changes of that magnitude need to be discussed ahead of time, this article is on Arbcom probation and is being monitored. --Fire Star 火星 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both Asdfg12345 and Fire Star. Dilip, sometimes you act a bit rashly. However, I understand why you removed the subtitles; they're evidently a means for the anti-FLG party to advertise and sell their stuff on the main page. Either we should include all subtitles of all daughter articles and a short summary of their respective content, or none at all. I'd prefer the latter.
By the way, I'm okay with "Third party views on Falun Gong", since nobody's found a better name as yet. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with "Third party views on Falun Gong". /Omido

I half gave up with the persecution/suppression argument in the end simply because it would have resulted in edit wars. I do not actually think there is any inherent bias or anything in the use of the word "persecution." Looking at the definition of "genocide" would also not present any problems. I already cited that. According to the wikipedia definition, the page should rightly be called "The Genocide of Falun Gong" -- so I don't really understand. The same sources that would suggest it is a suppression would suggest its a genocide. So I dont know where the line is drawn really, or how we could come to properly work this out. For me the accuracy and completeness of the content is more important than the title, so I focused more on that. I still have not heard a single rational and structured reason for not using the word "genocide" or "persecution", except for some vague comments about what it connotes. But as I say I don't feel it is worth a revert war about, and I'd rather focus on the content. Of course, I just said I don't see any logical reason why the page not be called "The Genocide of Falun Gong". Please see WP:Genocide:

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Anyway, there are always arguments about this, and whichever title is adopted automatically serves some interest.--Asdfg12345 00:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I also want to point out that Splitting the History section into "growth" and "suppression" is inaccurate. The practice is steadily growing in popularity despite the persecution taking place in China. Dilip rajeev 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppression -> Persecution

The following articles are found from Wikipedia, among others: Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Atheists, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution of Rastafari, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Persecution of Buddhists, and Persecution of Wiccans. Unless somebody provides a good reason why we should stray from this naming policy, I will rename the article in a couple of days. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles are truly strong arguments FOR the renaming. I must add that I fully agree with the renaming. The whole name issue seems quite strange to me - how do we name the situation in China "suppression", when we're talking about killing, jailing without trial for years (up to 3 or 4 I think) for a single sentence containing the practice's name in the public or private sphere, beatings in custody and tortures and who knows what else... I don't put an emotional load in it, but for me, the name "suppression" just (encyclopedically) does not fit the content (imagine you never heard about the persecution. Now type "Suppression of Falun Gong" in the search box. Have a look at the content table. Well?). Emanuil Tolev 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I fully agree with changing the title. Please see my posts in the previous subsection.
Dilip rajeev 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be named persecution. Omido 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "persecution" assumes a situation in China which is highly disputed. A great deal of effort has been made by Falun Gong practitioners to paint the government in China as demonic and worthy of destruction by the gods. In order to be saved, Li Honzhi says that practitioners must "expose the persecution" and spread anti-CCP propaganda every chance they get. If all the practitioners stories were true, maybe there would be a case for using the word "persecution" here. But it's clear that practitioners have fabricated stories of abuse on many occassions. One big example: the discredited anonomous reports about organ harvesting at Sujian. In prior discussion I noticed that several editors objected to the use of the word "persecution" for this page, but I guess they have all been banned and all that's left are Falun Gong practitioners...is that right? Anyway, that's my impression. So if I have any say, I would vote against the word "persecution" since it assumes a fact that has not been established. --CaptainKarma 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Samuel Luo. I'm sorry, but after receiving an indefinite ban, you aren't supposed to participate in discussions, either. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's that? Anyone who criticizes the Falun Gong is Samuel Luo? --CaptainKarma 09:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any new user who starts editing these articles in a similar pattern or uses similar rhetoric right from the beginning is "Samuel Luo" (or maybe Tomananda, even though he did seem intelligent enough to not sink into that level). That will hold true at least until Samuel has verifiably stopped using sockpuppets. See Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo and Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Samuel Luo. Sorry, but Samuel Luo pretty much poisoned the well for any new editors who try to represent his viewpoints. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So only Falun Gong practitioners are allowed to edit on this board is that right? What a crock! --CaptainKarma 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. But Samuel Luo and Tomananda will never be welcome. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
But yes, yes indeed! You are Tomananda! The way you misspell "Sujiatun" (see: [8]) and how you write three dots without a space on either side as a substitute for a punctuation mark ("Falun Gong practitioners...is that right?") lays you bare. Honestly, I didn't believe you would resort to sockpuppetry, but I guess I was just too starry-eyed. The 63-year old chairman of San Francisco for Democracy is evading bans and trolling on Wikipedia. This is getting surreal. Go play golf or something. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, and you are Li Hongzhi in disguise here to save the cosmos no doubt. What's surreal here is your willingness to divert attention from controversies about Falun Gong by engaging in personal attacks. If I were a 63 year old man, does that mean I would play golf? Or is that another one of your fantasies? My question remains: is there anyone on this board who is not a Falun Gong practitioner? --CaptainKarma 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the Wikipedia anti-FLG revolution ate its own children. Seriously, I don't know what you're still trying to achieve, Tomananda and Samuel. We'll bust every sockpuppet you create, either by Checkuser or by your editing patterns. The Wikipedia community is behind us. In fact, you said you would leave Wikipedia for good, but now it seems you just can't keep your paws off. Old habits die hard, right? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet, but if you want to try to "bust" me go ahead. Is the Wikipedia community behind your attempts to delete the controversial or critical material about the Falun Gong in this article? Do Wikipedians in general support the ageist, racist and homophobic beliefs of the Falun Gong? Or is it just that there's a sense that all this should not be reported because of the situation in China. As you proceed to dlete all criticism from this article, it would be interesting to hear from some non-practitioner editors about their views. --CaptainKarma 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The intent of the Wikipedia community is to reform these articles to make them comply with the official policies. That means WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability, among others. You never cared for them in the first place. Tomananda, everything you do here is illegitimate, discussions included, so I'm not wasting my time on this. You are not welcome, even if you access the Internet from another IP address. Bye. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And, once again, Checkuser exposed the deceitfulness of our Dynamic Duo: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CaptainKarma. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

0.7 held

I put this article on hold for Wikipedia:Release Version as it is a B-class article that is mid-importance. If this was high importance it would have passed. Getting this up to GA status or higher will make it worthy of inclusion in 0.7. Funpika 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A discussion can be found here on this matter. Funpika 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I was leaning on fail myself when I placed it on held nominations and 3 other people want it failed, I will now fail this nomination. Funpika 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong farm

Hey guys. I thought I'd check back recently to see if any progress has been made on neutralizing the article. All I see now is a Falun Gong pamphlet. Some of the stuff on here is now more biased than the Epoch Times.

Brilliant job. You may as well put Master Li is divine, and Falun Gong is the only true Fa on the article.Colipon+(T) 01:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what you mean? Exactly what stuff is "more biased than the Epoch Times"? At least I haven't made any additions that are not verifiable and attributable to third-party sources. On the other hand, a lot of original research and unattributed claims has been removed. Maybe you don't entirely understand the rules of the game. If you want to balance the article, you'd better look for good sources. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But any sources that seems to tarnish Falun Gong's reputation is obviously wrong. Therefore, no such sources exist. You are always right. Master Li is always right. Colipon+(T) 08:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Colipon. There are no concepts of "objectivity", "truth" or "falsehood" in Wikipedia, and they're not the criteria by which to judge the inclusion of sources. Of course, personally I do believe that pro-FLG sources are usually more objective and true, and I've seen some incredibly biased rubbish in many anti-FLG articles that come from Wiki-qualified sources. However, these articles are owned by the Wikipedia community, not by me (or any other editor, for that matter). The policies apply equally to all content. You either learn to play the game or you don't. Samuel and Tomananda didn't, whereupon they were kicked out. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps objectivity is a valuable concept... --Fire Star 火星 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll wait. This Falun Gong charade will not last forever. U.S. cult study groups have already published numerous articles on Falun Gong's destructive effects that are independent of any communist connections. This stuff doesn't even need to be on Wikipedia to be a powerful voice. It is simply that being one person (or one of few people) on Wikipedia who has actually seen the damaging effects from Falun Gong while I lived in Mainland China, people would not believe anything I say because they automatically assume it is Communist propaganda. The assumption here is that everything FLG is good and everything CCP is bad.
Sure. Time will tell. Long Live Master Li.
Olaf, this is also a reminder for you to never reply to my comments again. It is not only me but any unbiased third party who will regard your comments as ridiculous. Whatever you say from now I will simply agree to unquestionably, and then add on a "Master Li is always right, time will tell". Colipon+(T) 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"Colipon, you've got a banana in your ear!" "What?" "I said, YOU'VE GOT A BANANA IN YOUR EAR!" "What? I can't hear you; I've got a banana in my ear!" ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Master Li is always right. Time will tell. Colipon+(T) 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. None of Master Li's claims about his learning from various grandmasters has been verified from independent sources. For all intensive purposes, these sects of Taoism and Buddhism are not known to exist. Moreover, little was mentioned of the reason why Falun Dafa was brought to communist attention in the first place, including the various occasions when Falun practitioners congregated to attack newspaper agencies for publishing unfavorable reviews of falun gong (mainly in dispute to its claims on supernatural powers) by independent experts. 128.147.38.10 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Subtitles in The History and Timeline subsection

