Misplaced Pages

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 16: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Falun Gong Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:39, 22 August 2006 editCj cawley (talk | contribs)191 edits →Violations of Falun Gong's human rights in China← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:47, 20 November 2024 edit undoGonnym (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors224,820 edits →Starting over, take Four hundred or so: clean upTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPCHINA}} {{Calm}}
{{calm talk}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" {| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|] |]
|'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.''' |'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.'''
|} |}
<font colour=red>It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken. '''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'''. We don't want a puff piece for Falun Gong or ], neither do we want to ]ise them. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it. </font>


==Untitled==
<center>
Archived discussion:
{| class="wikitable" width=80%
!width=25%|
!width=25%|
!width=30%|
|- bgcolor="#DDDDDD"
| colspan=5 align=center | '''Additional suggested reading'''
These are policies of Misplaced Pages and style guides for writing good articles.
|-
||]
||]
||]
|-
||]
||]
||]
|-
||]
||]
||]
|-
||]
||]
||]
|-
||]
||]
|}
</center>

{{TOCright}}
==Archived discussions==

It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken.<br>'''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'''. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it.
*], 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005 *], 1 April 2003 - 29 May 2005
*], 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005 *], 29 May 2005 to 30 July 2005
Line 48: Line 16:
*], 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006 *], 10 April 2006 to 25 April 2006
*], 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006 *], 25 April 2006 to 26 May 2006
*], 26 May 2006 to June 2, 2006
*] June 2, 2006 to June 10, 2006
*] June 10, 2006 to June 27, 2006
*] June 27, 2006 to July 5, 2006
*] July 5, 2006 to August 3, 2006
*] August 11 to
{{-}}


==Starting over, take Four hundred or so==
==To Do List==
All previous discussions have been archived. Shall we start by looking at the article bit by bit?


Does anybody have suggestions to improve the opening paragraphs of the article, the ones that appear above the Table of Contents? ] 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
! rowspan="2" valign="top" |
! align="left" |
<big> ] for ]:</big>
| align="right" | <small><span class="plainlinks">&nbsp;- &nbsp;- &nbsp;- </small></span>
|-
| colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#FFEFDF; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" |
{{{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}/to_do}}]{{#if:1|]|]}}
|}


----
==Latest archiving==
'''Falun Gong''' ({{lang-zh|t=]]] |s=法轮功 |p=Fǎlún Gōng}}; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as '''Falun Dafa''' ({{lang-zh|t=&#27861;&#36650;&#22823;&#27861; |s=&#27861;&#36718;&#22823;&#27861; |p=F&#462;lún dàf&#462;}}; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by ] in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of ] exercises (, and one ).)
I have archived the last bit of the talk page as it was getting way too big to deal with. If there are bits that you want to use for a point about editing the article, please either link to the appropriate archive or cut and paste quote to here. Thanks. --] 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the ] began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at ] the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.
Good job Fire Star, but you archived current discussion, so I am restoring the discussion about alleged mass organ harvesting by the Chinese government of Falun Gong members.


After the crackdown, the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China was estimated by the government at 2.1 million . The number of practitioners claimed by Falun Gong is much larger, with 100 million followers worldwide including over 70 million in China.
=== Can we please get back to the topics at hand? ===
----
We need to get a new moderator. I would volunteer; however,
:Well, it seems pretty good to me. Neutral, brief, and in line with other articles of a similar nature on WP. '''We''' shouldn't call FLG a "cult" (as has happened) nor call Li Hongzhi a living god in the intro, (as has happened with only the slightest exaggeration on my part). --] 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
the FLG cult members would never allow it.
] 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
: of course they would never allow it... when you use such POV language! ] 11:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


:*I just notice that the intro above is not the sameone on the article. Let's discuss the existing version instead. --] 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
== Chinese government mass organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners ==


:::That's because dilip, ONCE AGAIN, made changes before there was agreement. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of it. ] 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Is China harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners?
:::I've just changed it back to what is in the article. ] 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Articles:
:*
:*
:*
:*
--] 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


::: I am sorry if I did something wrong I was trying to introduce the New York times figure. which was actually present in "the article". I wonder which is "the article" you are referring to.Anyway, Covenant, I leave it to you to decide wether saying Falun Gong was banned for illegal activities is correct or not and also wether to include the New York Times figure.] 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
China is organ harvesting according the the chinese and english epoch times.


::::Should it not be ''Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is...'' for proper grammar? ] 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
] 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes. ] 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that is correct. It is easy enough to change the existing version to the one above. What Dilip and other "pro-FLG" editors have consistently demonstrated IMO is an agenda regarding the uncritical promotion of FLG, as well converting as many other editors to their religion as possible. Until that agenda can be laid aside, their credibility for the purposes of an ] article (as opposed to a simple advertisement) is compromised, as far as I am concerned. --] 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


FACTS are what I want in the article neither my opinion nor anybody else's. Is inclusion of the NY Times figure promoting Falun Gong? I dont understand. Please point out which non-factual/unsourced material I have tried to add . Thankyou.
:Falun Gong mass brain harvesting of Communist cadres!!!
] 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
: See for reference *insert dodgy self-made site*
: Just kidding. --] (]) 10:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::Are you saying the sources suggesting that this happening are dodgy? ] 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::: Yes. All of them appear to derive from the same few unreliable sources (the Epoch Times, a FLG mouthpiece). The fact that a story is repeated several times does not make it true, except to ] ("A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth").
::: I doubt the veracity of this story because it is way too sensationalistic. Without some ''neutral'' and ''reliable'' source, it seems like concoction (e.g. for immigration purposes). --] (]) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
::::According to ], there is an independent 45 page report. I'm waiting for him to supply proof of this report. --] 10:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


:Sorry for not being clear. "The article," when I use it in this context, is the first three paragraphs of the main Falun Gong article attached to this talk page. Use of NY Times figures is an appropriate, verifiable source, and seems to fit in with the rest of the last paragraph. I'll address the legallity/illegality issue further down this page in it's own section. ] 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Here you go: The new link is up and running. ] 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue that does need to be investigated by an Independent third party organization. David Matas and David Kilgour are, from what I know of them, Falun Gong practitioners and may have ulterior motivations and hidden agendas. BUT, I and say this with the up most caution, during WW2 only the Jewish papers talked about the holocaust as early as 1939 where as the mainstream press only picked up on it two years after the war ended.

: David Kilgour is '''not''' a Falun Gong practitioner. He is the former Chief Prosecutor of Canada, and a former federal politician having server over 20 years in parliament. This report '''is''' independent, and will no doubt form the basis for any further investigations by the likes of Amnesty, etc. ] 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately in today’s world it is all too easy to create an organization and use it to say anything you want. Politicians do it all the time; half the PAC’s that endorse them are ones they created themselves!

We all should encourage groups like Amnesty International and other human rights watch groups to examine this issue and publish their findings.
--] 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

More articles expressing doubts about the Falun Gong allegation.
===Suggestions for edits===
Harry Wu of Laogai Research Foundation doubts FLG's claim: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0606/07chinese


Personally I'd prefer to see the second sentence of the second article say "alleged illegal activities." I'm not familiar with Chinese legal systems, but based on US perceptions one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since Falun Gong hasn't been put on trial, it all seems to be allegations at this point. ] 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
HK newspaper Takunpao's investigation discredits FLGs claim: http://www.takungpao.com/news/06/03/31/ZM-545907.htm


Oh, and the last sentence of that same paragraph should read "peacefully" rather than "peaceful." Simple grammar. I'll leave it to others to debate the claims. ] 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
A reporter's first hand experience with Falun Gong media outlet, Epoch Times: http://holidarity.blogspot.com/2006/04/organ-harvesting-controversy.html


And remember, our comments should address only the article and NOT other editors motivations or beliefs or recent behaviour. ] 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Samuel makes a good point in his article:
Does the group really believe that six thousand of its members were murdered in Sujiatun? The answer is no. The Falun Gong has kept a record of practitioners who allegedly died due to abuses; their personal information and the causes of their death have been disclosed in a section on the group’s official clearwisdom.net. As of June 3, 2006 the death toll was numbered at 2,898, and none of them were killed in the so-call Sujiatun concentration camp.8 In other words the victims of this crime do not exist! Despite the much so-call evidence and condemnations posted on Falun Gong websites, there is no attempt to account for these six thousand victims—a natural response if the group really believed such a crime has taken place.


:*Ok, I am ready to move forward too. The term “illegal activities” has been there for a while and editors from both sides seem to have no problem with it. So I say it should stay. What do you think? --] 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Many in the Chinese community here believe the Falun Gong is supported by the Taiwanese government. --] 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


::I'm good either way. ] 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There have been released a 45 page independent investigation (not by FLG people) which states that the organ harvesting are really happening. ] 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


"Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities."
:Ok boys. First of all, the first source of the organ harvesting allegations did not come from a practitioner or anyone who had anything to do with Falun Gong, it was the ex-wife of a sergan. If you don't think that the source is credible, then read the investigation done by David Matas and David Kilgor to find out why she is. You don't believe Epoch Times or practitioners? Fine. But at this point the weight on these allegations come from the report done by the two affirmentioned Canadians, not practitioners themselves. These are high profile individuals with very good reputations. If I were you I would read up on them and read their investigation report before you go any further with denouncing their claims. After conducting an independent investigation they firmly believe that this organ harvesting is happening and on a large scale. You can currently access their report at this site: http://www.come4u.info/ . I think this is a temporary site until they can get a better domain name.


Which illegal activities? I don't understand. All I have heard is the propaganda that CCP used to turn the chinese people agains Falun Gong. Here illegal activities should be removed. ] 08:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Also take a look at Kilgor and Matas' response to an article in the Embassy Newspaper


Also, as I know it, Falun Gong actually was encouraged by the government before the persecuton. They invited Teacher Li to hold sessions etc. But after the number of practitioner grew to above 100 million, Jiang Zemin got jeaoulous because Falun Gong had more members then the CCP has, and made it illegal..starting the persecution. ] 08:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Samual's argument is poor. The death toll listed on clearwisdom is not the number of practitioners we believe to have died from the persecution. Instead, it is the number of deaths verified through eyewitness accounts. Practitioners have always said that the true number is likely much higher. Plus, there is a huge number of practitioners that have simply gone missing in China.


:So you acknowledge that it is illegal. This nullifies your first comment. Any other suggestions for edits? I'll give it another 16 hours, then we'll move on. ] 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:It took the Chinese government weeks to respond to the allegations of organ harvesting. After a number of weeks they released a statement denying the claims and invited a US delegation to investigate. This was more than enough time to cover up anything they had to hide (and you know they would certainly do this if the allegations were true). This delegation was then given a show tour of the facility.


Im sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't acknowledge that the movement itself does illegal activites. Rather that the CCP banned it in China, that means persecuting it. The movement itself has never been doing anything illegal, that would go against the principle of Kindness/Compassion. As it looks now, it looks like Falun Gong did illegal activities and then got banned, but that is completely wrong. Falun Gong was "banned" because of other reasons, it didnt do anything illegal. ] 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Overall, I find some people's fervant dismissal and denial of something as serious as this, something with so much now supporting it, really appaling. Olaf already commented on how some people's hatred for Falun Gong has spilled over into support for the Chinese government. You may deny this, but your actions show otherwise. ] 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


We dont have to speculate wether its "illegal" or not. The earlier version didnt say "illegal". Neither was the term "illegal" agreed upon in any talk page discussion. I dont think there is any need to spend 16 hours on that. Please see the intro. ( Changes: Mentions there is a supression - doesnt speculate wehter it is for "illegal" or "legal" activities. Introduced New York Times figure. (70 million) ) . Let us move on to deciding the proper subsections and the intro paragraphs. ] 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:As for Mr.He's assertion that Falun Gong is backed by the Taiwanese government, what fact is this based on? It sounds completely ridiculous. "Anti-Chinese forces" working together, right? Give me a break. ] 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


:*These illegal activities should be spell out. I propose to add this sentence to the first paragraph: in the core of the Falun Gong belief system is a belief that the morally corrupt humankind is facing annihilation, only Master Li and his Falun Dafa can save the world. --] 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
These two Canadians, David Matas and David Kilgor are simply repeating the words of the Falun Gong. The US government has clearly stated that such a crime did not take place, why would I want to believe these Candians who have not even been to China? When the allegation first surface I thought you guys had a legitimate concerned, but as the story developes I found you guys have no interest in studying the evidnences and the facts. All you guys have done is pushing the allegation while ignoring the reports from the US state department and other reliable sources. This is why I believe the whole thing is produced by the Falun Gong, a cult according to American cult experts. I can assure you guys that this lie has turned many Chinese who had chose to ignore the Falun Gong against your cult. --] 04:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::'''IF''' that is a factual statement, I have no problem with it being included. Would others care to comment on this proposed addition? ] 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


This statement sums up the core beliefs of the Falun Gong, it should be included. --] 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:Mr. He, unless you've got something concrete to back up your statements I'm not going to bother responding. I doubt you've even looked at Matas and Kilgor's report or their statments in response to criticism. You place great emphasis on a very shallow and sketchy investigation, while ignoring the more crucial facts. Take some time to do a little more research, consider the other perspective and really try to weigh the situtation. If you can do this I think you'll see which side truly tips the scale. ] 05:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


==Direct quotes from Li's biography & Miborovsky protecting the page==
::So it's probably all true, and the Chinese government or somebody related is here trying to deny it with their own lies? --] 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I promised to devote more time to Misplaced Pages, but it hasn't worked out so far. I'm working and trying to finish some my studies at the same time. There's one issue I've requested repeatedly: I asked Samuel Luo to provide direct quotes from Li's biography, so that we can put them into quotation marks. He has not replied.
:] I hope you can show people here some respect by not calling us “boys.”


Another thing I find peculiar is that Miborovsky has locked the page, even though he has been involved in editing the article in the past, and he is by no means impartial. I don't know whether this conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. Shouldn't we always ask for an outsider?
Because this Chinese hospital is partly owned by a Malaysian company which means it is out of the control of local Chinese authorities, and because the US government has verified that such an allegation is false, people like me and Mr. He would rightfully refuse to believe Falun Gong’s Organ Harvesting allegation. Deception is a distinctive trait of Falun Gong. You said that “there is a huge number of practitioners that have simply gone missing in China,” how about the 30 million practitioners outside of China that your group claims to have in 1999? It looks like they have all gone missing, who is killing them? You also said: “I find some people's fervant dismissal and denial of something as serious as this, something with so much now supporting it, really appaling.” What we are doing is exercising our critical thinking or reality check; only cult members would believe in something which is backed by no facts. ] Editing others' words here is a violation, remember that. Are you trying to make anyone who disagrees with the Falun Gong a cousin of the Chinese government? --] 22:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
---] 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Welcome back, Olaf. Yeah, even when locking the page. why lock a page he prefers?
:I edited other' words? You mean I changed the sub-header. Anyway, there are conflicting stories which means there is a lot of room for further investigation! And from what I understand there is more investigation underway. --] 06:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If we can look at the history ,
(cur) (last) 00:14, 25 May 2006 Miborovsky m (Protected Falun Gong: ok that's it, apparently everyone insists on being revert-happy )
(cur) (last) 23:57, 24 May 2006 Yueyuen (anyone compares these two version can see that. You should talk with others before making big changes, I am not the only one complaining, check your mail box)
(cur) (last) 23:52, 24 May 2006 Fnhddzs (ok. but where is not neutral? nothing were simply deleted. If you see things not factual, please feel free to edit)


:Fnhddzs: Please don't repeat that false claim. You and Dilip most certainly had deleted important material--the entire set of individual subsection summaries for all those subsections which were in the Criticism and controversy page. You have admitted as such in previous discussion and even offered to allow them to be put back, but now you are again making this false claim. --] 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
===The organ harvesting allegation===


We can notice the Miborovsky locked the page 17 minutes after the Yueyuen's version. It is clear that during 17 minutes I did not even want to revert the page. There was virtually no need to lock the page for the sake of stopping revert war. ] 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Omido, can you please post a link to that 45 page report? --] 10:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


:]. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Here it is: This is the new domain name, so please disregard the temporary link I provided above. ] 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


:I remember seeing that Miborovsky had posted something like a one hour warning before he locked the page, so I don't see what the problem is in terms of timing. To me, all revert wars are counter-productive regardless of which version happens to exist when the page is frozen. As to who has the authority to freeze a page...last time it was an administrator we never heard of, and this time it was Miborovsky. On multiple occassions I have posted a question to this group asking if there was support for asking for formal mediation. I understand that any one of us can request that action, but I don't want to request mediation on my own. We talk about abiding by Misplaced Pages rules, and I do my best to honor them, but one rule of Misplaced Pages ettiquette is constantly violated, which is that when an editor asks a question, she/he deserves to get an answer. Why is it that Fire Star has been the only other editor ever to respond to my proposal of seeking mediation? --] 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
More political heavyweights are now coming out in support of the claims. In particular, ], vice-president of the ], who is currently touring with David Kilgour to raise awareness of the issue. Unlike the US "investigation", McMillan-Scott has actually uncovered more telling evidence pointing towards truth of the allegations.] 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry. I guess I just keep hoping that if we keep at it, if we act like adults, we can do this. At the moment, however, I'm about ready to call in a babysitter/mediator. And Miborovsky (''did I get it right that time?'') was responding to a request I made to have the article locked again. ] 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


::Covenant, In a sense you have already been acting as our unoffical mediator and I appreciate all your judicious efforts at reaching consensus. Under normal circumstances your efforts would work. But I am convinced...and I don't want to make this sound like a personal attack...that some of the Falun Gong practitioner/editors on this board will never accept a reasonable reporting of critical views of the Falun Gong no matter how much discussion we have, or how many changes we agree to in terms of use of sourced material, etc. Keep in mind, Li makes standing up for his Dafa a condition for salvation for his disciples. --] 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
==Who is Financially supporting the Falun Gong???==


:::This is similar to problems we have with articles on such subjective subjects, though. Especially such a well publicized one. If you look through the page histories of articles like ] and ] you'll see similar editing patterns, if not on such a large scale. The Suma Ching Hai article is interesting because she makes almost exactly the same claims about the system she teaches that Li Hongzhi does about his, as well as her insistence that her followers can only progress with her personal intervention, again very like Li. --] 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Is the Taiwanese government supporting the Falun Gong? Here is what I know, until the beginning of this year boxes of VCDs and pamphlets had shipped to my mother’s house from Taiwan every week. They were then distributed in San Francisco by other practitioners. Every practitioner I talked to told me that producing these material in Taiwan cost much less than anywhere else. No matter how little money they cost someone still has to pay for them, but when I ask who is paying no one knows. Can you tell me why for the last four years (at least) huge quantities of Falun Gong propagandist material were produced and shipped from Taiwan and no one knows who is paying for them?


::::In other words, don't give, have patience, and eventually we'll get there? I'll try to keep that in mind. :-) ] 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a friend who is working for San Francisco Examiner, a free newspaper. Three years ago he estimated that it costs about $250,000 per month to run the Epoch Times, a nationwide free newspaper which had no ads in its first two years. Who is paying? Practitioners I talked to told me that some rich practitioners in real state business have been paying for it but again no one knows their names. Also it is well known in San Francisco Chinatown that those elderly people protesting in front of Chinese consulate five days a week have been paid about $50 a day. The Falun Gong seems to have a very deep pocket, who is behind it? Many people believe it is the Taiwanese government some believe it is the CIA? What do you believe, aliens from Mars? --] 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yes, exactly. You (and others) are doing fine work here. After coming back from my artificially imposed break I've had relatively little to do text-wise as you have all been doing a thorough job on the article, IMO. The stuff I had prepared was already covered when I came back, but I've had a few talk page discussion with some other editors here about how I see such emotional issues. People feel very personally about their schools and teachers. Keeping cool heads and always leading discussion back to the issues is the way forward. --] 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:*Olaf, I do not remember you asking for Li’s direct quote. Anyway these quotes are provided in the origin section. --] 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:Falun Gong people seem to have a endless supply of material for free distribution, and many of these material are highly political. The "Nine Commentary On the CPC" VCDs and books are good exmples. These political propaganda are calling for the downfall of the Chinese governmnet. Producing the VCDs cost some money but what is more costly is the documentary contained in the VCD, who is paying for the producion of this film? Also the books are printed in good quality which certainly cost a lot of money, who is paying for them? So, these material are coming from Taiwan that explains everything. --] 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


::They are not direct quotes. Please write here the entire chapters from which they are taken, preferably in English. I don't have the biograpy at my disposal, so maybe you could write all of it to see if there's anything else we could include. Like the names of Li's masters - I heard they're in there, too. Otherwise, please provide a link so that we can check the accuracy of the comments on his biography. --] 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:: There is a prevalent view in the Chinese community, at least here in Australia, that FLG is supported in some way by the Taiwanese government. For example, the recent defector ] defected with FLG support, and now he is popping up at events held by the present Taiwanese regime (that is, officials affiliated with the ]). I am not saying that this is evidence of financial backing, but that is certainly how many overseas Chinese view the situation. --] (]) 10:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


:*You are right, I paraphrased his claims, just check again. Like I pointed out before it was published as an appendix in all Chinese Zhuan Falun published before 1999. I don’t have the time to translate his statements. Here is an article which translated many of his statements. It is funny that you should ask me for it, since you are Li's disciple. --] 07:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::: I can tell you that I am a practitioner from Australia, and I have not been involved with things for a very long time. I gradually came to understand what Falun Gong was about and my involvement grew over time. Everything, all materials, posters, events, everything I came across, was paid for by practitioners directly. I have personally put several hundred Australian dollars toward fliers. A doublesided piece of A4 paper costs 1c AUD. For example, one event cost $400 AUD in papers, and several practitioners all contributed. I´ve only been really involved for six months, doing things. People have jobs and they earn money, jobs in the government with decent wages. Those who understand what Falun Gong is in this period of time, and once I came to understand, would not bat an eyelid at giving over a lot of money for this cause. Furthermore, those in China do not bat an eyelid at the thought of brutal torture and a painful death. Maybe the thought of a Falun Gong practitioner now would be "what else have I got to do with the money I earn?" Of course, some people have families and they must look after them. Part of being a practitioner is learning the meaning of responsibility and certainly all practitioners, and Falun Gong in this period of time, is strictly being responsible to themselves and to this society. You are unable to understand the mentality of these people, but I can tell you that in my experience all money that I saw changing hands was between practitioners and printing houses. -- 0:59:04, 7 of August, 2006


What we are doing is working. By protecting the article, changes can be made only after discussion and agreement. I don't think we need a formal mediator now, ]is doing a pretty good job. --] 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You guys are really "digging into a bulls horn". You can gather all the "facts" you want, but you'll never prove anything with this argument. Why? Because it's simply not true. Again, I don't really feel the need to say much about this. No one gets paid any money to protest in front of the Chinese embassy. That's a total lie and, like the rest of your argument, you'll only waste your time trying to prove it. As for materials, there are practitioners in all professions (including graffic design, software engineering, programing, etc.) so as long as we've got the time and the resources (these days you don't need many resources to create a video like that of the nine commentaries) we can do pretty much anything we need. No one ''has'' to do anything. It's only because practitioners believe firmly in the cause that they do what they do. As for Sujiatun, I don't personally know all the details (in terms of the Malasian owner relationship), however, the sources never came from Falun Gong practitioners (we merely reported it). So if you think they're lying you can't say that it's Falun Gong practitioners who are lying. This aside, independant and reputable investigators who know a lot more than anyone here does about this whole thing have found these sources credible. Again, I suggest that you actually read the Kilgour and Matas report. It seems that you hold onto your opinion rather blindly (just my perspective). ] 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


== Structure and Outline ==
:Practitioners have contributed money for printing leaflets, but they have not paid for the boxes of VCDs and booklets from Taiwan nor did they pay for the Epoch Times, the radio network Sound of Hope and the satellite television station New Tang Dynasty. Mcconn, it is true that we don’t have any evidence to back our claim but don’t you find it interesting that no practitioner can provide evidence to relieve our suspicion? --] 07:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to move fast with the edits and scrutinize the data on the subpages.


*1. Origins
::I have seen the boxes from Taiwan full of Dafa material. I have also asked who pays for this, and the answer is the practitioners pay for it. I have been at a few meetings where practitioners put out a lot of money to get boxes of Dafa material shipped to them. Some practitioners are well off that they can spend a few hundred each month on material or have a business to make things such as the VCD's or do some small print runs. Fa conferances are often funded by the hosting practitioners. This is normal for groups like this. JW, Mormons and Moonies all pay for thier material to hand out too. After all, buying materials and handing them out is part of being a practitioner, and somewhat expected. --] 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
*2. Falun Gong teachings
*:{{main|Falun Gong teachings}}
*:summary
*3. Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong
*:{{main|Controversies about the teachings of Falun Gong}}
*:summary
*4. Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance
*:{{main|Falun Gong Awards and their questionable importance}}
*:summary
*5. Falun Gong Organization
*6. Chinese Government's "crackdown"
*:{{main|Chinese Government's (persecution) of Falun Gong}}
*:summary
*7. Falun Gong outside of China
*:{{main|Falun Gong outside of China}}
*:summary
*8. References
*9. External links
:*9.1 Falun Gong sites
:*9.2 Critical sites
:*9.3 Other sites


What kind of evidence would you be looking for? If you want tax receipts and the like, those are the kind of things to be brought up in a court of law, not a simple discussion such as this. How do you know practitioners didn't pay for these things? I bet your parents or some other local practitioners payed for the stuff from Taiwan. Here's the big secret you've all been waiting for: In Taiwan it's cheaper to print things and there is a high concentration of practitioners there, some owning bookstores and probably some owning or operating print houses. So a lot of materials (not all) are made in Taiwan, then when practitioners in different areas need some materials from Taiwan, they contact them, place an order, and pay the printing and shipping costs. There you go. That's how it is. ] 07:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


== ] ==


This is what was, suggested by covenantD last time. I had introduced a section called Theoretical and epistemological studies. I think the organizational aspects ( The way falun gong is organized ) also fits under the sub-heading "Theoretic and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong". "Origins" is now called history and Timeline. ( To describe better the content in the sub-page).
I would like to ask everyone involved here to quickly read through the requirements at ]. We will be requesting a neutral, official mediator in a non-partisan request to go over the dispute and suggest a plan to go forward. This is the next step in the dispute resolution process. In this step, there are no good guys or bad guys, just disagreement. To insist that anyone is wrong '''at this stage''' will derail the process, so I am asking forbearance from everyone while we make this request. Please comment below, I propose making the request in 5 days time if we can get a consensus to move forward with it. --] 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
] 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


'''Comments below this line'''


----


And here are the summaries I suggested:
What happened to Covenant? ] 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
'''History and Timeline'''


Main article: Falun_Gong,_History_and_Timeline
:There was a misunderstanding about a request he made about this page and he ended up being temporarily ] a couple of days ago, apparently. Understandably, he probably isn't likely to be willing to continue at this point. Part of why I proposed a 5 day discussion period was to see if he would come back voluntarily. If not (again, understandably) then we still have an article dispute to resolve. --] 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Falun Gong, also known as Fălún Dàfă (法轮大法), was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi on May 13, 1992, in Changchun, China. Invited by Qigong organizations from each area, during the period from 1992 to the end of 1994, Mr. Li traveled to almost all major Chinese cities to teach the practice. In the next few years Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity around the world. As of now, the practitioners are present in more than 80 countries and the books have been translated to over 40 languages.
::Yes, let's go for official mediation in 5 days. I think we should point out to the mediator that Covenant has already created a "To Do" list and that we should proceed according to the list. Also, my understanding is that technically Misplaced Pages does not require a consensus in order to request mediation. In other words, there may be a hold out who is against mediation, but we can still go ahead and request it anyway. --] 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


'''Beliefs and teachings'''
:::That is true, even one editor can make the request. The more of us who participate the request, the easier and quicker it will be to get a mediator to sign on, though. Interestingly, the head of the mediation committe is the same Admin that temp-blocked Covenant. --] 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Main article: Falun Gong teachings
: CovenantD has done a lot on Falun Gong pages; I hope he comes back. But if he chooses not to return we should definitely seek a formal mediator. Firestar has set the deadline on August 8th. On that day I propose that the article be restored to this version . --] 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Central to Falun Dafa are the five meditative exercises and the teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that what it calls the "Buddha Law" can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'truthfulness, benevolence (or compassion), and forbearance'. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍.
==Tomananda and Samuel,==


The teachings and principles of Falun Gong are captured in two main books written by Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong ( Law Wheel Qi Gong) and Zhuan Falun (Turning the Law Wheel). Falun Gong is an introductory book that discusses qigong, introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises.
The persecution in China is real, and you yourself know that.. why do you support that most cruel persecution? Could a person with a bit of goodness in his heart do such a thing? Calm down and look inside... Why do you hate people who cultivate truth, compassion and endurance? What is it that makes you hate zen-shan-ren? Could it be good?


'''Research into health benefits of Falun Gong'''
Even after reading all the lies spread by the CCP, people know Falun Gong is good the moment they see the lecture videos.. or meet a practitioner.. they can objectively feel the compassion and goodness..
Main article: ]


Research conducted by Quan Zhen Li, Richard Johnson, et al says "Drastic system-level changes of gene expression were detected in PMNs of Falun Gong practitioners, while little changes were detected among non-practitioners..." and that genes among the practitioners manifest links to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation. Surveys conducted on practitioners show improvements in health, the most extensive being a Falun Gong health survey conducted on 12,731 Beijing practitioners in 1998.
You may believe that the picture of the world formed by your senses is the truth... but isnt that blind belief in your own notions? The truth can only be objectively understood through cultivation practice.. only in the absence of notions and attachments can the truth be understood.. Whether you believe it or not.. the cosmos carries immense wisdom... it has its characteristic.. which may be put in human terms as zen-shan-ren.. the dao school cultivates zhen.. the buddha school cultivates shan - grand compassion towards all sentient beings..


'''Chinese Government's Persecution of Falun Gong'''
Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and all true masters pointed flaws in us which we must eliminate if we are to assimilate to the cosmic characterisitc.. as you progress in cultivation you understand things yourself... you ''know'' certain things are bad and goes against your own true nature and the characterisitc of the Cosmos... you made a big issue saying that homosexuality is not considered an upright human behaviour... how could it be? but that doesnt mean the person himself is bad.. What does the Bible say on that? What does the Buddhist scriptures say? As long as a person can realize there are flaws within himself.. and that he must completely eliminate such things that goes against his own true nature he can practice cultivation... but if he thinks I've been like this for as long as i can remember and this is me, he is going down with those things.... they turn against all upright teachings , what Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha taught... they tell themselves Gautama Buddha and Jesus Christ were making things up... and even slander the teachings.. what are they doing to themselves?


Main article: Persecution of Falun Gong
When Falun Gong grew so quickly in popularity in China some people who made A living out of teaching qi gong started to slander Falun Gong.. because of their selfish fears.. they dont even remotely suspect what they are doing to themselves by slandering a true cultivation way....


In July 1999, the Chinese government started a nation-wide supression of Falun Gong.The United States Congress Resoution 188 states:
People when they listen to the lectures and spend time with practitioner know Falun Dafa is not something ordinary.... and the faith practitioners have in Falun Dafa is solid like a diamond and unshakable as it comes from cultivation practice, rational understanding, and innumerable objective experiences..

Some with a lot of karma feel terrified when they hear zhen-shan-ren ... why is it so? Think about it if a person wants to coverup and support the killing of innocents what is he carrying within himself? and what about a person who supports the killing of those who cultivate zhen-shan-ren? What kind of person is he?

We must look inwards with sincereity and understand what we have become and what our true self is..

