Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 7

This is an archived discussion page. DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. Please go to the main talk page and join the discussion there.

Archived discussion:

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

Responding to Tomanda

No Tomanda, what I'm saying is that the suggested phenomena is quite rare, that there is little controvesy amongst pratitioners over whether or not to believe or agree with Mr. Li, and that it is thus not worth mentioning. If someone has practiced in a spirtual disciple like Falun Gong for 10 years, then I highly doubt that they would disagree with their teacher. I explained above, from my own experience, how common practitioners regard Mr. Li's words, but this form of relationship is not unique to Falun Gong nor is it necessarily cult-like. Do Christians question the Bible? Do Buddhists question the Dharma? Do Daoist disciples question their masters? If this is the criterion of mind control, then I think you've got a problem with just about every major religion or spiritual discipline. All of the abovementioned things that you told me to "think about" have related concepts in Christianity and other religions as well. So are you suggesting that all devout religious practitioners cannot think for themselves and thus victims of mind control? As for objectivity: This article is about Falun Gong. Falun Gong practitioners believe in Falun Gong. I think it's pretty obvious that practitioners will not disagree with what they believe in, and are thus more apt to include positive information. You, on the other hand, don't like Falun Gong and are clearly more apt to include critical information. We all have our biases, but that doesn't mean that we can't be objective or add to the objectivity of the article. Wikipedia articles become objective through the input of different people with different opinions, not through completely objective individuals. If you have an interest in something enough to spend the time to help edit its wiki article, then how can you not have biases and opinions?

The title of your post was "If you "believe everything Li says" what's the point of reporting "your own" beliefs about Falun Dafa in Wikipedia?" I said before that all practitioners interpret the teachings of Falun Gong according to their own understanding. Of course we will agree on fundamental things, such as whether or not Falun exist, but going past the fundamentals the teachings are broad and lend to many different interpretations and understandings. Besides, since when are editors suppost to report their own beliefs in Wikipedia? Mcconn 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's OK for editors to directly mention their own beliefs and opinions (without violating WP:Civility of course) on article talk pages, but not in articles. We can't say that FLG is a cult and that Li is a cult master in the articles, we can only report that others do, if they do and the quotes are sourced, but editors here, in order to provide context for their edits, can reveal that they believe one way or the other. You brought up an interesting point: "Do Christians question the Bible? Do Buddhists question the Dharma? Do Daoist disciples question their masters?" Actually, many do, and in some schools it is encouraged. One nickname I have heard for Taoists is "sceptics", FWIW. Regards, --Fire Star 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn,Of course Christians question the Bible and at times reject some teachings all together. Christians and Buddhists don't have to deal with someone who for all practitcal purposes assumes the role of God. The Pope in Rome is not Jesus, nor does he claim to provide salvation. And Sakyamuni, unlike Li, encouraged people to take his teachings and adapt them to their own cultures and envirmonments. The test for Sakyamuni always was: does it work for you? Compare that to Li whose personal intervention is required througout the cultivation process and who threatens practitioners who plagiarize his Dafa with Demons. In Falun Gong, the test is always obedience to the master and his Dafa. The degree of control Li exercises over the lives and thinking of practitioners is frightening.

I don't expect you to recognize the cultish nature of the Falun Gong merely based on these discussions, but some day I hope you will. --Tomananda 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope that some day you will recoginze the goodness and purity of Dafa. Perhaps "question" wasn't the right choice of words. "Disagree with" probably better expresses my meaning. Practitioners actually are always questioning the teachings, but not disagreeing with them. Questioning is encouraged and a major part of the practice. That's why Mr. Li spends so much time answering questions from practitioners at most of his lectures. Do you think Sakyamuni or Jesus's disciples disagreed with their teachers? No way. If you ask me I'd say that Falun Dafa's emphasis on principles rather than precepts and rules makes it far less restraining than Buddhism or Christianity. Moreover, when Jesus and Sakyamuni taught their practices they required their disciples to renounce everything in the world and go with them into the forest. That seems like a lot more control than Mr. Li has. For the record, I'm not against these religions at all, I'm just making a point. Mcconn 02:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn: Yes, I understood your meaning of "question" to be "disagree with" and believe me millions of Christians disagree with passages in the bible (especially the old testatment)all the time. Catholics disagree with statements made by the Pope as well. And Buddhists...by which I mean those who truly do not judge others, in the tradition of real Buddhists all over the world...would really wonder how Master Li can claim Buddhist credentials while at the same time evidencing so much attachment to his own reputation. Sakyamuni taught love and compassion, so did Jesus. Li Hongzhi teaches fear and "righteousness." On top of that, Li Hongzhi says he's greater than Sakyamuni and Jesus, claiming their dharma can no longer save people. And yet you hope that some day I will recognize "the goodness and purity" of Li Hongzhi's (nee: Li Lai's)Dafa....the Dafa which is spoken from Li Lai's mouth. Sorry, but to me the Dafa that is spoken from Li Lai's mouth is a fantastic paranoid fantasy created by a very clever, maybe even brilliant, rural country boy in China. Back in 1992, it was spoken to cash in on the Qi Gong boom when Li Lai was about 40 years old. Now it is spoken to motivate people to jam the Chinese government and win sypmpathy from the West. As I see it, real spiritual teachers transcend the world of politics. Whether Li Lai is right or wrong in assuming the role of an expatriate revolutionary seeking the overthrow of the wicked CCP is not my concern. But believe me, he does not deserve to be placed in the same company as Sakyamuni and Jesus. --Tomananda 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Tomananda 02:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong and sexual orientation

There is some controversy within the Falun Gong community concerning Li's teachings on homosexuality. [1]Some practitioners have stated that each practitioner speaks for himself concerning this issue, while others claim that Li's teachings are directed towards practitioners for personal guidance and self-cultivation, rather than to discriminate against or judge others. Most practitioners seem to agree with Li that homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but instead reflects deviations from the natural order that have occurred at the higher levels. These deviations are considered to be part of the cause of homosexuality and part of the need for Fa-rectification.

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

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

FLG now debased to spamming?

Yep, that's right. Getting a bunch of email spam from FLG lately. Getting more and more desperate, they are. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I hope that with the split, the main article can be a short, reliable, and detached description about Falun Gong, written for the curious outsider. I very much encourage everyone to add information about the finer points of FG's teachings, history, and persecution, but please do so in the appropriate new articles. Weel 12:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you communicated with other editors about this? I don't think you did. Such a major revision requires the consensus of editors working on this article. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Vandalize an Article under the Guise of Splitting It

We must say no to this attempt to subvert the work of many editors over these long weeks. Claiming he has simply split the article, Weel has done a major re-write which obscures or deletes all together the content critical of the Falun Gong. Worse yet, Weel has actually deleted some of the discusssion content as well. For example, he carried over an edited version of Olaf's post, without also carrying over my response to Olaf's post. This is an outrageous violation of Wikipedia editing standards. --Tomananda 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually altering discussion content, editing the statements of others not just moving them for archiving purposes, is unacceptable, and liable to get an editor sanctioned.--Fire Star 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that there are too many levels in Weel's split as well. Two of the sections I thought were deleted are burried. Here's one example of the problem: 3.Falun Gong Outside China takes you to the main page, but starts at that heading, then you go to "Western views on persecution." This doesn't make sense. In this scheme, Perscution has been given its own main category, so everything about Perscution..and that would include "Western views" belong in that section. Then there's two whole sections devoted to "Membership" and "Sylmbolism" which simply don't warrent their own sections.

I think the way to proceed in terms of splitting is for there to be a proposed scheme based on categories and sub-categories first. This should occur in the discussion section. --Tomananda 02:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right that this should be discussed first, but I think since so much work has already been put in to split it that we shouldn't just revert it. At least give Weel a chance to defend it. I'm fairly impartial to the split, but if, after a bit of discussion, it seems like a good idea then perhaps we can use what weel has done as base. Mcconn 02:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pretty simple, along the lines of what we could consider the first "split" article, Li Hongzhi. So, we could have things like Persecution of Falun Gong, Criticism of Falun Gong, etc. with the info we already have, and then these can be expanded. --Fire Star 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the charge is that Weel was deleting loads of relevant information under the guise of splitting the article. In any case, he should have obtained the concensus of editors before the split. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I later discovered that Weel did more burrying than deleting. There were some deletions in the article, as well as the discussion page (partial text carried over without everything associated with it). But the burrying created a worse problem. I think the editors should agree on what the categories should be and, I assume, we can all agree that not every topic needs to be split off to a separate main page. Shouldn't the overall length be the main determiner of what gets moved to a separate main page? Someone has to write a summary for those pages which get moved. (Maybe we could split this up based on area of interest.) I like the model in Scientology. It has several linked main pages, but also quite a few small topics listed on its home page without a link to a separate page. Is there a special level of expertise/authority needed to actually create those new pages? Fire Star: how do you feel about taking the lead on this since you have been invoved for some time, but also may be the most neutral in terms of the content? Different editors can still make recommendations on the overall organization, but you would be the one to execute the plan.--Tomananda 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on Homosexuality and Quoting

This issue has dragged on for quite a while, and the section is the subject of constant editing by myself and others. I just made a bunch of changes to the section that I have address here. I removed the ZFL II quote and the poem. The section is already full of quotes on the same issue and amidst all of the other quotes these two do very little to clarify Falun Gong's, or Mr. Li's, stance or belief on this issue. The ZFL II quote is a single sentence taken out of its context and is rather unclear to begin with. It addresses the mental state of homosexuality, which is similarly (although not identically) mentioned in the Frankfurt quote. The seriousness to which Mr. Li holds homosexuality in the poem is clearly indicated in the statement about gods targeting homosexuals if not for Fa-rectification. I am not going to comment on the intentions of some of the editors, but I will say that if your really want people to understand how Falun Dafa regards homosexuality then you might as well fill the page with everything that Mr. Li has ever written about cultivation, understanding others, compassion toward others, mankind's degredation, lust, sentimentality, etc. This to say that you can fill the page on everything Mr. Li has ever said about homosexuality (which we've pretty much done), but once it gets to a certain point it becomes just so out of context that there's no way it can be understood accurately. This is because Mr. Li speaks to practitioners at his lectures, people who he knows will understand his words within the context of the whole system. No matter how many individual quotes you include you will never present a clear picture as he words were never meant to be examined in this way. For tbe same reasons, I still am not happy with this section, even after my current edits. Maybe Tomanda will label this appologitics, that's his or her opinion, which is fine, but my intention is to help people understand Falun Dafa for what it is rather than for the interesting or shocking things Mr. Li has said. In my opinion, the only way to gain a fair understanding of Falun Gong is to read the teachings yourself, yet I realize that not everyone who wants to learn about Falun Gong is willing to do that. So I'm doing what I can to keep the article as fair and accurate as possible. Mcconn 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn: It's clear that you are uncomfortable with Li's teachings on homosexuality and wish to mitigate against those teachings by inserting a practitioner's first person POV in the section Falun Gong and sexual orientation. Please stop deleting portions of this section and replacing it with your own words or the opinions of practitoners. You are wasting everyone's time on this and, frankly, it's getting to be a bit annoying. Instead of rationalizing Li's teachings on homosexuality by quoting a practitioner who says "gay people have always been a part ot my life," why don't you truly honor gay people by saying, loud and clear, that you do not agree with Li's teachings on homosexuality? The fact that you are not able to say that indicates to me that you are playing games. --Tomananda 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more point to Mcconn: Since you obviously want to add something to this section, why don't you locate a published source (not a practitioner) whom you can quote or summarize as saying what you believe to be the case about Falun Gong and homosexuality? Instead of deleting what already has been discussed for weeks (remember that it was a FG practitioner who insisted on adding the entire "World's Ten Evils" poem) the more productive thing to do would be for you to locate a published commentator on the Falun Gong whose writing you can use to provide the balance you are seeking. For a good model on how that can be done, please read the Is Falun Gong a cult? section and notice the paragraphs that Olaf added at the end. I, of course, don't agree with his sources and he doesn't agree with mine, but both POVs are represented so the readers can decide

--Tomananda 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my post below on how I believe we should treat and speak with one another. It is simply not true that I'm uncomfortable with Mr. Li's teachings on homosexuality and I believe that I've made that clear. Yet, I am uncomfortable with these particular teachings being presented in a way that may misguide readers' understandings of thier role and context within Falun Gong. In my edit I gave the quotes more context and made the section more readable. If you think that any of my words were opinionated then please point them out so that others and myself can know. I explained above why I cut out two of the quotes. They don't add enough to the article at this point. We are writing an article here, rather than simply listing quotes. It has to be readable, clear, and to the point. I think my changes help that without taking away from the explaination. Also, the criticism quote at the end is hardly related. It begins by criticising Falun Gong's view on homosexuality, but then goes into into supposed "fear tactics". Those really have nothing to do with this section and take away from the focus. We must bear in mind that this is not an argumentative essay in which every point must be argued. These kinds of criticisms should only be inserted when they are very pertinent and inline with the topic. The focus should be on the information, not whether some people agree or disagree with it. I'm not saying that there should be no criticisms, I'm just commenting on their place. Also, the sentence "But with Fa-rectification, homosexuals are given the opportunity to renounce their sexual behavior (and presumably live a celibate life)" is fairly opinionated. It's not included in my edit because, through the arrangement of quotes and commments, it's explained in other, less opinionized ways. I understand that I can't quote a practitioner in the way that I did, and I will act on Tomanda's suggestion and try to find a suitable quote. Mcconn 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn: what part of the word frightening don't you understand? What part of the word punishisment do you disagree with? These are both words that Li Hongzhi uses frequently when talking about the consequences people pay for their behavior. He singles out homosexuals for a punishment which is especially frightening, painful and slow (his words, not mine). And he tells practioners about a whole host of things they should be afraid of: aliens, demons, elimination in Fa-rectification, "evil forces," etc. None of this is made up. All of it is directly relevant to a discussion of Li's teachings on homosexuality. The fact that you continue to resist the inclusion of this material is, itself, a blatant example of apologetics.