Splitting the time line section into growth and then "persecution" is factually inaccurate for the reason that the system of cultivation practice has been steadily growing in popularity in countries outside China. Therefore am removing the "growth" subtitle ( the subtitle alone. not the content following). The second subtitle has been changed to "Persecution of Falun Gong in China". Dilip rajeev 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed statement

The following statement doesn't have a source. "Analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups." Before reinserting this statement to the article, please provide a source. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral 08:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought that sentence should be deleted - as religious groups are often political. But I concede that they are much more political than most, perhaps someone could find a source? Or we could simply amend it "It is alleged that some argue that analysts note the highly politicized nature of the group distinguishes it from most religious groups."Aleksi Peltola 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, saying anything like that needs a source.--Asdfg12345 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be named Falun Dafa. I agree that Falun Dafa is also known as Falun Gong, so it's quite normal to have Falun Gong redirect here. However, since Falun Dafa is the current name, see http://FalunDafa.org, I think it would be most appropriate to rename this page to Falun Dafa.

Please let me know what you think about this, any objections? --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: as a side note Zhuan Falun also redirects here, but it should not, Zhuan Falun is a book, essential to the practice yes, but it is not the practice name. --HappyInGeneral 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah I agree. Put it through on the rename requests page.--Asdfg12345 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, where is that? --HappyInGeneral 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves --Asdfg12345 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, move requested see here: [9] --HappyInGeneral 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose. This group is far better known as Falun Gong in English-based media. Try again if popular usage changes towards the new name. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment anyone have any evidence either way to which is more widely used? --h2g2bob (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1760 some scholarly hits for Falun Gong; 175 for "Falun Dafa"; of which most also use Falun Gong (many more prominently). The remainder (34) suggest that the proposed name is WSJ house style, and has no other anglophone support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Falun Dafa is now currently used aka. official name, see: http://FalunDafa.org also there is no http://FalunGong.org . As a speculation the change of the name accrued after it evolved from a simple qigong practice to a complete cultivation practice. Fa Lun translated is Law Wheel. Gong translated is Merit. Da Fa translated is Great Law. --HappyInGeneral 20:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It is practice and policy to use the name commonly recognized in English, whether the "official name" or not. We are trying to communicate with English-speakers, not riddle them into enlightenment. This explanation belongs in the article; but it should not determine the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll read the policies, tuesday, because now I have to go. On the part that "not riddle them into enlightenment" I don't think that using the official name will riddle anyone into enlightenment. It's only polite + the name is introduced since before 1996, and the practice spread outside China more heavily after 1999 so I do believe that English speaking people are pretty familiar with the term of Falun Dafa.
      • Google has a hit of 1 360 000 for the term of "Falun Gong" [10] and 1 000 000 for the term of "Falun Dafa" [11]. So I think that the both terms are pretty much just as known.
      • PS: Thank you for pointing out the policies. --HappyInGeneral 11:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Simple Google is well known to be unreliable;
        • This result is simply because 749 000 pages have both, many of them in the form of an explanation that "Falun Gong" is also known as "Falun Dafa".
        • You have not taken the elementary precaution of limiting your search to English pages; with that taken (and it's still not perfect)
        • Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

more about the exercises of this practice

What do you think about writing somethig more about the exercises of this practice, seeing that is the FalunGong as title, and not criticism only page? Thanks --82.84.29.250

Zhuan Falun - new article

{{rfd}} Zhuan Falun redirects here to this article, but it should not, Zhuan Falun is a book, essential to the Falun Dafa practice yes, but it is not the practice name.

I would propose:

  1. to delete the page Zhuan Falun
  2. or to create a page Zhuan Falun which would give a link to the actual book and say that is the main book for the Falun Dafa cultivation practice. --HappyInGeneral 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I just read here: WP:RFD that:

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

OK, good, how? --HappyInGeneral 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, it's now fixed :), check out the new look for the Zhuan Falun article.
I think it still needs the pinyin and the pronunciation. --HappyInGeneral 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to leave FG editing

Many editors of the past will probably know of my editing on FG-related discussion pages (and to a much more limited extent, the FG-related entries themselves). I have gone through the ArbCom case (and found not guilty by almost all admins), through bashings by both sides accusing me of bias and being brainwashed, being accused of not being neutral, immoral and every word and insult that can be used. There is a time, however, when one has to realize as a single person you can't beat organizations with their systematic information control and infinite resources. This will certainly let various editors who do not support total balancing / neutrality to rejoice; this is another obstacle removed for them. All I can say is this, from my one year of FG-related involvement - there is much more to what's going on then what the public are being informed of. Be careful of what you believe because what you read does not tell the complete picture - read opposing sources to realize the extent of bias; read critically to examine what can be verified and what are allegations.

I wish good luck to all those engaged in FG-related editing in the future, and to also inform them that my deactivation from serious editing on these articles were not made entirely voluntarily; see my user page for details. As a parting favor to me please do not bombard my user talk page with any anonymous spam, or insistence on what is good or bad or true or false. Thank you for your attention. Jsw663 15:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


I respect you, JSW. Colipon+(T) 09:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Research"

I have been wondering if this following section is hocus pocus, or has this research been peer-reviewed? The small sample size of 6 people is usually not considered large enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever.