] 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:Ok you are again telling us that the Falun Dafa is the most righteous teaching and practitioners are the most righteous people on earth. In this case why is that every time I want to show the Master’s writing to the world you guys always try to stop me? His words are the most holy, right? --] 07:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

<tr><td>'''Complete List of teachings of Falun Dafa'''</td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
<tr><td></td></tr>
</table>
:: None of us have ever done such a thing. I have repeatedly said that I hope all editors go through '''all''' the teachings of Falun Dafa. All teachings being available for free download. You are taking a semi quote..completely taking it out of context and distorting the meaning.. and giving fancy interpretations to it.. so as to justify your absurd claims.
] 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Silly argument! I am not giving any interpretation to Li's teachings. Li's words speak for themselves and the fact that Falun Gong practitioners refuse to acknowledge what Li says is an outrageous lie...a lie which Li himself has created by saying you must not speak at the higher levels when talking to ordinary people. Why not? Your role as Fa-rectification Dafa disciples is to save us ordinary people, isn't it? Think about it! If you don't speak the truth about what Li teaches, how are you ever going to save us? However, I do have compassion for the bind Li has put you in. I hope that some day there may be just one practitioner out there who hasn't been totally indoctrinated yet into the Falun Gong party line who might just benefit from reading these discussions. --] 05:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==A Survey for Dilip, Mcconn, Andres, Olaf and company ==

Hey guys, Omido said he believes all these statements of Master Li. Do you as well?

'''No oriental people in Jesus’ paradise'''

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

'''Li cures illness directly:'''

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

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

'''Li is preventing the explosion of the universe:'''

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

'''Li protects his practitioners from harm:'''

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

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

Until Falun Gong practitioners are willing to speak the truth about their beliefs, I cannot believe anything else they say. Consider this Misplaced Pages editing project a test: if you can make clear statements about your belief in Li Hongzhi's great supernatural powers, his exclusive ability to offer salvation for mankind during this period of Fa-rectification, then you pass the test. As long as you continue to conceal the true teachings of Falun Gong, I cannot believe anything else you say about anything. And Dilip, I am not impressed with your sermon above. --] 07:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:Simply put, Tomanada, practitioners of Falun Dafa believe in the teachings of Mr. Li. I think anyone who considers themself a practitioner believes in all of Mr. Li's teachings. This said, in a practitioners course of cultivation it's common to experience doubts over certain things at certain times. This is a natural test of faith that I believe occurs whenever anyone puts their faith in a belief and practices it wholeheartedly. And perhaps there are some things that one may always have difficulty understanding, but because one has gained faith through rational understanding and practice of many other things related to the practice, one nonetheless still believes them. This is faith and I think most people can understand this when they think about it. This is to say, I think your asking these questions is useless. As practitioners we believe in Mr. Li, but at the same time don't like playing your little games. So we may not always respond to these kind of things. From now on I think you should take it as a given that we believe in Mr. Li's words. I've said something similar to this to you before. ] 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Mcconn is right. I think that the most important reason for this, on my part, is what he said about "faith through rational understanding and practice of many other things related to the practice". For example, I know that the Falun Gong exercises work unlike anything else one can encounter in this world. That isn't really a matter of belief. I think any "unbeliever" would agree on their anomalous nature after doing the two-hour set of exercises a few times. Of course, if we want specific proof, this fact alone doesn't verify the truthfulness of Li's Dafa. But because of this - in addition to other equally striking phenomena, such as the miraculous changes in the human body and the quality of one's skin resulting from the practice of Falun Dafa - it is not hard to believe in the existence of extraordinary things. Having practiced for four and a half years, I have naturally encountered many other things, too. In short, we know for certain that impressive Falun Gong related phenomena do exist, so why wouldn't we believe in what Master Li says when he has already introduced the world something nobody else has done - something from an utterly different paradigm but still manifesting a tangible reality? On a lighter note, it's like ], right?

::But I'm also not into playing games, and I have lots of other things to attend to, so sometimes I just don't feel the urge to respond. ---] 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Let's get back to the mediator ===
At least there are more real world people now.
] 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

===Let's get CovenantD back===
Tomananda and Samuel Luo are responsible for his block. He was investigating them being gay lovers and roommates, and was blocked because of a dispute.

Everyone, it is important for credibility reasons that you fully disclose your relationships with other editors.

I for one find it strange that Samuel has already been accused of sockpuppeting Yueyuen, only to discover the man lives in a house with his FLG parents, and shares a room with Tomananda. This situation is very strange. Very. Something really weird is going on. And I wonder if there is some sort of motive behind Samuel and his lover's many, many posts on Wiki. In fact, it sounds like(from the article Samuel posted), Samuel and Tomananda are being supported by Samuel's FLG parents, living in their house. Samuel is a real person, judging from the article, but his motives are strange. Who puts so much energy, almost every minute of the day, into fighting their parent's religion? Who attacks their parent's religion, when even as a grown man, said person cannot even support himself and still lives with the parents at an old age?

Anyone have a way to interpret all of this? It surely makes no sense.
] 01:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Tomananda and I share a house and the same Comcast account therefore the only IP address. Although Tomananda is gay and I am straight, we are good friends who share the same values like treating others as one would want to be treated. And that the Iraq war is based on lies and the Falun Gong is a deceptive, manipulative, racist and homophobic cult.

::As a son who embraces the traditional values of Chinese family life, I was going to live with my parents and take care of them all of their lives. But sadly I had to leave my parents because living at home became stressful and emotionally draining. My parents abandoned their medical treatments after being brainwashed into believing that their Master would cure their illnesses with his divine power, and they were clearly heading towards disasters. Sadly all my attempts to stave off catastrophe failed. I hated seeing Li’s portrait in our living room and hearing his audio tapes endlessly playing in the kitchen. Leaving them gave me a chance to maintain my inner peace so I can recover and figure out what to do to get my family back and combat this cult.

::] the above message is not for you but to let everyone know that Tomananda and I are two users sharing the same IP address. I would not expect a heartless creature like you to understand the feeling of a son who has been trying his very best to maintain the relationship with his parents while fighting the cult that has broken up his family. You think I have done a lot, no not really. I want to thank you for giving me this push to contribute more on wikipedia. Stay with us, you will see how much more I can contribute. --] 06:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)



:Yes, I know how to interpret this situation! We should all consider who the real people are in this discussion and who the phonies are. A real person will be proud of who he is and respect all others for who they are. Real people speak the truth without fear of being judged by others. As a gay man who came out in the 1960's, I know the destructive nature of living a lie. Living in a wonderfully diverse, dynamic city and having many loving relationships with people of various ethnicities and sexual orientations make me feel blessed. Your curiousity about my relationship with Samuel,our living arrangements or other aspects of our personal lives is quite amusing. I'll let you make whatever speculations you want, because none of this relates to editing this Misplaced Pages article.

:Meanwhile, if I am to believe that you are a real person, I ask you to take the survey above about your beliefs in Master Li's teachings. If you are like Omido, you will respond by saying that you believe in everything that Master Li says, and nothing that I say. That's cool with me. Just be honest and tell us what you do believe as a Falun Gong practitioner--other than the fact that homosexuals have dark hearts, turning demonic, etc. In a sense, I am asking that you come out of the Falun Gong closet and speak truthfully about Master Li and your relationship to him. I will not ridicule you, but rather respect you for being honest for a change. --] 05:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Samuel, I am very sorry to hear that your family has been breaking up and I admire your determination in combating this cult. I also want to thank you for writing such a good article on your website. I hope you and your parents can get back together soon. I strongly recommend people to check out Samuel’s article-- --] 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

===Warning Will Robinson, Danger, Danger !!! ===
If that's not a personal attack, then I don't know what is.
How is someone going to "check someone out" over the net?
Also, who cares? Two people are still two people. Don't both
of their opinions count? What's the difference between the
two of them & two FLG people?

As for the medical issues, Dr Feng is a good example. I hope
that the ex-wife will follow in her footsteps. Actually, I
like the concept of retroactively voiding a person's validity
after death. It's a pretty novel idea.
] 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:What really bothers me about how the Falun Gong has ignored Lili Feng's death (by not reporting it on their websites, as if she never existed) is that apparently the practitioners are saying among themselves that she didn't spend enough time studying the Dafa. The suggestion here is that if she had, she might not have died. But what that thinking leaves out is Li's teaching that sickness is an opportunity to get rid of karma and perhaps Dr. Feng had a lot of karma. So a much better scenario could have been written by the Falun Gong for their website. It could have reported that Dr. Feng had made a great contribution to the Falun Gong through her research and that she will always be honored for that. Li then could have said something about karma elimination and how Lili, having now gotten rid of all her karma with his help, is in Falun Gong paradise. I find it truly shocking that some kind of recognition like that has not been provided by Li or at least the top Falun Gong leadership. So much for loyalty to your own soldiers! If the failure of the Falun Gong to recognize and honor the work of Lili Feng doesn't prove the exploitative nature of the Falun Gong, I don't know what does. --] 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::I don't know why Dr. Lili Feng died, but there is no "top Falun Gong leadership" (would you name these persons and why they are "leaders", in other words, who is under their rule?). Besides, everybody's cultivation is a private matter. Nobody can do it on another person's behalf. And there are no "heroes" or role models in Falun Gong, that's your own sarcasm. Cultivation practice is about returning to one's own, true self. You just don't seem to understand our mentality.

::Moreover, it is practically impossible for modern medicine to cure liver cancer <small>]]</font>, because it's one of the most fatal sicknesses. Some people choose to resort to homeopathy, some to ], some to synthetic drugs, some to qigong. Enforced medicalization is rather cocksure. We know that qigong in general can cure diseases, but Falun Gong also emphasizes that such effects depend on the individual's own pursuits and purposes.

::It seems you aren't ''really'' concerned about Dr. Lili Feng, you are more interested in how you can polemize and exploit her bones. I have repeatedly stated that if we are right, we don't need proof for that, because everybody would know it in the future, and then it'd show that it was all just a question of "enlightenment quality" to begin with. If we are wrong, then we'll just "swallow our medicine". I have acted to the best of ''my'' knowledge, and I believe you have done the same. "Objectively" speaking, condemning CCP's human rights violations emphatically and unequivocally shouldn't depend on whether Falun Gong is completely true or not. ---] 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::Responding to you point by point:
:* Other than Li Hongzhi himself, leaders of Falun Gong include it's "unofficial" spokespersons and media contacts; for example, Gail Rachlin (NYC)generally speaks for the group as a whole and Sherry Zhang plays a similar role in the San Francisco Bay Area. Then there's the fact that the very words ''Falun Gong'' (both in English and Chinese) have been patented by the US Patent and Trademark Office. In the more recent patent (Filing date June 17, 2005) the following commercial goods and services are listed for the Falun Gong: "T-shirts; jackets; pants; shirts; vests; suits; dresses; skirts; rain jackets; rain coats; scarves; hats; shoes; baseball caps; head bands; pins; pens; pencils; balloons and umbrellas." To continue to pretend there is no organizational structure for the Falun Gong is patently (no pun intended) false.

:*You might want to say my use of the word "leaders" is inappropriate, but what else would you call people who organize activities and speak for an organization? Like you, I am involved in grassroots actitivities on a volunteer basis and there's no question that there are "leaders" of our various groups in California. This is not something to be ashamed of, so I don't know why we are even discussing it. Could it be because Li has said that in Falun Gong "there are no persons in charge"? But he has also spoken, most recently, of "persons in charge." So go figure. Anyway, it's clear to me that Falun Gong leadership (or maybe just Li himself) is responsible for maintaining a consistent PR image for the Falun Gong which is partly based on lies. Do I need to remind you of the way the Clearwisdom editors altered the San Francisco resolution on it's website, deleting wording that might not be totally favorable to the Falun Gong?
:*Despite your suspicions of my motives, my posted concerns about the way the Falun Gong has not publicly acknowledged the death of Dr. Lili Feng are genuine. Because I know some Falun Gong practitioners personally, I ask myself the question: what would happen if one of them were to die? Would the Falun Gong also ignore their deaths as inconvenient facts that might be construed to contradict the Master's teachings on sickness karma? One of the practioner/editors on this site has a mother who has a serious illness which is currently in remission. He attributes her current good health to Falun Gong practice. I also wonder: what if she were to have a relapse of this illness (which in western medical terms is very likely) some day. Would he blame her for this relapse, thinking that she just hadn't been a good enough practitioner? If so, don't you see something very wrong and exploitative about that?
::Being on the inside of Falun Gong as a neutral observer, many practitioners that become ill or have a relapse are often accused of not having enough faith in the Teachings and as Mr. Li as the Master. This has lead to many practitioners to just leave FG when they become ill. If the ill practitioner remains then there is also an sort of inquisition where other practitioners will ask the person who has become ill if they have any other spiritual material other than Dafa in their homes and are asked to throw it out. If the practitioner becomes very ill there tends to be a shunning of the individual. If the practitioner dies it is then declared that the person was never really a Falun Gong practitioner and that to much of the "Old Forces" interfered with that person. Though, I have also seen practitioners come to FG with illnesses and after a time do get better. Though I would argue that exercise, positive thoughts and social interaction where more likely the cure than anything else. --] 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:*So Olaf, if you can grant me the benefit of the doubt and assume I am sincerely concerned about the absence of any public recognition of Dr. Lili Feng, would you please answer my original question: why hasn't the Falun Gong done a posting about her death on it's websites? --] 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::On a side note, Olaf says: "We know that qigong in general can cure diseases, but Falun Gong also emphasizes that such effects depend on the individual's own pursuits and purposes." Considering and working with a person's life choices and intent is a fundamental part of any traditional Chinese martial art, qigong or TCM training not to mention Western medical training ("Choosing to smoke cigarettes is bad for you"). It certainly isn't unique to FLG. --] 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

==Falun Dafa is Cultivation Practice==

:Ah yes, more FL preaching. Hallowed are the ]. --] 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Falun Dafa is cultivation practice.. not a group or anything.... you can practice Falun Dafa without ever meeting any other practitioner.. the sole reason practitioners came together and put a up a few websites like clearwisdom.net was because of the persecution happening in China.. so that kind-hearted people may get to know...

For one thing neither me nor Omid is blindly believing in anything.. it is unnecessary to believe or doubt when you understand.. belief and skepticism are just two words for saying "I dont understand it"... You dont say "I believe in the Newton's Laws".. Neither would you say "I am a Newton's Laws' Skeptic" .. you understand that it is just a model that serves as insight into motion at non-relativistic speeds..

Falun Dafa practitioners are not believing in anything .. we understand things objectively through our own experience and xiulian.. the Fa guides the practitioner in Xiulian.. right from the begining most people can feel the falun rotate.. There are Falun Dafa practice groups in Stanford, Princeton, Yale and Harvard.. do you really think all these people are blindly believing in something?

Samuel, Please go through any one of these nine lecture videos and then try to decide for yourself what Falun Dafa is..
<blockquote> <blockquote>
"Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China and elsewhere."
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it"
</blockquote> </blockquote>

For one thing.. we are not "phobic" towards anybody. We cultivate compassion. Look at what the Bible and the what the Buddhist scriptures say on that. Was Jesus Christ "homophobic"? Was Gautama Buddha "homophobic"? You dont even remotely suspect what the state of mind of Jesus Christ or Buddha Gautama was. Do you really think they were ordinary people suffering from phobias?

Many people including my own mother have had their chronic illness cured, almost miraculously, on just starting to practice Falun Gong. Samuel, I wanted to talk to you many times.. I even thought of talking to you over messenger..your parents are not blindly believing in something.. Falun Dafa is not something ordinary..

] 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Falun Gong is not something "ordinary". "Ordinary" doesn't involve the MURDER others. In better news though, ] has been indefinitely banned. Good riddance.] 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Phanatical, I see that you have been temporarily blocked too. What you say are nothing but words from the CCP propoganda, made up to justify their killing of thousands of innocents. You could go through the pages of Amnesty International, HRW or FDI ( http://www.faluninfo.net ) to know what has been happening in China and how the CCP has used propaganda to inundate hatred. You may want to go through this magazine..

http://www.faluninfo.net/Compassion5/Compassion5-v35-screen.pdf

here's an animation on the persecution that I just came across on a wikipedia user page..

http://media1.minghui.org/media/flash/2005/8/16/dove.swf

] 17:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


:] we know what the FAlun Gong is by reading Li's own words, so why don't you keep your POVs to yourself? --] 18:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::No, clearly you don't. ;-) --] 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

=== Without Li the Cosmos Wouldn't Exist ===

Here's yet another quote from Li about his role as savior during this period of Fa-rectification:

*No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist. The reason I have come here is to save all sentient beings amidst the Fa-rectification at a time when the colossal firmament of the cosmos is disintegrating. Touring North America Teaching the Fa (March, 2002) http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2002/4/14/2002natourlect.html

Should we use this one in the introduction? --] 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)



:Not if it isn't a reliable source. Unless you intention is to use this article as an attack page on the Falun Gong. --] 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:Well it '''is''' a claim from LHZ, right? --] 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See, there is a lot of context that goes behind the quote. See this quote by Master Li Hongzhi from Teaching the Fa at the Easter U.S. Fa Conference (1999)
<blockquote> <blockquote>
Jiang Zemin's regime has created notorious government `610' offices throughout the People's Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder;
''"As I’ve said, and I need to repeat it: I am sitting here as a human being, so regard me as a human being. Just like you, I need to eat and sleep. Of course, every being has his origin. I also have my origin."''
</blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote> <blockquote>
"official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes."
-'''Li Hongzhi'''
</blockquote> </blockquote>
] 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


According to the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDI), there are, as of March 12, 2006, 2,840 verified cases of Falun Gong practitioners dying in police and government custody in mainland China, giving rise to allegations of torture and police brutality. The report also alleges that hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained, with more than 100,000 sentenced to forced-labor camps. Moreover, there are more than 30,000 documented cases of persecution.


'''Theoretical and Epistemological Studies'''
:How dishonest practitioners are! Li has repeadly said he and his Dafa are saving all sentient beings and I have provided many quotes to that effect. To remind you, we are trying to write some text for the introduction which covers both Li and the Dafa's exclusive role in salvation combined with Fa-rectification. This particular quote combines both of those concepts. In response, a practitioner says I am trying to attack Li. How can my quoting Li be attacking him? And for you to provide a quote in which Li says he is a human being...so what? Li has also told the western media he is just an ordinary human being. But ordinary human beings don't have the supernatural powers that Li has. So if there is a problem here, it is not mine...it is yours. And if there is a need for "context" then the context for this article would need to report that Li has said contradictory things about his own status. However, Li has consistently said he and his Dafa are the only source of salvation during this period of Fa-rectification. Sooner or later this material will need to be reported in the introduction of this article and the fact that practitioners continue to deny the truth of their master's teachings is offensive to me and the general public. As I have said repeatedly, if you can't be honest about the core beliefs of Falun Gong...and that most definitely includes salvation by Li and his Dafa during this period ohe f Fa-rectification...then how can we trust you to be honest about anything else, including all those improbable stories of organ harvesting, for example? It's the credibility of the Falun Gong that is on the line here, not mine. --] 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Main article: Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong


The content of Li Hongzhi's books include commentaries on questions that have been raised in China's qigong community. Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. It is noteworthy that the definitions of many terms usually differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions.
We cultivate the truth. We are not "dis-honest". It seems "contradictory" to you only because you dont even remotely understand this science. A human is not a pile of molecules - thats just what your fourth grade biology text told you.


I dont know what you are driven by but I know that most people would rather die than spend all day supporting one of the most cruel persecutions in history and parrotting the lies invented to justify it. Have you ever thought how many families would have been devastated by your all-day efforts to cover-up the truth? Have you ever thought how many children would have died and how many families left in heart-wrenching pain?


'''Criticism and Controversies'''
Falun Dafa is cultivation practice. You may not be able to even understand what Fa- Recitification is or what the Fa is. You may think these are all made up. You may think its a good thing to spend all day attacking buddhahood cultivators... You may think that the law of karma is a joke.. but reality has nothing to do with what you start thinking or stop thinking.. every person has to suffer the consequences of his own actions.


Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong
No matter however much you lie the moment a good person reads the Fa or listens to the lectures he knows it is something profound. Even by just looking at the photo of a practitioner in meditation he is able to sense the goodness and compassion.


Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound. These include, for example, difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong, controversies on Li as a savior or supernatural entity, claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions, controversies on Fa-rectification, debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions, Falun Gong and sexual orientation, allegation of profiting from Falun Gong, controversies about cult and ethics.
] 10:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


'''Falun Gong outside China'''
::] Cultivate the truth is what you claim but concealing the truth is what you do. Being deceptive is just one of the many problems with the Falun Gong. This cult had cheated money from millions of Chinese people and killed fourteen hundred of them. It systematically suppressed its critics’ free speech and even threatened the society with social disturbance. The Falun Gong is a fraud and its ban a just action to protect people’s rights, social stability and lives. The majority of Chinese in and outside of China support the ban! And they are happy for ex-practitioners who are now living a normal life free from the manipulation and exploitation of Master Li. --] 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Main article: Falun Gong outside China
:''"To remind you, we are trying to write some text for the introduction which covers both Li and the Dafa's exclusive role in salvation combined with Fa-rectification."'' No, Tomanda. We're trying to agree on a couple sentences about the Fa-Rectification in the intro. There was never any agreement to talk about Li's exclusivity as a savior in the intro or that this should be related to the Fa-Rectification content. As for Mr. Li being just a man, Shakyamuni also said that he was just a man (this statement is quite well-known), but he walked on water, healed the ill, and performed many more miracles like these. Was he contradicting himself too? Just because you think something is contradictory doesn't mean it really is. If you try to think about in what ways these kinds of statements could possibly not be contradictory and coexist you might come to some new understandings or at least broaden your perspective. ] 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue. As of December 2005, 61 lawsuits have been filed in about 30 countries charging Jiang and several other senior officials with genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity for their roles in the treatment of Falun Gong in mainland China. (need citation) The Chinese government is accused by Falun Gong and many human rights groups of violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), also ratified by China.
:You are still both fundamentally dishonest. Certain branches of Christianity have as their doctrine the idea that Jesus Christ was both human (if not, how could his suffering on the cross mattered?) and divine (if not, how could he offer salvation?) Your dishonesty is in not saying something similar for Li. Instead, you keep accusing me of attacking him by quoting his words. The honest response would be to say: yes, Li has said all these things, we do believe them and they are important concepts in Falun Gong. But we believe his divine status and human status are not contradictory because, etc. Why don't you propose your own wording to convey these concepts in a clear and concise fashion? It's not my job to reconcile apparantly contradictory statements of Li, but by the same token it is outrageous for you to continue to deny that Li has made these statements and that they relate, directly, to an understanding of Falun Gong.


Falun Gong practitioners are often seen on the streets in major metropolitan areas, directly informing the public of the pesecution of practitioners in China.
:As to having compassion for Falun Gong practitioners...I most certainly do. However, I do not believe, for example, that 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners had their organs harvested while they were alive in the basement of a facility in China which doesn't even have a basement and is co-owned by a Malaysian organization. When I say you guys have a big credibility problem, I mean it. --] 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


:No, Tom.... Sujiatun is not the only sites. Unfortunately, there are lot of sites. In China, a cosmetic surgeon can do kidney transplantation. So many things may not be imaginable by people like you and me. Also Sujiatun has a lot of underground facilities which you and me are not clear. Please do not be judgemental. Lives are precious. Please stay cool headed. Please be open-minded. ] 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:By pointing out that there are other sites, you seem to be conceding that the Sujiatun story is not true. Please don't lecture me about valuing human life. Your tactic is quite obvious and amounts to a false argument: "You cannot criticize us because some of our members are being persecuted or tortured in China. If you do criticize us, you do not value human life." This argument is total bull, and also insulting to me as a caring person. Even if some of the claims of torture that the Falun Gong makes are true, the fact that others appear to be fabricated still needs to be pointed out. At what point do people stop believing in your claims all together? That's what's at issue here...your credibility as a group. --] 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


--------------------
::We are still waiting for your comments on the Kilgour and Matas report. This issue is extremely serious. Kilgour is a former crown prosecutor and a former Secretary of State. I'd like to see you dispute his viewpoint.


::In addition, criticism of Falun Gong doesn't mean approval of persecution. At least Samuel Luo has ''explicitly'' stated that he approves of it. Do you think it helps "your credibility as a group"? ---] 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Please suggest improvements/ changes to the summaries and also summaries for other sections . Remember factual accuracy is what we should strive to achieve. Where should the awards section go? We really dont want a huge section on the main page..and there isnt enough material to warrant a new page... what about the epistemological studies page? Can we put the awards section there?
::And I am still waiting for your comments to explain the absence of any public recognition of Dr. Lili Feng. You guys are so good at changing topics! I point out that one particular report about 6,000 live organ harvestings in Sujiatum is not credible and you respond by saying, well why don't you read this other report from Canada instead and tell us what you think. Let's make a deal! I will read the Canadian report and respond with my honest opinions about what it says, providing you give me an honest answer to why the Falun Gong has not acknowledged the life and death of Dr. Lili Feng in the public sphere. Olaf, if you check in an earlier section above you will see that I've written a response to your allegations that I am cynically using Dr. Feng's death to make points against the Falun Gong. --] 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
] 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
===Suggestions===
// Suggestions go here
--------------------


==A Query on available research material==
:*PS: In responding to my question about Falun Gong's public silence concerning Lili Feng's death, you need to cite something more than just an appeal to a practitioner's privacy. I do not expect any explanation whatsover concerning the cause of Lili Feng's death, but only an acknowledgment that she has died. Surely that's the least her family can expect. I consider this to be a common decency that cuts across all religious ideologies and am frankly astounded that this has not been done. One is used to seeing the accounts of practitioner deaths in China on Clearwisdom and other Falun Gong sites, why doesn't the same rule apply for the death of a practitioner who lived here in the United States? Why the double standard? --] 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've been following this webpage for a while since I believe Dilip and Omido posted on Asiafinest.com a while back about the immolation bit. I myself is a man of science. (being an resident MD in the US.) I am interested in these claims of healing illnesses by FLG practitioners and if they test up to the scrutiny of a scientific study. Science being a tool rather than a religion, just measures observable differences between 2 subgroup. The human body is quite unique in certain ways because it's known to have mental/bodily links which means with a better mindset you tend to do better with illness in general. So I'm not denying the benefits of mediation, exercise, and the well being one feels being in a group. I propose a study done between 2 subgroups of people both practicing qigong and one of them being FLG practitioners.)If anyone can provide me with links of these "claims" by these so called MDs, PhDs, and scholars, it will be most appreciated.
] 17:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


:Greetings. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we have a policy of ]. It isn't up to us to prove or disprove FLG in any light, some of the discussion on this page notwithstanding. If those sorts of studies interest you, however, there are links to demonstrable results obtained by medical studies done of ] teachers and students listed at that page. --] 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::] I do not support any persecution or torture, what I support is the ban of the Falun Gong which stopped this cult from deceiving and hurting more people. --] 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi. :) ..You can find some sources on this page:
Regarding the discrediting of the Sujiatun allegations, I already mentioned how sketchy the US embassy officials tour was. After the being lead through the hospital by the hand, a U.S. embassy official said, "We did not find evidence showing this hospital's function exceeds that of a typical hospital." But the U.S. embassy official visited the hospital several weeks after the the crimes at the Sujiatun Concentration Camp were exposed, and the official on tour was accompanied by the hospital's leadership. Think about it: let's say a murderer kills someone, then he cleans up the crime site and disposes of the evidence. Later, the killer takes people to view the site to prove his innocence. Of course people will not get to see any evidence. In the amount of time the CCP had between the surfacing of the allegations and the show tour, they could cover up ''anything''. Moreover, the surgical equipment used to remove Falun Gong practitioners' organs is not different from ordinary surgical equipment; how could a visitor tell whether this equipment had been used to remove organs or not? The official did not find evidence. This merely means the official did not see an organ harvesting procedures during that particular visit, but that does not prove that "the organ harvesting from living Falun Gong practitioners in secret concentration camps" never happened. If the CCP had nothing to hide then they wouldn't be so dodgy, and they would allow an independant investigation free from their control, but they won't. And instead they put our weak statements with empty accusations and twist the facts. You can take a look at some Canadian practitioners' response to the embassy's statement --] 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong
:I think you are under estimating the ability American officials. Frankly, between the words of US officials and the words of Falun Gong practitioners I rather believe these officials. Master Li and some Falun Gong practitioners claim to have a third eye and possess the supernormal ability of Clairvoyance which allows them to see things tens of thousands of miles away. Did you guys find out about this Organ Harvesting atrocity with this supernormal ability? I am just curious. --] 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


The quote I wrote earlier was from:
I hope the official mediator comes soon, lets see if you dare to post your sarcastic little posts in front of him.--] 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.walkyourpathwell.net/wholeelephant/submolecularbiology.html
A paper by Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar. He can be contacted at wangt@thewholeelephant.org . He must be able to provide you with details on studies conducted( or being conducted) in the field...


A research paper by Quan-Zhen Li(PhD), Richard Jhonson, et al. can be found here on.. details of people in the control group are also mentioned in the paper...
== Request for mediation ==
http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf
] 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


:*Plenty of practitioners in the US claiming that their serious illnesses have been miraculously cured by their Master and by practicing the falun gong. If you can examine one of these cases it might answer some of your question. --] 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings everyone. Tomorrow is the day I will submit a request to the mediation committee for a formal mediator for us. These people have done this sort of thing before, and will hopefully help us get towards an article we all (or most of us) agree with. As in ], the request we submit must be neutral and simply point out that we have a problem, not what one or another group of editors believe the problem(s) is (or are). '''Please sign below''' (put a # sign before your signature) if you think this is a good idea. Thanks! --] 12:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


: The paper by Quan-Zhen Li is quite interesting but admittingly somewhat of a contraversial subject. I can see his bias though when he went thru in his historical background an almost advertisment-like cap of FLG. His paper is exactly what I was looking for in terms of methodology, background information, and conclusions though. He does not states to say anything truly contraversial except the use of FLG practitioner instead of another qigong group. Although he infers in his conclusion that it's probably qigong and not FLG exclusively that made these changes to the neutrophils. I would love to know if the "control" also do any specific exercise or mediation regiment or religious background as well. The improvement in immune system could be attributed to exercise, mediation, etc as previously stated. The study does leave many questions unanswered though.
#Not only is this a good idea, I think it is the only way we will make any progress in this article.--] 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
# Support --] 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support --] 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
#Yes -- ''']''' 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. And Firestar, could you reverse the Falun Gong article to this 22:28, 6 July 2006 version? This version was the one that caused the edit conflict. The version in place right now was modified by you under the request of ConventD. Since we are requesting a formal mediation the article really should be restored to the earlier state, thanks --] 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#:Why do you say this? The version in place right now reflects much better the consensus we had reached over that content. ] 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::There is no poll or consensus on this version. It was CovenantD’s decision. He was suppose to provide two passages, one sums up the words of practitioners and the other addresses the concern of other editors. Since he left without the second passage to provide a balance, the article should be reversed. . --] 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::The protected version isn't an endorsed version. We are (hopefully) very close to getting a new mediator, so we should wait and let that person decide. If a mediator doesn't materialise, then we go to the Arbcom for a binding settlement. --] 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Yes. I won't mind it. We will see. ] 05:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support. ] 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support. ] 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support -- Mediator. Boy, are these clowns going to be clubbed like a seal. I am going to dump out all of the books/articles from the Chinese media. How do you want the upload? Thanks Chris ] 10:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support. --] 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support.----] 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
#Support. Zealots and fanatics often let their emotions get the best of them. Arguments based on Zealotry and fanaticism only make more problems. Let cool heads prevail. --] 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Addressing Tongwen Wang's article you gave me. I was disappointed by it personally. He wishes to drive in a new theory rather than to test it. As a scientist, you are taught to come up with a hypothesis and then with testing and reporting of those observation do you actually put out a theory. A lot of what he said about cancer dynamics is correct but he seems also to have tunnel vision. Which I will give examples of: "But if our body is the perfect product of natural selections, then how can we still have so many loopholes left in the system to allow so many different types of cancers to exist?" As per him, he think we're at our "perfect" state which most or almost all scientist, MD's will argue against. We are not perfect as by all these disease (not only cancer) that our modern medicine has to fight against dispite our "perfect" state. While the 2nd point/conclusion he reached I agree with. The third point he tries to make a social comparasion between biology and society which works in different ways. He might as well have been giving a lecture on social problems. That article I will leave as a ranting of a biochemist turn socialist.
==] ==
] 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


== Dilip is still deleting key subsection summaries in his proposed outline ==
It is official, please go to ] to agree or disagree with our mediation request. The article has been locked since 27 June, so IMO this is the best way forward. Simple agreement or disagreement is all that is necessary, any comments will be removed. --] 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:Also, '''please do not''' edit the request page other than to indicate agreement or disagreement. Any other edits will just be changed back. Just the issue that the article has been locked for over a month alone should get the ball rolling. The time to state our cases is when the mediator is listening, right now we are just counting heads. --] 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::We are less than 24 hrs. into the 7 day sign up period and we already have half the people we need to agree. This is good. --] 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Two days left, Dilip rajeev, Omido and HResearcher have not yet responded to the request.
:::#Dilip rajeev: Informed '''14:07, 8 August 2006'''; last active '''14:19, 13 August 2006'''.
:::#Omido: Informed '''14:18, 8 August 2006'''; last active '''14:12, 3 August 2006'''.
:::#HResearcher: Informed '''14:18, 8 August 2006'''; last active '''06:11, 7 August 2006'''.
:::I think it's safe to say that Dilip rajeev does not want any mediation attempt. -- ''']]]''' 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I see that Dilip is still pushing for a main page structure which omits all the sub-section summaries and links in the Criticism page (which had previously been agreed to.) This would destroy any reasonable balance on the home page. No one is saying that there has to be a 50/50% split between the controversial topics and the non-controversial topics, but the net result cannot promote Falun Gong (eg: the health curing benefits and the awards section) at the expense of the controversies and criticism. As some of us have said repeatedly, the Dilip/Fndhzzs version amounts to blatant promotion of the Falun Gong. I actually did a word count of the frozen version of the article and found out that: it's total length is 8,292 words. Of that, 720 words, or 8.6% of the total are used for the existing sub-section summaries. We can even reduce the summaries further if we want, but under no circumstances will we ever reach a consensus on not having the critical subsections summarized separately on the home page.
== '''Samuel Woo''' ==


Concerning the Falun Gong awards section, it would fit nicely into the Falun Gong outside of China section.
Why do you attack Falun Gong? Is it that, the last thing you want to see for the world is peace, meditation, healthy living, and improved moral standards?