PS: How can you say the sentence "But with Fa-rectification, homosexuals are given the opportunity to renounce their sexual behavior (and presumably live a celibate life)" is opinionated? If a homosexual gives up having sex, doesn't that mean he or she becomes celibate? Isn't that the definition of celibate in the first place? What you don't like about this sentence is that it is clear and precise, and perhaps by reading the words presented in such a straight-forward way you begin to understand how a homosexual might react to Li's teachings. There's nothing opinionated in this sentence other than the views of Li Hongzhi himself. And we all know what he thinks about homosexuals. You could put a little distance between yourself and your master on this topic (if you could summon up the courage and independence of thought), but you can't demand that the rest of us buy into you apologetics.--Tomananda 22:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Together

In recent weeks the Falun Gong article has become quite chaotic. With lots of new material being added to the article there have been a lot of disagreements, which have in turn lead to incessant reverting. I don’t think any of us like to have our hard work reverted, and especially when feel that very little reason was given why. Some of the current editors here come from very different points of view, which makes it almost impossible for us to be able to agree on everything and be happy with it. At times we disagree and revert so much that it almost turns into a war. But I think we need to try harder to work together (I am not pointing any fingers by saying this, and do not hold myself exempt from this at all), so I think we all need to examine our editing practices.

Very few of our edits are explained on the talk page, which I think is a problem. Since there is such discord amongst us, I think it is necessary that we fully explain each edit we make on the talk page from now on. And if someone doesn’t like what you put in and chooses to revert or change it, they can explain why in the talk page rather than simply reverting and writing an insufficient one-sentence edit summary. When commenting on an edit in the talk page I think we should also thoroughly consider the other editors by trying to explain ourselves very clearly and in a way that is easy for everyone to understand. I don’t think that through doing this we will all be able to agree on everything or always come to a consensus on everything, but I think it will do a little to restore some order (which I think will make all of us happier).

We also need to re-examine how we look at and treat one another. Wikipedia’s simplified ruleset lists a few things that I believe some of us are lacking here. I’ve pasted a few summaries below and I encourage everyone to read them through. Primarily though, I think we need to work on mutual respect and assuming good faith. I think a lot of tension has come from not respecting each other or assuming bad or improper intentions.

Another thing, we do all have our opinions on Falun Gong, most of which are very strong, but we should each be careful in thinking we are right. Personally, on at least one occasion in the past I have made edits which I thought were very good, but were then replaced with material that I really disagreed with. Rather than reassessing my edit, I reverted it, believing that I was right. It was then reverted again of course and maybe one more time, but eventually I reassessed my edit and realized there were some problems and altered it. I think we need to keep this kind of mindset from the start though, rather than only after an revert war. When our changes are reverted, we need to truly consider why (trying our best to assume good faith) and reassess what we’ve done. Maybe it turns out that there’s nothing wrong with what you wrote and the reverter is misguided or doesn’t understand, well…, then take it to the talk page.

This is a lengthy post and all it’s I’ll say about this for now. I hope each editor will take it seriously and add their own thoughts and ideas about how to improve our working together.

A few things to consider:

(But) When in doubt, take it to the talk page. We have all the time in the world. Mutual respect is the guiding behavioural principle of Wikipedia and, although everyone knows that their writing may be edited mercilessly, it is easier to accept changes if the reasons for them are understood. If you discuss changes on the article's talk (or discussion) page before you make them, you should reach consensus faster and happier.

Assume good faith; in other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion is a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia — unless, and only unless, you have firm, solid, and objective proof to the contrary. Merely disagreeing with you is no such proof.

Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUXX0RZ", or someone changing "6+5*2=16" to "6+5*2=17"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

No personal attacks. Don't write that user such and so is an idiot, or insult him/her (even if (s)he is an idiot). Instead, explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix it. If possible, fix it yourself (but see above).

Mcconn 19:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn: You amaze me! You write a long plea for cooperation and mutual respect. Then you go and revert a long-standing and much discussed section on Falun gong and sexual orientation to a new version you have recently written, effectively deleting my work and the work of others over these many weeks. The one standard of conduct you do not mention in your post above is this:

1. When editing, don't do so at the expense of other editors' work. Rather than deleting content of others you should add to it whenever possible.

Again I ask you to stop provoking this revert war. You are free to add content to this section. But when you delete important quotes from Li or the summary of Deng and Fang's opinions on Li's use of fear to indoctrinate people I or others will revert it because we must.

Homosexuals are singled out by Li for a special level of punishment and that fact alone calls for some commentary. Li also has made different pronouncements on what he considers to be the "cause" of homosexuality, its nature and it's consequences. All of this information deserves to be covered in this section. I'm sorry that Li's teachings on homosexuality don't fit neatly into a package to your liking. Li sometimes contradicts himself and sometimes says things that make others uncomfortable. But for you to pursue an endless revert war merely because you don't want this information to appear in Wikipedia is unacceptable. You've made a passionate plea for cooperation above and now is the time to put your words into action. --Tomananda 21:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that when reverting we should explain why we're doing it. I explained what I did and why. I removed two quotes, three including the criticism at the end, and added some context, and I explained the reasons for all of it. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't agree with my points then you can address them on the talk page and then revert it back. This is not the same as reverting without any explaination, which is more specifically what I addressed in my second paragraph. Regarding, adding rather than deleting. I understand where this is coming from, but sometimes it's necessary to delete too. The article changes, and so do our minds. Maybe it was a very good idea to include such and such a quote at a certain time, but then after more work was done on the section it became no longer necessary. Maybe we thought it was a good idea to include such and such information at a certain time, but later realize that we didn't consider everything and our understanding changes. In such cases it's not wrong to remove such material. I'll address your other points regarding my edit above. Did you read the assume good faith paragraph? Please do. Your continuos personal attacks are unnecessary, unprofessional, unreasonable, and rude. I hope you can try harder to treat me as a sensible human being, despite your opinions of Falun Gong. Mcconn 17:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn: I don't think that I have attacked you, but I was shocked that you would do a revert of this section once again after there's been so much discussion about it. Please re-read the post I did to you on April 2nd to refresh your memory about what's already been said. To add to that, let me summarize those things that must be included in this section:

1. Li's view (not the view of Gods) of the status of homosexuals as people. (eg: we have dark hearts turning demonic) and how Li and the God's think we are "filthy" and subject to elimination. 2. Li's view about the morality of homosexuality (one of the world's ten evils)and something that brings karma upon oneself. 3. Li's view of of the "causes" of homosexuality. Two examples: a) it's because we have a "dirty mental abnormality" (some kind of mental illness) and b) it's because we experienced "postnatally-formed bad things" 3. Li's view about the consequences of being a homosexual (we may suffer a particularly painful and slow elimination process) and a specific explanation of what might be required to avoid those consequences (presumably living a celebate life.) 4. Finally, some critical commentary on all the above, which I have provided by summarizing Deng and Fang. They situate Li's views on homosexuality into the larger context of what they consider fear tactics done by Li in order to indoctrinate and control people.

As I said before, you are free to add to this article, but if you continue to delete the essential quotes and expostition I will continue to revert them. When you posted your long statement I actually thought you were going to propose some additions, but instead you went ahead and again deleted my content and replaced it with yours.

The entire poem was inserted at the request of Dilip. If you would prefer that we reduce it to just the two line stanza: "Homsexuality,licentious desires--dark heart, turning demonic" I'm ok with that. Ironically, I was accomodating another practitioner when I added the complete poem.

One more point: you somehow don't seem to get the idea that Li's pronouncements about homosexuality are of grave concern to many people. As a loyal practitioner I suppose your job is to present Li in the best light possible, and that includes fighting to exclude some of his most controversial statements from this article. But that is not how Wikipedia works and I think you know that. You ask me to respect you, and I think I do, but at the same time you have shown very little respect to me or the homosexual community. As a class of people, we have been persecuted for centuries, often in the name of religion. We deserve to have a fair and complete report about Li's views on homosexuality in this article and I will not back down in making that happen.

Finally, since Li has posited at least two different explanations for the "cause" of homosexuality, would you be so kind as to let me know what he considers to be the "cause" of heterosexuality? I'd love to know, and then we could add that information to this section as well. --Tomananda 23:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mcconn that even though we differ in our opinion about the Falun Gong, we can still respect each other. A good way to show this respect is to give a justification for our editing, especially when deleting. The following is a list of sentences deleted from the introduction, justification is given in parenthesis.

1. In fact, the swastika is one of the oldest known symbols dating back 10,000 years, and it's frequently found on Hindu iconography, ancient Greek architecture and paintings, as well as ancient statues of the Buddha [1]. (This statement needs to be sourced)

I don't think it needs to be sourced, but if we can use this source http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Swastika if we must. Mcconn 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. The assembly was prompted by reports of violence and harassment inflicted upon practitioners by Chinese police in the city of Tianjin, as well as a ban on publishing Falun Dafa materials. (This statement needs to be sourced)

3. and the government's reaction to that particular incident was not sympathetic. (POV)

4. There being no concept of membership and only loose organization in Falun Gong practice, the actual number of practitioners is unknown. (This statement is not sourced and is not needed here)

Sorry, I forgot to repond to this. This sentence explains why the numbers are disputable, so I think it's important. I don't think that this needs to be sourced, however, since it's pretty undisputed. On this note, I don't think we need to source every bit of information we decide to include. Just quotes, less common facts, and disputed facts. At least this is my opinion. Mcconn 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. However, The New York Times mentioned a figure of 70 million in at least two articles, both released 27th of April, 1999 - one of them written by Seth Faison and another by Joseph Kahn, who professed that "Beijing puts the tally of ... followers at 70 million" [3] [4]. According to the articles, this was the estimate of China's State Sports Administration. (Quoting from a secondary source which provides contradictory figures from the original source (the Chinese government) does not make sense.)

The CCP has motives to downplay the numbers, and has never been hesitant on lying if by doing so it may help achieve some goal. These newspaper articles, on the other hand, are from reputed sources that are, at least in this particular circumstance, without motives. The numbers they quote are from before the persecution officially started (i.e. before the CCP had as much a reason to lie about them), while the CCP provided the 2.1 million figure after it started. So they are not necessarily contradictory. I think it's also important to say that because there's no membership in Falun Gong it's impossible to quote exact figures. Mcconn 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that saying we don't really know doesn't need a source. How can we source a negative? We aren't asserting anything other than that the estimates from whatever source are just estimates, asserting that we can't accurately assert anything in this case. The estimates should be given with sources and the caveat that they are estimates, but having the statement that the actual number of adherents is unknown in the article presents no problem for me. --Fire Star 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. The CCP has burned and destroyed books and other materials about Falun Gong, and blocked access to internet resources about the topic. Several reported cases of illegal imprisonment and torture of practitioners have been reported. Treatment of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded in the West as a major international human rights issue affecting freedom of religion and freedom of speech. (The ban of the Falun Gong is mentioned in the intro. this information belongs to government crackdown section)

Also, the sentence “According to a Chinese state-sponsored news report published six days after the persecution of Falun Gong officially began” in origins section is inappropriate. How would you like it if I added the following statement “According to the Falun Gong which is considered a deceptive cult by American cult experts” to all statements from the Epoch Times and the group?

It's different. The circumstances of this report's publishing make it unacceptable. I think most editors here have a fairly good idea of how the CCP uses it's media and "statements" by its citizens in mass political campaigns or persecutions such as this, especially at the begining to get it rolling. Mcconn 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly should be very careful when quoting from Chinese media which is no doubt controlled by the government. If we can refute any information from the Chinese media by using other sources we should do so. But there is no justification to exclude reports merely because they come from the Chinese media.

--Samuel Luo 19:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Samual, I’m going to respond to Tomanda first. Actually I wrote out a few thought-out responses to a couple posts over the last few days in word documents, but I lost all of the information! :( So I apologize if I’m not being clear, since I may be rushing.

I didn't remove the word "frightening". And the fact that I removed one of the sentences with the word “punishment” has not thing to do with the word itself. I removed the sentences which read "Li describes a special kind of suffering for homosexuals. Not only will the “fundamental elements of their existence” be destroyed, they will also be made to undergo a particularly slow and painful process" because they aren’t necessarily true. I believe that the kind of suffering described is one and the same with having one’s fundamental elements of existence destroyed. This wasn’t the first time the Mr. Li described this kind of suffering. It is called "total extinction of body and soul" and it is what happens to human beings when they create too much karma for themselves. I believe that Mr. Li is just stating that it also happens when human beings violate the standards prescribed by gods, as in the case of homosexuality. Although, as Mr. Li states in the paragraph, this would be the result if homosexuals were eliminated by gods, it is not specific or special to homosexuals. That's why I took it out.

Mcconn: You are missing the point here. I have correctly summarized Li's teachings in the Switzerland speech concerning the painful and slow punishment homosexuals will go through. It's clear that Li does single out homosexuals for this punishment for not behaing as human beings. If there is another class of people Li has singled out in the same way, then by all means you should add that information to this section. But there is no justification for deleting this information.--Tomananda 20:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for "fear tactics", the concepts you mentioned aren't much different from the ideas of "demons", "the devil", and "judgment day" in Christianity, which are widely accepted. In addition, practitioners are advised to not take the "alien" issue too seriously as it doesn't affect us. If you want to mention that Deng and Fang consider Mr. li's teachings on homosexuality a fear tactic, then maybe it can be mentioned that they see it as such, but it's out of place to shift the focus to fear tactics as a whole (especially the last comment, which is just too biased). The way that paragraph is written, it seems like a tangent. At the least, the paragraph needs to be rewritten to be clearer and more concise.

Mcconn: Again, your point is irrelevant. The fact that other religions might engage in fear tactics does not mean we shouldn't report critical opinion about the fear tactics Li uses in the Falun Gong. The paragraph is biased because it represents the POV of critics, and that is ok. Your role is to add to the section some other commentary which counters that. Again, we should add to the edit, not just delete. Go back and look at the Cult section as a model.--Tomananda 20:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And as for my intentions, I want nothing more than for people to understand this and other teachings of Falun Dafa in the clearest way possible and within the greatest context possible. I said before that Mr. Li tells these things to practitioners who he knows will interpret them in context with the rest of his teachings, so he speaks the way he does. But it’s really difficult for people to understand it this way when they barely know anything about Falun Dafa. I’m not trying to hide anything, I just don’t want people to get wrong ideas. It’s not always that the more information there is the clearer it is. I do not wish any disrespect to you or the homosexual community. I believe that the spirit of standing up for what you believe in in the face of criticism, pressure, and oppression is a noble and admirable spirit in any context. Mcconn 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'No connection between Falun Gong and Nazism'?