see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

Although we are working on a Falun article, the information still has to be reliable and unbiased, so we should not be including stuff which leads users to draw false conclusions. I have therefore removed the section. Ohconfucius 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that we should not just remove things without discussing it, therefore I am restoring it until all editors can state their opinion about this question and express their understanding. Personally I think it should still be there. /85.229.29.224 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, you have been changing alot of things. Things are not working like that here, we have to discuss things before we change it. Not just randomly change things as we like, right? Therefore I reverted your changed. I'm not saying that the things you changed were good or bad, I mean that we should adopt a better approach in editing this article. We have had alot of problems with vandals like Samuel Lou and Tomananda for example. Omido 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't reckon everyone needs to discuss or ask here before making changes, but I have seen the changes of Ohconfucius and I would revert them too. Everyone should edit the articles, but editors should contribute positively. You deleted a lot of things, Ohconfucius. At this stage the articles aren't very good and are a bit lacking. One thing is that they are not so long that content actually needs to be deleted to prevent flooding. So I think nothing should be deleted at this point, but that if there are aspects of the article which are lacking, new, sourced content could be added. Of course, if something is not sourced it can be taken out in any case, but I am talking about sourced content: there is no need to delete it. That is basically blanking, and no one will tolerate it. I think everyone should try to contribute positively and cooperate with other editors.--Asdfg12345 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
WAit i only mean deleting stuff may not be the best approach right now but the articles are not that good so go for it in fixing them up, --Asdfg12345 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There may have been a bit too much deletion, but please look at the changes for what they are. I can appreciate why my changes did not go down well in some quarters. With the subject being so polarised, it is difficult to achieving balance. It is clear to all that this article has some major problems, so we should consider rebuilding it from the ground up. Basically, you people accused me of vandalism. Did any of you ask yourselves "does the article look more like an encyclopaedia article?", "is the article more coherent?". I do not feel that any of my changes were random or indiscriminate: they were totally transparent - I left a trail of some 18 different commented edits, so I do not accept that absolutely none of those changes were not positive nor valid. So what's wrong with deleting "a few bits too many"? It is a fallacy to suggest that just because something is sourced, it has to be kept: it may be irrelevant, the source may be unreliable, or the editor may have inferred something from the source which wasn't there, or it may be simply too trivial, or downright misleading (like the "research" into health benefits I commented above). I did not blank the page, nor did I turn quotes into meaning the opposite of what was intended. Anybody can put back the deletions they consider "unnecessary". Unsourced controvertial assertions should ALWAYS be removed, and can and should be done immediately without consensus. As for the intro, I believe that it was waaay too long, but I do apologise for not having read the html note left there, as I thought it was part of the tagging. I did not change the meaning, just took some of the detail into the main article. I believe that most of my changes were in line with the to-do list on the top of this talk page, which is whay I went and crossed some of the items out. If so many of you disagree, then the to-do list should probably be removed. In addition, I do not feel that wholescale reversion is very constructive either, and would appreciate a more detailed analysis, edit by edit of my changes rather that "this is vandalism". You may feel free to take this part of the discussion to my talk page. Ohconfucius 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"It is a fallacy to suggest that just because something is sourced, it has to be kept: it may be irrelevant, the source may be unreliable, or the editor may have inferred something from the source which wasn't there, or it may be simply too trivial, or downright misleading (like the "research" into health benefits I commented above)."
But that's an ARGUMENT that needs to be made. You seem to be trying very hard to be reasonable and making a lot of progress, and kudos, but at this point a lot of garbage is probably going to have to be kept to get an article not prone to continuing edit wars. FG supporters have a "scientific" study that somehow purports to prove X: I think that maybe the quote should be eliminated but it should be noted that FG sources and some scholarship (which should be noted that it is a pro-FG statement) have said X, Y and Z health benefit. The rebuttals should come afterwards. ArekExcelsior 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, on the whole, but the article is by no means stable, and could flip-flop at any time back to its "old self". I do not think that FG is detrimental to one's health (unless one is inside mainland China), but proving it is "good for you" is quite another. The research is also close to pseudo-science (because it's impossible to say that it is scientific). I believe that referring to it at all actually discredits the article and FG. Ohconfucius 05:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Take 2

I have now done some less radical moving around of bits, including the lead section, without significant deletion, and consolidated the biography of Li and Li Hongzhi sections under "Leadership". Basically, this is about one man, but should be about the wider leadership, if there is one ;-). Li's biography is already in a separate article, so there needs only to be the essence here about how and when he started the movement. His personal awards are not relevant to the article. Nominations have little value. Other than the leadership bit, I re-emphasise there has been little deletion, although I still believe that "less is more". I have re-written the US senators' resolution. I have no personal agenda, but thought the article was crap, and desperately in need of tidying up. I can see from the history that the article is the subject of unresolved trench wars, and there are corpses everywhere. Please feel free to engage me on my talk page if you wish to have a sensible discussion. Ohconfucius 05:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

再見

I can see that my hours of effort were not appreciated, once again. I am amazed that no other has even bothered to engage me on constructive changes. As an organisation that is allegedly persecuted by the Chinese Government, its "members" (using the word very loosely, for I have been equally accused of introducing concepts alien to FG into the article) seem to engage in it's fair share of the same Stalinist intolerant practices it allegedly receives in the name of "exposing the truth about the CCP". I believe there may be a witch-hunt going on -tarring all those fellow wikipedians who do not toe the official FG line as "in need of investigation". What is being implied?? that perhaps all who dare to utter unorthodoxies are sockpuppets of Samuel Luo? Why is there such paranoia? Where is the charitable tolerance (真, 善, 忍) which its esteemed leader apparently professes? Where is the assumption of good faith?

I am no fan of the CCP, the media censorship it practices, nor its human rights record, but the Epoch Times appears often to carry stories and allegations that no other respectable journal will confirm or even hint at. No-one disputes that the journal is a mouthpiece of the FG, and thus amounts to a self-published source. From what I have read here and in the related pages, quotes and stories lifted from Epoch Times are on the par with Pravda (did you know it means "truth" in Russian) and People's Daily in churning out the propaganda. Despite this, there are individuals here who treat it as "gospel", and insist that everything that can be cited, especially if from Epoch or clearwisdom, or falundafa.org, must never be removed (see above). What utter bollocks! "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people".

All the above, and I have not even mentioned how the article fails horribly to meet the Manual of style, or how the large chunks of quotes and other material copied and pasted could constitute copyright violation.

I will leave you to turn these pages to an extension of the epochtimes.com. I would wish you the very best of luck. ;-) Ohconfucius 03:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, OC, chill. Most of the FG people I've been interacting with here have not been blatant trolls, at the least, and many have been highly pleasant. I have noted that there seems to be organizational editing of the article back and forth, probably between Luo sock puppets and associated CCP supporters and by an FG movement. I DO think that anything that the Epoch Times says probably needs to be kept, not because they're right (they are a propaganda organ) but because since they in fact ARE an FG organ they represent what either FG leadership and/or the rank and file think and what resonates with them. I would, however, think it'd be fair to note that the Epoch Times is a very pro-FG source and note when accusations are corroborated and when they are not: That sounds like a compromise that even pro-ET people can live with, since if the ET is in fact right there needs be no other corroboration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Demand for an apology

Someone here in these pages accused me of engaging in vandalism and sockpupperty. You know who you are, so I will not name and shame you right now. I consider the charges laid against me were a very serious attack of a personal nature, impugning my integrity. No only is is completely lacking in good faith, it goes against everything that I and wikipedia said for. Unless these completely groundless allegations are withdrawn with a full apology within 48 hours, I will come out and name you, and perhaps you will enjoy a spell without wikipedia! ;-) Ohconfucius 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take 3

OK, I have once again made a number of fully transparent edits, each summary completely and accurately reflects the actions taken. I will scream if anyone simply reverts these all in one or two goes without good reason. Please take the effort to examine them carefully before you shout "vandal". All introductions are sourced. I have also left a comment in the relevant section that the US senate resolution has not been properly represented, so please take a look at the resolution, and then at the text in quotes, and comment on my wording.


There has been too much unacceptable behaviour due to paranoia as far as I am concerned. So will you all please cool down, take a deep breath, and stop thinking like a victim. Ohconfucius 04:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's so upsetting to me there seems to be some petty minded edit warring still going on, the editor concerned has not even had the courtesy to engage me despite 2 prior vandal reverts as well as false accusations about sockpuppetry and vandalism. [addressing you directly now:] Taking a leaf out of your own book, something quite relevant which was sourced, and which potentially embarrasses the cult is now in violation of WP:BLP? This was not even stuff I introduced. Is this merely an opportunity to get rid of stuff you disagree with? I would tend to believe it was hypocrisy.
I still think the large chunks of quotes copied and pasted as it exists in the article could constitute copyright violation, yet you removed the quotefarm tag I placed. I thought I was quite clear in the discussion page that nothing was removed from the lead section, only moved. But "reinserting" paragraphs which were merely moved into sections below, you are indeed making a mess of the article. Don't forget that you don't own the article. Can we not work together? Ohconfucius 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing: the reliability of the source of research remains in question. Just because something is available on line and is copied faithfully therefrom into wikipedia does not make it "reliable" - It merely proves it exists. I believe the research itself is so questionable that I doubt the source is reliable in the sense that wikipedia means it. So, I have replaced the tag. Ohconfucius 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

For the record, I believe that the following are all sockpuppets of the same user, as all the edits to introduced by them restore the article to identical texts, irrespective of intervening edits. The accounts are used to edit FG or associated articles :

I have reversed edits made today by Special:Contributions/US133 Ohconfucius 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Add to above list of sockpuppets:

Ohconfucius 16:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suppression -> Persecution?

