Misplaced Pages

Talk:Falun Gong/Archive 16

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Olaf Stephanos (talk | contribs) at 01:35, 26 March 2006 (→Did Clearwisdom commit fraud when it posted an altered version of SF Resolution 66-06?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:35, 26 March 2006 by Olaf Stephanos (talk | contribs) (→Did Clearwisdom commit fraud when it posted an altered version of SF Resolution 66-06?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
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 discussion 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. Archived discussion:

Posts from Main Page for Discussion, or, Let's Start Over

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

1. Li Hongzhi's Role as Savior in This Dharma-ending Period

Another feature of Falun Dafa is promotion of Li’s role as the exclusive savior of mankind in this “Dharma ending” period. If a Falun Gong practitioner were only to do the exercises, but fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, that person would not be considered a Dafa disciple and thus not a candidate for salvation. Falun Gong practitioners are promised the possibility of becoming Gods as long as they safeguard and uphold the Dafa. In 2003, Li Hongzhi said:

"I have truly borne for you the sins you committed over hundreds and thousands of years. And it doesn't stop at just that. Because of this, I will also save you and turn you into Gods. I have spared no effort for you in this process. Along with this, since you'll become Gods at levels that high, I have to give you the honors of Gods at levels that high and all the blessings that you need to have at levels that high."

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

Dilip Replies

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

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

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1, Section 7:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School."

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

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

From Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe (1998)

"If any of you sitting here can’t cultivate your xinxing (mind/heart-nature) to the point of Consummation, then I can’t do anything about it either"

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 3, Section 1:

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

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 3, Section 3:

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

This clearly distinguishes Falun Dafa from "religious belief":

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 4, Section 4:

"Genuine cultivation practice depends entirely upon a person him or herself, so it is useless to pray for something."

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

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

2. Li Hongzhi's Role as Protector

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

3. Consequences for a Practitioner Who Does Not Follow Requirments of the Fa

While protecting practitioners, the Master’s Law bodies also cure the illnesses for those who practice at the Falun Gong exercise sites. However practitioners are warned that if they fail to follow the requirements of the Fa, bad consequences will result. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states that if a practitioner does not follow the requirments of the Fa, his "body will be reset to the level of everyday people and the bad things will be returned to you.”

In addition to providing disease-curing benefits, it is believed that cultivation practice will actually prolong one’s life. But there is danger for those who might not live up to the Fa’s requirements. In Zhuan Falun Li Hongzhi states that when a practitioner continually practices cultivation, his life will be prolonged. However, there is a criterion "that the life prolonged beyond your predestined time to live is completely reserved for your practice. If your mind goes wrong a little bit, your life will be in danger because your lifetime should have long been over.”

There are more serious dangers for those who directly violate the Dafa. For example, a practitioner who plagiarizes the Dafa is subject to the ultimate penalty of death. In The Essentials Li Hongzhi states:

“Did you know that in recent years some students suddenly died?...Once you are reduced to the level of an everyday person, no one will protect you and demons will also take your life. It’s even useless to seek protection from other Buddhas, Daos, and Gods, as they won’t protect someone who undermines the Fa. What’s more, your karma will also be returned to your body.”


4. Fa-rectification: the Dafa Judging All Beings

If practitioners follow the requirements of the Fa they are promised salvation, or what Falun Gong also calls consummation. The idea of salvation for a practitioner has developed over time. In Li Hongzhi’s earlier teachings the focus was on an individual practitioner reaching consummation. In 1999,in what many would consider an apocalyptic prediction, Li Hongzhi warned that "The vows of Gods in history are being fulfilled. The Dafa is judging all beings.” Underlying this prediction is the teaching that the entire cosmos is undergoing a process called “Fa-rectification” – a kind of spiritual cleansing in which corrupt people will be eliminated, leaving behind only those who are worthy according to Dafa standards. In 2001 Li Hongzhi made clear that this Fa-rectification would target people based on their moral qualities, or xinxing:

“Moreover, when an Enlightened Being descends to the world, it is usually at a time when people’s morals are declining day by day, when people’s sins and karma are enormous, or when people’s morality is degenerate. Once the saved ones have attained the Fa and left, the dregs of humanity and the degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out.”