Both movements use swastikas. We have long been living in an age whereby we can no longer claim that one hemisphere's use of the swastika is totally independent of and unconnected to that of the other. But the key similarity of both swastika-proud movements is an apparent credence in an ultimately racist dogma of racial purity. True, Falun Gong isn't advocating 'ethnic cleansing' (nor did the Nazis prior to empowerment, nor did they ever admit to its occurrence) - but to those in interracial marriages and families, its condemnation of same must appear to amount to some degree of unhelpful interference, if not persecution? It is all too obviously apparent that a frustrated Chinese electorate, denied the opportunity to form alternative political parties (including, presumably, an alternative communist party) has resorted to an ultimately flawed attempt to 'cock a snook' at the ageing hierarchy and assert itself. Tomananda (above) speaks of an 'endless revert war;' the same applies on this aspect of the topic. 'You win again, so easily' - but not the moral victory. Etaonsh 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's an old, old symbol in both Hindu and Chinese Buddhist (and even Jewish!) iconography that well predates FLG's usage of it, by thousands of years. It is even sometimes used in Chinese religious writing to represent the number "10,000" (wan}. I see its use, and the use of the taijitu, more as Li's attempt to associate his organisation and his idiosyncratic (and mostly un-Buddhist and un-Taoist) religious views with Buddhist and Taoist traditions; tacitly saying "See my symbols? I'm Buddhist and Taoist too!" to his audience. --Fire Star 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But by refocusing attention on ancient religion and away from modern history in your otherwise informative discourse on the symbols, you are merely reasserting the bias of one side in this ongoing contemporary Chinese struggle. Etaonsh 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Li Hongzhi has any special abilites beyond an industrious PR department, or that FLG is anything more than a run-of-the-mill qigong, but I want to be as fair as possible. Buddhism and Taoism are contemporary religions as well. Chinese Buddhists routinely use the swastika in their public imagery, and I have seen similar disclaimers about Nazism on Buddhist websites in Western languages. While Nazi use of their "hackenkreuz" symbol is glaringly obvious to Westerners, I don't believe thoughts of Nazism occur to most Chinese or Japanese Buddhists when they see one over Amitabha's heart on a statue, or a parade of monks marching in swastika formation in a religious procession, as weird as it looks in the West. You may be able to see an example of the swastika on the heart in the following photo (there are other examples in the photo, too, sorry about the size):

--Fire Star 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is disputing the symbol's ancient eastern religious provenance, so there is no need to keep rehearsing it bigtime. But I think we need to turn the whole argument on its head, and ask why Hitler chose such a symbol - surely to curry favour with what are de facto extreme right wing traditions of the East, while secretly exterminating Jews in Europe? Etaonsh 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler did tend to associate himself with "pagan" symbolism, whether to weaken the position of the Lutherans or Catholics if they ever decided to criticise him (which I don't believe they did while he was alive) or for some occult reason. I agree it probably didn't hurt him with right wing Chinese (he supported the Kuomintang militarily in the mid-1930s against the communists) or, later, with the extremely xenophobic Japanese nationalists, but he may have adopted the symbol before he became an international player, so it makes me wonder if it was a happy (for him) accident or if the swastika was a conscious decision to align with Asian groups. An expert may be able to tell us more. --Fire Star 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: [[2]]. Etaonsh 10:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of a group is much more important than its emblem. The symbol in question has been widely used by legitimate religious groups in the east, but many Falun Gong teachings, particularly those about race and homosexuality have not. --Samuel Luo 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the symbol is not a surefire guarantee of extreme right wing ideology - after all, I am myself a current member of the Theosophical Society, which uses a fylfot at the top of its badge. On the other hand, I must admit to some ongoing uncertainty about its use, and am unable to absolve all other Theosophists of the association, particularly in the past and particularly in Germany's past. Etaonsh 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also unique to Li's teachings is the rôle he himself plays in the "rectification" of the world and his students, saying as he does in his lectures in different ways that without his personal intervention, they cannot be saved. He explains things with language and imagery drawn from other traditions, but his approach and what he actually teaches is very distinct from those traditions. --Fire Star 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Without his personal intervention, they cannot be saved," doesn't that sound like a cult leader? --Samuel Luo 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a connection between Falun Gong and Nazism, but it is based on underlying social philopsophy, not symbols. Many people are unaware that early Nazism based its racial value system on the work of American and British academics working in a field called "eugenics." The idea that one race is superior to another, or that pure race people are superior to mixed race people derived directly from the eugenics movement popular in the US and Britain in the 1920's and 1930's (but going back as far as the 1880's). Researchers would trace entire family histories in order to determine characteristics that they consired indicative of degeneracy. In America, there were even some forced sterilizations justified by the eugenics movement. Every time Li uses the word "degenerated" and applies it to a class of human being he considers suitable for elimination in his Fa-rectification I think of those early eugenics fanatics. Admittedly, Hitler applied the theory of eugenics further than any American or British researcher ever contemplated. I am not suggesting that Li advocates the extermination of "degenerate" people in this world, but he certainly does predict the spiritual elimination of "degenerate" people as part of his Fa-rectification. The similarity between Li's teachings on the "weeding out" of people and the eugenics movement is unmistakable. The main difference is that the Western eugenics movement envisioned implementing their wacky ideas in the real world as a matter of social policy, while Li only thinks in terms of future eliminations in the spiritual world. Thus it's reasonable to consider Li's teaching of Fa-rectification as a bizarre kind of "spiritual eugenics." For further reading on this subject, get a copy of Edwin Black's War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race --Tomananda 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and commend all of that, except for the phrase 'not symbols.' The clear truth of the matter is that most of us, East or West, who are cognizant of modern history and the use of symbols herein, would run a mile before agreeing to the use of swastikas/fylfots for our favorite social movement. The restrained people of contemporary China are politically somewhat in the unfortunate position indicated by the old saw 'Beggars can't be choosers.' Etaonsh 08:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Does anyone feel up to expanding the section on mixed-race people in the article to include a broader report on Li's racist teachings? Here are some quotes to get you started:

No Orientals in Jesus' Paradise (what happens to Chinese Christians when they die?) "I have also found no oriental people in Jesus’ paradise. It is very sad! People in modern times do not listen to the words of their Lord, and the oriental people do not listen to the Buddha’s teaching either. . . . I have also found no white people in a Buddha’s paradise in the past." Falun Dafa Lecture (Sydney, Australia), p.29.

No Place for Chinese People in the White Man's World "So whenever I meet with my disciples, I tell them this: make sure your children learn Chinese and don’t lose the characteristics of the yellow race. Since there is not place for you in the worlds of the white people, you will still return to the world of the yellow people." “Exposition of Falun Dafa in the New York Seminar” (March 22, 1997), p. 32.

White People are Too Dumb to Understand Li's Dafa "People of the white race have a different way of thinking from people of the yellow race, like us, so you should take their special traits into consideration. Don’t baffle them by using the very complicated ways of thinking and language. That would make them think: “this is too difficult” Falun Dafa Lecture at the First Conference in North America. (New York, March 29-30, 1998), p. 14. --Tomananda 08:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man! He really said those things? One of the things people starting religious groups do is to try to manufacture exclusivity for their followers, so that they'll feel "special" and their egos will buy into the flattery of their master. Spiritual apartheid... --Fire Star 15:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Li also appears to be ethnocentric, even racist. He has proclaimed that all races and ethnicities originated in China in their first incarnation. Only in later, more degenerate incarnations were these Chinese people born as members of other races and ethnicities: “No matter which country you're in, you were first Chinese on this earth.”[3] He gives examples: “Today's Americans were people of the Great Ming dynasty… England was the Great Tang, France was the Great Qing, Italy was the Yuan, Australia was the Xia, Russia was the Zhou, Sweden was the Northern Song,…Japan was the Sui. In those times, people from each dynasty left China and reincarnated to places that didn't have the countries that are there now--they were still rugged wilderness.”[4]

--Samuel Luo 23:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the statement in paragraph 2 "There are connections between Nazism and Falun Gong." Gramatically and likely factually incorrect. Please cite sources when possible. Reinstate if this edit is in error.

-- JS

Some words from Olaf

I apologize for being a little harsh in my editional comments. I've been away for a while, and now that I returned, I noticed that there had been a lot of dubious changes.

I think it's important to mention that at least two American journalists had also given the figure of 70 million practitioners and that the source for this number was State Sports Administration. Now somebody had formulated the first chapter as if Falun Gong was only trying to exaggerate.

I removed the selections from Li's biography. We have discussed it before. As far as I recall, Fire Star said that we cannot use it as a source, because it's no longer in print. It's hard to verify any selections.

Li has never said that non-practitioner homosexuals have to give up their behaviour or meet with ultimate punishment. I don't understand why you feel that you can include your own "presumptions" in the article. (..."and presumably live a celibate life"...)

Also, I hoped that my reminder about the Wikipedia policies would've had an effect. It didn't. People are still using unauthorized sources for making conclusive allegations (such as "Li's neighbors and brother-in-law have stated..."). Please keep in mind: this is a non-partisan encyclopedia article, not an "exposé"! It would be nice if you learned to report your own POV with a certain self-reflectivity. At a minimum you could say "According to [my eminent source], [X and Y] have stated...". But you can't use any source you please.

Regards, ---Olaf Stephanos 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info on admissable sources at cite your sources, and we certainly shouldn't make our own presumptions in the article. I think, still, that we are a pretty well-behaved bunch compared to some articles I've worked on, if that is any help. We can agree to disagree across the spectrum, I hope, lots of the things Li has said are also said by other religions, too, so there is precedent as far as reporting his controversial statements at articles like Roman Catholicism or Joseph Smith Jr. that may be interesting. As big as its getting (I haven't had a chance yet to work on splitting the article up, unfortunately) and as often as its changing, I still have seen, again, much worse reporting at other articles. On the whole, considering how much info there is out there, the article doesn't come off as too preachy or condemnatory, IMO. --Fire Star 01:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The government has estimated the membership of Falun Gong in China at 2.1 million not 70 million. The New York Times reporters who used the high figure could have been misled by practitioners working in the government since this figure has only been claimed by the group. There were practitioners working in key positions in the government, note the following statement from a Wall Street Journal report. “Mr. Wang produces reams of information on Falun Dafa from files in his cramped office. As a researcher in the institute's (China Wushu Research Institute ) qi gong department, he is charged with writing the reports assessing Falun Dafa and other groups under investigation. And Mr. Wang is a devoted follower of Mr. Li.” [5]

I believe it is best to quote directly from the source, in this case the Chinese government. Quoting from an indirect source which provides contradicting figures from the source does not make sense. Don’t you agree? I have asked almost every practitioner I met since 1999 the whereabouts of 30 million practitioners outside of China claimed by Master Li and the group. Do you know where they are? Yes, I believe Falun Gong’s “70 million in China and 30 million outside of China” claim an exaggeration.

I can understand that a non-practitioner would want to exclude Li’s statements, but I can not understand why a practitioner would also want to delete his statements from the article. Are you ashamed of his claims or just want to conceal what he said? Li’s autobiography should stand. It was used to introduce the Master to the public from 1992 to 1999; many practitioners came to know Li from it.

I believe I have followed Wikipedia’s policy. The people quoted had socialized with Master Li and their accounts are all first person accounts. Also the ban of the Falun Gong is mentioned in the intro, all the extra stuff about the ban belongs to the Falun Gong persecution section.

How can you accuse me of not using the magic word “according to” when my sentence did start with it? --Samuel Luo 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the info in the origins section taken from the Chinese newpaper article. This article was published by a state-run newspaper six days after the persecution of Falun Gong began. There's no way we can include this as a valid source. Besides, information about Mr. Li's abilities as a child have no context in the "origins" section. Mcconn 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Words from a Proud and Spiritual Gay Man

Sorry, Olaf, but Li has most certainly said that homosexuals should give up their "bad behavior" in order to avoid whatever scary consequences he thinks will result from people loving other people of the same gender. Do you agree with that? And if you agree with that, then it's definitional to say that "giving up bad behavior" for a homosexual equates to "giving up sex" which equates to "living a celibate life." How can you with a straight face (no pun intended) say otherwise? You truly baffle me. Unless you can provide a more logical explanation for your challenge to my wording, that wording shall stand. I will do the revert now. --Tomananda 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, maybe gays can give up their gay ways and do women instead? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My God! Is Miborovsky correct in his interpretation? Olaf, is that what you have in mind when you challenge my wording of "presumably live a celibate life?" Please respond so we can have a discussion about this idea. --Tomananda 23:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not.

Sure, Li has said that if you want to practice cultivation in Falun Dafa, you ought to give up homosexual behaviour. That would probably mean a celibate life for you. But how does this apply to society at large? Isn't it obvious that you, for instance, don't want to cultivate according to Li's teachings?

Li said in Los Angeles (25 February 2006): "They [= homosexuals] are sentient beings, so save them just like the other ordinary sentient beings. Save them if you can, and treat them just like anyone else. The more you regard them as a special group, the less you will be able to save them. Just save them as you would any other persons. Save them if you can. If you can't, then you can't." Basically, the fundamental criterion is whether you choose to support the persecution or not.

Falun Dafa is about principles for upright cultivation, not about issuing orders or commandments to anybody. Cultivation standards don't change according to what people wish or desire. But never has it been said that non-practitioner homosexuals should give up their behaviour by force or face terrible consequences. This is your interpretation, whereas I understand the meaning of Li's words differently: didn't he specifically claim that if he were not doing Fa-rectification, this would be an issue? ---Olaf Stephanos 23:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf, it's clear that Li considers all homosexual people...not just practitioners...to be subject to elinination by the Gods for their "bad behavior." I ask you to go back and read the entire Switzerland statement. Here are some excerpts:

Question: Why is homosexuality considered immoral?

Teacher: Think about it, everyone: Is homosexuality human behavior? Heaven created man and woman. What was the purpose? .... When major things are done incorrectly, it’s a case of people no longer having the moral code of human beings, and then they are unworthy of being human. Let me tell you why today’s society has become how it is. It results from there not being an upright Fa to keep human beings in check. ...