Re: Supppression of Falun Gong. I thought suppression of Falun Gong was the compromised title. Why was the article title changed to persecution of Falun Gong? This adds an unnecessary anti-PRC slant to the article, and a large amount of "evidece" described are from Falun Gong sources. I suggest moving the article to History of Falun Gong, or Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to make the title more neutral, and add some sections on pre-ban FLG history. See title conflicts on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Kent State shootings, No Gun Ri, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 etc.--PCPP 07:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello PCPP. There was official consensus to change the title. See here: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution, and just above: Talk:Falun_Gong#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution. Actually, it was originally called Persecution of Falun Gong, until it was changed by Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist who is now banned from wikipedia for aggressively promoting his anti-Falun Gong agenda. You may see his sockpuppets vandalise the pages from time to time. You can revert those. Nearly all third-party literature, including United Nations reports, Amnesty International reports, and Human Rights Watch refer to the persecution as a persecution. Edward McMillan Scott even referred to it as a genocide, since the CCP has actually been systematically killing practitioners for their organs for the last 8 or so years. He traveled to China and met with Falun Gong practitioners to talk to them directly about what they have suffered. Later, one of them went missing and was tortured. You may like to read his letter to Gao Zhisheng, a Chinese human rights lawyer. He has been under surveillance and subject to imprisonment by the CCP for some years now for writing to Wen and Hu, telling them to stop the persecution. After that they closed his law firm and started persecuting him too. You can read his open letters to the government, just type that info into google. He met with Falun Gong practitioners as well and they showed him their mutilated genitalia, from CCP torture. I will give you some links that you may like to pursue. You may have some prejudice toward the Epoch Times, but just note that these people don't work for the paper, and they are not practitioners. As far as I know they are both Christian, and have involved themselves in this as a matter of conscience. It is just that the Epoch Times is probably one of the few papers that would publish these things: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-9/42540.html (do you read Chinese? http://epochtimes.com/gb/6/5/30/n1334284.htm), and Scott also wrote something back: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-4/42312.html. They are just two regular people, like all the practitioners getting butchered.--Asdfg12345 10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite plz

Ok I'm not very familiar to this whole subject, I've read some of the article (mainly in the beginning) and I didn't understand a shit about what's the problem china gov has about this falun stuff. My opinion is that the article should be rewritten. thx. 194.187.56.13 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree.
I thought we had sorted the problems out, Dilip? Why do you still want to report me to the Arbcom? How about we restart working from the last version by Asdfg12345? Ohconfucius 16:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I did that revert before I saw your messages and I am really sorry about it. I can only request you to be understanding. I don't think either of us is committing "vandalism". This is for the information of other editors: there was a a misunderstanding on my part on the edits made by the user:ohconfucious. I had worded the edit summaries quite harshly and I think I owe him an apology.
Dilip rajeev 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your graceful apology. Let's forget about it and move on. Happy editing! Ohconfucius 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As a reader it seems very evident that this article has been written with an agenda in mind. This article uses a lot of words and phrases that are intended to form specific opinions. Use of words like "claim" (leads reader to believe that it is unsubstantiated and arbitrary) vs "state". The stressing of volunteer and voluntary (put it in a section that says members are voluntary and then eliminate the rest). To simplify reading, cut down the quotes and summarize, readers can refer to bibliography for further details. In short, this article should be written in a passive voice reporting facts, not a political/religious/social essay or article. Hungc9 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Third party Views"

The third party views section currently contains only criticism, many of which come from sources that hardly conform to wiki standards. I wish to point out that the section was almost entirely written by the two users currently banned and attempting to vandalize the pages. Further "views" from sources such as "AI", "UN", "USHR" are not present while most of it is some commentary by Benjamin Penny. Another issue I feel I must point out is that while none of the articles carry subtitles in their summaries on the main page, the couple of users managed to keep the subtitles and strong POV material through persistent reverts.

I am attempting to improve the section by examining the validity of the sources used, adding information from "third parties" such as AI, scholars etc and removing the subtitles from the main page. Dilip rajeev 04:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. There is no need to make accusations or say things like that. As for the article, I think one thing is that each section of the main page should be the same, follow the same format. I don't know what others think, but I think there should be a section on the main page for each daughter article, and simply use the respective introductions of those daughter articles. They should all conform to WP:LEAD, and would therefore serve a fine summary of the article and prompt the user to read further. This is my proposal. If there aren't any objections soon I might as well go ahead and implement that. It seems the most straightforward and consistent way to go about it, and in line with NPOV I think, not giving too much weight to any one facet. Of course, the main page should also have sections about parts of Falun Gong that are not covered in the daughter articles, like the Theoretical Background and others. For the rest that have daughter articles we should just use the introductions of those articles--what does everyone think?--Asdfg12345 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dilip, one reason that the third party page is going to be mostly criticism is that most third party observers (rightly or wrongly) side with the FG. That's most human rights groups, most Westerners, etc. There's a few non-FG but not-pro FG groups: The Law and Order episode on this topic noted that there are plenty of people in Chinese expatriate communities that dislike the FG. Their opinions should be included. Also, highly opinionated or unprofessional peaces (and that page should be citing HRW, AI, UN Rapporteur, established articles from mainstream sources, etc.) can be Wiki-standard if they establish a common thread of people's opinion. ArekExcelsior 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Typo to be corrected

Li Hongzhi States in Falun Buddha Fa Lecture in Europe

"States" should be "states".

Revert

I have once again reverted all vandalism and POV-pushing to last clean version, which I believe is #144364262 by User:Asdfg12345. I note that Dilip has once again removed the {{verify}} tag I placed in the research section. I disagree that having a link to the publisher's site is sufficient to warrant the tag's removal. The link merely establishes that the paper has been published, not that the researchers, publishing house and research etc are credible. Ohconfucius 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarifiation

Kindly allow me make the case clear. A paper on research done by :
Quan-Zhen Li, Ph.D, M.D.
Microarray Core, Center for Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Ping Li, Ph.D.
Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Gabriela E. Garcia, M.D.
Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Richard J. Johnson, M.D.
Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.,


published in the peer-reviewed journal "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. who, I believe, is among the world's leading Publishers in Biotechnology. The following sources were presented in the article:
1. The entire text of the article, the contents of which are verifiable from both offline as well as online sources.[12]
2. The Primary source that is the website of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc[13]
The paper was cited/referenced in:
1.Antibody therapy (IVIG): evaluation of the use of genomics and proteomics for the study of immunomodulation therapeutics
C. V. Sapan, H. M. Reisner, R. L. Lundblad
Vox Sanguinis. 2007, Vol. 92, No. 3: 197
2.Current awareness on comparative and functional genomics
Comparative and Functional Genomics. 2005, Vol. 6, No. 7-8: 412


The above user removed the links to the sources and added and "unreliable" tag and accused me for "POV-pushing"! Please point out which wikipedia policy allows the user to do so and label the sources being presented "POV-pushing".
"Ohconfucius", in my opinion you are pushing an extremely biased POV here. You removed/"shortened" critical and concise quotes from Amnesty International and US House of Representatives describing the situation in China in favour of self-written POV. While there is much stuff in the article, some soucred from newspaper articles, some even soured directly from the CCP, you have hardly bothered touching them or labelling them "unreliable".
I see that some people in China are so very strongly influenced by the CCP propoganda that even when concrete information is presented, to them its "unreliable". But I believe in making wikipedia edits we have to follow wikipedia policies. If a particular policy requires the sources to be removed and the tag "unreliable" put on then you may do so. Even when such a cruel persecution is raging and concrete and really shocking evidence emerging on the matter, why do you chose to work so hard to cover all that up? Do you really think there is even a bit of good or truth in the lies being spread by the CCP? WHy do choose to work to cover crimes committed by murderers?
So much has been removed up form this article in favour of self-written POV including material such as the Kilgour Matas Report on Organ Harvesting from imprisoned Falun Gong Practitioners[14][15], reports from EU Vice President. Edward McMillan-Scott, and several other sources(which I 'll be glad to present). This has been achieved by some users holding a strong POV and was achieved through a series of irrational reverts, and removal of well sourced information. These users routinely label the information they remove "POV" which further adds to the confusion.
Dilip rajeev 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well Dilip rajeev, I've just about had it with you. I thought your apology was sincere, but now it's clear it was a little less so, and that my original comments about you stand. You don't own the article. Furthermore, let it be known I did nothing more on my last pass than to amalgamate the tags which were cluttering up the article, so I don't honestly know what you are talking about. But heck, the article's such a trashy mess anyway a few tags is just the least of it, so by all means revert it. I told you I'm done with making radical edits to the page as you (and only you) always reverted. Don't come now to accuse me of making POV edits, because I do not feel they were misrepresenting the source - in any case you reverted and I haven't since touched the bulk. If you don't have time to examine other people's edits, don't touch them until you do and have something constructive to say, cause it seems like what you are accusing me of now is like digging up the past, which I buried long time ago. Ohconfucius 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of this study the way it is used is 1) false 2) very dangerous. The research was a research into "qigong" and its affect on human physiology. FLG subjects were used because they practiced qigong on a regular basis. The conclusion as stated by the researchers was that "qigong" did have an affect on human physiology. This is NOT a "Research conducted into the health benefits of Falun Dafa" as stated in Wikipedia! That complete section warrants a rewrite.Hungc9 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources to check

Hi all. I'd like to check and verify the Hassan and Singer information. If anyone knows where the information is, please post a link or ref. Realbie 05:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns

As I mentioned before a lot of information is being held back from being presented in the pages by a few editors. These people work by trying to create a non-existent confusion..They routinely delete well sourced information and top of that label attempts to restore the information "POV edits". For instance is in the main page, I dont understand why but some users insist on information from Amnetsy International, US Congress etc is being presented under a title "group controversy"! I haven't seen any academic source characterizing the issue of persecution of Falun Gong as "controversial".

Another instance, there is a user now in the persecution page claiming the topic is too "controversial" and so the entire page must be deleted! Almost all information, for instance, those related to the Tienanmen Sq incident, Kilgour matas report etc has been deleted from that page. Further these users try their best to keep editors engaged in futile discussion by classifying editors as "pro", "anti", then requiring consensus between "pro" and "anti" etc. I believe wikipedia is about objectively presenting information from reliable source. And I feel tackling such disruptive behavior is pretty easy since they are always blatant violations of Wikipedia policies. I request the Moderators/ The Arbitration committee to kindly look into the matter. Thank you. Dilip rajeev 06:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dilip. I have had a look through the archives and there does seem to be a few things buried there that could help the article. I'll have a more thorough check before proposing anything though. Realbie 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally would be concerned with references to Tiananmen. Even if that action was unjustified [and just to be clear: I argue stridently that it is - check the arguments between me and Sam in the archives], that doesn't logically or necessarily impugn the Chinese government's actions towards the FG. The only link I could see would be to sort of acknowledge the elephant in the room and state, "External observers and FG advocates compare the crackdown to [link]".... ArekExcelsior 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There seems to be scope for combining the two articles. The History of Falun Gong article contains a lot of duplication. The lead paragraph would be completely redundant, and only three paragraphs need to be copied over to complete a merge. Ohconfucius 01:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I did not see this comment, I'll put the merge tag back on the History of Falun Gong page. --HappyInGeneral 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some issues requiring urgent attention

Kindly take a look at the past few edits( Dated 13th of August 2007) by the user "Ohconfucious". To point out just a few things. while the edit summaries sounded pretty "benign"

  • The user deleted Every single statement from Amnesty International and many other reputed sources while addidng stuff from CCP controlled news agenices with statements that go like: "An essay published in the South China Morning Post characterised Falun Gong as "anti-China fronts for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that use the human-rights stick to bash the motherland."
  • Changed the name of the article "Third Party opinions" to "Criticism of the Falun Gong Cult". To be noted the label "cult" is what has been used by the CCP to justify their brutal murders and he has expanded the section with material from several unrealiable and self-published sources, the CCP and in many cases things that are completely unsourced.
  • Changed the name of the article "Persecution of Falun Gong" to "Supression of Falun Gong"!
  • Deleted entire sections like the "Theoretical Background section". Which was among the best sourced and well written sections in the article.
  • The user "OConfucous" previously insisted on labelling research papers sourced from Mary-Ann Liebert Inc, and published in the peer reviewed journal JACM "unreiliable" and had accussed me for "POV pushing" when I introduced the links. Please see:[16]

The above is not a complete list. I also want to point out that the edit summaries sound really benign. As far as I can see, the users' agenda is pretty obvious. Kindly look into the matter.

Dilip rajeev 07:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded

Look who edits nothing but FG articles! I certainly do not appreciate the groundless accusations Dilip rajeev has once again levied against me. If he feels so sure of himeslf, I would urge him to file a sockpuppet complaint against me, because a casual glance of the edit history will reveal the above accusations to be completely false on the surface, and he does not have a shred of anything which vaguely resembles solid proof that I have been doing the above. Please, I second the request for someone look into the matter. Ohconfucius 07:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admist I confused the edits of Use:G752 with yours. I dont understand why you chose to work on such a heavily and obviously vandalized version! My interest in this wikipedia article comes because I work during my spare time against the persecution happening in China and I feel this is an article that requires urgent attention. I have been trying to work towards a factual article here and to make sure material from reputed sources are presented objectively in the article. If my edits on the article ever violated wikipedia polices, then you may point them out. My schedule hardly allows time to work on other articles but I do plan to, once these articles are done properly, since my main interests are theoretical physics, computer science and alternative medicine.
Dilip rajeev 08:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I quite often work on the version which is there, and not bother looking into the edit history. I guess I should have checked first, knowing how polluted it can get, but still, looking at it now, version comparisons did not reveal the true extent of the vandalism because of unmatched paragraphs/sections. The revert you performed was a sledgehammer - you also reverted Benjwong's edits, not a way to go by causing collateral damage, if I might say so. I would suggest that you edited these articles only when you have serious time on your hands. Ohconfucius 08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I wish to point out that I confused edits of User:G752 with those of User:OhConfucious since his edits were done on the vandalized version. I missed, while going through the edit history, the single edit by User:G752 that caused majority of the changes I mentioned. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my coming to an abrupt conclusion may have caused other editors. Dilip rajeev 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD involving a FG article

I have just proposed the deletion of the article namespace Falun Gong and live organ harvesting. Ohconfucius 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I note that there is an edit war raging between PCPP and Dilip Rajeev, and would ask the parties to keep cool. Firstly, I do not see that the edit by the former are all that unreasonable. The former appears to take a fairly neutral stance to presentation of the information sourced. This raging debate and insistence in using the word 'persecution' instead of "crackdown" appears to be severely overblown. There are already plenty of times the word is used, especially in the sister article Persecution of Falun Gong. In any event, I believe that "nationwide crackdown" is the accept terminology for what has been taking place, and "nationwide persecution" just sounds over the top. Ohconfucius 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

playing it down is as bad as playing it up. We could be calling it a genocide by the dictionary and wikipedia definition and create a lot of conflict on these pages with constant arguments and reversions. persecution serves as an accurate description of the circumstances. take out "nationwide" then if you like, though it does actually span the whole nation. every part of society has been included in this. "stop work" meetings to denounce falun gong, school entrance based on falun gong stance, etc. etc.. it's not an overblown statement to describe it as a "nationwide persecution", but if you want to take out "nationwide" and describe the extent of the persecution in some other way then go for it. oh, sorry, one thing, I think it is okay to alternate between crackdown and persecution sometimes, too. just to keep it interesting, if you know what i mean. but as a whole, for the title for example, it is a persecution. i think just use crackdown and alternative words so things don't get a bit stale. I think pcpp is not editing that badly, even though he is obviously against falun gong for one reason or another, deleting sourced stuff and doing weasely changes that require time to scrutinise and fix, that is really annoying. He hasn't done that too much, though, to be honest, and I don't dislike him.--Asdfg12345 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, at least we are agreed. In fact, I was a bit clumsy - what you said is the same as what I meant. I never like to see the same word twice when there are alternatives. Ohconfucius 01:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTN:Dilip rajeev