5. Saving All Beings, the Good and the Bad

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

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

Here's the proposed text:

It is still believed that one’s moral quality is an essential component of Falun Gong cultivation. However, in responding to the persecution of practitioners in China after the ban of 1999, Li Hongzhi has apparently opened up the categories of people who can be saved. In his more recent lectures and writings, he has stated that all human beings, not just the good ones, can be saved during the Fa-rectification process, providing they do not have "a bad attitude" towards the Dafa. In 2005 Li Hongzhi stated:

“In the Fa-rectification, Master is actually saving all beings, not just the good ones; evil ones are of course included as well. I have often said that during the Fa-rectification I don't hold the past faults of any sentient being against him, and that I look only at a sentient being's attitude toward Dafa during the Fa-rectification. In other words, no matter which beings they are or how huge the mistakes and sins they committed in history, as long as they do not play a negative role with regard to the Fa-rectification, I can give them benevolent solutions and eliminate their sins and karma.”

--Tomananda 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Replies

Note this:

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

From Teaching the Fa at the Conference in Europe (1998)

"No matter what kind of person you are and no matter how many bad things you’ve done, I will look after you as long as you can truly cultivate with a sincere heart."

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

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


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

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

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

Response to Dilip, Part I

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

Dilip: How can you say a text which either directly quotes or paraphrases Li Hongzhi "has no basis in fact?" You simply want to censor this information from Misplaced Pages and that is not acceptable. I do not intend to elaborate on the cultish nature of the Falun Gong in the article unless we get into an all-out war. I am happy with the two sentences which now appear in a different section and have not commented about "authoritarian cults" in any of the edits that we are now discussing. The reason I brought up the issue of cults in the discussion section is that it's the only way I can make sense of your blatant dishonesty when reporting Li Hongzhi’s teachings. You are engaging in apologetics here! And the only explanation I can think of for your behavior is that you are obeying Li Honzhi's repeated directive to not speak about Falun Gong at the higher levels when talking with ordinary people. As Li says in Zhuan Falun:

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

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

From Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1, Section 7:

"Our Falun Dafa is one of the eighty-four thousand cultivation ways in the Buddha School."

Dilip: Again, your are engaging in apologetics. In the same chapter of Zhuan Falun you quote from Li Hongzhi states:

“The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was provided for ordinary people of the extremely low levels two thousand five hundred years ago, who just evolved from the primitive society with simple minds. The Dharma-ending Period that he referred to is today. Now, people can no longer practice cultivation with that Dharma. Even monks in temples cannot save themselves in the Dharma-ending Period, let alone offer salvation to others. The Dharma taught by Sakyamuni was based upon the situation at that time….”

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

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

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

Dilip: I never said anything about "belief in Falun Dafa," so don't misrepresent what the edit says, OK? What I did say, using Li Hongzhi's own phrasing, was that a practitioner must follow the requirements of the Fa to be considered a Dafa disciple. You are correct that developing one's xinxing is an important part of that requirement, but it is not the only part. Li Hongzhi demands action from his disciples, not just development of their xinxing.The action he demands now, more than ever, relates to standing up to what he calls the "evil" or "wicked" Chinese Communist Party. He says that practitioners must follow the requirements of the Fa, which is broader than just developing one's “mind-nature”. I know you know this, so again why are you trying to censor this information from the general public?

……………….. This clearly distinguishes Falun Dafa from "religious belief":

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

Dilip: The words “religion,” “religious beliefs” and "pray" do not appear in my edits, so there’s no need to debate this. If you want to refute my choice of words, refer to those words directly. I do not claim that one has to believe in Li Hongzhi to achieve salvation, but one certainly must do what his Dafa requires. And, yes, it is his Dafa:

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

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

is part of this paragraph:

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

Please see the context.

Thanks Dilip! Your additional quotes from Li help support my case!