Question: Why is it that homosexuals are considered bad people?

Teacher: Let me tell you, if I weren’t teaching this Fa today, gods’ first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It’s not me who would destroy them, but gods....

.... Homosexuals not only violate the standards that gods set for mankind, but also damage human society’s moral code. In particular, the impression it gives children will turn future societies into something demonic. That’s the issue. That kind of destruction, however, isn’t just about disappearing after they’re annihilated. That person is annihilated layer after layer at a rate that seems pretty rapid to us, but in fact it’s extremely slow in that time field. Over and over again, one is annihilated in an extremely painful way. It’s terribly frightening. A person should live in an upright manner, living honorably like a human being. He shouldn’t indulge his demon-nature and do whatever he likes.

It's clear from this quote (and others) that Li expects homosexuals, in general, to give up their "bad behavior" in order to avoid punishment. Practicing homosexuals are NOT offered salvation by the Fa here. Instead, homosexuality itself "results from there not being an upright Fa to keep human beings in check." --Tomananda 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, we should report what Li has said, or what notable people have said about Li or FLG. We ourselves shouldn't argue the merits of Li's teachings directly, even here. I've been guilty of that in the past, too, as I myself, as a neigong teacher, think that what Li teaches technically doesn't match up with his claims for it (in that, he has a lot of company, unfortunately). But it is what it is, and his claims are what they are, so we should let the readers decide. I'd never mention that opinion in the article itself. Some of the things Li has said are provocative, especially to the groups he disavows, and if we report them we should also report what his published critics say relevant to those pronouncements, as we do in the article. --Fire Star 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Star: I agree. But what's at issue here is whether Li has taught that homosexuals as such will be punished for acting on their sexual orientation...not just homosexual practitoners, but homosexuals in general. I argue that there is only one reasonable interpretation one can make of his Switzerland speech. In talking about the extra level of punishment the Gods will give to gays he does not say that his Fa came along to reverse all of that, but rather that his Fa came along to keep human behavior in check. Unfortunately for Olaf, there is no other way to interpret this passage. It's true that most recently Li has said he is willing to forgive everyone's sins as long as they don't interfere with his Fa-rectification (which means his political agenda in China), but that is a very recent phenomenon. Clearly the core teaching of Falun Gong is that if homosexuals persist in their inhuman behavior, they will be treated accordingly. So Li's Dafa is like US Army policy, it changes according to need. Right now under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy many homosexuals are kicked out merely for "telling". But during past wars, the US military implemented it's anti-gay policies much more leniently. It was willing to look the other way in order to get more men on the battlefield. The same is true for Li and his Fa-rectification at this present time.--Tomananda 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip: I see that you have just reverted two sections at once without providing any justification for your deletion of material on sexual orientation. I have reverted the entire section back to Fire Star. Your style seems to be simply to delete Master Li's teachings when you do not like to see them revealed to the public. There's been a real effort in the discussion above to reach common understanding about Li's teachings on homosexuality. This topic has been discussed for many weeks and it's practitioners like you who seem the most obsessed about it. So one future edit I propose in this section is to delete the phrase "Though not central to the beliefs..." Since this is clearly a topic of major concern for you, Mcconn, Olaf and I presume other practitioners, I don't see how we can continue to state it is not central to the beliefs of Falun Gong.--Tomananda 18:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we are concerned with having a fair and accurate representation of the teachings on homosexuality doesn’t mean that it’s central to the practice. This is a particular belief that can be fairly influential on people’s understanding or opinion of Falun Dafa, despite the fact that it’s not central. Regarding you sentence about homosexuals having to be celibate, it is your own understanding and as Миборовский pointed out there are other ways that it can be understood. But either way I really doubt that Mr. Li was suggesting a specific course of action for homosexuals at large, as he was addressing Falun Gong practitioners rather than mainstream society. In addition, Mr. Li rarely tells practitioners to take any specific actions. Instead, he usually explains a principle, or speaks in very broad terms, so that practitioners can interpret it according to their own understandings. And that’s what I think he’s doing here. You understand it one way, I understand it another. And there's often no specific “right” way that some of these things can be understood (although there are sometimes clearly wrong ways that they can be understood). That’s the idea. This is one reason why we, including myself, need to be very careful with how we incorporate quotes.

On that note I’ve been trying to rework the sexual orientation section again to make it more clear, and I’ve found that the Switzerland quote in particular is put forth in a way that doesn’t allow the reader to understand it objectively. Both excerpts are prescribed specific interpretations, which I personally don’t agree with. I’m going to keep working on it and will post it when I’ve come up with something that I think is clearer, provides broader context, and hopefully more objective. I'm about to make another post above in which I'll mention a few more things. Mcconn 16:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn: This is nonsense. Li Hongzhi has said what he has said and you are merely engaging in apologetics here. I find your stance very offensive. As a gay man, not only do I have to put up with Li's incredibly small-minded and ignorant pronouncements about homosexuals (we are not human and will get the scariest of punishments), I have had to spend weeks defending the idea that those teachings must be reported in Wikipedia. It's clear that you don't like seeing Li's statements about homosexuality in Wikipedia because anyone reading them will see how intolerant and homophobic Li is. There are millions of homosexuals on this planet whose very humanity is denied by Li Hongzhi. The words are there and you know it. If you have specific edit changes you want to propose then fine. But if your intent is to obscure the essential teachings, that is not OK and I or others will revert anything you put up as a result.

The Falun Gong claims to live by it's motto of Truthfullness, Compassion and Tolerance, but clearly it does not. As with cults in general, the single standard of conduct that matters for practitioners is to do what is good for the Master and the group, even if that means lying to the general public. You and other practitioners have worked overtime to conceal the master's most controversial teachings on homosexuality, yet at the same time no practitioner has stepped forward to report what a practitioner's role is during the Master's Fa-rectification. Since Li constantly exhorts his Fa-rectification disciples to work diligently at saving all sentient beings, why is this fact not reported in the Wikipedia article?

If everything that practitioners say is happening in China were true, it would be horrendous. But in light of the Falun Gong's record of deceitful manipulation of public opinion, I simply cannot trust anything a practioner says about anything. That's the problem with lying: once you've blown your credibilty, its hard to recover, even if something you say is true. --Tomananda 19:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organ harvesting

I apologize if this has already been pointed out. In the "Allegations of organ harvesting" section, it states "According to at least two witnesses interviewed by The Epoch Times, internal organs of living Falun Gong practitioners have been harvested and sold to the black market, and the bodies have been cremated in the hospital's boiler room. [6]" The two parts of the sentence—1. organs being harvested from living people and 2. their bodies being cremated—seem inconsistent. Further, while the source probably does include the statements backing up that section of the article, it would be better if the external link pointed to the specific article that back ups the statements or, if necessary, that multiple external links to specific articles be used. Theshibboleth 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro

Could someone please add a line or two to the intro that explains what the source of agitation is between Falun Gong and the Chinese government, why the two are at odds with each other? --Xtreambar 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if it were that easy, while it seems like a good idea, there is a lot of debate as to what the issue really is. Both FLG and the CCP have their versions, and outside observers have theirs. The best we can do is present the facts that we have from what they both say and go from there. --Fire Star 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a nice idea if someone can do the writing. By way of background, you might get some ideas from Samuel Luo's website at: The True Nature of Falun Gong

this article seems to become a crap. What's all these pro-falun gong photos doing there? One or two photos is enough. And there should be one one or two anti photo as well.

I was reading the article after the incident involving Wenyi Wang and President Hu Jintao on April 20th, and while I see that it's a heavily edited entry, I think there should be some clarifications made in the introduction regarding the following statement: "Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities." I was initially confused by this statement, as there had been no mention of the group doing anything illegal; later, in section 9, Government Crackdown, it is stated that the practice of Falun Gong was made illegal in July of 1999. I believe an edit to mention after the aforementioned sentence is warranted -- unless I am misunderstanding the issue and there were indeed illegal acts which consisted of more than simply "the practice of Falun Gong." I'm not going to make the edit myself, as I don't understand the issue. --Philodespotos 04:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need expressed by Xtreambar but find that when I have attempted to meet it I have been overruled and blocked by Henry Flower. Anything which seriously undermines a 'consensus' that communist governments madly and irrationally oppress innocent activities is politically suppressed here, I find. My attempts at explanation are relegated here to the discussion page, e.g., [[7]].Etaonsh 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing Articles on the Self Immolation Incident

Despite my urge to point out how flawed the FLG deconstruction video is, I think I'll focus on some facts in the news media which were neglected. So I've added two links and brief descriptions under the Self Immolation Incident. --Yenchin 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal Gift House Article

It’s clear in the article that the house was a gift to Mr. Li and therefore does not reflect Mr. Li’s income or spending practices. Moreover, Mr. Li refused the house, which is clarified by the practitioner who bought the house in this letter (http://cw83913.zhufa.org/emh/articles/1999/11/3/10767.html). The house which Mr. Li admitted to living in in the report was at least partially paid for by James Pang, which is clear in the quote “James Pang, who was among Mr. Li's first followers in the U.S. and helped rent the Queens apartment for Mr. Li.” Therefore none of this information reflects any notable financial or business aspects of Falun Gong. So I have removed it. Mcconn 15:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section is not about Mr. Li's income and spending practices, it is about the organization and financial aspects of Fulan Gong. Since the transaction was done as a direct result of Fulan Gong involvement by all parties, I feel it's worthy of inclusion. The rebuttal you use above can be included as well, but you have to do that part. CovenantD 05:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your eyes only?

The caption below the Falun Emblem reads '...To Western eyes it resembles the swastika used by Nazi Germany...' To Western eyes, or to modern eyes? Etaonsh 15:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definately Western. I live in Taiwan and it is first and foremost a Buddhist symbol here. You can see it everywhere. It's the symbol for vegetarian food too. A lot of people here wouldn't know what you were talking about or would be offended if you told them it was a Nazi symbol. Mcconn 16:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But historically, the Guomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) modelled itself on the Nazi Party in the thirties, undermined Chinese unity against the Japanese invaders by attacking the Communists, and were ultimately chased from China into Taiwan. What 'a lot of people are offended by' is not always an indication of historical realities. Etaonsh 21:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism has been around the Chinese for a long time. The paradigm thought of the swastika is that it stands for Buddhism. At best when it is shown in a Nazi way then people over there will think of it as a Nazi symbol. --Yenchin 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism has indeed been around for a long time, as has the fylfot. But developments in modern history are and have been sufficient to significantly undermine the position of Buddhism in most of China, and the fylfot, in many people's minds throughout the world, as a useful, unambiguous symbol. Etaonsh 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism. Falun Gong clearly states that it employs this symbol because it represents a Buddha status. That's an age-old idea. There is no connection between the Falun and the Nazi Swastika when they're used in entirely different contexts. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, having studied Buddhism in China (Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taiwan) I agree that there is very little conscious connexion between use of the swastika on the part of East Asian religionists and that by the Nazis. As we can see from the photo I put in above (click to enlarge) the orientaion of rotation from right to left or left to right is pretty much arbitrary, though, both rotations obviously being used in the above image, so the part about the distinction based on rotation shouldn't be in the article. --Fire Star 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Unihan database info on wàn --Fire Star 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1940s 8 million people were massacred under the swastika in the context of a World War which, following worldwide suffering and conflict, decided the future of the planet. Asian religionists and their apologists may question the contemporary relevance of these events, in which swastika symbolism had a prominent and ubiquitous presence. But you will never command universal respect with such an ostrich-like dismissiveness, which, in itself, indicates an extreme, conservative Weltanschaung which does you and your movements and religions little credit. Etaonsh 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what does that have to do with the article? For us to assert that Li was asserting pro-Hitler sympathies whn he chose the wàn as a logo isn't supported by any evidence that we currently have. We would pretty much need a direct quote from him saying so, anything else is original research. FWIW, I don't use the symbol, myself, for just the reasons you bring up, if that is any help. For me, it is too associated with WWII to be helpful, but that is a personal choice. I respect the "religions" that I do just because they aren't dependent upon sectarian symbolism or ritual for their practical benefits. If you want to try to use shame or other means to compel literally billions of Asians to stop seeing the wàn as an auspicious symbol, though, then good luck! --Fire Star 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Li seems indifferent to the Holocaust connection, which represents a weakness in his legendary defences, particularly when his movement presumes to expand to the West - it's not as tho we're talking about a bunch of unschooled Buddhists who've never ventured beyond their village, here. The Holocaust remains an issue here, which Falun Gong ignores at its peril. Etaonsh 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a published source for a notable criticism of FLG or Li on these grounds, that would be worth putting in the article. --Fire Star 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point directly concurs the "To Western eyes". Viewpoints and thoughts are not solely based on a mass massacre which happened in a Western nation. Yet you keep on using such a viewpoint on East Asia. The difference is more than a mere 45 degree angle, sufficient enough that no one sees problem of the Buddhism version of the swastika (China uses it, contradicting your KMT argument. Japan uses it, shouldn't they be more sensitive?)

The Holocaust and its sites are part of World Heritage now. 8 million is a number which cannot be ignored anywhere without implications of callousness. Intentional or not, the modern use of the swastika seems to bring not good look, but suspicions of Holocaust indifference, all too easily reinforced by evidence of continuing traditional cultural insensitivity and cruelty. Etaonsh 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What type of usage? Not good look to whom? Does Buddhism have history of mass massacre? Did Buddhists support Hitler's "Final Solution"? And I hate to sound nitpicking here, but, when you say "which cannot be" you are already acknowledging the fact that East Asians seldom relate the swastika to Nazism. News flash: Your points are still consistent with the "In Western eyes".--Yenchin 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, the Hsi Lai Temple in the States also uses it [8]. Do we see protesting groups over there demanding a removal?--Yenchin 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'In the States'?! It is as if you were writing in anticipation of my above obloquy. Etaonsh 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was used to support the fact that the Buddhist use of the swastika is really not a big deal to whine about.--Yenchin 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your very language smacks of Holocaust indifference and cultural insensitivity. Buddhism was central to an era in which the children of the poor were emasculated in monasteries. 'Religious' revisionists seek to revisit the poor with the nightmares of the past. Etaonsh 06:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is TOO BIG!