Here's a sample of what how Criticism and controversies section can look:
Falun Dafa teaches kindess, Zhen-Shan-Ren, and there are strict xinxing (moral character) requirements. Suicide is forbidden.


==Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong==
The persecution against Falun Gong is not even a very important issue...everyone the world over knows it is true, it cannot be denied that Falun Dafa practitioners are suffering in China. What we are trying to clear from your brain and your thinking is that Falun Dafa practitioners don't kill themselves, and Falun Dafa is not harmful. It doesn't make people go crazy, it only stabalizes people, from the very core of their being. I have undergone a great change since I have begun to study Dafa... I even used to take drugs, but now I just simply strive to work hard, be kind, and improve my xinxing no matter the situation I encounter.
Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound.


===Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong===
Samuel Woo,
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong}}


Critics of Falun Gong point out that while using established Qi Gong terms for cultivation practice, Li’s version applies new meanings to the traditional terms. Deng and Fang (2000) state that Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.” In Falun Gong, a practitioner is able to accumulate De (德, dé, virtue) through his or her own cultivation efforts, but needs the direct intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into cultivation energy.
Why would you believe in the wicked CCP ? They have killed 80 million Chinese people over their history... i.e. Cultural Revolution, Gang of Four, Persecution of Intellectuals, 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Falun Gong. Can you deny that these things did not happen throughout history? So why would you believe in the CCP today? They have always lied, then tried to reform, kill, promote athieism and violence, lie some more, and then try to win back the public through shameful actions. Did you even know that 12 Million Chinese People have quit the CCP? It is a dying beast...20,000 more Chinese people quit everyday. The CCP is afraid of Falun Gong and the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party. Have you read this article yet? It won a Pulitzer Prize for journalism. I suggest you read it soon.


===Li as a savior or supernatural entity===
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/4/12/13/n746020.htm
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Li_as_a_savior_or_supernatural_entity}}


Although Li has never directly said he is God, critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers. In addition to being the exclusive savior of mankind during this "Dharma ending period," Li promises his disciples that they themselves will become gods some day. He has numerous ''fashen'' (law bodies) which also exercise "great supernatural power," cure illnesses and know what the practitioners are thinking at all times.
The CCP has always been simply a gang of liars and crooks. Why are all the billionaires in China CCP officials, while everyone else is dirt poor? The tide is turning in the world and on the CCP... You should re-examine your thinking and take a look at the facts more carefully. Don't get lost in wordgames, look at the big picture.


===Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions ===
The Heavens Eliminate the CCP.
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Claims_about_preventing_catastrophes_and_cosmic_explosions}}


Li's predictions of cosmic disasters and his claims to be able to prevent them are matters of some controversy. On several occasions Li has predicted cosmic explosions which have not happened. Some critics argue that Li borrowed these ideas from popular science fiction writers in the West, pointing out that such writings have been reported in Chinese media as “scientific facts.”
Falun Dafa Hao!
--{{unsigned|68.209.156.180}}


===Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?===
I'm sorry, but I can't take anyone seriously who does not use
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?}}
a real name especially after that rant.


Whether Li’s teaching that his Dafa (great law) is judging all sentient beings amounts to an apocalyptic prediction is a matter of some debate. Practitioners strongly reject the apocalyptic label, while commentators generally come to an opposite conclusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes:
As for the CCP, you mean that they are just like most governments. How many people has the U.S. killed? For both
"Just as human civilizations had been destroyed in the past because of immorality.l.. Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the 'Dharma-ending period' of 'the apocalypse,' the 'Great Havoc,' and the 'end times' (''mojie''). With the end days approaching, Li has set about disseminating Falun Dafa so as 'to provide salvation to mankind….in this final period of the Last Havoc.'"
good & bad reasons. You can start with our own civil war &
go from there.


===Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions===
You are not going to silence Sam. You are not going to silence
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions}}
me either. Also, there are more & more of us each day.


There is some controversy about how meaningful Falun Gong’s many municipal awards and recognitions are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong.
Please explain to me what good FLG has done? Have they built a hospital? - No. (We should add a section for that) Donated to anything other than their own cause? - No. Destroyed families? - Yes. Caused the deaths of thousands? - Yes. Any rational person would get the idea.
Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2000), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.” Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida.


===Falun Gong and sexual orientation===
I am in the middle of a multi year divorce and I still find
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Falun Gong and homosexuality}}
money to help people in need. I have donated to The Tsunami,
9/11, Katrina, St Jude, Kid's school, etc. This is after all
of the legal bills.


Li has made statements condemning ], describing a homosexual as having a "dark heart, turning demonic." However, homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they "correct this bad behavior" . The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as ] by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by ]'s founder are fairly interpreted.
They preach self & death. Please explain to me how any of that is "good". Truth - their version of it. Compassion - Do this or die. Forebearance - I am going to hound you until you convert. No matter how stupid I think you are.


===Allegation of profiting from Falun Gong===
As for the CCP, their economy is booming, 1 million are being taken out of poverty a month, etc. You can think evil destructive thoughts all you want, but with numbers like those they are not going anywhere anytime soon. Russia fell because the economy collapsed. Communism was an afterthought.
{{Main article|Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong#Making_money_from_Falun_Gong}}


Some critics charge that Li hypocritically made money from the Falun Gong movement although Falun Gong practitioners said Li Hongzhi has not accepted donations from students of Falun Gong.
] 11:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


==We need a paragraph or two==
== '''Cj cawley''' ==
Tomanada, we need a paragraph or two. It is alright if it runs half a page but please try to avoid sub-sections. Try to make it reasonably sized. I agree that the awards and recognitions can go under Falun Gong outside China.
] 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:Dilip, we need a main page which summarizes the whole truth about the Falun Gong, which includes sub-section summaries from the criticism section. How can you possibly argue that there should be separate main page sections promoting the unproven healh-benefits of the Falun Gong, its awards and recognitions and a biased report on what you call the persecution, while the teachings on homosexuality, Li as god and savior, the Fa-rectification, and so forth are relegated to one overall-page summary. I know you don't like reporting the Master's teachings on Fa-rectification, homosexuality, mixed-race people, etc, but they are important. In fact, the Fa-rectification teaching is Li's most important teaching at this time...plus his claim that he is turning his practitioners into gods. Interesting that you would so srongly resist giving a promonent place to those teachings. But then again, the Master tells you not to talk about the Falun Gong to ordinary people at the higher levels, right? --] 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


If you insist that we need to keep the subtitles for the criticism section, you may. But please try to keep it as short as possible. Keeping things both here and there would interfere with the edit process and inundate the need for sub-pages... Futher, it might keep readers from going through material in the sub-pages... please try to make sure it is proportional in size.. as other sections wont carry sub-titles.
You said:
] 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Tomananda, you state that his health-benefits are unproven, then what do you call all those critics that you use? Like Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang, who are they? As I see it, they are nothing more than ordinary people saying their own opinions and understanding, these so called "critics" can't be used in your anti-FLG material. These all "commentators say" "critics say" will all be removed because they are nothing more than personal opinions. ] 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
"I'm sorry, but I can't take anyone seriously who does not use
a real name especially after that rant."


:Omido, you need to aquaint yourself with some policies, such as ]. It clearly states, "Verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." So your determination to remove verifiable sources is wrong and against policy. Part of what we will accomplish here is to agree on which sources meet the criteria of a ''reliable source''.] 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Response:


I think Omid was mentioning the quality of the source. What does wiki say on that?
My name wasn't on the last post because I did not know how to put it.


] 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You said:


Coventant, so If I make a homepage, and say on that homepage that Falun Gong is really good and say alot of good things about Falun Gong and why I think they way I do, can I publish it in the wikipedia article too? In that case let me take countless articles from pro-FLG sites and post them. These so called "critics" called Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang I think should not be on the article, because what they say is only their own personal thoughts. As Ive understood it, the reason for the articles on wikipedia is to offer people a chance too make their own thoughts and understandings regarding things. If we citate people from this or that website and write down what others think, how could that give a chance to other people to make their own opinion? Its like forcing opinions into others, as I see it, these critics he used should not be used. If he uses them, I can use all the positive things people has said too right? and believe me I can find 10 times more positive things that people has said about Dafa, that is for sure. Those sources he used is really not reliable, that is what I am trying to say. ] 22:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
"As for the CCP, you mean that they are just like most governments. How many people has the U.S. killed? For both
good & bad reasons. You can start with our own civil war &
go from there."


:Short answer: no you couldn't. The key phrase here is '''reliable sources.''' For more on this, see ].
Response:


:Longer answer: A lot of WP policies have to be considered in tandem to make any sense. Verifiability and reliable sources are two that have to be taken together. I fully intend to make sure that we look at each and every source to make sure it's appropriate for the context. Some, like the New York Times, are pretty obviously considered reliable for most things, while others, like Falundafa.org, may only be appropriate for certain purposes. I'm sure that some of them will be found lacking and have to be removed. Quite honestly, I haven't contemplated a lot of them yet because in my mind we're not ready for that. We haven't even gotten through the first three paragraphs. When we do start considering sources, rest assured that I'm going to be one of the toughest critics :-) ] 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The US government has never killed 80 million innocent people. In fact though, I really could care less what kind of government China has, or what kind of government the US has, just as long as they are not killing innocent lives. People die in wars, this is a natural state of affairs that exists in the Cosmos. In fact, Master Li has said that wars come about as a result of Cosmic phenomenon, and are for the purpose of man repaying karmic debts. But the CCP is and has been for many years murdering innocent people without any just cause.


==Legality/Illegality of the FLG ban in China==
You said:


It has come to my notice that this website, , has mentioned the reason FLG is illegal. Over here: . Unfortunately I couldn't find an English version of the article and I don't have knowledge on the laws in China. Before people start yelling "propaganda website", don't forget that the laws are at least cited out. --] 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You are not going to silence Sam. You are not going to silence
me either. Also, there are more & more of us each day.


The United States Congress Resolution 188 passed unanimously (420-0) states:
Response:
<blockquote>
'''Whereas this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;'''
</blockquote>
The ban itself could be called "illegal" looked at with international laws. Then we will have to say :''China illegally banned Falun Gong.''
] 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


: My understanding is that prior to the big Beijing protest, Falun Gong practitioners had staged a series of illegal protests in media stations throughout the country. During those earlier protests, some of the practitioners had been arrested. In fact, one of the Falun Gong's demands was to have those people released from jail. So it is clear that there had been illegal activity prior to the Beijing protest. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of historical accuracy.
If you think you are starting some kind of movement to squash Falun Gong, you are in trouble, and are on the wrong side of the sword.
:And for those who argue that Falun Gong practitioners should be allowed to stage disruptive protests anywhere they want in China, I point to the recent illegal protest staged by a female Falun Gong practitioner using her Epoch Times press pass to gain access to the White house lawn. There are limits to free speech, even in the US. Let's get real about this. --] 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Rough jist of it:
I am not trying to silence anyone, I encourage you to speak.
#social organisations cannot conduct commercial activities
#social orgarnisations must be registered
#protests that 1. violates basic principles of the constitution 2. endangers national sovereignty 3. incites racial hatred 4. endangers public safety will not be allowed
#citizens cannot protest outside their cities of residence
#disruption of publics safety include disrupting daily running of commerce, production and education, spreading lies, rumours and disrupting social order
#organising protests/marches that do not have approval, refuse to comply with approved times, locations, routes, refuse to disperse, endanger public safety is liable to be jailed for less than 5 years
#organising cults that use superstition that destroy national laws and executive policies, or cause the death of others is liable for 3-7 year jail time, extreme cases 7+ years.
-- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
#


:Based on what I read here, I still contend that "alleged illegal activities" is probably the best wording we can find for the opening paragraphs. It acknowledges that accusations without making a determination on whether they are valid or not in light of international law. If people feel that strongly about it, and I'm sure they do, we can go into more detail elsewhere in the article or on a subpage. ] 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to remove the poison and propaganda from your head that the evil CCP has implanted into it. The CCP has lied to you, and all of China, and all of the world. What kind of cause do you think you are signing up for, "there are more and more of us each day." You are traveling completely backwards if you continue with this train of thinking. The whole world loves Falun Gong. The US govnerment has awarded Falun Gong thousands of awards. My hometown of Lafayette, Louisiana in the United States has given Falun Dafa a proclamtion of award and has condemned the persecution in China. What are you talking about? I am not trying to silence anyone.


You said:


:*'''The Chinese government provided two major justifications for banning the Falun Gong 1) The unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings. 2) Its many illegal protests against critics and later government institutions which caused a threat to social stability. '''
"Please explain to me what good FLG has done? Have they built a hospital? - No. (We should add a section for that) Donated to anything other than their own cause? - No. Destroyed families? - Yes. Caused the deaths of thousands? - Yes. Any rational person would get the idea."


:Article 36 of the Chinese constitution permits the banning of religious groups under certain circumstances. It states: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. ''No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens'' or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
Response:


:China’s banning the Falun Gong is in accord with International laws such as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.” Both of these laws call for the protection of religious freedom, however, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations on religious expression under certain circumstances. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” With freedom comes responsibility. These international laws permit governments to hold those who exploit religious freedom responsible.
Falun Dafa has not built hospitals or donated to other such causes because these are all actions filled with human intention. True cultivators of Falun Dafa seek nothing in the mortal realm, only consumation of their being.


:Under the protection of the First Amendment, American religious freedom seems to be absolute, with cults and hate-preaching groups like the KKK enjoying legal status and protection. But not all western democracies are as permissive of religious freedom as the United States. Enabled by the anti-cult law, France, a nation with a long democratic tradition and respect for religious freedom, permits the government to dissolve a cult-like organization and jail its leader. These legal actions can only be taken when an organization commits offences like “deceptive advertising, frauds, and falsifications” and “intentional or unintentional prejudice to the life or the physical or psychological integrity of the person.” Other western democracies like Canada and Spain also have “hate speech” laws that outlaws speech promoting hatred or violence based on religion or race.
Falun Dafa has destroyed no families, only the CCP has done such evils. Can you show me proof that Falun Dafa has caused thousands to die?


:US politicians would denounce any country for limiting religious freedom but that does not mean these countries, in this case China, violates international laws.
I instead can show you proof that millions of people have in fact obtained the Fa and cured themselves for terminal diseases. I can also show you undeniable proof of the persecution in China, and of people being tortured to death in China.


:Going back to our discussion, to say that the Chinese government banned the falun Gong for “alleged illegal activities” is inaccurate. We can argue whether the group did violate those laws, but it was banned because the government believed it “violated the Chinese laws.” How about using “violated the Chinese laws” instead? --] 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Any proof you can offer that Falun Dafa is bad will be for sure lies from the Chinese Communist Party. Why do you believe in the CCP? Didn't you just hear what I said? They have murdered 80 million Chinese people. Can you deny the Cultural Revolution, a movement by the CCP? Can you deny the Gang of Four? Can you deny the 1989 Tiananmen Square Revolution?


I can post here material from Congress Resolution, Amnesty International and HRW to United Nation Reports, and over 61 lawsuits filed by leading international Human Rights attorneys around the world. But I think that is necessary. Let us not deviate too much from the discussion of the material. In my opinion, the legality or illegality of the supression neednt be mentioned in the introduction. The previous version of the article stated: "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. Concerns were triggered especially when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai.".
WHY DO YOU IGNORE THESE MOVEMENTS?
] 07:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:One problem with the latter quote: I think the world was aware of Falun Gong ''before'' the clampdown. ] 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
These are the CCP's history!


Samuel Lou, there is no evidence that Falun Gong did violite any law at all, its only what the CCP says, and we all know the nature of the CCP... ] 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
These were all caused by the CCP and in the end millions of Chinese people were murdered. The CCP is gang of crooks and criminals. I have with my own mouth and body spoken to Falun Dafa practitioners who have suffered persecution by the CCP. There are lives hanging in the balance in China, and you want to spread lies about Falun Dafa? What is your problem?


Here's some revised wording:
Your speaking out against Falun Gong is stupid and pointless, Falun Gong is only good.


:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since (date), when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China which were deemed in violation of Chinese laws and resulted in the arrest of practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings and for it’s many protests which were considered a threat to social stability.
We do not seek to "do good" among human beings and donate to charities. Falun Dafa is cultivation practice for reaching consumation. You are obviously a pretty good ordinary person, you have donated to many charities, but in the end, your actions are all filled with human intention and amount to nothing but blessings for your future life as a human. Cultivators in Falun Dafa seek nothing but to reach consumation, moving beyond the three realms, accomplishing Fa-Rectification, and saving sentient beings.


I believe Etaonosh is correct that the world became aware of Falun Gong before the ban...it was that protest in Zhongnanhai that brought them to world attention. So I have reversed the chronology. Also, it's clear that there was a violation of Chinese law prior to the Zhongnanhai protest, otherwise there wouldn't have been the demand to release practitioners who had been arrested. So all of this needs to be summarized briefly. I think the above does it. --] 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You said:


:Specifically speaking, what triggered the Zhongnanhai incident was the Tianjin incident. On 1999, April 11, FLG members protested against the publisher which published He Zuoxiou's "I Don't Agree Teenagers to Practice Falun Gong", an article which criticized the movement. 45 members were arrested near the end of the protest. --] 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"They preach self & death. Please explain to me how any of that is "good". Truth - their version of it. Compassion - Do this or die. Forebearance - I am going to hound you until you convert. No matter how stupid I think you are.


Tomananda, the above is not good enought. Why? Because you can't just give the version of the CCP.
Response:
You can't say "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment". This is from no verifiable source, its just lies and propaganda used by the CCP. I think it is okey to say something like: "The CCP accused Falun Gong for the death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment. Falun Gong practitioners strongly reject these accusations and say that these accusations is a way for the CCP to turn the chinese people against Falun Gong and justify their persecution of Falun Gong. There is no evidence of 1,404 practitioner dying from not taking their medicine."


If you only say: "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment"
What do you mean "Do this Or Die"? Master Li Hongzhi has forbidden suicide and murder.
This makes it sound like it is true, and it isn't, it's just lies used by the evil CCP.
/] 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:''1 : asserted to be true or to exist <an alleged miracle>
Falun Dafa does not preach either, it is just a book. We do not have churches or sermons. I am not preaching to you, I am helping you to understand the Buddha Fa.
:''2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : SUPPOSED, SO-CALLED <bought an alleged antique vase>
:''3 : accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged gangster>''
: Please explain how "allegedly causing...." makes it sound it is true. It's just your personal opinion. As for personal opinions, please refer to the previous section where you can find what you said.
:--] 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


The CCP propoganda has even "alleged" Falun Gong practitioners are CIA agents and such things have appeared in Chinese media. It is alright to say they have "alleged" but not in the introduction and not in a manner that tries to justify the inhuman persecution. We'd rather give more importance to what the Amnesty Internation, HRW or the United Nations say on the persecution.
Falun Dafa teaches selflessness and altruism, and the protection and cherishment of sentient beings.


I'd prefer statements from international organizations in the introduction rather than a made up "excuse" for torturing tens of thousands, including children and women, to death. I would like to hear a better excuse for that than "somebody didnt take medicine".
Also, I do not care if you practice Falun Dafa. I am not trying to convert you. Such a concept does not exist in Falun Dafa, you can only be assimilated to the Fa, there is not even a tangible organization for you to join, how could I convert you.
] 15:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Wow "evil" I've only seen this word used in recent history by religious fanatics (GW Bush included.)
I do not care if you learn. I wish for you to, it is what's is best for your future, but ultimately, it does not matter to me.


Well you can't say that the chinese communist party has been good exactly can you? They have a history of killing innocent people, and in 50 years it is estimated that 60-100 million chinese people have died a unnatural death by the CCP, in my opinion that qualifies for evil...
Cultivation is a personal matter. I am not dying here to have you cultivate... I want you to know the truth about this practice so you can be saved and make into the future.


"evil" is a mild word to use. What do you call taking people from their homes and torturing them to death and then threatening their families with further persecution if they speak out? Tell it is not "evil" to families left devastated.
You said:
'''May 26, 2006. Brussels (EFGIC) - Following a three-day visit to Beijing, the Vice President of the European Parliament, Edward McMillan-Scott, called the Chinese Communist leadership a "brutal, arbitrary and paranoid system"'''
The sad fact is that some confuse the CCP with China. They desperately want to be part of the crime, they want to support, defend and coverup the atrocities.
] 15:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:We can argue the moral term "evil" to death but this is not the scope of this article so I would stop. In clear facts, FLG did break chinese laws so it was made illegal in China. Pretty much ends the discussion. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
"As for the CCP, their economy is booming, 1 million are being taken out of poverty a month, etc. You can think evil destructive thoughts all you want, but with numbers like those they are not going anywhere anytime soon. Russia fell because the economy collapsed. Communism was an afterthought."


:: It doesnt end any discussion. Dalai Lama is wanted dead or alive for his "illegal" activities by the CCP. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. '''"The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder"''', please point out anything non-factual. Not that I want to discuss these things in the introduction.. but because you keep wanting to label the insane persecution "legal" and allow the murderers to label the victims "illegal".
Response:
::] 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


::That is ofcourse only your understanding.
The CCP's economy is not booming. China's economy is booming. This has nothing to do with the CCP. The CCP is the most evil thing in the Cosmos and it is surely to be eliminated. I do not have evil destructive thoughts. I am not even trying to eliminate the CCP. The CCP has chosen elimination. The Chinese people are turning against the CCP, because they are learning the true history of it's past, and the truth about the persecution of Falun Dafa.
::/] 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:::It is pretty well established that the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture, at least. It is also pretty well established that Li Hongzhi turned tail and left his followers in China to face the suppression without the aid of his ''soi-disant'' divine intervention. So perhaps it isn't a good guy/bad guy thing, and we will impede agreement on the article by making it one. --] 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|]
|'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.'''
|}
]


::::Christian monks have been persecuted in History. Buddhist Monks have gone through unspeakable hardships. The sages of vedic India went through boundless hardships. Many western cultivators have died really bad deaths. Gnostic cultivators have been tortured to death. This has happened through out history and scriptures give the reasons. The Buddhist scriptures emphatically affirm that this will happen in this period( which according to the scriptures is the "Dharma Ending Period"( which caries no apocalyptic meaning an only signifies a period of time when the morality of mankind is very low...). (See, for instance: http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89 )
== Chinese democracy movement and Falun Gong ==


::::It is no co-incidence that even after spending a major fraction of the nations budget on trying to persecute Falun Gong and resorting to the most horrible and insane atrocities, the CCP hasnt been able to achieve its ends. Li Hongzhi was in United Sates from 1997 he moved so that the government may not feel cocnerned about the number of practitioners in China.
Let me introduce myself. I am a long time practitioner of Buddhism, and am well read in Asian classics. I read Mr. Li’s book when it was first published in 1999 and since then have attended an “Fa” conference as well as many study groups and exorcize meetings. I feel qualified to make a few statements.


::::] 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Many of the things Mr. Li says it not all that different from what controversial Tibetan Lamas and Rinpoches say about being Gods and rectification of the Cosmic Law, curing illnesses, and saving the world. Though, one has to read these other books, listen to their lectures and even attend their meetings to know this. Since the bulk of Dafa practitioners are from mainland China and only know the Communist sponsored Buddhism, it therefore is not reasonable for the Dafa students to know these things or be aware that others have said the same as Mr. Li says.


:::: ? major fraction of it's national budget? Links please. I don't know why people keep bringing up apocolpyses/ dharma ending days... The christians were into it during the 1000 AD, 2000 some people thought the world was going to end, the Garland group a few years ago as well, now the FLG too? Anyways sorry I'm going off topic. This is about the legality of the ban. ] 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Like the radical Muslims or controversial Tibetan groups, the majority of disciples are drawn to the group and teacher primarily because the political views and direction the teacher and the teachings state. It is apparent that Mr. Li is a critic of Communist philosophies and by brining up pre-communist cultural beliefs (local Chinese religion and superstitions) he was “bucking the system” so to speak.


::::No. The Dharma Ending only means end of the Dharma ( Law / Morality ).. Its a Buddhist term.. not Falun Gong's. It has absolutely nothing to do with any apocalypse!..
The pro-democracy movement that was crushed by the Communist in 1989 just went underground till and emerged in the Chi-Gong movements, Falun Gong was only just one of many. The largest Chi-gong school was ], a school headed by Hong Bao Zhang, where they had eight postures of exercise, over 100 centered scattered all over china and thousands of small businesses that the disciples worked in. Like Falun Gong, Zhong gong supported a pre-communist political thought and offered a haven for the pro-democracy movement. Many of the criticisms Mr. Li has of Chi-Gong are clearly aimed at Zhong Gong. The use of these criticisms and malicious innuendo towards rival teachers is very traditional in Chinese martial arts. Like Falun Gong, Zhong Gong as well as the numerous other Gong Schools made claims to cure illnesses, achieve mystical powers and heavenly rewards. Though Falun Gong tends to use an “end of days” approach to imply immediacy and urgency to the teachings.
] 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:* the article is called "I Don't Recommend Teenagers to Practice Qigong." the article was not directed at the FAlun Gong, Mr. He only gave a example about one of his colleague became psychotic after practicing the FAlun Gong. This article was published in a small magazine owned by a university; it was protested by 7 thousand plus practitioners. The company called the police who then ordered the practitioners to leave, when these practitioners refused to obey order four hundred police forced the evacuation and arrested about a dozen practitioners. The protest was illegal because it had no permit and was an intimidation to suppress critic. --] 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In 1999 when the Communist banned Falun Gong, Zhong Gong as well as many other schools where shut down as well. This is what is know by Falun Gong as “The persecution” In fact ] as well as Falun Gong and so many other Chi Gong schools lost all of their centers and business to the Chinese Communist. The real purpose of the banishment may have been a land and business grab by Chinese communist officials as well as stamping out what they saw as a threat by the pro-democracy movement.
:*Clearly we must report this protest, or media protests in general, which were presumed (or alleged) to be in violation of Chinese law. Even in the US, where there is an absolute "presumptioin of innocence" the press reports people being arrested or indicted for allegedly committing crimes all the time. Dilip, I appreciate your passion when talking about the "persecution," but keep in mind there's an entire page devoted to that topic. Right now, for this paragraph, we just need to agree to language which reports what led up to the ban in China.
Words like "alleged" seem absolutely correct to me, so it's just a question of building the best sentence to convey these thoughts. --] 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Today from what I see of Falun Gong is mostly a political movement to criticize the CCP in China and to bring the worlds anger upon them for the gross human rights abuses that occur there. Most of the Falun Gong disciples are involved with some sort of political work that they term “clarifying the truth”. Staffers in Washington DC have stated that the Falun Gong lobbyist are effective and well organized. The newspaper “The Epoch Times” has done well to publish the Falun Gong propaganda when the main stream media ignored them and created NTDTV as a way to beam the political message to China. The recent “Nine commentaries of the communist party” that just about all Falun Gong members hold up right next to the book “Zhuan Falun” clearly indicate that the movement is primarily political based using the spiritual foundations outlined by Mr. Li to give support and encouragement to the students to continue their political work. Even recently Mr. Li stated that just doing the exercises and meditations are not enough, one must “clarify the truth” and that is code for being involved in the groups political missions.


I have followed the ban closely; I don’t think this statement “the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture” is based on facts. Yes torture and death of practitioners did happened, but there is no government policy to torture and murder. I believe these were acts committed by individual brutal prison guards. But the government can be condemned for not holding investigation into the deaths and punish the perpetrators. --] 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Many in the group flatly deny being political. Though they use a very narrow definition of what being political is. It is sort of a word game, one that I find childish and the sort of games you find scoundrels playing at.


There a wikipedia policy saying "No Original Research." And what you say contradicts what teh international bodies say on the matter.
Now as with all political movements and organizations that have a top down structure of power, where the corrupt and self-serving are attracted. Falun Gong is no exception to this problem, even in several lectures Mr. Li states that the bad actions of a few individuals has caused problems for him to no ends. Falun Gong even did have its schism in 1998 with Ms Wang in Hong Kong who declared that the Cosmic spirit left Mr. Li and came to her. The Hong Kong group was irreparable split and from what I know has not reformed to this day. I suspect such issues are still occurring and there are individuals who exploit the Falun Gong members as a marketing base, for free labor, and for their own gain, all in the name of “clarifying the truth”.
] 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Firestar's assessment. Truth is just what he said. No need to be apologetic on what the CCP did. The government should punish those guards that did it because they are responsive for those guards. There should not be a debate on the legality of the ban either.
Today, I see Falun Gong struggles with an identity crises. Is it a political group or spiritual group? This issue tears at the hearts of many disciples leading many in to a mental catharsis, and a spiritual crisis. Some leave Falun Gong, others just stay at the fringes of the group not daring go further in.
] 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:*I don’ think the word “alleged” works. How about this “The government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws but the group denies any wrong doing”? The government’s charge against the group and its rebuttal can be introduced in the body of the article. --] 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Lastly, as Falun Gong does attract the corrupted because of its power scheme, it also attracts the desperate. Folks who are terminally ill or who suffering from chronic menial illnesses will find their way to such groups like Falun Gong. The terminally ill are desperate to do anything to live, and those who are mentally ill do desperate things (think Heavens Gate, Charles Manson, Jim Jones). Though, you will be hard pressed to find any group that lacks these types of people because these groups are comprised of humans with all the human flaws and conditions we have.


:: I think "alleged" is wrong here too. They broke chinese law. Now is the law just or not is a whole different matter. But a law was broken. So why hide around the bush. ] 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
As for the things Mr. Li says and his claims. It is not at all uncharacteristic of those who engage in Chinese folk spirituality to do such. If you where to read the stories of some Tibetan Lamas and Rinpoches, you find that they embellish and fabricate their histories as well, even to degrees of absurdity. You also see this in Daoism with the embellishment of Lau Tzu and teachers after him as well as in Buddhism, where Ch’an teachers outright fabricate their lineage, and in some cases forge documents and create entire make believe temples, teachers and even Sutras.