Dilip: Of course I see the context! The additional sentences you have provided further help to make my case. It is precisely the master-disciple retationship in Falun Gong that practitioners most seek to conceal from the general public. Just consider what Li is saying above. He is saying that:

1) he provides many things for the practitioners (eg: protecting them from harm)
2) he teaches them the Dafa (which alone offers salvation to all sentient beings at this time)
3) he purifies the bodies of the practitioners
4) because of this, he considers all the practitioiners his "disciples"

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

If it is not because your master makes statements like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later I will comment on this issue more specifically. However: if you want to state that the relationship between Falun Gong practitioners and Li Hongzhi is that of (allow me to use my own wording) a brainwashed herd and an abusive, authoritarian leader, you must take into account the actual ethnographic studies, like Noah Porter's, which definitely do not support such assertions. You cannot apply an etic definition on a phenomenon if you're not familiar with the emic. Otherwise, it's just another form of arrogant "dominating knowledge", which has nothing to do with an honest and scientific approach.
Let's put aside the question that my own understanding of these issues certainly differs from yours. What's the use of trying to introduce uninterested people to Falun Gong's teachings? Isn't that like converting people? Wouldn't it turn counterproductive? For goodness' sake, the only thing people should do is to give their support for ending a genocide. They absolutely don't have to believe in what Master Li teaches. Instead of being deceptive, I think it's being considerate of other people to not impose your personal worldview on them. Why, the Christians think that those who haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour will absolutely go to hell. Falun Gong practitioners think that everything's going to be alright for you, even if you don't practice Falun Gong, insofar as you don't give your support for perpetrating crimes against humanity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have an impression that you and Samuel Luo have actively lobbied to withhold Falun Gong practitioners from participating in an annual parade in San Francisco. Even though their cause is so urgent - even though their family members and friends are being killed and tortured in China - would you rather sweep such aggravated crimes under the carpet? Wouldn't you want everyone to see how these people really act (meaning, they're not some stomach-cutting, uncle-killing bunch of extremist weirdos, like portrayed by propaganda) - even if you don't share their worldview regarding certain moral issues? Have you done something to stop the persecution? That is what really counts, not the personal belief system of a group of supernaturalist qigong aficionados. There are indeed people who hold strong opinions against "pseudo-science", and if they feel somebody's pushing his own quirky thing a little bit too rashly, they will react negatively. But we all share a common humanity, and slaughtering innocent people because of their peaceful personal beliefs is nothing but pure evil. If something so alarming is taking place, each and every respectable person ought to stand up for the fundamental rights of the oppressed. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sujiatun

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

Evaluating sources

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

See Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for more information.