This article is way to big, we need to break up sections of it into seperate articles so that the main one isn't to large for people to read. For example, the Falun Gong view on Homosexuality could be taken out and made into a seperate article entirely. --The Fading Light 4:22, 22 April 2006

Fading Light, I agree. This is over twice as large as Wikipedia recommends. We need to start spinning a lot of this stuff off into their own articles and be ruthless about shunting new detail over to them, leaving only summaries here. CovenantD 22:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"April 2006 Hu visit protests" section

Earlier today, I cleaned up the syntax in this section. An anonyous user pointlessly reverted it to the older version with clumsy syntax. "10 languages in press" is not standard English. As well, it's pointless to have the newspaper's name repeated twice in one sentence.

If you don't like the copy, edit it, don't revert it. This is an English-language Wikipedia and I'm only trying to work on the syntax here, not the content. Jeff Fenstermacher 22:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is removing Category:Falun Gong please stop

Whoever is removing Category:Falun Gong from the list of Falun Gong Categories, please stop it. --The Fading Light 6:46, 22 April 2006

Removing entire sections of an article is blanking vandalism

User Samuel Luo has blanked out the entire April 2006 Hu visit protests section. This is page-blanking vandalism. Numerous people contributed to that section, and it is not up to one person to summarily remove it because he doesn't like it.Jeff Fenstermacher 23:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massage therapist Samuel Luo has repeatedly blanked out and forcibly introduced other passages as well. Personal crusades are a nuisance in teamwork...

Should April 2006 Hu visit protests section be deleted?

The purpose of the article is to explore the origin and beliefs of the Falun Gong. This section talks about the activities of practitionrs therefore is out of focus. In order to keep the article short and focused, in my opinion, it should be removed. What do you think? --Samuel Luo 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, this is the proper way to resolve this issue -- you leave the section in the article until it's discussed. You don't summarily remove it. I vote Keep because it is an incident which generated international press and affects US-China relations.Jeff Fenstermacher 23:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept (being careful not to express an opinion on that), it needs to be trimmed. It's out of proportion to the size of the article. CovenantD 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it can be trimmed. It has continued to grow and grow. Some mention is warranted, but it need not be War and Peace, either. Jeff Fenstermacher 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has now trimmed it back from seven to four paras, a good improvement.Jeff Fenstermacher 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this section can be trimmed and included in “Falun Gong presence overseas” section. If Falun Gong practitioners start creating new topics in the article for every little thing they do the quality and focus of the article will be compromised. Can someone trim and move the content of “April 2006 Hu visit protests” section? --Samuel Luo 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression I am a Falun Gong practitioner. I am nothing of the sort. I had never even heard of Falun Gong until the White House incident. I have worked to keep this section as neutral and non-biased as possible. Because it affects American-Chinese relations, I believe inclusion was warranted. Perhaps you might be best not persuming someone is a "Falun Gong practitioner" simply because one does not agree with you. While you seem to be opposed to Falun Gong, I am neutral on the topic. Jeff Fenstermacher 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe a mention of the incident should be maintained in the article. It doesn't have to be extensive (especially since it was a brief incident), but it was notable. --Fire Star 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same can be said for the just-added section on awards. Focuses way too much on one incident to the detriment of the subject matter. CovenantD 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fenstermacher, I admit that I should have posted a discussion here before deleting the section. There is nothing in the section that I disagree with, it is pretty neutral. And there is plenty of stuff that I strongly disagree with on the article but I have not touched them. Like I mentioned before I was just trying to keep the article short and focused. Since you are interested in Faun gong’s influence over American-Chinese relations, can I suggest that the title be changed to something like “Falun Gong and American-Chinese relations.” I believe this topic will generate lots of interests. Perhaps, from now on new sections should be discussed here before being created. --Samuel Luo 02:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Falun Gong and American-Chinese relations" would probably be better because it's more inclusive. For a lot of Americans, until this week, they hadn't heard of Falun Gong. Whether this issue has any impact on Chinese-American relations has yet to be seen. Apparently some other issues have bothered the Chinese about this, like Dick Cheney wearing sunglasses at some event and falling asleep during a press conference with the Chinese President, the playing of the wrong national anthem, and so forth, which have nothing to do with Falun Gong.Jeff Fenstermacher 03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Samuel and everybody. Thanks for all your inputs. Sorry I am new and just know we can communicate on the discussion board and history. I apologize sometimes I may ignore your input. Samuel, I found it seemed that we often revert each other? :) I have several points.

(1)--: Whether the organ harvesting allegation is true or not is not finalized yet. No evidence refers to the U.S. Embassy's finding on the Sujiatun medical facility after almost three weeks of the allegation. Three weeks leave a lot of time to erase or relocate the evidence. It would be surprising to get any evidence from the suspects themselves. U.S. Embassy could not prove the current existence of organ-harvesting in the Sujiatun site, but they could not deny its past existence, its current existence on other medical facilities (sites). No evidence does not mean no crime. That is why a third-party, independent investigation is called for. If we try to be neutral, we should let all pros/cons voices heard.

(2)--: It seems you wanted to remove the Awards and recognition part, the self immolation video part also, why? We could definitely cut the words, but I appreciate we have a discussion if you want to remove them.

(3)--: I noticed you always try to put a suicide photo in the Government Crackdown part. It is a sin to kill or suicide, clearly stated in Falun Gong teaching. I don't understand why you try to put this photo? The photo is also quite ugly and misleading people.

(4)--: Also you tried to remove the news on the public testimony of the two witnesses. I think it is quite impressive and important progress. Also it is factual.

(5)--: Hu's visit is not a state visit unfortunately. But it is a fact. I don't care it too much until it seemed you kept reverting. I guess this is another reason you wish to change the title? We could trim the details short. But what we keep must be factual, right?

(6)--: A title for the US-sino relationship seems too big a topic for this article. Falun Gong claimed it is not political. That title sounds a bit exaggerating to me.

(7)--: The main publications part should mention all online free downloadable books. Why not? It is factual. But it seemed that we kept reverting on this.:) I don't think the only publication is the Epoch Times. The falundafa.org and the clearwisdom both have longer history than the Epoch Times. The Epoch Times is a free newspaper and has Falun Gong practitioners as volunteers. It tries to independently report Falun Gong without any control of any governments. I don't like the newspaper until recently.

(8)--: I vote Keep because the background of this incident is Wang Wenyi's desparate concern of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners and her worry about the world's coldness. The incident is controversial but her courage is admirable. She wanted to save more people who are in danger since some information showed that all evidence at all sites could be erased by the end of April. I don't know these are true or not since I did not do the investigation myself. But I heard the video and audio when they called the China hospitals which clearly indicated the organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners. Such materials are released publicly by an investigation group (I forgot the name but it seems also established by Falun Gong). In my view, any human being that could be called a human should be concerned about this serious matter. Sorry I did not provide source now for my eight points as every one does not. I would show you the source if you are interested. Also feel free to point out where I could improve. Thanks. --Fnhddzs 07:12:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, please insert your comments in sequential order. Second, everyone has agreed here the "April 2006 state visit protests" section needs to be shorter. Remember, Wikipedia is about consensus. The response from Wang Wenyi's employer can go into the Wang Wenyi article. It's unnecessary and redundant here.Jeff Fenstermacher 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fnhddzs, thanks for initiating a dialogue here.

1. The following creditable information shows that the Sujiatun organ harvesting accusation is a lie. First, the hospital is lacking the required facilities to conduct organ transplants and “has no basement to house the Falun Gong practitioners,” according to the official of the hospital. [9]. His statement is creditable; a basement which could house 6,000 people can not be hidden. Second, this hospital--Liaoning Thrombus Medical Treatment Center--is not a state owned company but one partly invested by a Malaysian company (Country Heights Health Sanctuary). And in an official visit to China the Minister of Health of Malaysia visited the hospital in September, 2004. This information clearly shows that the hospital can not be used to house and kill 6,000 practitioners. [10]

Even the US government has refuted the accusation. US State Department, after an investigation, issued this statement “In these visits the officers were allowed to tour the entire facility and grounds and found no evidence that the site is being used for any function other than as a normal public hospital.” [11] I reverted your input in this section because you replaced creditable information with groundless accusation from the Epoch times a Falun Gong mouth piece.

2. I was the one who restored the Awards and recognitions section at this time 00:33, 23 April 2006 when I found it missing. I deleted the video because it is not from any creditable source but a production of the Faun Gong. Numerous reports in and outside of China have confirmed those five people who immolated themselves were Falun Gong practitioners.

3. Someone else inserted that picture, I was defending his input. Practitioners have put up so many pictures others should have the same opportunity. That poor guy who kill himself was a Falun Gong practitioner and many of them (1,404) died of not seeking medical treatment and suicide which was one of the justifications claimed by the government in banning the Falun Gong.

4. You replaced creditable information with the testimony of those two witnesses in the Allegation of organ harvesting section. I understand why you think their statements important because that is all the Falun Gong has in cooking up the accusation. If the terrible killing did happen as they said and if they merely wanted to stop such crime like they said, then why didn’t they go to a respected media but the Epoch Times? I would not be surprised that these two people later turn out to be practitioners. If you stop replacing the creditable statements with stuff from the Epoch Times, I will not delete them, agree?

Have a nice day. --Samuel Luo 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a section grows too loong, the usual procedure is to create a new separate article on that specific subject, with a short summary in the main article. The main article can then link to the new artcle. Paul B 11:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep this part of the article, we have to include the fact that the Wang was charged with a crime. I find it incredibly pertinent to the section and whole article. But I do agree with Paul Barlow -- if it gets out of hand, let's just spin it into a new article concerning "Falun Gong and American-Chinese relations" or whatnot. Dojotony 12:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since many like the idea I credited the “Falun Gong and American-Chinese relations.” “April 2006 Hu visit protests” is now under this new topic. --Samuel Luo 20:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"April 2006 Hu visit protests" is now called "Falun Gong protest against Chinese president Hu, Washington, April, 2006" --Samuel Luo 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong and sexual orientation

It seems that this rightfully belongs under the section on Beliefs and Teachings rather than on it's own. Anybody disagree and if so why? CovenantD 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been discussed for the past month and deserves to be its own section. It also needs to report fully what Li has said about this topic and, if anything, could be longer. I have reverted the content to the original. I have also made a change to satisfy those practitioners who did not like the "and presumably lead a celibate life" wording.--Tomananda 07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Intervention Requested to Deal with Vandalism

There has been wholesale vandalism in this article in the last 24 hours. At least 4 sections have been deleted in their entirety (Li as Savior, Demons, Englightenment and Claims to Historical Significance) and entire new sections have been added in their place. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and is counter-productive to editing a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomananda (talk • contribs)

Admins are not referees. We're here to perform backroom tasks, not to waltz into an article and decide who's right. That can only be worked out by consensus, and you won't reach consensus if you continually call your fellow editors vandals and ask admins to block them. Please make more of an effort to keep a cool head. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but deleting multiple sections in their entirety without discussion is considered vandalism regardless of who does it. I don't use the word vandalism lightly, but any objective review of what has happened withing the last day demonstrates vandalism in a big way. How can you say otherwise? Or are you saying we should just revert and revert and revert?

--Tomananda 08:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very well done compared to the previous versions. All the content from previous versions are there in the article, in good context. Falun Dafa is Good and no matter how much you try to make it seem otherwise, the truth comes out. It is only natural. What do you think you can make up Falun Gong to be a bunch of un-related facts paragraps.. demons.. homosexuality.. ?? All the edits you were doing had been severly criticized by other editors. Your cant continue to engage in this form of vandalism. The content you are trying to introduce has been demonstrated,repeatedly, to be baseless and from untrustworthy sources. There is no justification on your part for ignoring all that. Yesterday when the article was being Vandalized terribly.. All text and images being removed ( in the version you want to revert to also, the quotes by US Congress.. American Institute of Psychiartry and Law, all have been removed..) That is vandalism. Not putting the teachigns as the teachings.

Why do you delete the information related to Organ Transplants like transcript of audio conversations? Cant you see they are critical? How could you, if you have a bit of conscience, want to help hide such atrocities? Dilip rajeev 10:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add the organ transplant allegations back in. My intend is merely to preserve the version of the ariticle which existed before your wholesale revisions were done through a series of clever edits. I did't initiate any war here and I am agreeble to your adding content into existing sections. But when you create and post whole new sections with new content, and delete other sections (or in some cases move them), that is not acceptable.

Concerning your assertion that Falun Dafa is good...if it were good it would be able to stand on its own feet and not depend on the bullying tactics of a band of Falun Gong practitioners. You're sneaky editing tactics do not defend the name of Dafa...they reveal Dafa to be a weak paranoid fantasy of Li Hongzhi who has gotten practioners all over the world to do his bidding. It's all about defending his ego and reputation. The bullying tactics so many Falun Gong practitioners are using to edit this Wikipedia article are not unlike the bullying tactics Li organized back in the old days in China, when publishing offices were put under siege for days and honest empolyees were fired because they had the nerve to criticize your master. Li Hongzhi: if you are so great, why don't you come out of hiding and allow yourself to be interviewed by the American press? Again, I have great sympathy for you and the other practitioners. I do not have sympathy for Li.

Dilip: This debate has gone on for more than a month and for a while I though we were making progress by compromising. Why have you become so agressive with your edits all of a sudden? --Tomananda 10:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomananda and Samuel Luo, you are knee-deep in article vandalism yourself. Of course, I don't mean that I wholeheartedly agree with everything Dilip has done. I hope you'd all cool down. But you guys have also repeatedly broken the Three Reverts Rule and introduced content that is so jaw-droppingly POV that I'm not sure whether you have the skills to understand what it means to write a neutral encyclopedia article. Once again the introduction has been changed: "Falun Gong became one of the largest cults in China...", and the New York Times figures are removed for the umpteenth time, even though we are fully entitled to use them. Maybe we really need moderator intervention. Such actions are absolutely unacceptable. There are too many kids fighting over a lollipop. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in a terrible shape. Look at what was done to the article yesterday. All I have introduced are the central teachings of Falun Gong. And the content, needless to say, is un-disputable and UN-AVOIDABLE for an article like this. And all are sourced, contextual and very relevant to the article. I cant understand why anyone would make a huge issue out of it. Dilip rajeev 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This change, although perhaps not perfect, was really needed. The article had turned into a series of controversies, and completely confused the reader as to what Falun Gong is about. Please keep in mind that this article is about Falun Gong. Falun Gong is a spiritual practice and a complete system. The teachings as they were presented in the change need to be put forth in this way in order to create an objective view of Falun Gong. The fundamental principles of Falun Gong were presented in a way that they were neither supported or criticised, but instead stood on their own. Maybe by presenting them in this way Falun Gong seems like less of a cult and somewhat more rational, which may rub some of you the wrong way, but this is the reality. You have your criticism section, let us keep the objective section. To say the least however, the article (as of the time of this post) is now much more clear, readable, and much more like an encyclopedia article rather than an exposé. To keep reverting to how it was before is going backwards in my opinion. This presents a much better structure to work within. Mcconn 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's leave the Teachings portions to the practitioners, since they have the best inside information, and the critical section to, well, the critics. This is predicated on both aspects being kept to a reasonable size and larger sections spanwing their own article with a link from here. That's pretty standard on other Wikipedia articles and would really help to bring this down to a reasonable size.

Me, I'm going to continue to focus on what I have so far; preserving a balance of perspectives, eliminating redundant information (including the overabundance of links), and reducing the overall size as needed. CovenantD 19:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

As I said in my last edit, at least 4 sections were deleted: Li as Savior, Demons, Englighenment and Claims to Historical Significance by practitioners such as Dilip or Mcconn or others. This is about practitioners dishonestly engaging in a major reorganization and deletion of whole sections of an article that has been worked on for many weeks without discussion or consensus. This is about the bullying tactics of the Falun Gong in general which can't stand to see it's own master's teachings reported in a balanced article on the Falun Gong. And it's about adding a great deal of self-promotional material which aims to obscure the core beliefs. I will do a separate posting requesting mediation right now. Fire Star and Mbovorofsy: do you agree?--Tomananda 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the factual material have been deleted. You had so absurdly presented those four sections as the teachings of Falun Dafa!!! Demons, homosexuality,.. what do yo uthink this is.. and on top of that if you go through the edits done a day back.. You can see how much you vandalized the article.

202.83.32.210 16:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

none of the factual material have been deleted? How can you say that when even your Master's own statements are deleted. Such a concealment of information is what cults do to deceive the public. Falun Gong does not own this page on the wikipedia, stop turning it into a Falun Gong propaganda page.

--Samuel Luo 18:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Star, Tomananda, Samuel Luo, who are you people? personal attack removed? I read your writing, and it's like an exercise in irrationality. Will you three teach a class, maybe Fallacy 101? As I said before, God obviously didn't create all men equal. How sad. It still irks me that anyone would be as -- to actually equate Nazism with the ancient Swastika symbol. And I thought these were the worst arguments I had ever read, courtesy of Mr. Firestar and company. But now, I just see you people really are personal attack removed! Take a moment and look at your life. personal attack removed? I am so glad the White House event led me to this page. If it wasn't, and I never read this page, personal attack removed? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.75.9 (talk • contribs)

Get back to your desk, George - there's a war in progress. Etaonsh 11:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

reintroducing excess photos

Please explain why so many photos showing scenes of meditation and lecturing are necessary.

I will say again this article is too large and either needs to be trimmed to a reasonable size or major sections need to be relocated and a link and a summary put in their place. CovenantD 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are way too many photos. Also, I am open to creating some new pages, one of which should be: "Critics and Controversial Teachings" This back-and-forth with different reverts is wasting our time. Dilip went through a series of edits which added new sections, but also deleted a lot of existing content that is critical of the FG. So now I feel the only way to make any progress is to do a split. It's for that reason I have moved (and in some cases re-titled) critical sections, including the one on sexual orientation, to the Critics and Controversial Teachings section. Fire Star: can you help here? --Tomananda 20:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the link to the main article on Teachings. I agree that It seems fair for the critics get their own page. Then we can get people working on summaries for this one and cut the size of the page. CovenantD 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I've been rather busy in the "real world" the last day or so, but I'll try to get some editing time in tomorrow... --Fire Star 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I can get some sleep now. Struggling to maintain a balanced, smaller article, I am CovenantD 05:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a Project:Falun Gong?

Looking both at the size of the article and the rather Herculean task of effectivly chopping the article down to size without destroying it's usefulness (not to mention protecting the articles from vandalizm) I would suggest that we create an offical Project:Falun Gong to organize and plan out how we are going to edit and improve all Wiki articles related to Falun Gong. But I'm not a good leader, and I'm not sure how many people would be willing to work on such a project, so it anyone willing to give it a shot? The Fading Light 7:16, 24 April 2006

I don't know enough about Projects and Wikipedia to answer that, but I am still intrigued by the idea. Of course, not that many people make use of this talk page already so it's effectiveness is questionable. Could we limit edits to only those involved in the Project? It would be soooo useful to stop the hacks. :) CovenantD 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. Wikipedia is THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT. Such demands will not be entertained. Ever. If you want, go start your own Falun Gong wiki somewhere else. The MediaWiki software is released under GPL. Then you can restrict edits and impose your editorial policies. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that we have some people who want to work on the article(s). For a long time, it has just been a few of us, Myself, Miborovsky, Olaf, etc. Then Tomananda, Dilip, Samuel and McConn showed up. CovenantD, Jeff Fenstermacher and Fading Light are more recent, but have made good contributions. I'm sorry if I missed anyone out. Things have been really busy since Wang yelled at Hu and Bush at the White House press conference, but that should settle down in a few days. Limiting edits, unfortunately, would take a lot more work than it sounds, we'd literally have to rewrite the foundation policies of Wikipedia to do that. --Fire Star 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content in Origin Section taken from Chinese source

It seems that we haven’t reached any form of consenses on the content from this article, therefore, upon Convenant’s request, I’m reposting the discussion here.

Samual wrote: Also, the sentence “According to a Chinese state-sponsored news report published six days after the persecution of Falun Gong officially began” in origins section is inappropriate. How would you like it if I added the following statement “According to the Falun Gong which is considered a deceptive cult by American cult experts” to all statements from the Epoch Times and the group?

It's different. The circumstances of this report's publishing make it unacceptable. I think most editors here have a fairly good idea of how the CCP uses it's media and "statements" by its citizens in mass political campaigns or persecutions such as this, especially at the begining to get it rolling. Mcconn 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the info in the origins section taken from the Chinese newpaper article. This article was published by a state-run newspaper six days after the persecution of Falun Gong began. There's no way we can include this as a valid source. Besides, information about Mr. Li's abilities as a child have no context in the "origins" section. Mcconn 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mcconn 05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for presenting both sides. Present the source, then reasons people don't trust it, all properly cited of course, and let the readers decide. CovenantD 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. With proper caveats and neutral language, we can have both sides of the story. --Fire Star 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we did that for everything anyone ever wanted to put in, the article would become a mess. It must be appropriate. We can't include something simply because someone wants to put it in and no rebuttle has been given. I don't think that we should include such disputable and questionable content in this section of article, regardless of whether there is a rebuttle. Think about the circumstances of the article, what the CCP was doing at that time, and how it forces statements from its people. I have friends who have made statements about Falun Gong too, yet these statements were completely false and forced from thier mouths after months of torture and brainwashing. If you are not very familiar with how the CCP has operated over the last 50 years, then I suggest you do some research before working too much more with the article. I'm not against including information from Mr. Li's biography in this article, I just think that it should be completely relevent and also from the source. I've read the biography before and know that the quote "Li claimed to have been trained by numerous Masters in Buddhism and Taoism" is mistranslated. It should be Buddhist and Daoist schools, which are not directly related to Buddhism or Daoism the religions. In addition, how is it relevant to discuss Mr. Li's childhood abilities in the origins section? Mcconn 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are why I suggested we should put in all due caveats. Just like you, I don't consider the CCP to be particularly truthful, but to be honest, neither do I consider Li Hongzhi to be particularly truthful. I appreciate your suggestion that I no longer contribute to this discussion due to your assumption of my ignorance in matters concerning Chinese politics, but I'll respectfully continue to contribute here notwithstanding. That being said, Li's political and religious posturing don't seem any more truthful or compassionate than the CCP's to me, at least. Li's or the CCP's claims of Li's childhood abilities seem relevant to an "origins" discussion to me, and the distinction between Buddhist and Taoist "schools" and "religions" seems to be so much FLG party jargon. There are dozens, if not hundreds of surviving Buddhist and Taoist schools, which can either be considered different schools or separate religions, depending on whom you ask. It doesn't matter if you believe in him and I don't, what does matter here is that we follow Wikipedia policy in reporting Li and FLG to the best of our ability. --Fire Star 06:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcconn yuo don't want to include info from the chinese media because you know what they say about Li is true. I came to this conclusion becasue practitioners like you keep deleting Li's own words, it suggests that you practitioners want to hide the truth. Editors on this page and our visitors are not babies and we don't need you to censor information for us. We don't need you to decide what information should be allowed. Reports from Chinese media should stay if those lies from FAlun Gong's mouth piece Epoch Times stays. --Samuel Luo 07:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, one example where you alleged practitioners of "hiding the truth" was when I asked you to provide direct quotes from Li's biography. You didn't even comment on that. You have overridden a lot of people with your forced editions and blank-outs, yet you still accuse others of being concealers. Would you think these reactions were necessary if you observed standard editing policies? If you provided appropriate information upon request? If you acknowledged the Wikipedia requirements for reputable sources? If you didn't frequently break the Three-revert rule? If you observed basic civility instead of verbally bashing and denouncing everybody who doesn't agree with you? If you didn't lump your every opponent in a big pile of "cult apologetics"? If you didn't deny the historically recurrent nature of CCP's political campaigns and admitted that its media suffers from a really bad reputation? (for example, see Reporters Without Borders article [12]) If you didn't choose "information" based on how much it "exposes" Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi, but instead maintained standard criticism of sources in every occasion?

To me it seems that you don't fully recognize the rights of others: if your edition doesn't comply to the standards, anybody is entitled to remove it. You may have found the most scandalous anti-FLG propaganda you've ever encountered, but if it's only found on a shady website, it doesn't belong to this article. Also, in regard to what you said earlier on this talk page about starting a sentence with "According to...", that's not what I meant - point was, Li's brother-in-law or neighbors were not your sources: your source was a random text document you dug up. Can you see the difference? Or if you think that practitioners inside the State Sports Administration twisted the numbers of Falun Gong practitioners for NYT, you'd better find a source to back up such extraordinary claims. Personal conspiracy theories don't count. And we should all keep in mind that other people's reactions to ourself often mirror our own conduct. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, Olaf, let's bring this back to civility. The topic is Content in Origin Section taken from Chinese Source. Samuel, I take it you're in favor of inclusion. Olaf, what about you? CovenantD 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong

A section like this shouldn't be weighted at the begininning of the article. However, if we broaden it under the heading "Organization and Financial Aspects" it may become more appropriate in this place. I think it would be better after the section on teachings though, since they are what Falun Gong is. Also, we should refrain from using the term "The Falun Gong". Practitioners do not recognize this title. We can instead use "Falun Gong" or "Falun Gong practitioners". In the case of this heading I don't it's necessary to use either, as in my suggestion. Mcconn 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much interested in the content of this article, as I am in the organization of it, or rather the lack thereof. I would agree that placing a discussion of finances at the top of an article on a religion (or quasi-religion as the introductory paragraph puts it) is improper. As for overall organization, I am fond of the structure of the Scientology entry. A matching order with current content would be along these lines: Beliefs & Teachings, Origins, Theoretical Background, and then Financial and Business Aspects. That would leave "Cultivation of Body and Mind" in an awkward position, however, and possibly place the criticism section too low for some people's tastes (though I don't think criticism should be the focus of an article, and is right to be a little lower than it already is). I'm not going to make any corresponding edits, as I don't want to be immediately labeled as supporting one side or the other. Opinions? --Philodespotos 08:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Finanical aspects should be after Teaching. As far as Cultivation, isn't that part of the Teaching section logically? I don't understand why there's a new heading for that section when it seems to be part of Fulan Gong teachings. CovenantD 14:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between Falun Gong and Chinese Communism unconvincing?

Is Chinese Communism truly in a deadly struggle with Falun Gong, as we are led to believe, or is the similarity between Falun Gong's supremacist values and Chinese government abuses of Human Rights all too redolent of something else entirely? Etaonsh 12:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, in the early years, the Chinese government awarded Falun Gong. And Falun Gong claimed it has no enemy at any time (even after the ban). Fnhddzs 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we remove 'alleged' from 'alleged illegal activities', please?

I feel that the promotion of an ideology of racist separate development smacks of a racism which is illegal here in Europe, let alone Communist China. I accept that Europe isn't always any more effective at enforcing such laws than the People's Republic - but can we 'call a spade a spade,' please? Etaonsh 12:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the outlaw itself is illegal. Without any legal procedures. What "racist" you mean? To my knowledge, Falun Gong welcomes anybody. We can call a spade a spade if we have consensus. Thanks. Fnhddzs 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern Regarding Credibility of Source

"A Chinese Newspaper" is not a credible source. We must take into consideration the fact that there is Goverment Crackdown on Falun Gong and Media in Mainland China is tightly controlled by the state. Chinese Newspapers have made really absurd claims on Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev 13:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is debatable, but at least you have left that assertion open to debate. When you recently reverted the Falun symbol caption back to 'no connection to Nazism' (a minority view here, IMHO) you didn't consult anybody, and left no comment.