Quite interesting.. you torture people to death people then harass their families, rape women, kill kids and then label them "illegal" and then accuse them for "breaking laws". Welcome to the civilized world. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction.
As for those who fanatically defend Mr. Li, they do so for their own selfish reasons and purposes. Already Mr. Li has said that many of his disciples cannot accept criticism and that is a problem they have to deal with. He also told them that he can deal with his critics himself. Never the less, people will defend someone or something only for their own self engrandizement, sense of purpose and of course crushing their own doubts. It is easier to attack others doubts than to deal with your own and that is the sort of fanaticism that beings troubles to no end.
] 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:Dilip, unless you are claiming that FG practitioners were tortured before the ban, your entire statement above is inaccurate because it assumes a sequence of events that didn't happen. First, thousands of Falun Gong practitioners staged illegal protests at media stations all over China insisting that your Master's teachings never be criticized. Some of those media protests resulted in arrests and all of them had the effect of suppressing the freedom of speech of Falun Gong critics, such as that professor who wrote that academic article which so bothered Li Hongzhi. So the practittioners, at the urging of Master Li (to show his power?), continued protesting and demanding that the arrested people be released, that the publishers issue retractions and that the government proclaim that Falun Gong is good. Then, after all these illegal activities took place, the Chinese government officially banned the Falun Gong and, to use your terminology, the "persecution" began. Please understand that I am not justifying the torture or persecution of anyone, but I do insist that the history be told correctly. There are two sides to this story.--] 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Ill continue watching this movement and see where it goes. I suspect Falun Gong/Falun Dafa will eventually pull itself apart as the purposes and goals become to contradictory to maintain under one house.
--] 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


The un-informed reader doesnt know that the Chinese laws require people to be put in prison for 10 years and tortured for practicing Qi Gong. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. '''"The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder"''', please point out anything non-factual. I dont think anybody with a conscience would want to coverup those crimes. I actually dont want to go into such details in the introduction but am forced to suggest it as some editors who ( I really dont know why) want to make it look like Falun Gong commited "illegal" activities and was thus banned.
Zhong Gong
] 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/z02.html
--] 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Edited to add links to zhong gong --] 21:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


]please provide a link for the statment you are citing. --] 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand you are entitled to your opinion wether or not you have a vast experience in the field of Qigong. But lately posts like these become a little bit tiresome for editors because, as you may know, we all have our own opinions regarding Falun Gong and exposing it like this tends to create some controversy among the group since, for example, my opinion is very different from yours so if i posted a reply to your post, we would deviate from the task at hand which is to try and work on the article, and this is what usually happens, and its the reason why we need official mediation.--] 20:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


We are getting off topic. Here's a revised paragraph incorporating the suggestions so far:
==Donot Slander a true cultivation way==


::*Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, but the group denies any wrong doing.--] 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You apparently are just repeating CCP's tales... You dont seem to have the slightest clue on what you are talking about.


I dont agree. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction. '''"The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned the peaceful practice of Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder"''', please point out anything non-factual.
There are reasons why Falun Dafa cultivators clarify the truth about the persecution to people and that has nothing to do with "politics". When someone carries bad thoughts against a true teaching and slanders the Dharma isnt he accumulating terrible sins? Where is his being heading for?
] 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Falun Dafa prcatitioners are letting the world know of the terrible and most inhumane persecution innocent people are facing in China.. hoping to bring an end to these unspeakable atrocities.. and you label that "politics"?


As I have read, the torture and killings are not just about a few guards that did this or that. Many many practitioners that made it out alive from the concentration camps or brainwashing camps has spoken out and told, that the CCP offers you to renounce your faith in Dafa. That means, you sign your name on a paper which means that your don't believe in Falun Gong anymore, if you do this, they will release you very fast without touching you...and if you don't they will torture you with all kind of methods until you sign under. Its been reported that alot of practitioners were chocked with electric batoons in the face for 8 hours because they didnt renounce their faith in Dafa, and also they wont let you sleep for many many days, they also give criminals bonuses if they torture practitioners. After the torture, the practitioners were barely alive, and still they didn't want to give up their faith in Dafa.
People like you think Buddhist scriptures are something for intellectual studies... you study it like some kind of philosophy and then you are "qualified" for whatever..
Also, witnesses, doctors and other people have stepped forward saying that the government are doing organ transplant on LIVE Falun Gong practitioners because the CCP knows that Falun Gong practitioners have very good health and rarely get sick. After the transplantation they throw the body into a crematorium to destroy all evidence. One more thing to notice, is that after the persecution began in 1999, the organ transplant business in China has gone up by 3000 %. Today, in China it takes two weeks at most to get a new organ...in other countries it takes at least two years. Also investigators have called hospitals doing the transplants pretending wanting to buy, and the hospitals sometimes said the organs was from live Falun Gong practitioners. This persecution is evil beyond words. ] 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


The organ transplant from live people has been covered by a UK Channel with under-cover cameras.
] 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:*Tomananda, the protest on April 25,1999, was held outside of Zhongnanhai, China's leadership compound not the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street. --] 18:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
'''The Dalai Lama has said Falun Dafa is "very good".'''


]I asked you to provide a link to the report from the Us congress not the FAlun Gong --] 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


The text of the resolution ( Concurrent Resolution 188 - passed unanimously (420-0) by the U.S Congress) is available on ''several'' websites including the website I mentioned earlier.
Gautama Buddha himself prophesized that during this period of time the Great Law (Da Fa ) would spread far and wide.. A Sutra refers to the teaching by the name "the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma.( Fa Lun )" and "the Thus Come One's sudden teaching"
] 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Interested in how they came up with the conclusion that it was illegal according to China's constitution as well. ] 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''Alas! In the evil time''


== Third Revision of Target Paragraph on the Ban ==
''Of the Dharma-Ending Age,''


Responding to requests from Samuel and Dilip, I propose the following paragraph which aims to summarize, as briefly as possible, both POV's about the history and legality of the ban in China.
''Living beings' blessings are slight,''


:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, some of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.
''It is difficult to train them.''


We need to remind ourselves that this is just a summary. Anything longer than this would be inappropriate for this introductory section in my opinion. --] 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''Far indeed from the sages of the past!''


This reads more like a summary to the crackdown of the Falun Gong section. Anyway, a few changes is needed in my opinion. Below is a revised verion:
''Their deviant views are deep.''
Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested '''''illegally''''' against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, '''''most''''' of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many '''''illegal''''' protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder. --] 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Samuel, can you prove the protests was illegal? I heard it was legal... /] 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''Demons are strong, the Dharma is weak;''


Easy, it was held without a permit. --] 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''Many are the wrongs and injuries.''
:*No, how you know it was held without a permit? I heard it was legal. Premier Zhu,Rongji interviewed with them. ] 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


::Frankly speaking Zhu Rongji interviewing with protesters says nothing about the protest itself. Illegal protests were held by people after the Presidential Election in Taiwan, officials still came to meet the protesters. Also according to one of the 4.25 Zhongnanhai protesters Zhu Rongji didn't mention or question whether the protest was permitted. --] 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
''Hearing the door of '''the Thus Come One's sudden teaching,'''''


It suprises me that the US House of Representatives has the right of a ] on deciding whether something is constitutional or not. Last time I checked, they don't. --] 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''They hate not destroying it as they would smash a tile.''


:You're correct, the House does not have that kind of authority. US House resolutions do not have the force of law. They are essentially symbolic, and are usually drafted by lobbyists of one sort or another and just presented to legislators for ratification. The fact that something is stated as fact in a US House resolution does not mean it's a fact. Even when the congress passes actual laws, most congressmen don't read them. So it's quite easy to get inaccurate statements slipped into a resolution. It's part of the brilliance of Li Hongzhi's PR strategy to have figured out how easy these things are to get and then have his followers pursue them all of the country. Then, the same practitioners get to point to these resolutions as proof of how good Li Hongzhi's teachings are. Quite cynical, don't you think? --] 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''The doing is in the mind;''
:PS: By way of example, check out US House Resolution 29, "Commending Jared & Jerusha Hess and the City of Preston for the Production of the Movie 'Napolean Dynamite'" here: I have never heard of this film or the city of Preston. I had to read further to find out that Preston is a city in the rural state of Idaho. I doubt if more than a handful of the congresspeople who signed this resolution have ever actually seen the film they praised in the resolution. You get the idea.--] 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Tomanada, This is a Hon. Concurrent Resolution passed unanimously( 420-0) by the Congress. Why do you argue this is not a "law"? That sounds really mis-informed. ] 12:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
''The body suffers the calamities.''


:Um, hello? Since when did the legislative of the US has rights to make "laws" for China? Are you using a Ming sword to behead a Qing official? Definition of ]. --] 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
''There's no need for unjust accusations that shift the blame to others.''


: Still interested on how they came to that conclusion. I want the facts. Not some declaration by some people that might or might not have any idea what they are signing. ] 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''If you don't wish to invite the karma of the unintermittent ,''


::I get the point. So it's like those "awards" and "days" they make such a fuss about. Anyway, I took the trouble to look up the original process and text from the Library of Congress. The records of discussion can also be found in there.. It would be another example to put in related FLG topics on Misplaced Pages. Back on topic, I think the current version is good enough. The fact of persecution or not is irrelevant to the laws China cites. Governments use anti-Sodomy laws to persecute gay and lesbian people, but it doesn't change the fact that people were arrested by these laws. --] 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
''Do not slander '''the Thus Come One's Proper Wheel of Dharma.( Fa Lun )'''''


:Unfortunately, we can't tell how they came to their conclusions. The web link which Yenchin provides is missing some information. It lists four "Witness prepared statements" in support of the resolutioin (two dated 6.27/01 and two dated 8/1/01) and states that "some documents may contain partisan views," but when you click on those links it doesn't take you to the documents. Perhaps they've been archived? It would be interesting to see them. I suspect they largely contain claims made by the Falun Gong, such as the claim that the ban is in violation of the Chinese constitution, which never were investigated or verifified by the House committee which dealt with the resolution. --] 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


== Criticism page ==
'''- Gautama Buddha'''


While we have been discussing structure and sources on this main Talk page, practitioners Dilip and Fnhddzs have attacked the ''Criticism and controversies'' page with a series of edits (from 6:28 to 7:17 on 28 May), deleting, among other things, all of the Deng and Fang quotes. This is an outrageous breach of good faith. Is this the prelude to another revert war? Should other editors start going into the ''Falun Gong teachings'' or ''Persecution pages'' and do to these Falun Gong practitioners what they have just done to us? Or should we exercise restraint and ask for administrative intervention? I opt for the latter and request that if it is within Misplaced Pages policy to do so, both Fnhddzs and Dilip receive some kind of sanction. After all of this discussion, and two previous revert wars brought to us by Fnhddzs and Dilip, to have this happen is truly outrageous. What is the point of our continuing along this path if such a blatant subversion of our cooperative editing process goes unpunished? --] 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
(SE 62-63)


:Tell you what, Tomananda. If it happens again, why don't you just revert with a note to take it to the talk page. I think we're getting bogged down too much in the interpersonal comments. I'll back you up in reverting things that haven't been properly discussed. ] 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is only natural that people who consider themselves "qualified"
by reading some scriptures as if they were some made-up specualtive philosophy appear during in this period of time.. ... I request you to read this Sutra ..


:OK with me. Dilip just did the same deletes in the Criticism and controversies section that Fnhddzs did earlier. I did a revert. What he is doing is deleting all of the Deng and Fang quotes in various sections which were discussed two weeks ago and are being discussed again. Rather than wait for a group decision (and actually, as far as I'm concerened we already decided this one), Dilip has simply done the reverts. --] 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Thus I have heard. At one time the Buddha was in the state of Kushinagara. The Tathagata was to enter Nirvana within three months and the bhikshus and Bodhisattvas as well as the great multitude of beings had come to the Buddha to pay homage to the Buddha and to bow in reverence. The World Honored One was tranquil and silent. He spoke not a word and his light did not appear. Worthy Ananda bowed and asked the Buddha, "O Bhagavan, heretofore whenever you spoke the Dharma, awesome light would naturally appear. Yet today among this great assembly there is no such radiance. There must be a good cause for this, and we wish to hear the Bhagavan's explanation."


== Misplaced Pages policy on citing self-published sources ==
:The Buddha remained silent and did not answer until the request had been repeated three times. He then told Ananda, "After I enter Nirvana, when the Dharma is about to perish, during the Evil Age of the Five Turbidities (see Five Turbidities), the way of demons will flourish. Demonic beings will become Shramanas they will pervert and destroy my teachings.... They will lack compassion and they will bear hatred and jealousy even among themselves.


Tomananda, what is your assumption of good faith? ?
:'''"At that time there will be Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats who will reverently and diligently cultivate immaculate virtue. They will be respected by all people and their teachings will be fair and egalitarian. These cultivators of the Fa will take pity on the poor, they will be mindful of the aged, and they will save and give counsel to those people they find in difficult circumstances. They will at all times exhort others to worship and to protect the sutras and images of the Buddha. They will do meritorious deeds, be resolute and kind and never harm others. They will forsake their bodies for others' benefit. They will hold no great regard for themselves but will be patient, yielding, humane, and peaceful.'''


As I mentioned a while ago, xys.org is a personal website hosted by the biochemist Fang, Shimin or .
:"If such people exist, the hordes of demonic bhikshus will be jealous of them. The demons will harass them, slander and defame them, expel them from their midst and degrade them. They will ostracize the good monks from the monastic community. Thereafter these demons will not cultivate the Way-virtue. Their temples and monastic buildings will be vacant and overgrown with weeds. For want of care and maintenance their Way-places will drift into ruin and oblivion. The demonic bhikshus will only be greedy for wealth and will amass great heaps of goods. They will refuse to distribute any of it or to use it to gain blessings and virtue.
.
.
.


<blockquote>
Self-published sources in articles about themselves
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
* It is relevant to the person's notability;
* It is not contentious;
* It is not unduly self-serving;
* It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources;
* It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Self-published sources may '''never''' be used as sources of information about another person or topic.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
A Misplaced Pages article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.
</blockquote>
] 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


I '''strongly''' request wiki amdmins give Tomananda sanctions !!!!!! for his ignoring wiki's policy, for his slanders and personal attacks !!!!! ] 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) How could wiki allow such a senior wikipedian at large? ] 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:"When the lives of these demonic bhikshus come to an end their essential spirits will fall into the avici hells. Having committed the five evil sins, they will suffer successive rebirths as hungry ghosts and as animals. They will know all such states of woe as they pass on through aeons as numerous as sands on the banks of the Ganges River. When their offenses are accounted for they will be reborn in a border land where the Triple Jewel is unknown.


Fnhddzs: The question of using private web pages as sources was discussed at length in the ''Criticism and controversies'' talk page. When we left it, some of the editors had agreed to a standard proposed by Covenant which would require that the private web page be a copy of something presented elsewhere (in the case of Deng and Fang, that would be an academic conference). Also part of that discussion was the recognition that Covenant's standard would allow the inclusion of some of your pro-Falun Gong stuff, including but not limited to the Lili Feng material and other medical reports.
:"When the Dharma is about to disappear, women will become vigorous and will at all times do deeds of virtue. Men will grow lax and will no longer speak the Dharma. '''( According to the Dao school and The Book of Changes this precisely is the period of reversal of yin and yang )'''


You have violated good faith by deleting substantial portions of the material on the ''Criticism and controversies'' page without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. We can revisit the discussion of standards for self-published sources...in fact, that is our intent in the present discussion. But you cannot unilaterally delete this material. --] 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


PS: I just tried to go back in the archives to point to this prior discussion, but the archives for Talk Criticism and controversy seem to be missing. Can someone help? --] 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Those genuine Shramanas they see will be looked upon as dung and no one will have faith in them. When the Dharma is about to perish, all the gods will begin to weep. Rivers will dry up and the five grains will not ripen. Epidemic diseases will frequently take the lives of multitudes of people. The masses will toil and suffer while the local officials will plot and scheme. No one will adhere to principles. Instead, all people will be ever more numerous like the sands of the ocean-bed. Good persons will be hard to find; at most there will be one or two. As the aeon comes to a close, the revolution of the sun and the moon will grow short and the lifespan of people will decrease. Their hair will turn white at the age of forty years. Because of excessive licentious behavior they will quickly exhaust their seminal fluids and will die at a young age, usually before sixty years. As the life-span of males decreases, that of females will increase to seventy, eighty, ninety, or one hundred years.


All Falun gong websites are private, if Deng and Fang's website does not meet the standard then all material from FAlun Gong private websites have to go too. --] 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:"The great rivers will rise up in disharmony with their natural cycles, yet people will not take notice or feel concern. Extremes of climate will soon be taken for granted. . . .


]there is no justification for you to delete critical material from the criticism page. You are again being warned. --] 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:'''"Then there will be Bodhisattvas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Arhats who will gather together in an unprecedented assembly because they will have all been harried and pursued by hordes of demons. They will no longer dwell in the assemblies, but the Three Vehicles will retreat to the wilderness. In a tranquil place, they will find shelter, happiness, and long life. Gods will protect them and the moon will shine down upon them.''' The Three Vehicles will have an opportunity to meet together and the way will flourish. However, within fifty-two years the and the , the Standing Buddha Samadhi, will be the first to change and then disappear. The twelve divisions of the canon will gradually follow until they vanish completely, never to appear again. Its words and texts will be totally unknown ever after. The precept sashes of Shramanas will turn white of themselves. When my Dharma disappears, it will be just like an oil lamp which flares brightly for an instant just before it goes out. So too, will the Dharma flare and die. After this time it is difficult to speak with certainty of what will follow.
.I al
.
.


:Fnhddzs: I forgot to mention that criticizing your editing practices does not constitute a personal attack. You and Dilip have a history of doing significant deletions without discussion and have already provoked two revert wars. It becomes tiring to have to deal with those violations over and over again. The request is simply to discuss major changes before doing deletions. --] 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:Worthy Ananda addressed the Buddha, "What should we call this Sutra and how shall we uphold it?"


== Repost from Talk Criticism page on the issue of using private web sources ==
:The Buddha said, "Ananda, this Sutra is called . Tell everyone to propagate it widely; the merit of your actions will be measureless, beyond reckoning."


I located part of the earlier discussion on this topic:
:When the fourfold assembly of disciples heard this Sutra, they grieved and wept. Each of them resolved to attain the true Path of the Supreme Sage. Then bowing to the Buddha, they withdrew.


'''I'm going to be looking for a slightly higher standard for something that appears on a website; I want it to be a reproduction of something presented elsewhere, whether a conference or a newpaper or a book or a lecture or something. Just a personal paper on a website is going to be met with raised eyebrows.'''I want to point out that there is a blockquote provided by Dilip that I want to have included, that seems to agree with the premise that words and phrases carry different meaning. I think it provides balance to the allegation by essentially saying, "sure, it's different, but that's the way it has to be." CovenantD 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
(SS I xiv-xvi)


Both of the sources that I mentioned above--Deng and Fang's academic article and the expose from Li's earliest followers--meet your proposed standard (the private website version of the expose is a reproduction of an official report submitted to the China Qi Gong Research Society). I assume the Lilli Feng material would meet your proposed standard as well. There may be unusual situations in which we need to allow other types of private web site sources, but if we encounter that kind of situation we can discuss that particular case on its own merits. For now, in order to make some progress, I approve your standard, at least on a provisional basis.
] 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot take a unsigned post with any credibility or even serious. I have never heard any Dafa practitioner say that the ] has endorsed the exercises or anything Mr. Li says. If that was the case, I am sure I would have heard about this. You may want to rethink your proclamation on that issue.


(break..new editor speaking)
As I stated, only scoundrels play “word games”. I am deeply sorry that the path of Falun Dafa lead you to this position. You may want to rethink your words, perhaps even read some of the stuff Mr. Li says about "Bad people doing bad things in his name".
I also share your concern about too many quotes from Li affecting the readability of the article, but they are probably the best source of material for actual teachings. As long as they're kept short and to the point...
--] 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Samuel, it depends on the context in which ClearWisdom and other Falun Gong sites are used. If it's being used as a source on Falun Gong teachings, I'd say it meets "primary source" criteria. If it's being used to highlight something else, like persecution, then another, independent source should be found and used to avoid the controversy of "questionable" sources. (I'm not expressing my opinion, merely reflecting what others have expressed, hence the quotation marks.) CovenantD 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would think that as a practitioner of Buddhism you would have enough benevolence as to not insult someone else and call him "scoundrel" but im no one to judge you so ill stop right here, we can all make mistakes at any time but i do not think it was necessary for you to reffer to him like that even if he is really what you say he is. It may make other people take you less seriously seeing how you dont have proper respect for other users. In Falun Dafa people make their own way, everyones condition and situation is different. If you ask me what i think about this message i would say its definetly not necessary for the creation of the article, in fact, i didnt take the time to read it completely because i didnt see it going anywhere, i think the user who wrote this post should post what he has to say in a clear and resumed way. Sutras and other scriptures are interpreted differently by many people so i personally do not think it is appropriate to post them.
Id like to know where are we going now with this mediation request, are we suppossed to wait or can we do some edits in the mean time?.--] 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Fair enough, I remember practitioners used a personal statement from clearwisdom.net in “Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong” section. The following is the statement in question: “Li refused the house according to the practitioner who bought the house in this letter . 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.’” According to wikipedia standards and what you are saying here, this statement will have to go. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
That bit is no longer in the article, so it's a bit difficult for me to comment on it. I seem to remember thinking that the entire section needed work to provide balance since it seemed to be reverted back and forth a lot. CovenantD 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
|]
|'''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.'''
|}


''Infact, what was used appeared in the letters to the editor section of the wall street journal''.
== Question of Origins ==


] 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
In the main article in subsection “Origins”, it is stated:


Earlier on, Ed Poor and Olaf had also voiced their opinions which amounted to saying that a broad application of this rule might be best, since it would allow material that is not available any other way. (Did I summarize that correctly, guys?) In any case, we must discuss this before deleting any material and, as I said before, if we're going to apply a new "get tough" policy, it will also necessarily lead to the deletion of some of the pro-Falun Gong material. --] 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Falun Gong (Falun Dafa) was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi on May 13, 1992 in Changchun, China.(1) According to Li, Falun Gong is an advanced cultivation system in the "Buddha School" which, in the past, was handed down to chosen disciples and served as an intensive cultivation method that required practitioners with extremely high “Xinxing” (mind-nature; heart-nature; character) or “great inborn quality.”(2) Li taught the practice for three years and since then Falun Gong has also been promoted by practitioners themselves voluntarily.(3) Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity in China, and starting in 1996 Li has introduced the practice to other countries.(4)


== Getting back to main topic: target paragraph for the introduction section ==
I like to challage this statement. As by the points I will list:


We can talk about the source issue, but shouldn't forget the text re-writing we began. Here's the latest version of the target paragraph which seems to be picking up support (see comments above):
1. Falun Gong (AKA Falun Dafa) is an offshoot of ], a ChiGong school in china that existed well prior or Mr. Li emergance on the scene, that uses eight positions in its exersizes, also claims to heal the sick and pronounces itself as the only true spiritual law.


:Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against <strike>it’s</strike> its media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested illegally against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, most of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings''',''' and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many illegal protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.
2. Mr. Li was a Communist Army band member then a grain store clerk. Given that Mr. Li school of Chi Gong is so simular to Zhong Gong, it is likely Mr. Li was a casual student of Zhong Gong for a while till he broke off on his own group, hence his criticism on Modern Chi Gong.


We need to hear from more editors on the above wording. --] 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3. This section does not give any time period of when he was to practice or who the are the diciples are. I suggest to strike this line completely since it cannot be supported.


What the US Congress says is not what Falun Gong practitioners say or "cite" in "particular"! That is what the Congress says. Similarly we will have to look at what the United Nations say too.
4. This is very questionable because Zhong Gong grew in that period of time as well as many other chi gong schools. I think the line needs to be qualified with to reflect that Falun Gong was not the only school growing.
] 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:So Dilip, what you're supposed to do at this point is actually suggest a wording change, rather than just make a comment about what you don't like about the existing wording. --] 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
--] 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


:To begin with, would you provide a few '''sources''' for your allegations, as ] will do. Could you also tell how the Falun Gong movements resemble those of Zhong Gong? If Falun Gong is just a spinoff of Zhong Gong, would you also elaborate a little on why Falun Gong received so many awards from the qigong experts and other authorities?


:Content-wise it seems pretty good, but I've corrected spelling/grammar.
:By the way, according to apologeticsindex.org, Zhong Gong was also founded in the beginning of the 1990s. I haven't read that much about it, but I have an impression that its teacher was bragging about showcasing supernormal abilities and such, while Li Hongzhi has stated that these things are not for public performances. Why do a lot of qigong masters put so much emphasis on commenting on this issue? I believe that the existence of supernatural abilities was verified in China by empirical science during the 1980s, and acknowledging them was essentially the dividing line between two scientific schools of qigong studies.


:The ending is weak, perhaps because the reasoning of individuals involved in the actual events was weak. If I rob a bank, I am guilty of a felony regardless of whether the police department has been committing its own set of felonies -- and vice-versa. If the reasoning of CCP and FLG advocates is on the "pot and kettle" level, then so be it. If, on the other hand, there are real challenges to the legitimacy of charges (e.g., arguing that one must break unjust laws and then one must take the consequences) then it does individuals involved a disservice (and does not reflect a NPOV) to omit mention of them. ] 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:You know, qigong is not just some arbitrary waving of hands where any exercise will do. Whatever you think of Falun Gong, recognizing ] as a valid field of human body research - not some imaginary game - is the least you can do. If you really want to dispute Falun Gong's way of putting it, you'd better provide a theory for ''why'' it works in the first place. Maybe you want to provide a naturalistic, profane explanation. Only then we have reached the paradigmatic line of demarcation. ---] 08:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


===My Suggestion===
::Falun Gong resembles Zhong Gong in many ways, but lets look at one aspect of it, "The Exersize". Zhong Gong uses eight postures in its exersize while Falun Gong uses five postures. I think it is worth noting on the Falun Gong page that is does resemble Zhong Gong, a popular school in china that had over 100 practice centers and thousands of businesses. I think to fail to mention that moves away from the NPOS and does not serve the truth to the readers as where Falun Gong came from.
What I want to point out is, this is an introduction to an article on Falun Gong - not why the CCP started to persecute Falun Gong. An introduction to Falun Gong is really not the place discuss, in detail, the events leading to the persecution. There are scholars( for instance, Julie Ching (2001)) who opine that even the protests were orchestrated by Government agencies. We really cant discuss things in detail in the introduction. My suggestion for the introduction is:
<blockquote>
Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
On July 20, 1999 the People's republic of China began a Nation-wide Supression of Falun Gong. This has been considered a major Human-rights violation world-over.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.
</blockquote>
Please point out anything non-factual or irrelevant to the introduction.


] 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::The point of all this discussion to to get to the truth, present Falun Gong in a NPOS position with NO ORIGIONAL RESEARCH or ARTICALS OF FAITH as facts. The origions of Falun Gong, its history and its current mission on the wikipedia pages tend to be murky and highly edited in my opinions. I think it is fine to present Falun Gong as a Chigong school, but I think some of the statements made about it are incorrect, quotes are taken out of context or even stolen about a different chigong school. For example the quote of 100 million practitioners was about the number of all chigong practitioners in china, not just Falun gong. It is these sorts of things that tarnish the character of Falun Gong and just brings up questions about integrity about Falun Gong is.


== Source issue ==
::I also think it is worth remembering that these pages are is not a debate on Falun Gong, but rather how to present Falun Gong on Misplaced Pages.
It is ridiculous that you have hesitation on citing the public U.S. government publication, instead you guys seem not to have hesitation on citing the biochemist's self-publicated sources on his personal website. I don't understand the bias hidden on mind of guys here.
::--] 18:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Tomananda said the xys.org source is a reproduction of a conference paper. What is the proof of that? How to get the conference paper? It is not verifiable. ] 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::You avoided all my questions. Saying that Zhong Gong has eight exercises, while Falun Gong has five, doesn't tell anything about their similarity or differences. ] means that you have to find verifiable sources for your claims; please give us a reference to an article or a study about the similarities of Falun Gong and Zhong Gong.


:The US gov't publication is of course a good source. It just needs to be put in the proper context. The conference paper is a bit more problematic because of the verifiability issues. It would be nice if we could reference something directly tied to the conference or the organization that put it on, just so we know that it is what it claims to be. That would alleviate any doubts. ] 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::The quote about 70 (to 100) million Falun Gong practitioners is from China's State Sports Administration, as reported by the New York Times before the persecution began. Afterwards, CCP has been downplaying Falun Gong's significance in the Chinese society. I also remember reading that there are approximately 200 million qigong practitioners in China, so it is possible that one third to a half of all Chinese qigong practitioners used to practice Falun Gong in the end of the 1990s.


:Just keep in mind that the US government has a POV too. (Let's hope the NSA doesn't check up on me at night.) -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 07:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree that the article sucks right now, but that's why we are looking for a mediator. ---] 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


That is not just what the US Government says. From the Amnesty International to the European Union and the United Nations .
::::Give me a break Olaf, the Chinese government has never said anything about the Falun Gong having 70 million members in China. That figure was given by a practitioner working in a governmental organization. The Falun Gong has also claimed to have 30 million members outside of China; where are they? --] 20:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
] 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


::And I'm pretty sure Amnesty International and the EU and the UN all have their own POVs. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>]|]|]|]|]|]!</sup> 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Give me a source, Samuel, indicating that the figure was given by a practitioner working in a governmental organization. It's funny you've never done that. Hmm... or could it be only you who says this?


:::::I also remember seeing some websites say that there are 100 million practitioners "worldwide". They are probably using the higher estimate, "almost 100 million", for China, but personally I think this information is outdated. "''The'' Falun Gong", "members"... it's all your misleading centralist discourse. I agree that the individuals who have published such figures should pay more attention to the post-1999 reduction in numbers (because of the persecution). Of course, none of us knows how many practitioners there are. Nobody I've met has ever talked about 30 million outside of China. ---] 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I think it's real sad that Tomananda can use material from Deng and Fang homepage, that is just personal opinions from private people. In that case, let me get all the pro-FLG comments from personal websites I can find, including people talking about their experience after practicing Falun Gong, how they benefited and how happy they are, and how wonderful Falun Gong is. I don't see any reason at all how personal websites can be allowed. Frankly, these Deng and Fang's opinions doesn't mean anything, why are their opinions so important? It is up to the reader to decide what to think after he reads all the material. All Deng and Fang does is to slander things they don't understand, what, is the meaning of that? Admin, what is your comment on this case? /] 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
== Origions dispute part 2 ==
In the main article in subsection “Origins” second paragraph, it is stated:


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At the beginning, Li introduced himself to the public as a Qigong master. In “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” which appeared as an appendix in the Chinese version of his book, Zhuan Falun, before 1996, it is claimed that Li(1) was guided by more than 20 masters of both the Buddhist and Taoist cultivation ways since the age of four. Li’s first teacher introduced him to the cultivation of truth, compassion and forbearance (zhen, shan, ren). At age of eight, he acquired supernatural powers. He could levitate off the ground and become invisible simply by thinking "Nobody can see me.” Two other supernatural powers were his ability to control people’s movements by thoughts and to move himself anywhere he wanted by thought alone. The biography(2) also claimed Li has discovered the truth of the universe…the origin of humankind and foresaw the development and future of the humankind.


''The Two Tales of Falun Gong'' on-line document is an updated version of a paper presented at the April 28-29, 2000 annual conference of the American Family Foundation held in Seattle, Washington. The foundation is now called the International Cultic Studies Association. I will reference this information in a footnote. I have contacted the organization to find out what they can provide to verify the article's authenticity.
I like to dispute the Origins, second Paragraph by the following points:
(1) “it is claimed that Li” needs to be changed to “Mr. Li writes about himself” as it is stated now, it is not clear that Mr. Li himself is making these claims and that no third party is making them.


Since we have apparently decided to take a tough stance on sources, I will start challenging sources that appear in the pro-Falun Gong edits as well. Two problems immediately come to mind:
(2) please change “biography” to “autobiography” since “A Short Biography of Mr. Li Hongzhi” is in fact written by Mr. Li himself.
*The health claims made by Dr. Lilli Feng (were they presented at a conference or published elsewhere?)
*The Julie Ching (2001) article quoted in the ''Persecution section'', with a link only to the Rick Ross website.
:: The paper by Quan-Zhen, Richard Johnson et al has appeared in several journals including JACM. It was done by reputed researchers in the field. Including Researchers from micro array core, Beynora institute and Baylor College
::] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::: That paper by Quan_zhen I've looked at and also what you wrote on the medical benefits. You took the findings out of context and distort the findings. It's first a Pilot study which just means it's a preliminary stuff/a search and probe type of study. Not a ground-breaking study or anything of the sort. Secondly the study's conclusion suggests qigong in general (and not only FLG) improves neutrophil functions. I believe a rewrite of that section will help clarify things and take some of the bias out of the health benefit page.
] 12:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
is a version of the paper that appeared in JACM. The original research was titled "An ancient cultivation practice Falun Gong improves neutrophil functions and causes system-level gene regulation " and specifically says Falun Gong.
] 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Also, there is a significant amount of material that amounts to original research that will have to be deleted from some of the sections. For example, the following representations in the ''Teachings section:''
--] 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
*Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org


*It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.
:Again, Otomo... sources please? The biography was not written by Mr. Li. ] 06:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::: This statement, in my opnion, really doesnt deserve a reply. If you are that adamant I will get a confirmation from www.falundafa.org - thats the primary source.
] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


=== Two things ===
Why was my book deleted? It's a real situation with real people, not a case study. Also, we should add other similar
cases. I know of at least one. There are probably more.