I'm really bothered by the fact that you attacked me personally, calling me a vandal and sockpuppet, and threatening me with a checkuser. What happened to assume good faith? If you disagree with my changes with the word "persecution" why aren't you discussing the problem instead of reverting all my edits entirely? --PCPP 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked you "personally". I criticized your edits. I do find it hard to "discuss" when people put forward "arguments" like the word "persecution" is a POV! You can roll up this page to see a dictionary definition of the term. Please do clarify which definition exactly is a "POV". I am willing to assume good faith but find it hard to when you keep doing stuff like repeatedly changing the title "background" to " beginning of conflict", etc. Such edits, to the best of my understanding of wikipedia policies, are vandalism, which I believe, is best reverted immediately. I must admit that I still am interested in a "check user". Pleased dont take it personally, I am making the suggestion because there have been a few users who spared no trick in their attempt to vandalize these pages and remove well sourced information in favour of CCP propaganda. As you may notice the pages are still under "attack".
Dilip rajeev 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, again, dictionary definitions alone don't rebut the arguments that FireStar and PCPP have been putting up, FireStar operating from superior experience. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck; if we know that the phrase will cause conflict, it shouldn't be used. I personally think "Crackdown" satisfies pro-FG people because it sounds very nasty and anti-FG people because it sounds proactive. ArekExcelsior 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Complaint lodged against Samuel Luo

I lodged another complaint against puppets of Samuel Luo yesterday. Ohconfucius 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Additional news items and Theoretical Background

I would think that that Falun Gong members' self-immolation at Tianmen square in 2001 (which actually has its own page on Wiki) or Falun Gong hacking Chinese Satellite should be mentioned in this article (probably in the controversies section).

I am also not sure what's up with the Theoretical Background section (I feel like it's lifted from some new age pamphlet) but that section has more to do with QiGong than with only Falun Gong. Is this section even necessary? thanks. Hzzz 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah it's the theoretical background--most appropriate.--Asdfg12345 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you mean this "theoretical background" is necessary? Although I don't claim to be a good editor but I do enjoy reading good articles. If "theoretical background" is "most appropriate" then why don't every entry of this sort, let it be Kung Fu, QiGong, or Yoga, have a "theoretical background " section? Please keep in mind that wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and not your typical Falun Gong pamphlets which are being handed out at the local Chinatown. Hzzz 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As i see it, the therotical background is indeed necessary. Many western people dont know what qigong or cultivation practice is, and in order to define Falun Dafa in an encyclopedic way, we have to locate the reader in the context of qigong.--Andres18 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Party-quitting counter

The counter at [17] is now at 25 million. Someone needs to either continuously update the counter in the article (not possible now due to protection), or change it to "As of [date], the counter stands at..." I also suggest mentioning that the CPC has 70 million registered members, as a means of number comparison. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)



Evil Cult to be eliminated

I think that Falun Gong faces harsh persecution by the Communist Party and that there are more than 1000 forced labor camps with mainly Falun Gong followers in them is undisputed - even by the National Congress.

Therefore 99,99 % of your debattes are related to the accusations of Falun Gong being an "evil cult". I don't understand why this issue seems to be causing so much controversy. The implications of "cult" in the context here are very clear: an exploiting, capitalistic organisation with a hirachical command structure and a single deityfied leader on top, decieving new recruits by promising them "Heaven on Earth" and than exploiting them financialy or physicly by means of forced labor at the cult's farms or facilities, and using violence and brainwashing to force their cooperation, having satanic and superstitious rituals to harm themselves and others etc.

Also the Cult's leading elite is said to have close ties to corrupt government officials and other people in power, allowing them to controll and manipulate the world's media with the goal of eventually seizing world-wide power and enslaving humanity. Also according to the Encarta such a cult ussually posses a huge arsenal of weapons or even has a private army and uses violence under the pretext of "liberating" people from earthly suffering.

I will not say if Jews can be discribed this way, but the Nazis descriped them that way.

I do not think Wikipedia is the right place to determine if or if not Falun Gong also fits into this criteria. So of course you should mention IN DETAIL all those accusations including all of their implications, but at the same time you should also make it VERY CLEAR that it is those accusations and those very implications which made the persecution possible to beginn with.

--Hoerth 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Basically, the term "cult" contains pejorative connotations and probably should not be used in an encyclopedia entry. If the article is to be NPOV, then the term "cult" should not be used.

Sequiturnon 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't think it should be removed since that is what PRC thinks and should be noted. Not like saying Falun Gongs are annoying (though there is some truth to that still) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.8.234 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons cat

{{editprotected}} Should some sysop put it there {{Commons|Category:Falun Gong}}? Thanx --Chmee2 19:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. WODUP 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

should this be added to Religion in China?

should falun gong be added tp Religion in China article? many people think that it is a realigion. it should be mentioned in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.227.141 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Research into health benefits

Another one presented at the San Diego International Council of Psychologists [18] Maybe interesting to include in the article? PS. I'll leave it up to the regular editors of this page to include this interesting scientific study or not... Be safe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.124.140 (talk • contribs)

New template

{{editprotected}} to insert {{Falun Gong}} to replace {{chinese}}. Ohconfucius 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is only semiprotected. --MZMcBride 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge history of FG

No comments here so far since the tag was put up, but one comment from asdfg12345 in favour of merger. Can I take it as uncontrovertial? Ohconfucius 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I have gone ahead and done this. I think that page can be deleted now. There wasn't much on it. I hope you are happy with the way things are set out now.

About the structure of the article generally, I have a few points:

  • I think that there should be a section for each daughter section, and that this should pretty much just be a quick rundown of that page, of the important parts in that page.
  • The 'research into health benefits' should be moved to the third party page, and only one study mentioned briefly on the main page--the one that appeared in a journal, the other maybe should not be mentioned. Does not warrant a section to itself, at any rate. (will just go ahead and do this now)
  • Take out epoch times section. It is related to Falun Gong, but it is not of the same nature as the other sections, like beliefs and teachings, falun gong overseas, persecution etc.. There can be some 'related pages' mention of it, I think that would be appropriate, but basically it is not specifically a part of the Falun Gong cycle of articles, though related to them.

that's all for now. There's plenty of work to do on all these though.--Asdfg12345 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • At a quick glance, it's looking good. I'll take a more detailed look in the morning. But for now, I still don't think the Amnesty stuff (which you reinserted) belongs in the article - Not that the resolution is not relevant within the article, but not where it was removed from. I would state thr two reasons why I removed it from the FG in China section:
  1. the resolution (ie the bit which states "this house resolves...") is already properly represented in the FG outside China section
  2. the preamble to the resolution cites plenty of 'whereas' about the persection in China, how godawful the CCP is etc, but that is all preamble. The resolution is actually about the interference of practising FG in the United States, so it's in its proper place.

If you insist on keeping it, we would still need to deal with the repetition. Ohconfucius 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look more closely at this stuff about the resolution but I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. I think it is important to present the main elements of all the daughter articles on the main page. Using subheadings in all cases may be overstretching, but at least some representation. I though the Amnesty stuff would be quite important in talking about the persecution...? Mostly I just did rearranging and things. I don't know why the research into health benefits has been reinstated as its own section on the article... I think it could be represented under third party views section on main page, but I think the main part of it should appear on third party views page.--Asdfg12345 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Research Dilip reinserted it without a word anywhere, so you better ask him. There's nothing to suggest that he even read your comments. I happen to agree with you it would make for a better article, and would be inclined to remove again but don't want to get into another edit war right now. Ohconfucius 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still unconvinced about keeping this section in this article, but Dilip just reverted my deletion, writing "I think Research into health benefits and Thirld party "views" two very different, almost mutually exclusive topics" in the edit summary. However, I decided that some of the content from the 'Persecution' article sits better within this section, so I have moved it here in the meantime whilst we reach agreement where to put the whole lot. Ohconfucius 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe together with the moved content, it will now fit better in Third party views. If User:Dilip rajeev still disagrees, I would like to see him create a new home for his health benefits, I'm pretty certain that the community would delete it in a flash, again. ;-) Ohconfucius 03:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Complete ABSENCE of balance

Just dropping by for a quick perusal here. How anybody can call the current version of the FG Wikipedia entry in any way 'neutral' or 'balanced', let alone 'independent', is beyond me. It reads just like the Epoch Times, and we know how "independent" that newspaper is.