If, as an Indian, you don't feel threatened by the Chinese racist supremacism implicit in Falun Gong, this suggests either irrationality or a bumptiousness never before observed in the Indian character. Or both. Etaonsh 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wan is central to Indian Culture too. It is called Swastika here. It is found in ALL traditional Indian temples. Falun Dafa is cultivation practice and has nothing to do with any country. So many here in India practice it and it is popular through out the world. Many yoga experts consider Falun Gong a great practice. Dilip rajeev 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, despite all that, I read evidence in the article, totally undenied, that standard, fascistic views on topics like homosexuality and racial interbreeding are encouraged. Is this falacious, or just a part of the elephant you don't observe? Etaonsh 15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etaonsh, did you know that interracial marriages (especially between Chinese and Caucasian spouses) are probably more common among practitioners than society in general? Saying that people of different races or nations have their own gods doesn't contradict with anything we know about ancient mythologies. Falun Gong has nothing to do with fascism, and it has never put forth any requirements for people in ordinary society. ---88.192.40.47 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't somebody revert the bit that said that Li's philosophy opposes interracial marriage, in the interests of Wikipedian enlightenment? Or is there a China/India split on this? Etaonsh 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The racism is all there in the teachings, as well as the idea that inter-racial people have created an enormous problem (they don't have a place in one of Li's segregated paradises...the gods don't know what to do with them). The reason practitioners can point to examples of their own who are inter-racial is that Li has cleverly offered an exception clause. He says that if you are an inter-racial person, he will deal with your problem on an individual basis and find a resolution. Li does the same thing with what categories of people will get eliminiated in his Fa-rectification. While it's clear that homosexuals are high on the priority list, he has most recently stated that even "bad people" can avoid being eliminated (in the case of homosexuals this process is more slow and painful than the standard elimniation)providing they side with him on his war against the "evil" and "wicked" Chinese Communist Party. Thus Falun Gong is totalitarian, racist and homophobic in it's overall approach, but pragmatic when it comes to gaining and keeping recruits for its political agenda. As cynical and manipulative as this is, practitioners don't see it as such.

--Tomananda 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Interracial people are a problem'? That statement, if accurately reported, is simply unacceptable in this crude form. 'The gods don't know what to do with them'? Likewise, altho it sounds like a clumsy way of stating that their mixed race creates problems for astrologers, who typically would assign a star sign/ruling planet/element to each race. I expect Li is, for once, in harmony with the CCP on the subject of homosexuality. 'Elimination' of evil or of the evil? Anti-communism? This wouldn't fit in here, where apolitical organisations are largely regulated and have to remain apolititical, for tax purposes. Etaonsh 19:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to Li the existence of interracial people has caused an enormous problem because the gods don't know what paradise they belong to. That's a fair and accurate summary of the teachings. Li doesn't blame the interracial couple for this "problem" (his word), but he does blame the aliens who have been working to separate people from their gods. It all follows in Li's logic. And concerning Li versus the CCP on homosexuality, there is a big difference. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the CCP, nor is it illegal. Although the CCP has many faults in the human rights area, it is far ahead of Li on acceptance of homosexuality as a variant within the category of human sexuality. As a gay person, I would fear for my life more living under a Li Hongzhi dictatorship than a CCP one because Li has repeatedly denied my very humanity. That doesn't mean that Li would intentionally sanction violence against gays, but by teaching that gays are not human, have dark hearts turning demonic, etc. he would create a climate which would enourage others to act out against gays. The FG practitioners have been very duplicit about this issue. If you are persistent with them in private conversations you discover they all believe this stuff, but at the same time they try to conceal it from the public domain. Hence the importance of reporting the truth in this article. --Tomananda 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page

Fire Star, There is so much vandalism on the article.. So much content has been deleted.. sections on awards deleted.. section saying epoch times is a publication of Falun Gong.. Many relevant pictures deleted( including self-immolation gif).. please allow me to fix a bit of the vandalism before the article is locked.. Dilip rajeev 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, but the article is temporarily locked at this point so that we may discuss a way for all of us to be satisfied with this article. The protected page isn't an endorsed page, it is just accidentally where we were in the revert war when another admin locked it. There has been too much attention paid to the article and not enough to each other, and it was getting worse instead of better. I have been editing this article steadily for over two years, so it would be a conflict of interest for me to exercise administrator functions here. --Fire Star 15:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

l

Starting over

The recent edit wars and resulting block are evidence that we editors aren't using this talk page enough before we make changes to a very controversial article. We can change that, if everybody is willing to work together.

I'd like to archive the talk page and try a fresh start, focusing on making the article the best it can be. We could start with discussing a basic outline, target size, and what to summarized and split off into their own articles. I'd like us to agree that NO changes are made to the article itself UNTIL we've reached 60% agreement on the edit (similar to the size needed for a merge or deletion). Anybody else interested in trying for a NPOV article of proper size? CovenantD 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's too early. We are at a stage in the discussion which is truly banal: Position A asserts that Falun Gong opposes homosexuality and racial interbreeding; Position B points out the close similarity of this to historical movements of the extreme right; Postion A denies the evidence. This level of stonewalling denial is puerile and truly offensive in the context of a civilised discussion, whatever the alleged 'health benefits.' Etaonsh 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A period of cooling off and discussion for starting over are exactly why I asked for the page to be protected. It is going to take a while to draft proposed outlines anyway. As I've said before, I've seen more intractable revert warring than this, so there is hope. We seem to have roughly equal numbers of decidedly pro, anti and neutral outside editors on this one. Pro or anti FLG editors are going to have to be satisfied that simple, unvarnished reporting of what Li has said and done (or not done) and FLG is and is perceived as by notable sources will tell the story. Nothing more or less is possible at Wikipedia. We can't praise Li and FLG or make them into demons. It should be "In book or lecture X Li says Y about Z" or "in periodical A reporter said B about C" and that is it. I support CovenantD's proposals for moving forward. --Fire Star 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep popping up here but I need to clear up a misunderstanding - I am not 'anti-FLG' as implied. I am prepared to countenance a truce with them on the basis that they show due understanding and appreciation of how their views and symbols have come across to those fully informed of matters political, and of modern history. At the moment we are at a level of discussion whereby the best I can expect in that regard is something along the lines of, 'Shucks! - is that fascism? We're sorry, we had no idea, we've been too busy practising our exercises/we've never been allowed to do politics, here.' Etaonsh 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied fascism and totalitarian ideologies in university, and I have a Bachelor's degree in Religious Studies. Now I'm doing my Master of Arts for cultural history. Falun Gong uses a manji symbol because it represents a Buddha's status. It's not an arbitrary or a covenanted insignia. You are mixing ideas and notions from entirely different strains of thought based on your own anachronistic impressions; that has nothing to do with scientific analysis. ---Olaf Stephanos 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sound a very busy individual, and perhaps therefore haven't had time to recognise that the problem here isn't just about the manji symbol, but the fact of its export to the West in conjunction with fascistic ideology. Also, there is something a touch personal about that comment, if I'm not mistaken, for all your academic pretensions. Etaonsh 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this section is "Starting over." We can debate the inclusion of the symbol once we agree on starting over and get to the details. CovenantD 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were anti-FLG. There are three categories that I mentioned, pro, anti and neutral, with no assignations, so people can pick which one they like! ;-) Personally, I believe myself that Li and FLG also make some quite tall claims without much demonstration of their veracity, but that shouldn't enter into our presentation of the issue, so I also consider myself neutral. I also believe, in distinction to the CCP, that Li should have the right to make those claims, as with any church or religious group. Caveat emptor! Since Li doesn't seem to fleece his followers to the degree that even a mainstream church does, I believe that they are more of an instance of mass co-dependance rather than a radical cult, but that is original research on my part, so that stays out of the article. Why I am interested in the article myself is for technical reasons, I have some experience in the area of qigong, Buddhism and Taoism that Li also claims to have. Even so, I tend to only say things in the article that are directly based on Li's statements, such as his assertion that his methods are superior to those of all other qigong schools.--Fire Star 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got a citation for that? :) (Expect me to challenge everybody for citations, BTW...) CovenantD 16:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! The first one that come to mind, because I read it yesterday (crap, this means I'll have to read through his lectures again) was his description of the FLG fourth exercise: This exercise is far beyond the usual methods of opening the meridians or the Great and Small Heavenly Circuits The great or small exercises he refers to are the macrocosmic or microcosmic (big heaven or little heaven, literally) meridian orbits that most qigong schools consider to be the highest level training. I'll be able to provide more instances as I find them. --Fire Star 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as someone involved in the field, so to speak, feel that 'tall claims' are an issue, to conceal such from the readership would hardly do us a service; especially if, as you imply, you have balancing compliments to contribute. Surely that is what neutrality is - to put both sides of an issue, however faintly appetising the result. But I suspect you aren't entirely neutral - you want to promote this type of activity and would, it appears, rather gloss over the 'embarrassing bits.' Given that Falun Gong has effectively presented the CCP with an appreciable, sizeable challenge to its political authority (massive demos, however 'peaceful,' are a show of strength and destructive potential) I don't see why you want to apply different standards between it and the (reportedly smaller) CCP. FLG has become political - asserting homophobia and Apartheid is few persons' idea of 'meditative exercise.' Your assertion re 'mainstream churches' is debatable - I understood that they all followed a principle of voluntary contributions? In an ideal world, a renunciation of the fascistic values associated with the swastika, coming direct from Li Hongzhi himself, would have averted hours wasted in revert war and debate here. However, it is hard to see this coming while he clings on to the usual homophobia and Apartheid, which, by what appears to be one of the most amazing coincidences in history, happens to be shared by his army of associates with shared interests in meditative exercise. Etaonsh 16:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a martial artist. FLG claims of efficacy are, to me, laughable. I'm sure they can't do what they claim. My point is, though, that we should only report, not comment. If you have a citation that the wàn symbol causes adverse reactions in schizophrenics, it should go in the article. --Fire Star 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etaonsh, this is not the place for personal attacks such as "you want to promote this type of activity and would, it appears, rather gloss over the 'embarrassing bits.'" Nor is it the place to debate Fulan Gong. The topic is Starting Over. How do you feel about it? CovenantD 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if we can put our personal feelings aside and technically work on the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy, we'll all be able to have an input on whatever issue that we feel is important. --Fire Star 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that this (the lock) happened and that we are given this chance to discuss. I agree with Fivestar's statement: "In book or lecture X Li says Y about Z" or "in periodical A reporter said B about C" and that is it. " This will make the article much cleaner. Etaonsh, you seem pretty set in your opinion/theories, and in one statment you seem to regard practitioners as people of low intellegence or low understanding of the world around them. I hope you can keep a more open mind in the upcoming discussions. I hope you and others can bear in mind that without having studied the teachings of Falun Gong, or having studied them minimally, you are very prone to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Even as a practitioner I sometimes misinterpret or misunderstand things. So, just try to keep an open mind and don't be too set in your theories. Let's really try our best to refrain from attacking each other and stay on topic. Mcconn 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, 'in one statement you seem to regard practitioners as people of low intelligence or low understanding of the world around them.' I was being kind/diplomatic: the more likely explanation of those who promote fascistic ideology while denying it is that they are deliberately deceiving us. Not that I necessarily accept the view, which has been touted here, that all practitioners are, by some mystery, in accord - and would like to explore that unlikelihood, if we may, with their co-operation(?). Etaonsh 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page

Please remember that this isn't the place to vent our spleens in condemnation or gush praise for Falun Gong itself as much as it is to comment on the actual article content.

On Swastika

Etanosh,

It is a Buddhist symbol. See Swastika See this page ..http://www.swastika-info.com/en/worldwide/asia/1110151045.html

"Some people have said, “This symbol looks like that thing Hitler had.” I can tell you that this symbol doesn’t have anything to do with any social clashes. Some people say that if the corner tilted to this side it would be Hitler’s thing. That’s not an issue, since it turns both ways. This symbol was widely known in the world 2,500 years ago, it was back in Shakyamuni’s time that they got to know it. It’s only been a few decades since the time of Hitler and World War II, and he stole this symbol for his own use. But the color of his was different from ours, it was black, and what’s more, its corner pointed upward and it stood on its end, it was vertical" -Zhuan Falun'

See http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm Also http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm

You see the swastika on many ancient Buddha Statues and pictures of Hindu Gods. 202.138.112.252 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is also a Buddhist symbol. This is the difference between me and my detractors - I don't deny your truths, but you deny mine. Etaonsh 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the text accidently removed you raised out some points, to sum up:

1. "...in modern history terms, the swastika represents Nazi oppression. In Chinese terms, it represents a past in which the children of the poor were sold into Buddhist monasteries - oppression again"

Did you know that Buddhist temples rely on donations to be functional? How could they pay for children? What is the source of this?

2. Enter 'Falun Gong'...etc

But the symbol they use is presented in a Buddhist way. In English the symbol itself is termed "swastika" no matter Nazi or Buddhist. However, at least in Taiwan, people use the Mandarin pronounciation when it is used in Buddhism, and use "Nazi symbol" when it is obviously presented in a Nazi way.

Li Hong Zhi's philosophies and view might sound appealing to Nazists, but he is also attempting to market himself to Buddhists.

3. Don't take it personally, as a personal attack on your motives, or, for a moment, think that anyone is moved by any suggestion that what I am saying here is somehow irrelevant to the topic.

Like the way you use "Holocaust indifference and cultural insensitivity" and "'Religious' revisionists"? As well as after I repeatingly showed that the usage of "Western eyes" was valid and you start attacking the people who know the difference between the "Nazi symbol" and "wàn tsi"?

--Yenchin 05:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Protection

There has been a lot of blatant vandalism. Self-Immolation Gif Deleted. Section on Awards Deleted,transcriptions of audio conversations on by WOIPFG deleted. And even a whole section Section saying Epoch Times is run by Falun Gong. Editors are requested to please protect the article from vandalism. Dilip rajeev 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

= 'Suicide is shameless.' How religious/meditationally focussed/right-thinking is that? Etaonsh 16:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that?

Please don't debate Fulan Gong on this page or clutter it with images to prove a point in an arguement that shouldn't be taking place here anyway. Take it to your user talk pages if you want to continue. This is a space to talk about edits to the article. CovenantD 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. The debate on the swastika can take place when that part of the page is discussed. I'll suggest archiving everything above this when the new drafts are proposed. --Fire Star 16:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely :) I want to archive all of this, bring the outline over from the article and begin with that. I wasn't using hyperbole when I phrase it as "Starting Over." CovenantD 17:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Star,

This is not about the edits. You mentioned the topic of Small and Great Heavenly circuits. I know that in most Qi Gong systems it is considered the highest level of practice. In Falun Gong within a few weeks of practice, most practitioners can objectively feel the rotations of the Great heavenly circuit and Maoyou heavenly circuit. I myself can. And remember that there is no mind-activity or imagination whatsoever in Falun Gong practice. It is not wise to reject something just because it is not in-line with out notions. It is un-necessary to accept or reject something when we understand it. Truth has nothing to do with we start believing or stop believing.