Plus unsourced material in ''The Tianamin Square self-immolation incident'' such as:
We should add a section about the FLG split. There should be articles about the woman in Hong Kong. I had forgotten about
*The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
that and it's a good point.
*Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
*Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.


:: Change "Falun Gong members" to IED, FDI or UN Reports and I will give you a source. By the way the section didnt origianlly say "Falun Gong members" it was a recent change by some editor.
] 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:: ]


== In response to "Daniel" ==
I have not seen another website post deaths of people quite like
www.clearwisdom.net. Death is not a good thing. The general theme
is: They harmed Dafa & died a horrible death. Chapter & verse.
Time & time again. We should also consider a section in the article
for this. To be fair, we should include the deaths that the CCP has attributed to FLG.


For instance, The International Education Development Bureau's (IED) report, announced at the United Nations, states:
Well, according to the ex, I have harmed Dafa. I survived 9/11, Flight 587 (crashed on both sides of the house - literally), etc.
<blockquote>
''"This government took out this so-called self-immolation incident that happened on January 23, 2001, in Tiananmen Square and used this as evidence against Falun Gong. We have reached the conclusion after watching a videotape on this incident, that this incident has however been completely orchestrated by the government.''
</blockquote>
] 12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:*There is no such thing as IED "Bureau". Various FLG articles and websites keep on confusing readers that this ] is a branch under the United Nations and furtherly leap the logic that the UN has investigated the incident.
] 22:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:*The IED website has no mention of their investigation on the incident videotape. At best this is just another unbased claim. To state more clearly: IED hasn't explained how they investigated, and what convinced them to believe the incident was staged.
:--] 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:Can you identify yourself? It sounds like your ex wife is a Falun Gong practitioner, so you can possibly provide some addtitional insight into how the Falun Gong breaks up families. Practitioners deny this is the case, so your input might help. --] 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


::IED's statement to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights at the United Nations in August, 2001
::No doubt he's the good ol' Cj cawley. ---] 09:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
] 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


::::Yes, I'm fairly aware on the "where" and "when" of the report. However, IED has never formally published a report on their investigation. Which is the "how". How were they convinced that the incident was staged? There is no mention of these details on the Sub-Commision report, as well as their own website. At best this only shows their opinion, it doesn't help a further understanding of the incident. --] 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry, I was not logged in. Thanks Olaf.
] 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


:::I'm the editor on the "FLG members believe...crackdown". The original text was "observers", which I don't need to point out that none of these observers were cited. At best from what I see in "False Fire" and other FLG articles, FLG members argue that the Tiananmen Square incident is meant to incite a negative view on FLG. As ridiculous as this sounds (martyrs, anyone?), these points can be found from FLG. So I only changed "observers" to "FLG members" to reflect this fact. --] 11:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Olaf: You never responded to my question in the ''Without Li the Cosmos Wouldn't Exist'' posting above. --] 06:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


:Sorry, Tomananda, I've been really busy, and your message is worth time and devotion. I'll try to deal with it later this week. ---] 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


More unsourced material from the ''Persecution'' section:
==new photograph==
].]]
I have a new photograph which I would like to add to the article when it becomes unprotected. &ndash; ] 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


*Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
== Another good idea ==
:: source Falun Gong related website including FDI, FOFG, Clearwisdom.net
We should have the pictures of all deaths related to FLG.
We can put the CCP material right next to the FLG material.
That's also fair. This way, we can get a full body count.
Truth, compassion & forebearance is probably up more than
3,000 by now.
] 10:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


*Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.


Two paragraphs from the persectution section which are either not sourced at all, or cite one of Falung Gong's own websites:
== Not Such a Good Idea ==


*Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people). (footnote goes to a Falun Gong website, which cannot be used to verify this kind of information.)
I do not know about all of you, but actually, I am very tired of talking about the persecution against Falun Gong, I am tired of reading www.clearwisdom.net reports of deaths, and I am tired of seeing pictures of Falun Gong practitioners tortured to death. It is good to expose the persecution and eliminate the evil, but who wants to see those pictures all the time anyway? All of those practitioners who are still being tortured in China simply have not been able to free themselves from the evils den. We should help them of course when possible, but it seems to me they are mostly just simply enduring the evil's persecution as far as I can tell. They need to step up with their righteous thoughts to escape the persecution. Master Li has even said that even some new practitioners have developed supernormal powers, they can use these to escape the evil's persecution.


:: I can give sources. There are many. These are not controversial material.
As far as I know, that evil political party doesn't even have any material worth looking at. It made some videos, and then Falun Dafa practitioners ripped them apart with anaylsis and rational thinking, exposing all of the loopholes and lies.
::] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
*The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody. (cannot use Falun Gong’s own website to verify this information.)


:: source is Falun Dafa Information. FDI is a registered human rights organization, I understand.
Case in point,
http://www.falsefire.com/index1.htm


:::With Gail Rachlin and Zhang Erping in it. Seems like another FLG clone website. --] 12:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Who has seen this video yet? The Tiananmen Square Self-Immolation against Falun Dafa was the biggest hoax of the century. It was like a bad April Fools joke.....


A cursory review of the material submitted by pro-Falun Gong editors indicates that more unsourced or unverified material will come to light as we progress. But for now, can the other editors please respond to the above problems in the existing edits as soon as possible? If we don't hear back in a couple of days, I will delete the problem sections and sources. --] 08:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
== A Question ==


See tomanda, the material you are talking about here is nothing controversial - there is no comparing it with the kind of material you insist on introducing. Your statements, seem to suggest to me a threat to vandalize the article unless your material is unconditionally approved. Sorry, The Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. And you say the article was submitted at the "American Family Foundation".? See, I would better appreciate it if the article had appeared in an academic journal.
What about if only users who are signed in can use this page, and if a user abuses this privilege, he would be reprimanded, possibly unable to edit other protected sites, or maybe banned? ] 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
] 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Well, with all due respect. This article is about Falun Gong. FalunDafa.org doesn't promote Falun Gong, it only tries to offer people information about Falun Gong, information about what Falun Gong is...and then people themself can decide what they want to think about Falun Gong. It doesn't say on Falun Gong websites: "Falun Gong is really good, come and learn" does it? But your critics tries to make people think negative thoughts about Falun Gong, but the Falun Gong websites, which you call "pro-FLG websites"...gives people a chance to form their own opinions and understand what they want to understand..that is the main difference I think. Your critics force their own opinions on others, while other websites doesnt say good or bad things, they just offer people to have their own understanding. I think the big problem with you is, that you really believe that anything that isn't critical or negative is positive and adverstisement. That is why it is really hard to come to any conclusion with you. But the truth is, it isn't positive or negative. Also, this article is about Falun Gong, what Falun Gong is and how it works, so why can't we use websites that offers people information of Falun Gong? Such as the lectures or the book Zhuan Falun. (which FalunDafa.org does)
:Well, to answer to your question, i believe a punishment such as banning or being reprimanded, just like you suggested, should be applied to posters who repeatedly break the Misplaced Pages code of conduct. For example, engaging in personal attacks (quoting directly from wikipedia):
] 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Also, if you say all those things have to be removed, then I say the whole critics and contreversies section have to be removed, because as I see it, the whole section is "critics say" "critics point out" "Fang says" "Chang says". Absoloutly everything in the critics and conreversies section seem to be unsourced and based on personal opinions. ] 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme"


If you are saying it that way even Falungong teaching material eventually are unsourced. Li made up the stuff from his brain. Ideas are not necessarily fact and opinions to address these ideas can't be sourced to a fact. It's the opinion of a few learned individual that makes sense to us that we use to defend our stance. We can only write what's out there and the ideas currently circulating in the media. If the argument has been resolved then there is no problem. If the ideas are not resolved than both side gets put into the contraversy part. You can't stifle the critics by saying there is no source because ideas have no source beside the people that wishes to put out the idea. You can of course use reasoning to support both side of the argument. ] 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Or also creating an environment of "incivility" by:


Well, not really, Falun Gong teaching material isn't unsourced, because in that case you can say that Tai Chi, Bagua, Christianity, Buddhism, and Daoism is unsourced. You can even say God and people who believe in God are unsourced right? Well it isn't exactly like that, because it is individual belief. Falun Gong has a belief in something, for example that Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is a path to ones higher self. If it is like that or not, the reader can decide for themself. Nobody say it is or isn't like that. But what the critics that Tomananda uses say is: "It isn't like that, it isn't like that because I don't believe in it." This means that they are forcing their own opinions on others, do you understand what I mean?
"Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute."
Falun Gong practitioners only show people what they believe in, what others want to believe is up to themself. Thanks for your understanding. /] 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


You are beginning to sound like a commercial again. You don't need to repeat your Truth-Compassion_forbearance lecture again. I can add 3 word together and still get the same thing. Loyalty-Duty-Honor US armies' motto? Anyways as I've stated religion/cults/etcs are all ideas and sometimes you can't have a "source" the way you want it. When someone criticize an idea, you don't necessarily have to have a "source" the way you want it. FLG is an idea and so is the criticism to FLG teaching.
Which, even though its a petty example of how to create an environment of incivility, if you do it repeatedly and add a few posts here and there like "We dont need yor fancy answers" (reffering to FG editors). "How dishonest practitioners are!" Or calling someone a "scoundrel" or saying FG practitioners are "corrupted" and accusing them of "being deceptive". Also saying Falun Gong practitioners are "murderers", categorizing our arguments as "silly" and "false" "a rant" oh and also reffered to as "bull..." go figure. Then it becomes a rather significant matter. As you can see, there have been quite a few of those examples lately. What is even extremely ironic to the point of being sarcastic and maybe even a little funny is that after all this, they demand us to "refrain from personal attacks"...right.
] 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


An idea cannot cause ''"Drastic system-level changes of gene expression"''. Repetitive motion or relaxation or yoga is not known to alter gene expressions. Please note that the study by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard Johnson et al which states ''"the genes that are regulated in a consensus fashion among the practitioners can be grouped into several functional clusters, which are directly linked to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation"''.. an "idea" cannot really achieve all this. I myself have witnessed recovery from disease which I can only describe as "miraculous".
Im not saying FG practitioners behaviour is perfect or anything, we also make our mistakes of course, but there is a very significant difference between both behaviours, at least we dont go around posting all the time calling them liars, or "people who conceal the truth" and dismissing their own views and opinions because "They are FG practitioners" and "FG has a big credibility problem" and cataloguing it as pure lies. Even though there are two different parties involved in the making of this article, there should be some neutrality, going to the extreme (being extreme pro-FG or extreme anti-FG) isnt helping at all. If we FG editors believe a critic is not reporting Mr. Li's quotes appropriately and we all agree on this, then it is our point of view and our words should be listened too. Then after we give them our opinion of what they propose, if they listen to our point of view then we will definetly consider reaching an agreement through dialogue. The same goes the other way.
] 08:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


----
I understand any of the editors can get frustrated, wether the critics or the FG editors, but that doesnt mean almost each and every of the critics replies need to reflect that frustration through a direct offense against the other party. If you notice the environment we have right now on the talk page, it is all about "Fighting the evil cult of FG". There is no respect among the editors and this way we cannot work on the talk page, and this is the real reason why we urgently need an official mediator. But i strongly suggest we modify our behavior wether the mediator arrives or not so that we can make at least as much progress as we can on the article before or until he/she arrives.
Falun gong teachings online are online version of the paper copy. Also self-published sources have no problem to be cited to talk about themselves. ] 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please look at ] 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If we respect each others point of views and arguments whenever we disagree with them and discuss it while keeping a cool head im sure we can all reach to an agreement on anything and perhaps there wont even be a need for official mediation, but to me, right now, considering the situation, id say it seems rather utopic. So then is banning or reprimanding the only solution to this problem if the official mediator doesnt arrive?.--] 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Last call for ]!!! ==

We are still missing one or two of the named involved editors for ]. If any of you know the missing people, please contact them. If everyone isn't on board, the request will be automatically rejected! They have to sign by tomorrow or we start over again. The page could be locked for a much longer time as a result. --] 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:Copy-pasted from above:
::Two days left, Dilip rajeev, Omido and HResearcher have not yet responded to the request.
::#<s>Dilip rajeev: Informed '''14:07, 8 August 2006'''; last active '''14:19, 13 August 2006'''.
::#Omido: Informed '''14:18, 8 August 2006'''; last active '''14:12, 3 August 2006'''.
::#HResearcher: Informed '''14:18, 8 August 2006'''; last active '''06:11, 7 August 2006'''.
::<s>I think it's safe to say that Dilip rajeev does not want any mediation attempt.</s> And I think, that you made a mistake by adding any Tom Dick and Harry to the list of involved people.
:-- ''']]]''' 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
::Dilip has signed up. But I doubt the other two would. -- ''']]]''' 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, the field was so confused that I only picked the people who were active on the talk page for the week before, which is how Olaf got missed. I agree the next request should be a lot smaller. --] 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to not make our own conclusions. Article about Falun Gong can be really a short one.
If the article should be just about what the Falun Gong is, then quote just some apparent things (like "have 5 exercises and main book Zhuan Falun") offer links to all Falun Gong books and let reader make his own understanding.

:That doesn't work. If you read through the discussion archive, you will figure out the complexity of the issues surrounding this article. ---] 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think people are supposed to add themselves to the involved party list... -- ''']]]''' 02:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:And i dont think any editor is more important than any other on this project in order to "deserve" being placed on the list or to "authorize" the adding of more members to the involved party list.--] 05:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
::No, it's something called courtesy. If you think you deserve to be placed in the "involved parties" list, message Fire Star to do it. He filed the RfM, so he changes who's on there. -- ''']]]''' 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think im being courteous enough as to save him the trouble to do it.--] 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== A Tail of Two Masters ==

July, 2000 - Splits Emerging

One year after Beijing Communist Party banned Falungong as "an evil cult", the spiritual movement outside the mainland appears to be splitting into factions.

A number of overseas followers are now supporting Hongkong-based ] as the sect's new master, replacing ], who lives in New York.

Quoted from the Hong Kong Sect:
''We have only one great universal law and one master.''

''But the master can accommodate in different physical bodies,'' Ms Tao Hua Lian, a Chinese-Australian disciple of Ms Peng, told the Hongkong iMail on Friday.

''At the early stage, the master has shown up in (the physical body of) Li Hongzhi. Now Master ] is born,'' said Ms Tao, adding that Ms Peng declined to be interviewed.


The cases cited above do not involve practitioners talking about themselves. For example, in one of the self-published papers on a personal website Dr. Lili Feng makes claims of health benefits for people who practice Falun Gong. And in other examples cited above, there are claims of fact concerning events in China. --] 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hong Kong, the former British colony, reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, and whoever controls the group there has a chance of influencing Falun Gong's development in the rest of China.


== Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written ==
The assertion that the woman, ], 37, is the ''Lord of Buddhas'' has led to more of a cat fight than catharsis for the movement, which went underground on the mainland after Beijing banned the group a year ago. Mr. Li, who is now based in New York, and Ms. Pang have traded accusations on competing Web sites.


We cannot have a double standard on the issues of sources or the prohibition against original research. Dilip has recently deleted all quotes from the Deng and Fang paper presented at the 2000 Seattle, Washington conference of the American Family Foundation because the present citation is to a private website. While the Deng and Fang paper (once verified) will meet the source standard previously proposed by Covenenant and agreed to by several other editors (see above discussion), there are significant portions of pro-Falun Gong edits which do not meet that standard. Unless agreement is reached on some kind of compromise standard among all the editors, we will have no other choice than to delete a significant amount of material from the auxiliary pages. Here is a partial list:
The dispute began on May 11 -- celebrated as Buddha's birthday and, Mr. Li says, his birthday, too, though birth records in his hometown in China show otherwise. Ms. Pang, a tireless organizer in the Hong Kong chapter, organized a march through the city. Although only 24 people turned up, along the way most of them said they had experienced a vision of Ms. Pang seated in outer space while angels flew around her plucking flowers and dropping them to Earth. The flowers turned into raindrops when they hit the skin, said Mary Qian, one of those who said they saw the image.


1. Medical claims from Dr. Lili Feng and others contained in: “An Ancient Cultivation Practice Falun Gong Improves Neutrophil Functions and Causes System-level Gene Regulation” This is a self-published source and there is no evidence that the paper was presented at a conference or published elsewhere. The paper appears at: The home page is clearly a private Falun Gong web page at:
Mr. Li was quick to denounce Ms. Pang on the official Falun Gong site, www.minghui.ca. (Please note that Mr. Li says some vicious things about Ms. Prang in his Advance Teachings lectures that is published.


This material currently on page called: ''Research into health benefits'' of Falun Gong in the main page at: ]
Ms. Pang, who has drawn 30 hard-core believers, said all recent messages from Mr. Li were fakes, because he has left to ''quietly watch practitioners and people in the world'' from a cliff somewhere in the United States, where he is pictured in his last photo posted on the Falun Gong Web site, in January


2 Surveys conducted on practitioners which report unusually high cure rates of disease for those who practice Falun Gong. A private website (Falun Dafa Australia) is provided as the source:
Prior to the split, Ms. Prang lead the Hong Kong Falun Gong group, tirelessling organizing and spearheading many of the groups events.


This material is currently appears in section called ''Research into health claims'' on the main ] page.
'''Media links about the split'''


3. Report from Dr. Lili Feng, a Falun Gong practitioner, claiming that Falun Gong exercises boost the immune system and significantly increase life expectancy.


This material is currently reported in the section called ''Research into health claims'' appearing on the main ] page. No citation is provided, but I believe the source for this material is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If Dr. Feng’s research was not presented at a conference or published somewhere other than a Falun Gong website, it must be removed based on the new Dilip standard for sources.


4. Self-reported claims about what Falun Gong practitioners do and believe: For example, material reported in the section called ]:


*Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org
[http://www.falundafa.com.hk Falun Gong HK site
] Offline since the split. No Honk Kong Falun Gong group has been able to form since the split.


*It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.
--] 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Dilip states that the primary source for this material is , but that is a private website and the material, even if it exists as Dilip claims, amounts to original research. Editors who are Falun Gong practitioners cannot maker personal representations about what other practitioners, in general, do or believe. This topic was discussed at great length more than a month ago in the context of Li’s views on homosexuality.
Well, i do not think this material should be used in the creation of the article because the aricle reffers to Falun Gong itself. Any other splittings or attempts to form a "faction" out of falun gong should not be considered since these parties who claimed they "have a new master" and so on, cannot be associated with Falun Gong in any way. And i think so because they may have their claims but Mr. Li who is the founder of FG has not authorized any splitting of FG or the creation of a new faction in anyway. So regardless of what they say, they have nothing to do with FG. And what this person in Taiwan claims of Mr Li going quietly to the mountains seems to be rather wrong since Mr. Li still goes to the Fa conferences in USA and presents himself to speak about FG.


5. Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:
Also, dont you think adding details like this will make FG topic on wikipedia waaaay to large? If you think its really pertinent to dedicate a page or a subsection of any page to speaking about this claims from someone in Taiwan then i believe we could reach to an agreement, but i would like to see what writing you have for it so all FG editors can look at it, give their opinions and perhaps propose some edits. What is your opinion?--] 07:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


*The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
== Pages added that relate to Falun Gong ==
*Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
*Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.


This material currently appears in the page called ]. An editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors. Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.
Added page for
]
We should create a page for ].
--] 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


6. Additional unsourced or unverified material appearing in the page called ]:
Added page for ] an outspoken Chinese critic of Falun Gong and Mr. Li Hongzhi
--] 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


*Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
I took a look at these pages and Im sorry but i must say they are not neutral at all, specially the writing on it. For example, on the page of Peng, FG is reffered to as a "cult" or "sect" and we FG practitioners do not agree with this denomination. perhaps links to the critics pages could be included along with pro FG pages too but making wiki pages exclusively for critics seems a bit too much dont you think so?--] 07:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites. This does not
== Li Hongzhi and the patent ==
meet the standard of verification that is needed.


*Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.
I am researching this issue as reported by
Clumsy fraud, harmful heresy: PD commentary


What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful? We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.
I think that this issue needs to be explored and included on the pages.


7. A paragraph about the Zhongnanhai protest alleging that practitioners were beaten by the police and that the Chinese media reports of the protest were incaccurate. Material in the page called ] is either not sourced at all, or cites one of Falung Gong's own websites:
--] 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


*Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people).
Im sure you can understand that it is pretty hard for me to take this article seriously since, id dare to say its to the outmost extreme of even being fanatically partialized. Still, id like to make a few comments on it:
I do not believe it is possible that this report of Mr. Jing Zhanyi could have been published just like that, and even less athorized by Mr. Li since he strictly forbid the publication of any other documents regarding FG that are not written by him or examined thoroughly and approved by him and there is no evidence that he signed the approval for the publication of these document.


This paragraph, which clearly represents a POV about what happened, does not have any source other than a Falun Gong website.
It is almost impossible for me to believe he could have authorized the spreading of this document that reflects this students "personal experience" or we would also be seeing many of these type of documents from different practitioners going back and forth among many peoples hands.i think It is even against the principles of Falun Gong to do such a thing because if you publish documents of practitioners claiming they "opened their eyes of heaven" in just a month of practice and things like that, this could generate attatchments on FG practitioners and damage their own personal cultivation.


8. A subsequent paragraph in the same section which claims that 2,840 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody in China.
I believe the only moment where there has been any talk about practitioners personal experiences is at the Fa conferences which are destined for Falun Gong practitioners to share their experiences and help each other on their process of cultivation. Thus, i do not think it should be included in the pages. Besides i think it is not helpful to post anti-FG stories like this that dont really seem to have enough substantial evidence to back them up and that lessen the netrality of the topic ( which is FG) that we want to expose to the public who may not have any knowledge about it.--] 07:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


*The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.
== Li Hongzhi Wiki Page ==


The source provided for this information is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If this claim cannot be verified by a non-Falun Gong source, it must be deleted.
This page was completely made by the critics, how can there be any neutrality over this? also, the "Patent" subsection on the page which was "suggested" on this talk page, was actually added to that page too and nobody is doing anything about it. That means if you have the right to edit pages without consensus from both parties, then perhaps i feel i also have the right to do some edits on that page dont i?. Alright, ill "suggest" some neutral edits and since i want to respect the code of conduct from wikipedia (unlike you), ill let you give me your opinion on these edits, then we'll discuss about it, modify so that both parties can be satisfied about the result and then ill post it on the talk page, im sure there will be no problem in doing so.
If you make edits without consulting all the involved editors, then think im being kind enough to ask for your opinion and some neutrality when posting my edits.


9. In a subsequent paragraph, a sentence reporting unverified practitioners’ claims that practitioners are not encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine:
Apparently, i believe the critics objective is to make Mr. Li look like someone who is telling lies to everyone of their practitioners claiming to be a "divinity" and got caught in the process. This can be clearly seen since the second paragraph of introduction:


*A frequent argument made by Chinese scientists is that followers are encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional ]. Falun Gong practitioners point out that no such incident has been reported outside China and that such accusations surfaced only after the persecution started.
'''"But as reported by the Chinese government he was born on July 7, 1952; he “changed his date of birth to make it coincide with the birthday of Sakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, in an attempt to show that he was the reincarnation of Sakyamuni,” the government claims".'''


Even if this claim of practitioners came from a verifiable source other than a Falun Gong website, it is directly contradicted by the Master’ own teachings:
If you are quoting the government made a direct accussation towards Mr. Li for "attempting to show that he is the reincarnation of Sakyamuni" and even though we all know he never even said anything like it, then i think you will have to include Falun Gong's opinion on this matter. Its very non neutral that you make a sentence saying "FG claims he was born on this day, but the government claims he was born on this other day '''because he is trying to show he is the reincarnation of Sakyamuni'''" This last added little detail already takes of the neutrality of the article. If you want to post it, then you let us voice our opinion on the matter.
:Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication? Falun Gong, revised edition, Chapter Five, Questions and Answers, p. 82.


10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”
*CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as ). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as '']'', tend to be conservative and anti-]. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.
1. I would suggest "Whereas Falun Gong practitioners claim Mr. Li has never mentioned he is the reincarnation of Sakyamuni and that the Chinese Government tried to mess with the birth dates to try to discredit him" Well...i guess its a start, id like to know what other FG editors think about this and how we can modify this suggestion to make it more accurate. From the critics id like to know if you agree with this suggestion and it subsecuent modifications or if you decide to erase that added detail on the above mentioned paragraph.


This unsourced material also violates Misplaced Pages’s policy against original research and NPOV. Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.” The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.” Actually, the exact opposite is true: Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party. This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--] 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Tomanda,Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. We dont copy content sentence by sentence from websites. Please remember that the health survey mentions the researchers and medical institutions involved.
2. '''"No one seems to know who Master Li is and his followers conceal information about him, noted Nina Willdorf from Boston Phoenix. “Talk to several local practitioners, and certain patterns emerge."''' What in the world is this? directly accussing practitioners of lying and concealing information with no substantial evidence AND in a wikipedia article? This is outrageous and offensive, tell me now where is there any neutral point of views? where is the falun gong practitioners side on this part of the article? there is none, its only made by the critics. If edits such as the creation of this Wiki page are not made in consensus then its a violation of the rules, NPOV, how many times has this been said?. This sentence will be eliminated, if you do not want it eliminated then give us a really, really and i mean really good reason not to do it.


I am taking the from discussion on the criticism page:
'''"No one knows much about Master Li's past or present, and followers are reluctant to discuss even what little they do know about him.” Falun Gong’s official website, Clearwisdom.net, introduces the Master with a saintly sketch:".''' "Saintly sketch" this is so cynical and sarcastic that it even sounds a bit funny, you know, i think its pretty bold of you to go around creating these kind of wikipages and not only making them partialized but even attacking FG practitioners and insulting us directly and not happy with that, you add a large dosis of sarcasm and irony. In a personal note: The fact that you spoke with some practitioners and they seemed reluctant to speak about what they know from Mr. Li doesnt mean any practitioner you come up to will answer the same way, thats generalizing way too much, it even sounds unreasonable and implies we are in some way embarassed or ashamed to speak about our own practice and we conceal the truth about it, thats a very wrong judgement. This other sentence will also be eliminated, of course, but if you want, we can leave the part that says "No one knows much about Mr. Li's past or present" if you really want to say we are reluctant to speak about him then directly make it a claim from the critics and let us answer to it with our input. Things have to be fair.


As for the research paper by Richard Johnson et al, it is a scientific medical paper. Solid genome profiling done by experts in the field from Microarray Core, Center for Immunology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Baylor College of Medicine and Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. I will get you a list of journals in which the paper has appeared these include the JACM. A similar, version of the paper that appeared in JACM is: http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf ( not exactly the same paper but drawing upon results from genome profiling done on Falun Gong practitioners and the micro-array analysis of gene expression levels of PMNs in Falun Gong practitioners.) Another source for the paper is http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2397.html
'''"According to this biography at the age of four Li began his decades-long training that prepared him to be the greatest Master of all time"''' You know, i just read the biography and there isnt anywhere that says he was preparing himself to be the "greatest master of all time" so i will suppose this is another of your neverending sarcastic remarks.
] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This specifically is what I would like to point out. What we are looking at is research material by experts in the field. We are interested in what Steve Hassan says but what is presented at a family association conference, in which anybody (including you and me) may present their opinions, is of little significance to an encyclopaedia article. For instance, Samuel presented something at that "conference", can we use that? Certainly not. No personal offense intented I am just pointing out that wikipedia standard dont allow such material. For instance, practitioners present their experiences in Fa conferences around the world. Many practitioners are prominent medical scientists, martial artists, professors and so on.. We can get an opinion from the professors in the Falun Dafa practice groups of Yale or Harvard ... but we really cant present all their opinions here.... what qualifies as a paper, in my understanding, is something accepted by the academic community or something that has appeared in a reputed journal.
] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


:Sorry Dilip but your post fails to address the specific problems cited in items #1-10 above, and I don't remember saying anything about the Richard Johnson source you talk about, or for that matter anything about Samuel's presentations at annual AFF conferences. Right now, I request that you focus on the actual issues I have raised. --] 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
'''"He could levitate off the ground and become invisible simply by thinking “Nobody can see me!” The other two supernatural abilities the young Master acquired were controlling others’ movements by thoughts and teleportation—he could move himself anywhere he wanted by thought alone."''' According to the biography, Mr. Li acquired many supernatural powers that do not limit themselves to just "controlling people's thoughts" and "Being invisible". Also, even though the biography states he could become invisible just by thinking it, adding to your paragraph that he could "become invisible simply by thinking "nobody can see me" sounds sarcastic too and ill tell you why: This sentence i just reffered to was written this way in order to contextualize one of Mr. Li's experiences in the environment of his childhood. So, since we are reffering to this biography in a more formal way and we are not intending to contextalize any element on our paragraph to create a proper environment in order to understand such experiences, i dont think it should be added this way or else it does tend to sound a bit sarcastic if you ask me.


The research was done by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard J. Johnson, Gabriela E.Garcia, Ping Li, Tongwen Wang, and Lili Feng
I would suggest this quote "...at the age of eight, the young adept attained many supernatural powers" as an explanation to this matter. However, if youd like to include some of those stories and complicate things by going into detail about the supernatural powers then i think FG editors would have to explain their views on how supernatural powers exist and their logic according to FG in order to provide a proper, more neutral understanding that could show the reader why these stories have appeared on the biography and what is FG position regarding them.
] 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I also want to point out that there is no need to vandalize the whole article saying not every sentence is copied from other websites. But since you insist, I will provide the sources. Consider for instance these :
'''"The article makes one point clear: all the trainings took place at night in secret locations where no one could witness them."''' whats the point of this? forgive me if im wrong but perhaps you are generalizing way too much. Besides, the training the first and second master gave him do not speak of anything related to night training. Appart from that, i dont see the relevance of this sentence.
Leavy, Mark J. Note. Discrediting human rights abuse as an "act of state": a case study on the repression of the Falun Gong in China and commentary on international human rights law in U.S. courts. 35 Rutgers L.J. 749-823 (2004)


The Harvard Human Rights Journal.


Investigation Reports on the Persecution of Falun Gong, v.1. Hyde Park, MA
'''"Despite the biography’s recounting of intensive, decades-long physical and moral training that only legendary saints and heroes undergo, it doesn’t provide the basic background information of Master Li’s life. Master Li apparently grew up in a vacuum."'''
I think i just got tired of repeating myself but ill tell you, statements like this are the ones that give off a really bad image of wikipedia and compromise its integrity, its called "vandalism" and if these statements and claims are not removed or modified as quickly as possible, we'll find a way to report this kind of behaviour. I guess i dont need to say this should be eliminated too. You have no idea how many wikipedia rules you just outrageously and carelessly broke with this little remark.


or What the paper titled "The Perseuction of Falun Gong" by Chandra D Smith from the Rutgers Journal of Law says:
Not only are you issuing personal attacks, creating an environment of incivility on the context of the article, but you are also using weasel words in order to give the "illusion" of being neutral in three or two sentences along all the article. Quoted from wikipedia '''"Please avoid the temptation to use Misplaced Pages for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not."''' and i believe you are using wikipedia in order to defame falun gong and speak ill of it instead of actually wanting to create an article. If you really wanted to create and article, you would also consult with the oppossite party when making edits and you would not be breaking the guidelines just like you have been doing for quite a while.


http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
While looking at this Mr. Lihongzhi wiki page i realized not only did you violate all this other rules i mentioned before but i believe your edits and the sarcastic and ironic way you present them in general constitute an act of "vandalism" and it is a serious offense of wikipedia policies.


For instance, this journal says:
As stated by wikipedia's guidelines and code of conduct (which i recommend you read a bit) "Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought" we are not here to advertise or defame falun gong and even less to attack other editors and label them of liars and such.
<blockquote>
''"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”''


-''Rutgers Journal of Law''
To conclude i would like to add a quote concerning the critics behaviour on the wikipedia discussion page which has caused articles like this Wiki page from Li Hongzhi to appear.
</blockquote>
Infact the above paper in itself substantiates most of the content in the paragraphs you picked out. Please go through it. I will provide detailed sources if you insist.


] 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Please take the time to read the following paragraph also quoted from wikipedia


: Dilip, your post above doesn't address the specific issues of verificable sources and no original research which I raised. I would like to see us cooperate, which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10. If you can provide verificable sources for some of the material above (other than using Falun Gong's own websites) that would be great. In other cases, some of those sentences need to be re-written and I am sure we will wind up with some that just need to be deleted. But for now I'm willing to give you a little time to respond before doing any edits in those three pages. Thanks.--] 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages is not a battleground


Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.


''''Moderators, is it in-line with wiki etiquette to threaten to vandalize the article unless material is unconditionally aproved?''' It is not what you or I feel. The wuestion is wether the material meets wiki standards. And we are not concerned about copying material line for line from other websites... And Misplaced Pages sets standards on the kind of material that can be used has a source... a personal opinion submitted at a family conference cannot act as a source.
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.
] 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


The Rutger's Journal oF Law:
'''When a conflict continues to bother you or others''', adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf


This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material:
Also, do not '''create''' or modify articles '''just to prove a point...'''"
<blockquote>
''"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''"Fearing the Falun Gong could prove to be a political threat, the Chinese government began a systematic and violent campaign against the spiritual movement. The Chinese crackdown on Falun Gong has proven to be rather successful. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Falun Gong began as anything more than a spiritual exercise. There is no evidence that Falun Gong had any political aspirations."''
</blockquote>
-''Rutgers Journal of Law''
</blockquote>


Tomananda, the fake slander from criticism has to go, you don't need to come with threats, they don't work on cultivators. We told you why it has to go, so it has to go. It's obvious that you are acting quite irrational and saying some wicked things. Well, so may be. /] 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If you keep it up and the official mediation comitee rejects our petition in any way, im going to the Arbitration Comitee to report your behaviour and request a ban. If the official mediator arrives, you can be completely sure that i will report this behaviour to him/her in order to take proper action regarding this behaviour.--] 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


:Yes, Dilip, it is a matter of how our editing meets Misplaced Pages standards and I have carefully laid out 10 specific problem areas in the edits which I believe do not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significant material from the Criticism page without discussion...I have not deleted anything on your Teachings or Persecution pages. Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question. And now we have a new practitioner named Omido making personal accusations towards me and issuing grand statements such as "We told you why( the reasons) it has to go, so it has to go."
== Wiki is not neutral, just complete ==
Where does it say that the pros & cons can not be presented side by side? The "instructions" from "Master" Li were that you
either had to be for FLG or neutral. You refuse to allow any opposing points of view to even be considered and attack those
responsible. That's the height of religious descrimination.
] 01:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


:At this point I am one person having a dialogue with three Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to offer even a modicum of cooperation in the editing process--and two of you have provoked revert wars which resulted in freezing the article for weeks at a time. You also accuse me of of being irrational because I have introduced critical material into the article. This kinda makes me think about all those media people in China who were besieged with thousands of Falun Gong practitioners in their offices demanding that they retract all criticism of the Falun Gong. Did those thousands of allegedly peaceful and tolerant practioners in Tianjin use the same kind of rhetoric that Omido uses on me today: "We told you why it has to go, so it has to go." ?
:You misunderstood my post, pros & cons can be presented side by side, but all i see is the cons and not the pros, just look at the Li Hongzhi wiki page, its a mess. The pros & cons should also be exposed properly and neutraly, that means that you cannot expose more pros than cons or more cons than pros, there should be a balance. Did you read all my message? and i dont remember hearing anything about any instructions from Mr Li, could you explain yourself?.
:Im not religious, im not a fanatic and i dont discriminate, i suggest you do not make such claims without proper understanding of what my message is reflecting.
:The problem is you see all the cons as a fact, an absolute truth, and that happens because you do not want to listen to the FG editors position. If we are going to speak in terms of discrimination id say the critics are the ones who discriminate us, they are not open to listen to our suggestions or our point of view just because we are FG practitioners. Evidence of that is that they do edits without also consulting with us, WE are also editors as well arent we? and also they label us as liars, so everything we say is a lie to them, they dont even take us seriously, im guessing you know this is discrimination as well.
:Concerning the title of your message "wiki is not neutral, just complete" thats your own understanding, or else, give me evidence that wikipedia states information should not be exposed with a neutral point of view or in a neutral way but instead, how the information is presented depends on the efforts the editors from both parties make in order to prove their point.--] 02:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


:Mirabovsky,Fire Star, Covenant and the other editors: what shall we do next? --] 08:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:And you wonder why, after that litany, we requested a mediator?
There's a good book: "Groo, Mightier than the Sword". Basically, he who controls the press also controls the people.
Setting up your own "newspaper" & "tv" station are the same thing.
:As for the for or neutral agrument, go back & ask your own people. I got the speech from the ex several times.
:As for my own FLG experience, I also got that from the ex. I was even trying to help her at one point, then I realized what FLG was; however, it was too late for her.
:I believe the Chinese Press about as much as I believe the FLG press - both are suspect. The Chinese just happen to do a much better job at presenting actual people - not just a listing of names.
:If you are FLG, then you are a religious fanatic. It's impossible to have a conversation without FLG coming up. I know, I tried. One good example was dinner with the ex last night. She shows up with a "friend". She only has FLG friends and no one else. I gave up even asking. They show up 1 hour late and start in with the FLG conversion. I brought up a simple point. The fact that I am Catholic never came up. Needless to say, it went over their head. I am going to play with the kid, have a good day.
] 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Tomanda, look at your own edits. Omid's reply was to your apparent threat to vandalzie the article unless the material in unconditionally accepted. Omid, was only emphasizing that the reasons for scrutinizing such a source has been carefully explained... and there is no point in engaging in threats or attacks..
First of all, im not wondering why you requested a mediator. Secondly, Your ex's behaviour concerning FG doesnt relate to the entirety of FG, she has her own attatchments and problems and we are all different. I dont go around talking about FG to everyone or trying to "convert" people, i think its really senseless to try to convince someone to like something they do not like. I may give away some flyers on the street from time to time or just briefly mention FG is something good if the topic comes up, i could extend myself a bit if the person im talking to is interested. I dont limit myself to having FG friends, i dont care if someone practices or not, its not a requisite to make a good friendship. Someone can be a FG practitioner and not follow the guidelines accordingly. Ive met non-practitioners who are a lot much better people than a few FG practitioners ive met, and these good people dont like FG, does that make them bad people? no.
] 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because you had this experience with your ex doesnt mean all practitioners are like this, i dont behave like your ex and im a FG practitioner.
See? there goes the labeling again "If you are FLG, then you are a religious fanatic" says who? how many thousands of practitioners have you met in order to make that generalization? FG is not even a religion, i find it offensive that you label me as a religious fanatic and dont even know me at all. If your wife is very attatched to this practice then thats her business and she needs to fix that as a practitioner, that doesnt mean all FG people are like that.
If the student of a class has bad grades in a certain subject, that doesnt mean all the students of the same class have a bad grade on the same subject.--] 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)




_______________________________________________________________________________________________


Well Tomananda, that is your way of seeing it. As I see it, we told you why it has to go. And you responded by saying "but Teachings and Persecution are also unsourced, if my critics have to be removed then teaching and persecution also have to be removed".
Cj cawley, how did it go with the trial?


by Tomananda: "...which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10."
Who is asking? Also, I am not allowed to discuss material related to the trial. There should even be a section for things like that in the wiki page. Thanks for the suggestion.


This sounds like a delete threat to me.
As for Andres comments, the ex was not alone. The first pass through was 5 FLG people + the ex vs. 1 highlander. Do you want me to continue?


As for the religious fanatics, just pickup your own paper. The only thing missing is a Fatwah ordering the deaths of Chinese officials. Everything else is in there. Actually, we should also add a section for that too.


Back to playing with the kid.
] 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


by Tomananda: "Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."
The purpose of my original message which you call "litany" proposed some edits for the li hongzhi wiki page and also issued a warning. Why dont we stop this discussion which seems to be going nowhere and concentrate on answering to these proposals or creating another thread you may have in mind in order to advance at least a little bit before the mediator arrives? or are we supossed to wait for him/her?--] 12:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


answer from Dilip:
Warning, wow, just let you know I am not afraid of your FAlun Gong supernatual powers. --] 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Rutger's Journal oF Law: http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf
This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material"


As admins can see, Dilip answered his question, but he still says that Dilip responded with "...a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."
Oh im not going to do anything, thats the official mediator's job, not mine.--] 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


by Tomananda: "Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significiant sections of the Criticism page without discussion..."
Actually cawley, its seems as you don't know what you are talking about, you have been brainwashed. 213.114.166.253 19:11, 20 August 2006

It seems that all critics of Falun Gong are brainwashed by Master Li. :-) --] 20:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

==Request to put up photo==
]'s ]]]'''I don't have any opinion on the Falun Gong''', I just want to know if I can put a photograph of practitioners in New York City I took today? The main way I try to create value to Misplaced Pages is by contributing photographs, even for entries as mundane as ] and ]. Here's the photo to the right. --] 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a good idea. what happens if every practitioner contributes a picture or everyone coming to this site contribute a picture? --] 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'''I don't particularly care for slippery slope arguments''' which boil down to, "Don't make a sound decision today because we may need to make a sound distinction tomorrow." There's a lot of good ideas people shoot down because ''this may get out of hand.'' These pages are meant to carry value for their readers; adding a photograph of what the article is about can improve its quality exponentially. Images give readers a "full picture" so to speak. I don't think it has to be my photograph, but I think a photograph of its practice is warranted, and would make this page more complete. By your reasoning, Yueyuen, nothing in Misplaced Pages would get accomplished. What if everyone wanted to contribute to an article? The whole idea behind Misplaced Pages is community contribution--what you are concerned about is exactly what Misplaced Pages stands for. It's up to the other members of the community to collectively decide to keep or ditch a photograph. My photograph, in particular, only shows practice--it doesn't show protest or make any other statement except perhaps that people from differing backgrounds do Falun Gong, in this case in New York City. If you look at my contributions, you will see I have no agenda--just photography. So, this photgraph was taken with a "neutral" perspective --] 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:DavidShankBone welcome to the Falun Gong mess. Since you are new here you might not be aware of the edit wars that have been going on on all Falun Gong pages. Believe it or not pictures have been a source of contention. Falun Gong practiiotners only want pictures like yours that deliever a nice image of the group, they would not allow pictures that reflect the true nature of the Falun Gong. For example, on Li Hongzhi’s page his pictures are repeatedly deleted by practitioners, why would they do that? It is because they do not want the world to know that the FG is a religion, a cult to be exact. --] 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'''I understand, and I will leave it up to the page to decide''' - there are other pages where I can place the photograph. It does a disservice to this page to not have one. But as a note to all vested parties - I do not have a horse in this race, and as a reader of Misplaced Pages I would find an image like mine--not necessarily mine--to be useful. One thing that can be agreed upon is the fact "Falun Gong practice outdoors and in public spaces." This is a photo of this fact, whether you like the FG or not. It does not hold a value--I'm Episcopalian, so I just took a photograph of something I see. With that in mind, I will leave it for those who have a vested interest in this page to decide, and I will move on. But I bet if the ] page could work out its differences (that's the Middle East!), than so can all of you - best of luck. --] 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:We are waiting for a mediator, hopefully he/she can enlighten us. good luck. --] 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth Yueyuen? Obviously you have listened to the CCP propaganda. Falun Dafa is not a cult nor a religion, it is a qiqong cultivation school within the Buddha-School.



==Publicity shots of practitioners do not consititute evidence of spirituality==

*True spiritual realization does not depend on the appearance of anything (eg: how sweet the faces of Falun Gong practitioners look in a PR picture), but rather a deeper reality which is not of form or name. Because Li Hongzhi is so attached to his reputation (criticizing his teachings is one of the worst sins you can commit)he has created a flock of disciples who devote themselves to concealing and spinning his teachings to make them acceptable to the west. I challenge any fair minded person to read what the Falun Gong practitioners have said about their beliefs in Misplaced Pages and then compare that to what Li says Falung Gong is in his lectures and poems.

*In the practitioner-written stuff you'll find no mention of Li as exclusive savior; people being weeded out by Li's fa-rectification; the requirment that practitioners work to destoy the Chinese Communist party as a condition for their salavation; Li's promise to turn them into gods if they do their duty and expose the evil, wicked CCP or the demonization of homosexuality.

*The pretty pictures are all part of the big lie...a total distortion of the Falun Gong for the western audience so that Li can further his goal of destroying the Chinese Communist party, while at the same time not raising suspicions of western reporters and politicians. After all, if the Falun Gong is the enemy of the big bad regime in China, it must be good, right? And boy, just look at how peaceful those practtioners all look as they meditate and send forth their self-rigteous thoughts to save the universe from the likes of me. --] 07:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you just knew the effects of sending forth righteous thoughts :)

== The World Needs Truthfullness, Compassion, and Tolerance ==

I think this is an excellent idea. Everyone should contribute photographs of Falun Dafa, and the whole world will see their kindness and compassion, and their peaceful Fa-Spreading activities. Let's see more Falun Dafa Photographs!

Isn't this fair? The article is about Falun Gong after all, shouldn't we have pictures of Falun Gong!?

I WANT FALUN GONG PHOTOS!

:)

I have some to submit, how do I submit Falun Dafa photographs?

]

{| align="center" border="1" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="FFCCCC" bordercolor="000000"
| ]
| '''Please make sure to ''Sign your name''!!!'''
''This is required in Misplaced Pages's ].''
|}


This is a complete lie and you know it. We have discussed with you over and over again that the Fang and Chang and all those "critics say" quotes that you have been getting from personal sites should not be used in this article. You responded with things that you think should be deleted from the Teaching and Persecution section. Dilip gave you the sources for most of those points, and you still accuse him for many things. I think that it is not the right way to handle things, that is why I called you irrational. If you were offended, I apologize, it was not my intention to offending you /] 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with the pictures. Since FLG has no membership "list", pictures are the next best thing. One picture, one name. This way, the CCP agents will have an easier time collating the names & faces. You will be saving them a lot of work. When FLG members are banned from peaceful countries like Iceland, they will have faces to go with the names. :)-
] 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


::Photos posted here should be in consideration for the article. Since that article is locked (and likely to stay that way for a long time to come) the point is moot. --] 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


== Mirabovsky: Can you issue a warning to the new practitioner/editor named Omido? ==
== Violations of Falun Gong's human rights in China ==
''"According to the U.S. State Department's annual human rights report, Falun Gong prisoners are required to work long hours daily in "extrajudicial reeducation-through-labor camps." Others are placed in psychiatric facilities or special deprogramming centers. In addition, human rights groups allege that detainees are often deprived of food and water, are denied bathroom facilities, and are sometimes forbidden to sleep. The State Department report adds that several hundred Falun Gong adherents reportedly have died in detention due to torture, abuse and neglect."'' --] 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Mirabovsky, in the midst of all the above chatter, I have just discovered that Omido exeeded her/his three revert limit between 5:49 and 5:59 on 30 May in the Criticism page. Her/his series of edits were identified as vandalism by Ami Daniel and reverted to an earlier version. In essence, Omido deleted critical material that has been in the article for a long time, including material from Maria Chang who wrote the book: ''Falun Gong: The End of Days''. In doing these deletions you can discover in the History that she deleted the following wording at the end of a sentence: "while commentators generally come to an opposite condlusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes:" But evidently she/he missed that a block quote from Maria Chang's book followed. So the effect of that particular edit was to preserve a block quote, but delete the author's reference. So much for taking care of our sources citations in Misplaced Pages! Anyway, I think Omido deserves to get some kind of warning for her/his editing behavior...including, by the way, the accusations she/he made to me in an earlier post. --] 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The article is invalid. It claims to be written by two different people in two different places & references a third for a contact. Next time you post something like that, you should at least get all of them on the same page in the same place.
] 01:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:47, 20 November 2024

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FALUN GONG DISCUSSION FORUM! Please, add new messages pertaining to editing the FLG article at the bottom of this page.

It is suggested that new readers of this "talk page" read the archived discussions below. It is likely that an issue of concern has already been discussed. As a result, a would-be poster can save the Wikipedian community time and effort spent on otherwise rehashing an issue if this responsbility is undertaken. 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. We don't want a puff piece for Falun Gong or Li Hongzhi, neither do we want to demonise them. If we have an objectively neutral, factual article one hopes the truth will speak for itself, however we may subjectively perceive it.

Untitled

Archived discussion:

Starting over, take Four hundred or so

All previous discussions have been archived. Shall we start by looking at the article bit by bit?

Does anybody have suggestions to improve the opening paragraphs of the article, the ones that appear above the Table of Contents? CovenantD 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong (simplified Chinese: 法轮功; traditional Chinese: 法輪功; pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).)

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. The Falun Gong came to the attention of the Chinese government when 10,000 practitioners protested peaceful at Zhongnanhai the compound of Chinese top leaders on April 25, 1999.

After the crackdown, the number of Falun Gong practitioners in China was estimated by the government at 2.1 million . The number of practitioners claimed by Falun Gong is much larger, with 100 million followers worldwide including over 70 million in China.

Well, it seems pretty good to me. Neutral, brief, and in line with other articles of a similar nature on WP. We shouldn't call FLG a "cult" (as has happened) nor call Li Hongzhi a living god in the intro, (as has happened with only the slightest exaggeration on my part). --Fire Star 火星 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That's because dilip, ONCE AGAIN, made changes before there was agreement. I'm getting fucking sick and tired of it. CovenantD 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just changed it back to what is in the article. CovenantD 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I did something wrong I was trying to introduce the New York times figure. which was actually present in "the article". I wonder which is "the article" you are referring to.Anyway, Covenant, I leave it to you to decide wether saying Falun Gong was banned for illegal activities is correct or not and also wether to include the New York Times figure.Dilip rajeev 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Should it not be Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is... for proper grammar? Skinnyweed 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. CovenantD 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. It is easy enough to change the existing version to the one above. What Dilip and other "pro-FLG" editors have consistently demonstrated IMO is an agenda regarding the uncritical promotion of FLG, as well converting as many other editors to their religion as possible. Until that agenda can be laid aside, their credibility for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article (as opposed to a simple advertisement) is compromised, as far as I am concerned. --Fire Star 火星 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FACTS are what I want in the article neither my opinion nor anybody else's. Is inclusion of the NY Times figure promoting Falun Gong? I dont understand. Please point out which non-factual/unsourced material I have tried to add . Thankyou. Dilip rajeev 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. "The article," when I use it in this context, is the first three paragraphs of the main Falun Gong article attached to this talk page. Use of NY Times figures is an appropriate, verifiable source, and seems to fit in with the rest of the last paragraph. I'll address the legallity/illegality issue further down this page in it's own section. CovenantD 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits

Personally I'd prefer to see the second sentence of the second article say "alleged illegal activities." I'm not familiar with Chinese legal systems, but based on US perceptions one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since Falun Gong hasn't been put on trial, it all seems to be allegations at this point. CovenantD 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the last sentence of that same paragraph should read "peacefully" rather than "peaceful." Simple grammar. I'll leave it to others to debate the claims. CovenantD 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And remember, our comments should address only the article and NOT other editors motivations or beliefs or recent behaviour. CovenantD 04:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I am ready to move forward too. The term “illegal activities” has been there for a while and editors from both sides seem to have no problem with it. So I say it should stay. What do you think? --Samuel Luo 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm good either way. CovenantD 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Falun Gong has been the focus of international controversy since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999 for its illegal activities."

Which illegal activities? I don't understand. All I have heard is the propaganda that CCP used to turn the chinese people agains Falun Gong. Here illegal activities should be removed. Omido 08:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I know it, Falun Gong actually was encouraged by the government before the persecuton. They invited Teacher Li to hold sessions etc. But after the number of practitioner grew to above 100 million, Jiang Zemin got jeaoulous because Falun Gong had more members then the CCP has, and made it illegal..starting the persecution. Omido 08:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that it is illegal. This nullifies your first comment. Any other suggestions for edits? I'll give it another 16 hours, then we'll move on. CovenantD 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't acknowledge that the movement itself does illegal activites. Rather that the CCP banned it in China, that means persecuting it. The movement itself has never been doing anything illegal, that would go against the principle of Kindness/Compassion. As it looks now, it looks like Falun Gong did illegal activities and then got banned, but that is completely wrong. Falun Gong was "banned" because of other reasons, it didnt do anything illegal. Omido 09:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We dont have to speculate wether its "illegal" or not. The earlier version didnt say "illegal". Neither was the term "illegal" agreed upon in any talk page discussion. I dont think there is any need to spend 16 hours on that. Please see the intro. ( Changes: Mentions there is a supression - doesnt speculate wehter it is for "illegal" or "legal" activities. Introduced New York Times figure. (70 million) ) . Let us move on to deciding the proper subsections and the intro paragraphs. Dilip rajeev 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • These illegal activities should be spell out. I propose to add this sentence to the first paragraph: in the core of the Falun Gong belief system is a belief that the morally corrupt humankind is facing annihilation, only Master Li and his Falun Dafa can save the world. --Yueyuen 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
IF that is a factual statement, I have no problem with it being included. Would others care to comment on this proposed addition? CovenantD 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement sums up the core beliefs of the Falun Gong, it should be included. --Samuel Luo 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Li's biography & Miborovsky protecting the page

Sorry, I promised to devote more time to Misplaced Pages, but it hasn't worked out so far. I'm working and trying to finish some my studies at the same time. There's one issue I've requested repeatedly: I asked Samuel Luo to provide direct quotes from Li's biography, so that we can put them into quotation marks. He has not replied.

Another thing I find peculiar is that Miborovsky has locked the page, even though he has been involved in editing the article in the past, and he is by no means impartial. I don't know whether this conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. Shouldn't we always ask for an outsider?

---Olaf Stephanos 11:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Olaf. Yeah, even when locking the page. why lock a page he prefers? If we can look at the history , (cur) (last) 00:14, 25 May 2006 Miborovsky m (Protected Falun Gong: ok that's it, apparently everyone insists on being revert-happy ) (cur) (last) 23:57, 24 May 2006 Yueyuen (anyone compares these two version can see that. You should talk with others before making big changes, I am not the only one complaining, check your mail box) (cur) (last) 23:52, 24 May 2006 Fnhddzs (ok. but where is not neutral? nothing were simply deleted. If you see things not factual, please feel free to edit)

Fnhddzs: Please don't repeat that false claim. You and Dilip most certainly had deleted important material--the entire set of individual subsection summaries for all those subsections which were in the Criticism and controversy page. You have admitted as such in previous discussion and even offered to allow them to be put back, but now you are again making this false claim. --Tomananda 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We can notice the Miborovsky locked the page 17 minutes after the Yueyuen's version. It is clear that during 17 minutes I did not even want to revert the page. There was virtually no need to lock the page for the sake of stopping revert war. Fnhddzs 15:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/User#Use of administrator privileges. -- Миборовский 16:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I remember seeing that Miborovsky had posted something like a one hour warning before he locked the page, so I don't see what the problem is in terms of timing. To me, all revert wars are counter-productive regardless of which version happens to exist when the page is frozen. As to who has the authority to freeze a page...last time it was an administrator we never heard of, and this time it was Miborovsky. On multiple occassions I have posted a question to this group asking if there was support for asking for formal mediation. I understand that any one of us can request that action, but I don't want to request mediation on my own. We talk about abiding by Misplaced Pages rules, and I do my best to honor them, but one rule of Misplaced Pages ettiquette is constantly violated, which is that when an editor asks a question, she/he deserves to get an answer. Why is it that Fire Star has been the only other editor ever to respond to my proposal of seeking mediation? --Tomananda 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I guess I just keep hoping that if we keep at it, if we act like adults, we can do this. At the moment, however, I'm about ready to call in a babysitter/mediator. And Miborovsky (did I get it right that time?) was responding to a request I made to have the article locked again. CovenantD 18:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Covenant, In a sense you have already been acting as our unoffical mediator and I appreciate all your judicious efforts at reaching consensus. Under normal circumstances your efforts would work. But I am convinced...and I don't want to make this sound like a personal attack...that some of the Falun Gong practitioner/editors on this board will never accept a reasonable reporting of critical views of the Falun Gong no matter how much discussion we have, or how many changes we agree to in terms of use of sourced material, etc. Keep in mind, Li makes standing up for his Dafa a condition for salvation for his disciples. --Tomananda 18:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is similar to problems we have with articles on such subjective subjects, though. Especially such a well publicized one. If you look through the page histories of articles like Mahavatar Babaji and Suma Ching Hai you'll see similar editing patterns, if not on such a large scale. The Suma Ching Hai article is interesting because she makes almost exactly the same claims about the system she teaches that Li Hongzhi does about his, as well as her insistence that her followers can only progress with her personal intervention, again very like Li. --Fire Star 火星 04:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In other words, don't give, have patience, and eventually we'll get there? I'll try to keep that in mind. :-) CovenantD 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. You (and others) are doing fine work here. After coming back from my artificially imposed break I've had relatively little to do text-wise as you have all been doing a thorough job on the article, IMO. The stuff I had prepared was already covered when I came back, but I've had a few talk page discussion with some other editors here about how I see such emotional issues. People feel very personally about their schools and teachers. Keeping cool heads and always leading discussion back to the issues is the way forward. --Fire Star 火星 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
They are not direct quotes. Please write here the entire chapters from which they are taken, preferably in English. I don't have the biograpy at my disposal, so maybe you could write all of it to see if there's anything else we could include. Like the names of Li's masters - I heard they're in there, too. Otherwise, please provide a link so that we can check the accuracy of the comments on his biography. --Olaf Stephanos 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right, I paraphrased his claims, just check again. Like I pointed out before it was published as an appendix in all Chinese Zhuan Falun published before 1999. I don’t have the time to translate his statements. Here is an article which translated many of his statements. It is funny that you should ask me for it, since you are Li's disciple. --Samuel Luo 07:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What we are doing is working. By protecting the article, changes can be made only after discussion and agreement. I don't think we need a formal mediator now, CovenantDis doing a pretty good job. --Samuel Luo 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure and Outline

We need to move fast with the edits and scrutinize the data on the subpages.

  • 9.1 Falun Gong sites
  • 9.2 Critical sites
  • 9.3 Other sites


This is what was, suggested by covenantD last time. I had introduced a section called Theoretical and epistemological studies. I think the organizational aspects ( The way falun gong is organized ) also fits under the sub-heading "Theoretic and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong". "Origins" is now called history and Timeline. ( To describe better the content in the sub-page). Dilip rajeev 12:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


And here are the summaries I suggested: History and Timeline

Main article: Falun_Gong,_History_and_Timeline

Falun Gong, also known as Fălún Dàfă (法轮大法), was introduced to the public by Li Hongzhi on May 13, 1992, in Changchun, China. Invited by Qigong organizations from each area, during the period from 1992 to the end of 1994, Mr. Li traveled to almost all major Chinese cities to teach the practice. In the next few years Falun Gong quickly grew in popularity around the world. As of now, the practitioners are present in more than 80 countries and the books have been translated to over 40 languages.

Beliefs and teachings

Main article: Falun Gong teachings

Central to Falun Dafa are the five meditative exercises and the teachings known in traditional Chinese culture as the "Fa" (Dharma), or "Dharma and principles" – that are set forth in the book Zhuan Falun. Falun Gong teaches that what it calls the "Buddha Law" can be summarized in three words – Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍, which translate approximately as 'truthfulness, benevolence (or compassion), and forbearance'. The process of cultivation is thought of to be one in which the practitioner assimilates himself or herself to Zhen 真, Shan 善 and Ren 忍.

The teachings and principles of Falun Gong are captured in two main books written by Li Hongzhi: Falun Gong ( Law Wheel Qi Gong) and Zhuan Falun (Turning the Law Wheel). Falun Gong is an introductory book that discusses qigong, introduces the principles and provides illustrations and explanations of the exercises.

Research into health benefits of Falun Gong Main article: Research into health benefits of Falun Gong

Research conducted by Quan Zhen Li, Richard Johnson, et al says "Drastic system-level changes of gene expression were detected in PMNs of Falun Gong practitioners, while little changes were detected among non-practitioners..." and that genes among the practitioners manifest links to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation. Surveys conducted on practitioners show improvements in health, the most extensive being a Falun Gong health survey conducted on 12,731 Beijing practitioners in 1998.

Chinese Government's Persecution of Falun Gong

Main article: Persecution of Falun Gong

In July 1999, the Chinese government started a nation-wide supression of Falun Gong.The United States Congress Resoution 188 states:

"Falun Gong is a peaceful and nonviolent form of personal belief and practice with millions of adherents in the People's Republic of China and elsewhere."

"the Government of the People's Republic of China has forbidden Falun Gong practitioners to practice their beliefs, and has systematically attempted to eradicate the practice and those who follow it"

Jiang Zemin's regime has created notorious government `610' offices throughout the People's Republic of China with the special task of overseeing the persecution of Falun Gong members through organized brainwashing, torture, and murder;

"official measures have been taken to conceal all atrocities, such as the immediate cremation of victims, the blocking of autopsies, and the false labeling of deaths as from suicide or natural causes."

According to the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDI), there are, as of March 12, 2006, 2,840 verified cases of Falun Gong practitioners dying in police and government custody in mainland China, giving rise to allegations of torture and police brutality. The report also alleges that hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been detained, with more than 100,000 sentenced to forced-labor camps. Moreover, there are more than 30,000 documented cases of persecution.

Theoretical and Epistemological Studies

Main article: Theoretical and Epistemological studies on Falun Gong

The content of Li Hongzhi's books include commentaries on questions that have been raised in China's qigong community. Falun Gong's teachings tap into a wide array of phenomena and cultural heritage that has been debated for ages. It is noteworthy that the definitions of many terms usually differ somewhat from Buddhist and Daoist traditions.


Criticism and Controversies

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound. These include, for example, difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong, controversies on Li as a savior or supernatural entity, claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions, controversies on Fa-rectification, debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions, Falun Gong and sexual orientation, allegation of profiting from Falun Gong, controversies about cult and ethics.

Falun Gong outside China

Main article: Falun Gong outside China

The persecution of Falun Gong practitioners has been regarded by most Western governments as a major international human rights issue. As of December 2005, 61 lawsuits have been filed in about 30 countries charging Jiang and several other senior officials with genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity for their roles in the treatment of Falun Gong in mainland China. (need citation) The Chinese government is accused by Falun Gong and many human rights groups of violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), also ratified by China.

Falun Gong practitioners are often seen on the streets in major metropolitan areas, directly informing the public of the pesecution of practitioners in China.



Please suggest improvements/ changes to the summaries and also summaries for other sections . Remember factual accuracy is what we should strive to achieve. Where should the awards section go? We really dont want a huge section on the main page..and there isnt enough material to warrant a new page... what about the epistemological studies page? Can we put the awards section there? Dilip rajeev 13:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

// Suggestions go here

A Query on available research material

Hi. I've been following this webpage for a while since I believe Dilip and Omido posted on Asiafinest.com a while back about the immolation bit. I myself is a man of science. (being an resident MD in the US.) I am interested in these claims of healing illnesses by FLG practitioners and if they test up to the scrutiny of a scientific study. Science being a tool rather than a religion, just measures observable differences between 2 subgroup. The human body is quite unique in certain ways because it's known to have mental/bodily links which means with a better mindset you tend to do better with illness in general. So I'm not denying the benefits of mediation, exercise, and the well being one feels being in a group. I propose a study done between 2 subgroups of people both practicing qigong and one of them being FLG practitioners.)If anyone can provide me with links of these "claims" by these so called MDs, PhDs, and scholars, it will be most appreciated. 24.189.163.169 17:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, we have a policy of no original research. It isn't up to us to prove or disprove FLG in any light, some of the discussion on this page notwithstanding. If those sorts of studies interest you, however, there are links to demonstrable results obtained by medical studies done of Taijiquan teachers and students listed at that page. --Fire Star 火星 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. :) ..You can find some sources on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong

The quote I wrote earlier was from: http://www.walkyourpathwell.net/wholeelephant/submolecularbiology.html A paper by Tongwen Wang, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist, American Cancer Society Scholar. He can be contacted at wangt@thewholeelephant.org . He must be able to provide you with details on studies conducted( or being conducted) in the field...