I'm here mainly to express disappointment that even previously avowed neutrals and "reformed" FG members who are not doing anything to correct or edit this piece to ensure its independence and balanced stance anymore. The 'third party' sources all support Falun Gong's positive aspects. The more radical FG members like Dilip is simply turning the piece into some propaganda puff work, and the arbitrators are doing NOTHING about it. Well, as the saying goes, all this takes is for good (wo)men to do nothing. It is indeed regrettable that once some of these editors have shown their true colors once they are no longer restrained that Wikipedia's accountability standards and enforcement agents are more impotent than ever on these FG-related pages.

Show me a proper criticism section and shut me up, please. But the current version(s) is/are frankly ridiculous. Jsw663 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of promotional photo

Although I do not feel I am under any obligation to put another photo in the place of one which I am removing, I am doing so for the sake of goodwill. It must be remembered that wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ohconfucius 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am very sorry. I honestly didn't even think it would be conceived of as a 'promotional' photo. Please, any old photo is fine as long as its good quality, clear, and demonstrates what Falun Gong exercise/meditation is in a normal straightforward way. I wrote something else before but deleted it. I have twigged to what you mean. They have obviously got all set up for that one, using it to show how sparkly Falun Gong is. I realise this just now actually. Please know that it didn't click in my mind before now. I looked through the photos and just looked for the nicest one. I agree that a photo which could be interpreted to be explicitly promoting Falun Gong or something, that it's just better to find a more neutral-looking one. I haven't seen the new photo you've dug up. I do appreciate your good will. Did you know, that if you had simply explained this concern to me I would have removed the photo myself. I didn't realise what you were on about. It's fine to take that one down and put another one up. I'll have a look now.--Asdfg12345 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely object to Dilip rajeev reverting to the promotional photo. This is no "I love Falun Gong" site. It must preserve some semblance of neutrality and avoid the use of promotional photos such as this one. In fact, I would object to the 'enactment' photos too, as these are equally, if not more provocative. Ohconfucius 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it makes no sense not to have any photos of people doing the exercises of Falun Gong. Didn't you accuse Dilip of paranoia earlier? Just take a look on any kind of religious/mysticism/spirituality related subject and you'll find examples of the discipline or whatever. It's a rather normal thing. I see some stuff below, I'll look now.--Asdfg12345 00:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we have already dealt with the issue of the wooly semi-levitational promotional photo, which I replaced with a neutral one of people doing FG exercises on a holiday camp? Is there still an issue? I find the 'enactment' photo is in a different category, but I am not sure you are referring to that one. Ohconfucius 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A Request to the arbitration Committee

I dont undersand which part of the photo is promotional!! Plase stop making these irrational allegations. Three people doing the sitting meditaiton of Falun Dafa becomes promotional? If I take photos of a group of pracitioners doing the tranquil meditation and put it up it certainly will look good - now what is the rationale behind labelling it "promotional"? I have a serious concern that the research into health effects section has been changed to health "impact" and some stuff called "qi gong psychosis" was introduced. Has any such thing ever been associated with Falun Gong by ay reputed research institute? Not once. The material implies , indirectly, practicing Falun Dafa could make people psychotic. Almost all major univertities including Yale and Harvard have practice groups with many professors and students practicing. Every person who has even once tried the exercises knows how immensely beneficial the practice is. It is no accident that 100 million people were practicing Falun Dafa in just a few years after its introduction. In China many were people holding high posts in government, military, health services etc. Government organizations throughout China had presented several awards to Falun Gong were in high praise of Falun Gong till a few people high up in the hierarchy perceived the increasing number of practitioners as a "threat" to "materialism" and "marxism" and one of the most cruel persecutions seen in history were launched against practitioners and their families. They are innocent people cultivating goodness in their own hearts. That is sole the crime for which they are being persecuted.

I urge every editor to go once through the teachings of Falun Gong. You can start with the book Zhuan Falun and the nine lecture videos. Falun Gong teaches people to be kind, true and tolerant, to value virtue, to be altruistic and to think of others before doing anything. Despite this cruel persecution that has been raging for years not one practitioner has ever resorted to violence.


The so called "psychosis" material being presented as the "health impact" of pracitcing Falun Gong!! This is the limit of absurtidity and is shamefully making use of an online encyclopeadia to spread lies and claims only made by the CCP. There is a lot of research and surveys conducted and all, without exception, have found the practice immensely beneficial.

I have been banned from editing for 48 hours trying to remove the material. A former president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Professor Emeritus at New York Medical College, Dr. Abraham Halpern, points out this is a propoganda tool that is extensively used by the CCP to justify the persecution. He is also a member of the Friends of Falun Gong, U.S.A ( http://www.fofg.org/about/about_halpern_bio.php?cat_id=3 )

"The statement has finally declared unambiguously and clearly a call for the admission to the PRC of an investigative mission to look into the serious allegations of abuse and misuse of psychiatry in connection with the hospitalization and other kinds of involuntarily psychiatric treatment of non-mentally ill Falun Gong practitioners and political dissidents as well. This statement is much stronger than anybody could have expected, demanding the unrestricted opportunity to visit any hospital that the investigative mission would want to go to; to have their own translators without relying on translators within China itself...I don't think that the Chinese government will ignore it."

"China Mental Health Watch," an NGO established on November 21, 2003 in New York, is composed of Chinese and western psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, lawyers, and other volunteers. They wrote a letter to WHO on January 8, 2004, reporting on the psychiatric abuse of Falun Gong practitioners, and called for international support to stop the persecution of practitioners who were also doctors and medical workers. In their letter, they expect WHO, in order to maintain the international standards of medical ethics and human rights, to play its role in preventing the inhumane persecution in China.


I request that these two CCP propaganda pushing paragraphs at the beginning of the Health impact section be immediately removed.

Last time with the visit of the Chinese president to US the articles were heavily vandalized. It is no secret that CCP has been paying so called "spies", individuals and even student groups to spread their propaganda in the US. The FBI and the US House of representatives have commented on this. The international community knows very well to what extent the CCP has gone to persecute and spread slander on Falun Gong. We cannot choose to ignore these fact and assume that the article wont be under attack or that the wikipedia article is not under the direct attention of the CCP. With the olympics games coming there will be a more intense propaganda on part of the CCP to cover up their killings with lies and slander targeted on Falun Gong and the wikipedia article will certainly be a target. A few users previously vandalizing the pages, and currently banned, were found removing data from the article on the 1989 Tianenmenn square incident. I dont think these are issues we can take lightly or just ignore.

I request the arbitration committee to kindly look into the matter. 220.226.32.123 16:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilip rajeev (talk • contribs)

Seconder to the Request to arbcom

  • I would second the request for arbcom to look into the editing behaviour in this article.
  • Dilip rajeev, you have been banned from editing for a very good reason that you have been engaged in persistent edit warring. You don't discuss, and you make blanket reverts. The fight you picked is with wikipedia and not me. Keep going at this rate and your ban will be made indefinite, you can then go and work for the causes which is dearest to your heart.
  • Dilip rajeevYou said in a previous edit summary that he thought the current photo is OK, so why can he not leave it at that? I believe my very strong objections about said photo were perfectly clear, and it appears that the editor who put it there initially sees the point I made, and was prepared to remove it himself.
  • As for the qigong psychosis text, it is well sourced, and I have been given to understand that the whole of the psychiatric abuse section in 'Persecution' from which it came was written by asdfg, I merely moved it here as I didn't see it fitting with that article. It has to be understand that what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander too, one can't pick and choose one's own biased version of facts to foist upon people.
  • That qigong induced psychosis is a recognised psychiatric condition is referenced to Time magazine article about FG, and it is odd to say that it is CCP propaganda, and also to choose to ignore it by saying FG is not qigong, after all, Dilip rajeev was the one who decided to put that POV section in against all objections and an AfD, and knowing full well (as explained by someone above) that the study you cited happened to be on FG practitioners while all the researchers wanted to study were bog standard qigong practitioners.
  • Also, against the discussion taking place here, Dilip rajeev once again began edit-warring to reinsert the "health benefits" section after it had been moved to the 'Third party' article by asdfg. If the heading remained unchanged after introducing the paragraphs about pychosis, there would clearly be something wrong.
  • Wikipedia is not the place to have your war on the government of the PRC, evil as they may be. If Dilip rajeev cannot accept that, he clearly doed not belong here editing wikipedia articles. Ohconfucius 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem to have that stuff about qigong psychosis under the health effects section. But it is also intimately linked to the matter of psychiatric abuses. Munro thoroughly debunked these claims, and anything mentioning qigong psychosis with relation to Falun Gong will be followed by Munro's, and others', very strong language on the deceitful nature of this claim, and its use in torturing and killing innocent lives. It should all go on the third party page, anyway. Having Health Benefits here and Qigong Psychosis on the third party page... I don't think that will work. --Asdfg12345 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Its alright if the section is moved to the Third Party Views Page. But I totally disagree with your view that these two things can be put under the same heading. The qigong pschosis thing must be presented with background of the propaganda and statements made on the issue by authorities in the fields such as Abraham Halpern. The Research into the Health benefits section I feel should reflect what the title says - Medical research in the field.
Dilip Rajeev
207.46.55.31 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I endorse blanking of the section as not belonging here in this article. Ohconfucius 09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Friend, I was not targeting you in person when I made the request - the content is what I disagreed with. The Time article you frequently refer to is one that was published following a period of intense propoganda by the CCP - making every possible use of state controlled media. It is not an academic study and at that time much of what was known to the international media was content supplied by the CCP. You yourself might know how strongly media is censored there. I read recently that a group of journalists were sentenced to several years in prison for merely supplying news material to foreign media. You might also have read whats been happening to the reputed Human Rights Lawyer Gao Zhisheng ( http://en.epochtimes.com/211,107,,1.html )and his family for him speaking out against the persecution of Falun Gong. We certainly will be facing a lot of vandalism on these pages as the olympic games approach and the attention of the International community falls on the Human Rights situation in China.
My genuine concern was that the material is not academic in nature and the way in which it was being presented was very misleading - and a very inapporpriate way to present things in an encyclopaedic article. My persective was that The research into Health benefits section could be used to present studies conducted on the is aspect by reputed medical institutes and also the results of large scale surveys - which I felt was relevant since practitioners feel Falun Gong has a profound effect on imporving ones mind-nature and at the same time elevating one's physical health. As for the the photograph, I feel both are ok. Was only objecting against the other one being labelled "promotional".
Dilip Rajeev
207.46.55.31 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sixth Talk of "Zhuan Falun"

The first topic in the sixth talk of "Zhuan Falun" is "Qigong Psychosis" http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new_6.html#1

"In the cultivation world there’s this phrase, "qigong psychosis," and it has a pretty big effect on the general public, especially since some people make a huge deal out of it and they’ve caused some people to be afraid of doing qigong. When those folks hear that qigong can lead to psychosis they get too scared to practice. But actually, I’m going to tell you: there’s just no such thing as qigong psychosis. "

The above is one quote from the book "Zhuan Falun". You can find that "Qigong Psychosis" is not part of Falun Gong. So I think that part is not related to research into health impact of Falun Gong. So I took them out.

Below are more quotes from http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/zfl_new_6.html#1 "A lot of people have this idea that swaying all over the place is doing qigong, when the truth is, if somebody is in that state when he does true qigong it’ll have serious consequences. That’s not doing qigong—that comes from ordinary people’s attachments and pursuits. " .... "So now this "qigong psychosis" thing, or "going into fire like a demon," to take the old expression for it really literally, I’d say it’s definitely bunk. "

Please value what the Falun Gong said what it is. I believe the Falun gong books themselves are more self-speaking than some other people's uncounted comments even without reading Falun gong's teaching. Please consider my opinion. Thanks. Fnhddzs 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology?

The only time the word "crackdown" is effectively used is when the statement was declared in 1999 by Beijing according to quite a number of sources. The problem is that it is known internationally as "persecution" and this is en.wikipedia after all. I feel the edits made by PCPP is trying to reduce the damages done by the Communist party. Or worse, change the historical significance. Can we discuss to see if this really is a violation of WP:WTA. Has there been a similar discussion else where? Benjwong 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Seconded. It's obviously not very wikipedian to keep making those changes. It was the same with Samuel. Eventually he got banned. If PCPP escalates he'll get banned too. --Asdfg12345 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It depends. Whilst I agree that PCPP has behaved in a disruptive fashion, I note there is a tendency of some editors to insert blanket "persecution" in articles where it has already appeared 'n' times. Equally, some editors have inserted "since the persecution of Falun Gong" all over the place. Then there are others who seek to change every appearance of this word into 'crackdown'. I have nailed down some of these to citations, but they are near impossible to follow as they are all over the place, so they are best deleted. There is usually a FG or Amnesty source in each article which is be quoted as saying that persecution has been taking place, so this first appearance is fine. My sentiment is that if there's no related source, or if it's to a FG source which has already been cited, then delete. Ohconfucius 04:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just a question of motive. If one's motive is really because it starts to look repetitive having "persecution" n times, and you change it to different words like "repression", "crackdown", "suppression", "genocide" etc., and that's a sincere wish to make the article more reader-friendly, I think it's fine. Unfortunately, I don't feel that that is what is motivating PCPP. He wants to make out that the persecution is somehow more cuddly than all that awful torture and organ harvesting. I don't actually know what he thinks is going on in China, in those prison cells. He may not have even considered the human element. Anyway, let's just edit in an upright way and there won't be any problems--Asdfg12345 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is PCPP? Benjwong 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

thing with the third party/criticism

It is not at all an issue of not wanting criticism. The point is that it's presented neutrally, in context, and alongside other views. Not to mention it being referenced properly, not containing weasel words, etc. There have been a number of issues associated with this. I may not understand, but I don't see why a particular issue associated with third party views of Falun Gong be given particular prominence above others... I am not sure I understand this. If there is new information about Falun Gong being a cult then it should just be added to the current section, which discusses that issue pretty well. The reason it is called 'Third Party views on Falun Gong' is because that is a neutral title. It used to be called 'Criticism of Falun Gong' -- well should we have a section called 'Praise of Falun Gong' as well? It's obviously more rational to put them together, and have a 'Third Party' section. I think what I am saying is pretty reasonable. We can share ideas on this. So far on the main page we have not featured particular aspects of daughter articles, but just given the introduction. Obviously we could change that. If some editors felt there were particular aspects that were worth highlighting on the front page that would be fine, and we could do that. The point is that it appear natural, neutral, and encyclopedic. Changing the title of the section, then putting in two huge blocks, with no relation to the context, it just doesn't seem right. If you had made it 'Praise of Falun Gong and Third Party views', and had two blocks saying how great Falun Gong was, I would still revert it. It would be the same. I hope what I am saying makes sense. If the cult stuff is to be featured on the main page it obviously needs to go alongside the anticult stuff. Since the debate is slightly nuanced it seems to make more sense to put it on the third party page where it can be hashed out properly. I don't think it is best to make rash changes and become worked up. This is an encyclopedia, so it appear well thought out, considered, and intelligent. I may not understand your perspective fully though. If there is missing information on any aspect of the articles I think it should be included. But there are always parameters for that, and it has to make sense. What does everyone think?--Asdfg12345 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the "i wont abide" comment is not really accurate of what I think. The point is just to do things normally and neutrally. It should be logical, readable and natural. That's all I meant. Not like I want some conflict or feel so strongly. Sorry to give the wrong impression. I absolutely think if there is more relevant information it should be added to the appropriate section. That expanded analysis of Singer, for example, and if there's a ref for SPLC. --Asdfg12345 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of articles I recently came across. I feel the material is very relevant to these pages, especially the one related to the persecution.

US Department of State Releases 2007 Annual Religious Freedom Report Condemning CCP's Repression of Falun Gong and Others

Top Chinese Attorney Kidnapped Following Letter to U.S. Congress

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-16/35876.html

207.46.55.31 08:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

yep the US state one pretty relevant at least.--Asdfg12345 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Genomic Profiling of Neutrophil Transcripts in Asian qigong Practitioners: A Pilot Study in Gene Regulation by Mind–Body Interaction, Li et al., 2005. Sourced from the Epoch Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_20&oldid=1136279350"