Opening of the heavenly circuits is just the first step in Falun Gong practice.If you can try the exercises, cultivate your mind-nature - you can verify that for yourself.. There is absolutely no need to believe or dis-believe what I say.

Remember that Master Da Liu, the master who introduced Tai Chi to North America said at the age of 95 that he asks ALL his students to learn Falun Gong.. Dilip rajeev 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip

I don't understand all this stuff about 'Small and Great Heavenly circuits' and 'rotating Faluns/Gongs?' but I hope, for your sake, that it's true and meaningful. Above all it's not political rant. It reminds me of stuff I heard at astrology meetings before gradually learning to respect aspects of their hidden knowledge, without yet totally embracing the subject. Oh, and, for the record, they sometimes trip themselves up when they, sometimes unwittingly, perhaps, stray from their specialist topic into matters political. I hope that clarifies my position, and my desire for enlightenment in accordance with Wikipedia principles(?). Etaonsh 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page

The following editing principle “Pro or anti FLG editors are going to have to be satisfied that simple, unvarnished reporting of what Li has said and done (or not done) and FLG is and is perceived as by notable sources will tell the story. Nothing more or less is possible at Wikipedia. We can't praise Li and FLG or make them into demons. It should be "In book or lecture X Li says Y about Z" or "in periodical A reporter said B about C" and that is it,” should be strictly followed. The reports from China have to be included since Li and the Falun Gong both originated there and the Falun Gong’s Epoch Times is included. To test whether we can strictly follow the above editing principle, let’s use a few frequently reverted statements as examples.

1. This statement “There is no concept of membership in Falun Gong” in the introduction is not sourced, shouldn’t it be included?

2. This statement “Li refused the house according to the practitioner who bought the house in this letter [11]. The house which Mr. Li admitted to living in in the report was at least partially paid for by James Pang, "who was among Mr. Li's first followers in the U.S. and helped rent the Queens apartment for Mr. Li" in the Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong section is a personal statement from a practitioner published on Falun Gong website. Shouldn’t it be included?

3. It is very ironic that being a critic of the Falun Gong, I have been the one restoring Li’s statements repeatedly deleted by practitioners. Can practitioners stop concealing the Master’s teachings? --Samuel Luo 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we understand this is an example ONLY;

1. Include if a source can be found.

2. Taken in context, it seems to provide an balance to the WSJ bit. Include both with citations, let the reader decide.

3. Personal statement, no response warranted.

-- CovenantD 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns on Samuel's Edits

Samuel,

I was going through the edit History. I am sorry but Vandalism is the only word I can find to describe what you have been doing. We all have a POV but remember that this is an encyclopaedia article. You have repeatedly ignored discussion on the talk page. Repeatedly deleted content from the article including whole sections, The Tiananmen Square Video Gif( repeatedly - inspite of other editors asking you not to ); Content from Organ Transplants section, Deleted the whole awards and Recognitions section, New York times figure on the number of practitioners, relevant content from several sections and much more and ignored repeated requests from other editors to stop vandalizing the article. Please go through your own edits over the past three days.

Despite editors repeatedly pointing out that the Epoch Times is an Independent News Agency, You kept Introducing a section saying "Major Publications of Falun Gong" -- in which you say Epoch times is run by Falun Gong. The above mentioned are just a part of what you have deleted.

Dilip rajeev 18:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked and we're discussing it here now. There's a proposal to start over. How vote ye? CovenantD 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but it is urgent that we restore the vandalized material, of which the above mentioned are but just a part. We need to be careful abou the source we use. Chinese newspapers have carried really absurd stories. We cant have them as a credible source. And whenever somebody puts a quote in editors are requested to look at the context in which it was said... Just look at the critical material section.. The quotes are so terribly out of context.. Then sobody who talks about a falun rotating in the "wrong direction"!!! SO absurd.. The books clearly say the falun rotates in both directions..

" When Falun rotates clockwise, it can automatically absorb energy from the universe. Rotating counter-clockwise, it can give off energy. Inward (clockwise) rotation offers self- salvation while outward (counter-clockwise) rotation offers salvation to others—this is a feature of our practice. Zhuan Falun, Lecture 5

Dilip rajeev 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss individual edits once we agree on the proposal to start again. One step at a time.... CovenantD 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip rajeev you are the one who has deleted many sections, concealed your masters’ statements and rewrote the contents of many sections. You should point the finger of vandalism to yourself. I initiated a dialogue here when deleting one section, in contrast, you deleted many sections and content that don’t suit your taste without any concern for the people who wrote them. Yes, I have reverted your POVs many times in defending four sections that I care about. You even deleted your Master’s own statements. Are you so ashamed of his words? The Tiananmen Square Video Gif is a Falun Gong propaganda, a POV that should not be included. The Awards and recognitions section was restored by me at this time 00:33, 23 April 2006. It was again deleted by presumably an embarrassed practitioner. Dilip rajeev your provocative editing is the cause of the lock on the page.

--Samuel Luo 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make the rest of us watch your fighting, you two. If you must continue with the back-and-forth accusations, please take it to your talk pages and let the rest of us move forward. CovenantD 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed solution to the problem here; my intention is to find a common ground. But when being attacked I must defend myself.

--Samuel Luo 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to put aside personal animosity. Dilip, calling edits you disagree with "vandalism" can be seen as an attack, and Samuel, when you perceive an attack, you don't actually have to defend yourself. Consensus will defend you, if you have a defensible point. If we have points to raise, we should raise them and ask opinions, then the opinions should be considered and discussed calmly. I know it is easy for me to say, and it doesn't always seem like it works, but we have to give it a chance or the article will stay locked for a long time. --Fire Star 21:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from Fnhddzs

Hi, everybody, thanks for your reply.
1. I did't know there is a sequence. I thought I should insert my words right after the words I would reply to.:) Sorry. Maybe this time my sequence is wrong again. I am willing to move.
2. Whether the allegation on the Sujiatun site is true or not, as I have said, the evidence is probably relocated three weeks after the allegation. Three weeks is ridiculouly long for a state to respond to such serious matter. It would be surprising to find any evidence from a guided tour by the suspected criminals/or criminal-affiliated authorities, right? That is why a third party, INDEPENDENT investigation is required ASAP. No evidence from just one tour does not mean no crime. I would expect, after all evidence is killed, the CCP regime may open all camps and beautify them to let international investigators to tour. The telephone messages published online clearly indicate the organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners are true [13]. I would say, it is a very very serious matter. Each person as a human beings on this world should not be cold to this if s/he could be called a human being. At least, we would say it is still early to make a conclusion that the organ harvesting allegation is a lie. ok?
3. The State visit is obviously not correct, according to the US government. [14] I don't want to make comments on it. But it is a fact. Somebody have changed it to "Protests against Chinese president Hu, April, 2006", which I think ok. But did you revert it back to state visit?
4. What creditable information you mean? I did not replace it. If you think I did, maybe that is a mistake. That the two witnesses went to the public is a fact. Why you are afraid of seeing that? If they are practitioners, why they had fear in the beginning and refused to go to the public? They claimed clearly they are not practitioners. Practitioners believe in "to be True, Good and Endure". How could a true practitioner said clearly they are not? I am not sure in the future whether they would decide to become Falun Gong practitoiners. But now they are not. In my understanding, a practitioner may not say something, but what s/he say must be true to their most current knowledge. Otherwise, s/he is at least not a good practitioner. If somebody claimed that they are not practitioners. Then for sure they are not practitioners at the time they claimed.
5. As I have said, Falun Gong clearly claimed that killing or suicide is a sin. A true practitioner will NEVER do that. It is quite ironic that when CCP slander Falun Gong, they don't even bother looking up the Falun Gong's teachings carefully. I also heard that CCP asked some criminals committed killing to claim themselves Falun Gong practitioners. Then they will not be sentenced or charged. To justifiy their persecution, they can do whatever they want. In the persecution of Falun Gong, the CCP also said "beating the Falun Gong practitioners to death is counted as their suicide". The CCP do not treat Falun Gong as basic human.
6. It is easy to understand this logic of CCP. You may recall that one time the previous Head-of-State Jiang, Zemin was interviewed by a reporter (I can find the citation) about that a female student was raped in a labor camp after she was involved in the "June 4th" event (1989 Tiananmen). Jiang said "She deserved it". So in CCP regime, laws serve only for governments's power, not for protecting people's rights when the two have conflicts. Once a person is labeled as an enemy, s/he lost the basic human rights. S/he could be raped/killed by policeman without any legal procedures. And this deemed natural in CCP's logic.
7. Regarding the alleged 1,404 death cases due to not seeking medical treatment and suicide, it is easy to understand now, First, suicide is not a Falun Gong concept; As to not seeking medical treatments, the reason could be multiple. First, Falun Gong claimed that it is not used to cure illnesses just for the sake of curing illnesses. The master only purifies a genuine practitioners' body. (it is not the original wording, I could post citation later). Second, eating medicine is not prohibited in Falun Gong. The Master states the relationship of a medicine and karma. It is up to the practitioner to decide. Different practitioners have different status. Nobody is forced to do anything. I know a practitioner who eat medicine for a while. After she came to truly understand the effect of medicine. She still finished her current medicine slowly since she bought with money and did not want to waste them. But slowly with her cultivation and practice, her health became better and better. She does not bother eating medicine again.
8. What is most bold is: Contratry to a normal war started by any country, CCP does not admit they ever "persecute" any Falun Gong practitioner. Just as they claimed they did not kill any students in the Tiananmen massacre. Whey they applied for Olympic games, they colored the grass by green pigment. I also heard they invitied reporters to visit some prisons/labor camps (such as Masanjia ) which are alledged notorious places for torture/sexual abuse to Falun Gong practitioners. They even raise deers, golden fish, play light music in the labor camps to beautify it for the reporters' visit. Of course, they will not let you find any evidence in the Sujiatun hospital tour.
9. At the last, I would post a famous poem here to raise the awareness of the world people to the terrible state-run crime to Falun Gong practitioners.

"No man is an island, entire of itself

every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main

if a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,

as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were

any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind

and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls

it tolls for thee."

--- John Donne

Thanks for reading my long post. I appreciate I could be allowed to voice myself here. I am willing to improve to make my post pleasing to everyone. I wish to work together with everybody here.

Fnhddzs 20:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends. First of all, I think most of my post is article-related. I would not write any piece you may not like on this discussion if wiki is not a right place. If you find something irrelevant, I am sorry. But at this time point, for the umpteenth time, who could help to account for the fact of missing practitioners? Where are they? Their organs are being harvested! I appreciate your understanding. I can be silent now. Fnhddzs 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. repost my replies to Tomananda here since Etaonsh deleted my post in 'his' section. :) Fnhddzs
Tomananda. You cannot say something like this. Did Master Li kill anybody as Hitler does? He does not have bias on anybody. He may just point out something that may really be true in a probably higher standard. In a higher standard, all humans have sins according to Jesus. But does that mean Jesus have hatred on humans? Master Li ever mentioned something like he is to save you, no matter who you are (sorry not original wording). Actually I know quite a few Falun Gong practitioner couples who are from different races. I also know a couple of boy/girl friends who are Falun Gong practitioners, but with different races. They may have interracial children after they are married. Thanks for understanding. Fnhddzs 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fnhddz: Li talks about eliminating "degenerate" people in his Fa-rectification and at the top of his list are homosexuals. Li's philosophy is almost identical to the theories of eugenicists in the early 19th century in the US. They even use the same language, like "degenerate". Jesus and Buddha (the real one) taught that we are all the same and worthy of love and respect. Li teaches that we are all different, and that only practitioners can understand his ethical teachings. You are the chosen, the rest of us are ignorant "ordinary" people. For Hitler, the Aryan race was the chosen, and people like Jews and homosexuals were sytematically exterminated. It starts with denying the humanity of others. Li has repeatedly denied my humanity and you know it. The difference between Li and Hitler is one of degree. God bless. --71.198.77.89 05:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
71.198.77.89: Thanks for your reply. First notice that Master Li's words were translated character by character, not by meaning. Second, to my knowledge, I have never heard of the homosexuals are on the top of the list or even on the list of Fa-rectification. could you please give a citation? As I have mentioned, Falun Gong welcomes anybody no matter who you are. The gate is open so that there is virtually no gate. Jesus said only people who believe in him could be saved. otherwise will go to the hell. Didn't he? It is understoodable though each cultivation system is a bit selective (Christianality is also a cultivation system), just as if students do not believe the teachers at all, how the teacher teach them? Falun Gong said every being has life (not original wording) and are precious. I understand what you mean and your concerns. I am sorry it seemed that there is a huge misunderstanding. I have a friend. She said she is a gay/lesbian. I think she is a nice person and has many virtues. She tried to practice Falun Gong and later gave up. We are friends until now. Fnhddzs 06:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not giving original source

Right now a lot of the "critical info" against Falun Gong is sourced with western scholars, but in many cases those scholars are only quoting Communist Party sources. I have placed a question regarding this issue on: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_a_POV_Source_be_presented_as_NPOV_if_a_neutral_person_quotes_it.3F and basically the response i got was: "Attribute the POV to those who hold it, present any opposing view points (attributing those view points as well), don't state or imply that any POV is right or wrong." and "Quotes inside another source should not be used: locate the original." So in an effort to give orignal sources i have finally obtained a copy of: Tong, James (September 2002). An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing. The China Quarterly" and so i know which original sources he uses for the relevant accusations and will therefore use those original sources in the article. This should be done with the other sources (that are not original sources) as well. --Hoerth (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: I think it's appropriate to find and present the context in which these things are being said. If there are academics or journalists writing how it was part of the CCP's propaganda campaign to portray Falun Gong as a highly organised, money-making institution, then that information would be relevant in presenting those claims. This is being responsible and helpful to the reader, to get a picture of what is going on. Of course, it wouldn't make sense if the primary sources being quoted were prior to 7/20. But if they were post-7/20 regime sources, and then you have scholars explaining how post-7/20 regime sources had X and Y strategy in portraying Falun Gong, as part of this wider campaign, then I think that's relevant--I doubt anyone would dispute that. That's one thought I had.--Asdfg12345 14:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all post-persecution Chinese Government sources, but they are not referenced as such. --Hoerth (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]