Check multiple independent sources

blahblahblahblah

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

The Epoch Times is not an extremist newspaper. True, many people agree that it has a bias against the Communist regime. We are only reporting that suspicions about a genocide have surfaced, not stating anything conclusive. Various human rights organizations (such as Worldrights and Freedom House) have already reacted. Apparently, other media have also deemed the issue worth reporting. If you want to check whether Timothy Cooper, the executive director of Worldrights, has really given these statements, you can call him at +1-202-361-0989, send a fax at +1-202-244-9479, or email Worldright@aol.com.
Indymedia Ireland has reported on the issue. Check out Google with keywords Sujiatun and organs. Laogai Research Foundation has a wide variety of reports about harvesting organs from Chinese prisoners, and they have started investigation on this case. Association for Asian Research (AFAR) carries several articles on the Sujiatun concentration camp.
I'm seriously baffled by your unwillingness to report on a suspected genocide. Remember how a certain professed quote about miscegenation could only be found on a few dubious websites, and it could never be traced back into any of Li's published lectures. It turned out to be a misquote from Sydney 1996, as far as I recall, but you still insisted that we must include the word "defective" into the article, even though such an expression was never found from the original sources. Now multiple media have reported on alleged organ harvesting, and it seems you're playing a game of whitewashing, possibly because you realize how seriously this issue might swing the pendulum on the side of those who oppose the persecution. Talk about a double standard.
I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 10:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, attack me. Sorry, doesn't work. China Support Network is a Falun Gong-affiliate group. The Indymedia article states clearly: "by Tommy Donnellan on behalf of Gerald O'Connor - Irish Falun Gong Information Centre" and opens: "'The Irish Falun Gong Information Centre received...". ie. they're all mirroring off the same Falun Gong/Epoch Times report. You say "Now multiple media have reported on", but what "multiple media"? Do a google news search for just "Sujiatun" and you'll find a dozen articles... though conspicuously all from Epoch Times. I wonder why. Where is this "multiple media" constantly hanging on your lips? You say "various human rights organizations (such as Worldrights and Freedom House) have already reacted". Where? Where are their press releases? Their reactions? www.world-rights.org? www.freedomhouse.org? Nope. Where then? On sites like China Support Network and Epoch Times. So it all goes back to Epoch Times. Which fits few criteria of being a reliable source. -- Миборовский 10:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You're avoiding my argument. Organ harvesting is commonplace in China, so we have no reason to not tell about these suspicions in the article. Of course, before we draw definitive conclusions, it is enough to keep the issue under the title "Alleged organ harvesting", and simply report on what various representatives have stated. The sources' reliability is easily verified, meaning, if such statements have been made, you can call Worldright and Freedom House anytime and ask whether it's true or not. And that's not all. We're reporting on allegations, not conclusive data; therefore, it is sufficient that the position is held by a significant minority. It's almost like saying "there's no proof that the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party exist, because it's only found on the Epoch Times' website".
We can and should mention sources (like "according to Clearwisdom", "according to Epoch Times", "according to Falun Dafa Information Center"). You may have noticed that information from these sources does exist elsewhere in the article. Besides, they are exactly the organizations who are researching the persecution most intensively, and their position must be reported. Likewise, in our chapter about the Tiananmen self-immolation, we're reporting what each party has stated about the issue, and what problems are related to verifying the claims. I have already asked for people to improve and discuss the neutrality of the Sujiatun chapter. It is obvious that it cannot be totally removed. I will wait for the opinions of other editors. ---Olaf Stephanos 11:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Organ harvesting is commonplace in China: Please provide reliable, verifiable sources.
  2. The sources' reliability is easily verified, meaning, if such statements have been made, you can call Worldright and Freedom House anytime and ask whether it's true or not: How about you do that? See WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."
  3. It's almost like saying "there's no proof that the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party exist, because it's only found on the Epoch Times' website": "Nine Commentaries" has widely been commented upon by all kinds of media. Can you say the same for Sujiatun?
  4. it is sufficient that the position is held by a significant minority: No, it is not. Threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is VERIFIABILITY. I've already pointed this out to you numerous times:

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

    Note, reputable sources. Does Epoch Times even constitute a reputable source?
  5. Check this out:

    Audience: Why is it that mainstream media have not reported on the Sujiatun concentration camp and the bird flu incident? I wonder how true this is.

    Law professor Yuan Hongbin: First of all, think about this, 72 hours after a worldwide online media and newspaper make such a headline report, (if it is a report about US) what kind of reaction will the US government have? There are possibly two reactions: One, to verify the incident; second, if this concentration camp does not exist, the US government will hold the reporting media responsible for an inaccurate report. Let us see what the Chinese government has done? Since the incident came out, up till now, the CCP has remained silent for 72 hours. Therefore it is reasonable for us to conclude that this information is reliable.

    In other words: "We published this report without knowing if it was real or not, but since nobody took it seriously enough to reply or report it, it must be real!"
-- Миборовский 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fi&lr=&q=organs%2Bprisoners%2Bchina&btnG=Hae
Of course, if you disagree with only having references to the Epoch Times' sources about organ harvesting, we can mention some of these scientific journals, as they're directly related to the treatment of prisoners in China. Then we can add that these allegations have also surfaced in Falun Gong's case. Is that alright for you?
Indeed, the only thing I did was add CCP to the "List of groups referred to as cults". And it was one and a half months ago, and when it was removed, I didn't even revert it back. Hardly vandalism. ---Olaf Stephanos 06:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the first link is for Entrez PubMed, which does not give out full copies of the paper. Not even abstracts. Besides, it's listed under "editorial". 2nd link is editorial as well, and unfortunately does not disclose the sources from which the author obtained his facts.
You don't seem to realise that the question here is not whether organ harvesting is present in China. The question here is whether the Epoch Times report is verifiable and reliable. As of right now, I don't think you can say it is either.
PS. I'm not here to judge your "CCP=cult" edit, but it does give a pretty clear indication of where you stand.
-- Миборовский 07:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