A research paper by Quan-Zhen Li(PhD), Richard Jhonson, et al. can be found here on.. details of people in the control group are also mentioned in the paper... http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf Dilip rajeev 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Plenty of practitioners in the US claiming that their serious illnesses have been miraculously cured by their Master and by practicing the falun gong. If you can examine one of these cases it might answer some of your question. --Yueyuen 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The paper by Quan-Zhen Li is quite interesting but admittingly somewhat of a contraversial subject. I can see his bias though when he went thru in his historical background an almost advertisment-like cap of FLG. His paper is exactly what I was looking for in terms of methodology, background information, and conclusions though. He does not states to say anything truly contraversial except the use of FLG practitioner instead of another qigong group. Although he infers in his conclusion that it's probably qigong and not FLG exclusively that made these changes to the neutrophils. I would love to know if the "control" also do any specific exercise or mediation regiment or religious background as well. The improvement in immune system could be attributed to exercise, mediation, etc as previously stated. The study does leave many questions unanswered though.

Addressing Tongwen Wang's article you gave me. I was disappointed by it personally. He wishes to drive in a new theory rather than to test it. As a scientist, you are taught to come up with a hypothesis and then with testing and reporting of those observation do you actually put out a theory. A lot of what he said about cancer dynamics is correct but he seems also to have tunnel vision. Which I will give examples of: "But if our body is the perfect product of natural selections, then how can we still have so many loopholes left in the system to allow so many different types of cancers to exist?" As per him, he think we're at our "perfect" state which most or almost all scientist, MD's will argue against. We are not perfect as by all these disease (not only cancer) that our modern medicine has to fight against dispite our "perfect" state. While the 2nd point/conclusion he reached I agree with. The third point he tries to make a social comparasion between biology and society which works in different ways. He might as well have been giving a lecture on social problems. That article I will leave as a ranting of a biochemist turn socialist. 24.189.163.169 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip is still deleting key subsection summaries in his proposed outline

I see that Dilip is still pushing for a main page structure which omits all the sub-section summaries and links in the Criticism page (which had previously been agreed to.) This would destroy any reasonable balance on the home page. No one is saying that there has to be a 50/50% split between the controversial topics and the non-controversial topics, but the net result cannot promote Falun Gong (eg: the health curing benefits and the awards section) at the expense of the controversies and criticism. As some of us have said repeatedly, the Dilip/Fndhzzs version amounts to blatant promotion of the Falun Gong. I actually did a word count of the frozen version of the article and found out that: it's total length is 8,292 words. Of that, 720 words, or 8.6% of the total are used for the existing sub-section summaries. We can even reduce the summaries further if we want, but under no circumstances will we ever reach a consensus on not having the critical subsections summarized separately on the home page.

Concerning the Falun Gong awards section, it would fit nicely into the Falun Gong outside of China section.

Here's a sample of what how Criticism and controversies section can look:

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong

Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong abound.

Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Difference between Falun Gong and Qi Gong

Critics of Falun Gong point out that while using established Qi Gong terms for cultivation practice, Li’s version applies new meanings to the traditional terms. Deng and Fang (2000) state that Falung Gong differs from all other Qi Gong practices “by rendering a drastically different interpretation of ‘gong’ (energy) and it’s causality.” In Falun Gong, a practitioner is able to accumulate De (德, dé, virtue) through his or her own cultivation efforts, but needs the direct intervention of the master in order to evolve the De into cultivation energy.

Li as a savior or supernatural entity

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Li_as_a_savior_or_supernatural_entity

Although Li has never directly said he is God, critics point out that he assumes the role of a divinity by virtue of his claimed supernatural powers. In addition to being the exclusive savior of mankind during this "Dharma ending period," Li promises his disciples that they themselves will become gods some day. He has numerous fashen (law bodies) which also exercise "great supernatural power," cure illnesses and know what the practitioners are thinking at all times.

Claims about preventing catastrophes and cosmic explosions

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Claims_about_preventing_catastrophes_and_cosmic_explosions

Li's predictions of cosmic disasters and his claims to be able to prevent them are matters of some controversy. On several occasions Li has predicted cosmic explosions which have not happened. Some critics argue that Li borrowed these ideas from popular science fiction writers in the West, pointing out that such writings have been reported in Chinese media as “scientific facts.”

Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Fa-rectification: Li’s version of the apocalypse?

Whether Li’s teaching that his Dafa (great law) is judging all sentient beings amounts to an apocalyptic prediction is a matter of some debate. Practitioners strongly reject the apocalyptic label, while commentators generally come to an opposite conclusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes: "Just as human civilizations had been destroyed in the past because of immorality.l.. Li is convinced that the moral decadence of our times is leading to another apocalypse. His writings and speeches are replete with references to the 'Dharma-ending period' of 'the apocalypse,' the 'Great Havoc,' and the 'end times' (mojie). With the end days approaching, Li has set about disseminating Falun Dafa so as 'to provide salvation to mankind….in this final period of the Last Havoc.'"

Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Debatable significance of Falun Gong awards and recognitions

There is some controversy about how meaningful Falun Gong’s many municipal awards and recognitions are and how they are used to promote the Falun Gong. Falun Gong expert Patsy Rahn (2000), states they “are documents routinely obtained by groups from public officials in the US for public relations purposes” and may be used to mislead people in China into believing “that the American government supports Master Li and his Falun Gong practitioners.” Noah Porter (2003) argues that these awards are not always easy to get, citing one example from Tampa, Florida.

Falun Gong and sexual orientation

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Falun Gong and homosexuality

Li has made statements condemning homosexuality, describing a homosexual as having a "dark heart, turning demonic." However, homosexuals can practice Falun Gong if they "correct this bad behavior" . The teachings of Falun Gong are seen as homophobic by critics, while defenders of the Falun Gong dispute whether statements made by Falun Gong's founder are fairly interpreted.

Allegation of profiting from Falun Gong

Main article: Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong § Making_money_from_Falun_Gong

Some critics charge that Li hypocritically made money from the Falun Gong movement although Falun Gong practitioners said Li Hongzhi has not accepted donations from students of Falun Gong.

We need a paragraph or two

Tomanada, we need a paragraph or two. It is alright if it runs half a page but please try to avoid sub-sections. Try to make it reasonably sized. I agree that the awards and recognitions can go under Falun Gong outside China. Dilip rajeev 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, we need a main page which summarizes the whole truth about the Falun Gong, which includes sub-section summaries from the criticism section. How can you possibly argue that there should be separate main page sections promoting the unproven healh-benefits of the Falun Gong, its awards and recognitions and a biased report on what you call the persecution, while the teachings on homosexuality, Li as god and savior, the Fa-rectification, and so forth are relegated to one overall-page summary. I know you don't like reporting the Master's teachings on Fa-rectification, homosexuality, mixed-race people, etc, but they are important. In fact, the Fa-rectification teaching is Li's most important teaching at this time...plus his claim that he is turning his practitioners into gods. Interesting that you would so srongly resist giving a promonent place to those teachings. But then again, the Master tells you not to talk about the Falun Gong to ordinary people at the higher levels, right? --Tomananda 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you insist that we need to keep the subtitles for the criticism section, you may. But please try to keep it as short as possible. Keeping things both here and there would interfere with the edit process and inundate the need for sub-pages... Futher, it might keep readers from going through material in the sub-pages... please try to make sure it is proportional in size.. as other sections wont carry sub-titles. Dilip rajeev 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, you state that his health-benefits are unproven, then what do you call all those critics that you use? Like Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang, who are they? As I see it, they are nothing more than ordinary people saying their own opinions and understanding, these so called "critics" can't be used in your anti-FLG material. These all "commentators say" "critics say" will all be removed because they are nothing more than personal opinions. Omido 20:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Omido, you need to aquaint yourself with some policies, such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. It clearly states, "Verifiability in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Misplaced Pages. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." So your determination to remove verifiable sources is wrong and against policy. Part of what we will accomplish here is to agree on which sources meet the criteria of a reliable source.CovenantD 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Omid was mentioning the quality of the source. What does wiki say on that?

Dilip rajeev 20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Coventant, so If I make a homepage, and say on that homepage that Falun Gong is really good and say alot of good things about Falun Gong and why I think they way I do, can I publish it in the wikipedia article too? In that case let me take countless articles from pro-FLG sites and post them. These so called "critics" called Deng, Fang and Maria Hsia Chang I think should not be on the article, because what they say is only their own personal thoughts. As Ive understood it, the reason for the articles on wikipedia is to offer people a chance too make their own thoughts and understandings regarding things. If we citate people from this or that website and write down what others think, how could that give a chance to other people to make their own opinion? Its like forcing opinions into others, as I see it, these critics he used should not be used. If he uses them, I can use all the positive things people has said too right? and believe me I can find 10 times more positive things that people has said about Dafa, that is for sure. Those sources he used is really not reliable, that is what I am trying to say. Omido 22:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: no you couldn't. The key phrase here is reliable sources. For more on this, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources.
Longer answer: A lot of WP policies have to be considered in tandem to make any sense. Verifiability and reliable sources are two that have to be taken together. I fully intend to make sure that we look at each and every source to make sure it's appropriate for the context. Some, like the New York Times, are pretty obviously considered reliable for most things, while others, like Falundafa.org, may only be appropriate for certain purposes. I'm sure that some of them will be found lacking and have to be removed. Quite honestly, I haven't contemplated a lot of them yet because in my mind we're not ready for that. We haven't even gotten through the first three paragraphs. When we do start considering sources, rest assured that I'm going to be one of the toughest critics :-) CovenantD 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Legality/Illegality of the FLG ban in China

It has come to my notice that this website, , has mentioned the reason FLG is illegal. Over here: . Unfortunately I couldn't find an English version of the article and I don't have knowledge on the laws in China. Before people start yelling "propaganda website", don't forget that the laws are at least cited out. --Yenchin 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States Congress Resolution 188 passed unanimously (420-0) states:

Whereas this policy violates the Constitution of the People's Republic of China as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

The ban itself could be called "illegal" looked at with international laws. Then we will have to say :China illegally banned Falun Gong. Dilip rajeev 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that prior to the big Beijing protest, Falun Gong practitioners had staged a series of illegal protests in media stations throughout the country. During those earlier protests, some of the practitioners had been arrested. In fact, one of the Falun Gong's demands was to have those people released from jail. So it is clear that there had been illegal activity prior to the Beijing protest. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of historical accuracy.
And for those who argue that Falun Gong practitioners should be allowed to stage disruptive protests anywhere they want in China, I point to the recent illegal protest staged by a female Falun Gong practitioner using her Epoch Times press pass to gain access to the White house lawn. There are limits to free speech, even in the US. Let's get real about this. --Tomananda 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rough jist of it:

  1. social organisations cannot conduct commercial activities
  2. social orgarnisations must be registered
  3. protests that 1. violates basic principles of the constitution 2. endangers national sovereignty 3. incites racial hatred 4. endangers public safety will not be allowed
  4. citizens cannot protest outside their cities of residence
  5. disruption of publics safety include disrupting daily running of commerce, production and education, spreading lies, rumours and disrupting social order
  6. organising protests/marches that do not have approval, refuse to comply with approved times, locations, routes, refuse to disperse, endanger public safety is liable to be jailed for less than 5 years
  7. organising cults that use superstition that destroy national laws and executive policies, or cause the death of others is liable for 3-7 year jail time, extreme cases 7+ years.

-- Миборовский 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I read here, I still contend that "alleged illegal activities" is probably the best wording we can find for the opening paragraphs. It acknowledges that accusations without making a determination on whether they are valid or not in light of international law. If people feel that strongly about it, and I'm sure they do, we can go into more detail elsewhere in the article or on a subpage. CovenantD 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


  • The Chinese government provided two major justifications for banning the Falun Gong 1) The unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings. 2) Its many illegal protests against critics and later government institutions which caused a threat to social stability.
Article 36 of the Chinese constitution permits the banning of religious groups under certain circumstances. It states: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
China’s banning the Falun Gong is in accord with International laws such as the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.” Both of these laws call for the protection of religious freedom, however, they also both have the same clause allowing for limitations on religious expression under certain circumstances. “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” With freedom comes responsibility. These international laws permit governments to hold those who exploit religious freedom responsible.
Under the protection of the First Amendment, American religious freedom seems to be absolute, with cults and hate-preaching groups like the KKK enjoying legal status and protection. But not all western democracies are as permissive of religious freedom as the United States. Enabled by the anti-cult law, France, a nation with a long democratic tradition and respect for religious freedom, permits the government to dissolve a cult-like organization and jail its leader. These legal actions can only be taken when an organization commits offences like “deceptive advertising, frauds, and falsifications” and “intentional or unintentional prejudice to the life or the physical or psychological integrity of the person.” Other western democracies like Canada and Spain also have “hate speech” laws that outlaws speech promoting hatred or violence based on religion or race.
US politicians would denounce any country for limiting religious freedom but that does not mean these countries, in this case China, violates international laws.
Going back to our discussion, to say that the Chinese government banned the falun Gong for “alleged illegal activities” is inaccurate. We can argue whether the group did violate those laws, but it was banned because the government believed it “violated the Chinese laws.” How about using “violated the Chinese laws” instead? --Samuel Luo 04:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can post here material from Congress Resolution, Amnesty International and HRW to United Nation Reports, and over 61 lawsuits filed by leading international Human Rights attorneys around the world. But I think that is necessary. Let us not deviate too much from the discussion of the material. In my opinion, the legality or illegality of the supression neednt be mentioned in the introduction. The previous version of the article stated: "Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since the government of the People's Republic of China began a nationwide suppression of Falun Gong on July 20, 1999. Concerns were triggered especially when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai.". Dilip rajeev 07:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the latter quote: I think the world was aware of Falun Gong before the clampdown. Etaonsh 07:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Lou, there is no evidence that Falun Gong did violite any law at all, its only what the CCP says, and we all know the nature of the CCP... Omido 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some revised wording:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since (date), when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China which were deemed in violation of Chinese laws and resulted in the arrest of practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment in following the group’s teachings and for it’s many protests which were considered a threat to social stability.

I believe Etaonosh is correct that the world became aware of Falun Gong before the ban...it was that protest in Zhongnanhai that brought them to world attention. So I have reversed the chronology. Also, it's clear that there was a violation of Chinese law prior to the Zhongnanhai protest, otherwise there wouldn't have been the demand to release practitioners who had been arrested. So all of this needs to be summarized briefly. I think the above does it. --Tomananda 08:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically speaking, what triggered the Zhongnanhai incident was the Tianjin incident. On 1999, April 11, FLG members protested against the publisher which published He Zuoxiou's "I Don't Agree Teenagers to Practice Falun Gong", an article which criticized the movement. 45 members were arrested near the end of the protest. --Yenchin 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomananda, the above is not good enought. Why? Because you can't just give the version of the CCP. You can't say "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment". This is from no verifiable source, its just lies and propaganda used by the CCP. I think it is okey to say something like: "The CCP accused Falun Gong for the death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment. Falun Gong practitioners strongly reject these accusations and say that these accusations is a way for the CCP to turn the chinese people against Falun Gong and justify their persecution of Falun Gong. There is no evidence of 1,404 practitioner dying from not taking their medicine."

If you only say: "allegedly causing the unnecessary death of 1,404 practitioners who abandoned their needed medical treatment" This makes it sound like it is true, and it isn't, it's just lies used by the evil CCP. /Omido 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

1 : asserted to be true or to exist <an alleged miracle>
2 : questionably true or of a specified kind : SUPPOSED, SO-CALLED <bought an alleged antique vase>
3 : accused but not proven or convicted <an alleged gangster>
Please explain how "allegedly causing...." makes it sound it is true. It's just your personal opinion. As for personal opinions, please refer to the previous section where you can find what you said.
--Yenchin 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The CCP propoganda has even "alleged" Falun Gong practitioners are CIA agents and such things have appeared in Chinese media. It is alright to say they have "alleged" but not in the introduction and not in a manner that tries to justify the inhuman persecution. We'd rather give more importance to what the Amnesty Internation, HRW or the United Nations say on the persecution.

I'd prefer statements from international organizations in the introduction rather than a made up "excuse" for torturing tens of thousands, including children and women, to death. I would like to hear a better excuse for that than "somebody didnt take medicine". Dilip rajeev 15:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow "evil" I've only seen this word used in recent history by religious fanatics (GW Bush included.)

Well you can't say that the chinese communist party has been good exactly can you? They have a history of killing innocent people, and in 50 years it is estimated that 60-100 million chinese people have died a unnatural death by the CCP, in my opinion that qualifies for evil...

"evil" is a mild word to use. What do you call taking people from their homes and torturing them to death and then threatening their families with further persecution if they speak out? Tell it is not "evil" to families left devastated. May 26, 2006. Brussels (EFGIC) - Following a three-day visit to Beijing, the Vice President of the European Parliament, Edward McMillan-Scott, called the Chinese Communist leadership a "brutal, arbitrary and paranoid system" The sad fact is that some confuse the CCP with China. They desperately want to be part of the crime, they want to support, defend and coverup the atrocities. Dilip rajeev 15:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We can argue the moral term "evil" to death but this is not the scope of this article so I would stop. In clear facts, FLG did break chinese laws so it was made illegal in China. Pretty much ends the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.163.169 (talk • contribs)
It doesnt end any discussion. Dalai Lama is wanted dead or alive for his "illegal" activities by the CCP. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. "The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder", please point out anything non-factual. Not that I want to discuss these things in the introduction.. but because you keep wanting to label the insane persecution "legal" and allow the murderers to label the victims "illegal".
Dilip rajeev 18:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
That is ofcourse only your understanding.
/Omido 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty well established that the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture, at least. It is also pretty well established that Li Hongzhi turned tail and left his followers in China to face the suppression without the aid of his soi-disant divine intervention. So perhaps it isn't a good guy/bad guy thing, and we will impede agreement on the article by making it one. --Fire Star 火星 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Christian monks have been persecuted in History. Buddhist Monks have gone through unspeakable hardships. The sages of vedic India went through boundless hardships. Many western cultivators have died really bad deaths. Gnostic cultivators have been tortured to death. This has happened through out history and scriptures give the reasons. The Buddhist scriptures emphatically affirm that this will happen in this period( which according to the scriptures is the "Dharma Ending Period"( which caries no apocalyptic meaning an only signifies a period of time when the morality of mankind is very low...). (See, for instance: http://www.drba.org/dharma/btts/9xxentrydetail.asp?wid=89 )
It is no co-incidence that even after spending a major fraction of the nations budget on trying to persecute Falun Gong and resorting to the most horrible and insane atrocities, the CCP hasnt been able to achieve its ends. Li Hongzhi was in United Sates from 1997 he moved so that the government may not feel cocnerned about the number of practitioners in China.
Dilip rajeev 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
? major fraction of it's national budget? Links please. I don't know why people keep bringing up apocolpyses/ dharma ending days... The christians were into it during the 1000 AD, 2000 some people thought the world was going to end, the Garland group a few years ago as well, now the FLG too? Anyways sorry I'm going off topic. This is about the legality of the ban. 24.189.163.169 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No. The Dharma Ending only means end of the Dharma ( Law / Morality ).. Its a Buddhist term.. not Falun Gong's. It has absolutely nothing to do with any apocalypse!..

Dilip rajeev 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • the article is called "I Don't Recommend Teenagers to Practice Qigong." the article was not directed at the FAlun Gong, Mr. He only gave a example about one of his colleague became psychotic after practicing the FAlun Gong. This article was published in a small magazine owned by a university; it was protested by 7 thousand plus practitioners. The company called the police who then ordered the practitioners to leave, when these practitioners refused to obey order four hundred police forced the evacuation and arrested about a dozen practitioners. The protest was illegal because it had no permit and was an intimidation to suppress critic. --Samuel Luo 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly we must report this protest, or media protests in general, which were presumed (or alleged) to be in violation of Chinese law. Even in the US, where there is an absolute "presumptioin of innocence" the press reports people being arrested or indicted for allegedly committing crimes all the time. Dilip, I appreciate your passion when talking about the "persecution," but keep in mind there's an entire page devoted to that topic. Right now, for this paragraph, we just need to agree to language which reports what led up to the ban in China.

Words like "alleged" seem absolutely correct to me, so it's just a question of building the best sentence to convey these thoughts. --Tomananda 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


I have followed the ban closely; I don’t think this statement “the CCP has ruthlessly suppressed the FLG, using murder and torture” is based on facts. Yes torture and death of practitioners did happened, but there is no government policy to torture and murder. I believe these were acts committed by individual brutal prison guards. But the government can be condemned for not holding investigation into the deaths and punish the perpetrators. --Samuel Luo 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There a wikipedia policy saying "No Original Research." And what you say contradicts what teh international bodies say on the matter. Dilip rajeev 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Firestar's assessment. Truth is just what he said. No need to be apologetic on what the CCP did. The government should punish those guards that did it because they are responsive for those guards. There should not be a debate on the legality of the ban either. 24.189.163.169 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don’ think the word “alleged” works. How about this “The government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws but the group denies any wrong doing”? The government’s charge against the group and its rebuttal can be introduced in the body of the article. --Samuel Luo 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think "alleged" is wrong here too. They broke chinese law. Now is the law just or not is a whole different matter. But a law was broken. So why hide around the bush. 24.189.163.169 18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite interesting.. you torture people to death people then harass their families, rape women, kill kids and then label them "illegal" and then accuse them for "breaking laws". Welcome to the civilized world. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction. Dilip rajeev 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, unless you are claiming that FG practitioners were tortured before the ban, your entire statement above is inaccurate because it assumes a sequence of events that didn't happen. First, thousands of Falun Gong practitioners staged illegal protests at media stations all over China insisting that your Master's teachings never be criticized. Some of those media protests resulted in arrests and all of them had the effect of suppressing the freedom of speech of Falun Gong critics, such as that professor who wrote that academic article which so bothered Li Hongzhi. So the practittioners, at the urging of Master Li (to show his power?), continued protesting and demanding that the arrested people be released, that the publishers issue retractions and that the government proclaim that Falun Gong is good. Then, after all these illegal activities took place, the Chinese government officially banned the Falun Gong and, to use your terminology, the "persecution" began. Please understand that I am not justifying the torture or persecution of anyone, but I do insist that the history be told correctly. There are two sides to this story.--Tomananda 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


The un-informed reader doesnt know that the Chinese laws require people to be put in prison for 10 years and tortured for practicing Qi Gong. I'd prefer what the US congress resolution, HRW, Amnesty International, The European Parliament and prominent Human Rights Attorneys say in the introduction. "The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder", please point out anything non-factual. I dont think anybody with a conscience would want to coverup those crimes. I actually dont want to go into such details in the introduction but am forced to suggest it as some editors who ( I really dont know why) want to make it look like Falun Gong commited "illegal" activities and was thus banned. Dilip rajeev 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeevplease provide a link for the statment you are citing. --Samuel Luo 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We are getting off topic. Here's a revised paragraph incorporating the suggestions so far:

  • Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, but the group denies any wrong doing.--Tomananda 18:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. I insist that we mention what the international bodies say in the introduction. "The CCP, violating international Laws and its own constitution, illegaly banned the peaceful practice of Falun Gong and has systematically attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder", please point out anything non-factual. Dilip rajeev 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


As I have read, the torture and killings are not just about a few guards that did this or that. Many many practitioners that made it out alive from the concentration camps or brainwashing camps has spoken out and told, that the CCP offers you to renounce your faith in Dafa. That means, you sign your name on a paper which means that your don't believe in Falun Gong anymore, if you do this, they will release you very fast without touching you...and if you don't they will torture you with all kind of methods until you sign under. Its been reported that alot of practitioners were chocked with electric batoons in the face for 8 hours because they didnt renounce their faith in Dafa, and also they wont let you sleep for many many days, they also give criminals bonuses if they torture practitioners. After the torture, the practitioners were barely alive, and still they didn't want to give up their faith in Dafa. Also, witnesses, doctors and other people have stepped forward saying that the government are doing organ transplant on LIVE Falun Gong practitioners because the CCP knows that Falun Gong practitioners have very good health and rarely get sick. After the transplantation they throw the body into a crematorium to destroy all evidence. One more thing to notice, is that after the persecution began in 1999, the organ transplant business in China has gone up by 3000 %. Today, in China it takes two weeks at most to get a new organ...in other countries it takes at least two years. Also investigators have called hospitals doing the transplants pretending wanting to buy, and the hospitals sometimes said the organs was from live Falun Gong practitioners. This persecution is evil beyond words. Omido 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The organ transplant from live people has been covered by a UK Channel with under-cover cameras. Dilip rajeev 18:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Tomananda, the protest on April 25,1999, was held outside of Zhongnanhai, China's leadership compound not the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street. --Samuel Luo 18:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip rajeevI asked you to provide a link to the report from the Us congress not the FAlun Gong --Samuel Luo 19:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The text of the resolution ( Concurrent Resolution 188 - passed unanimously (420-0) by the U.S Congress) is available on several websites including the website I mentioned earlier. Dilip rajeev 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Interested in how they came up with the conclusion that it was illegal according to China's constitution as well. 24.189.163.169 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Revision of Target Paragraph on the Ban

Responding to requests from Samuel and Dilip, I propose the following paragraph which aims to summarize, as briefly as possible, both POV's about the history and legality of the ban in China.

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, some of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.

We need to remind ourselves that this is just a summary. Anything longer than this would be inappropriate for this introductory section in my opinion. --Tomananda 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This reads more like a summary to the crackdown of the Falun Gong section. Anyway, a few changes is needed in my opinion. Below is a revised verion:

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested illegally against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, most of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many illegal protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder. --Samuel Luo 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Samuel, can you prove the protests was illegal? I heard it was legal... /Omido 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy, it was held without a permit. --Samuel Luo 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly speaking Zhu Rongji interviewing with protesters says nothing about the protest itself. Illegal protests were held by people after the Presidential Election in Taiwan, officials still came to meet the protesters. Also according to one of the 4.25 Zhongnanhai protesters Zhu Rongji didn't mention or question whether the protest was permitted. --Yenchin 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It suprises me that the US House of Representatives has the right of a Supreme Court Justice on deciding whether something is constitutional or not. Last time I checked, they don't. --Yenchin 22:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, the House does not have that kind of authority. US House resolutions do not have the force of law. They are essentially symbolic, and are usually drafted by lobbyists of one sort or another and just presented to legislators for ratification. The fact that something is stated as fact in a US House resolution does not mean it's a fact. Even when the congress passes actual laws, most congressmen don't read them. So it's quite easy to get inaccurate statements slipped into a resolution. It's part of the brilliance of Li Hongzhi's PR strategy to have figured out how easy these things are to get and then have his followers pursue them all of the country. Then, the same practitioners get to point to these resolutions as proof of how good Li Hongzhi's teachings are. Quite cynical, don't you think? --Tomananda 22:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: By way of example, check out US House Resolution 29, "Commending Jared & Jerusha Hess and the City of Preston for the Production of the Movie 'Napolean Dynamite'" here: I have never heard of this film or the city of Preston. I had to read further to find out that Preston is a city in the rural state of Idaho. I doubt if more than a handful of the congresspeople who signed this resolution have ever actually seen the film they praised in the resolution. You get the idea.--Tomananda 23:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanada, This is a Hon. Concurrent Resolution passed unanimously( 420-0) by the Congress. Why do you argue this is not a "law"? That sounds really mis-informed. Dilip rajeev 12:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, hello? Since when did the legislative of the US has rights to make "laws" for China? Are you using a Ming sword to behead a Qing official? Definition of resolution. --Yenchin 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Still interested on how they came to that conclusion. I want the facts. Not some declaration by some people that might or might not have any idea what they are signing. 24.189.163.169 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I get the point. So it's like those "awards" and "days" they make such a fuss about. Anyway, I took the trouble to look up the original process and text from the Library of Congress. The records of discussion can also be found in there.. It would be another example to put in related FLG topics on Misplaced Pages. Back on topic, I think the current version is good enough. The fact of persecution or not is irrelevant to the laws China cites. Governments use anti-Sodomy laws to persecute gay and lesbian people, but it doesn't change the fact that people were arrested by these laws. --Yenchin 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't tell how they came to their conclusions. The web link which Yenchin provides is missing some information. It lists four "Witness prepared statements" in support of the resolutioin (two dated 6.27/01 and two dated 8/1/01) and states that "some documents may contain partisan views," but when you click on those links it doesn't take you to the documents. Perhaps they've been archived? It would be interesting to see them. I suspect they largely contain claims made by the Falun Gong, such as the claim that the ban is in violation of the Chinese constitution, which never were investigated or verifified by the House committee which dealt with the resolution. --Tomananda 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism page

While we have been discussing structure and sources on this main Talk page, practitioners Dilip and Fnhddzs have attacked the Criticism and controversies page with a series of edits (from 6:28 to 7:17 on 28 May), deleting, among other things, all of the Deng and Fang quotes. This is an outrageous breach of good faith. Is this the prelude to another revert war? Should other editors start going into the Falun Gong teachings or Persecution pages and do to these Falun Gong practitioners what they have just done to us? Or should we exercise restraint and ask for administrative intervention? I opt for the latter and request that if it is within Misplaced Pages policy to do so, both Fnhddzs and Dilip receive some kind of sanction. After all of this discussion, and two previous revert wars brought to us by Fnhddzs and Dilip, to have this happen is truly outrageous. What is the point of our continuing along this path if such a blatant subversion of our cooperative editing process goes unpunished? --Tomananda 21:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, Tomananda. If it happens again, why don't you just revert with a note to take it to the talk page. I think we're getting bogged down too much in the interpersonal comments. I'll back you up in reverting things that haven't been properly discussed. CovenantD 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK with me. Dilip just did the same deletes in the Criticism and controversies section that Fnhddzs did earlier. I did a revert. What he is doing is deleting all of the Deng and Fang quotes in various sections which were discussed two weeks ago and are being discussed again. Rather than wait for a group decision (and actually, as far as I'm concerened we already decided this one), Dilip has simply done the reverts. --Tomananda 07:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy on citing self-published sources

Tomananda, what is your assumption of good faith? Assume_good_faith?

As I mentioned a while ago, xys.org is a personal website hosted by the biochemist Fang, Shimin or Self-published_sources.

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

* It is relevant to the person's notability; * It is not contentious; * It is not unduly self-serving; * It is not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources; * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; * There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic.

A Misplaced Pages article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been published by other credible third-party sources.

Fnhddzs 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly request wiki amdmins give Tomananda sanctions !!!!!! for his ignoring wiki's policy, for his slanders and personal attacks !!!!! Fnhddzs 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC) How could wiki allow such a senior wikipedian at large? Fnhddzs 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: The question of using private web pages as sources was discussed at length in the Criticism and controversies talk page. When we left it, some of the editors had agreed to a standard proposed by Covenant which would require that the private web page be a copy of something presented elsewhere (in the case of Deng and Fang, that would be an academic conference). Also part of that discussion was the recognition that Covenant's standard would allow the inclusion of some of your pro-Falun Gong stuff, including but not limited to the Lili Feng material and other medical reports.

You have violated good faith by deleting substantial portions of the material on the Criticism and controversies page without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. We can revisit the discussion of standards for self-published sources...in fact, that is our intent in the present discussion. But you cannot unilaterally delete this material. --Tomananda 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just tried to go back in the archives to point to this prior discussion, but the archives for Talk Criticism and controversy seem to be missing. Can someone help? --Tomananda 00:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All Falun gong websites are private, if Deng and Fang's website does not meet the standard then all material from FAlun Gong private websites have to go too. --Yueyuen 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzsthere is no justification for you to delete critical material from the criticism page. You are again being warned. --Yueyuen 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fnhddzs: I forgot to mention that criticizing your editing practices does not constitute a personal attack. You and Dilip have a history of doing significant deletions without discussion and have already provoked two revert wars. It becomes tiring to have to deal with those violations over and over again. The request is simply to discuss major changes before doing deletions. --Tomananda 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Repost from Talk Criticism page on the issue of using private web sources

I located part of the earlier discussion on this topic:

I'm going to be looking for a slightly higher standard for something that appears on a website; I want it to be a reproduction of something presented elsewhere, whether a conference or a newpaper or a book or a lecture or something. Just a personal paper on a website is going to be met with raised eyebrows.I want to point out that there is a blockquote provided by Dilip that I want to have included, that seems to agree with the premise that words and phrases carry different meaning. I think it provides balance to the allegation by essentially saying, "sure, it's different, but that's the way it has to be." CovenantD 04:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of the sources that I mentioned above--Deng and Fang's academic article and the expose from Li's earliest followers--meet your proposed standard (the private website version of the expose is a reproduction of an official report submitted to the China Qi Gong Research Society). I assume the Lilli Feng material would meet your proposed standard as well. There may be unusual situations in which we need to allow other types of private web site sources, but if we encounter that kind of situation we can discuss that particular case on its own merits. For now, in order to make some progress, I approve your standard, at least on a provisional basis.

(break..new editor speaking) I also share your concern about too many quotes from Li affecting the readability of the article, but they are probably the best source of material for actual teachings. As long as they're kept short and to the point...

Samuel, it depends on the context in which ClearWisdom and other Falun Gong sites are used. If it's being used as a source on Falun Gong teachings, I'd say it meets "primary source" criteria. If it's being used to highlight something else, like persecution, then another, independent source should be found and used to avoid the controversy of "questionable" sources. (I'm not expressing my opinion, merely reflecting what others have expressed, hence the quotation marks.) CovenantD 17:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I remember practitioners used a personal statement from clearwisdom.net in “Financial and business aspects of the Falun Gong” section. The following is the statement in question: “Li refused the house according to the practitioner who bought the house in this letter . 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.’” According to wikipedia standards and what you are saying here, this statement will have to go. --Samuel Luo 19:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC) That bit is no longer in the article, so it's a bit difficult for me to comment on it. I seem to remember thinking that the entire section needed work to provide balance since it seemed to be reverted back and forth a lot. CovenantD 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Infact, what was used appeared in the letters to the editor section of the wall street journal.

Dilip rajeev 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier on, Ed Poor and Olaf had also voiced their opinions which amounted to saying that a broad application of this rule might be best, since it would allow material that is not available any other way. (Did I summarize that correctly, guys?) In any case, we must discuss this before deleting any material and, as I said before, if we're going to apply a new "get tough" policy, it will also necessarily lead to the deletion of some of the pro-Falun Gong material. --Tomananda 00:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to main topic: target paragraph for the introduction section

We can talk about the source issue, but shouldn't forget the text re-writing we began. Here's the latest version of the target paragraph which seems to be picking up support (see comments above):

Falun Gong has been the focus of international attention since April 25,1999, when 10,000 practitioners assembled in peaceful protest outside Zhongnanhai, China’s leadership compound. Prior to that, the Falun Gong had staged protests against it’s its media critics all over China. At Tianjin, 7,000 practitioners had protested illegally against an academic article which was critical of the Falun Gong, resulting in the arrest of 45 practitioners. On July 20, 1999 the government banned the Falun Gong for its violation of Chinese laws, citing the unnecessary deaths of 1,404 practitioners, most of whom had abandoned their needed medical treatment in accordance with Li Hongzhi’s teachings, and the threat to social stability caused by the Falun Gong’s many illegal protests. However, the Falung Gong denies any wrongdoing, pointing to declarations made by several international bodies. In particular, the Falun Gong cites US House of Representatives Resolution 188 which it helped to write in 2002. That resolution claims that the CCP itself has violated international laws and its own constitution; and has attempted to eradicate Falun Gong practitioners through organized torture and murder.

We need to hear from more editors on the above wording. --Tomananda 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What the US Congress says is not what Falun Gong practitioners say or "cite" in "particular"! That is what the Congress says. Similarly we will have to look at what the United Nations say too. Dilip rajeev 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Dilip, what you're supposed to do at this point is actually suggest a wording change, rather than just make a comment about what you don't like about the existing wording. --Tomananda 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Content-wise it seems pretty good, but I've corrected spelling/grammar.
The ending is weak, perhaps because the reasoning of individuals involved in the actual events was weak. If I rob a bank, I am guilty of a felony regardless of whether the police department has been committing its own set of felonies -- and vice-versa. If the reasoning of CCP and FLG advocates is on the "pot and kettle" level, then so be it. If, on the other hand, there are real challenges to the legitimacy of charges (e.g., arguing that one must break unjust laws and then one must take the consequences) then it does individuals involved a disservice (and does not reflect a NPOV) to omit mention of them. P0M 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My Suggestion

What I want to point out is, this is an introduction to an article on Falun Gong - not why the CCP started to persecute Falun Gong. An introduction to Falun Gong is really not the place discuss, in detail, the events leading to the persecution. There are scholars( for instance, Julie Ching (2001)) who opine that even the protests were orchestrated by Government agencies. We really cant discuss things in detail in the introduction. My suggestion for the introduction is:

Falun Gong (Traditional Chinese: 法輪功; Simplified Chinese: 法轮功; Pinyin: Fǎlún Gōng; literally "Practice of the Wheel of Law") is also known as Falun Dafa (Traditional Chinese: 法輪大法; Simplified Chinese: 法轮大法; Pinyin: Fǎlún dàfǎ; lit. "Great Law of the Wheel of Law") is a system of mind and body cultivation introduced by Li Hongzhi in 1992. Central to Falun Gong are the teachings of "Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance" and five sets of meditation exercises (four standing, and one sitting meditation).) The system has been growing in popularity world-over with the teachings translated to over 40 languages and practitioners present in over 80 countries.

On July 20, 1999 the People's republic of China began a Nation-wide Supression of Falun Gong. This has been considered a major Human-rights violation world-over.

There being no concept of organization of membership in Falun Gong, the exact number of practitioners is not known. Falun Gong websites state a figure of 100 million practitioners worldwide including over 70 million in China. After the supression began, the Chinese government presented a figure of 2.1 million. A figure of 70 million was quoted in two NY Times articles before the crackdown began. According to the articles, this figure was the estimate of Chinese government.

Please point out anything non-factual or irrelevant to the introduction.

Dilip rajeev 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Source issue

It is ridiculous that you have hesitation on citing the public U.S. government publication, instead you guys seem not to have hesitation on citing the biochemist's self-publicated sources on his personal website. I don't understand the bias hidden on mind of guys here.

Tomananda said the xys.org source is a reproduction of a conference paper. What is the proof of that? How to get the conference paper? It is not verifiable. Fnhddzs 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The US gov't publication is of course a good source. It just needs to be put in the proper context. The conference paper is a bit more problematic because of the verifiability issues. It would be nice if we could reference something directly tied to the conference or the organization that put it on, just so we know that it is what it claims to be. That would alleviate any doubts. CovenantD 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Just keep in mind that the US government has a POV too. (Let's hope the NSA doesn't check up on me at night.) -- Миборовский 07:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not just what the US Government says. From the Amnesty International to the European Union and the United Nations . Dilip rajeev 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure Amnesty International and the EU and the UN all have their own POVs. -- Миборовский 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I think it's real sad that Tomananda can use material from Deng and Fang homepage, that is just personal opinions from private people. In that case, let me get all the pro-FLG comments from personal websites I can find, including people talking about their experience after practicing Falun Gong, how they benefited and how happy they are, and how wonderful Falun Gong is. I don't see any reason at all how personal websites can be allowed. Frankly, these Deng and Fang's opinions doesn't mean anything, why are their opinions so important? It is up to the reader to decide what to think after he reads all the material. All Deng and Fang does is to slander things they don't understand, what, is the meaning of that? Admin, what is your comment on this case? /Omido 08:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Two Tales of Falun Gong on-line document is an updated version of a paper presented at the April 28-29, 2000 annual conference of the American Family Foundation held in Seattle, Washington. The foundation is now called the International Cultic Studies Association. I will reference this information in a footnote. I have contacted the organization to find out what they can provide to verify the article's authenticity.

Since we have apparently decided to take a tough stance on sources, I will start challenging sources that appear in the pro-Falun Gong edits as well. Two problems immediately come to mind:

  • The health claims made by Dr. Lilli Feng (were they presented at a conference or published elsewhere?)
  • The Julie Ching (2001) article quoted in the Persecution section, with a link only to the Rick Ross website.
The paper by Quan-Zhen, Richard Johnson et al has appeared in several journals including JACM. It was done by reputed researchers in the field. Including Researchers from micro array core, Beynora institute and Baylor College
Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That paper by Quan_zhen I've looked at and also what you wrote on the medical benefits. You took the findings out of context and distort the findings. It's first a Pilot study which just means it's a preliminary stuff/a search and probe type of study. Not a ground-breaking study or anything of the sort. Secondly the study's conclusion suggests qigong in general (and not only FLG) improves neutrophil functions. I believe a rewrite of that section will help clarify things and take some of the bias out of the health benefit page.

24.189.163.169 12:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) is a version of the paper that appeared in JACM. The original research was titled "An ancient cultivation practice Falun Gong improves neutrophil functions and causes system-level gene regulation " and specifically says Falun Gong. Dilip rajeev 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is a significant amount of material that amounts to original research that will have to be deleted from some of the sections. For example, the following representations in the Teachings section:

  • Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org
  • It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.
This statement, in my opnion, really doesnt deserve a reply. If you are that adamant I will get a confirmation from www.falundafa.org - thats the primary source.

Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Plus unsourced material in The Tianamin Square self-immolation incident such as:

  • The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
  • Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
  • Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.
Change "Falun Gong members" to IED, FDI or UN Reports and I will give you a source. By the way the section didnt origianlly say "Falun Gong members" it was a recent change by some editor.
Dilip rajeev


For instance, The International Education Development Bureau's (IED) report, announced at the United Nations, states:

"This government took out this so-called self-immolation incident that happened on January 23, 2001, in Tiananmen Square and used this as evidence against Falun Gong. We have reached the conclusion after watching a videotape on this incident, that this incident has however been completely orchestrated by the government.

Dilip rajeev 12:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no such thing as IED "Bureau". Various FLG articles and websites keep on confusing readers that this NGO is a branch under the United Nations and furtherly leap the logic that the UN has investigated the incident.
  • The IED website has no mention of their investigation on the incident videotape. At best this is just another unbased claim. To state more clearly: IED hasn't explained how they investigated, and what convinced them to believe the incident was staged.
--Yenchin 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


IED's statement to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights at the United Nations in August, 2001

Dilip rajeev 22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fairly aware on the "where" and "when" of the report. However, IED has never formally published a report on their investigation. Which is the "how". How were they convinced that the incident was staged? There is no mention of these details on the Sub-Commision report, as well as their own website. At best this only shows their opinion, it doesn't help a further understanding of the incident. --Yenchin 23:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the editor on the "FLG members believe...crackdown". The original text was "observers", which I don't need to point out that none of these observers were cited. At best from what I see in "False Fire" and other FLG articles, FLG members argue that the Tiananmen Square incident is meant to incite a negative view on FLG. As ridiculous as this sounds (martyrs, anyone?), these points can be found from FLG. So I only changed "observers" to "FLG members" to reflect this fact. --Yenchin 11:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


More unsourced material from the Persecution section:

  • Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.
source Falun Gong related website including FDI, FOFG, Clearwisdom.net
  • Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.

Two paragraphs from the persectution section which are either not sourced at all, or cite one of Falung Gong's own websites:

  • Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people). (footnote goes to a Falun Gong website, which cannot be used to verify this kind of information.)
I can give sources. There are many. These are not controversial material.
Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody. (cannot use Falun Gong’s own website to verify this information.)
source is Falun Dafa Information. FDI is a registered human rights organization, I understand.
With Gail Rachlin and Zhang Erping in it. Seems like another FLG clone website. --Yenchin 12:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A cursory review of the material submitted by pro-Falun Gong editors indicates that more unsourced or unverified material will come to light as we progress. But for now, can the other editors please respond to the above problems in the existing edits as soon as possible? If we don't hear back in a couple of days, I will delete the problem sections and sources. --Tomananda 08:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See tomanda, the material you are talking about here is nothing controversial - there is no comparing it with the kind of material you insist on introducing. Your statements, seem to suggest to me a threat to vandalize the article unless your material is unconditionally approved. Sorry, The Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. And you say the article was submitted at the "American Family Foundation".? See, I would better appreciate it if the article had appeared in an academic journal. Dilip rajeev 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect. This article is about Falun Gong. FalunDafa.org doesn't promote Falun Gong, it only tries to offer people information about Falun Gong, information about what Falun Gong is...and then people themself can decide what they want to think about Falun Gong. It doesn't say on Falun Gong websites: "Falun Gong is really good, come and learn" does it? But your critics tries to make people think negative thoughts about Falun Gong, but the Falun Gong websites, which you call "pro-FLG websites"...gives people a chance to form their own opinions and understand what they want to understand..that is the main difference I think. Your critics force their own opinions on others, while other websites doesnt say good or bad things, they just offer people to have their own understanding. I think the big problem with you is, that you really believe that anything that isn't critical or negative is positive and adverstisement. That is why it is really hard to come to any conclusion with you. But the truth is, it isn't positive or negative. Also, this article is about Falun Gong, what Falun Gong is and how it works, so why can't we use websites that offers people information of Falun Gong? Such as the lectures or the book Zhuan Falun. (which FalunDafa.org does) Omido 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you say all those things have to be removed, then I say the whole critics and contreversies section have to be removed, because as I see it, the whole section is "critics say" "critics point out" "Fang says" "Chang says". Absoloutly everything in the critics and conreversies section seem to be unsourced and based on personal opinions. Omido 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying it that way even Falungong teaching material eventually are unsourced. Li made up the stuff from his brain. Ideas are not necessarily fact and opinions to address these ideas can't be sourced to a fact. It's the opinion of a few learned individual that makes sense to us that we use to defend our stance. We can only write what's out there and the ideas currently circulating in the media. If the argument has been resolved then there is no problem. If the ideas are not resolved than both side gets put into the contraversy part. You can't stifle the critics by saying there is no source because ideas have no source beside the people that wishes to put out the idea. You can of course use reasoning to support both side of the argument. 24.189.163.169 13:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really, Falun Gong teaching material isn't unsourced, because in that case you can say that Tai Chi, Bagua, Christianity, Buddhism, and Daoism is unsourced. You can even say God and people who believe in God are unsourced right? Well it isn't exactly like that, because it is individual belief. Falun Gong has a belief in something, for example that Truth-Compassion-Forbearence is a path to ones higher self. If it is like that or not, the reader can decide for themself. Nobody say it is or isn't like that. But what the critics that Tomananda uses say is: "It isn't like that, it isn't like that because I don't believe in it." This means that they are forcing their own opinions on others, do you understand what I mean? Falun Gong practitioners only show people what they believe in, what others want to believe is up to themself. Thanks for your understanding. /Omido 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are beginning to sound like a commercial again. You don't need to repeat your Truth-Compassion_forbearance lecture again. I can add 3 word together and still get the same thing. Loyalty-Duty-Honor US armies' motto? Anyways as I've stated religion/cults/etcs are all ideas and sometimes you can't have a "source" the way you want it. When someone criticize an idea, you don't necessarily have to have a "source" the way you want it. FLG is an idea and so is the criticism to FLG teaching. 24.189.163.169 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An idea cannot cause "Drastic system-level changes of gene expression". Repetitive motion or relaxation or yoga is not known to alter gene expressions. Please note that the study by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard Johnson et al which states "the genes that are regulated in a consensus fashion among the practitioners can be grouped into several functional clusters, which are directly linked to PMN functions in anti-viral immunity, apoptotic property and possibly longevity based upon a much more economical balance of protein synthesis and degradation".. an "idea" cannot really achieve all this. I myself have witnessed recovery from disease which I can only describe as "miraculous". Dilip rajeev 08:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Falun gong teachings online are online version of the paper copy. Also self-published sources have no problem to be cited to talk about themselves. Fnhddzs 05:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Please look at Fnhddzs 05:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The cases cited above do not involve practitioners talking about themselves. For example, in one of the self-published papers on a personal website Dr. Lili Feng makes claims of health benefits for people who practice Falun Gong. And in other examples cited above, there are claims of fact concerning events in China. --Tomananda 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Text that needs to be deleted, verified or re-written

We cannot have a double standard on the issues of sources or the prohibition against original research. Dilip has recently deleted all quotes from the Deng and Fang paper presented at the 2000 Seattle, Washington conference of the American Family Foundation because the present citation is to a private website. While the Deng and Fang paper (once verified) will meet the source standard previously proposed by Covenenant and agreed to by several other editors (see above discussion), there are significant portions of pro-Falun Gong edits which do not meet that standard. Unless agreement is reached on some kind of compromise standard among all the editors, we will have no other choice than to delete a significant amount of material from the auxiliary pages. Here is a partial list:

1. Medical claims from Dr. Lili Feng and others contained in: “An Ancient Cultivation Practice Falun Gong Improves Neutrophil Functions and Causes System-level Gene Regulation” This is a self-published source and there is no evidence that the paper was presented at a conference or published elsewhere. The paper appears at: The home page is clearly a private Falun Gong web page at:

This material currently on page called: Research into health benefits of Falun Gong in the main page at: Falun Gong

2 Surveys conducted on practitioners which report unusually high cure rates of disease for those who practice Falun Gong. A private website (Falun Dafa Australia) is provided as the source:

This material is currently appears in section called Research into health claims on the main Falun Gong page.

3. Report from Dr. Lili Feng, a Falun Gong practitioner, claiming that Falun Gong exercises boost the immune system and significantly increase life expectancy.

This material is currently reported in the section called Research into health claims appearing on the main Falun Gong page. No citation is provided, but I believe the source for this material is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If Dr. Feng’s research was not presented at a conference or published somewhere other than a Falun Gong website, it must be removed based on the new Dilip standard for sources.

4. Self-reported claims about what Falun Gong practitioners do and believe: For example, material reported in the section called Teachings of Falun Gong:

  • Practitioners encourage studying the books or listening to the lectures, first-hand, to gain a good understanding of the principles and the cultivation system. All teachings, Exercise instruction videos and Lecture Videos are available for free download from www.falundafa.org
  • It is generally believed by practitioners that Falun Gong requires in-depth and repeated study of the books, especially Zhuan Falun, in order to gain a good understanding of its content. Practitioners point out that their own understanding keeps deepening with the repeated study of the books, and also comes from as well personally experiencing the "miraculous" effects of Falun Gong practice, including health benefits.

Dilip states that the primary source for this material is , but that is a private website and the material, even if it exists as Dilip claims, amounts to original research. Editors who are Falun Gong practitioners cannot maker personal representations about what other practitioners, in general, do or believe. This topic was discussed at great length more than a month ago in the context of Li’s views on homosexuality.

5. Unsourced material which makes claims about what actually happened during the Tianamin Square self-immolation indicent:

  • The campaign of government criticism begun in 1999 was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001,( unsourced POV) when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners. And:
  • Falun Gong practitioners emphatically denied that the people who set themselves on fire could have been actual practitioners, since suicide is completely against Falun Gong's principles. (unsourced POV) And:
  • Falun Gong members believe that the incident is an attempt of the Chinese government to turn public opinion in China against Falun Gong to rally support for government crackdown. Falun Gong practitioenrs claim that their Master forbids suicide but have not yet provide any such statements.

This material currently appears in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong. An editor added the comments about unsourced POV) some time ago, but without a response from any of the pro-Falun Gong editors. Dilip states he can re-write this material and provide verifiable sources, and other editors have commented, but so far no alternative text has been proposed.

6. Additional unsourced or unverified material appearing in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong:

  • Falun Gong practitioners have affimed that the people seen in the video were not actually practitioners.

Dilip says he can provide sources for this claim, but they all appear to be Falun Gong’s own websites. This does not meet the standard of verification that is needed.

  • Falun Gong practitioners went to Tianjin College of Education, which published the magazine, and related governmental agencies and held peaceful protests.

What source, other than a Falun Gong website, verifies that the protest was peaceful? We know that 45 practitioners were arrested during this protest and it is likely that they were disrupting the normal course of business at this magazine publisher’s office, at the least.

7. A paragraph about the Zhongnanhai protest alleging that practitioners were beaten by the police and that the Chinese media reports of the protest were incaccurate. Material in the page called Persecution of Falun Gong is either not sourced at all, or cites one of Falung Gong's own websites:

  • Some practitioners were arrested and were, according to reports, beaten by the police. Several days later, for 12 hours on April 25, about 10,000 people gathered at the Central Appeal Office at Foyou street, outside Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of Chinese Communist Government and lined up along a 2 km stretch. They held no signs and chanted no slogans. Premier Zhu Rongji met with some representatives of the practitioners and promised to resolve the situation within three days. The practitioners dispersed peacefully after they received word that Zhu had agreed to their requests. Nevertheless, it was widely reported by the Chinese media that Falun Gong practitioners organizing a protest in the heart of the Chinese Communist Party alarmed many senior leaders, particularly Jiang Zemin. According to some estimates, at this time there were more than 100,000 Falun Gong practitioners in Beijing alone. Some analysts claimed that about 70 million people practice it, which is more than the number of members in the Chinese Communist Party (about 60 million people).

This paragraph, which clearly represents a POV about what happened, does not have any source other than a Falun Gong website.

8. A subsequent paragraph in the same section which claims that 2,840 Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody in China.

  • The Falun Dafa Information Center, a website which "endeavors to compile, cross-check, organize and publish" reports about the government crackdown on Falun Gong, has confirmed that at least 2,840 (March 2006) Falun Gong practitioners have died while in police or government custody.

The source provided for this information is one of Falun Gong’s own websites. If this claim cannot be verified by a non-Falun Gong source, it must be deleted.

9. In a subsequent paragraph, a sentence reporting unverified practitioners’ claims that practitioners are not encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine:

  • A frequent argument made by Chinese scientists is that followers are encouraged to avoid, by practice, most conventional medicine. Falun Gong practitioners point out that no such incident has been reported outside China and that such accusations surfaced only after the persecution started.

Even if this claim of practitioners came from a verifiable source other than a Falun Gong website, it is directly contradicted by the Master’ own teachings:

Taking medication during cultivation implies that you do not believe in the disease-curing effects of cultivation. If you believed in it, why would you take medication? Falun Gong, revised edition, Chapter Five, Questions and Answers, p. 82.

10. In a subsequent paragraph, an unverified claim that the Falun Gong is not “political”

  • CCP claims that the practice has deviated its focus from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics, basing their opinions on the existence of numerous websites disparate from, yet in support of, Falun Gong (such as Friends of Falun Gong). Due to an implication derived from its core principles, the teachings of Falun Gong are said to forbid any political involvement, and practitioners claim to have little interest in power or politics, the large number of protests to the crackdown notwithstanding. Falun Gong's supporters, such as The Epoch Times, tend to be conservative and anti-communist. Kangang Xu, a Falun Gong speaker, is the Chairman of the paper's board.

This unsourced material also violates Misplaced Pages’s policy against original research and NPOV. Editors cannot report the views of Falun Gong practitioners in this way to refute the claim of the CCP that the Falun Gong has turned “from engaging in spiritual cultivation to engaging in politics.” The second sentence contains a non-sequitur (the stuff about the conservative nature of the Epoch Times) as well as an unverified claim concerning an alleged implication deriving from Falun Gong’s core principles that is said “to forbid any political involvement.” Actually, the exact opposite is true: Li Honghzhi demands that his practitioners do everything they can to publicly undermine the CCP, with the explicit goal of reducing membership in the party by millions of people. (These numbers are updated in the Epoch Times, the paper Li’s disciples created to validate Li’s teachings. In the name of “validating the Dafa” Falun Gong practitioners are required to pursue Li’s political objective of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party. This is an absolute requirement for one to be considered a Dafa disciple during this “Fa-rectification period” and Li reminds his practitioners of this requirement in all his lectures.--Tomananda 21:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda,Misplaced Pages doesnt work like that. We dont copy content sentence by sentence from websites. Please remember that the health survey mentions the researchers and medical institutions involved.

I am taking the from discussion on the criticism page:

As for the research paper by Richard Johnson et al, it is a scientific medical paper. Solid genome profiling done by experts in the field from Microarray Core, Center for Immunology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center , Baylor College of Medicine and Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. I will get you a list of journals in which the paper has appeared these include the JACM. A similar, version of the paper that appeared in JACM is: http://pkg.dajiyuan.com/pkg/2005-04-08/genomic%20profiling.pdf ( not exactly the same paper but drawing upon results from genome profiling done on Falun Gong practitioners and the micro-array analysis of gene expression levels of PMNs in Falun Gong practitioners.) Another source for the paper is http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2397.html Dilip rajeev 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This specifically is what I would like to point out. What we are looking at is research material by experts in the field. We are interested in what Steve Hassan says but what is presented at a family association conference, in which anybody (including you and me) may present their opinions, is of little significance to an encyclopaedia article. For instance, Samuel presented something at that "conference", can we use that? Certainly not. No personal offense intented I am just pointing out that wikipedia standard dont allow such material. For instance, practitioners present their experiences in Fa conferences around the world. Many practitioners are prominent medical scientists, martial artists, professors and so on.. We can get an opinion from the professors in the Falun Dafa practice groups of Yale or Harvard ... but we really cant present all their opinions here.... what qualifies as a paper, in my understanding, is something accepted by the academic community or something that has appeared in a reputed journal. Dilip rajeev 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dilip but your post fails to address the specific problems cited in items #1-10 above, and I don't remember saying anything about the Richard Johnson source you talk about, or for that matter anything about Samuel's presentations at annual AFF conferences. Right now, I request that you focus on the actual issues I have raised. --Tomananda 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The research was done by Quan-Zhen Li, Richard J. Johnson, Gabriela E.Garcia, Ping Li, Tongwen Wang, and Lili Feng Dilip rajeev 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also want to point out that there is no need to vandalize the whole article saying not every sentence is copied from other websites. But since you insist, I will provide the sources. Consider for instance these : Leavy, Mark J. Note. Discrediting human rights abuse as an "act of state": a case study on the repression of the Falun Gong in China and commentary on international human rights law in U.S. courts. 35 Rutgers L.J. 749-823 (2004)

The Harvard Human Rights Journal.

Investigation Reports on the Persecution of Falun Gong, v.1. Hyde Park, MA

or What the paper titled "The Perseuction of Falun Gong" by Chandra D Smith from the Rutgers Journal of Law says:

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf

For instance, this journal says:

"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."

"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"

"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”

-Rutgers Journal of Law

Infact the above paper in itself substantiates most of the content in the paragraphs you picked out. Please go through it. I will provide detailed sources if you insist.

Dilip rajeev 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilip, your post above doesn't address the specific issues of verificable sources and no original research which I raised. I would like to see us cooperate, which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10. If you can provide verificable sources for some of the material above (other than using Falun Gong's own websites) that would be great. In other cases, some of those sentences need to be re-written and I am sure we will wind up with some that just need to be deleted. But for now I'm willing to give you a little time to respond before doing any edits in those three pages. Thanks.--Tomananda 23:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


'Moderators, is it in-line with wiki etiquette to threaten to vandalize the article unless material is unconditionally aproved? It is not what you or I feel. The wuestion is wether the material meets wiki standards. And we are not concerned about copying material line for line from other websites... And Misplaced Pages sets standards on the kind of material that can be used has a source... a personal opinion submitted at a family conference cannot act as a source. Dilip rajeev 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rutger's Journal oF Law: http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf

This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material:

"As noted, Falun Gong was introduced to China in 1992. By 1998, there were approximately 70 million practitioners of Falun Gong in China."

"In protest, 10,000 members of Falun Gong gathered outside the Communist Party headquarters in Beijing on April 25, 1999. The members gathered outside the building peacefully, practiced their meditative exercises and then left"

"In 2001, the Chinese government “sanctioned the systematic use of violence against the group, established a network of brainwashing classes and embarked on a painstaking effort to weed out followers neighborhood by neighborhood and workplace by workplace.”

"Fearing the Falun Gong could prove to be a political threat, the Chinese government began a systematic and violent campaign against the spiritual movement. The Chinese crackdown on Falun Gong has proven to be rather successful. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Falun Gong began as anything more than a spiritual exercise. There is no evidence that Falun Gong had any political aspirations."

-Rutgers Journal of Law


Tomananda, the fake slander from criticism has to go, you don't need to come with threats, they don't work on cultivators. We told you why it has to go, so it has to go. It's obvious that you are acting quite irrational and saying some wicked things. Well, so may be. /Omido 05:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dilip, it is a matter of how our editing meets Misplaced Pages standards and I have carefully laid out 10 specific problem areas in the edits which I believe do not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significant material from the Criticism page without discussion...I have not deleted anything on your Teachings or Persecution pages. Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question. And now we have a new practitioner named Omido making personal accusations towards me and issuing grand statements such as "We told you why( the reasons) it has to go, so it has to go."
At this point I am one person having a dialogue with three Falun Gong practitioners who refuse to offer even a modicum of cooperation in the editing process--and two of you have provoked revert wars which resulted in freezing the article for weeks at a time. You also accuse me of of being irrational because I have introduced critical material into the article. This kinda makes me think about all those media people in China who were besieged with thousands of Falun Gong practitioners in their offices demanding that they retract all criticism of the Falun Gong. Did those thousands of allegedly peaceful and tolerant practioners in Tianjin use the same kind of rhetoric that Omido uses on me today: "We told you why it has to go, so it has to go." ?
Mirabovsky,Fire Star, Covenant and the other editors: what shall we do next? --Tomananda 08:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomanda, look at your own edits. Omid's reply was to your apparent threat to vandalzie the article unless the material in unconditionally accepted. Omid, was only emphasizing that the reasons for scrutinizing such a source has been carefully explained... and there is no point in engaging in threats or attacks.. Dilip rajeev 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Well Tomananda, that is your way of seeing it. As I see it, we told you why it has to go. And you responded by saying "but Teachings and Persecution are also unsourced, if my critics have to be removed then teaching and persecution also have to be removed".

by Tomananda: "...which means that if you can refrain from deleting the Deng and Fang quotes in the Criticism section for now, I will refrain from deleting all the problem material mentioned above in items #1 through 10."

This sounds like a delete threat to me.


by Tomananda: "Instead, I have asked you to respond to these issues, but your only response is a message accusing me of threatening to vandalize material, combined with a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."

answer from Dilip: "The Rutger's Journal oF Law: http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_66.pdf This journal infact, in itself, can act as a source for almost all of the above mentioned material"

As admins can see, Dilip answered his question, but he still says that Dilip responded with "...a series of quotes which have no bearing on the specific edits in question."

by Tomananda: "Unlike what you, Fnhddzs and Omido have just done...delete for the third time significiant sections of the Criticism page without discussion..."

This is a complete lie and you know it. We have discussed with you over and over again that the Fang and Chang and all those "critics say" quotes that you have been getting from personal sites should not be used in this article. You responded with things that you think should be deleted from the Teaching and Persecution section. Dilip gave you the sources for most of those points, and you still accuse him for many things. I think that it is not the right way to handle things, that is why I called you irrational. If you were offended, I apologize, it was not my intention to offending you /Omido 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Mirabovsky: Can you issue a warning to the new practitioner/editor named Omido?

Mirabovsky, in the midst of all the above chatter, I have just discovered that Omido exeeded her/his three revert limit between 5:49 and 5:59 on 30 May in the Criticism page. Her/his series of edits were identified as vandalism by Ami Daniel and reverted to an earlier version. In essence, Omido deleted critical material that has been in the article for a long time, including material from Maria Chang who wrote the book: Falun Gong: The End of Days. In doing these deletions you can discover in the History that she deleted the following wording at the end of a sentence: "while commentators generally come to an opposite condlusion. Maria Chang (2004) writes:" But evidently she/he missed that a block quote from Maria Chang's book followed. So the effect of that particular edit was to preserve a block quote, but delete the author's reference. So much for taking care of our sources citations in Misplaced Pages! Anyway, I think Omido deserves to get some kind of warning for her/his editing behavior...including, by the way, the accusations she/he made to me in an earlier post. --Tomananda 09:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)