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

And this has to do with Sujiatun how? -- Миборовский 23:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The US Congress Resolution 188 has nothing to do with Sujiatun. But this does: . The Washington Times has now reported on the issue, and we have all the more reason to mention these allegations in the article. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose edit for Cultivation of Mind and Body section

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

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

In my opinion, information about Falun Gong's view on the root cause of illnesses could be added, but with different phrasing. A certain POV is obvious from the implications of this proposition: it means to say that Falun Gong or Li cannot really cure anything; he's just getting rich and swindling people to believe that their sickness is paying for karma. Generally, we don't prefer overtly simplified explanations in this corner of Misplaced Pages. Selecting one quote from here, another from here, and combining them together is more like proving one's point than adding to the value of the article. And the first phrase is apparent sarcasm: "The etiology of disease has been systematically studied for generations by scientists but Master Li believes..."
Falun Gong teaches that the root cause of sickness is physical, but it doesn't exist on the cellular or molecular level. And Li does say that hospitals can cure illnesses, "why would people go there otherwise?" It's just that he believes there is a law of cause and effect, and everybody's got a tab to pick up. Of course, the problem of suffering is an age-old metaphysical question, as we all know.
One of the issues that I've intended to cover in this article is the medicalization of people's bodies, and how such a paradigm intrinsically contains a value judgement against the "heretics" who don't agree with resorting to Western medicine whenever there's an ailment. People ought to have dominion over their own bodies, and studies have proven that Falun Gong practitioners have not, for example, put their children to risk; they generally go to the hospital in case of an injury; and they have recommended other practitioners to see a doctor if they really feel that they have severe symptoms of an illness. (See: Porter 2003) In fact, Li even points out that severely ill people shouldn't seek for treatment in Falun Gong. And a lot of people in the larger society choose to treat themselves with herbal medicine or other alternative cures.
But I know about your parents, Samuel, I've read your story, so you don't have to tell me. I feel sympathy for all of you. Fear for the safety of one's own family members must be agonizing, but so is losing contact with one's own child. May I ask you how they are doing nowadays? ---Olaf Stephanos 00:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Dishonest Editing Techniques

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

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

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

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

--Tomananda 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The San Francisco Resolution 66-06

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

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

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


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

Olaf,

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

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

The altered Clearwisdom version:

Condemning the Persecution of Falun Gong Practitioners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 66-06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Tomananda, you indeed have a point here. I didn't read the text so carefully as to notice that there were actually two phrases omitted, while the other passages were intact. Luckily, the names of the editors were mentioned: Kerry Huang and Wang Ying. I sent another e-mail to Clearwisdom about this issue. I'm definitely with you. Something like this shouldn't happen with people who strive to cultivate Truthfulness.
I do understand that many practitioners are subjected to great pressure, and what they're trying to do is basically good - to stop a horrendous persecution and guarantee the fundamental right of personal belief to everybody. But I've also noticed that some individuals tend to promote Falun Gong a little bit too fervently. The main reason why this happens, I think, is because of the lack of formal organization: nobody's genuinely coordinating things and issuing orders (like in companies who strictly guard their external image). Everybody wants to do his or her share as a volunteer for human rights, hence occasional blunders are inevitable. It's humans doing things after all, with all their attachments that have not been cultivated away. I do understand that the impression each person gives out is directly affecting people: "So THAT'S Falun Gong, THESE are the practitioners...", etc., which is unfortunate, because many people definitely don't agree with everything that the other practitioners are doing or thinking. There are millions of people practicing Falun Gong around the world, and probably tens of thousands in the West, and they are an incredibly mixed group. You probably understand that each practitioner can only represent himself or herself, not the entire movement.
Still, I'd rather not draw any conclusions about the reliability of the Sujiatun murders and organ harvesting. I'm sure you are also concerned about a suspected genocide. Such matters are not to be taken lightly, even if we need more evidence and third-party investigations. ---Olaf Stephanos 01:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Category: